Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a policy in my office that every time anyone from my district actually comes to the Capitol, they have a right to see me and talk to me, especially young people. And I have, over the years, seen hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of young people from my home district in southern California. And I let them talk to me and ask any questions that they would like to ask.

And I have a question that I always ask them, and I thought it would be interesting for my colleagues and perhaps any of those who are watching C-SPAN or reading this in the Congressional Record to know the answer that I get when I ask a question of the young high school students from my district.

Mr. Speaker, when our kids come in to my office and are talking to me, I note that I was actually in high school in southern California 47 years ago. And I always ask the kids, is the air better quality today, or is it worse today than when I was going to high school in southern California 47 years ago?

And 90 percent of the students, over the years, whom I've asked that question to have had exactly the wrong answer. Their answer is, oh, you were so lucky to live at a time when the air quality in southern California and around the Nation was so good, and it's so terrible that we have to put up today with air quality that's killing us.

They've been told that the air quality when I was in high school was so much better than it is today, which is 180 degrees wrong. But this is a general attitude among today's young people because our young people are being lied to. They are intentionally being given misinformation.

Now, their teachers may not be intentionally lying to them, but their teachers maybe are given information from scientists and other sources that is an exact lie from people who know that, yes, the air quality back when I went to school, and I go into description about how the air quality was so bad at times we couldn't even go out on the playground. They wouldn't even let us out of the classroom on to the sports field because the air was so bad. Today that happens maybe once a year or twice a year in southern California. Back then it happened once a week at times during the summer and during the school year.

So our kids have this view that their generation is being poisoned, and they're willing to accept stringent measures in order to protect the environment that take away a great deal of the opportunity that they should have in their lives in order to correct this horrible problem that they're told that they've got.

Well, when I tell them it's just the opposite, they're so surprised. Well, the truth is, our Nation's environment is no longer the disaster that it was 50 years ago. And 50 years ago we did have a problem. Fifty years ago I remember that when my dad was a Marine down in Quantico, when I was a child I came up here several times and my dad would say, whatever you do, don't put your finger in the Potomac River or your finger will fall off. Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but it was really bad.

We've made tremendous progress over the years on the Potomac River. I can't help but notice there are people water-skiing and sailing and fishing in the Potomac now.

Well, we don't live in the same time of 50 years ago. The air today has never been cleaner than at any time in my lifetime. The water has never been cleaner in any time in my lifetime than it is today. And I am hopeful that my children will never have to experience the pollution that was rampant when I was their age.

So, let's take a look and give credit where credit's due. That progress is, in large part, because of the efforts of the government, well, and the EPA, yes, which came in under President Nixon, and others who have used science to fight for environmental reforms and to improve the quality of life of our people.

And while I am thankful, I also would like to heed the warning that President Eisenhower left with us in his farewell address. And I quote, ``that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.''

He was warning us about government-funded research becoming so intertwined with public policy and the creation of regulations it would compromise the integrity of both.

Well, in recent years, we've seen political agendas being driven by scientific-sounding claims being used to frighten the general public again and again and again.

An unjustified fear has been used, for example, to ban DDT. I remember when I was a kid, and I used to run through these clouds of DDT--again, when my father was in the military down in North Carolina. Yes, it was killing millions of mosquitos in North Carolina, but when they banned that DDT, I seem to remember it had something to do with the thickness of shells of certain birds. Well, they banned DDT, and because of that we have had millions of deaths due to malaria in Africa. Millions of young African children, because they don't have a good diet, succumb to a disease like malaria and die because of it. These children are dead--make no mistake about it--because we were frightened into an irrational position on DDT, banning that and thus destroying the lives of millions of children in the Third World.

We've seen alarmism with ``The Population Bomb.'' Do you remember that in 1968? It was a book claiming that increasing populations and decreasing agricultural yield would lead to cannibalism and global warfare over scarce resources by the mid-1970s. Here we are a long way from the 1970s, and I'm afraid Malthus, who 150 years ago started this type of scarism, was wrong, wrong, wrong. Right now, there are a lot of scientists, unfortunately, who are molding themselves after the Malthus mistakes that were made 150 years ago.

Today's environmental alarmists use faulty and, in some cases, deceitful computer models to ``prove'' that the world is being destroyed one way or the other, quite often, in the ones they've been using in the last 10 years, of course, was that the world was being destroyed by manmade carbon emissions. This is proven by their computer models, even though the Earth has seen significantly higher atmospheric carbon levels many times before. Those were not necessarily bad times for this planet, but those computer models were suggesting, because of carbon emissions, we were going to face a catastrophe. In fact, I remember very well the predictions of 10 and 15 years ago that, by now, we would have reached a tipping point in the temperature of the world-- that we'd have reached a temperature of about now--and then it would go up 5 to 10 degrees, which is a big jump, but we haven't seen that big jump.

The alarmists, of course, are not interested when they make mistakes, and they're not really interested in solving real problems. They are part of a coalition that wants to change our way of life--that's their goal--with their computerizations showing that just horrible times are ahead of us unless we change. The idea isn't to stop those horrible times, because those horrible times are just a product of what they put into their computers. Of course we all know what ``garbage in, garbage out'' means. If you put into a computer that you're going to have some kind of disaster, that's what you're going to get out of your computer, but what they have in mind, of

course, and what they want to do is to change the way of life--our life--which requires us to acquiesce, or better yet, they frighten us into submission.

Make no mistake: manmade global warming, as a theory, is being pushed by people who believe in global government. They have been looking for an excuse for an incredible freedom-busting centralization of power, and this global warming is just the latest in a long line of such scares.

This was recently acknowledged by the godfather of the global warming theory, a man who over the years has been given such credit for laying the intellectual foundation and the scientific foundation for the theory of manmade global warming. His name is James Lovelock. James Lovelock, however, has changed his mind. James Lovelock now concedes-- and after a longtime dialogue with Burt Rutan, one of the great engineers of our day--has come around to understand that he was not being totally honest about things when he was accepting information that bolstered his position, and was rejecting the consideration of other information. He has changed his mind about the real threat that global warming poses to the Earth--not that there wouldn't be any global warming but that it has been totally exaggerated by the scientific community, and that he, himself, played a major role in that exaggeration.

Dr. James Lovelock is in an article in the Toronto Sun, which is entitled, ``Green 'drivel' exposed: The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria,'' which is what we have been hearing over these last few years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce for the Record this article that was just recently in the Toronto Sun, and I would like to put this in the Record at this point.

[From the Toronto Sun, June 23, 2012]

Green `Drivel' Exposed

The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change

hysteria

(By Lorrie Goldstein)

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global

warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he

acknowledged he had been unduly ``alarmist'' about climate

change.

The implications were extraordinary.

Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist

whose Gaia theory--that the Earth operates as a single,

living organism--has had a profound impact on the development

of global warming theory.

Unlike many ``environmentalists,'' who have degrees in

political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at

age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other

scientific organizations.

Lovelock's invention of the electron capture detector in

1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs

(chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere,

leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern

environmental movement.

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of

the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based

climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, ``the

problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We

thought we knew 20 years ago.'' Now, Lovelock has given a

follow-up interview to the UK's Guardian newspaper in which

he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green

movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and

apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made

climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is

occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas

emissions, but says it's now clear the doomsday predictions,

including his own (and Al Gore's) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that,

unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government

funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he's

never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new

evidence. Indeed, that's how science advances.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to

lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular

with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour

of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also

oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, ``Gas is almost a give-away in the

U.S. at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way.

This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying

to knock it . . . Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get

Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going

mad on it.'' (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United

Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments

last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro,

advocating the development of conventional and unconventional

natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and

save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming

like a religion.

``It just so happens that the green religion is now taking

over from the Christian religion,'' Lovelock observed. ``I

don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the

sort of terms that religions use . . . The greens use guilt.

That just shows how religious greens are. You can't win

people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon

dioxide) in the air.''

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered

by wind turbines.

As he puts it, ``so-called 'sustainable development' . . .

is meaningless drivel . . . We rushed into renewable energy

without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly

inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can't stand

windmills at any price.''

(4) Finally, about claims ``the science is settled'' on

global warming: ``One thing that being a scientist has taught

me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never

know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a

bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth.

You don't know it.''

For those who are listening or who are reading this specifically in the Congressional Record, I would like to quote from that article now. That article reads:

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of

the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based

climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, ``The

problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We

thought we knew 20 years ago.''

The sign of a very intelligent person, really, is to admit the things that he doesn't know. I mean I've always said I'm not the smartest guy on the block, but I know what I don't know. Thus, when I'm talking to people, I can have an honest discussion to try to expand my knowledge. We've had too many people claiming that they know it all and that we have to give up our freedom because they know it, and they don't even have to engage in a debate with us over the details of something like global warming.

Let me know who has heard the words ``case closed.'' I mean, 3 years ago, that's what they were saying here. What does that mean? When you hear people in government and when you hear scientists saying, ``the case is closed,'' well, that must mean there is going to be no further debate on this issue.

I've been here as a Member of Congress for 24 years. Before that, I served in the White House for 7 years under President Reagan. I have never seen a time when there was such an effort made to cut off debate on an important subject than has been done on global warming. Never have I heard over and over again people being told to shut up and that the case is closed. Never have I seen so many research projects canceled because they in some way challenged the theory of global warming. Never have I seen so many scientists fired from their positions because they believe that the global warming theory may not be accurate.

So what we need to do is to make sure that we have an honest discussion of the issue, when even some of the promoters--some of the people who have been the strongest advocates, like the individual, the doctor, I just quoted--have changed their positions, if not totally reversed them. At least they've been open to have said, We really don't know what we've been advocating for these last few years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce into the Record a letter from an esteemed physicist, Gordon Fulks. This is a letter and some communication between this physicist and aerospace pioneer legend Burt Rutan. I would like to put that into the Record at this point.

