Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of privilege of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Tiahrt submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules to H.R. 3288, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; Whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have prohibited salaries and expenses from being paid to individuals who obligate money under the stimulus FHWA program for road signs that are placed at construction sites to alert motorists that the project is being paid for by stimulus money; Whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable Rules of the House for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process, but regrettably the House Democratic leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity for free speech on this Floor; and, Whereas the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, the Democratic leadership, and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, prevented the House from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That H. Res. 669, the rule to accompany H.R. 3288, be amended to allow the gentleman from Kansas's amendment be considered and voted on in the House.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on Friday I offered an amendment in the Appropriations Committee that failed because every Democrat voted against it. The amendment simply stated that Members of Congress and the administration should live by the laws they impose on the American people. Specifically, if you vote for a government-run health insurance plan, you should get a government-run health insurance plan. If it's good enough to impose health care rationing on the American people, it's certainly good enough for you. Because it's hypocritical to vote for a government-run rationed health care plan that will be forced on everyone else while retaining a private insurance plan for yourself. If Members don't believe they should have to live under the rationed health care plan that they're pushing, they should explain why. Kansans are upset by the possibility that they're forced on a rationed public health care plan by this Congress. They believe if it's not good enough for the people who vote for it, it's not good enough for them. Mr. Speaker, it's time for us to reform health care by addressing defensive medicine costs, by offering market-based principles for health care, and by keeping patients and doctors in control, not Washington bureaucrats.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for her leadership and for allowing me time to speak. Mr. Chairman, it is my goal to have a clean, up-or-down vote to restrict tax dollars from paying for abortions in the District of Columbia. I'm just asking for a clean, up-or-down vote because I think many people in America do not want us to take tax dollars and provide abortions. Now, there has been a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi, to Chairman Obey, and Chairwoman Slaughter on this very important issue back on February 25. I was a cosigner of this letter to the Speaker, to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, along with another 179 Members, including 21 Democrats. It was requested that any changes to pro-life riders would be allowed an up-or-down vote on the floor of the House. I was joined in an amendment on this bill by Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Shuler of North Carolina, Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr. Stupak of Michigan, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Costello of Illinois, Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, Mr. Marshall of Georgia and Mrs. Bachmann of Minnesota. We simply requested that we strike the word ``Federal'' from the bill, saying no funds shall be made available to provide for abortions. That rule, or that amendment was not made in order by the rule. Mr. Flake of Arizona has tried to substitute one of his amendments that were made in order for this amendment so that we could have a clean, up-or-down vote. So the whole purpose of the motion to recommit that I intend to offer will be to get a clean, up-or-down vote on this issue. Now, currently, the bill allows for public funds to be spent on abortions. It does limit Federal funds, but all this money goes into the same bank account. It is a bookkeeping exercise to try to sort it all out. It is impossible to sort it all out. What it means is there will be no prohibitions on abortions in the District of Columbia in this bill, and, in fact, tax dollars will be providing abortions in the bill. Regardless of whether it's Federal or local funds, they will occur. Now, we know this has happened in the past. In 1996, there was an amendment passed called the Dornan amendment which restricted funds from providing abortions. Following that bill, once they were stopped, there was a study done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. They found out that there was a 34 percent drop in abortions in the District of Columbia when these funds were restricted. Now, I've heard the President say, and I have heard many people who are pro-choice say, that they are for reducing the number of abortions. This clearly will be a reduction in the number of abortions if you will oppose this, or if you will support this amendment and allow me a clean, up-or-down vote on the amendment that I'm joined with by many others. Seventy percent of Americans, according to polling data, oppose using public funds for abortions. So, regardless of where you're at on the issue, certainly, those folks, those 70 percent of Americans need an opportunity for their voice to be heard on the floor of the House. They need an up-or-down, clean vote on whether we're going to take public funds to provide abortions or not. If you think of it in human terms, there is a financial incentive that will be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that will encourage women who are single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion. If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our President grew up in those similar circumstances. If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother may have taken advantage of it? Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court justice, if those circumstances were in place, is it possible that we would have been denied his great mind? The opportunity to have tax-funded abortions, a financial incentive, is something that I think most of us want to oppose in America. And it certainly deserves a clean, up-or-down vote. So it's my intent to offer a motion to recommit that is clean that simply strikes the world ``Federal'' on page 143, line 8, and allows an up-or-down vote. Now if this is ruled out of order, I would like to encourage those of us here to please allow this vote, a clean vote up or down.