[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6087-H6090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CARL B. SMITH POST OFFICE

  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2173) to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 1009 Crystal Road in Island Falls, Maine, as the 
``Carl B. Smith Post Office''.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CARL B. SMITH POST OFFICE.

       (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
     Service located at 1009 Crystal Road in Island Falls, Maine, 
     shall be known and designated as the ``Carl B. Smith Post 
     Office''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the ``Carl B. Smith Post Office''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present H.R. 2173 for consideration. 
This legislation will designate the United States postal facility 
located at 1009 Crystal Roads in Island Falls, Maine, as the ``Carl B. 
Smith Post Office.''
  This bill, introduced by my colleague and friend, Representative Mike 
Michaud of Maine, on April 29, 2009, was reported out of the Oversight 
Committee by unanimous consent on May 6, 2009, and enjoys the support 
of both members of Maine's House delegation.
  A lifelong resident of the town of Island Falls, Maine, Carl B. Smith 
dedicated over half of his life to public service and local and State 
government, the United States military, and the United States Postal 
Service.
  Born on March 30, 1922, Carl B. Smith graduated from Sherman High 
School in 1940 and 2 years later joined the United States Army Corps. 
Representative Smith's subsequent 10-year tenure in the United States 
Army included service in Europe during World War II, as well as service 
in Japan and Korea during the Korean conflict. He would go on to become 
a lifelong member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 7529 out of 
Island Falls as well.
  Following his discharge from the service, Representative Smith 
attended barber school and proceeded to serve his beloved community of 
Island Falls as a barber for 30 years. In addition, he also worked as a 
rural letter carrier with the United States Postal Service and, of 
course, was a proud member of the Maine Rural Letter Carriers Union.
  Representative Smith would subsequently embark on a distinguished 
career in local and State government.
  First, he served as the town clerk of Island Falls for 13 years and 
later served on the Island Falls Board of Selectmen.
  In 1980, Mr. Smith was elected to the Maine State Legislature as the 
representative serving house district 140, which includes Island Falls, 
Ludlow, Oakfield, Sherman, and other areas. His admirable career in the 
Maine House of Representatives would span 10 years, during which time 
he was a member of the State's Joint Standing Committee on Inland 
Fisheries and Wildlife, Agriculture, and State and Local Government.
  Throughout his tenure in the Maine State House, Mr. Smith was widely 
noted for his efforts on behalf of environmental causes, as well as his 
devotion to social issues such as poverty, health, and aging.
  In 1987, Mr. Smith received statewide recognition when he was 
selected by House Speaker John L. Martin to serve on the Maine 
Commission on Outdoor Recreation. Upon announcing Representative 
Smith's appointment to the commission, Speaker Martin described Smith 
as an ``extremely hardworking legislator who has devoted a great amount 
of time and energy to environmental issues.''
  Regrettably, Carl B. Smith passed away on October 4, 2000, at the age 
of 78.
  Madam Speaker, let us honor this dedicated public servant through the 
passage of this legislation to designate the Island Falls post office 
in Carl B. Smith's honor.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2173.
  I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for introducing this. 
I think it's appropriate that the Congress at times names post offices, 
but I don't think that it is appropriate that we spend hours and hours 
doing it.
  I think that if we ask our constituents at home if they want us to 
spend more time naming post offices or talking about post offices that 
have been named or talking about something important that will really 
affect them like cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax coming down the road, I 
think they'd say the latter. And I plan to vote for this post office 
naming, and I think it's appropriate that Carl B. Smith have a post 
office named after him in Maine.
  Now, I think it's important that people across the country know what 
we're going to be debating this summer. It's going to affect them and 
affect them deeply, and if I was convinced that we're going to have 
adequate debate time on the floor for cap-and-trade, then I might feel 
more inclined to talk about post offices. But my guess is, when it 
comes to this, we're going to be having a very small amount of time 
actually on the floor. Very few amendments, if history is any guide, 
will be allowed on this cap-and-trade legislation, and there will be a 
truncated time and space that we actually have to talk about what is 
going to affect people all across the country.
  Now, if I were supporting this cap-and-trade legislation that's 
coming down the pike, believe me, I wouldn't want to talk about it much 
here either because I think the more people learn about it, the more 
they fear about what is coming down the road here.
  What is coming down the road are higher energy taxes. Let's be real 
here. And I think some on the other side of

