Expressing the sense of Congress that China release democratic activist Liu Xiaobo from imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California, my friend, for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule--once again, a closed rule--coming out of the Rules Committee and the process that brought this bill to the floor. My friends on the other side of the aisle for the first time in history shut down the appropriation process by placing extremely restrictive rules on every single appropriation bill that has come to the floor of the House this year. Chairman Obey set an arbitrary timeline to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills, which has forced the Democrat Rules Committee to limit every Republican and Democrat's chance to offer an amendment on the floor.

Why? For what reason? There are hundreds of good amendments which were offered by all of my colleagues which were rejected in this unprecedented fashion. Now that this House has finished all the appropriation bills, you would think that my friends on the other side of the aisle would allow for an appropriate time and an appropriate process for consideration of the conference reports, not just come to this House floor but for Members to be heard from and for us to go back to a process which this House was used to in its precedents for so many years.

But no. Last night the conference report was filed after 6 p.m., I believe 6:17, and the Rules Committee met at 7:15 to report out a rule for floor consideration. Our Democrat colleagues in the committee waived the House rule that requires a 3-day layover of conference reports and scheduled a bill on the floor first thing this morning. Additionally, just last week this House voted to adopt a motion to instruct that stated that the conference report, a bill that we are discussing on the floor here today, should be available online in a searchable format for at least 48 hours before it's voted on.

Well, Mr. Speaker, forget the 3-day rule. Forget the 48-hour motion to instruct; this House was given just less than 24 hours to review the conference report and its changes. I don't know when my Democrat colleagues will allow for the open, honest and ethical Congress that they once called for, but we're on the floor once again saying, We have met the deadline that Chairman Obey wanted. Can we get back to a normal process now, a normal process that is not good just for Republicans and not just for our Democratic Members but good for this House to follow?

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the Energy and Water appropriation conference report for fiscal year 2010. Today it is my intention to focus on the increase in spending over last year's level and destructive initiatives that the Democrat majority continues to pursue that have only killed jobs and led to record deficits. This administration and this Democratic Congress promised the American public jobs, economic growth, economic recovery, health care, a cleaner environment, better education and just a wonderful, wonderful life, all contained within their appropriation bills. And the list goes on and on with other promises.

Yet the only thing up to now that they really have accomplished is record deficits, record spending and record unemployment numbers all across America. The fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water appropriation conference report provides $33.5 billion in total funding, which is hundreds of millions of dollars above last year's level, and this is in addition to the $58.7 billion provided in fiscal year 2009 emergency funding just from a few months ago, mostly from the stimulus bill.

We have seen massive government spending. Now this bill does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability. More promises, more spending, more deficit, more record unemployment. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration promised America, if Congress passed the stimulus bill, that unemployment would not go beyond 8 percent, that it would create and save millions of jobs. Here we are 8 months later with a record 9.7 unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years, and more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the passage of the $1.2 trillion ``stimulus employment plan.''

This summer when discussing the stimulus, Vice President Biden said the Obama administration--and I quote--``misread how bad the economy was,'' even though as a candidate for President and Vice President both of them had been all over the country. They had seen firsthand exactly the circumstance this country was in.

The Obama administration got it wrong. They got it wrong when it came to the stimulus, and the American people know they got it wrong also. The American people can no longer afford this Democrat-controlled House, Senate and White House. We've got to start getting it right, not guessing and getting it wrong. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars more in addition to the $58 billion additional spending this year is not a way to fix the problem. In June of this year, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap-and-trade bill that will raise prices on energy, goods, and services, and every single hardworking American across the country will pay that price.

In my home State of Texas, the average household can expect to pay more than $1,100 a year extra as a result of that legislation. Additionally, this legislation could ultimately kill over 1.38 million jobs that are in the manufacturing sector of this economy. That's 1.38 million more jobs.

Mr. Speaker, some time this month the Democrat-controlled House wants to pass sweeping health care reform. Effectively, it will diminish the employer-based insurance market and forces 114 million Americans into a government-run program. This $1.2 trillion package raises taxes once again, raises taxes once again, raises taxes once again, which is what this Democratic-controlled Congress is about. Raise $1.2 trillion in taxes on individuals and small businesses that do not participate in the government plan and $800 billion, which the President talks about will be necessary to fund this massive government takeover and will result in 4.7 to 5.5 million more private-sector jobs being lost in America.