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. TIAHRT. In its current form I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is a restriction of funds on this amendment. So I think it should be considered as in order on that. But further, we have a constitutional requirement to oversee the expenditure of funds in the District of Columbia. It has been said that we are sidestepping our responsibility, or overstepping our responsibility by becoming mayor and city council member for the District of Columbia. But, in fact, we have a constitutional requirement to deal with the finances of the District of Columbia. We also have many people who have asked to have an opportunity to reduce the number of abortions. So in your point of order, it's very clear that since it's a restriction of funds, since we have had so many people ask for a clean vote on this, that I would urge the Speaker to make this motion to recommit in order so that we can have this clean, up-or-down vote on the restriction of funds on this spending bill.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, in accordance with the February 2008 New Republican Earmark Standards Guidance, I submit the following in regards to H.R. 3183, the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act: Bureau of Reclamation--Wichita Project, Equus Beds Division, Kansas. H.R. 3183, the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act contains $600,000 for the Equus Beds Division of the Wichita Project in the Bureau of Reclamation's Water and Related Resources account. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Wichita, located at City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, KS 67202. The funding would be used for funding the design on Phase II of the Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--El Dorado Lake, Kansas. H.R. 3183, the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act contains $1,586,000 for El Dorado Lake, Kansas, in the Corps of Engineers' Operations and Management account. The entity to receive funding for this project is the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District located at 1645 S. 101 East Ave., Tulsa, OK 74128. The funding would be used to remote control the flood gates to improve efficiencies within the Tulsa district. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Wichita Area Drainage Master Plan, Kansas. H.R. 3183, the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act contains $550,000 for Collection and Study of Basic Data--Flood Plain Management Services, Wichita Area Drainage Master Plan, Kansas in the Corps of Engineers' Investigations account. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Wichita, located at City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, KS 67202. Funding will be used to conduct a drainage master plan for the Wichita area. Development of a Wichita Area Drainage Master Plan will ensure the economic wellbeing of the Wichita area by providing a comprehensive plan for addressing drainage issues. Department of Energy--National Institute for Aviation Research, Advanced Materials Research. H.R. 3183, the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act contains $1,500,000 for the National Institute for Aviation Research, Advanced Materials Research, in the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. The entity to receive funding for this project is Wichita State University located at 1845 Fairmount St, Wichita, KS 67260. The funding would be used for green wind energy and sustainability research activities.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the trillion-dollar stimulus bill produced by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats is not working. Unemployment is nearing double digits--and rising. Americans are hurting as they struggle to find work and pay the bills. So, what's next? Despite all the broken promises, now the liberals want to meddle with the health care system and spend another trillion dollars. For their plan to work, Democrats are proposing tax hikes on everything from small businesses to the elimination of the tax deduction for charitable contributions to tax hikes on your favorite soft drink at the convenience store. Americans deserve a better solution. House Republicans have a plan that won't bankrupt us or increase private insurance rates. In fact, the Republican plan will reduce health care costs, expand access, increase the quality of care for Americans. Most importantly, the plan ensures that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors-- not government bureaucrats. The Democrat's government-run health care program is the wrong decision for America. Let's support the plan that offers Americans the freedom and choices they deserve without strangling future generations with insurmountable debt.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks in H.R. 3082--Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. H.R. 3082 contains $8,700,000 for TFI-- Upgrade DCGS Facilities (PRQE089032) in the Air Force, Military Construction account. This project is for Air National Guard at McConnell Air Force Base located 57837 Coffeyville St., Kansas, 67221. The funds will build an adequately sized and properly configured facility for personnel, equipment, and materials, for near-real time intelligence mission conducting the processing, exploitation, and dissemination of U-2, MQ-1 Predator, and RQ-4 Global Hawk sensor data around the world in support of warfighters by the growing 161st Intelligence Squadron of the new 184th Intelligence Group. Security features, high-capacity environmental control equipment, high-capacity secure fiber optics, and redundant power supplies are all prerequisites to accommodate the sophisticated Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operation Center. No matching funds are required for this military construction project.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, in accordance with the February 2008 New Republican Earmark Standards Guidance, I submit the following in regards to H.R. 2997, the Fiscal Year 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Department of Agriculture--Preharvest Food Safety, Kansas: H.R. 2997, the FY 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contains $142,000 for Preharvest Food Safety and Security. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Kansas State University, located at 110 Anderson Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. The funding would be used to expand its research in emerging threats of food-borne and zoonotic diseases associated with food-producing animals. No matching funds are required for this Department of Agriculture project. Department of Agriculture--Grain Sorghum, Kansas, Texas: H.R. 2997, the FY 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contains $515,000 for Grain Sorghum, Kansas and Texas, in the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service's Special Research Grants Account. