Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as we're talking about debts and deficits financially, I'm here to talk about a freedom debt and a freedom deficit that's occurring in parts around the world. One

that I've been focused on a lot is the country of Belarus, the last dictatorship in Europe.

The political, economic, and human rights situation in Belarus has significantly deteriorated. A total of 33 opposition leaders and activists are still being held in prison for peacefully protesting against a dictatorial regime and a falsified 2010 presidential election. Silent protests have sprung up on an online campaign, called ``Revolution through Social Networks,'' which encourages people to come to their localities' central squares every Wednesday to express discontent with the Lukashenko regime.

Opposition activists, journalists and ordinary people have been and continue to be arrested. The authorities have also launched ``distributed denial of service'' attacks on opposition Web sites.

The United States and the European Union continue to condemn these activities. We must think strategically about Belarus post-Lukashenko when the people of Belarus are finally able to establish a democratic society based upon the principles of a free-market economy. In anticipation of that day, each and every one of us should prepare now so as to be in a position to rapidly assist in the establishment of internationally recognized elections and rules-based, transparent government in Belarus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. I don't come down to the floor often. This is a special occasion and a special time to bring focus on Yucca Mountain.

As the investigation continues into the shutdown of Yucca Mountain, we have heard over and over again that the licensing application should move forward and let the science speak for itself.

The $10 million provided in the bill is a start but too low for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do anything functional toward reviewing the licensing application. In fact, just a few years ago, they were receiving nearly $60 million for these efforts.

In addition, the Shimkus-Inslee amendment--it didn't officially get recorded that way, but that was our intent, that Jay Inslee, my friend from Washington State, would join me. The amendment adds $10 million to continue the Yucca Mountain license application. There is $10 million in the bill, and my amendment would take it to $20 million.

Our amendment is budget neutral and fully offset by taking funds from the DOE's departmental administration account. We are asking DOE to do more with less by making modest cuts to an account for salaries and expenses. And, again, I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for helping us find a way to move in this direction. Again I want to thank my colleague Mr. Inslee for supporting this amendment.

I have had a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk to me about when are we going to have a vote on the floor to show our support for what we have done? What we have done historically, in 1982 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed, 30 years, countless different administrations on both sides of the aisle, different control of the Chamber here, both parties.

This has been our consistent policy for 30 years. Now, with Japan and Fukushima Daiichi and part of the problem being high-level nuclear waste stored in pools, we have to have a centralized location. This amendment says let us finish the science to get to the final permit, and let that science be the judge. It's providing the money.

But I will tell you that we have high-level nuclear waste all over this country, and we need it in one centralized location. It has been our policy that that would be Yucca Mountain--an isolated area in Nevada, in the desert, 90 miles from Las Vegas. It's underneath a mountain, in the desert, in one of the most arid places in this country. If we can't store it there, we really can't store it anywhere. As you've heard from my colleagues already this evening, it is stored in locations we should not have it.

Again, I really want to thank the Appropriations Committee for helping me through this process. We need a vote. I will call for a vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, we were all glued to our televisions and the

Internet watching the Egyptian people, Christian and Muslim alike, demand free and fair elections for the first time.

The history of the Christian church in Egypt far exceeds that of Islam. Even now, Coptic Christians make up 10 percent of Egypt's population of 80 million people.

Unfortunately, some fringe groups of extremist Muslims took this opportunity to attack their fellow Egyptians simply because they are Christians in an attempt to drive them out of Egypt. In some cases, they were successful.

Our country was founded on the principles of religious freedom. As a Christian and a Member of the House of Representatives, I'm hopeful that this example of a broad range of beliefs of our 435 Members will stand as an example to the Egyptian people.

I would ask the Egyptian people and the current military leadership to stand with the Christian minority in Egypt and ensure their ability to freely practice their faith is not impugned by the current leadership or the one that may be elected in the future.