In July, the Congressional Budget Office director stated that the Democratic health care proposal ``significantly expands the Federal responsibility for health care costs.'' Mr. Speaker, I thought that the goal of health reform was to bring costs down for Americans, not to increase the cost, further America toward bankruptcy and to cost 4.7 to 5.5 million more enterprise system jobs. By the way, those are jobs that are not in Washington, D.C.

The American people know that you cannot spend what you don't have, and that's exactly what we are doing here today with the Democratic majority. Earlier this month, the Treasury Department released a statement reporting that the Federal budget deficit reached a record $1.378 trillion and that the national debt reached $11.8 trillion by the end of August. This means that since 2007, this Democratic Congress has increased the Federal deficit by $1.217 billion and increased the national debt by over $3 trillion. What a record.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to point out that our friends on the other side of the aisle should not tax and spend not only this country but also hardworking families into a further economic recession.

My Democratic colleagues need to get a handle on the out-of-control spending which they dogged us repeatedly about when we were in the majority at far lesser levels.

Rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in spending by Uncle Sam. Huge energy and health care costs that raise taxes and kill jobs is not what our economy needs right now. Americans need a balance. They need to listen to what is happening in Washington only to see that Washington is the problem, not the answer. Americans are tightening their belts because they get it. Congress should be doing the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked today about the process. We have talked today about spending. And we have talked about the overall agenda of this

Democratic majority that is about taxing, it is about spending, it is about record unemployment, rather than working on the things that the American people, the people back home who sent us here to do our job, are working on.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the thought process here in Washington is that we can solve all the problems that our country has, just trust Washington. I think now more than ever we are seeing at the end of this year that the leadership in Washington, D.C., the bills that are on this floor, the votes which we take virtually every single time, every single vote is about more taxes, more spending, more rules and regulations that are thrown to the American people with this package about how great this is for the American people.

Yet what happens is that Members of Congress, lots of them in our body on both sides, go back home and they listen to the American people. And they listen to the American people talk what I think is a lot of common sense: common sense about how to fix our health care, how to fix our spending, how to fix the unemployment, how to encourage manufacturing rather than deleting it.

Then they look up and see the political agenda of the Democratic Party, that in the three biggest political bills that represent the Democratic Party we will lose almost 10 million jobs in this country; and the political agenda of the Democratic Party, one which this body is barreling down that pathway to meet and match, has resulted in disaster for people back home.

So the Republican Party will continue to come to Washington and be faithful after listening, and we will go to our committees and we will throw our ideas on the floor and ask the committees to vote on them. We will continue to have Members come to the Rules Committee that seek time, permission to speak about ideas that will better the bills.

Yet we find that in these instances before the Rules Committee, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter not just for Republicans, but it really doesn't matter to a Democrat either. They will block the best ideas that come from the heartland.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to continue. We are once again coming to the floor, as I have done all year, and my colleagues David Dreier, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Virginia Foxx, as we explain the rules and explain the Rules Committee, explain what is happening: receiving a bill at 3 o'clock in the morning; getting a bill, as we did last night, 1 hour before the meeting; not even following the rules from a resolution we had just the week before about online availability of bills.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder the American people are up in arms and insisting that Members of Congress read the bill first; that every single Member of this body is given a chance every single time to say, I disagree with the direction that the Democratic leadership is taking us.

We need to read the bills. We need to take the ideas from people in the heartland, through their Representatives in committees and up in the Rules Committee, and make these in order and follow a process that the American people, if they were sitting in, would say, Why not take more time? Why not understand the bill? Why not cut spending? Why not make some commonsense directional issues happen in this Congress? This leadership, these bills continue to follow a process that the American people are questioning.

We will continue coming to the floor and politely, on behalf of people back home, say that we would hope that we would go back to regular processes instead of setting a new record every time for closed rules. I think it's important. I think it's important.

We will keep coming to the floor, and we will dutifully keep speaking up, and we will make sure that we are properly representing those people who are talking about better process, better direction, and doing the things that will work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 788 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 788.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 788 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2010. The rule is a standard conference report rule. It waives all points of order against the conference report and against the consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. However, I want to point out that although the rule waives all points of order, the conference report does not violate either clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Obey as well as Mr. Pastor for their work to bring this conference report before the House today.