June 23, 2012.

Re Bravo on your courage!

Dear Burt: I think you deserve much of the credit for

helping James Lovelock understand the AGW phenomenon. You

patiently provided him with the pertinent data and logic. As

with most of us, it took some time to digest the enormity of

the necessary shift in perspective. He had to give up a faith

in the honesty of government agencies and most of the

scientists they are supporting.

For Jim Lovelock the transition apparently involved two

steps. That lessened the need for a complete about face. He

first figured out the Chlorofluorocarbon-Ozone Hole scam by

discovering that some scientists were cheating on the data,

apparently to further their careers. He probably also knew

that the chemists who received the Nobel Prize for their work

had overestimated the effect by a large factor. It was not

such a huge step to then realize that climate scientists

might be doing the same. But

Lovelock, to his credit, wanted to be sure and took his time

examining the information that you and others sent to him.

My own recognition of what was going on was likewise a two

step process. During the ``Nuclear Winter'' scare about 25

years ago, we redid Carl Sagan's original calculations to

discover that he had carefully chosen the inputs to his

climate code to produce the result he wanted. When we

realized that a highly respected physicist would prostitute

himself to support his politics, his stature, and his income,

we, in principle, understood all the other scams of the post

World War Two era.

From 1946 Nobel Laureate Hermann Joseph Muller hiding

evidence of a threshold phenomenon in human radiation

exposure to Rachael Carson promoting half truths about DDT,

to unfounded scares about Acid Rain, Ozone Depletion,

Magnetic Fields, Global Warming, Ocean Acidification, Diesel

Particulates, and more, we have been victimized by continuous

hysteria that has led to disastrous public policies. Far too

many scientists and their fellow travelers have supported a

grand bilking of American taxpayers for their own selfish and

political interests.

Many thanks for your efforts to convince one very important

individual to re-examine the logic and evidence. Now we need

to figure out how to avoid falling victim to these scams in

the first place. As you know, that must involve fundamental

reform of the reward process that funnels vast amounts of

money to those who play along.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics),

Corbett, Oregon USA.

Now let me read, in part, what that letter says:

During the ``Nuclear Winter'' scare about 25 years ago, we

redid Carl Sagan's original calculations to discover that he

had carefully chosen the inputs to his climate code to

produce the result he wanted. When we realized that a highly

respected physicist would prostitute himself to support his

politics, his stature and his income, we, in principle,

understood all the other scams of the post World War II era.

Whoever looked up to Carl Sagan, and when they realized he was cheating on the information and the analysis, they realized that this was so widespread it was something to be concerned about. And I continue:

From 1946 Nobel Laureate Hermann Joseph Muller hiding

evidence of a threshold phenomenon in human radiation

exposure to Rachel Carson promoting half-truths about DDT, to

unfounded scares about acid rain, ozone depletion, magnetic

fields, global warming, ocean acidification, diesel

particulates, and more, we have been victimized by continuous

hysteria that has led to disastrous public policies. Far too

many scientists and their fellow travelers have supported a

grand bilking of American taxpayers for their own selfish and

political interests.

That is the end of that quotation from that letter to Burt Rutan from this world famous physicist.

It's clear that our current system, fueled by the horrific waste of borrowed money, isn't working. Perhaps it's time that we acted on President Eisenhower's warning and find a better way to separate research and the creation of regulations. Otherwise, we will find ourselves held truly captive with no access to inexpensive energy, reduced access to food and water, and we might find ourselves also with none of our basic freedoms because we've given them away because someone has frightened us into giving away our freedom and giving away the opportunity for a better life for our children.

Mr. Speaker, I am someone who is very optimistic about the future. We have great possibilities. There are other people who look to the future and think that the technological revolutions that we have faced are actually a detriment to humankind. People did not live good lives 100 years ago. As I mentioned, my father was a marine. Before that, he grew up on a dirt-poor farm in North Dakota, as did my mother. In those days, ordinary Americans did not live well. It was a struggle. The longevity of these people was not that long because of the struggle they were in.

We need to make sure that we continue our technological development so that we can have, yes, a clean environment, which I have indicated was a product of the good technology and, yes, the research that came from honest and hardworking scientists and engineers, quite often on a government contract. But we need to make sure that we don't back off, because we know there is a group of people in our society, and perhaps around the world, who for some reason believe that back before the industrial age that people lived better than they live today. Some of them have tried their best to fight modernism. They have declared war, for example, on the internal combustion engine. This global warming thing, that was the motive here. The internal combustion engine is supposedly putting out carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide they believe is changing the climate of the planet.

I told you what I have asked young students who come into my office. I asked: Is the air better or worse than it was 50 years ago? I even ask Members of Congress and I ask people all the time, the ones who buy into global warming, who are saying they're advocates of global warming caused by mankind--basically the internal combustion engine--what percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is carbon dioxide, is CO2. I hope that everyone who is focusing on these comments now ask themselves how much CO2 there is, because CO2 is being blamed for changing the entire climate of the planet. It would be an enormous undertaking to change the climate of the whole planet, so it must be a pretty good part of our atmosphere.

With that question, Members of Congress tell me that they believe it's 25 percent. Some people say 10 percent. Others say 20 percent. I have never had a Member of Congress come anywhere close to what it really is. It's not 10 percent or 20 percent. It's not 5 percent. It's not 1 percent. It's less than one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent. Have you got that? It's not just 1 percent. It's less than one-half of one- tenth of 1 percent. Of that, humankind is only responsible for 10 percent of that CO2. That makes it so minuscule that it would be like putting a string across a football field and believing that was going to create changes in the entire football field.

The fact that people are unaware, even at this level, of how small the CO2 impact is causes them to buy onto these scare tactics. This is a challenge for those of us here because that threatens our freedom. It threatens us and our children in being able to have the opportunities that we had and that we hope that all Americans and all people throughout the world will have.

Let us go back on one thing. I am planning a trip this year across the country, even though the gas prices are pretty high. I'm hopefully going to drive across the country with my children. It's a wonderful thing. What a wonderful vacation. We're going to have 2 weeks to do it. I'm really looking forward to that. We're going to go in an automobile, and it will cost us. The price of gas is up and I'm not a wealthy man, but we do have this opportunity, and it's a wonderful thing.

What about 150 years ago? Did people have an opportunity like this? No. What was the biggest challenge that we faced to the health and safety of the people of this country 150 years ago? Or, let's say just at the beginning of the last century, when we turned from the 19th to the 20th century. Do you know what it was? It was horse manure. Horse manure and horse urine was enveloping our cities and the water and created health hazards for people. And the flies and the stench and the internal combustion engine came along, and it has been a great factor in providing health for human beings. All over the world we got rid of the massive animal droppings that were a threat to our health.

Also, there is the fact that we couldn't produce a lot of wealth based on animal strength and we couldn't go on long trips with our families and we didn't have a good quality of life, but the internal combustion engine provided that for people of the United States and humankind. There is no doubt that we have needed to improve the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, and we have.

Here's the thought we'll leave with. In southern California, when I was a kid, there was so much pollution--although our young people don't know about that today. But today, when they think the air is polluted in southern California, we have twice as many cars on the road and we've reduced pollution into the 90s. It's probably 95 percent. This is a tremendous accomplishment. And yes, some of the regulations that we have had from the Federal Government have motivated this change. We need to accept that. But we need to also accept that it is our technological advances, and it has been not cancelling out technology for fear of

things like CO2, which are not a threat to our health. That's how we have kept America on an upward course, even though we've been dragged down scare after scare after scare.

I remember when we had Meryl Streep come to this Congress and testify about Alar in apples. What happened was, for 2 years apple farmers went broke throughout the United States. There were thousands of families who suffered because their product was not being bought because they were afraid of Alar. What happened to that? Alar, it was found 2 years later that it was all a scare. There was nothing to it. The same thing with cranberries. When I was a kid, we couldn't eat cranberries for Thanksgiving.

The gentleman that I quoted here, that I mentioned, who is the godfather of the global warming theory, James Lovelock, he is also the man who discovered fluoro hydrocarbons, which gave people the analysis of the ozone hole. Well, guess what? The ozone hole, as we have found out--and as it was mentioned in passing there--the ozone hole was overrated as a threat. In fact, it went away, and it's a natural cycle.

What we have had on this planet is a natural cycle of weather, of temperatures, and that will continue. But what's happened is, we've had people step forward, trying to create hysteria for their own political ends, trying to frighten people into accepting policies they otherwise would never accept.

So today, I'm hoping that as we celebrate the Fourth of July, we, again, reaffirm that we will never give up our liberty. We will never be frightened out of our liberty by foreigners who threaten us with weapons, and we will not be frightened out of our liberty by people who do not believe in the same type of freedom that we believe in but are using scare tactics to create hysteria among our people that are phony scare tactics to try to frighten us into giving up our freedom.

So on this Fourth of July, I hope we all reconfirm that guarantee of our commitment in this Nation to freedom, to opportunity for ordinary people so that ordinary people can live decent lives with liberty and justice, prosperity for all.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 4480, a bill that promises to open up more public land to energy development and to streamline burdensome rules and heavy-handed regulations that now thwart new domestic energy development in the United States.

The President and the Democratic-led Senate continue to obstruct the utilization of America's enormous natural resources. What are they? These resources are a God-given asset that has elevated the well-being and prosperity of our people ever since the time of our Nation's founding. Now, when we need the wealth of those resources more than ever, we suffer the obstructionism of our own government.

The President has prevented the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The President has shut down oil and gas production offshore. And most recently, this administration--and perhaps most heinously-- this administration has moved forward with plans to add onerous rules and regulations on a new and emerging technology. The efforts of this administration are mind-boggling because there is no evidence that this technology has done any harm to our people, and there is ample evidence that this technology would produce significant economic growth, thus jobs. And I am referring to, of course, fracking, which has clearly been targeted by the President and by his environmental gestapo friends.

