Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3993, the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act. We have a lot of students and military personnel around this country who depend on prepaid calling cards. Unfortunately, we have discovered that the majority of prepaid cards only deliver 50 to 60 percent of the minutes advertised. While a private enterprise certainly has the right to shape its business model as it sees fit, it does not have the right to misinform and to mistreat customers with exorbitant hang-up fees and maintenance fees, and as I said, many people who have prepaid cards simply do not know what they actually provide them. That is why H.R. 3993 is so important. It is going to go a long way toward preventing these occurrences in the future. This legislation will ensure that consumers are better informed by requiring an accurate and reasonable disclosure of the terms and conditions of prepaid telephone calling cards and services. Under the bill, prepaid calling card providers would have to clearly disclose how many minutes they offer and the prices for those minutes. They would also have to clearly disclose any additional fees levied on the consumer as well as the card's expiration date and other relevant information. I want to especially thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and certainly Mr. Engel, who introduced this bill--for working so closely with the minority on this important issue. Because of our working together, we have a bill that, I believe, helps consumers without unduly hampering the industry. This legislation includes commonsense preemption standards, liability exemptions for retailers, which is very important, and, of course, strong protections for the consumer. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, this issue is so important that I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Dr. Joe E. Ellis of Benton, Kentucky. Dr. Ellis will soon be elected president of the American Optometric Association during their 113th annual meeting, where he will be installed as AOA's 89th president on Saturday, June 19th, 2010 in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Ellis is a graduate of the Southern College of Optometry and has a private practice in Marshall County. He was named Kentucky Young Optometrist of the Year in 1992 and has also received three President's Awards from the Kentucky Optometric Association. Dr. Ellis' particular area of interest is advocacy, especially as it relates to patients' access to optometric care. He has been active in legislative and government relations at the state and national levels and recently served as Chairman of the AOA's State Health Care Legislation Committee. Dr. Ellis was instrumental in the passage of the first state law of its kind that requires that all Kentucky children entering public schools receive a diagnostic eye examination. The Kentucky General Assembly identified problems with vision as an important factor limiting children's abilities to learn and succeed. Through this, they recognized that the early diagnosis and treatment of children's vision problems is a necessary component to school readiness and academic learning and the enactment of this legislation in 2000 ensured that children in my state are able to meet their developmental potential. Doctors of optometry serve patients in nearly 6,500 communities across the country, and in 3,500 of those, they are the only eye doctors. Optometrists provide two-thirds of all primary eye care in the United States. The American Optometric Association represents approximately 36,000 doctors of optometry, optometry students and paraoptometric assistants and technicians. Dr. Ellis' enthusiasm for optometry and commitment to excellence in eye and vision care has earned him this prestigious national office and public recognition. I am confident that he will have a very successful term as the American Optometric Association's president. His election is a tribute to his years of service to the profession of optometry in Kentucky and throughout the nation. I join his family, friends and colleagues in congratulating him on this achievement and wishing him the best of luck in this endeavor.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, on February 26, 2009, the Office of Architect of the Capitol (AOC) received a letter signed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader directing a reduction in the use of coal at the Capitol Power Plant, in favor of natural gas. In response, I wrote a letter to the AOC inquiring about the impacts of this proposal and the costs associated with it. The text of that letter and the Architect's response follow. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 4, 2009. Mr. Stephen Ayers, Acting Architect of the Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Ayers: There have been several articles written about the Capitol Power Plant in recent weeks and I have had several groups in my office lobbying to stop using coal at the plant. I would appreciate your providing me some basic facts about the plant. 1. When was it constructed, what was its initial cost, and when did it begin operations? 2. What was/is the rated electrical capacity of the plant? 3. How much coal was burned at the plant during its peak years of operation? 4. When was natural gas first used as a fuel in the plant, and what was the cost to convert the plant so that natural gas could be used? 5. What is the mix of fuel used today at the plant, in percentages? 6. What has been the additional cost or cost-saving associated with the use of a mix of natural gas and coal, instead of coal only? 7. What is the timeline for converting the plant to natural gas only, and what will be the cost of the conversion? 8. What is the projected additional cost or cost-saving over the next five years, by converting the plant to operate only on natural gas? 9. What type of coal is presently burned at the plant, and where is it produced? 10. Does the plant produce electricity, or only steam and cooled water for the Capitol complex? 11. If electricity is produced, what amount of income does the sale of the electricity produce annually? 12. If electricity is not produced, why not? 13. If electricity is not produced, what would it cost to convert the plant so that electricity could be produced and sold, and what would be the projected annual income from those sales? 14. What emissions controls are in place at the plant, when were they added, and at what cost? 15. Is the plant presently in compliance with federal Clean Air Act regulations? 16. If the plant is not in compliance with emissions limitations, what additional controls might be needed to continue to use coal or a mix of coal and natural gas, and what are the estimated capital costs of those additional controls? Thank you very much for your attention to this request. I will look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ed Whitfield, Member of Congress. The Architect of the Capitol, Washington, DC, March 20, 2009. Hon. Ed Whitfield House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Whitfield: Thank you for your interest in the U.S. Capitol Power Plant. As a matter of background, Congress authorized $1,545,975.65 for the design and construction of the Capitol Power Plant on April 28, 1904, and it was completed and began operations in 1910. Originally, the plant was constructed to produce electricity. However, since 1951 it has not produced electricity and only generates steam and chilled water for the Capitol Complex. The Capitol Power Plant is currently capable of using three fuels; coal, natural gas, and fuel oil. In a series of projects starting in 1989, individual boilers within the plant have been modified to be capable of burning natural gas. In Fiscal Year 2008, the fuel consumed by the plant was 65% natural gas and 35% coal. The largest amount of coal burned during the last 20 years was in 1993, when the plant used 47,393 short tons. The plant currently burns low sulfur bituminous coal which is purchased through the General Services Administration and the Defense Energy Support Center. The following table provides details on the fuel usage and costs for Fiscal Year 2008: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Utility type Energy (MMBTU) Cost ($) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Natural Gas............................. 975,046 $12,653,649 Oil..................................... 120 $2,291 Coal.................................... 528,489 $2,444,511 Heating Energy Total.................... 