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Kansas State University, located at 110 Anderson Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. The funding would be used to expand existing research and education programs, particularly in genetic improvement and sorghum utilization. No matching funds are required for this Department of Agriculture project. Department of Agriculture--Water Conservation, Kansas: H.R. 2997. the FY 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contains $69,000 for Water Conservation, Kansas in the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service's Special Research Grants Account. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Kansas State University, located at 110 Anderson Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. The funding would be used to study ways to stop and reverse the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer in Kansas. No matching funds are required for this Department of Agriculture project. Department of Agriculture--Wheat Genetic Research, Kansas: H.R. 2997, the FY 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contains $240,000 for Wheat Genetic Research, Kansas, in the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service's Special Research Grants Account. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Kansas State University, located at 110 Anderson Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. The funding would be used to collect, conserve, and distribute wheat genetic and genomic resources; develop improved germ plasm; develop genetic stocks; develop genomic resources; and support training and outreach. No matching funds are required for this Department of Agriculture project. Department of Agriculture--National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas: H.R. 2997, the FY 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contains $259,000 for the National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas, in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Salaries and Expenses account. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Kansas State University, located at 110 Anderson Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. The funding would be used to implement international linkages for food animal and food crop disease surveillance, to expand animal health diagnostic screening capabilities in Kansas and the region, and to further develop a GIs-tracking system for pathogen monitoring. No matching funds are required for this Department of Agriculture project.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996--the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010: H.R. 2996 includes $500,000 for a State and Tribal Assistance Grant to the City of Rose Hill, Kansas, for improvements to the city drainage system. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Rose Hill, 125 W. Rosewood, PO Box 185, Rose Hill, Kansas 67133. This funding will facilitate the installation of a 48-inch drainage pipe, which will allow the area to handle up to a 10-year storm event, protecting homes in the area.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I am honored today to speak on a wonderful program that impacts the lives of many great heroes and their families. The Army Reserve Association's, ARA United States Army Reserve, USAR Enlisted Scholarship Program awards a $500 scholarship to assist qualifying enlisted reservists or their dependents attend an institution of higher learning. Started in 2000 as an initiative of Command Sergeant Major Ray Lackey, this program has awarded a total of $225,500 in scholarships. Through the generosity of the United Services Automobile Association, USAA, the administrative efforts of the ARA, and the support of the USAR, these patriots have the opportunity to pursue their dreams. The opportunity to further their education not only benefits these heroes, but the Army Reserve and the country as a whole. I applaud the Army Reserve Association and all those responsible for this effort on behalf of our Army Reserve soldiers and their families. Additionally, I request that the following two letters regarding this program be inserted into the record: a letter from the Army Reserve Association and a letter from Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz, Chief of the Army Reserve. The Army Reserve Association, Fort McPherson, GA, March 3, 2009. Subject ARA Enlisted Scholarship Program Standards Approval. Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz, Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve Dear Lieutenant General Stultz: This letter requests you approve the standards of the ARA Enlisted Scholarship Program listed below. Request approval of the following standards: (1) a member of the USAR not under flag or pending disciplinary action; (2) qualified in the MOS of their position of assignment; (3) attending or entering an institution of higher learning (2 or 4 year college, vocational school, bible college, etc.) that is regionally or nationally accredited; (4) military dependents must be registered In DEERS. The applicant's chain of command CSM or SGM will certify that the applicant meets qualification standards (1) through (4), as applicable. The ARA Enlisted Scholarships are for enlisted members of the United States Army Reserve and their dependent family members. Each year the ARA offers scholarships to each major command to which USAR members are assigned as designated by the Command Sergeant Major of the USAR. The annual goal of awarding fifty scholarships is predicated on the number of major commands participating and the number of scholarship applicants from each major command, as well as the amount of funds donated by the program cosponsor, the United Services Automobile Association (USAA). The Army Reserve Association will create an announcement for the annual scholarship program and will transmit that announcement to the USARC G-1 with a request that the USARC G-1 forward the announcement to each major command. The announcement will include the approved standards and an application form that each command's applicants can use to apply for the scholarships. The calendar year program's closing date for receipt of all applications is 31 December, unless a waiver is granted. We request the USARC G-1 to forward the scholarship program announcement to USAR commands with instructions on submitting the applications to the USARC G-1 together with submission dates specified by the USARC G-1, so that applications can be forwarded to the ARA in time for evaluation and award of scholarships. The ARA will appoint a selection board with a board president from its existing association membership to select nominations for award of the ARA Enlisted Scholarship Award. Board members will serve in their private-citizen capacity and not in any military role and the board recorder may be a member of the Army Reserve Association. The selection list will be compiled, signed by the ARA enlisted scholarship selection board president and forwarded to the ARA for issuance of individual scholarship awards. The ARA may choose to either present or mail the awards to the Soldier's command or directly to the individual. We appreciate your continued support and assistance in implementing this program. Sincerely, MG Kent Hillhouse (R), President, Army Reserve Association. COL George M. Lind, (R) Director, ARA Field Support Services.