I will continue to keep the Coptic Christians in Egypt in my prayers, and I would ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a man of great character, patriotism, and community pride: Mr. Jim Wham of Centralia, Illinois, who passed away May 20, 2011, at the age of 92.

I first met Jim when, as a child, I visited my late grandfather, John Shimkus, who owned a clothing store in Centralia. Jim Wham, already a well known attorney, knew my grandfather and I remember meeting this well educated, well informed, larger than life man. Many years later, when I began running for Congress, I again met Jim--who was very active

in politics--and became much more acquainted with him. Jim became a friend and trusted advisor. His viewpoints on crucial issues were always well thought out and came from a deep love of his country. I could always count on Jim to tell me exactly what he thought.

Jim was a 1936 graduate of Centralia Township High School, was center on the Centralia Orphans basketball team that competed in the State Tournament at Champaign, and later attended the University of Illinois where he lettered in track. He was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1947 and practiced at the law firm started by his grandfather William Bundy and remained the active senior partner of Wham and Wham until his death.

Jim also served in the Army Air Corps in World War II advancing to the rank of major and was awarded the bronze star.

Jim was large in stature and large in his love of politics, the law, and life. He shared his passion for this country and the Republican Party any chance he could.

Jim even ran for Congress once on the Jim Wham Party banner, after missing the deadline to file as a Republican. The reason for his Congressional run was because of the incumbent's vote against the amendment prohibiting the burning of the flag. Jim had seen firsthand in WWII the price paid for that flag and wanted others to know it as well. He was first and foremost a true patriot.

Jim also served as a judge of the Illinois Court of Claims and was a candidate for Illinois Appellate Court Judge. Jim was a member of the First United Methodist Church in Centralia and was a Sunday School teacher there.

Most recently, well into his 90's, Jim hosted a weekly radio show on WILY in Centralia. I had the privilege of being his guest on this show in studio. He was still well informed, still very articulate, and I could still not win an argument with him. His voice in Centralia will be missed.

Survivors include his wife Phyllis; daughters Sarah Cary and Jennifer Price; his brother William; grandchildren: Andrew Wham Cary, Stephen Wham Cary, Rebecca Ann Cary, Susannah Jane Price, James Daniel Price, Katharine Elizabeth Price and Mary Karen Price; and great grandchildren: Zachary Cary and Samantha Cary.

Jim was laid rest in Centralia. And while I was unable to attend in person, I can certainly take this opportunity to let his name ring throughout this hallowed hall. He deserves no less and would certainly love hearing it.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 404 I inadvertently voted ``no'' when I intended to vote ``yes.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert

Thank you, Congressman Broun. It's great to be with you, and I appreciate the introduction. You're too kind.

One thing I do know: If you want to create good-paying jobs, it's in the fossil fuel industry.

During this recession, one of the two biggest job engines for organized labor has been the production of a new, supercritical coal- fired power plant. There will be thousands of building trade workers building this power plant and hundreds of people who will be working in this power plant and mining the coal. They'll have great wages and superb benefits. So, if we want good, high-paying jobs in this country, the fossil fuel industry is one sector that can do that.

The other major job engine next to my congressional district is the expansion of a refinery in Wood River. Actually, it's in Congressman Costello's district, but we're right next to each other. It's the ConocoPhillips-Wood River Refinery, and it has thousands of employees. It's a $2 billion project to help crack the oil that would come from the Canadian oil sands. You have thousands of jobs right now. You have another supply decreasing our reliance on imported crude oil from an ally with North American Energy--great wages, great benefits, secure jobs. It's the fossil fuel industry.

I am just amazed at the continued attack on that sector by my friends on the other side and of the whole debate about what drives the cost of energy. It's a simple formula. We all learned it in basic economics and accounting: supply and demand. If you want to lower the cost of the good, you have to increase the supply. We continue to demand more. In fact, we're going to demand 30 percent more in electricity generation by 2030. If we don't marry that with increased electricity generation, guess what? We're going to have higher costs. The same is true with liquid fuels.