1,503,655 $15,100,451 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Capitol Power Plant operates in full compliance with current Federal Clean Air Act regulations. The plant utilizes two reverse air bag houses, installed in the early 1980's, to control particulate emissions. Emissions are further controlled via fuel specifications and combustion controls. On February 26, 2009, the Office of Architect of the Capitol (AOC) received a letter signed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader directing a reduction in the use of coal at the plant, in favor of natural gas. Our preliminary estimates indicate that operating the plant using 100% natural gas will cost an additional $5-$7 million annually in fuel costs and will require a one-time capital investment needed to equip the plant. We are currently preparing preliminary designs with cost estimates for the capital investment requirement. The AOC has undertaken a comprehensive strategic planning process for the Capitol Power Plant. Leveraging the skills of expert consultants and in-house staff, the AOC is analyzing a number of options for the plant, including several scenarios which utilize cogeneration systems to generate electricity. Those options are also being reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and later will be reviewed by the Department of Energy. We expect to publish a final report in Sumner 2009. Should you have further questions about the Capitol Power Plant or any of AOC's activities, please do not hesitate to contact me at 228-1793. Sincerely, Stephen T. Ayers, AIA, Acting Architect of the Capitol. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 25, 2009. Mr. Stephen Ayers, Acting Architect of the Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Ayers: Thank you for your prompt and very helpful response to my letter to you of March 4, 2009, regarding the Capitol Power Plant. I would appreciate your further response to these two additional questions: 1. You indicated that ``in a series of projects starting in 1989, individual boilers within the plant have been modified to be capable of burning natural gas.'' What was the total capital cost (or your best estimate) of those modifications? 2. In my previous letter I asked where the coal is produced that is burned in the plant, and you responded that the coal is purchased through GSA and the Defense Energy Support Center. Can you tell me which state(s) the coal comes from? I appreciate your attention to this request, and look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ed Whitfield, Member of Congress. The Architect of the Capitol, Washington, DC, April 2, 2009. Hon. Ed Whitfield, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Whitfield: Thank you for your letter of March 25, 2009 regarding the Capitol Power Plant. I appreciate your continued leadership on energy issues and your support of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). Your letter contained two questions addressed below. You asked for an estimate of the total capital investment made in recent years for modifying boilers at the Capitol Power Plant to burn natural gas. We have completed several projects stretching over the past twelve years to convert individual boilers to burn natural gas. The capital investment for these projects was approximately $1.5 million. You also asked which state supplies coal used at the Capitol Power Plant. The AOC purchases coal through the Government Services Agency (GSA) and the Defense Energy Support Center. These entities are responsible for determining the source of coal supplied under their contract. It is our understanding, based on information from the GSA, that the most recent supplier of coal for the plant is located in West Virginia. Should you have further questions about the Capitol Power Plant, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Stephen T. Ayers, AIA, Acting Architect of the Capitol.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 24, 2010, an editorial was printed in the Paducah Sun by Ben Lieberman with the Heritage Foundation regarding wind power. This article highlights the negative impact a renewable electricity standard, RES, would have on our economy and energy sector as well as the inability of wind power to meet our energy demands. [From the Paducah Sun, May 24, 2010] Wind Power Too Inefficient, Costly To Solve Energy Woes (By Ben Lieberman) Think Washington can't get any more out of touch? Well, Congress is considering measures that would raise our electric bills and kill more than 1 million jobs. Sounds like hyperbole. But that's exactly what a renewable electricity standard (RES) would do. An RES (imbedded in legislation already approved by a Senate committee and part of the House global warming bill that passed last June) requires that a set amount of the nation's electricity be generated by wind or other approved alternatives. It stands to reason that an RES would raise electricity costs. After all, if wind energy could compete with conventional sources like coal, natural gas or nuclear, there wouldn't be any need for a federal law forcing us to use it. We don't have to guess, however. A study by The Heritage Foundation looked at a hypothetical RES starting at 3 percent in 2012 and rising by 1.5 percentage points each year after that--reaching 15 percent by 2020 and 22.5 percent by 2025. This roughly coincides with the pending proposals in Congress. Heritage projects that such a provision would raise residential electric bills by 36 percent, or about $300 annually for an average household of four. Industrial electricity costs would be even harder hit, rising by 60 percent. Wind turbines tend to be pricey relative to the amount of juice they generate, but that's only part of the cost of an RES. Since the best sites for wind are remote mountain ridges or plains far from the customer base, multi-billion-dollar transmission-line projects would be required--with customers (that's you and me) picking up the tab. The biggest and costliest problems of all stem from wind's unreliability. The wind doesn't always blow, and it's least reliable during hot summer days when electricity demand peaks but the air is often still. In other words, unlike coal or natural gas or nuclear, wind power can't be relied upon, especially when it is needed most. Since the wind can stop at any time, it must always be backed up by reliable non-wind sources, ready to step in and carry the load. Thus, utilities can't really cut back on conventional electricity sources when they add wind to the mix. For this reason, an electric system that's forced to include wind becomes a marvel of expensive redundancy. And make no mistake--every penny will show up in our monthly bills. One big selling point of an RES is the ``green'' jobs created by it. President Obama has made numerous trips to wind turbine factories and boasted about the jobs at each. Granted, there will be employment among those who build, install and maintain wind turbines, but the expensive electricity that results will send many more to the unemployment line. The Heritage Foundation projects net job losses reaching 330,000 in 2012 and exceeding 1 million in 2017 and thereafter. Overall, the hit to the American economy of an RES reaching 37.5 percent by 2035 would be $5.2 trillion. That's right, America would be more than $5 trillion poorer with a wind-power mandate. That works out to $2,400 per year per family of four. Know anybody who's got an extra $2,400 just sitting around? At a time when Americans consider the economy to be Washington's top priority, Congress shouldn't be considering an RES. The last thing we need is a multi-trillion dollar anti-stimulus package that would harm struggling homeowners and businesses. Renewable energy may have a future, but Washington can't force it through costly mandates.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Hakan Evin for all that he has done over the past 20 years to promote and foster U.S.