Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46)

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Name of Project: Smart Time Irrigation Controller Installation Program

Account: Conservation Operations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Municipal Water District of Orange County

Address of Requesting Entity: 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, CA, 92708

Description of Request: I received $134,000 for the Municipal Water of Orange County's Smart Time Irrigation Controller Installation Program. The application of smart irrigation controller technology will help Orange County and greater-Southern California manage its existing water supplies more efficiently. It will also help take pressure off our imported water supplies from Northern California and the Colorado River. Additionally, it will demonstrate for other areas with water supply challenges the effectiveness of these devices in achieving significant water savings. Finally, there are environmental protection benefits as the devices help reduce urban runoff, which is responsible for transporting pollutants and sediment into natural waterways and eventually to beaches and the ocean.

The application of Smart Irrigation Controller technology will help Orange County and greater-Southern California manage its existing water supplies more efficiently. It will also help take pressure off our imported water supplies from Northern California and the Colorado River. Additionally it will demonstrate for other parts of the county with water supply challenges the effectiveness of these devices in achieving significant water savings. Funds will be used for labor, professional services, and printing and marketing. It is my understanding that local and regional funding will contribute approximately seventy percent of the FY2010 cost.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight on the return of President Obama from his perhaps groundbreaking visit to Russia. I, as well, have recently returned from Russia.

I was there just prior to President Obama's visit, and I rise tonight to discuss America's relationship with Russia, as well as our continued involvement in NATO, as well as today's threats of radical Islam and tomorrow's looming threat of a powerful Communist China.

First and foremost, I think it's important for us to take a look at history, take a look at the present, and take a look at the future concerning America's exact positioning overseas. First and foremost, that would mean today that we need to look at NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

This organization, of course, if we are honest with ourselves, should be looked at not as an institution we should be relying on today but, instead, a relic of the cold war. Not only is it strategically irrelevant today, but it may be actually making the world less stable and our country less secure.

Of course the United States needs to cooperate with other countries, and as such we need to reach out to potential friends in every part of the world, but when a relationship with another country or a group of countries no longer serves the goals of freedom, security and prosperity, when we no longer share those interests that bind us together as a people, we need to dissolve those relationships and seek different ones.

We now have reached a point with NATO where we should take a second look at NATO and perhaps think about what type of relationships we can have in the future that would better serve our country and the cause of peace.

NATO was a vital component to American security and world peace efforts in the late 1940s. In fact, in 1949, it was what an international relations theorist might call a tenet of realistic theory that we should form a powerful alliance to counteract the hostility of the Soviet Union and the threat of the expanding realm of communism, tyranny and militarism. That was in the late 1940s.

It made sense to strengthen our NATO alliance during the 1950s while the USSR was forming its Warsaw Pact and while the fall of China to Communist tyrants and the Korean Wars halted the vision of a peaceful world that we had hoped for in the aftermath of World War II. But it is no longer the 1950s. The cold war is over. This is the 21st century, and NATO no longer serves its purposes and is, in many ways, counterproductive.

Ronald Reagan's visionary leadership and the unrelenting courage of the American people brought an end to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact and also to the Berlin Wall. Eastern Europe was freed at this time. And in the 1990s, the Russian Federation, freed from its Soviet shackles, had a real opportunity to partner with the West, to embrace classical liberalism and free market economics. And we, of course, created this relic.

NATO had a major impact in defending the peace and deterring a war with Russia up until this point. And let this cold warrior, who was very deeply involved in the cold war and supported cold war policies to the hilt, let me shock you by suggesting that Russia, after the fall of communism, attempted to embrace classical liberalism and free market economics. The Russian people and the Russian Government wanted to be part of the western community of nations. The door was open, and the Russians were not only willing but anxious to leave the cold war hostilities behind.

Well, we squandered this historic opportunity. Worse than that, we let rotten elements in the West ally themselves with looters there in Russia who were there taking advantage of Russia's weakened and vulnerable condition. The Russian people, rejected and isolated when they expected to be partners in building a new world, sunk into deep despair.

Now, it's easy, in hindsight, to look at the end of the cold war and to point out the mistakes that have been made since the end of the cold war. And it's easy to do that now because it has become clear that many, many mistakes were made by us and by our European allies and friends. Now, however, is not the time to lay blame. Now is the time to admit what has been wrong and to try to set things right and to push, as President Obama has said and Secretary of State Clinton has said, to push a reset button with the Russians. And, I would add, probably push the reset button with Russia and pull the plug on NATO. So let's look to the future. Let's take actions today that will overcome past mistakes and lead the world to a bright and prosperous future.

Ronald Reagan used to say that the Oval Office was not his office; he was just a caretaker, a temporary occupant. Well, Americans today, all of us who are fortunate enough to live in this great country of ours, are merely caretakers of this place for a relatively short period of time. We have inherited this country from those brave freedom-loving souls who came before us, and we will pass it on to our children and our grandchildren just as it was passed on to us because that was the right thing to do, and those who came before us took those stands that were right and courageous.

The stand today meaning, for me, that I'm making a new world for my children, my three small children, Anika, Tristan and Christian, who are now 5 years old, and will live in a country that will ensure liberty, justice, security, and hopefully prosperity, to its entire people. The decisions we make now will have long-term effects and be affecting my children and all the children of America today.

Reagan gave us two decades of peace and prosperity because he did the right thing. The consequences of our actions since Reagan, however, are becoming more evident and more alarming with each passing day. We must have the wisdom and the courage to confront the enormous foreign policy challenges facing us and prevail over those forces which would, if they could, destroy America and would destroy our way of life.

The national security threats before us are real and did not materialize out of thin air. But contrary to the dominant paradigm of our era, our ongoing relationship with NATO since the end of the cold war has not worked to our benefit, nor does it make peace, stability, or our Nation's security more likely.

NATO has recently engaged in a number of operations, for example, around the world, from fighting the Taliban to combating pirates, but whether one views these missions as relatively successful or a failure, one can hardly look at them and not realize that the cost of our continued involvement in NATO certainly outweighs the benefits.

In Afghanistan, the other 27 NATO countries sent a combined force of less than 5,000 troops, many in noncombatant positions. These 5,000 troops are there as part of a coalition force. While these fighters from our NATO partners are heroic and are helpful, they are dwarfed in comparison to the number of American boots on the ground.

The original members of NATO were the Americans, the French, the U.K., the Canadians, the Turks, and other European countries. Well, now add to that list Albania and Croatia, and others, and there is also talk about expanding NATO membership to other countries, smaller countries with little military relevance to the modern world.

One of the primary tenets of NATO membership is that any member will come to the defense of any other member if attacked. But realistically, is the United States going to come to the aid of these other countries at any time, and is the reverse of that proposition worth the cost to us? Do we need Albania or Croatia to come to our aid if we are attacked? The answer is obviously no.

And let us note that NATO's existence is unnecessary, and there is no strategic reason for us to stay in the alliance. And let us also admit that NATO can be counterproductive to the peace by, for example, convincing people with territorial disputes, like the Government of Georgia, the United States--I think that an impartial analysis of what happened in Georgia is that the United States, through our discussions of NATO with that government, emboldened that government,

the Government of Georgia, not to make compromises that were necessary for peace and stability in that region.

But not only did they not make the compromises, they perhaps were emboldened to conduct a military operation. And while the people of the United States were told over and over again that Russia had done something horrible in that part of the world and confronting Georgia and that it was all the Russians' fault, and all kinds of language that was used that would make it look like Russia was doing something evil and villainous, but the fact is that once you took a second look at what happened in Georgia, Georgian troops broke a truce that had been carried on for 7 years. And when it broke the truce and invaded two parts of what had been part of Georgia--let me note, the Osselians and the Abkhazians, who are the two areas that did not want to be part of Georgia, they had never been part of Georgia historically until Joseph Stalin made them part of Georgia.

And the Georgian Government, of course, emboldened by our talks with them about NATO's support, broke an agreement, a truce agreement, and conducted a military invasion of those two breakaway regions, which ended up, of course, in a major loss of life and a counterattack by Russia on Georgia.

Now, do we as Americans believe that we should have been involved in that? Does anyone believe that the United States should actually have Georgia as part of NATO or any of these other smaller countries in that part of the world as part of NATO so if there is a territorial dispute that we will send American troops into this far-off area and fight a battle perhaps with a country like Russia? Considering that this, of course, is in Russia's neighborhood and on the other side of the world from our country, that doesn't make sense. But it doesn't make sense at all for the United States to be in an alliance that might drag us into such conflicts that we have nothing to do with.

So if Georgia wants to become part of NATO or other countries like that, if Albania and Croatia, countries that I am very sympathetic with, and, by the way, I am sympathetic with Georgia. I am sympathetic with Georgia's wanting to be a separate country from what was then the Soviet Union and later became Russia and broke away. They had my total support in that, just as the Kosovars in Kosovo had a right not to be part of Serbia. But does that mean that we are going to enter into agreements with Kosovo or with Georgia or any of these other countries saying that we will use U.S. troops as part of a NATO agreement to guarantee the borders that they claim? That's ridiculous. If Albania and Croatia, two good countries, countries I like and support, if they do want to become part of NATO, well, that's okay with me. But in this case, perhaps, if they're getting into NATO, we should be getting out of NATO.

Because Americans are an open-minded people, we are more than willing to enter into relationships with other countries. And I am not suggesting isolationism, nor am I suggesting that we should not have bilateral agreements, perhaps even defense agreements with other countries. We are by our very nature networkers. Even at young ages people are using Facebook and Twitter, perhaps talking to friends who are on the Internet all over the world. And it is that sort of a sense of building alliances and relationships that is natural to Americans. We do this sort of thing at the government level too. At the outset of the Cold War, we saw a clear and present Soviet threat, and we went to work strengthening our existing relationships with friendly countries and building new relationships with other countries. Well, we should create alliances, as I said, but we need to be realistic and honest in our assessment of the factors that are in play.

For whatever reason, perhaps just the lingering of Cold War attitudes and predispositions, Russia, which should have been a natural friend, Russia faces the same adversaries that the United States faces, but Russia has been positioned as our adversary. As I say, maybe that's a lingering of the Cold War mentality on our side, or maybe it's a lingering of the Cold War mentality on both sides that have brought us to this point, or maybe it's simply that we do not understand the Russian people and are wary about becoming their friends. But that would be contrary to America's personality. We are proud, and sometimes arrogantly so, but we are a friendly people. Whatever the reason, let this Cold warrior proclaim that the Russian people are a good-hearted people and they have the potential to be great friends to and allies of the United States of America. And that's us.

There was no more fierce opponent of the Soviet Government and of Marxist-Leninist tyranny than I was during the Cold War. During the Soviet war in Afghanistan, I went there to Afghanistan and fought briefly along the side of Afghan warriors, the mujahideen, who were engaged in battle against a Soviet Army occupying their country. I personally was engaged in combat operations against Soviet troops during the Cold War. Very few people can say that.

My chest swelled with pride every time Ronald Reagan spoke about the freedom for all subjugated peoples, including the Russian people, and I helped prepare some of those speeches that he gave as President. I was Ronald Reagan's speech writer for 7 years. When the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, pleaded with Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, I was part of the team that broke through the foreign policy establishment's blockade that would have neutered this historic freedom statement even before Ronald Reagan gave it. And I cried with joy and retrospect when that wall finally came crashing down, hammered and chiseled down by freedom-loving people on both sides of that grotesquely evil barrier. I despised the Soviet Union because I loved freedom. Freedom for all people, including the Russian people.

I was just in Russia and I met a Russian who had been active in his government and active in fighting for his government during the Cold War, and I told him, I had been your worst enemy during the Cold War. And he stopped me and he said, No, no. You weren't the Russian people's worst enemy. You were the enemy of communist tyranny, and thank God for that. There are many Russians today that fully understand that they have left communist tyranny behind and it is a wonderful opportunity for them now.

But the Cold War was not a war between our people. We didn't have a fight with the Russian people. It was a conflict of ideologies. The Russian people were victimized by communism just as the people of the West were threatened by communism. But the Russians are a wonderful and a creative people. They share many personal values with us, their sense of humor, their love of children, of fun, of drink, of dance, and, yes, their reverence for God and faith that was never beaten out of them by atheistic communism, which held them in its grip for five decades. There was openness and vulnerability of these people as the Soviet Communist system collapsed. Yet they were vulnerable, and yet we did not do what was right by them.

The Russians and the Americans share more than cultural traits. We now share very real common threats to our countries. And those are radical Islam, which is upon us, and a totalitarian China, which is rapidly becoming an enormously negative power in the world.

The totalitarian Government of China is the world's worst human rights abuser. It is a natural enemy of the United States. It is also an enemy and a threat to Russia. Yet we embrace that government, the world's worst human rights abuser, Communist China, and we build their economy. We build their manufacturing base and their technological capabilities even while simultaneously at the same time we find ways to continue hostilities and noncooperation with Russia. With open trade policies, credits, investment, and technology transfers, we run up massive trade deficits with China, and we haven't even been able to bring ourselves to officially end Jackson-Vanik economic restrictions on Russia. These are holdovers. The Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Russia are holdovers from the Cold War days. It is an insult and a sign of our own incompetence that we have not been able to lift the Jackson- Vanik restrictions on Russia. It's a joke, a cruel joke, when

we even mention it to the Russians now after two decades of promising that these restrictions would be eliminated. All this, all this while we give China every benefit.

Well, this relationship with Russia as well as our relationship with China has been wrongheaded and gravely so. China, in stark contrast to the great changes in Russia, where there has been political reform, where you have opposition parties and, yes, there are imperfections, but you go there and there is talk radio show complaining about leadership in Russia. In Russia you do have opposition parties, but, of course, the current party that's in power by its very nature is more popular because it won the election. And there were people on the ballot, but they were not elected. Well, there has been reform in Russia, although it's not perfect. It's far from perfect.

But there has been no liberalization in China. China is not a worthy trading partner. China is not a worthy trading partner in any respect of the word, not an economic partner; and it's not a partner for peace nor is it a partner for world stability. China has had no reform of its political power structure, and it is, unfortunately, our most likely future enemy. Those words are very hard for me to say. They are not our enemy now, but it is clear that unless we have political reform in China, liberalization there, and the dictatorship there continues to grow stronger, it will be and it is today America's most likely future enemy. It is already a deadly economic competitor of our people, and it is also openly hostile to those basic values which make us Americans: a respect for human rights, religious freedom, the environmental stewardship that we have taken upon ourselves in recent years, treating each person with common decency. These things are not part of the Communist Chinese Government's agenda. In fact, they see these things as contrary to their basic concepts of what government should be all about and what their society should be all about, while we see these things as positive elements that should be fostered and nurtured in our society: human rights, religious freedom, environmental stewardship, prosperity, openness, opportunity.

Because of the irreconcilable differences between the United States and the Communist Party apparatus in China, our current relationship with China has resulted in an economic and security disaster for America. It is time to have the courage to admit this fact, and it is time to reverse the poor decisions and bad policies that have made the world that we live in and led us to this point. If these are not reversed, if the policies that have led us to this point are not reversed, the result will be national and, yes, global catastrophe.

Again, we are talking about government, a specific government, not its people. The Chinese people are hardworking, family-oriented people, and I have all the sympathy and respect for them in the world. They are, in fact, freedom's greatest ally, our greatest hope. The Chinese people, America's greatest hope, the American people's potentially greatest friends.

The Chinese Government, however, is a loathsome tyranny, a dictatorial clique that has enslaved their people in that country and is intent on dominating the rest of it. It is a government that, as I speak, is shooting down Muslim Uyghurs in East Turkistan, which is that far region in the western provinces of China. A government that arrests and murders Falun Gong religious practitioners. The Chinese Communist Government arrests and murders these Falun Gong, and who are they? Pay attention, America. Who are they? The Falun Gong want nothing more than the religious freedom that we hold so dear. And what do they believe in? They believe in yoga and meditation.

Yet, thousands of them were picked up by the Chinese Communist dictatorship, thrown into prisons. And oftentimes they never come out of those prisons. And too often we find that what is coming out of those prisons where Falun Gong members have been thrown, what do we find is coming out of those prisons? Body parts being sold to Americans and other people as medical body parts. Kidneys and organs of the body that have been extracted from people who were put in jail for religious purposes and murdered. That is the type of ghoulish regime that now controls the country of China and the Chinese people.