[[Page H6088]]

the aisle have been honest enough to admit that. The Representative 
from Michigan said it best: I think nobody in this country realizes 
that cap-and-trade is a tax, and it's a great big one. Even the 
President, we know, said during his campaign that electricity prices, 
energy prices would necessarily skyrocket under cap-and-trade.
  So we know that that's going to happen, but let's be honest about it. 
This is a high energy tax that Americans all over the country are going 
to be paying that's going to come to Washington, and then Washington is 
going to decide how to spend it, likely on something completely 
different.
  If we want to be honest about helping the environment, then just 
impose a carbon tax and make it revenue neutral, give commensurate tax 
relief on the other side. Myself and another Republican colleague have 
introduced that legislation to do just that. Let's have an honest 
debate about whether or not we want to help the environment by actually 
having something that is revenue neutral where you tax consumption as 
opposed to income. Then you would have a real honest debate at least 
here.
  Instead, this is a revenue source to pay for other items. Not just 
that, it is a revenue source that is haphazardly imposed, more tax that 
is haphazardly imposed. I shouldn't say haphazardly because I think 
it's by design. When you look at this cap-and-trade legislation that is 
coming through committee now, you realize that certain sectors, certain 
utilities and others, have been exempted from it, will be given permits 
instead of sold permits to pollute.
  And so this is nothing more than bringing more revenue to Washington, 
deciding who is going to be taxed in the end, and down the road somehow 
the environment is supposed to be helped.
  But whenever you have just a new revenue source for Washington to 
decide how you're going to spend it, you don't really have an honest 
debate about what you're doing, let's face it.
  What we're likely to have is something like we've had over the past 
few decades with ethanol policy where we've subsidized ethanol again 
and again, every year more and more, by tariffs, by market protections, 
by all-out subsidies. You name it, we've protected that industry. And 
in the end, what have we gained by it? I think it's a record that is 
dubious at best, and we keep saying we are just going to prime the pump 
just a few more years and it will be on its own, but it never is. Now, 
it's not working that well, but it's a bridge to something else.
  Let's be honest about this debate. Let's have a debate where if 
you're going to help the environment, if you feel that we ought to put 
a value on carbon, then do it in a revenue neutral manner so you're not 
bringing more revenue to Washington, and that's what this cap-and-trade 
legislation is about.
  I don't know how else you can put it. That's why it's important to 
talk about this rather than simply talk about post offices being named 
because this will affect the average American family in a big way. Some 
have estimated a few thousand dollars a year it might impact the 
average American family.
  Whatever it is is going to impose a cost on the economy that is very 
difficult at this point to bear. And for what? What do we get in 
return? More revenue that Washington can spend on a different purpose 
or some other program? That's what this is turning into right now.
  So I think it's appropriate, Madam Speaker, that we talk about cap-
and-trade today, and I'm glad that we have something on the floor that 
allows us to do that.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz) be allowed to control the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I appreciate and thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2173, to designate the United States postal 
facility at 1009 Crystal Road in Island Falls, Maine, as the ``Carl B. 
Smith Post Office Building.''
  As an advocate for all of the citizens in Maine's House District 140, 
State Representative Carl B. Smith was a standout legislator in the 
Maine House of Representatives.
  After graduating from Sherman High School in 1940, and then marrying 
Annie Jane Porter in 1946, Representative Smith began a long and 
distinguished career in a number of fields. Prior to his marriage, Mr. 
Smith joined the Army Air Corps in 1942, serving in Europe during World 
War II, and in Japan and Korea during the Korean conflict for a total 
of 10 years. He then returned to his home in Island Falls where he 
trained and worked for over 30 years as the local barber.
  Throughout the years, Mr. Smith served as the town clerk of Island 
Falls, town selectman, and for 10 years as a rural letter carrier for 
the United States Postal Service.
  Mr. Smith's successful and varied careers made him well-suited for 
public office. His responsiveness to the needs of the citizens of his 
district ensured him of a successful 10 years in the State legislature.
  He believed that as a true representative of his constituents it was 
his obligation to introduce legislation when asked to do so by a 
citizen even though there were times he did not necessarily support the 
bill. He believed by doing this he was giving the requesting citizens 
an opportunity to have an issue that was important to them addressed. 
He had a deep belief in local input on legislation and local control of 
development issues. Mr. Smith was also a strong advocate in requiring 
the State to reimburse any locality 75 percent of the cost of all 
mandated programs.
  A true representative of the long-held ideal of Maine's citizens, Mr. 
Smith felt very strongly about energy and environmental conservation 
issues.