-Turkish relations. Mr. Evin has used his role as an esteemed Turkish businessman to forge friendships with leaders, diplomats and everyday citizens from the United States, and around the world. Through these efforts he has become an `Ambassador of Goodwill' and has helped to strengthen the ties between Turkey and the United States. For nearly 2 decades Mr. Evin has run a successful carpet business at the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul, one of the world's oldest and largest shopping centers. A third-generation shopkeeper, he learned about the art, culture and science of carpet making before joining the family business as an apprentice after high school. Now the owner of several shops in the Bazaar, Mr. Evin has built a reputation for excellence and established a loyal customer base which spans the globe. Mr. Evin has played host to countless heads of state, foreign dignitaries, business leaders, government officials and celebrities over the past 20 years including President George H. Bush and First Lady Barbara Bush, First Lady Laura Bush, President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Still, he remains committed to providing outstanding service and top quality products to everyday patrons from around the world. Mr. Evin has made it a point throughout his career to reach out to foreigners living, working and traveling in Turkey, fostering positive feelings among the many individuals he has met towards the Nation. Additionally, Mr. Evin has brought the deep-rooted history and culture of Turkish rugs to the United States on numerous occasions. He frequently brings many of his rugs to the U.S. and a few years ago brought hundreds of rugs to Lexington, Kentucky. As the guest of L.V. Harkness and its owner Meg Jewett, Lexington became the site of a temporary Grand Bazaar. Mr. Evin's acumen as a businessman, integrity, honesty and genuine love for America and its people make it easy to be his friend. Thanks Hakan Evin.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and sacrifice of the brave men and women stationed at Fort Campbell who I have the distinct privilege to represent in Congress. Later this week, soldiers from the 101st Airborne, Air Assault will be deploying yet again to Afghanistan to help defeat extremism in a nation not yet completely safe from those who prey on freedom. For many of these courageous Americans, this will be their 4th or 5th tour to either Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no doubt that these frequent deployments have taken a serious toll on military families. However, when I had the opportunity to visit with the soldiers readying for deployment, they looked at that fact as just an example of the supreme confidence that our military leaders have in their ability to accomplish our mission as efficiently and effectively as possible. I, for one, could not agree more. In a very short period of time, our country will be marking the 10th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. And along with that, we recognize the decade-long commitment from our service members and their families to prosecute the Global War on Terror and bring peace and stability to a war-torn region of the world. Madam Speaker, I hope that every member of this body will keep the soldiers of the 101st Airborne, as well as all of the members of the Armed Forces, in their thoughts and prayers as they continue to keep our country safe and secure. May God bless and watch over our Nation's finest and their families, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of Trover Health System, a hospital in the City of Madisonville located in my District, the First Congressional District of Kentucky. On March 28, 2010, Trover was named one of the nation's 100 Top Hospitals by Thomson Reuters, a leading provider of information and solutions to improve the cost and quality of healthcare. The award recognizes hospitals that have achieved excellence in clinical outcomes, patient safety, patient satisfaction, financial performance, and operational efficiency. This is the second time Trover has been recognized with this honor. Trover Health System is an integrated health provider serving western Kentucky residents for more than 50 years. With nine locations in six counties, Trover proudly offers 55 services and specialties to meet the needs of Kentuckians close to home. With more than 130 primary care, mid-level and specialist physicians, 500 registered nurses, and 1,000 licensed health care professionals, Trover is made up of an experienced team of dedicated staff. Trover provides healthcare solutions with compassion and respect for the uniqueness of every individual. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I bring to the attention of this House the historical significance and sense of this notable achievement. Trover's commitment to patients is evident in everything they do--and they have shown themselves as a model for quality care.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yesterday I read an article by Speaker Pelosi in which she said the health care bill they proposed would strengthen Medicare, reduce deficits, and bring the predatory practices of health insurance companies under control. How can you strengthen Medicare when you take $500 billion out of it, out of nursing homes, out of hospitals, and out of Medicare advantage? How do you claim you reduce the deficit by $138 billion when you include the taxes for 10 years and the expenditures for only 6 years? And how do you say you are going to control the insurance companies, and act like you are throwing them in the briar patch, when in fact they support this bill? They went to the White House and helped write this bill. Why? Because this bill requires small businesses and individuals to buy health insurance, and, if not, they will be subject to civil penalties. Health reform may be necessary, but this bill is the wrong bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, since the founding of this great country, representatives of the people have come to this floor, this Chamber, to debate legislation and either vote for it or against it. If you support legislation, stand up and support it. If you are opposed to it, stand up and oppose it. But today's Washington Post says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the health care bill without having Members vote on it. Instead, she would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular piece of legislation, but under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers ``deem'' the health care bill to be passed. Speaker Pelosi added that she prefers this tactic because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the health care bill. She says, ``It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know, but I like it because people don't have to vote on the health care bill.''

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss an issue that I think very few people in America are aware of. It relates to the very important topic of nuclear waste and the impact that that has upon our Federal policy and its effect on our energy needs and our Federal debt. Most Americans support nuclear power as a major source of our electricity. Today it provides 20 percent of all the electricity produced in America. Now, we know that over the next 15 or 20 years our demand for electricity is going to double what it is today. I might also remind everyone that coal is providing 51 percent of all the electricity produced in America. As I said, nuclear power provides about 20 percent. The administration and many people are focused on alternative forms of energy, particularly solar and wind power. Now, all of the experts will tell you that while, yes, some energy can be produced from solar and wind power, it will never come close to meeting the demands of the American people in energy. I might add on the nuclear power front, today in America we have 109 nuclear power plants located in 39 States across the country. At each one of those sites nuclear waste is being stored today. It does have a major impact on our environment, it has major concerns for security, and it has major costs for the American people. The solution that Congress came up with many years ago was to build Yucca Mountain as a deep repository to store this waste indefinitely. Now, unfortunately last week President Obama withdrew the license application for a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. This application was before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to look at from a scientific standpoint of could this repository at Yucca Mountain safely take care of this waste for the American people for hundreds of years in the future? And I might also add that the American taxpayer has already spent billions of dollars trying to build this repository at Yucca Mountain. Well, not only did President Obama jerk back the application so that it cannot be considered anymore, but now the Department of Energy is asking