In China, there are no unions or workers' rights, there are no democratically created environmental standards. There are no concerns about human rights or considerations for the inherent dignity of all humankind. There is no liberty; no independent judiciary; no freedom of the press; no rule of law; no opposition parties; no right to criticize the nature of their government or to criticize the clique that rules it.

For these reasons, a billion working people are held in bondage so that goods can be manufactured in China for far less than in the United States. And with the one-way free trade that we have permitted and the short-term profit desired by America's corporate elite, our country has been partners in building the Chinese economy into a monstrous threat, while at the same time weakening and destroying our own economic base.

Over the last two decades we have built China from a relatively backwards economy into a Frankenstein monster. When I say we, I mean the policies of the United States government have lifted the economic capabilities of a country that has had no political liberalization, no political reform of their dictatorial system, and a country that, yes, is also engaged in rebuilding its military. And, yes, we have built this Frankenstein monster. And that monster is slowly turning on its creator. It is turning on us.

We find ourselves today in an economic disaster. It is a severe recession. We can all feel it. It is around us. Our friends and neighbors and even our families are suffering. It is a Depression-- perhaps not as dire as the one in the 1930s, but it might get there. It is devastating. People are losing their jobs and their houses. And who is to blame for this horrendous situation and what can be done about it? The blame, dear Brutus, lies with us.

We gave China Most Favored Nation status even though they have had no political liberalization. Despite our better judgment and despite the fact that China is a brutal dictatorship, we permitted them this advantageous economic relationship. We gave them this trading status because America's corporate elites wanted to make a quick buck for themselves with lots of good bonuses for the corporate elite and then to sell us goods--us, the American people--goods at a cheaper price. We should never have realistically expected to get goods that cheap, but at the same time there was a price to pay that was not on the pricetag.

What have we gotten? What was that price that we paid? It's called economic ruin of the United States of America.

We have given China everything and we are left wanting now, begging for favors. Small and mid-level manufacturing bases in the United States, our mid-level manufacturing base--small and mid-level--have been virtually destroyed. Our small and medium-sized and even large industry is gone. Our manufacturing jobs have gone.

And where have they gone to? They have gone to China so their people have the jobs. And their country is accumulating the wealth. And because we have had this Most Favored Nation status and had a relatively one-way free trade agreement, the Communist bosses have been able to set the rules and to manipulate the trade so that it benefits their power structure.

We were told that if we had Most Favored Nation status with China and that we had trade and we embraced them economically, there would be political liberalization. For 20 years, for 30 years we were told that. And that has not happened, but just the opposite has happened.

What we have now is with China a massive debt that can be purchased and is now being purchased by China. We have a massive debt here. Actually, just even this year's debt is going to be $2 trillion higher--$4 trillion budget, $2 trillion in debt. And the Chinese are very happy to buy it because they are holding it over our head and grabbing us by the throat.

We have given China everything, and we are left with nothing but ruin and cheap, poorly manufactured goods, poisonous toys and, all too often, poisonous food.

We need first and foremost to demand that our policymakers who are negotiating trade agreements with foreign governments, that their primary concern be--and I say this emphatically--the primary concern of our negotiators should be what is good for the people of the United States and that those negotiators be patriots in their perspective and not globalists who are tied to some notion of what is good for the world or some philanthropist who wants to help other peoples and other countries at the expense of our own people, the American people. We have not had that.

We have permitted a trade policy with China and other countries that have drained our country of resources with basically one-way free trade agreements. In China, we could only export our manufactured goods if they were made in China. So our capitalists were anxious to go there. But they could certainly export everything they wanted to into our country.

That one-way free trade doesn't work, and it has been a major factor in the economic crisis we face today. And that policy was permitted to continue. Because people were telling us if we just do this with China, they will liberalize and become a liberal democracy. I call that ``hug a Nazi, make a liberal.'' That's the theory. Hug a Nazi, make a liberal. No.

We can get as close to them and do favors for them all we want, but we should have demanded the political liberalization, which would have opened up a two-way free trade relationship rather than a one-way.

Proponents of liberalization of trade, as I say, frequently claim that even the one-way trade, even the liberalization of trade as it existed, would create jobs in the United States, create U.S. exports, and improve the trade deficit with China. That's what we heard. Not only just that it would liberalize China, but it would be good for us in the meantime.

President Clinton claimed that the agreement allowing China into the World Trade Organization, which was negotiated during his administration, and I quote President Clinton, ``creates a win-win result for both countries.''

Well, has it been a win-win result? Our country's, as I say--our country's small and mid-level and even large manufacturing units have been decimated. People who had good manufacturing jobs now have low- paying survival jobs. Their children have no really great aspirations to be industrial leaders or great entrepreneurs and businessmen because the lifeblood has been sucked out of our country as our manufacturing jobs have gone to China.

And while it's true that exports support jobs in the United States, as we were told, we must now recognize that it is equally true that imports destroy American jobs. Yes, that's right. Exports create American jobs, but imports do what?

I know that because in my two harbors, two ports that I represent, 90 percent of all the commerce coming through those ports are containers coming in from China and the East, and only 10 percent are going out.

We are destroying jobs of our people, those jobs that are necessary for people to live in homes, for people to have decent standards of living. The net result of the trade flow on unemployment, it's very clear when you see the trade imbalance that exists, why we have an increasing level of unemployment.

And those people who are employed and have been employed over the last 10 years are getting jobs that are far worse and not as uplifting and not as socially mobile upwards as those jobs that their parents were getting back in the fifties and in the sixties.

China's economy and China's as military capabilities have been growing and expanding even as our country has been declining. But the trouble of it is when you look at the economic and the military capabilities that are growing in China, it quite often is based on the utilization of technology that came from the United States. In fact, some of this technology was actually developed by American taxpayers, not even by these big corporate giants who go over there and set up their manufacturing units. They end up taking technologies that we have paid for, for the research, and doing what? Manufacturing it over in China.

Right now, there's a big issue. What is that issue? It's whether or not we should loosen some of the controls on our technology exports. Well, I have been insisting we do that only to Democratic countries-- and we especially do not loosen the technology controls on China.

It was just about 15 years ago during the Clinton administration when they permitted American satellites to be launched on Chinese rockets. At the time, I thought it was a good idea. I will have to admit that. I thought it was a good idea. But within a very short period of time I recognized what a horrendous reality was being created.

What we were doing were perfecting those Chinese rockets in order to send up our satellites at a cheaper rate. Thus, we undercut the development of our own missile and rocket industry, our own aerospace jobs, and at the same time we perfected the Chinese rockets and missiles so that they could more easily what? Carry military payloads as well as civilian payloads.

No, we shouldn't be loosening any of our technological restrictions on the transfer of technology to China. And even to this day, as we want to loosen them to democratic countries, there are moves here in Washington to try to take the exemption of China out.

I will make this very clear. I am part of the team that's trying to move forward legislation to permit our high-tech industries to export to friendly democratic countries. But I have personally put into and worked with my other Members of Congress to ensure that part of the legislation restricts that loosening of controls to China so that they won't be able to launch American satellites on Chinese Long March rockets, because we know that will result in a technological transfer and an upgrading of those rockets.

For example, we have developed a chip that serves as a gyroscope. Costs us hundreds of billions of dollars to develop that chip. That was 15, 20 years ago. Today, of course, because of what happened 15 years ago, all of the Chinese rockets have a gyro on a chip. It didn't cost them a cent.

And all of these other manufactured goods that are being shipped over here, the Chinese haven't had to pay for the development costs. We've paid for it. The taxpayers and the corporations. And when a corporate leader sends his company to China, guess what? Yes, he gives himself a bonus for a few years and then disappears with tens of millions of dollars of bonus while his own company, the stockholders, and especially the workers of that company, suffer the damages when their jobs are eliminated and actually when the company is taken over by the Chinese.

Well, ironically, we have liberalized our trade with China, but China has not even liberalized its own government. In fact, China has been getting worse over these last two decades, not better. It was Tiananmen Square that was the turning point. Up until Tiananmen Square, there was a legitimate reason for us to build the economy of China to create closer ties because there was a movement on to create a new and democratic China that would be friend of ours and the world. There was a positive evolution going on politically and economically in China.

When it reached its tipping point at Tiananmen Square, the United States didn't stand tall. If Ronald Reagan would have been President, I can assure you he would have sent a telegram to the leaders, I'd say, to the gang who controls the Government of China. And he would have said, if you turn loose the army and slaughter the democratic movement in Tiananmen Square, all of the economic understandings we have, all of the capital investments and technology transfers, it's off. Reagan would have done that in a heartbeat. But George W's father, George Herbert Walker Bush was President. He did not share that same commitment, and there was no message sent to the Chinese, which was the worst message of all, because they now understood they could manipulate even the highest level of people in our government and of industry for short-term profit and that our elite does not give a damn about democracy or any of the other values that we, the American people, hold dear.

So we let our corporate elite dictate to us, and our government, under

George Herbert Walker Bush, took the easy way out. We acted like Tiananmen Square didn't count, and we let the corporations continue to make their quick buck so the corporate elites could give themselves their big bonuses. And in the end they were sending more jobs and more technology transfers and more capital investment to China, even though they had just slaughtered the democratic movement in Tiananmen Square. And now look at us. When we do something immoral, we come back and we pay a price for it.

Part of the reason we are in such economic hardship today can be traced right back to the immoral decision that I just mentioned. We've permitted this China, an authoritarian, totalitarian China, to have an open free-trade policy with the United States. But it was only free trade in one way, and there was no liberalization going on whatsoever. China should never have been given most-favored-nation status, and of course, we look at it now. China's been given that. Russia can't get anything. Russia can't even get the Jackson-Vanik restrictions to be taken off.

The tipping point in Russia came in 1991, which obviously caused a massive economic dislocation in Russia as it moved out of its socialist economy. So, in 1991, the great reforms were happening in China. The democratic movement wasn't slaughtered like it was in Tiananmen Square, but the Russian people were suffering hardship. The Russian economy collapsed, and there was a national despair in Russia, of course, and we watched this. While we built and fueled and invested in the Chinese economic machine, we said ``No thanks'' when it came to broadening our relationship with a liberalizing Russia.

Russia's not a little country. Russia is not insignificant. On the contrary, in the long term and in the grand scheme of history, we need Russia just as much as the Russians need us. If we are to confront the menace of radical Islam and the terrorist threat, we are going to have to stop the rogue states that are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We're going to do that or combat radical Islam.

If we're going to combat, as I say, Iran or North Korea, we need to work with the Russians. We need to be partners with the Russians, not antagonists, and we certainly should not be looking at them as an enemy at a time when they have been trying to liberalize their country and have had great strides of liberalization since the Stalinist days of the Soviet Union. To be scrupulously accurate, we did, indeed, start a number of Russian-American partnerships in the 1990s.

In 1992, Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar pushed us to work with the Russians to secure and dismantle nuclear weapons arsenals in and around the former Soviet Union, a project that would make everybody safer. It was brilliant, and eventually it evolved into the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. This program, the CTR, was a joint exercise between the United States, Russia, other former Soviet states and various military contractors. For a while, it went very, very well even though it had its ups and downs, and it's still going well. Despite the fact that certain people in the United States are complaining about it, they complain about the costs, but mostly they complain about working with the Russians to secure the Russians' weapons.

Well, that makes all the sense in the world to me that we work with them to dismantle weapons, nuclear weapons, and that gets to the heart of the problem. The type of people who are now deadly against us even trying to help the Russians dismantle their own weapons. We have a chance. And President Obama--I will have to say I've been very critical of him in his dealings with countries like Iran and elsewhere where he's not being tough, but he's trying to reach out to the Russians, and I applaud that. What he's trying to do is to find something that is mutually beneficial to us and that would be a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons cost a lot of money to both of our countries, and we are building them so that they can't be used. We are praying they will never be used. So if we are going to have money for the military, which we have to use to defeat radical Islam and to confront China, we need to make an agreement with Russia to bring down the level, not to eliminate nuclear weapons but bring down the level of those weapons that we believe should never be used so that we can afford to pay for the defense that we need to use.

And why aren't we doing that? I mean, Obama has laid the groundwork, but already we have people on my side of the aisle raising their voices with an ingrained sense of hostility towards Russia on any idea of reducing nuclear weapons. Well, how come we don't have that same antagonism towards China, who we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to? The United States did withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. I supported that, and I still do, even though I know the Russians didn't like that and thought it was a hostile act. I believe in missile defense. That's why we withdrew from that treaty.

I believe we should reduce our number of nuclear weapons and build a missile defense system, but I disagree with how the Bush administration rushed forward to deploy a system in the Czech and Polish Republics right on Russia's borders. We should have done what Ronald Reagan advised, and that is, if the Russians would withdraw from Eastern Europe and give up this Communist attitude of dominating the world, we should make the Russians partners in designing, building, maintaining and operating an antimissile system.

So, instead, we set up this system that we knew would be considered a hostile act and would antagonize the Russians even at the same time as we were inviting Chinese military observers to observe our own military operations. We've got it totally backwards. The country with no liberalization whose government hates our way of life and imprisons people for religious purposes, that government we're inviting to observe our military operations and cooperate with their military while Russia, which has had every liberalization, even though they're imperfect, that country which wanted and would love to work with us on missile defense, we set up a system which is aimed at Russia. Well, if we keep expanding NATO and inching around Russia, you can expect them to think that we're doing this as a hostile act. We do this even as we try to open up our relations even further with China.

We chastise Russia for its imperfections, but we have not bothered to make demands on China even as we have invited the Chinese military to observe our military operations. We keep expanding NATO, as I say, inching around, but we always have a negative word for Russia; yet, in China, there has been no reform of its tyrannical and repressive practices.

So what else have we done? We haven't even offered support for those elements in China that do believe in reform and democracy. We can't get ourselves to have strong condemnations of the brutal massacres going on now with the Uyghurs, the Muslims or the Tibetans or the Falun Gong. We can't get our government to actually condemn China for the brutality, the massive brutality that they are perpetrating on their own people, much less, I might add, condemn them for their continued insistence on territorial claims.

China is not only an economic threat, but China is a massive threat to us as it builds its military, its rockets and missiles, in particular, as it claims huge territories of Russia and India and huge areas of the ocean right up to the shores of the Philippines. These are claims that China is making; yet the United States is not counteracting those claims even as we are antagonistic towards Russia.

If we are to have a free world, if we are to combat radical Islam, we need Russia on our side. If we are going to combat those rogue nations in Iran and North Korea, we need Russia on our side. And if we are to live at peace and to thwart these desires by China to dominate the world, we must have Russia on our side.

So far, American policy has been totally upside down in terms of Russia and China. We need to make sure that we enter new relationships. Instead of taking NATO and expanding it, we should now show Russia that we want a new coalition in this world and that Russia will be part of it.

I would suggest that as we leave NATO, that we instead form a new coalition, perhaps not formally, but a coalition of interests, of security interests with countries like India, Japan, Russia and the United States. They are the four legs to the table that will create stability for humankind. Other democratic countries will join with us. But we need to have a relationship, a viable relationship with those countries in order to combat those challenges that are upon us with radical Islam and that threat that looms over us, which is an ever-more increasingly powerful Communist China.

The future's up to us. We've got to be realists, but we've also got to remain true to our principles as Americans. And when we are not true to those principles, when we close our eyes to the repression going on in China, even as we speak at this moment, where Muslims are being shot down in parts of China because they are not willing to accept the repression of their own culture and the repression of their faith, or the Tibetans who have suffered the same, or the Falun Gong who want nothing more than to meditate and have yoga exercises, if we do not speak up for these persecuted people, we will be persecuted, and we will suffer as a result.

The economy is suffering because of incredibly stupid policies, economic policies, and the China trade policy has been one of the worst. Our country will suffer in the future if we do not have a rational policy of security and cooperation with Russia, with India, and with Japan.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 28 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Thank you very much.

Wake up, America. What's happening on the floor today is a power grab that will leave you with empty pockets and no jobs. The jobs will go to China, and the economy will go to hell. Worse than that, the scientific basis for the claims being made to frighten us into accepting this economy-destroying legislation are wrong.