So we're in a very exciting time in this country because, for the first time, we really can make the argument that we could be independent of imported crude oil by using what we're proposing as an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Let these energy commodities compete for our purchase. One example we drew up with some friends on the other side is an open fuel strategy so that anybody can use anything when they pull up to the pump. Another manner in which you do that is you continue to allow all commerce to compete for electricity. You don't allow government to stifle the electricity generation or the liquid fuel market.

So many of us have seen these, and I'll go through them quickly since I know you've got some issues you want to talk about.

In an all-of-the-above strategy, we say ``all of the above.'' If you want to use solar and wind, great. That's part of ``all of the above.'' A small portion of electricity generation does nothing for liquid fuel, liquid transportation fuels, but it might add 3 percent of electricity. OCS, we've got to be there. We've got new excitement in the Marcellus shale. That's got to be an exciting new venue that can go for electricity generation and for liquid fuels. We've got fuel from coal, not just electricity generation. For years, South Africa has been turning carbon-based coal into liquid transportation fuel or aviation fuel, and as you know, I'm very supportive of the biodiesel provisions.

It all comes down to this: jobs. When we continued to add additional regulations on the fossil fuel industry, what happened to these miners? They all lost their jobs--a thousand of them in one mine. The attack by this administration and by my colleagues on the other side with regard to the fossil fuel industry has to stop.

I know we've been joined by another of my colleagues, and I'll end with this because you hear it quite a bit on the floor.

I just want to pose a question: If you raise taxes on a commodity good, how does that lower its price? If you raise the tax on a commodity, how does that lower the price to the consumer? It cannot, and it will not. It will only add to the price of that energy.

Thank you for letting me join you.

Today, May 3, 2011, I would like to take this time to commend the Department of State's Overseas Security Advisory Council, or OSAC, on its 26th anniversary. Since 1985, OSAC, a public-private partnership, has provided accurate, timely, actionable information on global security concerns. Its constituents number over

4,000, and include businesses, schools, faith-based organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. OSAC serves as the U.S. Government's primary platform for assisting the U.S. private sector to confront and mitigate security threats overseas. Information is shared via OSAC's Web site and through individual consultations between OSAC analysts and its constituency. OSAC's original reports are posted on their Web site, sent to embassies around the world, and have been requested by numerous U.S. and foreign government agencies.

Through its Country Council program, OSAC provides a mechanism for the U.S. private sector to gather information and share best practices among the world's leading security experts. Country Councils are present in over 140 cities and serve as a forum for the discussion of time-sensitive and country-specific security concerns. Around the world, the London Country Council is gearing up for the immense undertaking of the 2012 Olympic Summer Games; members of the Lagos Country Council are discussing operating challenges in the Niger Delta; the various Country Councils in Mexico are creating strategies for operating amid the violence caused by the drug trafficking organizations; the Hong Kong Country Council is focusing on deterring cybercrime; the Erbil Country Council is facilitating discussions between the U.S. private sector and Kurdistan government officials.

Over the past 26 years, OSAC has developed into the premier model for public-private partnership. It is the only government-sponsored organization specifically designed to address the private sector's global security concerns. Founded by Secretary of State George Shultz and a handful of CEOs in 1985, OSAC has expanded to include over 4,000 constituents and looks forward to a robust partnership with the U.S. private sector and ensuring the safety of American entities abroad. Congratulations to the OSAC cochairs, Diplomatic Security Service Director Jeff Culver and John McClurg from the Dell Corporation, and the Executive Working Group: Jim Snyder from Conoco Phillips; Brad Brekke from Target Corporation; and Jim Hutton from Procter & Gamble. I also want to thank OSAC's executive director, Peter Ford, and from OSAC, Jackee Schools and Marsha Thurman.

Mr. Chairman, it is great that we have this chance to be on the floor today to really address one of the most important job- creating pieces of legislation we have brought to the floor, and that is this legislation today.