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I heard of a climatologist who went to apply for a job recently. During his interview, he was asked, ``What do you predict will happen with the earth's climate next year'?'' He immediately replied, ``Whatever you want me to predict.'' Unfortunately, this joke seems to hit a little too close to home, when we are considering global warming legislation. Rather than responding to serious questions with serious answers, Congress is replying with what we think people want to hear. Rather than considering all angles before offering a solution, Congress is rushing through legislation in hopes to score points with voters back home. And instead of basing a bill on sound scientific data, we will be considering legislation that is devoid of input from this side of the aisle. I rise today to express my strong opposition to Waxman-Markey ``cap and tax'' bill. I believe there are three interrelated problems with this misguided legislation. I am concerned with the process by which we have arrived at the point we are today. I am concerned with the political showmanship that has gone on as the bill was written. And I am concerned with the policy itself, which bears the tragic scars of both the process and the politics. Madam Speaker, from the beginning of the 111th Congress to the present, the cap-and-tax bill has been subjected to unfortunate abuses of the legislative process. In April, the Energy and Commerce Committee held four days of hearings, with the intention of, according to the Committee's website, ``examine the views of the Administration and a broad range of stakeholders,'' on a discussion draft of Chairman Waxman's bill. However, these hearings reflected only the Chairman's perspective. Only four of the twenty-one witnesses called before the Committee expressed any opposition to cap-and-tax, despite a petition signed by more than thirty thousand meteorologists, climatologists, and other scientists stating their skepticism about the evidence of man- made greenhouse gases being responsible for increases in the earth's temperature. Contrary to claims made by the Committee, and witnesses at the hearing, there is no ``overwhelming consensus'' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. There was also a report issued by Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee outlining the dissent views of more than 700 scientists opposing the idea of manmade global warming. Clearly, no consensus has been reached. Madam Speaker, This bill was drafted without input from our side of the aisle. At no point was any Republican consulted regarding the contents of the bill. In the rush to get the legislation passed through Committee, it seems no one had time to read the entire bill, or figure out what it means. Committee members repeatedly asked questions regarding the potential cost of particular provisions or amendments, but received no answers. All of this raises the question, ``why''? Why was the bill rushed through the Committee, With hardly enough time to read it, let alone determine the impact that it would have on American taxpayers, farms, and businesses? The only answer I can come up with is the desire on the part of some in this body to score points with their voters back home. Which brings me to the third problem with Chairman Waxman's cap and tax bill--its just bad policy. Earlier this week, Investor's Business Daily had a front page article about the failures of Europe's program, called the Emissions Trading Scheme, or ETS. The article cites numerous studies finding that the ETS has significantly increased energy prices, ``with `uncertain' effects on greenhouse gas emissions.'' That hardly sounds like a model of success that we should be emulating here in the United States. Proponents of the cap and tax bill claim that they have learned from Europe's mistakes, but I disagree, Madam Speaker. The article identifies the giving away of the program's carbon allowances as the largest reason for the program's failure. This bill follows that same model, giving away roughly 85 percent of the emissions allowances. The entire idea of a cap and trade program fails in practice. We are told, ``The cost of polluting will be paid by the polluters.'' And believe me, the authors of this bill expect them to pay a hefty price. In fact, President Obama's budget assumes that even with the sale of only 15 percent of the total emissions permits, the federal government will still take in more than $650 billion. As the cap gets lower, and there are fewer permits available, the cost for ``polluters'' is going to grow ever higher. But that is exactly what the authors want. President Obama recently stated that the only way for a cap-and-trade system to work is for energy prices to ``skyrocket.'' There is nothing in the bill to keep the ``polluters'' from passing those skyrocketing costs on to the consumers. In fact, they will be forced to so. Any business that cannot pass the costs on to consumers runs the risk of being driven out of business. In the end, it will be the American taxpayer that foots the bill for this program, in the form of higher prices at the pump, higher home energy bills, and lost economic growth. But don't just take my word for it. Even the director of the Congressional Budget Office has said that, ``under a cap-and- trade program, consumers would ultimately bear most of the costs of emission reductions.'' One analysis of this bill found that if the standards within the bill are met, by 2035 Americans will see gas prices rise 74 percent, electricity prices increase by 90 percent, and a loss of at least 850,000 jobs every year. The average American household will see its annual energy bill go up by nearly $1,500. For my home state of Kansas in particular, we are going to have to purchase an estimated $206.8 million worth of carbon credits. That is $206 million more that Kansans are going to have to pay in energy costs every year. My district will be particularly hard-hit, as estimates show my district standing to lose nearly half a billion dollars of