Wake up, America. There hasn't been any global warming, which is what we heard over and over and over again--there hasn't been any global warming for 10 years. In fact, the ice caps are melting, which we see over and over again. Yeah, they're melting on Mars too, which in any honest discussion would lead to the conclusion that the ice caps are melting and these things are happening because of solar activity, not because of the activity of human beings.

The science is wrong. The economics is wrong. You're going to cause great damage to the people of this country, to their well-being, in the name of phony science. There are hundreds and hundreds of scientific leaders, like Dr. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that have refuted the arguments. They are pleading with us. Pay attention to the good science. Don't hurt our people based on the false claim of global warming, which they don't even use that language anymore.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here on the floor of the House tonight, I am reminded of the television series the ``Twilight Zone.'' And these days I half expect Rod Serling to appear from behind a curtain and announce, ``This is the Twilight Zone.'' Yes, there is an almost bizarre sense of unreality here in the Nation's Capital.

The transformation of private liability into public debt on a massive scale. The unprecedented level of deficit spending, debt piled upon debt, borrowing from China to give foreign aid to other countries. The willingness to pass draconian restrictions and controls on our national economy and on the lives of our people. And while seeking to save us from a recession, Congress shovels hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial industry, much of which has ended up in the pockets of fat cats and wheeler-dealers who have been giving themselves multi- million dollar bonuses even as they drove their own companies into bankruptcy. The giveaway and the lack of oversight has been mind- boggling. And we don't know where hundreds of billions of dollars have gone, and we don't know to whom. Yet we know that the taxpayers are now on the hook for this increase in our national debt.

We have watched as this has been happening, and, of course, there are so many things that are being done here today to our people. But we also note how much is not being done that needs to be done to protect our people, which is just as mind-boggling.

Our Nation's borders leak like a spaghetti strainer. Millions of people illegally continue to pour into our country to consume our limited health care. And, by the way, we just heard a lot about health care. Why are we not hearing that we should not be picking up the tab for the tens of millions of illegals that have come into this country? But that's not part of the discussion. But millions of people are flowing into our country, and they are consuming the limited health care, education, and other social service dollars that we have. We have limited money; and yet they are taking that money, and they're taking jobs from our people.

And sometimes they come here and they commit crimes against our people. And our government just sits and lets it happen even while we are passing all these hundreds of millions on to wheeler-dealers in the financial industry. We can't even come to grips with our illegal immigration problem. We can't even build a fence.

In California we can't even build a new water system in the middle of a drought. This we are told is because of a tiny fish, the delta smelt. So our people will have to suffer because of concern over a little tiny worthless fish that isn't even good enough to be used as bait.

So last week even amidst California's tremendous difficulties, with drought conditions and a shortage of water at near crisis, this House, the House of Representatives, voted not for the people of California but for a fish. No water for our people because if we would give it to the people, that little fish might be affected in a detrimental way.

Perhaps the most damaging of the weird policies that I have described is America's longtime commitment not to develop its own domestic energy resources. Even as high energy prices have brought suffering and economic hardship to our people, we have not been developing our own resources. Even as we see dollars being siphoned from the pockets of our people and deposited in coffers overseas, enriching foreigners, some of those foreigners who hate us, while our hard-earned dollars are being extracted from us, massive deposits of domestic oil and gas worth trillions of dollars are untouched, untapped, and unused.

Even as California sinks into an economic catastrophe, off the coast are huge caverns filled with massive deposits of oil and gas just sitting there. And even as California cuts and cancels public services to our own people, billions of dollars of tax revenue could be derived by utilizing that oil and gas that's just sitting there right off our shore. Yet the State of California lets it sit there while our people suffer and the State goes broke. Trillions of dollars have been sent overseas for energy, while at home no new oil refineries, no hydroelectric dams, no nuclear power plants.

As I say, all of this seems a bit bizarre. And it may be a bit bizarre, but it is not meaningless nonsense. Those who have insisted upon these antidomestic energy development policies know exactly what they're doing. They want to change our way of life whether we like it or not. So a few decades ago, they grabbed onto a theory, a theory that the world is heating up because humankind uses carbon-based fuels. Read that oil, gas, and coal. This theory gives them the ability to stampede politicians and even stampede scientists with a certain amount of prodding and promises of being excluded from grants or promises to receive grants, but that theory gives them the ability to get these people, whether they are scientists or politicians, to support draconian policies and mandates, changes in our economy and lifestyle that they otherwise would never dream of considering and supporting.

All of this is in the name of protecting us from a climate calamity: man-made global warming. Well, the

Good Book says: ``The truth shall make you free.'' A caveat might be: ``And a lie can destroy your freedom.'' Man-made global warming has given respectable cover to advocates of a tax and regulatory policy that no one would even consider except, of course, unless it's to take care of an emergency.

In reality, the effort behind the man-made global warming juggernaut is the biggest power grab in history. It gives politicos who always wanted to control the behavior of normal people a seemingly legitimate reason to do so, even over those normal people's objections. This power grab was set in motion in the very first days of the Clinton administration in 1993.

When the Clinton administration took over, one of the first actions that the administration was to do was to fire Dr. William Happer, a man who dared challenge Vice President Gore. Yes, Dr. Happer believed in science, not in the junk science of radicals, and he was skeptical, although not an advocate of either side of the global warming debate.

He didn't fit in, so out he went. From there on, the pattern was very clear, and it's very clear. In order to receive even one penny of Federal research money, a scientist would have to tow the line on the man-made global warming theory. Any dissident would be quickly squashed or at least be cut off from any Federal research funding. That went on for 8 years.

So when approaching this concept of man-made global warming, we must examine the science behind it. So let's state right off, the unconscionable intimidation of the science community during the Clinton years has ensured that bad science permeates the entire argument of the alarmists who are perpetuating this man-made myth. This man-made myth global warming is based on bad science, and it's very easy to discern this by the Herculean efforts made by the man-made global warming advocates to cut off all debate on this issue.

So not only did we see people in the scientific communities being intimidated with the promise of having their research funds cut off, but now, after this, and after the presentation of the global warming alarmist alternative, let's say, alternative projects and alternative policies, that there has been an intense effort to cut off debate on the issue of man-made global warming itself. That is why in Congress they are now trying to quickly slip by a drastic life-altering legislation that is based on the science of man-made global warming. And they want to do this without confronting the basic science.

So, if we want to take a look at the science of global warming, the first thing to notice is why have those people who believe in global warming spent so much effort and so much time and been so abusive in trying to cut off debate? Has anyone ever heard the slogan, case closed?

Come on, if you really are honest, admit that is an attempt, and it was a huge attempt, to cut off debate. The debate is over.

How many heard that? Again, an attempt, not to discuss the issues, not to have an honest discussion of the science, but never to discuss the science. That is what the language--and that is the language of the debate. And what we have here is a language of debate and discussion restriction, not the language being used by the advocates of global warming for let's have an honest discussion, the words they used are aimed at limiting and restricting and cutting off debate. Case closed.

Al Gore never takes any questions. Do you know that, when he goes out and speaks and goes to universities, not only does he not debate, which would be a good idea, he refuses to take questions.

I don't know how many times have we heard, every prominent scientist agrees, so you must be a kook if you disagree. Well, every prominent scientist doesn't disagree and the names of hundreds, of those people in the scientific community, people who are heads of universities like Richard Lindzen, one of the great scientist from MIT, from all over the world there are major scientists who have put themselves on the record and taken great risk in doing so, telling them that they are, no, very skeptical and have serious doubts about the man-made global warming theory.

The name calling and stifling in this debate by the man-made global warming advocates has been shameful and a disservice to democracy. If someone so much as tries to make a joke, it is reported as if it is being serious. The people who do that are themselves admitting that they cannot stand a major scientific and truthful scrutiny and exchange of ideas.

So what about the science? Let's take a look, and I would challenge any Member of Congress to come here and debate me on the science of this issue.

First, let's talk about the so-called global-warming cycle that's being caused by human activity. That's the bases of what this whole issue is. We know that there have been weather and climate cycles throughout the history of the world, going back to prehistoric times. The global warming alarmists now are using a low point of a 500-year cycle of cooling, and that was at the end of the Little Ice Age, as the baseline for determining if humankind is making the planet hotter at this time.

So, let's get back to it. There have been all of these cycles through the history of the planet, and this cycle, there is a cycle that is going on. But to analyze that cycle, those people are saying man-made global warming, as differentiated from all the other cycles, are using the 1850s as their baseline, and that is at the 500-year low in the temperature of the Earth. It was the end of what they call the Little Ice Age.

Is that good science? Should we really be upset when there is a 1- or 2-degree rise from a 500-year low point in temperatures? So, come on, let's answer that scientific question. Let's not call me names, which is what's happened over and again, as if I don't believe in science, and I am some sort of Neanderthal, or that I am any number of pejorative names. Let's look and be honest.

Those people using names do not understand the issues and are afraid to discuss the science and the issues at hand. They are doing a disservice to our country, and they are exposing themselves as being people who do not believe in the very issue they are advocating because they can't defend it.

So, science question number one: Are they not using an unreasonably cooler moment as the baseline for analysis? Is that not an unreasonable thing to do, to start your settings and use as a baseline a 500-year low in temperature when trying to tell us that we should be concerned about the warming trend that's going on?

Question number two: What about those other weather cycles that we have had long before humankind emerged on this planet? A thousand years ago, even after we had people, things were much warmer than now. Iceland and Greenland were farmed by Norsemen. Farms, there were farms there. It was a time period a thousand years ago when there were not only cattle, but there were plants going there.

Vineland, was actually--people thought Vineland was something that Leif Erickson made up. No, there was a place, a Vineland, back in Nova Scotia, and in those days grew grapes. Well, that's because the weather was warmer then, and there was a cycle, as I say. Was that cycle--as I say, was that cycle--was the decline in temperature by the Little Ice Age, was that caused by human beings?

What about all the other cycles taking place. Were those caused by human beings? If we see that there were cycles that even happened before prehistoric man even existed, well then there must be some other explanation. Well, what is that explanation?

So, if there were cycles before human beings were forced on the planet, what is the other explanation? Well, it seems to many scientists who believed this that the cycles of climate have followed solar activity.

That's why, and I get that, the sun is the biggest force of energy on the planet, and they believe that many scientists believe that it's solar activity and not human activity that's creating this cycle, just as it did the other cycles that we have gone through long before human beings even existed on the planet.

And that also explains why we have cycles, monitoring those on Earth,

that have been observed on other planets. That's right, on other planets.

In recent years, we have been treated to the outcries of agony about the melting that is taking place in the Arctic. This is being used to touch people's hearts to get them alarmed so they will accept the draconian controls that will come from those people who are advocating policies to deal with man-made global warming.

They're saying, Oh, it's our activity that's causing the ice caps to melt. Well, who hasn't seen these pictures of these polar bears? The poor polar bears on the ice floe, obviously a victim of man-made global warming.

Well, not so fast. Yes, the ice cap is retreating. There's no doubt about that. But what about the ice cap on Mars? Yes. Right now, at the same time we have our ice cap that is retreating, the ice cap on Mars is retreating at exactly the same time, and it seems to be mirroring, paralleling what's going on on the Earth. Doesn't that indicate that it might be the Sun and not somebody driving an SUV or using modern technology that is creating such a cycle; it's creating the situation that left the bear in a warmer climate?

Well, if so, let us note this. If it is indeed caused by the Sun, and yet we have had all this propaganda to touch our hearts and get us to think, not to feel about the poor polar bear, let us note that if it is the Sun and it's not us, then that polar bear is the victim and has nothing to do with man-made global warming, but is being challenged, just like animals have been challenged throughout the history of our planet by planet cycles.

By the way, let me just note this. How many have not heard the polar bear is becoming extinct? The polar bears are not becoming extinct. In fact, the number of polar bears on this planet has dramatically expanded.

There are four to five times the number of polar bears on the world than there were in the 1960s. But you would believe from what you have seen and the movies and the ice caps melting and Al Gore showing, by the way, a false--a piece of Styrofoam that was breaking off in a movie, presenting to us as if that's the ice caps breaking off the Arctic. You'd think that it was that the polar bears were doomed and that we were to blame for it.

Well, here's another scientific challenge. Okay. If we have cycles already, if the ice is melting on Mars, just as it is here, what is the science behind this claim that mankind is causing the climate cycle, if there is a climate cycle, and what climate cycle it is?

So, let's have an answer to that. Let's not call me names. Let's not just say, Oh, the polar bear--I remember reading this on the Internet-- the polar bear is near extinction, when it is clear from many other sources, which I will be happy to provide, that the polar bear population is actually going up. Besides that, that's not the point.

The point is that the polar bear is, whatever condition it's in, is not due to the fact that human beings can drive in automobiles or that we have to change our lifestyle and be controlled by the government in order to protect the polar bear from climate changes that our activities bring about. Man-made global warming theory?

And my colleague from Texas, if he would like to step in for a few words, I'd be very happy to have him.

Thank you. I appreciate my friend from Texas reminding us of a past scare that proved not to be based on science. I remember about cranberries. Couldn't eat cranberries for 2 years because that caused cancer. I remember when they took cyclamates off the market to the cost of a billion dollars for the industry, then, 20 years later, found out that that was not legitimate.

I remember during the Reagan years, the same sort of intensity now being used on global warming was used to advocate we have to have massive controls on our economy based on controlling acid rain. And what happened to that? Ronald Reagan held firm. There was a scientific research project that went through for a $500 million research program that showed that, yeah, there's a little bit of a problem with acid rain, but not very much. In fact, it was not the threatening force that we were told at that time, which would have cost tens of billions of dollars if we tried to use their agenda, what was being put forward in order to ``stop acid rain.''

Well, the man-made global warming theory, again, is like that. It is based on another scientific factor, and that is CO2. So let's talk about CO2.

CO2 is a part of what is in the atmosphere. CO2, carbon dioxide, is a miniscule part of our atmosphere. So, CO2 is, yes, part of the atmosphere, but it was always considered a very small part of the atmosphere.

Let me just make sure we get this right. That CO2, most people believe that it is a large part of the atmosphere, because I have asked them, but in reality it is less than .04 percent. So what we're saying is much less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the atmosphere is CO2.

So at that rate, basically when we take a look at that, one-tenth of 1 percent and 80 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not traced to human activity. There has been, over the years, times when CO2 was going up. Now we are being told that the rise of CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm. But we have times when CO2 was going up, but it didn't seem to affect the climate and the planet. For example, if man-made CO2 causes warming, then why is it that when mankind was using much more CO2 in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, as the CO2 was rising, there was an actual cooling going on in the climate?

Okay, so let's hear the science about CO2. Why is everyone afraid to try to look at the specific science? If CO2 causes warming, why is it, when there were dramatic times of CO2 increase that the Earth got cooler? I had one person suggest that the pollution in the atmosphere completely overwhelmed the greenhouse effect during that particular time period. Well, if that is true, then what we have to say is the Clean Air Act of 1970 is directly responsible for man-made global warming. And does anyone believe that? No, of course not. By the way, anyone telling a joke or trying to make humor is always reported as if that person is being serious.

So here is another scientific challenge. The recent studies show that over 80 percent of America's temperature and weather stations, the monitors who have been collecting the information that is being passed on to us by the global warming, man-made global warming advocates, that 80 percent of these stations have been compromised and are faulty in the information they are providing. The numbers have been skewed. They are suspect because the monitors have been placed in locations that do not meet the National Weather Service basic standards. In other words, the equipment is being compromised. The figures coming out of the equipment cannot be relied upon. And our system, with its 80 percent of the monitors that do not meet the standards, has been heralded as the best in the world.

So think about that, what is going on in the rest of the world. What we are talking about here is we are talking about a 1-degree, of course, rise in temperature, from the depths of the mini-ice age, and yet now we have these monitors that even by today's standards are substandard. And that is by today's standards, not back in the 1860s and not in other parts of the world.

So how is that for a scientific challenge?

If the data is being based on monitors that don't meet scientific standards either today or in the past, how could we pass laws with taxes and controls on our people if the so-called problem is based on bogus or absolutely unscientifically obtained numbers? And even with the current methods of collecting data, we have been warned time and again of dire predictions.