While we are talking today and while we are trying to determine whether or not we are going to be using more resources, gasoline prices are changing the lifestyle of the American people. We're talking about people who are paying $3.50 a gallon and, in my State, $4 a gallon. Why are we allowing our people--13 million people who are currently out of work and suffering under these conditions--why are we adding such costs for them to bear?

What we need, Mr. Chair, is we need to make sure that we move forward, as this bill will do, to ensure that we are fulfilling our commitment to the American people to do

everything we can to make sure that they will live in prosperity and freedom and hope for a better life for their children.

This has always been tied to the utilization of natural resources, and this bill will ensure that our people will benefit from those gifts that God gave us underneath our ground and public lands.

Mr. Speaker, there are many heroic people among us who have been involved in making our quality of life in America the best the world has ever seen and, at the same time, uplifting all of humankind. While we oftentimes focus our gratitude and our adoration on politicians and athletes and movie stars, we need to acknowledge the many innovators, inventors, and technology entrepreneurs who have played a significant role in overcoming the many challenges we humans face together, challenges to our health and limitations to our physical well-being.

One of the most heroic of these special people is Dr. Al Mann. He flew in B 29s during World War II; and upon his return home, Al decided, instead of

pursuing a career in the armaments industry, which could have been very lucrative, he would dedicate his life to building technologies that would improve the human condition.

Among his many achievements are the following: a vast improvement over pacemaker technology, which then made that available to so many millions of people whose lives have been changed because of it and extended because of it.

He also was involved in inventing, and it was his invention, a diabetic pump, a small mechanism that attaches to the body and allows patients to escape some of the worst ravages of diabetes.

He perfected the fully implantable cochlear implant, an electronic device that provides patients, some of whom have never been able to hear, with the ability to hear sound almost as well as those of us who hear naturally.

His latest invention and innovation would allow diabetics to receive their insulin through an inhaler rather than a syringe, a huge breakthrough that could be so meaningful to so many people who are suffering.

His achievements ought to serve as an example of the power of innovation in our country. Just as incredible as his inventions themselves, Dr. Mann accomplished all of this with private funds. And instead of relying on government grants or contracts, Dr. Mann made the risky investments of his own and those of his investors; and then, with his labor and genius, when it paid off, he reaped the benefits, which he then plowed back into more research to help even more people eliminate even more suffering.

Instead of receiving assistance from his government, Dr. Mann has, instead, run into bureaucratic obstacles time and again. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government's actions, at the very least, do not thwart the heroic innovators such as Dr. Al Mann.

For this reason, I submit for the Congressional Record a letter Al Mann recently penned. I encourage all of my colleagues to read what he has to say and to take seriously the disturbing observations with our current system, as well as his recommendations on how we can ensure that the incredible potential of human innovation can be and will be brought to play in improving the lives of the American people and people everywhere.

Letter from Al Mann: The Senate has just passed a bill to

speed the availability of generic drugs. Hopefully that bill

will die in the House. I say that the problem is not the

pricing of drugs but the cost. What are needed are means for

effectively lowering the expense and time to get a new drug

approved. That would lower the costs and hopefully the

pricing of drugs, and that would certainly be a worthwhile

objective.

I am shocked and disappointed at the lack of understanding

of this issue by the Congress. I certainly agree that we must

seek ways to lower health care expense. I say that to do so

we must focus on ways to LOWER the COST of providing health

care NOT just targeting the PRICE.

There are multiple reasons for the price of drugs, but I

assert that the earlier generic drug law has actually led to

an INCREASE in the PRICING of drugs. It takes as long as 15

years--or even longer--and $1 $1.5 billion to gain regulatory

approval of a new drug. With only 20 years of exclusivity

before a generic drug is approved it should be obvious that

the price of a new drug must be very high just to recover the

development cost let alone a profit. Even the price of the

generic version of a drug is typically only moderately

discounted from the innovative drug rather than priced based

on the manufacturing cost.

If you question the impact of the current generic drug law

just ask yourself how many $5 and $10 drugs there were before

that law. It only costs pennies to make a pill. However, only

by charging high prices can the high costs of pharma

development be recovered with any profit during the brief

period of patent protection remaining after regulatory

approval.

Passing legislation to further ease and speed the

availability of generic drugs will not likely lower pricing;

if anything it would likely just reduce innovation of new

drugs. That slowing is already beginning; most of the major

pharma companies have already begun downsizing R&D. Surely

that is not in our interest when there are new advanced

technologies that could significantly improve and extend

life.

We need to evaluate how we can speed and lower the cost of

bringing a new drug to market rather than counting on the

generics. There are various approaches that should be

explored. One approach might be to delay approval of a

generic to allow more time of exclusivity rather than to ease

the generic regulatory process. There was such a delay built

into the earlier bills, but that was certainly not adequate.

Unfortunately it will not be easy to reverse the pricing

practices of drugs--the companies and Wall Street have all

gotten used to the high prices.

Of course the price of drugs is but a tiny part of the cost

of health care. We ought to be reexamining many aspects of

our health care system. We do need to reduce the price of

health care--including the cost and the price of drugs.

However, the challenge is not so simple as just approving

generic drugs more quickly.

In fact the problem is not just the pricing; today many

potentially valuable improvements and even new breakthrough

drugs do not ever reach the market because of the regulatory

hurdles. This problem and the costs will certainly become far

greater as we move to more personalized medicine.

The consequence of easing the creation of generics may even

worsen from what we see today; future breakthrough therapies

may simply not become available in the U.S.! I just heard

from a very credible person of a meeting of 12 advanced

pharma companies discussing how to deal with the current

regulatory challenges. I am told that 11 of those 12

companies are intending to launch their new products outside

the U.S. and just to ignore the U.S. patients. Heretofore

wealthy foreign patients came to the U.S. for superior

medical treatment. Perhaps that practice may be reversing.

We want to protect our people from unsafe drugs. The

challenge is how to do so in a more cost effective and more

timely manner. I have suggested that we should redirect the

regulatory standards to concentrate on safety, to lower the

initial bar for efficacy to minimal requirements during a

reasonable safety trial and then to issue a ``provisional''

approval. That provisional approval would be subject to a

thorough review of clinical benefits compared to risk AND

cost in something like a more rigorous REMS program.

Our nation is in a crossroad on many fronts. In health care

the barriers are preventing our ability to topple diseases

such as cancer and Alzheimer's that so many of is will face.

Not only are we harming and even precipitating death of many

of our people but we are losing economic growth and the

engine for good paying jobs. Our government is the most

significant obstacle to medical progress today. We have new

tools from new science that could make such a difference if

only there were not the barriers to innovation that we see

today.

I am 86 years old and surely my objective is not self

serving. For the past four decades I have been committed to

trying to find solutions to unmet and poorly met health care

needs. Yet I am so disgusted by the overly restrictive

process to medical innovation that has been created by our

government that I have begun to sell off most of my several

ventures. It is no longer worth the effort and the agony.

I am sending this communication to all the Representatives

whose e-mail addresses I have. I would appreciate your

forwarding this to your other colleagues.

Alfred E. Mann.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prevent any funds in this bill from being spent on the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center.

Our Department of Energy is using our taxpayer dollars to help China to develop their energy systems. This specific expenditure is $37.5 million over 5 years. China should be spending their own money for developing their own energy systems.

With the miserable shape of our budget and our economy, the last thing we should be doing is depleting our resources to help the Chinese become more efficient and thus more competitive. We are borrowing money from Communist China, paying interest on that money, and then turning around and subsidizing the development of a high-tech manufacturing sector in China that will take away more American jobs. This is as nutty as it gets.

The Department of Energy is helping the Communist Chinese to build electric vehicles. Over the next 20 years, the electric vehicle industry may well be creating 130,000 up to maybe 350,000 American jobs. As of 2010, 30,000 Americans are already working in the electric vehicle and advanced battery industries. Tesla Motors in my State is already doing it. Why are we spending our tax dollars to put these jobs in jeopardy by improving the Chinese ability to build such cars? Why does our government want to ship jobs to China and subsidize the effort?

The Clean Energy Research Center also shares American know-how with China in advanced coal technology. The global value of electricity generated using clean coal technologies was $63 billion in 2010 and by 2020 will reach $85 billion. U.S. companies have the potential to capture the global market and can sell American-designed and -built technology to China, but if we give the Chinese access to our research now, our lead in this area will be undercut. Why are we undercutting ourselves?

Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese companies for unfair trade practices regarding solar panels. Sixty-six Chinese producers were named, which suggests this is a concerted effort to undermine the United States market.

In 2011, the U.S. imported over $3 billion worth in Chinese panels, and since 2001 our share of the global market in these panels has shrunk from 27 percent to just 5 percent. Over 100,000 American jobs depend directly or indirectly on the success of the U.S. solar industry. Why are we subsidizing the Chinese development of this technology?

China is not playing by the same rules that we're playing by. The Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive released a report last year which states:

Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent

perpetrators of economic espionage.

Among the technologies which they have the greatest interest in is stealing. And what they're interested in stealing is the cutting-edge energy technologies that we are developing with our expertise.

Let's stop paying the Chinese to give them access to our best scientists, research centers, and technology. They are already stealing enough intellectual property to enhance their own economic and military power. They are robbing us blind, but we are not blind. This is happening right in front of our face. America's high-tech industry-- whether in energy, aerospace, or any other kind of manufacturing-- should be way out in front of the competition. Why are we helping China close that gap?

This amendment would put a stop to over $7 million annually that is being used to bolster the efforts of our Chinese adversary. Transferring technology or funds to help develop that technology to a strategic rival makes no sense whatsoever. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and put an end to it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Well, I'll make this very quick.

We're not talking about all cooperation. I'm not opposed to all cooperation. I'm opposed to cooperation with the Adolf Hitlers of our day--the people who are murdering Christians and other religious people as we speak. No, we should not be cooperating with that government in developing their technologies, whether it's energy or otherwise.