production in 2012, and more than 5,000 non-agriculture jobs. It's this kind of economic pain that advocates are counting on to force a reduction in carbon emissions. The European system proves this idea doesnt work. With no signs of a reduction in carbon emissions, Europeans have seen their household energy costs rise by 16%, and the industrial energy costs increase by 32%. Spain is an especially poignant example of the failure of the European system. They committed to reaching the benchmarks set out by the Kyoto Protocol, with renewable energy standards, so-called green- collar jobs, and a commitment to reduce their carbon emission levels. But the high cost of energy in Spain has destroyed their economy, which is currently facing a 17.5% unemployment rate. Proponents of this bill say that we will be creating new, green jobs. But most of these jobs are temporary construction jobs that go away once facilities, like wind farms for example, are built. In Spain, for every 4 jobs that were created, 9 were lost due to the higher cost of doing business under the Emissions Scheme. We should avoid going down this same path. There is huge potential for exploitation of the system, on multiple levels. Especially with permits being given out, rather than auctioned, government officials are in a prime position to divert additional credits towards industries or companies of their choice. There is also the possibility that utilities here in the United States could follow the lead of one European company that immediately raised their rate by 70%, explaining to customers that the rate hike was necessary to cover the costs of cap-and-trade. But this utility company was given more credits than it needed, and sold them on the open market. Tack on a renewables standard to this bill, and we have the perfect recipe for failure. No place that has implemented a renewable standard has ever been able to meet the required levels. And there is little to indicate that a federal standard would be any different. As a 2008 article in the Energy Law Journal stated, ``The DOE has little, if any, experience in administering a program on the scale of a national RPS, and has shown no indication that enforcement of a major program is within the agency's capabilities...[this is] an area in which the DOE has already failed to show effective leadership.'' So what we have here is a bill that has been rammed through with no minority input, to create a system that is ripe for abuse, costs the American taxpayer thousands of dollars, cripples our businesses, and in the end, has no measureable result. This is a bill I cannot support, and urge my colleagues to reject as well. Instead, I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the American Energy Act, a comprehensive energy bill that increases access to domestic energy sources, encourages conservation, and promotes the increased use of renewable sources of energy. Across this country, we are, once again, seeing gas prices rise. Since the beginning of the year, gas prices are up 60 cents, and crude oil has raised more than $20 a barrel, with no end in sight. Just last week, Russian oil executives predicted that crude prices could reach $250 per barrel. It is possible for us to relieve some of this pressure by tapping into our own vast resources. The Department of Energy estimates that nearly 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil lie offshore beneath restricted waters, the equivalent to nearly 30 years worth of current imports from Saudi Arabia. Substantial offshore natural gas reserves are also restricted. Even though longstanding restrictions on offshore energy production were lifted last year, the process of leasing these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar refuses to allow additional drilling permits, dredging up every excuse not to produce energy in these areas. The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, reported to hold more than 10 billion barrels of oil continues to remain off-limits. He has also sought to block progress on oil shale, a promising source of oil trapped in rock under parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The Department of the Interior has even cancelled some existing oil and gas leases. Often, environmental concerns are cited as the reason for opposing additional drilling. However, technological advances have greatly increased the safety of drilling. During hurricanes Rita and Katrina, less than one cup of oil was spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, despite damage to more than 120 drilling platforms. There is absolutely no reason why permits for additional drilling should be denied. Furthermore, revenue generated by these oil leases will be invested in the development of cleaner, alternative sources of energy. The end result is a reduced dependency on foreign oil, lower levels of pollution, and new jobs for Americans, all without crippling our economy. Lastly, Madam Speaker, the American Energy Act includes one key source that could provide clean energy without emissions nuclear power. The Department of Energy has stated that the best way for energy companies to reduce their carbon emissions is to increase their use of nuclear energy. Despite encouragement from DoE, and the fact that that it has been proven safe by countries like France, where more than 80% of their electricity is generated by nuclear power, the Waxman-Markey bill does nothing to encourage nuclear power. Instead, this administration has begun to walk away from the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The American Energy Act would provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authority to complete its review of the Yucca Mountain facility, repeal the limitations on Yucca's Mountain's storage capacity, and establishes a method for recycling spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. Furthermore, it would reduce the bureaucratic hoops and length of time required to receive a permit for the construction of new nuclear plants. In conclusion, let me again encourage my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill that would cripple our economy, without addressing their environmental concerns. Instead, lets support the American Energy Act, which provides real solutions for our energy problems in an economically, and environmentally sound manner.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Dicks, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. After serving with Chairman Dicks as ranking member of this subcommittee during the 110th Congress, I know how hard he has worked to make sure that communities have access to EPA grants to help with their State and tribal assistance grants and clean water needs. It has come to my attention that the fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act contained money for the city of Manhattan and Riley County for the Konza sewer line. However, with the delay in getting the money, the city had to go ahead with construction of the sewer line and now needs to use the money for a water line. EPA is supportive of the correction. I will include in the Record a letter from the EPA Region 7 office expressing their support for the correction. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, June 25, 2009. Re Technical Correction to STAG Earmark Grant Authorization for Riley Co, Kansas. Hon. Todd Tiahrt, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC. Dear Representative Tiahrt: Representative Boyda requested funding for Riley Co. for the Konza sewer main extension in a letter to the Chairmen Obey dated March 14, 2008. By the time that grant was authorized, the sewer project was nearly completed. EPA does not normally approve construction completed before a grant is awarded because the procurement action would not comply with EPA grant regulations. If the grantee has additional water or wastewater construction pending, we prefer to direct the grant funds to a pending project. We discussed this with the County and suggested that they contact Representative Jenkins office to request a technical correction so that the grant could be used to fund the construction of the Konza waterline extension project. Since the County and the City of Manhattan are sharing costs on the project, and since Manhattan has agreed to do the contracting for the water line, I also suggested that the grant name be changed from Riley Co. to the City of Manhattan so that EPA could award the grant funds directly to Manhattan. Although these changes are a Congressional decision, EPA does support using the funds for the waterline project, so that an area adjacent to Manhattan which currently has an inadequate source of drinking water, can receive high quality drinking water from Manhattan to help protect the public health of those living in the Konza area. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (913) 551-7417 or gibbins.don@epa.gov if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Donald E. Gibbins, EPA Grant Project Officer, Wastewater & Infrastructure Management Branch, Water, Wetlands & Pesticides Division.

Mr. TIAHRT. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. TIAHRT. It is correct. My fellow Kansan, the distinguished Member of the 2nd District of Congress, Ms. Lynn Jenkins, has worked hard on this issue. It is a critical need of her constituents. The region is experiencing high growth due to the ongoing troop buildup at Fort Riley with the return of the Big Red One. The City of Manhattan, Kansas, and Riley County are cooperating to provide municipal-level services along the K-177 corridor near Fort Riley. Strong interest has been expressed in the area by the development community, and there have been limitations on future growth on Manhattan's west side. The 2003 update of the Manhattan Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which was a joint planning initiative with the city and the county, specifically identifies the K-177 gateway area as a potential urban growth corridor if municipal level services are provided. That's why the city could not wait on the sewer line project. It is already underway and being managed by the county. The city will be responsible for the design, bidding, and overseeing of the water project. The cost of both the water and sewer projects will be shared by the Federal Government, the city of Manhattan, and Riley County. Clearly, it was congressional intent that Manhattan's needs be funded. I understand the committee is not making technical corrections on EPA projects in this bill and is working out a new policy to do so in the future. I hope that the chairman will take into consideration Manhattan's need and as the process moves forward work with Ms. Jenkins and myself to correct the issue. The delegation has been working with the EPA regional office in Kansas City, but in order to proceed the project description in Public Law 111-8 should read, ``The city of Manhattan for water line extension project.'' I thank the chairman for his consideration on this important issue.

Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the chairman.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2892, The FY 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act: Heartland Preparedness Center, Wichita, Kansas. This bill includes $500,000 in FEMA State and Local Programs funding to the City of Wichita, Kansas, for the Heartland Preparedness Center. This emergency operations center will be the primary coordination center in the event of a disaster for local, county, state and federal emergency response personnel and officials. Facility enhancements and equipment are needed to increase the communication, cooperation, training and response capabilities of the Wichita Police Dept, Sedgwick Co Sheriff, Kansas Army Nat'l Guard and USMC. Jointly locating the partnering entities will enhance the overall level of cooperation, coordination and preparation for various emergencies, and provide for more efficient use of resources, including training time and costs.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks in H.R. 2647, The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010. H.R. 2647 contains $8,700,000 for TFI--Upgrade DCGS Facilities (PRQE089032) in the Air Force, Military Construction account. This project is for Air National Guard at McConnell Air Force Base located at 57837 Coffeyville St., Kansas, 67221. The funds will build an adequately sized and properly configured facility for personnel, equipment, and materials, for near-real time intelligence mission conducting the processing, exploitation, and dissemination of U-2, MQ-1 Predator, and RQ-4 Global Hawk sensor data around the world in support of warfighters by the growing 161st Intelligence Squadron of the new 184th Intelligence Group. Security features, high-capacity environmental control equipment, high-capacity secure fiber optics, and redundant power supplies are all prerequisites to accommodate the sophisticated Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operation Center. No matching funds are required for this military construction project.