Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

I guess one of the problems I have is that I have actually read this bill and some of the amendments that are going to be proposed here. It seems that we are in a situation where we are more concerned--or at least the leaders of this Congress are more concerned--about homes for horses than we are homes for Americans or jobs for Americans. And from the very few people that still have jobs, we are now going to take $700 million, at the minimum, from their pockets to try to create a solution to a problem this Congress has solved.

In years past, the land managers in this country have pled with this Congress not to take away the management tool; yet year after year in proposal after proposal, we in Congress have, indeed, micromanaged those individuals. We have stopped the ability of a sale from these horses even though the contract for the sale prohibited resale for slaughtering purposes. That no longer is a tool that they have. We have tried to reduce the ability that they have of running an adoption program until today. It is no longer effective because of our efforts on this floor to micromanage. There is an effort--even the administration complained about a provision that will be in the bill and that will remain in this bill about the process of taking a horse that has died of natural causes to a rendering factory that could be construed as a felony. The administration complained about that, and we have done nothing to take out that micromanagement element to it. In years past the Secretary of the Interior did have the right to euthanize old, sick or lame horses; but we have also narrowed that down to the point that that could only happen with a terminally ill horse as a means of a mercy approach.

In addition to that, other elements that this House passed in the agriculture bill and in finance bills have totally eliminated the abilities of those in the private sector who have

horses to do anything else except what is left to them, dump these on the Federal range, which means that the count the people have been talking about by the States--and it is only 10 of them that are impacted with the wild horses and wild burros--recognize that there is a significant undercount of this problem and this situation. We already have dedicated solely to wild horses and wild burros an amount of land that is owned by the public that is the size of the State of New York. And even with that much land dedicated solely to the purpose of horse range, our micromanagement in taking tools away from the land manager who went and complained about that has caused us to have an overabundance of horses on that land until, indeed, 35,000 horses, we have to find other activities for them; and Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that by the laws of this country they cannot be slaughtered. There is no slaughter of horses. We have banned the practice. We have banned the transportation.

No one is talking about the slaughtering of horses. The closest this bill comes to slaughter is the Rules chairman who limited all the amendments that were possible under this particular bill. And unfortunately because of how we have micromanaged this land, the appropriations for our Horse and Burro Program, which will run close to $60 million in next year's budget, 75 percent has to be done to the excess that we have that has been caused by decisions that we have made on this floor.

Now the solution being presented today is simply not trying to give the land managers the tools that they ask. It is to expand the amount of land by a size equal to the State of West Virginia for more area at a cost of $700 million, according to CBO. However, the agency itself said this will be well over $1 billion when we are finished with this solution. We have found that we have a problem in this country where stimulus bills don't create the jobs we expected, our bloated budgets don't create the jobs we expected, our tax increases don't create the jobs we expected. So instead of tackling that issue, which would be a perfectly legitimate subject today, we're talking about horses, horses roaming an area the size of the State of New York. We may be willing to ration health care for humans but not health care for horses. We have more concern with the habitat for horses than homes for humans, and I have a big problem--and I will speak to the amendment now so I will not come back--with the concept of the change the gentleman from West Virginia is offering. By changing this bill from mandating that the size of West Virginia be found somewhere to setting it only as a goal makes it a much more pernicious issue. A goal is not a legal requirement, but a goal is not defined anywhere in terms in law, which means a goal may actually be an incentive to force them to reprioritize in a way that the BLM does not want to reprioritize.

A goal in statute may be an element and a door opening for lawsuits that will be used against this element. I mean, this is the most dangerous of language when it is so vague that no one has defined it, no one has considered it, but it may be used against us, and especially when the Secretary of the Interior is one of the few people in Washington that has the power of condemnation. Not even the President of the United States has the ability of going in and condemning lands. The Secretary of the Interior does, and we are now empowering that Secretary with a vague undefined term of having a goal of finding enough land, public or private, the size of the State of West Virginia.

May I state one other thing. The chairwoman of the Rules Committee is from New York. The person that was representing this bill from the Rules Committee was from Massachusetts. The good gentleman is from West Virginia. Last year when we talked about this bill, there were gentlemen from West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio speaking towards this issue. With all due respect, there are only 10 States that are impacted by wild horses and wild burros. Those States I have just mentioned have absolutely zero wild horses on their property. If they would take these wild horses and provide a habitat for them, I would be ecstatic. But until that time happens, we are the ones that are bearing the burden, and we understand the issues. And the land managers are asking, free their hands so they can solve this problem, and Congress does not have the wisdom to listen to the experts to do what they know is right to solve this particular problem. This is a conundrum that we should not be talking about. We should be talking about how we can make life better for Americans with more jobs and a better lifestyle.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop

Bill number: H.R. 3183

Account: Water and Related Resources

Legal name and address of requesting entity: Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, 2837 East Highway 193, Layton, UT 84040.

Description of project: $1,000,000 to conduct a feasibility study to enlarge the Arthur V. Watkins Dam.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure information regarding project funding I had requested and which was included within the legislation H.R. 3082, as reported. To the best of my knowledge, funding for this project: (1) is not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) is not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark; and (3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds. I further certify that neither my spouse, nor I, have any personal financial interests in this request.

Project Title: PCC Apron NW End Taxiway A

Amount: $5.1 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)

Bill Number: H.R. 3082

Account: Air Force Military Construction

Address of Requesting Entity: Hill Air Force Base, Utah

Location: 75th Air Base Wing, 7285 4th Street, Hill AFB, UT 84056.