All of these different groups that are cooperating with them, this is part of a group that also has research going on throughout our universities of the United States. That makes it even worse because you have Chinese nationals there who are taking as much of the information as they can and taking it back to China from our universities.

We should be opposed to this. Let's stand up for the American worker and what's right.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, since 9/11, the United States has given Pakistan about $22 billion. That money has served only to embolden Pakistan's government to maintain the brutal repression of its own people and to continue its blatant support for terrorist attacks on its neighboring countries, as well as attacks on American troops in nearby Afghanistan.

My amendment would cut off all aid in this bill designated for Pakistan. It would end the charade that we are buying cooperation in the ongoing struggle against terrorist forces in South Asia. Pakistan isn't with us in a war against terrorism; they are at war with us.

Pakistan, at best, is a war profiteer, collecting a ransom by taxing our military supply lines that pass through

their country, which, for the past 6 months, by the way, they have closed to resupplying our forces in Afghanistan. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Of course, the Pakistani people will never see any of that money.

The corruption in Pakistan itself is reason not to give aid to them, which they will then pilfer. Furthermore, they use their military power to butcher the Balochs and others who don't want to be under their corrupt thumb.

How can we forget this same Pakistani Government gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden after he led the conspiracy that slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11? After our SEALs went in to get him, the Pakistani Government took the wreckage of our downed stealth helicopter and gave it for study to Communist China, whom they refer to as their ``all- weather friend.''

The Pakistani Government has gone so far as to arrest and imprison, without trial, Dr. Afridi, the doctor who helped us gather the intelligence that located Osama bin Laden in the nest that the Pakistani Government had provided him right there in Pakistan. The Pakistani Government threw him in jail and is talking about trying him for treason for the good deed that he helped us in bringing to justice the man who slaughtered 3,000 of our citizens. And we can continue to give money to these people, even as we ignore the suffering of Dr. Afridi, who is in prison now, languishing in prison? And all of us are forgetting this hero?

We have lost almost 2,000 Americans defending our country as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Most of those deaths were due to Pakistani- inspired and -supported insurgents.

How much more does the Pakistan Government have to do before we quit giving them our money? They are playing us like fools while murdering our soldiers. And, yes, we are acting like fools for giving them this money despite that. We should have quit bankrolling this rotten regime a long time ago. My amendment would do just that.

The Pakistan Government is a terrorist government that murders and even attacks its own people, such as in Balochistan. It is a pro- terrorist, radical Islamic clique that rules Pakistan. They don't deserve one penny from us to help them in their dirty deeds.

I would ask for support from my colleagues. Let's finally stand up. If we need an ally in that area, let's go to some people in that area that want to be our friends, perhaps the Indians.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining?

I have here 13 pages of restrictions that we have had on Pakistan aid over the last few years, 13 pages of restrictions that have meant nothing.

During the time that we have been giving them billions of dollars with all

of these restrictions, they have been giving safe haven to Osama bin Laden, who massacred and slaughtered 3,000 Americans. How can we forget about that? How can we just go on and give these people money?

The people of Pakistan can be our friends. They are our friends. But we have to recognize that their government is a terrorist-supporting government and a radical Islamic-supporting government.

And we continue to give them money as they support insurgents that kill our people overseas. Is there any doubt about that? Admiral Mullen confirmed it for us.

Why are we ignoring that? We are acting like fools and we are acting like cowards. It is time for us to stand up for the American defenders who are over there putting their lives on the line and say, No. If we're going to give money to the people killing you, we're not going to do that, period. That's going over the line.

I would suggest to my colleagues to join me in defunding the enemy of the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, first let me suggest that I join with my colleagues in honoring the memory of Chuck Colson, a man who also meant a lot to me as an individual. Those of us who come from California and remember Richard Nixon coming out there over the years and remember the great work that Chuck Colson did for our prison community in California, we're very grateful for that. He taught us really the true meaning of Christian compassion. I personally was a beneficiary of that knowledge and that spirit that he helped us understand and develop within our own hearts. So I would like to join my colleagues in that.

But today I rise to call attention to the hundreds of millions of public dollars we have spent and continue to spend in the form of foreign aid to the People's Republic of China--better known as Communist China to those of us who have spent years trying to fight that oppressive regime.

Our national debt is over $15.7 trillion and is growing. We are spending $1.5 trillion more every year than we are taking in. Forty- three cents out of every dollar we spend is borrowed money, and Communist China is the single largest foreign holder of United States debt.

The interest we pay on this ever-growing debt is increasingly squeezing out spending on other worthwhile programs. Why, then, are we borrowing money from the Chinese Communist Government--to be repaid, of course, with interest--and then using that borrowed money to finance programs in which we are giving money to these various programs that go to China, the country from whom we are borrowing?

Remember, the government of this aid recipient considers the United States its enemy. They are happy to loan us the money and they are happy that we are stupid enough to give it back to them in terms of aid and, yes, other types of programs, including giving it back to them in investments.

We are strengthening the government that considers us an enemy. As we look into this situation, we know that they see the U.S. as their enemy, just as Japan saw us as their enemy before World War II--the Japanese militarists--just as Nazi Germany saw the American people as their enemy, and just as the communist governments that threatened the world for over four decades after World War II, just as they saw the United States as their enemy.

Yes, we are the enemy of tyrants and vicious regimes that are expansionary and threaten the peace and the freedom of the world. We can be proud of that. The Chinese know that. The Communist Chinese know that. That's why they don't like us. That's why they consider us their enemy.

China is the world's largest human rights abuser. China's Government smashes those who advocate freedom of the press, freedom of religion. Those who, of course, suggest that the Chinese Government should be accountable to its people are arrested and thrown into jail, or murdered.

It arrests Chinese practitioners of Falun Gong, for example. Falun Gong is a Chinese religious movement which stresses yoga and meditation. Beijing has these devout and passive people, practitioners in a simple religion that is meditation and yoga. These people are arrested and they're thrown into prison where they are murdered. And then the Chinese Government, after murdering these people for their religious convictions, sells their organs and body parts. It doesn't get much more ghoulish than this.

On the international scene, China is responsible for promoting and facilitating the proliferation of nuclear technology between North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and others. China is responsible for empowering the Burmese junta that imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi for years. It has allied itself with rogue regimes all over the world, like Sudan and Venezuela and other regimes that are tyrants in their own country and threaten the security of their neighbors and of the United States.

China's aggressive foreign policy and hostile naval actions are threatening the sovereignty of American allies like Japan and the Philippines. It is Communist China that has stolen and is currently stealing most of our prized military and commercial secrets. China has stolen the designs for every one of our nuclear warheads.

Chinese cyberspies have stolen all of our trade secrets. All of the money we put in to invest in research and development they steal and utilize. No wonder they're as far ahead in their rocket program as they are when they took the technology from us; they stole it from us. They have infected our critical electronic technology infrastructure with malicious viruses and then they, of course, break into our classified systems.

It is China which has embarked on the most significant arms buildup since the Cold War. And I ask: Who do they think is their enemy? Who do they think is their enemy? The United States of America. While we not only become susceptible to them, not only do we put ourselves in an inferior position by borrowing money from them, but we also end up giving that money back to them in aid programs.

And that is what I would like to talk about tonight, the fact that how can we possibly borrow money from the world's worst human rights abuser, a country that looks at us as their enemy. Then we become vulnerable to that country. But at the same time while we are becoming vulnerable, we then increase our investment in the private sector of that country. But also we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in aid programs to the communist Chinese regime.

Well, with that in mind, I asked the Congressional Research Service to assemble a list of programs that the Congress funds that go directly to supporting development and the economy of China. It is a partial list because there are so many programs that, after weeks of work, they could not even find them all. This list that I am about to read is of projects that are funded and have been funded over the last 3 years, at the same time, while the Obama administration was spending $1.5 trillion more annually than we're taking in.

So while we're spending more than we're taking in by $1.5 trillion, we are spending on programs that are going to China, and it's China who's lending us the money in order to spend that extra $1.5 trillion. This is an insane policy.

And this spending on China is ongoing. I'm just giving you the facts from the last 3 years, and it is ongoing.

To make sure we all understand exactly where we are spending or sending our taxpayer money, I am going to read a list of programs that we have funded in China, and ask, as we are going through this list, after every time I go through the money, couldn't we have spent this money better in the United States? Or wouldn't it have been better not to borrow it in the first place and add this to $1.5 trillion every year for the last 3 years that we've been putting our people into debt?

So every one of these things that I read, ask yourself that question: Is this in the best interest of the United States? Is it in the best interest of our children who we're putting more in debt by borrowing and giving it to China and having to pay the interest? They're going to have to pay off the loan and the interest to China in the future.

So here's a partial list, and I'm going to round off the figures to an understandable number. And many of these deal with ``environment.''

Why are we trying to make the environment in China better so that the people of China can basically out compete us in our business dealings? That

should be part of the cost of production in China. But, no, we are picking up that cost. Not only that, our people are investing in China and building their factories.

Why did the EPA give, for example, $141,000 to the Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture to reduce greenhouse gases in China? In China.

Why did the EPA give $125,000 to the Eastern Research Group that reduces greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the National Science Foundation give $63,000 to Siena College for Neutrino Physics at Daya Bay in China?

And let me add, some of these will be repeats because we did this, this is over a 3-year period, because we have several programs over the years where we're giving money to the same group in China; and that spending continues, let me add.

Why did the EPA give $150,000 to China for Coal Information Institute for reducing greenhouse gases?

Why did the EPA give $100,000 to Guizhou International Corporation Center for Environmental Protection for reducing greenhouse gases? That's in China, of course.

Why did the EPA give almost $300,000 to the Ministry of Environment Protection in China for reducing health risks? Don't we have health risks in the United States? Don't we have some needs of our own? Why are we giving this money to China?