So the numbers themselves are suspect. But those people who have been warning us about those numbers over the last 20 years have been spreading incredible alarm, as exemplified by Vice President Gore and others. The temperatures, we were told over and over again, were going to climb. And they were going to continue to climb, and then it would reach a tipping point, and then the temperatures would really jump up. Well, wake up. Let's talk reality here. Again, let's talk science. Let's quit saying ``case closed.'' Let's not give speeches but never take any questions. Let's quit saying that all the scientists agree when there are scientists all over the world disagreeing.

They were wrong. When they said that there was going to be a continued climb in the temperature, they were 180 degrees wrong, much less having reached a tipping point which then jumped the temperature of the world by even a larger amount.

It has not gotten warmer for over a decade. And it looks like it is still getting cooler. Now, that is totally contradictory to the predictions of the alarmists and those media people around the world who pushed that idea. It is totally contradictory to what was aggressively told to us, to what was foisted off on the American people and people throughout the world. They were totally, 180 degrees wrong.

Please let's talk about the science here. Come and talk to us about why, if your major prediction was that the Earth was going to continue getting warmer because of this CO2 that comes out of the engines that we use and the coal and the oil and natural gas, if that was what you were saying and that you were very aggressive in your advocacy of this, now that it hasn't happened, come and talk to us. Don't dismiss us. Don't try to pass a piece of legislation here based on the alarms that went off 15 years ago that have been proven not to be true.

So that is another scientifically based challenge, again, not just ignored; but I would say that this is the arrogance behind never answering these types of science charges remains evident. Please don't ignore it anymore. Please let's respect each other, and let's get away from this basic idea that you can just shut off debate. But let's pay attention to what the debate was like before, if there was any debate. There was just a one-sided debate, because people weren't able to get any government grants, so we had a one-sided drumbeat going on. But those people were aggressive in that man-made global warming was being caused by CO2, and we have got to control human beings for this.

Well, by the way, they don't even use the words ``global warming'' any more. Think about that. We have a situation that people who were just aggressively talking and putting down anybody who disagreed with them about man-made global warming, now they use the word ``climate change.'' Now if I am proven wrong in a point, if I were to be proven wrong in any point of this speech, I will apologize, and I will change my position. I won't try to change my wording so it sounds like I was never wrong in the first place. These people were wrong. Remember it. Every time they say ``climate change,'' remember that that is an admission that they didn't know what they were talking about before. Man-made global warming. Their dishonesty is underscored every time they use the phrase ``climate change.''

Now, no matter if it gets warmer or if it gets cooler, they can tell us that that backs up their theories, and we should do what they say, because now whether it is warmer or cooler, they have been proven right because they were saying and they were predicting nothing. Well, they believe they should have the power to tax and control us, even though the preponderance of evidence shows that the cycles that we are talking about were not global warming cycles created by human activity or even a cooling cycle created by human activity, but instead something that is based on solar activity.

Let me note this, the gang that told us that human activity was causing the planet to warm and to dramatically heat up, now I say they are using the word ``climate change,'' is an admission of something. But what is it an admission of? They were saying ``global warming,'' and now they are saying ``climate change.'' It is basically an admission that, yes, for 10 years the world has been getting cooler. So if human activity through CO2 was making it warmer, then maybe it is a good thing that human beings will mitigate the cooling cycle.

Now they are sort of admitting we are in a cooling cycle because they are saying global ``climate change'' and not ``warming.'' So if they said that our activities were going to make it warmer, and now they have admitted they were wrong because they are using a different word, and it is actually getting cooler, then will the human activity that they were complaining about before that was making it warmer, well, logically then shouldn't Al Gore and these other people be advocating more fossil fuel use? Anybody who advocated global warming before and now says ``climate change'' is admitting that it is cooler now, that maybe we are in a cooling trend.

Well, if they believed that human activity made things warmer, maybe they should be advocating that we use more fossil fuel to mitigate the problem of a declining temperature of the planet.

So all of Al Gore's scientific mumbo jumbo is deceptive, and the contention that all of the prominent scientists that agreed with him was not true, wasn't true then, and it is especially not true now, and I would like to add to the Record, Mr. Speaker, a long list of prominent scientists who opposed the man-made global warming theory.

Temperature predictions have been wrong. The CO2 premise is wrong, and we now find out that the monitors that were used to collect the data that were placed next to the air-conditioning exhaust vents in parking lots and on top of buildings near to heat sources, which of course made all of their data unreliable, we now know that was done wrong. And we also know the methodology of using computer models has been questionable from the very beginning.

We know the saying garbage in and garbage out. But let's look at the computer models we have been told are the basis for all of these predictions, many which we now know are wrong. No one was permitted to hear the questions, and no one was permitted to ask follow-up questions. And what about the information that was fed into the computer?

We weren't actually able to find out exactly what the basis of and what was going into those computer models. That was kept from us as well. But we do know that the projections have been wrong. We know there has been an attempt to stifle and shut up debate. People have been called names. Grants have been denied and personal attacks have been evident. All of this has been wrong.

So let's review the scientific challenges of man-made global warming, of the man-made global warming theory, which they have even given up because they now note that it is getting cooler, which is contrary to all of their predictions, because now they use the word ``climate change.''

I have issued a challenge to any of my colleagues to debate me on this issue. No one has come forward. And yet these very same people who refuse to debate the science will vote for draconian legislation that will implement the recommendations of global warming alarmists, even though these people have not stepped forward to debate, they will vote for the program that these alarmists have been advocating.

I am afraid that we should have some confrontation of ideas here and an honest discussion, and this issue has not been honestly discussed in terms of the science.

The baseline comparison, I just noted, started in a 500-year decline. It was based at the bottom of a 500-year decline in temperature. Science measurements were partly or severely flawed by monitoring systems that do not meet minimum acceptable standards. And past climate cycles were frequent even before the emergence of mankind, cycles like the retreating of polar ice caps that we are shown all of the time to touch our hearts so we won't think but will feel. Those solar ice caps and the retreat of the solar ice caps are very similar to the cycles on other planets, especially the planet Mars, for example, suggesting that solar activity rather than human activity is the culprit.

Increasing levels of CO2 did not cause warming back in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and even the 1970s, when there were large increases of CO2, yet we are told now that the CO2 was causing the world to get warmer. But yet more CO2 has even been produced and for 10 years we haven't had a warming. Now that man-made global warming has been driven into the public consciousness, the alarmists have the leverage here in Washington.

I could talk all night long, but no one is going to confront the science on this, as rotten as the science is. So right here there is a price to pay when the American people have been lied to in a big way. If the truth will set you free, lies will enslave you. There is a price to pay. Like, for example, the millions of children dying in Third World countries of malaria, all because we wanted to prevent the use of DDT. Why did we want to stop DDT? Because bird eggshells were thinning out, we believed, because of DDT. And thus, millions of children in the Third World have lost their lives to malaria because birds were more important to those who made policy than the millions of children in the Third World who were going to die as a result.

Remember, there is a serious price to pay for listening to irrational alarmists. And now all of this confronts us, and there is a bill to be voted on this week called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I call it the Destroy American Jobs and Use Candles Act.

It is a bill, of course, that is based on the theories of the man- made global warming alarmists that I have just demonstrated is totally flawed and wrong science, and a science that these people refuse to get up and defend.

This bill, of course, comes at exactly the wrong time, and its negative consequences will be ever more severe in economic hard times as we are suffering right now than they would be if we were in times of prosperity.

Even if it were true that man-made use of CO2 was causing a warming, a global warming, this wouldn't be the time to try to implement it, at a time when we are going into such a recession and depression.

Maybe we are like the Third World children in the minds of the people who are going to vote for this horrible legislation. Maybe the birds are more important than the suffering of our own people. Maybe it is more important to posture yourself as a friend of the planet than it is to try to take care of the people of this country and try to alleviate their suffering.

So let's be clear. Our unemployment is currently at 9.4 percent, and that is expected to rise into double digits. There are unsubstantiated boasts coming about jobs saved through the Stimulus Act, but that doesn't help the 345,000 Americans who lost their jobs just last month. It doesn't put food on their table.

Our projected Federal deficit this year is going to reach $1.8 trillion, almost $2 trillion, which our children are going to have to pay for. We are going to have to service that debt. When the interest rate goes up, it will destroy all of our discretionary money. We will soon auction off an unprecedented $104 billion of debt. That $104 billion has $11 billion in interest. That is $11 billion that we are going to pay, and that is just thrown away. Wait until the interest rates go up. This $11 billion will not save anybody's job or pave any roads or provide any health care. It will just be used to continue our massive level of deficit spending.

And yet, excessive taxation and regulation mandates are now being proposed in Washington to deal with man-made global warming, which is a total fraud, as I have demonstrated, and which they admit because they are unwilling to debate the basic facts of global warming, the scientific facts that I have over and over again, myself and Senator Inhofe and others, have over and over presented, but instead we are called names and belittled by this arrogant group that just has in mind they want to tax and regulate and control us, and they always have.

So here and now we are asked to pass this economy-killing bill in the name of stopping man-made global warming.

What's in the bill? I don't have to go into total detail here, but let's just mention that Chairman Waxman was asked about a certain section of the bill. And he said, and this was in committee, Why are you asking me? I certainly don't know everything that is in my bill.

I would suggest if you are writing a bill that will have such profound repercussions for decades to come by killing our economy and subduing our people, that is an unacceptable answer.

We know that there are many dangers that are going to be unleashed by this legislation, and it's an economy-killing piece of legislation. Its aim supposedly is to reduce CO2 emissions--and let's again say this. CO2, 80 percent of it in the atmosphere is traced not to human activity, it's a minuscule part of the atmosphere. Yet the goal of this draconian legislation, this oppressive, anti-economy legislation is to reduce emissions to around 80 percent of the current level of the world level by 2020. From there, it would be gradually reduced further. In order to do this, the Federal Government would issue permits that companies would use in exchange for the right of emitting CO2.

Now, let's make this very clear; CO2 does not harm human beings. CO2, we pump it into these greenhouses to make tomatoes grow better. I am all in favor of controlling pollution, pollution of the water, of the air, of the ground. CO2 is not a pollutant that hurts human beings, but that's what we are being asked to focus on and that's what this legislation that will destroy the jobs of the American people focuses on.

Well, one wonders who will decide who will receive the vouchers that are going to be given out. Apparently, 85 percent of the vouchers for the next few years will just be given out by the government, and those vouchers will be used to give permits to people who want to do business that produces CO2. Who is going to get those? This is an invitation for corruption, an invitation for corruption. We don't even know where the money went from the TARP bill where we spent hundreds of billions of dollars.

So let's remember that this bill will have a dramatic impact on our economy and the American family. There will be over $1,600 in new taxes per American family by this legislation. And all the jobs will then go to India and to China. That's what we're doing. We're taxing our people, regulating our business, and encouraging our businessmen then to go to China and to India. It will destroy millions of jobs by 2012.

Electricity rates will go up 90 percent above the inflation rate. We will incur $33,000 worth of additional Federal debt for every man, woman, and child in America because of this legislation. And gas prices will rise over 50 percent, natural gas prices well over 50 percent.

And who will be helped by this? The Chinese and the Indians. That's what we're going to get out of this legislation. What did you expect from legislation that was designed to meet a phony problem, man-made global warming, which I have just demonstrated doesn't exist.

So, why is this happening? Why are we on the verge of passing legislation? Why have people even advocated man-made global warming? Well, this has all come about because there are people in our country and throughout the world who want to control the American people. They have wanted to do this forever. They have wanted to change our lifestyles whether we like it or not. But this is a democracy, and they had to scare us and they had to skew the argument. They had to beat down anybody who wanted to offer alternative arguments in order to get us to this point of passing legislation that will dramatically control our people and control industry and put us under a burden of taxation and regulation that will destroy the meaning of opportunity in America in the years to come.

Now, why do they want to do this? Because they want to build a whole new world based on benevolent control of people like themselves. And that's where the real threat comes in. The real threat comes in that this is not just the idea of centralizing power in the Federal Government--which in and of itself is contrary to what America is supposed to be all about. We're supposed to let local government and State governments control many things, but this is a centralization of power into the hands of global government.

Yes, you hear global answers, We're global this and global that. What that means is international organizations like the United Nations-- which is filled with corrupt governments and representatives from corrupt governments, filled with representatives from governments that are despotic gangsters who murder their own people. We should not be transferring power globally. That is the worst possible scenario. But this, too, like the man-made global warming theory, is their dream, the dream of a planet being planned out by benevolent people, as if people on the international scale and Washington, D.C., are naturally more competent and more benevolent than the people themselves or the people in local government.

What can we expect? Yes, as this moves along, this is the first major step. This bill that will be coming up this week, the cap-and-trade bill based on fraudulent science, this will be the first step towards what? Towards centralizing money and power in the Federal Government.

The next step is centralizing that power globally, all in the name of benevolent ends, all in the name of stopping this horrible threat that's hanging over our heads, man-made global warming. Of course, they don't use that anymore. Again, remember, every time the word ``climate change'' is used is an admission that the people who advocated man-made global warming were wrong all along.

So I would suggest that this is the time for the patriots to stand up to the globalists. This is the time for us to say, We don't want this legislation. It will be harmful to our families. It will centralize power and money and resources in the Federal Government. It will destroy our economy at a time when people need jobs and a stronger economy. It will actually help the Chinese and the Indians more than us, all in the same benevolent-motivated activity, which is very similar to the ending of the use of DDT, which caused millions of children in the third world to die.

I don't care if people are benevolent. I don't care what their motives are, if their motives are benevolent. What is important is whether they're rational and whether they're right. I have pointed out in this speech numerous examples where the science is wrong, and I would suggest that the theory that big government controlling our lives as the way to solve our problems is also wrong. It will lead us not to more prosperity and not to more liberty, but a diminishing of the liberty and prosperity of our people.

Again, wake up America. It's time for the patriots to act. We still have time to turn this around. We have seen $4 trillion being given out, $4 trillion of private liability put on our shoulders as public debt in this last year. This is a tremendous centralization of power.

We will not give up our freedom and let this happen. We are not powerless. This is still a democracy. People need to call their Member of Congress. They need to call their Senator and say man-made global warming was a hoax. It was not something that we should be basing a centralization of wealth and power in the Federal Government, and certainly not something that we should be getting involved in in order to enrich the power of the United Nations and other international bodies.

I would invite my fellow Americans to get involved in the system. If one does not get involved in the system, we will not go the right way. And I will say that in our country's history, it has always been the intervention of the American people at the right moment that has kept us on the right track. It wasn't just sitting back and allowing special interests--like are so evident in this cap-and-trade legislation that will be voted on later on this week--to write the legislation, to control what sounds like a benevolent-sounding initiative which will wreak havoc on the life of the American people. They want to control us and change our lifestyle. Let them convince us. Don't let them control us and take away our democratic rights.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here on the floor of the House tonight, I am reminded of the television series, The Twilight Zone. These days I half expect Rod Serling to appear from behind a curtain and announce that ``This is the Twilight Zone.'' Yes, there is an almost bizarre sense of unreality here in the Nation's Capitol: The transformation of private liability into public debt on a massive scale, the unprecedented level of deficit spending, debt piled on debt, borrowing from China to give foreign aid to other countries, the willingness to pass draconian restrictions and controls on our national economy and on the lives of our people.

While seeking to save us from recession, Congress shovels hundreds of billions into the financial industry, much of which has ended up in the pockets of fat cats and wheeler-dealers who've been giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses even as they've driven their own companies into the ground. The give-aways and lack of oversight have been mind boggling. We don't know where hundreds of billions of dollars went and to whom, yet now the taxpayers are on the hook for this increase in our debt.

We've watched as nothing has been done to protect the well being of our people.

Our nation's borders leak like a spaghetti strainer, millions of people illegally continue pouring into our county to consume our limited healthcare, education, and other social service dollars, and yes, to take jobs from our people, and in some cases commit crimes against our people. Our government lets it happen. We can't even build a fence.

In California we can't even build new water systems in the middle of a drought, this we are told because of a tiny fish--the delta smelt--so our people will suffer because of concern over a little, tiny, worthless fish that's not even good enough to use as bait. So last week, even amidst California's tremendous difficulties, with drought conditions and a shortage of water at near-crisis, this House voted not for the people, but for fish. No water for our people if that little fish might be affected.