the Appropriations Committee for approval to reprogram all of the money that was going to Yucca Mountain in 2010, which in essence would stop all movement in the development of Yucca Mountain and the solution for storage of this high-level waste. So the question that I would have for President Obama and his administration today is this. Very simply, what are we going to do with all of the waste currently being stored at the 109 nuclear sites around the Nation? Now, the President has appointed a blue panel commission to come up with a solution to this problem. As I said, we have already spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain. In fact, in the very near future it was getting ready to open. Why is it important as to what are we going to do with this nuclear waste that is stored at these 109 sites around the country? It is important for this reason. Number one, in 1982 Congress passed the Nuclear Policy Waste Act. It in essence said that the Federal Government was going to be responsible for taking care of this. Well, as a result of the policies we have adopted so far today, here is our situation. The utility companies who are now depending upon the Federal Government to store this waste for them are now filing lawsuits against the Federal Government, and have already obtained judgments in excess of $11 billion against the Federal Government. Experts are saying that additional lawsuits will cost the Federal Government $56 billion. I want to raise this issue with the American people and make them aware that this decision on Yucca Mountain not only is a security issue for America, but it also is a costly decision for the American taxpayer at a time when we already have a Federal debt of $14 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a very important topic facing our nation--Nuclear Waste and the impact our Federal Policy on this issue will have on our energy needs and our Federal Debt. I support nuclear power as a major source of electricity for our nation, which currently accounts for twenty percent of our electricity supply. In Kentucky, we do not have any nuclear power although some of my District receives electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which does have nuclear power plants. Of course, Kentucky is not uninvolved with nuclear power because in Paducah, Kentucky the gaseous diffusion plant enriches all the uranium for reactors around the nation. Today, we have 109 nuclear power plants in the United States in 39 states across the country. At each one of these sites, nuclear waste is being stored that creates a major environmental security and economic challenge for our nation. Mr. Speaker, the solution that was being proposed was to build Yucca Mountain as a deep repository to store the waste indefinitely. However, last week President Obama withdrew the license application for a high- level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain with prejudice. Additionally, the Department of Energy asked the Appropriations Committee for approval to reprogram the money from the project for Fiscal Year 2010, essentially stopping all movement on the project. I might also add that there was an article in Energy Daily today where the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the Obama Administration's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository does not appear to be based on ``factual findings'' and its ``unfortunate'' handling of the issue will delay resolution of the nation's nuclear waste disposal problems for years. Some have said that President Obama is pushing forward with Nuclear Power because of the loan guarantee money he has proposed for building nuclear plants. My question to the President is--What do we do with all the waste currently being stored at the 109 nuclear sites around the nation? This blue label commission the President has created is going to take years to develop a process and a path forward, when we've already spent billions of dollars and many years developing a state of the art facility that could accept waste in the next few years. Because the government's plan was to take care of the material after the Yucca Mountain facility was completed, the utility companies paid the federal government to care for this waste, but as a result of the government's failure to take the waste, the utilities have recently been filing lawsuits against the government to recoup costs associated with having to store the waste at their own plant sites. Additionally, two attorney generals--Washington State and North Carolina--have filed lawsuits against the federal government. A number of court cases have ruled that the Department of Energy is liable for the cost of keeping the waste because of a breach of contract. How much is at stake is anyone's guess, but the industry has put the number as high as $56 billion. Nuclear power is essential to our energy portfolio, which at this point in time is very important to Americans. We simply cannot afford to do without nuclear power. I urge the House of Representatives to tell President Obama to stop playing politics with out nation's energy future and finish Yucca Mountain to ensure that Nuclear Power continues to create jobs and provide electricity.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a member of our Foreign Service and a great American. Dr. Rajesh Vyas is a former resident of Kentucky's First Congressional district and currently serves as our nation's Regional Medical Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. Recently, Dr. Vyas celebrated his twentieth year of practicing medicine. Prior to starting with the State Department, Dr. Vyas practiced medicine for two years at Logan Memorial Hospital and lived in Russellville, Kentucky, both in my Congressional district. Dr. Vyas also served our nation's veterans at the Department of Veterans Affairs for a number of years. After joining the Foreign Service, Dr. Vyas was posted to Pakistan and served at our Islamabad Embassy. From there he was dispatched to his current position in Manila. He has responsibility for overseeing the medical services provided at a number of our diplomatic missions throughout Asia. In other words, Dr. Vyas serves and protects the men and women who represent our country at our Embassies and Consulates throughout the world. Ironically, when a Foreign Service officer recently became very ill in Manila, this same Dr. Vyas who had practiced medicine in my Congressional district in Kentucky took steps that saved his life, and that officer was a former member of my own staff. Dr. Vyas accurately assessed the situation, determined what the individual needed and then developed a plan that took into account the limits of local health care to get the American officer the care and treatment he needed. Without the doctor's situational and cultural awareness, this American diplomat might have lost his life. Dr. Vyas has spent twenty years practicing medicine and a significant number of those years serving and protecting our veterans and our diplomats overseas. I know his wife and two sons are tremendously proud of him and I am, too. I ask the House to join me in saluting this fine American who protects those who have served us in our armed forces and the men and women of our diplomatic corps who are serving us at this very moment overseas.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Butler County in the First Congressional District of Kentucky on their 200th Anniversary. This momentous occasion not only celebrates the rich history of Butler County, but the many thousands of residents who over the years have made it a vibrant and thriving community. Butler County was formed on January 18, 1810 and was named for General Richard Butler, a Revolutionary War soldier. With the introduction of a navigation system for the Green and Barren Rivers in the 1830's, a new mode of transportation in the area began and brought with it many new people to the area including merchants, miners, loggers, river workers, engineers and carpenters. The Civil War slowed development of the county. Following the war, former soldiers from both sides joined together to raise funds for a Civil War Monument that was dedicated in May 1907. The monument is believed to be one of the only two existing memorials which honors both Confederate and Union soldiers. Today, Butler County attracts many tourists who come to visit the historic sites of the area, steamboat era museum, Green River and many other attractions. The county also hosts the Green River Catfish Festival every year. Anglers from around the country travel to Butler County to try and catch one of the numerous tagged catfish released into the river for cash prizes. The top prize is $50,000. To commemorate the county's 200th Anniversary, community leaders and residents of Butler County have planned a year's worth of events to educate Kentuckians about the history of Butler County and celebrate its residents and culture. A book entitled Butler County, Kentucky-- History and Families is also being compiled which features stories about communities and families in Butler County as written by residents. It is my privilege to represent Butler County in the U.S. House of Representatives and I hope my colleagues in Congress will join me in celebrating this community and its residents.