Why did the EPA give $150,000 to Tsinghua--I'm sorry I can't pronounce this right--University Department of Building Sciences for Environmental Governance in China?

Why did USAID give the Asia Foundation almost $2 million, it was $1.7 million, to build environmental governance in China?

Why did USAID give $500,000 to the American Bar Association to build environmental governance in China? Don't we have some things in the United States where we could use a $500,000 grant for some of our local communities? Couldn't they use some help? Instead we sent it to China. But first, of course, we borrowed it from China. So to give it to them, we'll have to repay China and the interest in order to give it to them.

Why did USAID give $300,000 to the University of Massachusetts to improve the quality of judicial education in China? We're giving them $300,000 in order to improve judicial education in China?

Why did USAID give $200,000 to the University of the Pacific to advance the rule of law in China?

Why did USAID give $55,000 to Nexant, an NGO, to be an administrator of China program evaluations?

Why did USAID give $2 million to Winrock International Institute for Agriculture for sustainable livelihoods in China? I guess we don't need any help in our farm belt. I guess our farmers don't need my help in California where they're going broke because the water has been cut off to them in order to protect some delta smelt. Our guys are going crazy and going broke, our farmers are, but we're going to find $2 million borrowed from China in order to give back to China in order to aid the Institute of Agriculture so that they can have sustainable livelihoods in China.

Why did USAID give $2 million to the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, an NGO, for sustainable livelihoods in China? Think there are any Americans that need sustainable livelihoods?

Why did USAID give $2 million to the Institute of Sustainable Communities to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Oh, yes. We need to make sure we pay all of China's environmental expenses; otherwise, they won't accept global government like our government expects us to accept.

Why did USAID give $749,000, almost $750,000, to the ICF International to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did USAID give $500,000 to the Asia Foundation for humanitarian assistance to China?

Why did the USDA give $10,000 to Texas Agriculture Experiment for biological control of forest insects in China? Do our forests not need this?

Why are we borrowing money when we can't afford to do these things in our own country?

Why did the USDA give almost $100,000 to Rutgers State University for climate change adaptation in China?

Now isn't that great? We're paying for them to adapt to climate change. Then, of course, they'll join the global government which these same people are trying to force on us. But then we are under a mountain of debt, our children, in order to pay for their adaptation to climate change. Not, of course, to say that anybody in the United States, our farmers or any other industry, doesn't need to adapt to the different changes that go on in the climate, even if they are natural changes in our climate.

Why did the Department of Energy give $2.5 million to the University of Michigan for the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center? Shouldn't we be developing our own clean energy in the United States? Instead, we borrow money from China in order to spend it in China, and then we have to pay debt, interest on that debt, and pay back the debt. Our children will, of course, be doing that.

Why did the Department of Energy give $2.5 million to West Virginia University for a U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center? Again, a research center, perhaps the same research center, but the next year. So that makes it $5 million that we've given to that research center in China.

Why did the Department of Energy give $1.2 million to West Virginia University for Long-Term Environmental and Economic Impacts of Coal Liquefaction in China? That's $1.2 million to, yes, spend through West Virginia University. Don't we have coal liquefaction environmental studies going on in the United States that could use that money for research to make sure that our coal burns more cleanly and effectively here, rather than giving that money and information to China's benefit and borrowing it from them in order to give it to them?

Why did the Department of Energy give $5.3 million to Brookhaven National Laboratory in the Daya Bay nuclear project in China? That's over $5 million. By the way, that's $5 million to this nuclear facility.

Let me just note that, in my district, we have a problem with a nuclear power plant that's going through some very serious problems right now, San Onofre. We maybe could have used that $5 million to help us correct the problems at the San Onofre plant. But no. We borrowed the money from China to give it back to them to solve their problems while our children will be forced to pay that debt off. We get no benefit out of it except a load of debt on our children.

Why did the Department of Energy give almost $400,000 to the State University of Albany to study climate change in China? Oh, yes.

Why did the Department of Energy give $300,000 to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the modeling of regional climate change in China? Again, it's using climate change as a vehicle to give them money that we are borrowing from them in the first place, which we will then have to repay.

Why did the Department of Energy give $256,000 to the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for research at the Daya Bay nuclear project in China? Again, another $250,000 to this Daya Bay nuclear project. It could have been the next year because this is over a 3-year period. These are some of these. By the way, it's not anywhere near all of them over the 3-year period, but all of these are taken from a list over that 3-year period. Yes, we could have used some of that money to make sure that we didn't have a problem in our own districts.

Why did the Department of Energy give $210,000 to Rutgers State University for Site Science for the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Mobile Facility in China? Why are we doing that? Why are we providing them that type of a foundation, a scientific foundation, so that they can prosper and so that they won't have to spend their resources paying for that type of scientific infrastructure?

Why did the Department of Energy give $135,000 to the University of Maryland for the climactic effects of aerosols in China? There you go-- aerosols. It's an issue from way back then, which some of us think was not entirely reported, but now we are still giving almost $150,000 to check out aerosols in China for their benefit.

Why did the Department of Energy give over $500,000 to the University of

Houston for a proposal to measure neutrino mixing at the Daya Bay nuclear experiment in China? Again, over a half a million dollars while we're having trouble with our own nuclear program.

We should be developing our own new generation of nuclear power which will be safe--and we can do it--but we don't have the money to do it. Why? We're giving millions of dollars to China and to others, money that should go to developing our own new technology here. Of course, we are borrowing the money from China in order to give it to them, which leaves our children in debt, and they'll have to pay it all off with interest.

Why did the Department of Energy give $70,000 to Colorado State University for the climactic effects of aerosols in China?

Why did the Department of Energy give $19,000 to Pennsylvania State University for factors influencing energy use and carbon emissions in China? Isn't that nice that we gave the University of Pennsylvania money to study this for China so they will have the information in China and will be able to use it for their benefit rather than studying things in the United States to help us so we can do better here.

Why did the EPA give over $500,000--$550,000 to be exact--to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the EPA give almost a half a million dollars to the Research Triangle Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China? This is basically making equipment more efficient. Why aren't we making our equipment more efficient? The Chinese should buy it from us rather than our having to relocate our manufacturing plants in China. Yes, let them buy it from us--how about that?--and give our own people jobs rather than borrowing money so that they could have the technology. We are going in debt so that they can have the technology, and our children will have to pay the debt back with interest, and they will sell us the equipment. The Chinese will sell it to us in a generation.

Why did the EPA give $300,000 to the Energy and Environmental Development Research Center to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the EPA give almost $250,000 to the Research Triangle Institute again--probably a second year of their grant--to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the EPA give almost $200,000 to the China University of Petroleum in Beijing to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Can't any of our people use this research money to help our country and our technology become cleaner and more efficient? No. We're giving it to China, and then they will sell that technology back to us after they manufacture it years ahead of us because we subsidize their R&D.

Why did the EPA give almost $200,000 to the China Urban Construction Design & Research Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Again, here we are spending money to help them design houses in China. Wonderful. None of our designers need any help.

Why did the EPA give almost $300,000 to the Eastern Research Group to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the EPA give over $100,000 to Guangzhou City, China, to reduce greenhouse gases?

Why did the EPA give $110,000 to the Guizhou International Cooperation Center for Environmental Protection to reduce greenhouse gases in China? Do we have no need for this money in the United States? Does our equipment not need to be more efficient? Should we not be investigating putting money into the development of cleaner energy sources here? With all this money we're giving away, we could be developing clean energy sources, if nothing else, for the new generation of nuclear power plants, which is starving for research money. No, we're giving it to China.

Why did the EPA give almost $100,000 to the China University of Petroleum in Beijing to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the EPA give $200,000 to California State University at Fullerton to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the EPA give $85,000 to ICF International to build climate change management capacity in China?

Why did the EPA give $135,000 to Information Institute to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the EPA give over $50,000 to Advanced Resources International to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the EPA give $31,000 to the Energy and Environmental Development Research Center for biogas development?

Each and every one of these items I am talking about is an item on which we spent money out of the Federal budget. We took it out of the taxpayers' pockets--or actually, we borrowed it from China--and then left them with the debt in their pockets, the IOU in their pockets, and we gave it to China rather than taking that money, those resources, and spending it in the United States to develop the technology here.

Like I say, I've been struggling for years to get the new generation of nuclear power developed here. It has been starved--it has not been given what it needs--and we're giving away these hundreds of millions of dollars to the Chinese, which we, of course, are borrowing. In the end, we will pay them for the technology because they will be sending the manufactured items here.

Why did the EPA give $30,000 to the China Association of Rural Energy Industry to reduce greenhouse gases in China?

Why did the EPA give almost $800,000 to the China State Environmental Protection Administration to reduce transboundary air pollution? Well, that's great. We have to pay for everybody's air pollution in the world. We are borrowing money from China, but we have to pay for their reduction of transboundary air pollution.

Why did the EPA give almost $200,000 to the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection to build environmental management capacity?

Why did the EPA give $120,000 to the Tianjin Environmental Protection Bureau for water pollution management? Now, there is something we don't need any money for around our country--water pollution. I live in a coastal district. We could use that money for water pollution. We've got sewer pipes and water purification systems that need to be upgraded. But no. We're borrowing money from China to give it to China rather than having that money spent in the United States.

Why did the National Science Foundation give $62,000 to Sienna College for neutrino physics at, again, the Daya Bay nuclear project in China? Well, we're not spending the money here to develop our own clean nuclear energy.

Why did USAID give Management Systems International almost $500,000 to improve environmental governance in China?

Why did USAID give Vermont Law School--get this--$1,725,000 for improved environmental governance in China?

Why did USAID give the Institute for Sustainable Communities half a million dollars to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases in China? Can't we put this use in these structures in the United States?

Why did USAID give the University of the Pacific a half a million dollars for environmental governance in China?