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I heard of a climatologist who went to apply for a job recently. During his interview, he was asked, ``What do you predict will happen with the earth's climate next year?'' He immediately replied, ``Whatever you want me to predict.'' Unfortunately, this joke seems to hit a little too close to home, when we are considering global warming legislation. Rather than responding to serious questions with serious answers, Congress is replying with what we think people want to hear. Rather than considering all angles before offering a solution, Congress is rushing through legislation in hopes to score points with voters back home. And instead of basing a bill on sound scientific data, we will be considering legislation that is devoid of input from this side of the aisle. I rise today to express my strong opposition to Waxman-Markey ``cap and tax'' bill. I believe there are three interrelated problems with this misguided legislation. I am concerned with the process by which we have arrived at the point we are today. I am concerned with the political showmanship that has gone on as the bill was written. And I am concerned with the policy itself, which bears the tragic scars of both the process and the politics. Madam Speaker, from the beginning of the 111th Congress to the present, the cap-and-tax bill has been subjected to unfortunate abuses of the legislative process. In April, the Energy and Commerce Committee held four days of hearings, with the intention of, according to the Committee's website, ``examine the views of the Administration and a broad range of stakeholders,'' on a discussion draft of Chairman Waxman's bill. However, these hearings reflected only the Chairman's perspective. Only four of the twenty-one witnesses called before the Committee expressed any opposition to cap-and-tax, despite a petition signed by more than thirty thousand meteorologists, climatologists, and other scientists stating their skepticism about the evidence of man- made greenhouse gases being responsible for increases in the earth's temperature. Contrary to claims made by the Committee, and witnesses at the hearing, there is no ``overwhelming consensus'' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. The bill was drafted without input from our side of the aisle. At no point was any Republican consulted regarding the contents of the bill. In the rush to get the legislation passed through Committee, it seems no one had time to read the entire bill, or figure out what it means. Committee members repeatedly asked questions regarding the potential cost of particular provisions or amendments, but received no answers. All of this raises the question, ``why''? Why was the bill rushed through the Committee, with hardly enough time to read it, let alone determine the impact that it would have on American taxpayers, farms, and businesses? The only answer I can come up with is the desire on the part of some in this body to score points with their voters back home. What I see happening here is similar to what happened at the end of World War II. When American soldiers first reached Nazi extermination camps, they found men, women and children that were gaunt, emaciated, and starving. A few soldiers offered children chocolate bars, not realizing that the very thing they thought would be helpful actually ended up killing the children, because their digestive systems were unable to handle the chocolate. The same sort of thing is happening here. In order to look like a hero to one part of their constituency, this cap and tax bill is being pushed through Congress, and forced on the American people, much to their detriment. Which brings me to the third problem with Chairman Waxman's cap and tax bill--its just bad policy. Earlier this week, Investor's Business Daily had a front page article about the failures of Europe's program, called the Emissions Trading Scheme, or ETS. The article cites numerous studies finding that the ETS has significantly increased energy prices, ``with `uncertain' effects on greenhouse gas emissions.'' That hardly sounds like a model of success that we should be emulating here in the United States. Proponents of the cap and tax bill claim that they have learned from Europe's mistakes, but I disagree, Madam Speaker. The article identifies the giving away of the program's carbon allowances as the largest reason for the program's failure. This bill follows that same model, giving away roughly 85 percent of the emissions allowances. The entire idea of a cap and trade program fails in practice. We are told, ``The cost of polluting will be paid by the polluters.'' And believe me, the authors of this bill expect them to pay a hefty price. In fact, President Obama's budget assumes that even with the sale of only 15 percent of the total emissions permits, the federal government will still take in more than $650 billion. As the cap gets lower, and there are fewer permits available, the cost for ``polluters'' is going to grow ever higher. But that is exactly what the authors want. President Obama recently stated that the only way for a cap-and-trade system to work is for energy prices to ``skyrocket.'' There is nothing in the bill to keep the ``polluters'' from passing those skyrocketing costs on to the consumers. In fact, they will be forced to so. Any business that cannot pass the costs on to consumers runs the risk of being driven out of business. In the end, it will be the American taxpayer that foots the bill for this program, in the form of higher prices at the pump, higher home energy bills, and lost economic growth. But don't just take my word for it. Even the director of the Congressional Budget Office has said that, ``under a cap-and- trade program, consumers would ultimately bear most of the costs of emission reductions.'' One analysis of this bill found that if the standards within the bill are met, by 2035 Americans will see gas prices rise 74 percent, electricity prices increase by 90 percent, and a loss of at least 850,000 jobs every year. The average American household will see its annual energy bill go up by nearly $1,500. For my home state of Kansas in particular, we are going to have to purchase an estimated $206.8 million worth of carbon credits. That is $206 million more that Kansans are going to have to pay in energy costs every year. My district will be particularly hard-hit, as estimates show my district standing to lose nearly half a billion dollars of production in 2012, and more than 5,000 non-agriculture jobs. It's this kind of economic pain that advocates are counting on to force a reduction in carbon emissions. The European system proves this idea doesn't work. With no signs of a reduction in carbon emissions, Europeans have seen their household energy costs rise by 16 percent, and the industrial energy costs increase by 32 percent. Spain is an especially poignant example of the failure of the European system. They committed to reaching the benchmarks set out by the Kyoto Protocol, with renewable energy standards, so-called green- collar jobs, and a commitment to reduce their carbon emission levels. But the high cost of energy in Spain has destroyed their economy, which is currently facing a 17.5 percent unemployment rate. Proponents of this bill say that we will be creating new, green jobs. But most of these jobs are temporary construction jobs