For the climate change believers, their plan is simple: price carbon fuels so we drive this new world of peace, security, and green energy. But they have forgotten one thing: they destroy jobs in doing that. These are well-known miners who lost their jobs the last time we did it. Thousands of coal miners in Illinois lost their jobs. Even in the greenhouse gas debate, it would add 50 cents to a gallon of gas. Does that create jobs? That destroys jobs. We are trying to price energy, and all costs go up.

So if you are concerned about the economy and you are concerned about jobs, this is the perfect bill to support.

I would like to thank my colleague from Kentucky for the time, and I appreciate this opportunity to really talk about this.

I rise reluctantly to oppose my friend from Houston. I know she has a lot of her constituents who work in the fossil fuel industry and the refining industry and the refinery section, but parts of the amendment do some disastrous things to the bill.

First of all, it strikes most of the base text. We are here today-- and I understand her position of wanting industry to listen, we want EPA to listen. The whole debate, why we're down here, is we want EPA to listen. And so as we address this debate, her amendment would strike most of the base text. And the whole reason why we're here is to get the attention of the EPA and respond to the people who sent us here to not hurt and harm job creation.

My friends, Ranking Member Waxman and Markey, their bill did not pass the legislative process. It didn't go through both Chambers and did not get signed by the President. Why? Because we understood what would have happened. We successfully argued the debate that energy costs go up. If you price carbon, you raise the cost of electricity. If you price carbon, you raise the cost of manufacturing. If you price carbon, you raise the cost of gasoline. Now in this recessionary economy, do we want to do that? And do we want to give the Environmental Protection Agency the sole authority without our doing the process that I think the legislative process allows us to do, to talk about the winners and the losers, the give and take?

What was decided in the last Congress was the legislative process could not pass this because it was too controversial and it would affect jobs. It would affect jobs. And this is what we are all concerned about.

The last round of the Clean Air Act where you could really talk about toxic emittents cost thousands of jobs in southern Illinois, cost thousands of jobs in Kentucky and cost thousands of jobs in the Ohio Valley. Again, you go back to the basic premise if you price carbon.

So what my colleague's amendment does is it says let's keep the EPA pricing of emittents that are not toxic--carbon dioxide is not a toxic emittent. It's not nitrous oxide, it's not sulfur dioxide, it's not a particulate matter, and it's not a criteria pollutant under the EPA and the Clean Air Act. So we're saying, don't regulate emittents that aren't toxic; don't put a price on carbon that will cost jobs. So that's why we need to reject this.

Now, in debates on the other amendments, this isn't the only attack on the fossil fuel industry. Greenhouse gas is just one rule coming down. Then we've got boiler MCH, we've got mercury MCH, we've got cooling towers, we've got coal ash, we've got the transport rule, all separate rules, and these will affect the refining industry. Most of these regulations are new regulations coming down from the EPA to destroy the fossil fuel sector that raises costs and destroys jobs.

So my colleague's amendment, what it does is it doesn't change the reason why we're here. The reason why we're here is saying, EPA, stop. If it's a good enough policy, it can pass the legislative body. But do you know what? It wasn't a good enough policy to pass a Democrat- controlled Senate. And it wasn't good enough policy to get a bill to the President to sign into law.

So why is it a good policy to let unelected bureaucrats in the Environmental Protection Agency move on a process to destroy jobs? Let's be held accountable. If we want to do that, let's cast our votes. What we're casting our votes today for is to keep the cost of power low and save jobs, create jobs and grow jobs. If you want job creation, we support the underlying bill. We do not support any amendment that puts off telling the EPA to stop and desist and do no more.

Again, the basic premise of the climate debate is putting a price on carbon emission that is not toxic. And by putting a price on there, you raise the cost of energy that everybody uses. You raise the cost of home heating, automobiles, electricity and the like.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, my colleague just said the only way is to reduce demand. Well, that is not the only way.

Republicans continue to move on all-of-the-above energy strategies that increase supply. You know what happens when you increase supply? You increase jobs.