Perhaps the most damaging of the weird policies I've described is America's long time commitment not to develop our domestic energy resources. Even as high energy prices have brought suffering and economic hardship to our people. Even as dollars have been siphoned from our pockets and deposited in coffers overseas, enriching foreigners, some of whom hate us. While our hard-earned dollars are being extracted from us, massive domestic deposits of oil and gas worth trillions of dollars are untouched, untapped, unused. Even as California sinks into an economic catastrophe--off the coast, are huge caverns filled

with massive deposits of oil and gas sitting there? Even as California cuts or cancels public services, billions of dollars of tax revenue from that oil and gas sits right off shore, yet the state of California lets it sit while our people suffer and the state goes broke. Trillions of dollars have been sent overseas for energy while at home, no new oil refineries, no hydro electric dams, no nuclear power plants.

As I say all of it's a bit bizarre. But it is not meaningless nonsense. Those who've insisted up these anti-domestic energy policies know what they are doing. They want to change our way of life whether we like it or not. So a few decades ago they grabbed onto a theory that the world is heating up because humankind uses carbon based fuel--oil, gas, coal, etc. This theory would give them the ability to stampede politicians, even scientists, into supporting draconian policies and mandates, changes in our economy and our lifestyle. All in the name of protecting us from a climate calamity: Man-made Global Warming.

The good book says ``the truth shall make you free''; a caveat might be ``and a lie can destroy your freedom.'' Man-made Global Warming has given respectable cover to advocates of tax and regulatory policies that no one would even consider, except, of course, unless it is an emergency. In reality, the effort behind the Man-made Global Warming juggernaut is the biggest power grab in history. It gives politicos, who've always wanted to control the behavior of normal people, a seemingly legitimate reason to do so . . . even over their objections. This power grab was set in motion back in the very first days of the Clinton administration in 1993.

When the Clinton Administration took over, one of the first actions of that administration was to fire Dr. William Happer, a man who dared challenge Vice President Gore. He believed in science, not the junk science of the radicals. He didn't fit, so out he went. From there the pattern became all too clear. In order to receive even one penny of federal research funds, a scientist would expected to toe the line of Man-made Global Warming alarmism. Any dissent would be quickly quashed, or at least cut off from any federal research funding. So when approaching this concept of Man-made Global Warming we must examine the science behind it. So let's state right off, the unconscionable intimidation of the science community during the Clinton years has ensured that bad science permeates the entire argument of those alarmists perpetuating this man-made myth.

That it is based on bad science and lies is easy to discern by the herculean effort Man-made Global Warming advocates have made to cut off debate. That is why in Congress they are now trying to quickly slip by drastic life altering legislation based on the Man-made Global Warming theory without confronting the basic science. How many of us have heard ``Case closed?'' ``This debate is over.'' That is the language of debate and discussion restriction.

Case closed. Al Gore takes no questions. Every prominent scientist agrees so you must be a kook to disagree. The name calling and stifling of debate by the Man-made Global Warming advocates has been shameful and a disservice to democracy.

So what about the science?

First, about the so-called warming cycle caused by human activity--we know that there have been weather cycles and climate cycles throughout the history of the world. The Global Warming alarmists are now using a low point of a 500 year cooling cycle, the end of the Little Ice Age, as their baseline for determining if humankind is making the planet hotter. Should we really be upset when there is a 1 or 2 degree rise from a 500 year low point in temperatures?

So science question number one: are they not using an unreasonably cooler moment as a baseline for analysis? Question number two: what about the other weather cycles that have had nothing to do with human activity? A thousand years ago things were much warmer than now. Iceland and Greenland were farmed by Norsemen. What about the many other cycles, many of them to prehistoric times, even before man? So, all of a sudden it's man's fault?

So, if these cycles were happening before humans were a force on the planet, isn't it likely there is another explanation for the cycles? Well, it seems to many scientists that cycles of climate follow solar activity. That's why cycles mirroring those on earth have been observed on other planets.

In recent years we've been treated to outcries of agony about the melting taking place in the Arctic. Who has not seen the pictures of the poor polar bear on the ice flow, obviously a victim of Man-made Global Warming? Well not so fast. Yes, the ice cap is retreating. There's no doubt about that. But what about the ice cap on Mars? There is an ice cap on Mars and it is retreating at exactly the same time as our ice cap is retreating. Doesn't that indicate that it might be the sun and not driving SUVs or modern technology that's creating such cycles, including the one that we are already in?

So, if a polar bear is hurt it is not caused by human activity. And by the way, the polar bear population has dramatically expanded--there are 4 to 5 times the number of polar bears as there were in the 1960s.

So here's another scientific challenge: were there already cycles? And if polar ice on Mars is retreating as well, aren't cycles likely the result of solar activity? Let's have an answer to that.

The Man-made Global Warming theory has been focused on CO2. Let's talk about the science of this. CO2 is a miniscule part of our atmosphere, and if you ask the ordinary person, they think it's 20 percent of the atmosphere. Well, actually it's less than 0.04 percent. Much less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the atmosphere is CO2. And of that, at least 80 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not traced to human activity.

There have been, over the years, times when CO2 was going up and down dramatically but did not affect the climate of the planet. For example, if Man-made CO2 causes warming, why, as CO2 levels were rising dramatically in the 1940s, fifties, sixties and seventies why, if the CO2 was rising in those decades, why was there actually a cooling of our climate in those decades?

Okay. Let's hear the science. Come on. Why is everyone afraid to take on these scientific answers? I had one person suggest to me that the pollution in the atmosphere completely overwhelmed the ``Greenhouse Effect'' during this period. If that's true, then The Clean Air Act of 1970 is directly responsible for Man-made Global Warming. Does anyone believe that?

And here's another scientific challenge. A recent study shows that over 80 percent of America's temperature and weather stations have been compromised and are faulty in the information they're providing.

The numbers have been skewed. They are suspect because the monitors have been placed in locations that do not meet the National Weather Service basic standards. In other words, the equipment is compromised; the figures coming out of the equipment cannot be relied upon. And our system, with 80 percent of our monitors that do not meet the standards, has been heralded as the best in the world. So think about that. What's going on in the rest of the world when we're talking about a one-degree rise in temperature since the end of the little ice age?

So how about that as a scientific challenge? If the data is based on monitors that don't meet scientific standards, how can we pass laws with taxes and controls on our people, even if the the so-called problem is based on a bogus number?

And even with the current methods of collecting data, we have been warned time and again with dire predictions. Over the last 20 years, spreading the alarm, told us, Vice President Gore and others.

The temperatures were going to continue to climb and then we would reach a tipping point and temperatures would jump dramatically. Well, wake up. Quit talking theory.

The Global Warming alarmists' predictions were wrong, 180 degrees wrong. It has not gotten any warmer for over a decade and it looks like we're even still getting cooler. That is totally contradictory to the predictions that alarmists like VP Gore and others aggressively made to us. OK, this is yet another science-based challenge.

Don't ignore it, please pay us more respect than just changing your basic mantra from ``Man-made Global Warming'' to ``climate change.''

If I am proven wrong on a point, I will apologize and change my position. I won't try to change my wording so it sounds like I was never wrong in the first place.

These people were wrong. Remember it. Every time they say ``climate change'' remember these were the same people who were talking about Man-made Global Warming. Their dishonesty is underscored every time they now use the phrase ``climate change.'' Now, no matter if it gets warmer or colder, they want us to give them the power to tax and control us even though the preponderance of evidence now suggests that cycles come from solar activity.

Let me note this, this gang told us human activity was causing the planet to warm. Now they are using the words ``climate change,'' which is an admission that the Earth is getting cooler. So if human activity was making it warmer, then maybe it is good that human beings will mitigate a cooling cycle with the human activity that, according to Al Gore and others, was making it warmer. Logically, they should now be advocating we use more fossil fuel.

So Al Gore's scientific mumbo-jumbo was deceptive, the contention that all of the prominent scientists agreed with him was not true then and especially not true now. I'd now like to add a long list of many prominent scientists who oppose the Man-made Global Warming theory. The temperature predictions have

been wrong, and the man-made CO2 premise is wrong.

Now we find out that the monitors used to collect the data were placed next to air-conditioning exhaust vents, and in parking lots, and on top of buildings, and near other heat sources which, of course, made all of their data totally unreliable.

We also know the methodology of using computer models has been questionable from the very beginning. We all know the saying: garbage in, garbage out. But no one was permitted to hear the questions; no one was permitted to ask follow-up questions; and to this day no one has been permitted to view the assumptions and calculations that went into the incorrect computer models used to justify the alarmist campaign that is now being used to justify punitive taxes and controls on our people.

The projections have been wrong. The attempt to stifle debate and shut up those people who disagree by calling them names, denying grants, and making personal attacks has been wrong.

So, let's review the scientific challenges to the Man-made Global Warming theory. I have issued challenges to any of my colleagues to debate the science of this issue, not one of those who now seem willing to vote for draconian legislation to implement the recommendations of the Global Warming alarmists have ever stepped forward. What is it they don't want to confront?

Baseline comparison is at the bottom of a 500-year decline in temperature. The science measurements were partly or severely flawed by a monitoring system that does not meet minimum acceptable standards. Past climate cycles were frequent even before the emergence of mankind. Cycles like the retreating polar ice caps are parallel to similar cycles on Mars suggesting solar activity, rather than human activity, is the culprit. Increasing CO2 levels did not cause warming, which can be shown in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s where there was an increasing level of CO2, but yet it was getting cooler.

Now that Man-made Global Warming has been driven into the public consciousness, the alarmists have the leverage right here in Washington. There is a price to pay, like the millions of children dying in Africa of malaria because we prevented the use of DDT. We did this so that bird egg shells would be thicker. The birds were more important to them than millions of third world children. So remember, there is a serious price to pay for listening to irrational alarmists.

And now all of this confronts us. There is a bill to be voted on this week--the ``American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009'' though I would call it the ``Destroy American Jobs and Use Candles Act.'' It is a bill that comes at exactly the wrong time, and its negative consequences will be ever more severe in economic hard times as we are now suffering. Maybe we are like the 3rd world children in their minds. The birds are more important than our own suffering people.

So let's be clear. Our unemployment is currently at 9.4%, and that is expected to soon rise over double digits. There are unsubstantiated boasts of jobs saved through the stimulus act, but that doesn't help the 345,000 Americans who lost their jobs last month put food on the table for their families. Our projected federal debt for this fiscal year reaches to one point eight trillion dollars!

We will soon auction an unprecedented $104 billion in debt. $104 billion with $11 billion in interest. That's $11 billion just thrown away. It will not save jobs; it will not repave roads; it will not provide healthcare. It will just be used to continue our massive level of spending.

And yet excessive taxation regulation mandates are now being proposed in Washington, and they will have severe consequences.

So here we are, and now we are asked to pass an economy killing bill, in the name of stopping Man-made Globa Warming. What's in this bill? Well don't ask the bill's author. During markup of this bill, Chairman Waxman, when asked about a section of the bill claimed, ``You're asking me? I certainly don't claim to know everything that's in this bill.'' Well I would suggest, that if you are writing a bill that will have profound repercussions for decades to come, that is an unacceptable answer.

Of course, we know the aim of this bill is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As I have already said, this goal is foolhardy at best. It will reduce emissions of a harmless gas, while neglecting to address the dangerous pollutants that have had a demonstrated negative effect on human health.

The current proposal would reduce allowable CO2 emissions to around 80 percent of the current level by 2020. From there it would gradually decrease further. In order to control this, the federal government would issue permits that companies would use in exchange for the right to emit CO2. These permits could be traded, bought and sold. Companies which emit more CO2 than they have allowances for would face heavy fines. The sale of these revenues will supposedly cover the cost of the bill. It is surprising then, that 85% of these allowances will be given out for free during the next twenty years. What?!? One wonders who will decide who receives what will become yet another government subsidy, or a political giveaway. According to recently released numbers by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this bill gives away $821 billion worth of allocations to who the hell knows who, while consumers are going to pay $846 billion more in carbon energy costs. We have no idea where those funds will go. The last time we passed legislation with no idea what we were voting on, AIG got big bonuses. Who will win big under this bill is still unclear, but what is clear is who will lose: The American worker.

But even if we believe all of the arguments made by those who would foist this bill on us, it will still not accomplish any meaningful CO2 reduction. Remember, 80 percent or more of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not linked to human activity. We must ask ourselves if the cost of this bill, over $1600 in new taxes per American family, is warranted given the fact that the U.S. share of CO2 emissions is falling as China and India's emissions are rising. So again, is it really worth it? Both of these countries have already stated publicly that they will not match these suicidal policies being proposed. All this bill will do is further encourage manufacturing to leave the United States for these countries. All of this will cost America. All of this, to decrease worldwide temperatures by less than one degree over the next 20 years, that might take us a little close to the 500-year low in global temperatures.

So it will not do what the bill's sponsors claim it will. But what this bill will also do is reduce our gross domestic product by over $7 trillion and destroy nearly 2 million jobs by 2012. It will raise electricity rates by 90 percent above inflation, incur $33,000 worth of additional Federal debt for every man, woman and child in America. Gas prices will rise over 50%. Natural Gas prices will rise by 50% as well. And it will help the Chinese and other people steal our businesses from us. This is the real climate change calamity.

So yes, this bill costs on average 1.1 million jobs a year. Between 2012 and 2035 the US GDP will lose $9.4 trillion. All of this leads me to ask this simple question Mr. Speaker: What is worse: Living under Man-made Global Warming, or living under Man-made Global Warming legislation? I would suggest the latter.

For decades, phony, frightening predictions, false climate assumptions and inaccurate information fed into computer climate models have been foisted on the American people, including our young people, and people throughout the world. Even worse, honest discussion on these issues of climate have been stifled, and critics have been silenced in order to create an illusion of a consensus that the climate is going haywire and that we're in for a Man-made Global Warming calamity. So why is this? Why do we have this specter of Man-made Global Warming being portrayed as a global calamity in the making? Well, it's being used to stampede the public and, yes, stampede officials into accepting what appears to be the biggest power grab in history. One doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to realize there are a significant number of people who really believe in centralizing the power of government into the hands of elected and even unelected officials, centralizing that power in Washington and elsewhere. And these unelected officials, who now will be given so much power, are expected to be competent and expected to be well motivated. They are expected to prove that by doing the things that are consistent with the goals and the values of the people who are pushing to centralize power in their hands.

That we have a group of leftists who believe in centralizing power should not surprise anyone. But what we have here is the leftist politicos in this country who believe in centralizing power anyway.

Global and international bodies and our own government and our own Congress will be given the right and power to intervene in our lives to prevent Man-made Global Warming. That's what it's all about, globalism. If man makes it, man must then be controlled. That's why it was so important for them to steamroll over anybody who is in opposition and wanted to ask some questions. They want nobody to ask questions about their theory about Man-made Global Warming because they believe men and women, people, need to be controlled. That is part of their theory of government. It will make it a whole new, more benevolent world. Unfortunately, a lot of the government they are talking about is not the American Government. We are talking about international mandates from unelected bodies that we will then pass on power and authority to, which is supported by many of the people right here in this Congress.

Of course, the proposal before us will destroy the economy, and the irony of it is that it will have nothing to do with saving the planet, but will in fact perhaps make the environment of our planet worse, rather than better.

That is why they have tried to stifle the debate and the attempt to push climate change legislation has never been more intense. People in Washington, we don't need to be told that there has been an attempt to stifle debate. But I would ask that the American people think about what they have heard about the Man-made Global Warming theory over these 15 years, but especially over these last 4 years. The attempt to ramp up these scare tactics is at an all-time high.

But mark my words, the real calamity will not be an out-of-control climate caused by humans; the real calamity brought on by Man-made Global Warming will be the economy- killing taxes and regulations that are put in place to solve a nonexistent problem. That economic decline that we're talking about is just Round one, however. Round two is easy to predict.

For example, in the future, we are going to face all kinds of mandates and controls from the Federal Government and the internationalcy. Some of these would be, for example, mandated increases in parking fees. Do they tell you that now? All your local communities are going to have to raise your parking fees. And there will be major impediments to the private use of automobiles. And then, of course, they've got to end frequent flyer miles and they've got to end discount air travel because, believe it or not, and nobody has ever been telling you this, they believe that airplanes are the biggest CO2 footprint of all. That's right. Your frequent flyer miles and your discount tickets have got to go. Of course, the elite will be able to fly around in their private planes giving a donation by supposedly planting trees somewhere and thus they can fly in their private planes. But the rest of us cannot go to see our sick relatives on a discounted ticket. No one has heard about this. Nobody has heard about these types of controls that are going to be mandated on our own people by the United Nations perhaps. What has been the purview of local government will be transferred to much higher authorities. Local government will be required to follow international guidelines, climate guidelines, when it comes to building, zoning, even local planning.