that go away once facilities, like wind farms for example, are built. In Spain, for every 4 jobs that were created, 9 were lost due to the higher cost of doing business under the Emissions Scheme. We should avoid going down this same path. There is huge potential for exploitation of the system, on multiple levels. Especially with permits being given out, rather than auctioned, government officials are in a prime position to divert additional credits towards industries or companies of their choice. There is also the possibility that utilities here in the United States could follow the lead of one European company that immediately raised their rate by 70 percent, explaining to customers that the rate hike was necessary to cover the costs of cap-and-trade. But this utility company was given more credits than it needed, and sold them on the open market. Tack on a renewables standard to this bill, and we have the perfect recipe for failure. No place that has implemented a renewable standard has ever been able to meet the required levels. And there is little to indicate that a federal standard would be any different. As a 2008 article in the Energy Law Journal stated, ``The DOE has little, if any, experience in administering a program on the scale of a national RPS, and has shown no indication that enforcement of a major program is within the agency's capabilities...[this is] an area in which the DOE has already failed to show effective leadership.'' So what we have here is a bill that has been rammed through with no minority input, to create a system that is ripe for abuse, costs the American taxpayer thousands of dollars, cripples our businesses, and in the end, has no measureable result. This is a bill I cannot support, and urge my colleagues to reject as well. Instead, I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the American Energy Act, a comprehensive energy bill that increases access to domestic energy sources, encourages conservation, and promotes the increased use of renewable sources of energy. Across this country, we are, once again, seeing gas prices rise. Since the beginning of the year, gas prices are up 60 cents, and crude oil has raised more than $20 a barrel, with no end in sight. Just last week, Russian oil executives predicted that crude prices could reach $250 per barrel. It is possible for us to relieve some of this pressure by tapping into our own vast resources. The Department of Energy estimates that nearly 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil lie offshore beneath restricted waters, the equivalent to nearly 30 years worth of current imports from Saudi Arabia. Substantial offshore natural gas reserves are also restricted. Even though longstanding restrictions on offshore energy production were lifted last year, the process of leasing these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar refuses to allow additional drilling permits, dredging up every excuse not to produce energy in these areas. The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, reported to hold more than 10 billion barrels of oil continues to remain off-limits. He has also sought to block progress on oil shale, a promising source of oil trapped in rock under parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The Department of the Interior has even cancelled some existing oil and gas leases. Often, environmental concerns are cited as the reason for opposing additional drilling. However, technological advances have greatly increased the safety of drilling. During hurricanes Rita and Katrina, less than one cup of oil was spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, despite damage to more than 120 drilling platforms. There is absolutely no reason why permits for additional drilling should be denied. Furthermore, revenue generated by these oil leases will be invested in the development of cleaner, alternative sources of energy. The end result is a reduced dependency on foreign oil, lower levels of pollution, and new jobs for Americans, all without crippling our economy. Lastly, Madam Speaker, the American Energy Act includes one key source that could provide clean energy without emissions--nuclear power. The Department of Energy has stated that the best way for energy companies to reduce their carbon emissions is to increase their use of nuclear energy. Despite encouragement from DoE, and the fact that that it has been proven safe by countries like France, where more than 80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear power, the Waxman- Markey bill does nothing to encourage nuclear power. Instead, this administration has begun to walk away from the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The American Energy Act would provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authority to complete its review of the Yucca Mountain facility, repeal the limitations on Yucca's Mountain's storage capacity, and establishes a method for recycling spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. Furthermore, it would reduce the bureaucratic hoops and length of time required to receive a permit for the construction of new nuclear plants. In conclusion, let me again encourage my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill that would cripple our economy, without addressing their environmental concerns. Instead, lets support the American Energy Act, which provides real solutions for our energy problems in an economically, and environmentally sound manner.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, this administration and the Democrat Congress are pushing us towards European socialism through more government control. This week it is the energy economy. We are scheduled to consider the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax scheme that will cap our growth and tax all of us. In 2005, the Europeans implemented the emissions trading scheme, or ETS. ETS has increased household energy costs by 16 percent and industrial energy costs by 32 percent in just 4 years with no measurable effect on greenhouse gases. The Heritage Foundation projects the Waxman-Markey impact on America will be a 74 percent increase in gasoline prices, a 90 percent increase in electricity prices, and at least 850,000 jobs lost every year. The energy bill for the average American household will go up over $3,000 per year. That is exactly what the authors want. President Obama recently stated that the only way a cap-and-tax scheme will work is for higher energy costs. They have to ``skyrocket.'' I urge my colleagues to reject this bill that is all economic pain and no environmental gain and, instead, join me in supporting the American Energy Act that promotes and develops domestic energy sources, encourages conservation, and advances renewable technologies while pursuing America's competitive edge.