                              {time}  1115

  He championed many environmental initiatives and served on committees 
in the legislature related to fisheries and wildlife.
  During his time in the legislature, he supported the Clean Indoor Air 
Act, a nonsmoking ban for the State. Another area of interest to Mr. 
Smith was prison reform. While serving on the Corrections Committee, he 
proposed a bill that would provide a restitution program where 
imprisoned persons convicted of nonviolent crimes worked to pay their 
room and board at the prison, supporting their dependents, and pay 
damages owed to persons as a result of their crimes.
  Representative Smith personified the ideals of this country. He 
served his country in war, worked hard in his community of Island 
Falls, and was elected to serve in the State legislature, where he was 
able to positively affect the lives of citizens of Maine well beyond 
the borders of his legislative district.
  With gratitude for his service to the State of Maine, I ask all 
Members to join me in the support of H.R. 2173.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from northern Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and my 
friend from Massachusetts. I can't help but rise, having heard our 
friend from Arizona who decided that really we were sort of wasting our 
time, despite the words of our friend from Utah just now, on the naming 
of a post office.
  I'm reminded of the words from the book of Ecclesiastes that to 
everything there is a season. Today, at this moment, that season 
involves the naming of a post office that matters a lot to that 
community, that family, the memory of that individual, to the Members 
who represent that area in the United States Congress.
  There will be time enough to debate cap-and-trade. In fact, last 
night we spent over an hour talking about cap-and-trade on our side of 
the aisle. I was privileged to participate in that.
  But I think that it's easy sometimes when one has perfected the 
politics of ``gotcha'' to sound sanctimonious that one is rising above 
the trivial and addressing real issues when, as a matter of fact, in 
this body we address a whole range of issues.
  I just rise in defense of the naming of a post office that's not 
trivial to part

[[Page H6089]]