This is part of our liberty. Where we live, what we eat, how we run our lives, this is what is at stake. It's called liberty. This is a fight between the globalists, who found a vehicle to try to gain power and grab power, and those people who do believe in liberty and justice. We call them patriots. We call them people around the world who do believe in these Western values of dignity for the individual and freedom and justice.

If you aren't frightened by this, you should be. We have a fanatical movement of steely-eyed zealots who cannot admit they made a mistake, who always attack the other person rather than trying to have honest discussions of issues. Couple that with self-serving interests, and there are many self-serving interests who are involved in this. They now have joined in a political coalition that believes they have the right to run the economy, run business, run local schools, and run our lives. They have been looking for an excuse to assume power.

We must stand up and defeat this power grab. Wake up America! Your freedom and prosperity are at stake.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Today, I rise in strong support of this resolution which ratchets up, to a degree, America's willingness to express its heartfelt support for the Iranian people and their struggle against the mullah dictatorship that oppresses them.

Now, it has been said that you cannot champion the oppressed unless you are willing to take on the oppressor. America should not intervene in every struggle taking place, but we should be unapologetically on the side of those who are in desperate battle for their own freedom.

Tempered rhetoric can be interpreted by tyrants as weakness. We need to send a strong message to those tyrants and a strong message to the people who are willing to risk their lives on the streets of Tehran that we are on the side of the people and the side of democracy and freedom. Any other message would be a betrayal of our fundamental principles, the principles of liberty and democracy that so many Americans have sacrificed to give us and to pass on to other generations.

Yes, we should not intervene, but it is up to us to make sure those people struggling throughout the world know we are on their side. We must be bold in our words of support.

I was honored to be one of five speech writers serving Ronald Reagan. He too was told to tone down his rhetoric. He too was told that strong words would be interpreted as belligerence. But with his strong words, he ended the Cold War, without the conflagration that hung over our heads for decades. He made it a better, a more peaceful and a freer world with a strong message and no apologies.

We should follow the lead of Ronald Reagan. It will make this a better world if we side with the people in Tehran who oppose their mullah dictatorship.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the requirements of the Republican Conference of the House, I am submitting for the Record the following information regarding earmarks I received, which were included in the reported version of H.R. 2847, the ``Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.''

Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46)

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Name of Project: Virtual Interactive Training Simulator

Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Byrne

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Criminal Justice Training Center, Golden West College, Huntington Beach, CA

Address of Requesting Entity: 15744 Golden West Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647

Description of Request: I received $900,000 for Golden West College's Virtual Interactive Training Simulator. Funds will be used for purchase of a virtual training facility for regional law enforcement. The simulator offers a cost-effective approach by creating an engaging virtual training solution. The system immerses the trainee in a realistic 3-D environment, with the sense of immersion being enhanced both by the high-fidelity situational rendering and by the ease of navigating through the environment using simple controls mounted on the tether-free simulated weapons. It is my understanding funds will be used consistent with the following manner:

For the system hardware, software and simulated weapons: $463,432

For the trailer classroom: -$252,221

Truck with towing package: $66,623

Training of instructors on virtual training system: $58,513

Twelve training databases and scenarios: $109,211

Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46)

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Name of Project: Asian Criminal Enterprise Initiative

Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Byrne

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Westminster, CA

Address of Requesting Entity: 8200 Westminster Blvd., Westminster, CA 92683

Description of Request: I received $290,000 for the city of Westminster's Asian Criminal Enterprise Initiative. Funding is for the third and final year of federal funding for the city of Westminster's Asian Criminal Enterprise Initiative. The detectives assigned to the Little Saigon Substation are already in operation, focusing on identifying, investigating and dismantling criminal enterprises, having both national and international implications, within the Little Saigon area. Under this project, the Westminster Police Department's Crimes Against Public Unit occupies office space within the Little Saigon district of Westminster, placing a powerful investigative engine into the heart of the area where Asian Criminal Enterprises operate. The city will provide a $776,000 match. It is my understanding federal funds will be used in the following manner:

Office Space: $60,000

Utilities: -$12,000

Vehicles/Maintenance: $44,000

Police Aides: $31,700

Police Service Officer: $96,000

IT Support: $6,000

Travel/Training: $15,000

Safety Equipment: $10,000

Operational Funds: -$15,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46)

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Name of Project: Mobile Live Scan Fingerprint Devices for LA and Orange Counties

Account: Department of Justice, COPS Tech

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: California Department of Justice, Sacramento CA

Address of Requesting Entity: 1300 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

Description of Request: I received $100,000 for the California Department of Justice's Mobile Live Scan Fingerprint Devices. Funds will be used for a Justice Information Sharing initiative called ``Vision 2015'' that will significantly enhance the quality and usability of criminal justice identification and records information maintained by the state. The project will include the deployment of mobile Live Scan devices for use in police vehicles that will allow officers to capture fingerprint identification and arrest information during the citation and/or arrest of a subject. It is my understanding the California Department of Justice has allocated $3.8 million for this project. It is further my understanding that federal funds will be used consistent with the following manner:

$210,000--purchase and deployment of live scan devices for law enforcement vehicles in LA and Orange Counties.

$140,000--purchase and installation of necessary software/ infrastructure for CA DOJ and local courts.

I rise in opposition to this effort to send billions of more dollars to Pakistan. I have reached my threshold with Pakistan. We have sent them billions upon billions of dollars, and we still have an anti-American sentiment all the way through that government. They were

our friends during the Cold War. Yes, they sided with us against the Soviet Union. The Cold War is over. It is long over. And since that time, the leaders of Pakistan have allied themselves with the most radical elements of Islam who hate the United States; and the Pakistani officials and the ISI, their CIA, have been working in conjunction with these radical Islamicists in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere ever since. We should not be sending them billions and billions of more dollars. We should be seeking, instead, to start relying on relationships with India, Russia and other countries that will be more reliable allies. I'm sorry that I'm having to say that we should be writing off a country like this. Let's focus on Afghanistan and quit sending billions of dollars to Pakistanis.

I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member very much for this courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, section 826 of our bill has been carefully crafted to protect our national security interests. Subsection (b) of that section provides that the President's authority in paragraph (a) to remove satellites and related components from the United States munitions list may not be exercised with respect to any satellite or related component that may, directly or indirectly, be transferred to, or launched into space by the People's Republic of China.

Do you agree with me that the intent of paragraph (b) is that, with respect to any transfers to or launches by China, no satellite or related component shall be removed from the United States Munitions List?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the ranking member. This is a vitally important clarification for our aerospace industry. While at the same time opening up better trade and technology with friendly countries, it ensures that we do not send technology to the Chinese.

I certainly would. Yes, sir.

Thank you very much. Again, thank you to the ranking member as well.

As we are making fundamental decisions about things such as health care, which is so important to our country and important to each and every citizen, we should keep in mind the fundamental differences that you are bringing up tonight between a government- controlled health care system and an individual-controlled health care system, where the individual basically controls a great deal of the resources that he or she depends upon for his or her health or the health of their family as compared to having those resources totally at the command of the government. And the one word that comes to mind is politicalization of what's happening and what could that possibly mean in health care.

Let me give a little suggestion that if we have government-controlled health care, we're going to have illegal immigrants involved in the system. Our Democratic colleagues, as good-hearted as they are, cannot get themselves to say ``no'' to providing health care benefits to illegal immigrants. If we provide the type of operations that we want for our own people--heart operations and various things that are very expensive operations for health care--to be granted to illegal aliens, you can expect that it will, number one, bankrupt the system; but, number two, we will have illegal aliens coming here from every part of the world. And, in fact, one of the problems right now is that we already provide too much health care for illegal immigrants.

That issue alone should be a red bell for everyone out there saying, Do I really want the government to control health care and make the decision and give part of the money to an illegal immigrant?

And no one argues with that.

Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, a thought came across me about 2 days ago. I was out on the water, surfing off of San Clemente, California. I was sitting there on my surfboard. The pelicans and the birds were jumping into the water and carrying fish out of the water, and the dolphins were swimming by. It was just a beautiful day. I

couldn't help but remember that many years ago when I was a young reporter, one of my first assignments was to cover a speech being given by Jacques Cousteau. He was a hero to me at that time, and I really relished the idea of going out and being able to interview him after a speech he was giving at UCLA. I got to the speech, and I found that Mr. Cousteau was being very pessimistic about the future of the oceans, and he was telling the kids there was no future in the ocean, that 10 years from now--this was in the early 1970s he was saying this--there would be no life in the ocean. ``The oceans will be black, lifeless masses, black goo.'' I felt that it was a bit pessimistic; and when I had my chance to interview him afterwards, I turned on my tape recorder and introduced myself. He was ready for the interview. I said, Aren't there also some optimistic sides about the ocean, that perhaps we will someday be able to farm them, like with shellfish and regular fish perhaps, being able to ranch them, you might say, in the ocean? And that might be a great source of protein for the whole world that we would then have under better control. He came right up to me, and all these students were watching, and he put his face right up next to my nose, and he said, Didn't you hear me? The oceans will be dead in 10 years. Black goo. Dead.

I'll never forget that. I mean, that was something that was really pounded right into my memory because his nose was almost touching my nose. I could smell the garlic on his French breath, and I will tell you that it was an experience. I thought about that just 2 days ago while I was surfing. The fish were jumping, and the porpoises were swimming, and the pelicans were landing and picking up the fish in the water, the oceans totally alive, and I am totally alive and very grateful to have the oceans that we have. Obviously Mr. Cousteau was wrong. I can't tell you today whether he was lying or intentionally misinforming those students, but he was dead wrong.

Now students come to visit me a lot. I've been in Congress now over 20 years, and I try to see every student that comes from my district. I try to see them; and I talk to them, giving them a chance to ask me questions. But I always ask them a question too. So my students from Southern California, young high school students, I always ask them, Is the air in our congressional district, in our area of Southern California, is it cleaner or dirtier than it was 45 years ago when I went to high school in this very same area? And almost 90 percent of the students adamantly insist that the air back then was so much cleaner: Oh, you're so lucky to have lived in an age in Southern California where the air was so clean, and now it's so dirty and all of us are destined to die and to be infected with this pollution in our lungs.

Well, the fact is, that is dead wrong as well. Someone continues to misinform our young people, perhaps for political reasons, whatever. But the fact is, when I tell them that they are 180 degrees wrong, that, in fact, the air is so much cleaner now that there's almost no comparison to what it was when I was a young person in high school, they are incredulous. Many of them don't believe me when I say that. But they know afterwards when they check up on it that they have been lied to.

Well, whatever the reason, whatever the motive behind this misinformation that's being provided to young people, whether it was Jacques Cousteau or whether it's the educational establishment or if it is any of the other people we're talking about who have ties to the radical environmental movement, whatever the reason they are misinforming our students, it's not just the students. It's our general population as well.

For decades, phony, frightening predictions, false climate assumptions and inaccurate information fed into computer climate models have been foisted on the American people, including our young people, and people throughout the world. Even worse, honest discussion on these issues of climate have been stifled, and critics have been silenced in order to create an illusion of a consensus that the climate is going haywire and that we're in for a global warming calamity. So why is this? Why do we have this specter of man-made global warming being portrayed as a global calamity in the making? Well, it's being used to stampede the public and, yes, stampede officials into accepting what appears to be the biggest power grab in history. One doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to realize there are a significant number of people who really believe in centralizing the power of government into the hands of elected and even unelected officials, centralizing that power in Washington and elsewhere. And these unelected officials, who now will be given so much power, are expected to be competent and expected to be well motivated. They are expected to prove that by doing the things that are consistent with the goals and the values of the people who are pushing to centralize power in their hands.

That we have a group of leftists who believe in centralizing power should not surprise anyone. But what we have here is the leftist politicos in this country who believe in centralizing power anyway have been willing to go along and exaggerate and, yes, play fast and loose with the facts in order to promote this notion of man-made global warming. But we didn't expect these people who have a motive of trying to centralize power, or whatever the motive is of these alarmists in the radical environmental movement, we didn't expect them to act any other way. But we need to ask ourselves, why did it take prominent members of the science community so long to step forward to be counted in the face of this massive, heavy-handed campaign of deceit?

Well, I trace the reluctance of our scientists to step up back to the abrupt dismissal of Dr. William Happer, who was then the top scientist at the Department of Energy back in 1993. Happer was too professional, too objective for what Vice President Gore had in mind. So off with his head. Immediately that was one of the first actions taken when the Clinton administration took power. Out the door with Dr. Happer. This man, this prominent and very well-respected Ph.D., his dismissal in that way was a message to the science community: If you want a grant, you toe the line. And what followed was a one-sided drum beat, one- sided promotions, one-sided research grants, and one-sided thinking. Those were the order of the day for the 8 years of the Clinton presidency. The media bias, which of course went along with that, played hand in glove, has never let up with that bias. We just had a major conference here in Washington with hundreds of prominent individuals, many of whom are great scientists, Ph.D.'s, and heads of major university science departments. Yet that conference, which was skeptical of man-made global warming, didn't get any publicity. Very, very few news articles came out of this. Yet these were very prominent and important people.

This kind of repressive atmosphere where the press doesn't report that and that we had years and years where people were not being able to get grants unless they toed the line that Vice President Gore wanted, in this repressive atmosphere, many leaders of the scientific community just remained silent. They sort of became turtles. They tucked their heads in and figured they'd hunker down and live through it. But the ignoring of a campaign of deceit that was utilizing the prestige of the science community has taken its toll, and it's taken a long time to get these scientists out of their shell and to step forward with integrity, as is expected of the men and women of science.

So here we are on the edge--laws, taxation, controls, regulation, mandates are about to be enacted; and we've had 15 years of stifled debate. Even my GOP colleagues are afraid to take on the phony science that is at the heart of the man-made global warming propaganda juggernaut. Again, these people in the GOP, they oppose this theory; but they just want to say that what is being proposed by the Democrats will cost too much and will have too little impact on climate or temperature for it to justify this huge cost. Well, they're right. What's being proposed will have a huge cost and very little impact; but if, indeed, we are facing a global warming calamity that's being caused by human activity, the costs shouldn't matter.

So I have to argue that principle and basic science is the important element of the discussion of the manmade global warming theory and the laws and

regulations and controls and taxation that we are now on the verge of passing here in Washington, D.C.

The bottom line is that the science behind the manmade global warming proposals in Congress and the draconian laws which will follow are based on faulty science. The science is wrong. What has been presented to us by Vice President Gore and the radical environmental community and liberal leftists who want to centralize power in government, the facts that they have presented us have not been accurate. This has either been an intent to deceive, or perhaps just a benevolent intent to save the world.

So it is not just a cost analysis of current legislative proposals that show that the proposals claiming to thwart manmade global warming would obliterate jobs. We know that.

All these proposals that say, well, we are going to try to thwart global warming that way or this way, or this regulation, this taxation, this requirement of cap-and-trade, we have had major economists warn these things will destroy the American economy. But if they claim it is about saving the planet, people are going to listen to them.

But it will destroy the economy, and the irony of it is, this will have nothing to do with saving the planet, but will in fact perhaps make the environment of our planet worse, rather than better. That is why they have tried to stifle the debate.

The real scientific justification for their power grab is science, and an honest discussion of that science will show that the science being presented to justify this power grab is at best inaccurate, and, at worst, a total lie.

You have all heard it, and everyone knows about this. People in Washington, we don't need to be told that there has been an attempt to stifle debate. But I would ask that the American people think about what they have heard about the manmade global warming theory over these 15 years, but especially over these last 4 years.

How many have heard the words ``case closed?'' Isn't it ironic that all of a sudden everybody started using the words ``case closed?'' What does that mean? That means no more debate. The words ``case closed'' was a clumsy, and, I might add, a heavyhanded attempt to shut off discussion even before we had a chance to have an honest discussion of the issues. Because, as I said, the scientists in the 8 years beforehand had been denied research grants unless they were wanting to toe the line on global warming. How many have heard ``case closed?'' We all have.