I brought this down numerous times over the past couple of years. Look what we could do. We could open up the OCS. Thousands and thousands of jobs could be created by oil and gas exploration. Look what we could do. We could take hundreds of years of supply of coal and turn it into liquid fuel.

Look what we could do. We could open up the pipelines and bring oil sands from Canada down.

We can be independent on transportation fuels. We cannot be, based upon allowing the EPA to price carbon.

The only way my colleagues want to get us to driving less is to make gasoline so high that no one can drive.

Now, that's okay when you live in major metropolitan areas, but when you live in rural southern Illinois, where you have got to drive long distances to get to school, to get to hospitals, to get to church, every time you raise the price of gasoline, it hurts the poor and the middle class of rural America. So my colleague is just wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Madam Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the former chairman, the gentleman from Texas, Joe Barton.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, just to put things back on the table, H.R. 910 completely preserves the car rule under the EPA, emissions standards for passenger cars and trucks for model years 2012 to 2016. We had this debate in the committee, the subcommittee and the full committee. It's still there. And, unfortunately, you are acting as if it doesn't.

This is a really simple debate. This is a debate about whether we want more supply or less supply, whether we want more jobs or less jobs, whether we want higher energy prices or less energy prices. When you allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, which is not a toxic emission, they do it by setting a price; and that price will drive our country into slowing economic growth, more job loss and higher costs.

So that's why we're here today. We're very excited about this debate today. It's about time we got to the floor and had a chance to vote on whether we want the EPA without legislative language to raise the cost of energy in this country. We say, no, reject the Markey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate a native southern Illinoisan and a living legend in the sport of basketball, Mr. Jerry Sloan of McLeansboro, Illinois, who retired recently as head coach of the NBA's Utah Jazz. Jerry never forgot his humble roots. Throughout his playing and coaching career, he exhibited a hard-work ethic, a down-to-Earth demeanor, and an unassuming style.

Jerry ended what was the longest tenure with the same team of an active head coach in the four major sports leagues. He is third on the all-time NBA wins list with 1,221.

Jerry was an outstanding athlete at McLeansboro High School and played college basketball at the University of Evansville, leading the Purple Aces to consecutive Division II national championships. He was drafted into the NBA by the Baltimore Bullets and then went to the Chicago Bulls in the expansion draft. He played 10 years with the Bulls and has his No. 4 jersey retired by the team.

In 1979, Jerry was named head coach of the Bulls. He resigned in 1982 and joined the Jazz as an assistant coach in 1984. He became the Jazz head coach in 1988. Jerry led the Jazz to the NBA finals twice. He was inducted into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in 2009. Jerry is a gracious, honest, tractor-loving guy. He will be missed in Utah, but those of us in southern Illinois will welcome the chance to see him more often.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague came up to talk about high energy prices. We have consistently tried on this side of the aisle to talk about an all-of-the-above energy strategy. We are independent on electricity generation, but we are held captive to imported crude oil.

So what does that mean?

That means we are stuck with a one-fuel technology. In an all-of-the- above energy strategy, we envision a world where you go to a filling station, and you have fuel competing. You have coal-to-liquid technologies; you have liquid fuel by natural gas; you have renewable fuel by biomass. You have all of these issues to help decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. We have the operability for an oil-sand pipeline from Canada.

We really can be independent on our energy needs based upon North American energy resources. We have to be about that. For the administration to celebrate opening up one permit on the gulf coast is a joke. We ought to get our drilling rigs back and operating.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize someone who has been a valuable asset during her time as an intern in my office, Estelle Wallingford.

Estelle came to my office from Australia as a participant in the Uni- Capitol Washington Internship Programme. Already an accomplished student at the University of Melbourne where she studies Political Science and Philosophy, as well as Economics, she left the Australian summer to join us in DC as winter set in this January. During her time in my office, Estelle has been a quick learner, picking up and understanding the similarities and differences between our U.S. Congress and Australia's Parliament. At the same time, she has excitedly shared her knowledge and culture with my staff, leading them in their first ever celebration of Australia Day.