When we think of the long-term health of our country, the Energy and Water appropriations bill is one of the most important bills that we consider. The conference report before us today will keep communities safe from flooding, invest in clean energy and renewable technologies, fight nuclear proliferation, and create jobs through infrastructure development.

Without this bill, millions of homes would be exposed to devastating floods, clean energy research that will power the next generation of money-making technologies will stop, nuclear weapons proliferation would pick up again, and the pace of job creation in the clean energy sector would slow to a crawl or even stop altogether. These are the reasons why today's conference report is so important.

In the field of energy, the conference report fulfills Congress's promise to chart a new path for a national energy policy. The conference agreement provides $27 billion for the Department of Energy to help fund clean energy development and perform basic scientific research. It devotes millions of dollars to solar energy development, advanced vehicle technologies, energy-efficient buildings, and biofuels that can be grown right here at home.

When we make our own fuel, Mr. Speaker, we create domestic jobs and also take steps toward becoming energy independent. We recognized this fact in the Energy and Commerce Committee when we wrote the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is why I'm pleased to see these provisions part of today's conference report.

This appropriations bill also funds a number of applied research grants at the Department of Energy for potentially high-reward activities like fusion energy, high-energy physics, and biological research. Future generations will look back at these investments and thank us for having the foresight to recognize that one generation's long-term research is future generations' short-term gain.

Many of my colleagues would be satisfied to know that the conference report also devotes resources to fossil fuel-based energy that can provide a boost to our energy independence efforts in relatively short order. In it, $672 million is provided for research and development into things like carbon capture and sequestration, natural gas recovery, and unconventional petroleum research activities. This research will benefit independent petroleum producers and can also help make our country more energy independent for the short term.

Also to that end, the conference report takes a responsible approach toward nuclear energy by investing in fuel cycle research and development. By providing more than $700 million for nuclear energy, the conferees made the pragmatic calculation that nuclear will be part of our energy mix in the short term. But no matter how electricity is generated, one challenge we face is delivering it effectively to its destination. For this reason, the conference report provides more than $100 million to modernize and secure our national electricity grid. By almost tripling the amount of funding for grid-connected energy storage and cybersecurity, the conferees have recognized how closely our energy policy is tied to our national security.

The energy portion of this conference report is only half the story though, Mr. Speaker. For my district and for people living in floodplains across the country, this energy and water conference report is a major victory. Funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is increased over both 2009 levels and over the President's request for a total of $5.4 billion. For my constituents, this funding can be a matter of life and death. My district is where the Sacramento and American Rivers converge. As a result, Sacramento is the most at-risk city for major flooding in the United States. More than 440,000 people, 110,000 structures, the capitol of the State of California and up to $58 billion are at risk from flooding in my district alone. Nearly $90 million of vital funding in this conference report will reinforce levees along the American and Sacramento Rivers to keep these national assets safe and dry.

For all of Sacramento, this means safer homes, more secure schools, better protected community centers and a higher quality of life. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, Federal levees currently provide a 6-to-1 return on flood damages prevented when compared to initial building costs.

But the flood protection funding in this conference agreement is more than just dollars and cents, Mr. Speaker. When I go home and walk along the Sacramento River, and when I look at the houses and schools and parks that sit behind the levees, I'm reminded how vital the Energy and Water bill is. In many parts of the country, it can mean the difference between a thriving city and a disaster area. Flood protection is a regional undertaking though. Floodwaters do not stop and start based on congressional district boundaries. That is why I am pleased that the conference report contains more than $60 million to improve the ability of Folsom Dam to protect my constituents who live below it. This money will also help the Joint Federal Project to provide greater efficiency in managing flood storage in Folsom Reservoir.

Around the whole country, from Sacramento to the Mississippi River Delta, from rural Ohio to the Bronx River Basin, this conference agreement protects our communities by investing in our aging infrastructure. And when we rebuild our infrastructure, we rebuild our economy. The infrastructure funding in this conference report before us today will continue this pattern of creating jobs while investing in public

safety. For that reason, I strongly support the rule and the underlying conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Obey and the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on this conference agreement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle that we're not debating the American Clean Energy and Security Act or the health care reform bill. We are dealing today with the conference report for Energy and Water Development.

And I must say that this is a bill, a conference report, that has strong bipartisan support. As far as job creation, this is about infrastructure, spending on public safety projects that will save jobs across America. As I said before, it's a smart investment, the type of smart investment the American people want this Congress to be making at this difficult point in our history.