Why did USAID give the American Bar Association $500,000 for environmental governance in China?

Why did USAID give the University of Massachusetts $420,000 for environmental governance in China?

Why did USAID give the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development $150,000 for development assistance in China?

Why did USAID give Management Systems International $50,000 for development assistance?

Why did USAID give the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $2 million for sustainable livelihoods in China? Don't we have people in the United States who need money like that? Don't we have people, indeed, here who need a sustainable livelihood? Why are we giving it to China and borrowing it from them in order to give it to them and leaving our kids in debt?

Why did USAID give Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $400,000 for sustainable livelihoods in China?

Why did the USDA give the University of Science and Technology of China $150,000 for research? Don't our

universities need money for research for things that we can use here in the United States to make our life better?

Why did the USDA give the SB Group Consultants $25,000 for education in China?

Why did the USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies International $40,000 to improve forest health in China? We don't need any help with our forests here, do we?

Why did the USDA give Yangzhou University $36,000 to improve biological controls in China?

Why did the USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies International $8,000 for administrative purposes in China?

Why did the USDA give Utah State University almost $400,000 for biomass research in China? I happen to know American companies and people who are investing in biomass research. Why are we giving almost $400,000 to help the Chinese in biomass research, which will compete with our own companies that are trying to develop this very important and unique energy source? Which by the way for the environmentalists who are watching, who think that I may be making light of climate change, I support biomass and other clean-energy programs that make sense. This one makes sense. Our companies are investing in it, and yet we're borrowing money from China in order to give it to them to do biomass research to compete with our own people and put them out of business.

Why did the USDA give Tetra Tech EM $325,000 for administrative purposes for environmental programs in China?

Why did USAID give the Institute of Sustainable Communities--get this--another $500,000 to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases in China? Don't we have the need in our communities to do things in a sustainable way in the United States? No. They don't have that money now. It's in China. We borrowed it from China to give to them. Now we're going to have to pay the bill back after we've given it to them.

Why did USAID give the University of the Pacific $500,000 for environmental governance in China? Again a half a million dollars.

Why did USAID give the American Bar Association $500,000 for environmental governance?

Why did USAID give the University of Massachusetts $420,000 for Environmental Governance in China?

Why did USAID give the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development $150,000 for Development Assistance in China?

Why did USAID give Management Systems International $47,484 for Development Assistance in China?

Why did USAID give Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $2.4 million for Sustainable Livelihoods in China?

Why did USAID give The Asia Foundation $1,025,000 to improve Disaster Management in China?

Why did USDA give the University of Science and Technology of China $150,000 for Research?

Why did USDA give Guangzhou Dxcel Advertising $18,500 for Administrative Purposes in China?

Why did USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies International $40,994 to improve forest health in China?

Why did USDA give Management and Engineering Technologies International $7,973 for administrative purposes in China?

Why did USDA give Southern University $300,000 for improved Education in China?

Why did USDA give Colorado State University $300,000 for improved Education in China?

I will end my remarks tonight by suggesting that what we are doing is insane. America will never survive with such a mindset with these mind- boggling giveaway programs where we're giving away money, we're giving this type of support to a country and a government that is totalitarian, that kills Christians and other religious people, who hates the United States and is our biggest potential enemy. That is not the Chinese people. That's the Chinese Government.

The Chinese dictatorship has cover today, and the reason why these policies go on is they have cover from some of our most powerful corporations. We have permitted overly subsidized American corporations to set up manufacturing facilities in China, and now they need to stand in the good graces of the Chinese Government. When I come up and say things like this, corporations in the United States try to provide cover for the Chinese dictatorship. We should not be providing aid to the Chinese. We should not be encouraging our corporations to go there and become vulnerable to the Chinese in order to make a quick profit.

I would suggest over the last 10 years, since most-favored trading status has been given to China, we have put America in a very vulnerable spot. We at the very least should reassess our relationship with China, but at the very least cut off any aid programs that go to this communist regime, this totalitarian regime that looks at us as their enemy.

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

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy on NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The chairman has shown great leadership on space and science issues. He and I have often worked together on issues of shared interest, and he is a great friend.

The report of this bill contains some very strong language about NASA's Commercial Crew Program; and I, admittedly, have some concerns about that language. I believe it makes a flawed comparison between Commercial Crew Program partners and the energy firm Solyndra. In addition, it requires an immediate down-select to a single-program partner, which I do not believe is the best path to move forward.

That being said, I do understand and agree with many of the chairman's concerns that I know were underlying this language. For example, NASA has not shared a clear, comprehensive management plan for the program despite repeated requests. Instead, they have made inconsistent and confusing statements about the program's purpose, timeline, design, costs, and procurement benefits.

Although the committee has defined one possible management approach in response to these concerns, I hope that we will be able to discuss some alternative approaches that both address the management problems within NASA and allow the achievement of the agreed-upon goals of the program. With that in mind, I am willing to work with NASA to help come up with a new plan that will do just that. And I would be pleased to work with the chairman on these issues in order to go forward.

At this time, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the CJS Subcommittee.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And let me just note that both of us are committed to making sure this country is never dependent on a Chinese rocket system to launch either commercial or government satellites or to reach the space station.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, along with Mr. Hinchey, Mr. McClintock, and Mr. Farr, in support of a commonsense amendment that would prohibit the Department of Justice from using funds to prevent States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. This amendment would take a step in the right direction of respecting States' rights and individual liberties, and it would help the Federal Government prioritize its very scarce resources and show compassion for those thousands of ailing patients across our country.

To date, 17 States, including the District of Columbia, have passed laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana, and the list continues to grow. Connecticut is in the process of passing a similar law as well. Many of these State laws, including in my own home State of California, have passed these statutes through the initiative process-- meaning that a majority of California voters specifically decided that sick individuals ought to have the right to use this herb for medical purposes. Why the Federal Government continues its hard-line prohibition, then, is completely beyond me.

As far as the medical marijuana is concerned, individuals ought to have a right and ought to be able to act in accordance with their respective State laws without the Federal Government coming in and interfering. Neither should the Federal Government threaten to prosecute State employees who are carrying out the implementation of their State laws. Indeed, the Founding Fathers wanted criminal law to be the domain of local and State government. Unfortunately, however, this is not the approach that recent administrations

have taken, including the current administration. For example, the Governor of Washington State received a letter from the Department of Justice and was warned that:

State employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability under the CSA.

Additionally, the DEA has conducted numerous raids on medical marijuana dispensaries that are in full compliance with State law. Businesspeople and cooperatives who are licensed and certified within these States to function as legitimate medical marijuana dispensaries have seen their businesses locked down, assets frozen, businesses driven away, and in some cases the victims of a SWAT squad coming into their operation. It is simply outrageous that we are spending scarce Federal dollars to interfere with the medical needs of individuals, especially when it's been recommended by a physician and approved by the voters of a State.

Importantly, this amendment does nothing to prevent the Federal Government from being able to go after drug traffickers. In fact, it makes it easier because it prioritizes and gives those people a chance to go after drug traffickers rather than sick people.

Under this amendment, the DEA would still have the power to arrest anyone selling marijuana for recreational use or engaging in any activity that is not expressly allowed under State law. But they will have more time to go after the drug traffickers if they are not going after people who are providing medical marijuana to people who are sick.

It is time that we respect States' rights, get serious about prioritizing our Federal Government's activities, and show some common sense and compassion when dealing with the sick among us.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' for the Rohrabacher-Hinchey- McClintock-Farr amendment to prevent the Department of Justice from continuing to engage in activities that it has no business engaging in.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in favor of H.R. 4105 because we need to have every tool we can muster to fight China's unfair trade practices, which not only steal markets and jobs from American producers, but also provides Beijing with a means to finance its military buildup and expanding influence around the world.

This bill should not have been necessary. It overturns a faulty court decision that claimed U.S. law prohibits the Department of Commerce from applying countervailing duties to nonmarket economies. Yet nonmarket economies, where the government directs business through trade subsidies, national planning and state ownership of firms, this is where the greatest abuses occur that distort the market.

Unfortunately, our system to combat trade abuses and unfair foreign practices does not work. We have had a massive transfer, which is evident, when we see that we have had a massive historic transfer of wealth from the American people to China over these last few decades. That policy should have been corrected long ago to prevent this deprivation of the American people.

Furthermore, this bill allows the Commerce Department to adjust actions to avoid future negative findings by the World Trade Organization. Again, this should not be necessary because China should not be part of the World Trade Organization. It is not a market economy and thus should have been denied membership. It has not lived up to its obligations of WTO membership, and thus Beijing should not be made a stakeholder in world affairs.

It remains an aggressive, communist dictatorship that supports every rogue enemy of the United States. It is the world's number one proliferator of nuclear technology and the number one abuser of human rights. It is a land of cronyism, corruption, and repression. We should not be helping a country ruled by this kind of government grow while we stagnate.

We ran a record $295 billion trade deficit in goods with China last year at a time when the U.S. economy was trying to struggle from a recession and we had high unemployment. This bill would be a small step in the right direction; but we need to do much more to restore growth and balance to our international, economic and strategic relations with other countries, especially China. We should end this massive transfer of wealth from our people to China. It's a sin against our own people.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. Long ago my parents told me a truism that has been reconfirmed over and over again in my life. My parents both were raised on dirt-poor farms in North Dakota in abject poverty. And my father, who made a decent life for himself and for his family with hard work and struggle, told me as a child when we visited those farms, he said: Son, ordinary people are not going to live well in this country or any country unless there is an abundance of water and energy. And that's what all through my life I've seen; that those people who have had their water or energy restricted, it has hurt the ordinary people, the standard of living of the people of that country.

What we have faced in this country is a good example of that. What we have got is a coalition of radical environmentalists who have over the years prevented America from having the energy we need to have a high and a good standard of living for our people. Ordinary people have suffered. The same is true when we are talking about water.