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to President Obama's expected commitment to the world at the Copenhagen climate change discussion for the United States to reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020. It is simply ludicrous to think that we can reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 without wrecking our economy. I am also concerned about the Administration's so-called endangerment finding to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. This is a disastrous move forward to regulate carbon under a law that was clearly not intended to regulate carbon emissions. In many cases, it is not required under this law to take into consideration the impact on the economy, which poses enormous problems. Going further on the science of climate change, in light of the emails that show that scientists have been suppressing information about the scientific proof of climate change, I believe that it is even more important that we take a step back and ensure that we understand the impact of carbon emissions. The trick that scientists have been using to make the data work has been reported as being called, ``trick and hide.'' It seems, Madam Speaker, that not only are the scientists ``tricking and hiding'' the American people on the science of climate changes, but the Democratic Majority is ``tricking and hiding'' the truth about the cap and trade bill. The truth about the cap and trade bill is that this bill will increase electricity rates in some states, like Kentucky, as much as 40 percent. Additionally, the cap and trade bill is nothing more than a hidden tax on the American people. I might add that I am not against reducing carbon emissions as I have cosponsored and helped move the Carbon Capture and Sequestration legislation that was sponsored by Congressman Boucher and others. It is important that we develop this technology before enacting any regulatory regime to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. These efforts are essential in keeping electricity rates low. However, I am against the President making a commitment that we cannot meet and that China and India will not match. I am also against the Administration's movement to regulate carbon through the Clean Air Act. We must take a step back and study the science on this issue to make certain we get this right and I call on the Administration to do just that. I call on my colleagues to speak up about negative impacts of the ``trick and hide'' bill and urge the Administration not to make any commitments at Copenhagen.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. There is certainly enough blame to go around for both parties in the U.S. Congress as far as the debt is concerned. I have heard a lot of discussion today about being concerned about senior citizens having access to Medicare, and yet the health care bill that passed this House takes $500 billion out of Medicare. We've heard a lot about the PAYGO rules. In the 110th Congress, the PAYGO rules were waived 12 times for almost $500 billion. As I have said, both parties have a lot of blame for the debt that we're in, and the American people want us to be responsible. We have a $12 trillion debt today. Within 10 years, it's supposed to be $23 trillion. At some point, we have to meet our obligation, meet our responsibility and try to pay for some of these programs. All of us support the purpose of this legislation, but there must be a way that we can do it and have it paid for. So for that reason, I would have great difficulty voting for this legislation without it being clearly paid for.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, there are many provisions of this 2,000- page Affordable Health Care for America Act that we can support on this side. Yet we do not support the establishment of a Federal health care board to control health care in America. We do not support establishing civil penalties of up to $10,000 a day for violating health regulations. We do not support reducing Medicare funding by $500 billion. We do not support cutting funding for hospitals by $155 billion and rural hospitals by $6 billion between 2017-2019. We do not support increasing taxes on small business owners, particularly at a time when we have an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent. If we had a surplus, we could support spending billions of dollars for the sovereign states of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Pulau. Since we have a $11 trillion debt, why should we be spending money for health care in those countries? We are also increasing by $10 billion health care for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa in this bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight an article by Dr. Kurt House entitled, ``Putting the Price of Going Green in Context.'' The following column was coauthored by Benjamin Urquhart, a research associate at Harvard University's Center for the Environment, and Mark Winkler, a Ph.D. student at Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Over time, the global energy infrastructure must change because the continued combustion of fossil fuels is altering Earth's climate in potentially dangerous ways and because the large wealth transfer from mostly democratic oil-importing countries to mostly autocratic oil-exporting countries is propping up repressive regimes worldwide. So, we know that the world's energy infrastructure must change. But, the interesting questions are: how big an investment are we willing to make to bring about that change and how fast are we willing to make that investment? Many groups have tried to answer these questions. In the last year alone former Vice President Al Gore, Google, oilman T. Boone Pickens, Greenpeace, and the International Energy Agency all have published hypothetical scenarios for how the United States could transform its energy infrastructure over the next two decades. Gore's ``Repower America'' calls for generating 100-percent renewable electricity by 2020. Google's ``Clean Energy 2030'' would eliminate coal- and oil- burning power plants by 2030, while retaining natural gas power plants to maintain grid stability. Greenpeace is strongly anti-nuclear, while Pickens promotes wind power and natural gas as alternatives to foreign oil. The quantity of new electricity-generating capacity proposed in the Gore and Google plans has led to criticism that they are unrealistically expensive. We try to place such commentary in a more quantitative context by comparing the industrial and financial commitments necessary to achieve the Google and Gore plans to two large-scale, government-led efforts from the twentieth century--the industrial buildup that accompanied World War II and the construction of the Interstate Highway System. These massive projects serve as tangible benchmarks for the magnitude of financial commitment and public support that will be required to rebuild the U.S. power sector. Let's start with a bit of history: The U.S. industrial commitment to World War II was staggering. At its peak, the war occupied almost 40 percent of the nation's total economic capacity, and it required massive quantities of raw materials--at least 100 megatons of steel to build among other things more than 80,000 tanks, 250,000 planes and helicopters, and 15 million tons of munitions. The inflation adjusted annual cost of the war effort averaged close to $700 billion between 1943 and 1945, while the total cost of the war effort topped $2.5 trillion (in 2006 dollars). In comparison, constructing the Interstate Highway System demanded a less intensive effort--but one of far longer duration. With the majority of its 47,000 miles covered by 11 inch-thick