When Mr. Gore speaks about global warming, he never takes questions. Why would it be that someone who believes in something so adamantly refuses to debate the issue on TV and refuses to take questions? I have certainly a lot less invested in this issue than Vice President Gore. I give speeches and always take questions, and I have certainly been willing to debate this issue in public and on television.

So why do we hear the words ``cased closed,'' stifling debate, and Mr. Gore, one of the prime advocates of this issue, not willing to take questions? Why is it that people who have, you know, skepticism about manmade global warming, why is it that they complain, like Robert Gray, former chairman of the American Meteorological Association? Why do we hear from them that they were turned down for grant applications so many times? Why do we hear that from a man who mentioned that he had received 13 such research grants prior, prior, to the Clinton administration, and then been totally cut off?

Doesn't that say something, when someone of that caliber, a Ph.D., the president of the Meteorological Association, can't get a grant to study the frequencies of hurricanes? And even today this man points out contradictory information. His view is--a man with decades of experience and credentials, Ph.D.'s and credentials in meteorology, says no, the idea that mankind's human actions is causing hurricanes is false, and there is no evidence of that.

Well, and then what else do we hear? We hear name-calling. I was on a television show recently where they called me a troglodyte, I guess troglodyte, that is the word, that I am anti-science, and I am bigoted in some way. I kept presenting scientific arguments about manmade global warming, but all I got back was name-calling.

Case closed. We are not going to answer any questions. No grants for skeptics. And, yes, anybody who disagrees with us is a low-life who doesn't believe in science. Yes, you don't believe in science.

Can you imagine moving forward to have an honest discussion about manmade global warming and being dismissed before you get to the discussion as being anti-science, and then after insisting on four or five issues on science, not having those arguments even answered, but instead having my religion questioned?

Well, dismissing rather than answering legitimate challenges to the manmade global warming theory is par for the course. This is standard operating procedure. Case closed, standard operating procedure. No questions, standard operating procedure. No grants for skeptics, standard operating procedure.

These people have been trying their best to basically steamroll over anyone who would get in their way without having to have the honest discussion of an issue of this magnitude. All of it is simply a Herculean effort not to discuss the scientific assumptions that are at the basis of the manmade global warming concept.

So what is that all about? Why are they not willing to discuss the science? All it is about is not discussing the science, shutting down anybody else with any other ideas without combating the ideas.

Well, the reason why they have tried so hard to have ``case closed'' and all of these things that I have just mentioned, it is because their basic theory, the science theory behind manmade global warming is wrong. It is dead wrong, and that is why they won't discuss it. And if they won't discuss it, we can discuss it.

I would suggest that if there is anyone in this Congress who would like to debate me on this issue for an hour sometime between now and the time this Congress has to vote on cap-and-trade legislation, I will gladly meet them for an hour and discuss this issue.

So let's start discussing it tonight, and then maybe sometime in the next few weeks someone from the other side will take advantage of that offer to have an honest discussion with me and with the public about this issue. If it is so important, let's have an open and honest discussion. So let's look at some of the real science-based challenges to the predictions of an oncoming manmade global warming calamity.

Okay. In briefing after briefing--I am a senior member of the Science Committee--and over the years in briefing after briefing on global warming, I couldn't help but notice that the charts that showed that we have increased the temperature of the planet by 1 degree, here is the chart, it is going up like this, I couldn't help but notice where they started, down here. And down there was 1850.

1850 is actually the line, the baseline that is used for temperature comparisons by the global warming community, by the people who believe in manmade global warming. But 1850 has some significance. 1850, in that era, those few years there, that was the end of the little ice age. That was the end of a 500-year decline in world temperatures.

Okay, so why is it that people who want us to be concerned about a 1 degree temperature increase are making the baseline of comparison the bottom of a 500-year decline? Well, if it is at the bottom of a 500- year decline, if it is that low point they are comparing it to, what is all the hysteria about if we are talking about a 1 degree rise in temperature? What is that all about, or even a 2 degree rise in temperature?

The fact is we know that there have been weather cycles and climate cycles throughout the history of the world. They are now trying to use a low point of a cooling cycle to compare it to say we should be upset when there is even a 1 degree change.

What about those other weather cycles? Number one, let's ask, how can you use that as a baseline? Number two, what about the other weather cycles and that weather cycle? How about the weather cycle that went down for 500 years?

The fact is that over 500 years ago, actually 1,000 years ago, the weather

was very warm. It was a lot warmer than it is today, a lot warmer than the 1 degree that we have.

The fact is, there were big areas of Greenland that were green. They actually had agriculture and a green part of that area. Iceland was an area that had plants and crops. Vineland, which the Vikings said, people thought, well, they were claiming that there were vines there but there really weren't. No, the temperature was different. It was warmer 1,000 years ago.

So there have been numerous weather cycles that have had nothing to do with human activity, unless you believe that the Vikings, of course, there was something that they were doing that was changing the weather. And, if there was a warming cycle, and again, if we've had a warming cycle since that time, it's only been 1 degree.

But these past climate cycles, there's one thing that we have to try to pick up. Why is it then that we've had these cycles? Why is it then, and why is this cycle we are claiming which is a 1 degree rise in temperature from a 500-year low, why is this different? Why are we trying to change the rules of the game and centralize power and look at this as some sort of crisis when it's just another cycle? And why, what is causing the cycle then?

Well, it seems that cycles of climate follow solar activity. The cycles we've had before mankind even emerged can be traced back through ice cores to solar activity. Now, we've seen it here on Earth and we've seen it on other planets.

Let's note this. When I was in this debate the other night, a Member of Congress, a good friend, went on about how horrible it was, of course we're having manmade global warming. Look what's happening in the Arctic. In the Arctic, the polar bears are being destroyed. Well, of course that's not true. There's a polar bear explosion in terms of their population. There are two types of polar bears that are losing, that are not able to keep up with the changes in the climate there. But most other polar bears, because it's warmer, actually are living better than they were before, and the population of polar bears is going up. How ironic that we end up putting them on an endangered species list at a time when their numbers are increasing.

But let's get back to the central point. Something's going on in the Arctic. And my friend and colleague is saying, oh, how horrible it is and going into great detail to touch people's hearts about a polar bear on a piece of ice. And then I said, you're saying that this is caused by human activity and, thus, we have to have all these taxes and controls and things to save the planet from this?

Well, yes, that's what he's saying. Well, I said exactly what I've said to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I said this to myself on the program. Yes, the ice cap is retreating. There's no doubt about that. But when I say that, I'm not talking about our ice cap. That's clear to us. But what about the ice cap on Mars? There is an ice cap on Mars, and just by coincidence, it is retreating at exactly the same time as our ice cap is retreating. Doesn't that indicate that it might be the sun and not us driving SUVs or modern technology that's creating these many, many cycles that we've had, including the one that we are already in?

Yes, an ice cap is retreating on Mars and it's retreating in the world. Is that just a coincidence? Well, that's a scientific challenge. Let's have an answer to that. So, we have polar ice caps melting on Mars, and it's not just a coincidence, I believe. So tell me why this doesn't indicate to us that what we're really talking about is solar, what we are facing today in the climate changes that have taken place today, just as it has in the past is that it has to do with solar activity.

So now remember, by the way, ice caps may have been melting in the Arctic, but one thing people miss, the ice caps are not melting everywhere, just the northern ice cap. In Antarctica, to the south, ice is actually accumulating. And so in the north, yeah, there is a polar bear population, I think two species of polar bears are suffering. Most every one, the rest of them are expanding their population.

And by the way, I understand now, even in that area, the ice is beginning to return. But the ice has always been accumulating in the Antarctic over these years. That's never told to us. It's as if the whole world is increasing in temperature, but they don't bother to mention the areas where the ice is actually accumulating.

Well, the manmade global warming theory has been focused on CO2. This is, of course, and again, let's talk about the science of these issues. CO2 is a miniscule part, a miniscule part of our atmosphere, and if you ask the ordinary person, they think it's 20 percent of the atmosphere. Well, actually it's .023 percent, I believe, so that's less than 1 quarter of 1. It's less than 1 quarter of 1 percent of the atmosphere is CO2. And of that, at least 90 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not traced to human activity.

I've been in hearings where most people claim it's more like 5 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is traced to human activity. You know, and by the way, one huge volcano or even massive fire like they've had in various countries would dwarf everything that we're trying to do to reduce CO2 into the amount of CO2 that that would put into the atmosphere, because CO2 is not a significant part of the atmosphere. It's a miniscule--it's like a thread being put across the line on a football field, and that's what you're changing by focusing not just on the CO2, which is .023 percent, but it's also, of that, 90 percent of that is not manmade. It's made by nature.

So the most important discussion in terms of manmade CO2, which, as I say, the manmade part of it is just a small contributor, it's a small contributor to a very tiny element in the atmosphere, and suggesting that that is changing our climate is ludicrous. In fact, it is warming and has released CO2 and there have been--it is warming a little bit. There has been, over the years, until recently, and over the years, there has been times when CO2 was going up dramatically and down dramatically but had nothing to do with the climate of the planet. For example, manmade--if manmade--here's a basic can question. Here's another science challenge. If manmade CO2 causes warming, why, as CO2 levels were rising dramatically in the 1940s, fifties, sixties and seventies, why, if the CO2 was rising in those decades, why was there actually a cooling of our climate in those decades?

Okay. Let's hear the science. Come on. I just had a science. I've had five or six points now. Why is everyone afraid to take on these scientific answers? If indeed CO2 causes it to warm, well, then how come, when we had massive increases in CO2 in the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies that it got cooler and not warmer? Well, the calculations on global warming have been based on fraudulent numbers.

And here's another scientific challenge. A recent study shows that over 80 percent of America's temperature and weather stations which have been the source of temperature readings that supposedly indicate a warming trend, supposedly, these very same monitoring facilities have been compromised and are faulty in the information they're providing.

The numbers have been skewed. They are suspect because the monitors that have been relied upon do not meet the basic scientific standards that are required of them for us to believe in the numbers that they're giving us. In other words, the equipment is compromised; the figures coming out of the equipment cannot be relied upon. And our system, with 80 percent of our monitors who do not meet the standards, the scientific standards for us to rely on their numbers--our system has been heralded as the best in the world. So think about that. What's going on in the rest of the world when we're talking about one little rise, a one-degree rise in temperature since the end of the little ice age which was a 500-year low of temperature?

So even that we can't figure out--even with that one degree we don't know, because the monitors have been placed in faulty ways or have not been kept and maintained in the right way.

And so what we have had is a lot of people who have been making predictions over the last 20 years, especially Vice President Gore. But if the science community had been given these grants--but only if they're going

to come to the conclusion about global warming that we want you to-- these people in the science community and these other political people who have got their own motives behind this bulldozer approach and this steamroller approach to accomplishing what they're out to accomplish, those people have been telling us that we're facing a man-made global warming climate calamity and it was in the making. And we were told that the temperatures were either going to continue to go up and up and it would reach a certain point and then there would be some sort of tipping point and then it would jump up by a number of temperature points. So it would be five or six points, or whatever they were predicting. It was a huge jump in temperature at some point.

Well, that's not what's happened. I heard that for 10 years, 10 years for the people who were giving out all of the grants, 10 years from all of the people who were shutting out any type of real debate, 10 years of ``don't ask any questions, case closed.'' And those people are on the record, and they have been warning us of man-made global warming that was about to get out of hand. But for over a decade, it has not gotten any warmer.

Yes, 11 years ago in 1998 it was a very hot year, and that was the year--since then, every year has been cooler. It has not gotten warmer since then. And they say, Well, that was a very hot year. Well, so was 1931 was a very hot year, and it was followed by decades, I might add, of cooling. So that doesn't mean anything. That was just an anomaly that we had a hot year in 1998, because ever since then the temperature has not been going up.

The global warming alarmists' predictions were wrong, all right? Come and debate that. There is a scientific challenge. I keep giving scientific challenges, and what I get back in this debate is, You're a bigot; you're anti-science; you're stupid. Name-calling. I mean, the people on the other side who always are willing to call people names rather than confront their arguments are very easy to spot. You just take a look. You listen to what's being said. Who is offering an argument that needs to be discussed? Who's calling names? They have been trying to shut down this debate by calling anybody who disagrees with them horrible personal names.

Well, let me repeat this one point: it has not gotten any warmer for over a decade and we're still--it looks like we're even still getting cooler. That is totally contradictory to the predictions that were aggressively made to us, as they only gave their grants to the people who would agree with that over the years.

This is why global warming alarmists have now, en masse, changed the wording that they use. They were wrong, so let us just change the way we talk about things. Now it's climate change, okay? Everybody think about it. All of these same people were talking about global warming 20 years ago, spending billions of dollars on research that was bogus research, you know. It was intended to come out with what they were buying from the scientists. They were telling us it was going to get warmer, and they kept using the term ``man-made global warming.'' And now they call it ``climate change,'' and all of a sudden, they all change and it all became climate change.

Well, every time you hear that word used by an environmental radical, by one of these alarmists, it is an admission that they were wrong and that they refuse to admit that they were wrong. Refusing to admit you're wrong after you've been so aggressive in promoting something is certainly not an honest debate and an honest discussion.

If I am proven wrong on a point, I will apologize and change my position. I won't try to change my wording so it sounds like I was never wrong in the first place.

These people were wrong. Remember it. Every time the word climate change is used, remember these were the same people who were talking about global warming, and they want to have it both ways. No matter if it gets warmer or colder, they want to blame it on human activity when, in fact, all of the evidence suggests that cycles come from solar activity.

Expert after expert is now pointing to the flaws in the central argument.

And the other thing you hear is, of course, that all of the scientists agree. There is your other way of shutting down debate. All of the scientists, all of the prestigious Ph.D.s and scientists agree. That is not true. And it hasn't been true for years.

So Al Gore's scientific mumbo-jumbo was wrong, all of the scientists agreeing with him is wrong, the temperature predictions have been wrong, and the man-made CO2 premise is wrong.

Now we find out that the monitors used to collect the data were placed next to air-conditioning exhaust vents--which made the temperature higher--and in parking lots, and on top of buildings, and near other heat sources which, of course, made all of their statistics totally unreliable. We hear that.

We also know the methodology of using computer models has been questionable from the very beginning. We all know the saying: garbage in, garbage out. But no one was permitted to hear the questions; no one was permitted to ask follow-up questions as to--no one has been permitted to totally understand the software that went into that questionable computer modeling.

The observations have been wrong. The attempt to stifle debate and shut up those people who disagree by calling them names, denying grants, and making personal attacks has been wrong. Thus, I would suggest the biggest power grab in our history is wrong, and the public should wake up. The public should understand that what we are seeing is a brazen power grab that is wrong.

So, let's review the scientific challenges to the man-made global warming theory. See if anybody ever tries to come and have an argument about the science.

Baseline comparison is at the bottom of a 500-year decline in temperature. That is not the scientific way of determining whether a slight rise in temperature is significant. The science measurements were partly or severely flawed by a monitoring system that was--did not meet the standards necessary to have accurate information. Past climate cycles were frequent even before the emergence of mankind. Cycles like the retreating polar ice caps are parallel to similar cycles on Mars suggesting solar activity, rather than human activity, is the culprit. Increasing CO2 levels did not cause warming, which can be shown in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s where there was an increasing level of CO2, but yet it was getting cooler.

So let's have an honest debate. Let's quit calling names. Let's quit dismissing legitimate science-based questions.

Address the scientific issues being raised rather than sloganeering about a consensus of scientists that does not exist. Again, the so- called ``consensus,'' case closed--that consensus does not exist. More and more, thousands of scientists are signing on as skeptics to this manmade global warming theory.

This leads to an important point that needs to be made. Perhaps the biggest lie the public must deal with is that all the prominent scientists in the world totally agree with the manmade global warming theory. That's probably the biggest lie, as I mentioned. Instead of answering scientific questions, alarmists have simply claimed all the scientists agree. I've been interviewed on this at least half a dozen times, and every interview begins with, well, all of the scientists agree that manmade global warming is a reality, how can you disagree with all of them? It is just another tactic aimed at repressing an honest discussion of something that should be a scientific issue and discussed with all sincerity.