Now, this radical coalition has never thought anything about constitutional rights and about whether it is States'

rights to this or that. That has made no difference to them at all. The central issue is there is a vision that the radical environmentalists have in which people are less important than fish or little insects or reptiles.

The bottom line is ordinary people, ordinary Americans, should be our highest priority. What is it doing to their standard of living? And we have seen an attack on the standard of living of the people of California by depleting water resources that should go to them that instead are being committed to a tiny little fish that isn't even good enough for bait.

Today, we are going to reaffirm in a very bipartisan fashion that no, the people of this body are elected to represent the well-being of ordinary Americans, to make sure that we have the energy and the water we need to fulfill the American Dream where everyone has a chance at a decent life.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the members of the Los Angeles Selects Hockey Peewee AAA team for winning the prestigious Peewee World Championship Tournament in Quebec on February 19, 2012. In the 53-year history of the tournament, this accomplishment marks the first time that a California team has won the event at the highest level of competition.

The L.A. Selects defeated the Vancouver North Shore Hockey Club in the championship game tournament by a score of 4 2 in hockey's equivalent of the Little League World Series. The Selects defeated teams from Russia, Slovakia, Detroit and Canada on their way to the title.

Over 100 teams comprised of 12- and 13-year old hockey players and representing 14 countries competed in the event. Over 10,000 people watched the championship game that took place in the Quebec Colisee, home of the former NHL Quebec Nordiques. Many NHL stars, such as Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, played in this tournament as youngsters. Since 1960, the Quebec tournament is the pinnacle of hockey competition where nearly 200,000 hockey fans attend the twelve-day event.

The L.A. Selects Peewee AAA Championship Roster included constituents from my district as well as a number of other high caliber players from the surrounding area: Cooper Haar (Huntington Beach), Jordan Bonner (Huntington Beach), Brett Rudy (Huntington Beach), Dexter Russo (Laguna Beach), Cayla Barnes (Corona), Jacob McGrew (Orange), Jack St. Ivany (Manhattan Beach), Vanya Lodnia (Anaheim), Cole Guttman (Northridge), Brandon McDonald (Valencia), Rhett Bruckner (Las Vegas), Brannon McManus (Upland), Nicholai Gruzdev (Valencia), Jesse Lycan (Escondito), Lukas Uhler (Upland).

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article, from Youth1.com about the team and the tournament.

LA Selects Win Quebec International Pee-wee Hockey Tournament

(By Dan Lio)

The No. 5 LA Selects rebounded from their opening game loss

to win five straight games en route to capturing the

tournament title at the 53rd Annual Quebec International

Peewee Hockey Tournament, a tournament that lasted over a

week long.

In their opening game on Monday, the Selects gave up a 3rd

period lead, falling 3 2 to the St. Louis Blues. After the

loss, their offense was in full force in their next game last

Wednesday as they defeated Bratislava 14 0. In the win the

Selects received hat tricks from three different players,

including Jake McGrew, Cole Guttman and Vanya Lodnia. Also

scoring in the win were Cayla Barnes, Brannon McManus, Jesse

Lycan, Lukas Uhler and Brett Rudy. The Selects were back in

action the following day to take on No. 4 ranked Compuware.

In a well-played game by both team the Selects defeated

Compuware 3 2 behind two goals from McManus and one from

Guttman. Picking up the win inbetween the pipes was Rhett

Bruckner. The Selects blew out Russia Forward in their next

game, defeating them 8 1. Offensively, McManus led the way

with four goals and one assist, while Guttman pitched in with

two goals and an assist. Both Jake McGrew and Cooper Haar

also found the back of the net in the win, while goalie

Brandon McDonald picked up his second win of the tournament.

The Selects battled the Whitby Wildcats in their next game,

with the winner advancing to the championship game. It was

all Selects from the get go as they eventually took home the

6 2 win. In the win they received goals from six different

players, including McGrew, Lodnia, Guttman, Haar, Lycan and

Jordan Bonner.

In the championship game the Selects took on the previously

undefeated North Shore Winter Club. In a total team effort,

the Selects were able to double up North Shore, taking home

the 4 2 victory to win the championship. Brannon McManus and

Vanya Lodnia each had two goals and an assist in the win,

while Jake McGrew and Cayla Barnes each pitched in with an

assist. Playing phenomenal in net was Rhett Bruckner as he

picked up his third straight win.

Congratulations to all members of the team, including

coaches Shawn Pitcher, Greg Chinarian, Andrew Cohen, Igor

Nikulin, Barry McManus and players Brandon McDonald, Rhett

Bruckner, Jack St. Ivany, Jake McGrew, Vanya Lodnia, Dexter

Russo, Cole Guttman, Jordan Bonner, Cayla Barnes, Brannon

McManus, Cooper Haar, Nickolai Gruzdev, Jesse Lycan, Lukas

Uhler and Brett Rudy.

Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation to grant American citizenship to Dr. Shakeel Afridi, the Pakistan medical doctor who risked his life to identify Osama Bin Laden and help U.S. military forces bring him to justice. Pakistan's Inquiry Commission on the Abbottabad Operation, the U.S. mission which killed Bin Laden, has recommended that Dr. Afridi be tried for treason for helping the United States. If convicted, Dr. Afridi could be executed. My bill would grant him U.S. citizenship and send a direct and powerful message to those in the Pakistani government and military who protected the mastermind of 9/11 for all those years and who are now seeking retribution on those who helped to execute Bin Laden.

Before the May 2, 2011 raid which resulted in Bin Laden's death, Dr. Afridi used the cover of conducting a polio vaccination program in Abbottabad in an attempt to gain access to Bin Laden's compound and identify who was living there. Pakistan subsequently arrested Dr. Afridi at his home on May 22, 2011. He has been jailed for the past eight months and media reports state that his wife, an American citizen of Pakistani origin is currently missing and her whereabouts are unknown.

Recently, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that Dr. Afridi ``was an individual who in fact helped provide intelligence that was very helpful'' to the operation which killed Bin Laden. Secretary Panetta is ``very concerned'' about his fate. This bill shows the world that America does not abandon its friends.

I have introduced this bill with the endorsement of Representatives Brad Sherman, Louie Gohmert, Jim Moran, Dan Lungren, Collin Peterson, Duncan Hunter, Joe Pitts, Jeff Duncan, Joe Wilson, Bill Posey, Ted Poe, Roscoe Bartlett, Doug Lamborn, Patrick McHenry, Sam Johnson, Mike Coffman, Adam Kinzinger, Tom Cole, Jeff Denham, David Rivera, and Jean Schmidt.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 658.

This legislation goes a long way in addressing some concerns I have had regarding our Nation's aviation enterprise. Two of those provisions I would highlight this morning:

The first is an extension of a provision from legislation that I supported back in 2004 when I was chairman of the Space Subcommittee of the House Science Committee.

Let me note that these provisions inaccurately were just described as not having had hearings. There were lots of hearings on these provisions. The provisions relate to the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation and are designed to make certain the FAA does not limit the development of the commercial human spaceflight industry without specific data about what will increase safety. This extension will encourage continued research and development while building industrywide flight experience so these companies can best serve new and existing markets. This includes expanding the research portfolio for federally funded science in the upper atmosphere and in space.

The second provision provides a slight increase in the number of flights from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport so that it can accommodate these flights to and from the west coast. This small increase will help my constituents in southern California and all Americans in the western States to meet their Representatives in Washington, DC, or visit the Smithsonian or perhaps enjoy the cherry blossoms in the spring. It will also enable those from the Washington area to visit California, California's beaches and California's sunshine and perhaps maybe want to join the Freedom Surf Team. This legislation takes us a step closer to removing the unnecessary and unfair restriction on flights to and from the west coast.

Mr. Speaker, the January 24 statement by Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, contained two claims that were not worthy of a diplomat of his wide experience.

First, he misstated the rationale for why the United States has spent over 10 years, 1,800 lives, and half a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, claiming, ``the United States is committed to supporting the efforts of the central government, to build a strong, secure, democratic, and unified Afghanistan. We have no other aim or goal.'' As much as we may care about the Afghan people, the defense of America is the only legitimate reason for the deployment of such a large combat force.

We went to Afghanistan in 2001 to avenge the slaughter of 3,000 Americans that was planned by terrorists hiding in that country. We did not go to Afghanistan to indulge in a nation-building social program. What we have done in Afghanistan must be justified on the grounds of whether it has made America more secure. Crocker seems to be moving away from that objective; perhaps because the current policy is failing to meet the security needs of our country. Yet, the current policy he does defend is failing to provide stable, honest government in Afghanistan.

Crocker claims in his second misstep, ``Rumors that the United States has a plan to divide Afghanistan or change its form of government are, frankly speaking, lies that dishonor the sacrifice of more than 1,800 American service members who have died in the cause of a unified Afghanistan, governed by its Constitution.'' While it is true that the U.S. has no plan, certainly a discussion on how to change the current corrupt and incompetent system in Kabul has been going on for a long time.

Questions like whether governors and mayors should be elected or appointed and what constitutes a sustainable Federal system are for the Afghans to decide by democratic methods which depend on free debate.

Ambassador Crocker seems to want to stifle the debate on how to reform and improve the Afghan structure so as to leave behind a more sustainable and legitimate government in Kabul when the U.S. and its allies withdraw in 2014. It is not a ``lie'' that such a debate is in progress, nor is the debate a ``dishonor'' to those who have died fighting enemies of the United States.

Indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty not to look for alternatives to the present failed policy. Many Afghans feel that the current governmental structure will not survive beyond 2014 because it has not created a system that is rooted in the people. It's over centralized form, remote from tribal and village society, does not command the allegiance of those who will have to fight to protect Afghanistan after 2014.