Estelle's love of Australia and desire to share it with others in the United States was exemplified by her efforts to revive the House's Friends of Australia Caucus. During a project to update a listing of Congressional Member Organizations for my office, she realized that there are caucuses fostering friendship between the United States and a number of other nations, but not one for Australia. I am proud to report that through her efforts to reach out to other Members of Congress and her own embassy, Estelle's vision of the Friends of Australia Caucus is already taking shape.

I join my colleagues in congratulating Estelle Wallingford on her accomplishments during her time in the United States and thank her for her hard work and knowledge she has imparted to me and my staff. I wish her the best in her future endeavors as she returns home, to Australia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the pending resolution, particularly with respect to the effect on jobs and the economy.

My colleagues on the other side are going to oppose this effort, claiming we are seeking to strip basic public health and safety protections. No one is in favor of hurting those in those areas, but that is not the purpose of us being here today.

We have had numerous hearings over the last couple of days on rules and regulations and how they hurt job creation. This gives power back to the committees to then do that, fine-tooth comb through rules and regulations and address what the President talked about in his State of the Union; where there are rules and regulations that don't make sense, we need to eliminate them, because we need to focus on job creation. We can't regulate existing businesses into the ground on the hope that better ones will come later. We must protect the jobs currently we have and open the doors for new businesses as well.

As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, I am particularly interested in the activities of the EPA. I am going to talk about three examples, one we heard yesterday in testimony.

United States Steel came before us and said imagine a regulation where we have to decrease the heat in the preparation of steel to comply with NOX, but as we move to EPA rules and regulations on greenhouse gasses we actually have to use the same process and heat

that process up. So U.S. Steel will be caught in a catch-22. Under one reg, they have to keep the heat low to comply with nitrous oxide regulations; on the other hand, in the same process, they have to heat it up to meet the greenhouse gas rules.

Now, what is a steel company going to do? They are going to move to China. You can't develop rules and regulations that cannot be complied with by existing known technologies, and that was just a perfect example.

Another one that I find, and a lot of these things not only hurt jobs, but they are going to hurt the environment. The example is the redefinition of used oil as a solid waste. Now, this sounds like, what are they talking about?

Many of us, and there are times when many of us, when we were young, we changed our own oil. We would get underneath the car, pull the plug and drain the oil. Fortunately, in today's world, you can take it to an auto repair shop, you can take it to maybe a parts store, and you can then recycle that used oil.

Not if the EPA has its say, because what they do in the redefinition of this is the only way you can dispose of this off-brand, off-used oil is to burn it. Oh, that is real great for the environment, burning the used oil. And what will the home do-it-yourselfer do? They are probably going to pour it on the ground. So EPA regs not only hurt job creation, but they have a great effect in hurting and harming the economy.

The next one, one of the issues we will address next week in the committee is coal ash byproducts. This is another one that is curious in which the EPA is trying to meddle in. Despite EPA's own testing and admittance that these coal byproducts do not qualify as hazardous waste based on their toxicity, EPA wants to label them as toxic material.

What does that mean? Any byproducts used will then be required to be disposed of in special landfills or dumps and not recycled. Coal ash can't go into concrete. Gypsum can't go into wallboard. Wallboard that has to be disposed of or you are going to remodel your home, what happens to that wallboard? The cost of doing business increases, and these all are things that hurt job creation.

We applaud President Obama in his State of the Union when he says there's too many regulations and we need to ease the regulatory burden. That's the importance of what we're doing here--one of the few things we agree on with the administration. And this will allow us committee by committee to go through the process and identify those hindrances and start to move legislation to address those.

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

I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Joe Pitts.

It is business that creates jobs. Easing the regulatory burden helps create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Bono Mack, who is the chairman of the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Chairman Stearns.

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We don't care which administration created all these burdensome regulations. If they do not protect public health and harm job creation, we want to review them. I don't see what's the big damage of that, and every time you hear the word ``incentives'' you know what that means? Tax dollars. That means borrowing money from China to incentivize who knows what.