concrete--and weighing an impressive 700 megatons--it remains the largest public works project in U.S. history. During its peak years of construction, from 1970 to 1980, 17 megatons of concrete were used annually to create 1,100 miles of roadway a year, at a real annual expense of almost $11 billion, or about 0.3 percent of the nation's annual economic output over that time. The project--from its start in 1956 until its symbolic completion in 1995--cost the nation close to $350 billion (again, in 2006 dollars). How do current energy transformation plans compare to these massive governmental efforts? To determine the answer, we calculated the overnight capital cost--the cost of a project without interest payments, as if it were finished in one night--as well as the requirements in steel and concrete for the Gore and Google plans. We also calculated expenditures for the U.S. Energy Information Agency's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook, the traditional policy-neutral, business-as-usual scenario. We then compared the total and annual expenditures of capital, steel, and concrete using World War II as a baseline for capital and steel consumption, and the highway project as a baseline for concrete consumption. (Note: Although the cost of steel and concrete also are included in the total capital numbers, we wanted straight comparisons for the total mass of steel and concrete to complement the more traditional capital comparisons.) The results are summarized in two charts we have generated. The first chart shows that achieving Gore's vision of removing fossil fuels from electricity production by 2020 will require 50 percent of the capital and 60 percent of the steel required to wage World War II as well as 25 percent of the concrete that was used to construct the Interstate Highway System. (Google's requirements are a bit higher because its forecast assumes a higher U.S. growth rate for electricity consumption.) The other chart shows that the annual expenditures required to achieve the Gore and Google plans would require 60 and 90 percent, respectively, of the concrete used annually for the highway system and about 20 percent of the steel consumed annually during the peak of war spending. Take a moment to consider these numbers. Achieving either plan would require both an annual investment of concrete equal to the amount used to build the Interstate Highway System and an annual steel investment equal to one-quarter of that required to defeat the Axis powers. This is a massive industrial investment! Furthermore, these are only the steel and concrete requirements; the quantity of photovoltaic panels, for example, required to achieve the Gore or Google plan would be 28 and 74 times current global production, respectively. The material requirements to achieve the Gore plan are significantly lower than those required to achieve the Google plan primarily due to their radically different estimates for the growth in electricity production. Google estimates that U.S. electricity production will grow by 4 percent to roughly 1,024 gigawatts by 2020, which essentially matches the EIA's forecast. The Gore plan, on the other hand, assumes that U.S. electricity production will decrease by a staggering 27 percent! That decrease--Gore claims--will result from huge increases in energy efficiency, but the EIA forecast already includes significant efficiency improvements. We should note that the energy plans would last longer than World War II, making the annual rate of spending about 15 percent of the peak annual war expenses ($100 billion-$124 billion versus $800 billion per year). Also, because the U.S. economy is about six times larger today than it was in the 1940s, these costs represent a much smaller fraction of the country's total economic output (about 1 percent of gross domestic product). Put another way, the economic demands of the war effort were equivalent to diverting two days of every worker's five-day work week, the energy plans--over their lifespans--would demand only about 24 minutes from every worker's week. Although each plan has other aspects that merit critical analysis (e.g., estimated capacity factors, load growth rates, and balance of peak and base-load power) our analysis yields an interesting conclusion regarding the required financial and industrial investments. Specifically, we have identified two precedents for large-scale, governmental projects with industrial and financial investments that exceed the total requirements of both the Gore and Google plans. When measured against historical extremes, the cost and physical requirements of these ambitious energy plans are within the country's reach. That doesn't mean they'll be cheap. After all, fighting World War II was incredibly expensive--the modern economic equivalent would be passing a $700 billion stimulus package every eight weeks for the next three years. Furthermore, defeating the fascist powers was of utmost importance as those powers represented a material and immediate threat to every living person in the free world. Although we strongly believe that the world's energy infrastructure must change, we don't believe that either climate change or energy-driven trade imbalances are remotely as scary today as Hitler was in 1941; and thus, while we could rebuild the energy system as we rebuilt industry for the war effort, the impetus to do so is far smaller today than in was in the 1940s. Rather than waging war, rebuilding our energy infrastructure according to these plans would be more like keeping the peace: Consider that were the government doing all of this spending, it would require an annual budget of about one-third the average peacetime budget of the Defense Department. When we recall that Defense employs more than 3 million people, includes a massive research, design, and procurement system, and maintains a system of facilities worldwide, we get a sense of the magnitude of these proposed energy plans. Another important fact to consider is that neither the Gore plan nor the Google plan assumes that the government will pay for everything transforming the U.S. power sector entails. Rather, both groups believe--admirably, in our opinion--in the endless capabilities of the American entrepreneur. In other words, these plans are betting that free enterprise will spring into action with the necessary capital. (With one proviso: Said entrepreneurs are given the proper policy incentives such as a stiff price on carbon emissions.) While we also believe in the power of individual initiative coupled with enlightened policy, we are cognizant of the fact that both World War II and the Interstate Highway System were entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers. So taking on an industrial transformation similar in scope to either the war effort or the highway system with mostly private capital is--to put it modestly--a challenging proposition.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, there are many provisions of the Democratic health care bill that we support, like taking care of the preexisting condition problem. But we also oppose cutting Medicare by $500 billion over 10 years. We oppose taking $155 billion out of the hospital account. We oppose reducing Medicare Advantage by $123 billion. We oppose taxing, putting a surtax on small business men and women, thousands of them. We oppose individuals being penalized 2.5 percent of their gross income if they do not buy a policy. We oppose requiring employers to pay 8 percent of the gross wages of their employees if they do not provide insurance. Then, after all of that, there still is $200 billion needed to pay for this expensive health care bill. Those on this side of the aisle are willing to work with the other side of the aisle if they would simply open the door and give us the opportunity.