Our Nation's levees are crumbling, and we're putting public health at risk because of things like that. This is the time to invest in infrastructure like this.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The rule before us today is a fair rule that is aligned with the customary practice of the House for rules governing debate on conference reports.

After numerous hearings and constructive negotiations with the Senate, the Appropriations Committee has crafted an important and balanced bill. It invests in new technologies, scientific research, and conservation efforts that are critical to the long-term health of our economy and our planet.

Most importantly for my district, this legislation increases funding for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Every dollar is crucial for my constituents in Sacramento as we work to improve our water infrastructure, as I know it is to all my colleagues in the House with similar bills.

I want to thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Pastor for recognizing how critical this funding is to all of us. We rely upon it to fortify our levees, raise our dams, and keep our communities safe and dry.

This bill also looks to the future by investing in the development of a new smart grid to ensure electricity delivery and energy reliability. And it makes a strong commitment to renewable energy and scientific research.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of this resolution which calls for the release of one of the true heroes of the democracy movement in China. I want to thank our colleague from Idaho, Mr. Minnick, for introducing this measure and for agreeing to include portions of the similar resolution that was introduced 4 months ago beforehand by my friend, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, Mr. McCotter.

As a young professor, Liu Xiaobo served bravely as an advisor to the students at Tiananmen Square. For his courageous stand, he was detained and imprisoned by the Chinese Communist authorities. Now he has been detained again.

What led to Mr. Liu's detention this time was his promotion of Charter 08, which he signed last December on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Mr. Liu's court sentencing awaits, however, another anniversary. A military extravaganza to be staged by China's Communist Party will take place tomorrow. Tanks will roll in once again and the sounds of the boots of PLA soldiers will echo once more in Tiananmen Square as they did on that fateful June night two decades ago when democracy in China was killed.

Tomorrow's holiday, October 1, is remembered as the day in 1949 when Chairman Mao stood atop the Gate of Heavenly Peace and declared victory for Communist forces. After that, things were neither heavenly nor peaceful in China. Mr. Liu saw the need for reform.

He and his associates took their inspiration for a charter calling for greater freedom of expression for human rights and for free elections from the Charter 77 movement in Czechoslovakia. One of the architects of that movement, democracy advocate and former Czech President Vaclav Havel, had this to say about Mr. Liu and his efforts. In a December 19, 2008, opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Havel wrote, ``The Chinese Government should learn well the lesson of the Charter 77 movement that intimidation, propaganda campaigns, and repression are no substitute for reasoned dialogue. Only the immediate and unconditional release of Liu Xiaobo will demonstrate that, for Beijing, that this lesson has been learned.''

Our words should echo those of that greater fighter for democracy, Vaclav Havel. Beijing, open your eyes. That

flashy new weapon that you will display in tomorrow's military parade is no substitute for the torch light of the Goddess of Freedom and the Goddess of Democracy torn down in Tiananmen Square.

Use the October 1 movement, that anniversary, to immediately release democratic activist Liu Xiaobo. That would be the best way to commemorate China's national day.

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in vigorous support for this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we meet here today to consider this resolution, for tomorrow, as I said, will mark a day of infamy that has profoundly influenced the history of the world for the past 60 years. On October 1, 1949, Chairman Mao stood astride Tiananmen Gate in Beijing and declared a new communist China. That was the same square where 40 years later on a June 9 night in 1989, tanks and troops overran students, workers and the goddess of democracy, crushing their peaceful cries for democratic reform.

Tomorrow 200,000 PLA troops will march through Tiananmen Square. In a display worthy of the height of Stalinism in the former Soviet Union, Beijing's leader will show off the might of their latest military hardware. Foreign diplomats have been warned to close their windows and stay off their balconies as this parade passes by, however, for fear of being shot.

This is the new China which Mao proclaimed. Some say that we should hold our tongues with regard to the Beijing regime's actions because that regime holds America's pocketbook. Others say that the day of accommodation has arrived.

But I believe that this is a wrong, misguided, and immoral stance. We should stand tall for American values and with the goddess of democracy and not remain silent in the face of systematic human rights abuses. Next week, that ambassador of peace and serenity, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, will visit us in Washington. Every President since George Herbert Walker Bush has met with the Dalai Lama during his Washington visits, despite vigorous protests from Beijing that he is a splittist. President Obama should do no less.