We want capital formation through the private sector to create jobs. The government can no longer do that.

I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), who is the vice chairman of my subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues, we'll have a chance next week to vote on greenhouse gas regulations, which will kill jobs. Those bills are coming.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Ohio who is from the largest manufacturing district in the country, Mr. Latta.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the vice chairman of the Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Houston (Mr. Olson) the former Navy fighter pilot.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to one of our new colleagues from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm glad my colleague talked about the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was passed in the 1990s, and it identified six criteria pollutants. And we know a lot of what those are--nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter. Carbon dioxide was never identified in the law. In fact, Chairman Emeritus Dingell said numerous times the Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate carbon.

Even as the EPA now moves in the direction of climate, they've changed the rules. They are not complying with the Clean Air Act because of their tailoring rule, thus picking winners over losers.

If we go down the road to regulate carbon, we raise the cost of creating jobs. Jobs move overseas. That's what the Waxman-Markey debate was last year. That's why the majority last year could not pass a bill to regulate carbon, because of the impact on jobs.

So why are we here?

We're not trying to end regulation. We're trying to make sure that there's an economic analysis on what occurs on jobs. What's the job impact?

Administrator Jackson, throughout the entire process, could not tell us. In fact, they only do it in silos and never the cumulative effect of what are the jobs lost based upon regulation.

What is the compliance cost?

We ought to know that because the more there is a requirement to comply with the rules and regulations when we're competing against China, who has no rules and regulations, we are less competitive, we lose jobs.

Is it so harmful to ask where's the benefit, a cost-benefit analysis of all these regulations?

So we'll get a chance. I know I was asked by the other side earlier in the debate, where is the legislation to affect rules and regulations that will create jobs?

Well, it's coming next week, and it's the greenhouse gas rules and regulations, which does not affect the Clean Air Act, which does not change, after all their portrayals on dirty air, it does

not affect a single criteria pollutant in the Clean Air Act.

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

I was expecting a few Members, but I don't expect them to come now.

Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a great debate. And Diana DeGette is a great friend of mine. We've served here in the Chamber for a long time. And I think it's good for the public to understand that we can have strong disagreements without being disagreeable. And I'm probably one of the strongest, outspoken loudmouths on the committee. And I have been recently. But I think it's also good to know that we can continue, even on very controversial issues on life. She has very strong opinions, and I have very strong opinions. But Congresswoman DeGette has my respect, and she's a friend.

During last fall, businesses kept coming to me and saying, all we want to be is left alone. That's really part of this debate.

The Democrat majority, in fact, in the last 2 years, they had the whole shooting match. These are the same debates you had about us. You could have addressed the regulatory burdens on business, but you didn't. You had the House, you had the Senate, you had the Presidency. Not one bill to ease the regulatory burden.

So now the pendulum has shifted. We're into job creation. One of the burdens of job creation is excessive regulation. Businesses want to be left alone. There's too much uncertainty.

What have we done to bring to the floor to help provide certainty? We voted to repeal the health care law. If you want to talk to businesses, both large and small, one of the biggest things that has created uncertainty is Obamacare. And that was on the floor.

The second thing that created the most uncertainty is climate and a carbon tax, raising the cost. That's going to come to the floor.

So here are two major provisions passed in this Chamber, hurt jobs, we get a chance to address on the floor. And so this is an important exercise. We're going to be doing it in the committee. We've had four hearings in the committee on issues all around the regulatory burdens.

I gave you the example of U.S. Steel. Here they've got a NOX requirement so they keep the burners on low. But a carbon requirement would require that the burners are on high. How do they comply? I'll tell you how they comply. They move the steel mill to a country that does not have those regulations. Or we import it.

Should we look at these and address these? The answer is yes.