of the folks we represent in this body and hardly represents the 
avoidance of a vigorous debate that I look forward to on cap-and-trade 
when that season is right.
  I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield such time as she may consume to my 
distinguished colleague from the State of North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Utah for the recognition. I want 
to make it clear, as my colleague from Arizona made it clear, we mean 
no disrespect, no denigration to the people for whom these post offices 
are being named. In fact, we're all very proud of Mr. McHugh, the 
nominee for the Secretary of the Army, whose bill preceded this bill.
  I want to commend my colleague from Maine for introducing this 
legislation to honor Carl B. Smith with a post office named in his 
honor. However, we know the way that things are handled around here. 
It's been all too clear a pattern.
  When it comes time to debate the legislation that is of major 
significance to everyone in this country, we wind up with closed rules 
and we wind up with debate cut off. And so it is up to us to inform the 
American people at every opportunity that we have what the impact of 
proposed legislation by the majority is going to be.
  We hear over and over again when earmarks are requested by people on 
the other side that it's important that they bring home the bacon to 
their districts. Well, it's important to our constituents that they be 
told how much this cap-and-tax bill is going to cost them, because many 
Americans do not know it.
  And I would say that the things that I have heard in Special Orders 
and even in the 1-minutes where folks on the other side are talking 
about cap-and-tax, it's as though we're talking about two different 
bills.
  So we're not really having a debate on the merits of a piece of 
legislation. We're hearing a lot of propaganda about that legislation, 
but we're not having a real true debate on it. So it's up to us to 
inform the American people of the facts of the legislation.
  As my colleagues have said before, the cap-and-tax bill that was 
passed out of the Congress in the Energy Committee a couple of weeks 
ago is a government planning scheme. It is more of taking all the 
choices in people's lives in this country up to the Federal Government 
level.
  It will stifle private sector innovation. We are the most innovative 
country in the world because of the freedom that we have, and yet all 
the legislation coming through this Congress is aimed at stifling that 
freedom.
  It is going to result in higher consumer energy prices. We know that. 
The President has admitted it. One of our colleagues from Michigan has 
admitted it's a huge tax. The President has said the prices are going 
to skyrocket. So how can they deny it when their own leadership has 
said it?
  We know it's going to result in job losses, lower wages, and stock 
devaluation. It's not likely to reduce emissions, and there is no 
guarantee that reducing U.S. emissions is going to stop what is being 
called global warming. We don't even know that human beings are causing 
the global warming.
  So we're using--I'm not even sure you can call it bad science. I 
think using the term ``science'' in conjunction with what is the 
underlying rationale for this bill is too strong a word.
  But Republicans do have an alternative. Contrary to what our 
colleagues are saying over and over, we are not the Party of No. We are 
the Party of Do, and do right by the American people.
  The American Energy Innovation Act, which is the Republican 
alternative to this, encourages innovation within the energy market to 
create the renewable fuel options and energy careers of tomorrow. It 
promotes greater conservation and efficiency by providing incentives 
for easing energy demand and creating a cleaner, more sustainable 
environment.
  It increases the production of American energy by responsibly 
utilizing all available resources and technologies and streamlining 
burdensome regulations.
  We have an alternative. It is a viable alternative. But that bill 
will never be debated. You talk about wanting debate. You talk about 
wanting discussions. Why not bring that bill up and let it be debated? 
Why not put it up for a vote just like the cap-and-tax bill will be put 
up for a vote?
  No, that's not the way of this majority. The way of this majority is 
to stifle every idea that is good for this country and say, We won. 
We're going to do what we want to do. That's the attitude of the 
majority party. That is not true debate.
  We would love to have true debate. We'd love to see the people on 
this floor have choices. They are not being given choices. They're not 
being allowed to debate.
  So, Madam Speaker, we don't mean in any way to take away from the 
honors being given to these people for whom post offices are being 
named. As was pointed out earlier, one of them was by one of our 
Republican colleagues that we respect. But we think it's important to 
inform the American people of what they will be facing if some of the 
legislation being proposed by the Democrat majority is passed.
  Mr. LYNCH. I yield myself such time as I may consume just to rebut 
the fallacy that the other side of the aisle needs to step on a bill 
that Mr. McHugh put forward to recognize someone from his district 
because we're naming a post office for that individual; or the 
gentleman from Tennessee who was honored, Governor Wilder, 30 years 
served as Lieutenant Governor of that State.
  The other side argues that there's a lack of opportunity to talk 
about these other issues so they have to use the time that was 
designated to honor these people--a very brief amount of time, by the 
way. Normally, just a few minutes on each side, we get rid of these 
bills. They have extended the time we have spent on this floor.
  But I just want to take today's schedule. Today's schedule, we have 
hearings all over the Capitol. We have 14 hearings in the Senate; some 
of those dealing with cap-and-trade. We have 18 hearings where Members 
of Congress will stand behind microphones just like this one and 
expound of their views on issues everywhere from agriculture to 
appropriations to energy and commerce, which is the subject matter that 
the other side would like to talk about.
  There are ample opportunities for people in Congress to talk and talk 
and talk. Matter of fact, it reminds me of that movie, ``Charlie 
Wilson's War.'' Charlie Wilson's secretary, who was not familiar with 
the workings of Congress, turned to the Congressman and said, Charlie, 
why do Members of Congress talk and talk and talk and talk and never do 
anything? And Charlie turned to her and he said, Well, honey, mostly 
it's tradition. And that's what's going on here.
  I have great respect for the ranking member, the gentleman from Utah, 
who came up and talked about the bill that was on the floor, talked 
about its merits. And Carl B. Smith; this is a post office being named 
after a gentleman who worked as a rural letter carrier.
  Now you may laugh down your nose at that, but we seem to think that's 
honorable service to our country. Just because this guy was a letter 
carrier is no reason for Members on the other side of the aisle to 
denigrate his service, to denigrate the honor that's being bestowed 
upon him.
  This man worked his entire life. He was a veteran. He was a letter 
carrier. This is the backbone of America. He was a proud union member. 
He dedicated his life. He was a good American. He put on the uniform of 
this country. Served in the Army. What about his service? What about 
his service?
  Instead, we get a bunch of . . . standing up here spouting about 
stuff that you can talk in any single committee hearing on this 
schedule.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I ask to take his words down.
  Mr. LYNCH. I withdraw my comments. I apologize. I apologize on the 
word ``blowhard.'' I retract that. I retract that.
  Instead, we have Members----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the words are stricken.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LYNCH. I ask to strike.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will 
proceed.