Crocker's attempt to insult and discredit those who engage in an honest dialogue is not what one would expect from a professional diplomat and trouble-shooter with his reputation. Though he has had a long and distinguished career in the State Department, he has never held elected office nor served in the Legislative branch. He, thus, does not fully appreciate the role and authority of members of Congress to engage in spirited debate and oversee how U.S. policy is conducted in foreign lands.

I ask that the full text of Ambassador Crocker's statement be printed in the Record at this point.

Embassy of the United States,

Kabul, Afghanistan, January 24, 2012.

Statement by Ambassador Crocker From Remarks Delivered at the Afghan

Government Media Information Center

A free and independent media plays a vital role in any

democracy by keeping the public well informed of key issues,

as do government spokespersons who provide accurate

information to those who report the news.

Afghanistan's media and the government spokespersons who

interact with it--but do not control it--are important

elements in our close bilateral relationship.

And it is a close, multi-dimensional relationship that is

vitally important to both our countries. That is why we are

negotiating a long-term Strategic Partnership that will

affirm our mutual commitment far into the future. Afghanistan

will not be left alone.

Simply put, the United States is committed to supporting

the efforts of the central government, to build a strong,

secure, democratic, and unified Afghanistan. We have no other

aim or goal.

Rumors that the United States has a plan to divide

Afghanistan or change its form of government are, frankly

speaking, lies that dishonor the sacrifice of more than 1,800

American servicemembers who have died in the cause of a

unified Afghanistan, governed by its Constitution.

It is for the same cause that American taxpayers have

provided billions of dollars over the past decade, supporting

the government and people of Afghanistan in rebuilding this

country, supplying electricity, improving health, and giving

access to education, as well as our support for the Afghan

Government Media Information Center. We will continue this

important work with our Afghan partners through our long-term

strategic partnership.

Let me also address another false and absurd rumor: that

the United States is seeking a secret deal with the Taliban

at the expense of the Afghan government and people.

As you know, Ambassador Grossman was just in Kabul. During

his visit, we engaged in a comprehensive discussion on the

way forward with President Karzai, his senior advisors, and

with the leadership of the High Peace Council.

Afghanistan and the United States both support a peace

process for Afghanistan. But only Afghans can decide the

future of Afghanistan.

President Karzai, in his speech to Parliament, spoke in

support of opening an office in Qatar for the Afghan Taliban.

For a peace process to succeed, Afghans must talk to Afghans.

The President also spoke of Afghan government contacts with

representatives of Hizb-i Islami. This is another example of

an Afghan-led process that we are pleased to support.

As Secretary Clinton said after she met the Qatari Foreign

Minister earlier this month, nothing has been concluded on

the opening of an office, and more work needs to be done.

As Ambassador Grossman said, that work includes first,

direct contact between Qatar and Afghanistan on the subject

of the opening of any office.

Secondly, for an office to open, we also need to have a

clear statement by the Afghan Taliban against international

terrorism and in support of a peace process to end the armed

conflict in Afghanistan.

And for reconciliation to take place, we are in full

agreement with the Government of Afghanistan that three

conditions must be met by the Taliban and other armed

insurgents: a complete break with al-Qaida; an end to

violence; and respect for the Afghan constitution, including

its protections for women and minorities.

Mr. Speaker, below is the text of a detailed report of a speech given on the floor of the House of Representatives that I believe will be of interest to my colleagues. The description was included in a book titled ``Speeches on the Passage of the Bill for the Removal of the Indians,'' published by Perkins and Marvin in 1830. The speech was given by Rep. David Crockett of Tennessee on May 19, 1830, in opposition to the Indian Removal Act. Unfortunately, the Congress disregarded Crockett's objections and passed the bill, which was then signed into law by President Jackson.

A Sketch of the Remarks of the Hon. David Crockett, Representative From

Tennessee, on the Bill for the Removal of the Indians, Made in the

House of Representatives, Wednesday, May 19, 1830

Mr. Crockett said, that, considering his very humble

abilities, it might be expected that he should content

himself with a silent vote; but, situated as he was, in

relation to his colleagues, he felt it to be a duty to

himself to explain the motives which governed him in the vote

he should give on this bill. Gentlemen had already discussed

the treaty-making power; and had done it much more ably than

he could pretend to do. He should not therefore enter on that

subject, but would merely make an explanation as to the

reasons of his vote, He did not know whether a man (that is,

a member of Congress) within 500 miles of his residence would

give a similar vote; but he knew, at the same time, that he

should give that vote with a clear conscience. He had his

constituents to settle with, he was aware; and should like to

please them as well as other gentlemen; but he had also a

settlement to make at the bar of his God; and what his

conscience dictated to be just and right he would do, be the

consequences what they might. He believed that the people who

had been kind enough to give him their suffrages, supposed

him to be an honest man, or they would not have chosen him.

If so, they could not but expect that he should act in the

way he thought honest and right. He had always viewed the

native Indian tribes of this country as a sovereign people.

He believed they had been recognised as such from the very

foundation of this government, and the United States were

bound by treaty to protect them; it was their duty to do so.

And as to giving to giving the money of the American people

for the purpose of removing them in the manner proposed, he

would not do it. He would do that only for which he could

answer to his God. Whether he could answer it before the

people was comparatively nothing, though it was a great

satisfaction to him to have the approbation of his

constituents.

Mr. C. said he had served for seven years in a legislative

body. But from the first hour he had entered a legislative

hall, he had never known what party was in legislation; and

God forbid he ever should. He went for the good of the

country, and for that only. What he did as a legislator, he

did conscientiously. He should love to go with his

colleagues, and with the West and the South generally, if he

could; but he never would let party govern him in a question

of this great consequence.

He had many objections to the bill--some of them of a very

serious character. One was, that he did not like to put half

a million of money into the hands of the Executive, to be

used in a manner which nobody could foresee, and which

Congress was not to control. Another objection was, he did

not wish to depart from from the foundation of the

government. He considered the present application as the last

alternative for these poor remnants of a once powerful

people. Their only chance of aid was at the hands of

Congress. Should its members turn a deaf ear to their cries,

misery must be their fate. That was his candid opinion.

Mr. C. said he was often forcibly reminded of the remark

made by the famous Red Jacket, in the rotundo of this

building, where he was shown the pannel which represented in

sculpture the first landing of the Pilgrims, with an Indian

chief presenting to them an ear of corn, in token of friendly

welcome. The aged Indian said ``that was good.'' The Indian

said, he knew that they came from the Great Spirit, and he

was willing to share the soil with his brothers from over the

great water. But when he turned round to another pannel

representing Penn's treaty, he said ``Ah! all's gone now.''

There was a great deal of truth in this short saying; and the

present bill was a strong commentary upon it.

Mr. C. said that four counties of his district bordered on

the Chickasaw country. He knew many of their tribe; and

nothing should ever induce him to vote to drive them west of

the Mississippi. He did not know what sort of a country it

was in which they were to be settled. He would willingly

appropriate money in order to send proper persons to examine

the country. And when this had been done, and a fair and free

treaty had been made with the tribes if they were desirous of

removing, he would vote an appropriation of any sum

necessary; but till this had been done, he would not vote one

cent. He could not clearly understand the extent of this

bill. It seemed to go to the removal of all the Indians, in

any State east of the Mississippi river, in which the United

States owned any land; Now, there was a considerable number

of them still neglected; there was a considerable number of

them in Tennessee, and the United States' government owned no

land in that State, north and east of the congressional

reservation line. No man could be more willing to see them

remove than he was if it could be done in a manner agreeable

to themselves; but not otherwise. He knew personally that a

part of the tribe of the Cherokees were unwilling to go. When

the proposal was made to them, they said, ``No; we will take

death here at our homes. Let them come and tomahawk us here

at home: we are willing to die, but never to remove.'' He had

heard them use this language. Many different constructions

might be put upon this bill. One of the first things which

had set him against the bill, was the letter from the

secretary of war to colonel Montgomery--from which it

appeared that the Indians had been intruded

upon. Orders had been issued to turn them all off except the

heads of the Indian families, or such as possessed

improvements Government had taken measures to purchase land

from the Indians who had gone to Arkansas. If this bill

should pass, the same plan would be carried further; they

would send and buy them out, and put white men upon their

land. It had never been known that white men and Indians

could live together; and in this case, the Indians were to

have no privileges allowed them, while the white men were to

have all. Now, if this was not oppression with a vengeance,

he did not know what was. It was the language of the bill,

and of its friends, that the Indians were not to be driven

off against their will. He knew the Indians were unwilling to

go: and therefore he could not consent to place them in a

situation where they would be obliged to go. He could not

stand that. He knew that he stood alone, having, perhaps,

none of his colleagues from his state agreeing in sentiment.

He could not help that. He knew that he should return to his

home glad and light in heart, if he voted against the bill.

He felt that it was his wish and purpose to serve his

constituents honestly, according to the light of his

conscience. The moment he should exchange his conscience for

mere party views, he hoped his Maker would no longer suffer

him to exist. He spoke the truth in saying so. If he should

be the only member of that House who voted against the bill,

and the only man in the United States who disapproved it, he

would still vote against it; and it would be matter of

rejoicing to him till the day he died, that he had given the

vote. He had been told that he should be prostrated; but if

so, he would have the consolation of conscience. He would

obey that power, and gloried in the deed. He cared not for

popularity, unless it could be obtained by upright means. He

had seen much to disgust him here; and he did not wish to

represent his fellow citizens, unless he could be permitted

to act conscientiously. He had been told that he did not

understand English grammar. That was very true. He had never

been six months at school in his life; he had raised himself

by the labor of his hands. But he did not, on that account,

yield upon his privilege as the representative of freemen on

this floor. Humble as he was, he meant to exercise his

privilege. He had been charged with not representing his

constituents. If the fact was so, the error (said Mr. C.) is

here, (touching his head) not here (laying his hand upon his

heart). He never had possessed wealth or education, but he

had ever been animated by an independent spirit; and he

trusted to prove it on the present occasion.