I see my colleague from Louisiana has shown up. If my colleague from Colorado doesn't mind, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the Democrat side are supporting this bill based on 10 pages of the legislation: immediate access to insurance for the uninsured, an extension of dependent coverage, no lifetime or annual caps. Ten pages. This health care law was 2,990 pages. This is only volume 1.

What do you find when you go through the entire bill? This is what they are defending their bill on? This is only volume 1 of 4. And what's in here?--a $500 billion cut to Medicare, a $500 billion cut to Medicare for our seniors.

What else is in here? Five hundred billion dollars of tax increases. What else is in here? Six years of benefits for 10 years of cost. What else is in here? A new entitlement program.

Our Nation is broke. It is broke because of our entitlement program, and this law added a new entitlement.

Madam Speaker, I come down tonight to put into the Record the names of some freedom fighters who have been jailed, not only politicians, but also members of the news media, after the stolen elections in Minsk, Belarus, of two nights ago.

The opponents of Dictator Lukashenko were as follows. Their locations are unknown. Some have been jailed: Andrey Sannikaw, Yaraslaw Ramanchuk, Ryhor Kastusyow, Uladzimir Nyaklyayew, Ales Mikhalevich, Vital Rymashewski, Viktar Tsyareshchanka, Mikalay Statkevich and Dzmitry Uss.

Tens of thousands of Belarusians converged on Independence Square in the capital, heeding opposition leaders who called Sunday's election a farce and accused Lukashenko of keeping the post-Soviet country locked in a dictatorship. They gathered on the evening on the 19th and the morning of the 20th.

Also arrested were prominent journalists and civil society activists, folks who are friends of individuals I know: Anatol Lyabedska, leader of the United Civic Party; Mr. Sannikaw's wife, Iryna Khalip; Dzmitry Bandarenka, coordinator of an opposition group called Khartyya97; and Natallya Radzina, the editor of www.charter97.org. The Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe called the election ``flawed,'' and the United States of America and the European Union condemned the crackdown.

With me I have some photos of the evening of December 19 showing protestors. Of course, we see members of the Belarusian security forces, and in this photo here you actually see them wielding their clubs and beating one of the opposition members of the party. This is what we have in Europe. The last dictatorship in Europe is in a country called Belarus.

The United States has already--and I would lend to the demand of the release of all political prisoners, presidential candidates, and their official representatives who are being held in KGB detention centers in Minsk. Yes, in Belarus, they still call the secret police the KGB. The United States and this Member stand in solidarity with all opposition activists with those currently being held and those who are still in hospitals and those already who are in jail.

The new media ability of democratic movements in this country are great at especially being able to use the Twitter accounts, using Facebook, using

photos. A lot of these were conducted through new media. It underscores the brutality of the Belarusian leadership and the dictator, Lukashenko. I would hope that the international community, especially the European Union and the United States, would place the Belarusian Government on record that they should not hope to be able to join in the opportunities afforded to free and democratic countries when they treat their citizens who are only asking for the right to have their voice heard and the right to choose the representatives of the people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of a talented group of student-athletes from Breese, Illinois.

The Breese Mater Dei Knights volleyball team recently captured the Illinois High School Athletic Association Class 3A State Title and finished the season with an outstanding 41-1 record. The Knights lost the first set of the championship match to Joliet Catholic 25-15, but fought back and captured the last two sets 25-18 and 26-24 to secure the state championship.

I would like to congratulate Head Coach Fred Rakers and Assistant Coach Chad Rakers for all of their hard work with the team. But most of all, I want to congratulate the 2010 state champion volleyball team from Breese Mater Dei: Samantha Bedard, Kaley Boeckmann, Chelsea Crocker, Kayla Eversgerd, Alyssa Hitpas, Bailey Kampwerth, Emily Koelling, Alison Lampen, Abby Luebbers, Mallory Mensing, Alison Mueller, Ashley Rakers, Brooke Schulte, Nicole Strieker, Abbey Winter.

These young ladies have represented themselves, their school and their community in an exemplary fashion and I want to join with all the members of this House in wishing them continued success in their athletic and academic endeavors.