Tomorrow I will join my voice with that of Liu Xiaobo and the other signers of the Charter 08 whom we honor in this resolution in calling for a new, free and democratic China. This is what we should commemorate on October 1, rather than 60 years of repression by the Communist regime in China.

Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Cao, a member of the Homeland Security and Transportation Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership and for bringing this important issue to the floor.

On May 16, I delivered the commencement address to the 2009 graduates of the University of Idaho. During my speech, I challenged each of those college graduates to take up the cause of Mr. Liu Xiaobo, an intellectual and literary critic who has spent much of his adult life imprisoned or under house arrest by the Chinese authorities because he had the courage to speak and write that China should allow its citizens freedom of speech and urge that it should allow those citizens to select their government by free and open elections.

Today, on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Liu's trial is set to begin any day on charges which could lead him to be sentenced for up to 15 years in prison. Mr. Liu has been held since officials took him into custody on December 8, 2008, a day before the release of Charter 08, a declaration he coauthored that calls for political reform, greater human rights, and an end to one- party rule in China.

Mr. Liu Xiaobo was formally arrested on June 23, 2009, by the Beijing Public Security Bureau and charged with ``inciting subversion of state power.'' He has been held under criminal detention while Chinese authorities investigate his case.

In the months after taking Mr. Liu into custody, officials kept Liu in residential surveillance under conditions that violated Chinese laws, including denying Mr. Liu access to counsel and keeping him at an undisclosed location beyond the legal time limit.

I urge that the Chinese Government, as a much admired global power and important partner of my country on many issues important to the future of mankind, grant Mr. Liu a free and fair trial. It should be open to the public, including representatives of international news agencies, where the charges against him will be fairly decided by a judge free from political pressure and instructed to consider only the law and facts of the case.

I further urge that Mr. Liu be allowed to be represented by qualified counsel of his own choosing, have the right to face and cross-examine his accusers, and present witnesses and evidence to prove his innocence. If he is allowed to do so, I anticipate he will be cleared of all charges, and then urge that he be immediately set free and allowed to resume his peaceful pursuit of civil rights and a fully democratic government.

Mr. Liu's leadership has been an inspiration to me and to an untold number of people in China and around the world for his courage to stand up for civil liberties and to demand that his great and proud nation allow free elections at all levels of its government. His courage embodies the emerging global consensus that all people should be allowed to speak freely and have the right to demand that their country be governed by a true representative democracy.

By passing this resolution, the House of Representatives will be sending a strong message that the American people do not condone suppression of freedom of thought or expression.

I thank my colleagues and ask for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 151) expressing the sense of Congress that China release democratic activist Liu Xiaobo from imprisonment, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that China should immediately release democratic activist Liu Xiaobo from prison. I would like to thank my friend Mr. Minnick of Idaho for sponsoring this important resolution that allows Congress to stand in solidarity with Mr. Liu and to express support for the democratic ideals he is fighting for.

Last December, Chinese police hauled away Mr. Liu, a writer, former university professor, and a veteran of the 1989 Tiananmen protests just hours after the circulation of an online petition he helped organize. Called Charter 08, this petition calls for greater development of human rights and reform of the Chinese political system.

Charter 08 has more than 300 original signers, representing a broad cross-section of Chinese society, including not only dissidents and public intellectuals, but also workers, farmers, entrepreneurs, professionals, local officials, and others. The petition was circulated widely online and accumulated more than 8,000 signatures throughout China before the Chinese Government shut down the Web site.

Charter 08 was conceived and written in conscious admiration of Charter 77, a document issued in 1977 by dissidents in Czechoslovakia. The Chinese document calls for an end to some features of China's current political system, including replacing one-party rule with a system based on human rights and democracy. The courageous Chinese citizens who have signed the charter are bravely declaring that the status quo in China is unacceptable and unsustainable.

Instead of thoughtfully addressing the ideas raised by the petition and responding to the dissidents, the Chinese Government has sought to silence their voices by harassing, intimidating, and arresting them.

Chinese authorities violated Chinese law in the handling of Mr. Liu's case, holding him incommunicado beyond the legal time limit at an undisclosed location and denying him access to his family or lawyers. In June, Mr. Liu was charged with subversion. He could face up to 15 years in jail.

The Chinese Government seems unaware of the irony of its actions, since its efforts to quash Charter 08 only underscore China's failure to uphold the very principles that the charter advances.

I strongly support this resolution and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this very important resolution, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Minnick).

Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.