[[Page H6090]]

  Mr. LYNCH. That was overreaching on my part.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will proceed.
  Mr. LYNCH. Instead of giving those gentlemen--the gentleman from 
Tennessee, who served 30 years, Carl Smith, 30 years as an elected 
official and a postal servicemember, and Frederic Remington--giving 
them their due time on this floor, the brief moment that they have, 
probably the highest moment of achievement for certainly Mr. Smith in 
Maine--and, by the way, the sponsor of that resolution, Mike Michaud, 
is actually chairing a subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs so he can't be 
here. So he has relied upon us to extend the basic courtesy to someone 
in his district who dedicated their lives to this country.
  He was a man of a common position; just a rural letter carrier--like 
a lot of folks in this country, from a small town--and we're trying to 
name a post office after him.
  Mr. Michaud sent this bill over while he is in committee dealing with 
veterans' affairs and debating those issues and asked us to handle 
this. I just think some of us have handled that responsibility poorly. 
That's what I think. That's my opinion.
  And I just wish that even though you may look down your nose at this, 
you may not think that this is important at all, it's very important 
for these families and for these individuals to be honored.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. May I inquire as to the remaining time, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say that I appreciate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and sometimes the emotions. It seems to me, having just 
joined this debate, that we have spent more time criticizing what the 
Republican side of the aisle would like to talk about and that we have 
started to engage in the politics of personal destruction as opposed to 
talking about the issues of the day that are going to affect not just 
this one letter carrier who has served honorably.
  I just want to reiterate the great work and dedication that this 
individual gave to the State. I think it is appropriate that we 
recognize and have a post office named after him. That's quite an honor 
that will stay, I hope, for a long, long period of time, for eons of 
time so that people can appreciate and can get to know and recognize 
him.
  At the same time, I think a fair assessment would be, while we can 
give these individuals a few minutes of time and can recognize their 
strengths and contributions to the State, we do need more ample time to 
deal with what could be the single largest tax increase in the history 
of the United States of America, an increase that is going to touch 
every single American's life.
  While there may be committee meetings over in the Senate and on 
committees that I'm not a participant in, I would hope that this body 
would continue to extend the time to talk about one of the most 
pertinent issues--the cap-and-trade--and the opposition that many of us 
here on the Republican side of the aisle feel to this bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I welcome the gentleman's remarks. I 
understand the pressures put on the schedule, but I do know there is 
enormous opportunity for Congress. Never in the history of this country 
have we had more outlets and more opportunity to get our message out.
  Last night, I know that our side took an hour just to talk about cap-
and-trade. I know that your side does the same thing. There are a lot 
of opportunities and a lot of forums in this building and elsewhere on 
Capitol Hill to speak about them. We have a lot of issues. We have a 
lot of issues that confront us today, and there are many, many, many 
opportunities to express our opinions. I just think that this is one 
little slice of time that we have put aside for a significant purpose. 
It may be a narrow purpose in recognizing certain individuals, but I 
think that it should be dedicated and spent on that purpose without 
intervening subject matter denigrating that recognition and that honor 
that is so well deserved.
  With that, I welcome the gentleman's remarks. Again, if it were not 
clear before, I apologize for my earlier remarks. The descriptions were 
inappropriate, and I do apologize for those remarks. Again, I ask that 
they be stricken from the Record.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the 
passage of H.R. 2173, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, with that and on behalf of the gentleman 
who is the lead sponsor of this resolution, Mike Michaud from Maine, in 
honor of Carl B. Smith, we ask that this resolution be supported 
unanimously by the Members of Congress in recognition of a good, good 
American.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2173.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________