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I'm not going to get into a discussion of process today, but I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee for bringing this bill to the floor to correct this inequity for our senior citizens. But I would like to discuss another matter relating to the national health care debate that is of great concern to me. Last week the Congressional Budget Office, in examining the bill proposed by Senator Baucus, said that that bill would reduce by $123 billion the Medicare Advantage program. This is a program that provides private health insurance for our Medicare beneficiaries. And I might say there are many of them in rural areas and over 10,000 in my district. One of the companies that provides this private option is Humana Corporation, headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. They sent out a notice to their Medicare beneficiaries explaining that the Baucus plan would reduce by $123 billion the amount of money available for Medicare. When Senator Baucus heard about that, he ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and, if necessary, punish Humana for trying to educate its own enrollees about how they would be damaged by the Senate bill. Now, I might add that the acting director of CMS, Jonathan Blum, used to work for Senator Baucus. But the thing that is really troubling about this is that while they are issuing an order against Humana, the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons, AARP, which claims to represent senior citizens on Medicare, they also have an advantage program through United Health Care that they offer 1.7 million enrollees, and yet they've been sending out information and on their Web site saying that Medicare funds would not be reduced, and yet CMS is not taking any action against them.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Ballistics Technology Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ensign-Bickford Aerospace and Dynamics Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 219, State Route 175, Graham, KY 42344 Description of Request: The money ($3,000,000) will be used to update and replace current reactive armor. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Army Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Luvata Franklin Address of Requesting Entity: 4720 Bowling Green Rd Franklin, KY 42134 Description of Request: The money ($2,800,00) will be used for pathogen reduction, which is vital for protection of military, particularly those serving in enclosed weapons systems such as tanks and submarines and in medical environments. It can be used proactively as a cost-effective and conscientious measure to counter today's increased concern for bio-security and improved health conditions in indoor air environments.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to, not surprisingly, oppose this amendment from the gentleman of Arizona. And I might say to him that we all appreciate his concern, his dedication and his commitment to fiscal responsibility. But I would also say that even if we eliminated all earmarks of the legislative branch, it still would not make any dent at all in our deficit and debt in this country. And so I would ask the gentleman and simply suggest that let's look at some more meaningful ways to deal with this issue. For example, I think most Members would agree with you that the vast majority of earmarks do probably go to appropriators rather than nonappropriators. And I think many Members would be willing to join you in an effort to try to change the House rules in some way and maybe deal with that issue. I might also say that under the PAYGO rules of this Congress and the last Congress, the 110th Congress, they waived PAYGO rules enough times that the amount that they waived was $450 billion. So I would ask the gentleman to join me in a resolution that I introduced yesterday to simply say that if the PAYGO rules are waived, that any Member of Congress has a right to raise a point of order and have a vote on the waiving of the PAYGO rules. I think those are two ways to more substantively address your concerns. As far as Monroe County, Kentucky, let me just say this: Monroe County, Kentucky, is a county of 11,000 people located in south central Kentucky. It is primarily economically driven by agriculture and the textile industry, except the textile industry has closed down over the last 10 years or so. The unemployment rate in Monroe County right now is 15 percent. The most important economic engine in Monroe County is agriculture. And that's why I requested, at the request of the county judge and the fiscal court and the mayor of the community coming to me and asked for $250,000, to develop this farmers' exchange facility to help the economic development in that area. I might also point out that on September 16, 2008, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, James Oberstar, and U.S. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton presented a $2 million EDA investment check to the Government of the District of Columbia to help restore and upgrade the historic Eastern Market where farmers bring their goods and people buy and sell them. Now Monroe County does not have access to high-priced lobbyists. There's not a lot of influence in Monroe County. So when they came to me--and I don't get that many earmarks--I simply felt it was the proper thing to do, to help this community overcome its high unemployment, to try to stimulate the economy in a small way and to help the farmers in that area. So I would urge and request that the Members vote to defeat the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the great work that he does on the Budget Committee. Almost every economist today will tell you that they're very much concerned about the future viability of America, primarily because of the ever increasing debt that we face in this country. I am pleased today that we are simply here discussing PAYGO though, because it is such an important concept. I would also point out that the reason that I am not supporting the Democrats' PAYGO recommendation is primarily because it exempts 40 percent of the budget, all of the discretionary spending, from PAYGO rules and requirements. It's also important for us to realize that in the 110th Congress, the PAYGO rule was waived 12 times, exempting $420 billion from non-offset deficit increases. I look forward to the gentleman from Wisconsin's substitute bill that will be debated later today. But I would also like to point out that I introduced this afternoon a resolution that would change the House rules and require a point of order on any waiving of a PAYGO rule by the Rules Committee, so that if a bill comes to the floor and it has waived PAYGO, any Member could make a point of order, and it would require a vote on the House floor before that waiver could take effect. In conclusion, I would simply like to say, I can't think of a more important subject to be debating today than PAYGO, because the major challenge that America faces today is our long-term debt and ever increasing debt that we face.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Last night, as the Energy and Commerce Committee met to debate the new health care reform bill offered by the Democratic Party, as I looked through the analysis by CBO, I discovered that there was a reduction in Medicare benefits over the next 10 years in excess of $450 billion. In addition to that, there was a reduction in reimbursements to hospitals of $155 billion over the next 10 years. The part of it that bothered me most is that in so many rural areas, programs like Medicare Advantage, home health care, skilled nursing care were particularly hit by these reductions. In addition to that, this bill provides for an additional tax on employers, a tax on individuals that do not go out and buy health insurance once the mandate goes into effect; and, still, the bill is not paid for. And as the CBO director indicated, this bill will not save taxpayer money. This bill will create additional taxpayer expenditures.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations Act, the FY 2010 Transportation Treasury Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, and the FY 2010 Education, Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Section 205 Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Hopkinsville Address of Requesting Entity: 101 North Main Street, Hopkinsville, KY 42241 Description of Request: Funding will be used to study the South Fork of the Little River to reduce 100 year flood levels in Hopkinsville by 2.6-4.9 feet. The agency that should provide the funding is the Corps of Engineers and the account is Section 205. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Paducah Address of Requesting Entity: 300 South 5th Street, Paducah, KY 42001 Description of Request: Funds will be used ($44,000) for the rehabilitation of the current flood control system will involve repair/ replacement of pumping station equipment, corrugated pipes, concrete, and other appurtenant features. This is considered a levee safety issue. This project was authorized in the 2007 Water Resources Development Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: O and M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Hickman-Fulton County Riverport Authority Address of Requesting Entity: 625 Catlett Street, Hickman, KY 42050 Description of Request: This funding ($44,000) provides for maintenance of an off-river harbor channel extending from the main channel of the Mississippi River along the City. Annual dredging is necessary to ensure maximum efficiency of the Harbor. This project will provide vital economic development and community growth. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Other Defense Activities--Health, Safety, and Security Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Department of Energy Address of Requesting Entity: Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 Description of Request: This funding ($1,000,000) will be used to assess the health of DOE contract workers in Paducah, KY to detect selected occupational illnesses at an early stage. This funding will help screen for health problems, which will save taxpayers' money in the long-run. The agency that should provide the funding is the Department of Energy and the account is Other Defense Activities-- Health, Safety, and Security. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Nashville Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 1070, Nashville, TN 37202 Description of Request: This project consists of constructing a completely new lock and dam structure, which is vital to the movement of goods through the inland waterways system. The project will have an average annual benefit of $70.7 million when completed. Expanding Kentucky Lock will help protect hundreds of jobs and help ship products promptly to more than 23 other states. The agency that should provide the funding ($1,000,000) is the Corps of Engineers and the account is Construction. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Nashville Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 1070, Nashville, TN 37202 Description of Request: The rock foundation under the dam continues to deteriorate and foundation seepage pressures have increased, which prompted the Corps to begin this major rehabilitation. Catastrophic failure of the dam could result in loss of life and massive destruction of property downstream. The agency that should provide the funding ($123,000,000) is the Corps of Engineers and the account is Construction. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Louisville Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201 Description of Request: This strategic reach of the Ohio River provides a connection between the Mississippi River, Tennessee River, and Cumberland River. More tonnage passes this point than any other place in America's inland navigation system. Traffic at the Olmsted project is projected to exceed 113 million tons by 2020. This project will facilitate the movement of goods throughout the country. The agency that should provide the funding ($109,790,000) is the Corps of Engineers and the account is Construction. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: FY 2010 Labor, Health and Education Appropriations Bill Account: Elementary and Secondary Education (includes FIE) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Reading is Fundamental Address of Requesting Entity: 1825 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20009 Description of Request: Reading Is Fundamental enhances child literacy by providing millions of underserved children with free books for personal ownership and reading encouragement from the more than 18,000 locations throughout all fifty states, Washington, D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: FY 2010 Labor, Health and Education Appropriations Bill Account: Higher Education (Includes FIPSE) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Breathitt Veterinary Center (BVC) Address of Requesting Entity: 715 North Drive, Hopkinsville, KY 42240 Description of Request: The funding ($350,000) will be used for teaching and Laboratory Equipment purchase, installation, and maintenance at the Breathitt Veterinary Center in Hopkinsville, KY. Currently, the BVC is a Biological Safety Level (BSL) 2 facility, employing over 50 people, but serving a 150 mile radius to research, diagnose, and report bioterrorism and high impact disease agents in the food supply. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: FY 2010 Labor, Health and Education Appropriations Bill Account: Higher Education (Includes FIPSE) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Western Kentucky Community and Technical College Address of Requesting Entity: 4810 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, KY 42002 Description of Request: Western Kentucky Community and Technical College is proposing to develop a skilled crafts training center in Graves County, Kentucky. Funds have been dedicated to purchase the facility, but federal funds are needed for equipment purchases to enhance automotive and diesel technology programs to facilitate training in the automotive industry, which will help attract businesses to the area. ($250,000) Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: FY 2010 Labor, Health and Education Appropriations Bill Account: Elementary & Secondary Education (includes FIE) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: McLean County Fiscal Court Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 127, Calhoun, KY 42327 Description of Request: The Mclean County Fiscal Court will utilize this project to assist the community and local school children increase their educational opportunities by purchasing equipment necessary for educational purposes for the Livermore Community Library. Funds ($150,000) will be used to purchase computers, teaching equipment, and develop training seminars to facilitate educational opportunities throughout the County. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: FY 2010 Labor, Health and Education Appropriations Bill Account: Higher Education (Includes FIPSE) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Madisonville Community College Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 127, Calhoun, KY 42327 Description of Request: Funds ($100,000) will be used to purchase instructional equipment to support full implementation of Advanced Industrial Integrated Technology (AIIT) associate degree program developed to provide the multi-skilled maintenance technician demanded by modern manufacturers. The AIIT curriculum can serve as a national model for the effective web-enhanced delivery of technical training. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Monroe County Fiscal Court Address of Requesting Entity: 1194 Columbia Avenue, Tompkinsville, KY 42167 Description of Request: Funds ($250,000) will be used to construct a new market facility that would facilitate economic development and provide added benefits to the local community. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Buses and Bus Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Lake Cumberland Community Action Agency Address of Requesting Entity: 23 Industry Drive, Jamestown, KY 42629 Description of Request: Funds ($70,000) will be used to install emergency radios in buses that transport senior citizens to and from their medical appointments in an area that is currently undergoing a Dam safety rehabilitation project, which increases the need for emergency communications. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Buses and Bus Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Audubon Area Community Services Address of Requesting Entity: 1800 West Fourth Street, Owensboro, KY 42304 Description of Request: The Bus maintenance facility is needed to help maintain and protect the safety of people who are using this service for transportation purposes. Funding ($1,350,000) will be used to construct this facility. Requesting Member: Congressman Ed Whitfield Bill Number: FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Account: Buses and Bus Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Address of Requesting Entity: 1100 South Liberty Street, Hopkinsville, KY 42240 Description of Request: Pennyrile Allied Community Services works to reduce and eliminate poverty by providing the opportunity for education, training, and work. One main way this mission is accomplished is through transporting people. Funding ($500,000) will be used to purchase on-board security cameras and enlarge and renovate the transit facility on site.