I will now submit the names of 10 prominent scientists, 10 of the thousands of scientists who have signed on to suggest that manmade global warming is far from accepted by all scientists. These are the heads of science departments, the presidents of scientific and academic associations, people with doctorates in the areas of study, and they are coming forward at last, they're coming out of their shell at last after all of these years of intimidation. This is only a list of 10, but there are thousands more who are stepping forward to voice honest skepticism, if not total rejection, to the

claim that human activity is creating a global warming climate catastrophe.

The first one is Dr. Richard Lindzen, top scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University, former president of the American Meteorological Association. Dr. David Nowell, former chairman and NATO meteorologist from Canada. Dr. Gerhard Kramm, University of Alaska in Fairbanks. Dr. Yury Izrael of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a senior member of the Russian Academy of Sciences whom I met and spoke to, and also a member of the IPCC United Nations report, who now makes it very clear that he does not believe in that report or manmade global warming. Dr. Ian Pilmer of the University of Melbourne. Dr. Diane Douglas, climatologist and paleoclimatologist. Dr. Harry Lins, cochairman of the IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group. Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists. Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate and physicist.

So this idea that all the scientists are lockstep in favor of the theory of manmade global warming is a lie, not just a lie, a damnable lie aimed at cutting off honest communication. And who's doing that? Who's making this adamant statement that all the scientists are in agreement with this? Well, we've had people who say these things and said things all along. There's the global warming alarmists now who are making these statements. But let us just remember, these scares have happened in the past. I remember when my mother wouldn't serve cranberries at Thanksgiving because they caused cancer. I remember when Professor Meryl Streep warned us of alar-causing cancer, which just about ruined the apple industry for 2 years. That also was wrong.

We heard about cyclamates causing cancer, which cost the industry billions of dollars and disrupted very healthy patterns of nutrition that could have been based on cyclamates rather than high fructose corn syrup. That, too, was wrong.

We remember the nuclear power catastrophe at Three Mile Island, when Dr. Jane Fonda, that Ph.D. genius, taught us that nuclear power was so dangerous, that what we have done instead of using nuclear power, we began relying on overseas oil and gas and burning coal. Then remember the acid rain? That was as near a high pitch as what we hear about global warming. Ronald Reagan stood up, put his hand up and said, no, we are going to have scientific research on this acid rain issue before we commit to all sorts of regulations and taxes that will destroy our economy. Luckily, Reagan did that, and when a $500 million study was complete, it verified the fact that acid rain was a minimal problem, not a major problem, a minimal problem that didn't justify any of the draconian raises in taxes and controls that were being suggested by those environmental alarmists.

Then of course the granddaddy of them all was, many of the same people who now talk about global warming were then talking about global cooling back in the early 1970s, some of the very same people. Yes. And what happened to global cooling? The cycle started going in another direction. Then it became, Oh, my God, it's global warming. Well, now it's back to global cooling. So is this all caused by us driving SUVs? No. Maybe it's caused by the sun. Maybe there are natural reasons for the cycles of climate on this planet.

The so-called ``experts'' were wrong when they told us about all of these things. All of these were exaggerated problems, exaggerated threats to our well-being. And the American people were deceived in many of these cases, whether it was about nuclear energy or whether it was about cranberries. And we had fanatics who were fast and loose with the truth and fast and loose with facts. Well, that's exactly what's going on today.

And what's the problem with that? Well, the problem is there are serious side effects when one gets you focused on something that's not true, like cranberries causing cancer or nuclear energy being such a threat. You end up doing things that are actually harmful to you that you wouldn't do otherwise. When you have CO2 being called the primary pollutant for concern, you are doing a horrendous disservice to the people of this country. By focusing on CO2, which is not harmful to human beings at all and in fact is a plant food--CO2 makes plants grow better, it does not harm human beings. And if our job is just to try to reduce the amount of CO2 in the world, we will actually be doing a grave disservice because we won't be concentrating on the pollution, like NO2 and other things that are very harmful, the particulates out of diesel trucks that are particularly--again, no pun intended--but particular particulates that are very harmful to people. I have three children. I have my baby Anika and Tristan and Christian. I love those babies, and I do not want them to breathe in dirty air. And if we focus on CO2, we are doing a disservice to them and their generation and we are doing a disservice to the older people of this country who will also breathe in the dirty air. And focusing on CO2 to save the planet. That's because what's happening here is these people are out to save the planet, but they are not out to save the people of the planet.

I remember one solution to a nonexistent threat, which also caused a huge destruction of people, was, of course, the eliminating of DDT. Now, DDT, we were told, was destructive to the environment, especially to bird egg shells. Well, then, DDT is banned. And what is the result of DDT being banned? Malaria out of control in Third World countries where before it had been nearly eliminated. DDT was eliminated and malaria made a comeback, and millions of children in the Third World have died because of this nonsense.

I can't tell you if pelican egg shells are less fragile because of DDT, but I can tell you the tradeoff with millions of young children dying in Third World countries isn't worth that tradeoff about how fragile and building up the shell of a pelican.

Unfortunately, the people driving policy here are out to save our planet; they're not out to save our children or our seniors or any other people on the planet. That is the same mindset that would dramatically damage our economy in order to save the planet, with no consideration of the hardship and deprivation to ordinary people that would result from the draconian controls and taxation that is being proposed here in Washington right now as an answer to the global warming threat, the manmade global warming threat.

Now that manmade global warming has been driven into the public consciousness, the alarmists have the leverage right here in Washington. What should we expect unless the public changes its perception? There is a price to pay, just like those millions of little kids dying in Africa of malaria, and there is a price to pay for listening to irrational alarmists.

Excessive taxation regulation mandates are now being proposed in Washington, and they will reduce our gross domestic product by over $7 trillion, destroying nearly 2 million jobs by 2012, at a time when we really need jobs. It will raise electricity rates by 90 percent above inflation, incur $33,000 worth of additional Federal debt for every man, woman and child in America. And it will help the Chinese and other people steal our businesses from us. And this is only step one.

And even with this monstrous cost, little progress is expected. Here's back to the central point most Republicans want to make: That that cost isn't worth what we're going to get out of it. Well, no, there won't be any change in the temperature, and little change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2 isn't harmful to people or this world.

The real calamity brought on by global warming will be the economy- killing taxes and regulations that are put in place to solve a nonexistent problem. That economic decline that we're talking about is just Round one, however. Round two is easy to predict.

Global and international bodies and our own government and our own Congress will be given the right and power to intervene in our lives to prevent manmade global warming. That's what it's all about, globalism. If man makes it, man must then be controlled. That's why it was so important for them to

steamroll over anybody who is in opposition and wanted to ask some questions. They want nobody to ask questions about their theory about manmade global warming because they believe men and women, people, need to be controlled. That is part of their theory of government. It will make it a whole new, more benevolent world. Unfortunately, a lot of the government they are talking about is not the American Government. We are talking about international mandates from unelected bodies that we will then pass on power and authority to, which is supported by many of the people right here in this Congress.

For example, in the future, we are going to face all kinds of mandates and controls from the Federal Government and the internationalcy. Some of these would be, for example, mandated increases in parking fees. Do they tell you that now? All your local communities are going to have to raise your parking fees. And there will be major impediments to the private use of automobiles. And then, of course, they've got to end frequent flyer miles and they've got to end discount air travel because, believe it or not, and nobody has ever been telling you this, they believe that airplanes are the biggest CO2 footprint of all. That's right. Your frequent flyer miles and your discount tickets have got to go. Of course, the elite will be able to fly around in their private planes giving a donation by supposedly planting trees somewhere and thus they can fly in their private planes. But the rest of us cannot go to see our sick relatives on a discounted ticket. No one has heard about this. Nobody has heard about these types of controls that are going to be mandated on our own people by the United Nations perhaps. What has been the purview of local government will be transferred to much higher authorities. Local government will be required to follow international guidelines, climate guidelines, when it comes to building, zoning, even local planning.

This is part of our liberty. Where we live, what we eat, how we run our lives, this is what is at stake. It's called liberty. This is a fight between the globalists, who found a vehicle to try to gain power and grab power, and those people who do believe in liberty and justice. We call them patriots. We call them people around the world who do believe in these Western values of dignity for the individual and freedom and justice.

Yes, even our diet has been targeted by those claiming that animal flatulence and deforestation make meat the enemy of climate. We aren't even going to be able to have barbecues in our backyard, much less have hamburgers. Now, these are one of those things that people will laugh that no one could ever go that far. What is going on here is laying the foundation for extensive controls that now are up to the individual or up to the local government being given to a central government.

If you aren't frightened by this, you should be. We have a fanatical movement of steely-eyed zealots who cannot admit they made a mistake, who always attack the other person rather than trying to have honest discussions of issues. Couple that with self-serving interests, and there are many self-serving interests who are involved in this. They now have joined in a political coalition that believes they have the right to run the economy, run business, run local schools, and run our lives. They have been looking for an excuse to assume power.

Now, the left has always wanted to have power. Leftists have always wanted it. They believe that they can do better and make humankind over and make it a better world by having absolute power over the choices of the people who live in this world. Well, they have found a calamity. They can threaten the people of the world with a calamity in order to stampede them into a monstrously horrific policy, and that's what we are on the edge of here in Washington.

In this last 8 months here in Washington, hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars have been shoveled into the coffers, and no one knows where the heck this money has gone to. There have been looters from all over the world in our financial system and everyone who has benefited from that. The American people know that this Congress was stampeded into giving away trillions of dollars because we were told there was going to be an economic calamity. I'm very proud I never succumbed to that hysteria that was perhaps the greatest rip-off in history. Well, the global warming stampede is designed to cover up the biggest power grab in history, and it too will be costly.

Wake up, America. Wake up, America. We should not be giving our power and our liberty, not to the central government in Washington, D.C., certainly not to the United Nations, which is composed of countries who are governed by crooks and kooks. And the United Nations having power to set regulations over our lives in the name of saving this world from a climate catastrophe would itself be a catastrophe to the freedom of liberty and justice in this country and to the freedom-loving people of the world.

Well, even Al Gore must be a bit embarrassed now that he has to use the words ``climate change'' rather than ``global warming.'' It's an inconvenient truth for him. The fact is it's no longer warming. He must think that we are stupid if he thinks that we have not noticed that it's now ``climate change'' instead of ``global warming'' and that we haven't noticed that there are large numbers of scientists that are opposing what is being proposed. And he must think we are stupid if he thinks that these taxes and regulations and draconian laws that are being proposed are things that we will just accept because we have been frightened into submission.

Wake up, America. We need to save our country and future generations and we need to save the world from this incredible power grab, the greatest power grab and worst power grab in history.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 57 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 10, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, June 4 marks the 20th anniversary of the massacre of the Chinese democracy movement at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. This date marks a turning point, and it also marks a day of shame for the bloody murder, a murder that was committed by the Communist party bosses when they sent Chinese troops to slaughter the idealistic Chinese people who were demanding democracy in Tiananmen Square at this time just 20 years ago.

This day the government of China affirmed to the world that it is a criminal enterprise that is perfectly willing to murder unarmed people in order to stay in power.

Shame on those Communist Party bosses who still 20 years after Tiananmen Square would still massacre advocates of democracy if they would gather in their streets, just as they would massacre Falun Gong members one at a time as they would arrest them, put them into prison, murder them, and would sell their body parts, just as they would murder Tibetan nationalists or Christians or other religious believers. Shame on Beijing. Shame on the people of the world who would treat the Government of Beijing as if it were the same as a democratic government.

June 4 is not just a day of shame for the Beijing regime, however. It is a day of shame for our government as well. Under President Reagan, we made it clear that the United States would continue providing credit, investment, beneficial trade arrangements, and technology transfer as long as China was willing to continue on the path of reform and on the path of making their society more open. Reagan, had he been confronted with Tiananmen Square, would have sent a message: if you send the troops in to massacre these people, the deal is off. You will pay a price.

Do you know what our government did? It wasn't President Reagan. It was President Herbert Walker Bush. Do you know what his message said? It said nothing because he didn't send a message, and that was the message the murderers in Beijing needed to hear.

America really doesn't give a damn about democracy. America doesn't care about human rights. We care about making a buck, and if you have to slaughter the people at Tiananmen Square, the Americans will never ever protest; they won't whisper a protest; they won't cancel contracts, because money is more important to the Americans than freedom.

Well, I'm afraid that did not represent the America that I'm all about. That immorality of siding with a dictatorship, of siding with the gangsters, of siding with the murderers in order to make a short- term profit--that policy--is coming back to haunt us now. That policy has created a monster in Beijing--a powerful, powerful force for evil in this world that we now must confront.

Today marks an anniversary--an anniversary of shame on those who committed the murders, an anniversary of shame on what our reaction was to those murders and to the repression that took place 20 years ago.

Let us send a message to the people of China: We are on their side. Hopefully, if nothing else, this resolution will let them know that, as our people stumble over themselves in trying to make short-term profits by making deals with the gangsters who have oppressed the people of China, there are Americans here who still hold true to the values of Jefferson, of Washington--of our Founding Fathers--and that there are Americans who still hold true to those values that liberty and justice for all is more important than short-term profit gains for American capitalists.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2346, but I do so reluctantly. I am reluctant because as someone who has spent the last 30 years studying Afghanistan and having been in and out of that country and being someone who has studied the current administration's plan, I am sorry to say that the current administration's plan will not work. It is doomed to failure.

Thus we are here allocating money, supplemental money, for our troops to send them overseas, but we are not backing them up with a political plan, a structure for Afghanistan that will work, that is consistent with the customs of the people of Afghanistan. Also their plan does not focus on drug eradication and how we are going to eliminate the problem in Afghanistan. How will our people succeed without the drug eradication problem that we know, the alternative that exists, that is being ignored? No. We are sending our people over. They deserve our support financially. But we should get together and work with the administration to reform their plan because it will not work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of Huntington Beach on its one hundredth anniversary. One of the most beautiful, comfortable, successful, clean, and vibrant cities of America has transformed itself from a tiny oil-producing and cow- grazing piece of land, into the vibrant metropolis it is today. The home to nearly 200,000 people, Huntington Beach, CA has become a great example of what cities across America should strive to be.

Anybody who has ever strolled along the boardwalk, played volleyball in the sand, surfed the waves, trekked out over the pier and watched the sun set know that they are experiencing something special. But leisure is not the only thing valued in Surf City, USA. The city has established a commitment to education with 35 elementary schools, five high schools, as well as two community colleges within the city's limits. The people of Huntington Beach are also very hard workers who have labored to contribute a great deal to their city, state, country, and world. The city plays host to a diverse range of industry, from low-tech to high-tech aerospace, among them The Boeing Company. The city is also home to part of the upper stage of the Saturn V rocket, which was engineered and built by Douglas Aircraft (later McDonnell Douglas), which took the first American flights to the moon.

I must point out another aspect to this city that is near and dear to my heart, as the Chairman of the unofficial, yet powerful, House Surfers Caucus. Visit Huntington Beach, and within a short distance of each other, you will find the International Surfing Museum, the Surfing Hall of Fame, the Surfing Walk of Fame, Quicksilver, and my personal favorite, Jack's Surfboards. Every year, thousands gather on its beaches for the yearly U.S. Open of Surfing Contest. Although I'm not a competitor, it does not prevent me from getting up early in the morning, whenever I can, to join other surfers in the area, beyond the breakline, and hopefully catch a wave or two. Surfing adds a unique and important flavor to the local culture, and Huntington Beach has indeed earned its designation as Surf City, USA.

Yes, Huntington Beach has much to be proud of. The city has so much to offer that people from every corner of the world have traveled to visit or settle in this beautiful city. And who can blame them? Huntington Beach boasts one of the most beautiful coastlines in the country, amazing weather, and friendly and innovative people. Several times, the FBI has cited the city as being one of the safest communities in the United States.

Huntington Beach continues its quest for offering a great quality of life and advocating the advancement of freedom, fun, and human progress. Establishments such as Central Park, the Huntington Harbour, the Bolsa Chica Ecological Preserve, among others, are a testimony to this dedication. As this great city, Surf City, USA, celebrates its centennial, let us look to its example and work to emulate its success. I congratulate Huntington Beach on its centennial. I'm sure the next hundred will be just as grand.