Matching Funds: Not Applicable

Detailed Spending Plan: Not Applicable.

Description and Justification: Project funding is needed to construct additional taxiway space for the flight preparation of fighter aircraft using the Utah Test and Training Range, to increase flight efficiency and safety by accommodating additional aircraft at the same time on the ramp which will also reduce jet fuel costs.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996, the Interior-Environment Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop

Bill number: H.R. 2996

Account: Land Acquisition

Legal name and address of requesting entity: Western Rivers Conservancy, located at 302 N. Last Chance Gulch, Ste. 404, Helena, MT 59601

Description of project: $500,000 to purchase a 700-acre property to add to the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge.

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop

Bill number: H.R. 2996

Account: Save America's Treasures

Legal name and address of requesting entity: Salt Lake City Mayor's Office, 451 South State St., SLC, UT 84114

Description of project: $150,000 to restore the Albert Fisher Mansion and re-landscape the grounds surrounding the building.

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop

Bill number: H.R. 2996

Account: STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project

Legal name and address of requesting entity: Weber County, Utah, located at 2380 Washington Blvd, Ogden, Utah 84401

Description of project: $500,000 to assist in providing detention basins, improved canal development and maintenance, and culvert replacements to better handle capacity problems.

I need to stand and congratulate our Rules Committee for all the hard work they are doing in creating precedent around here. Until last year, in the history of this House the ability to limit speaking rights and amendments was always done by a unanimous consent agreement. So the Rules Committee must indeed be working overtime to establish which issues will never be discussed on this floor.

When the ranking member of the Resources Committee, the ranking member of two of the subcommittees can go 0-9 in proposed amendments, it must be truly an effort on the part of the Rules Committee to guard free speech on this floor--as long as the topic is something on which they agree should be discussed.

For, indeed, we are not simply debating about dollars here. We are debating about dollars to create national security, for dollars have consequences to them.

There was one proposed amendment, which I proposed in there obviously, that dealt with the border security and border guards. Our border guards right now are concentrating their efforts on urban areas. Their efforts are working. But what that is doing is funneling the traffic of illegal immigrants into this country through side lands that are all owned by the Department of Interior and the Forest Service, which constitutes 41 percent of our borders. Madam Speaker, 80 percent of all drugs smuggled are going through those lands. The foot traffic is destroying those wilderness areas. In 2002 alone, eight major wildfires were established

by the foot traffic in that area. The Goldwater training range was shut down because of illegal immigrants trespassing upon that land. Some of those areas are controlled by drug cartels. Some are subject to violence. And one of the problems that we face is, the Border Patrol actually has to pay money to the Interior Department to have access to some of those lands.

One of the Border Patrol agents was threatened with lawsuits and even arrests by a Federal land manager for attempting simply to enter a wilderness area and land a helicopter to pick up a wounded victim. The Border Patrol has to notify land managers if they ever change procedure, even if they are in hot pursuit of an individual. All those issues should be addressed in this particular area.

This device, which I have right here, is one of the listening devices that the Border Patrol needs to communicate with each other. It is placed in jeopardy simply because the Department of Interior now wants it to have limitations. A threat of a lawsuit by an environment group indicated that a memorandum of understanding has to be used to put restrictions on this even though this technology is important and even though environmental assessments said this has no impact. It is temporary. It is mobile. It does not leave a footprint. And if any of these areas were to be created as wilderness, this would have to be, by the memo of understanding, moved.

This picture is of a cactus illegally cut down. It's a crime scene. The illegals who cut this cactus down used this to stop a passenger, then to rob and beat him and then leave him on the scene. The irony is, by the laws we have, if the Border Patrol were to try to move this, that violates the Endangered Species Act if this was one of the endangered species. If it is protected, to take it at all becomes a Federal crime.

Now those are the issues that are at hand. Those are the issues that should be discussed. Those are the issues that are important to America, and those are the issues the Rules Committee decided are not worthy of being discussed on this floor. Good job.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for this bipartisan bill and the wonderful bipartisan amendment the saves our Air Force and moves us forward.

I rise this evening to support the bill H.R. 2647. I commend my friends on both sides of the aisle on the House Armed Services Committee for continuing the tradition of working in a bi-partisan manner to provide for the common defense of this country, and for the dedicated men and women of the armed forces.

However, I do have reservations. It is readily apparent that the Administration has taken a haphazard approach to cutting defense programs, such as missile defense, and the F-22 fighter, as budget drills. There are no studies by any qualified source, including military analysis, that support these reductions as a means of meeting the needs of the military. When asked in committee, for example, if 187 F-22s were what the Air Force needs or merely what the Air Force can afford, the answer was quick and direct; It was what the Air Force was ``told'' it could afford, and the basis of the decision was political and budgetary, not based on national security.

When the F-22 program requirement was first established, it was based on procurement of 750 aircraft. We on the committee have repeatedly requested that the Department provide us with analysis upon which this budget decision of only 187 planes was based. That analysis still has not been provided, leaving a strong indication that it is a budget drill, pure and simple. I am pleased that a majority of committee members supported an amendment to restore F-22 long-lead procurement funding for 12 additional aircraft in FY10. There were strong indications during markup that many members, a good majority on both sides of the political aisle, would like to have supported full F-22 production of 12 to 20 aircraft in FY10, and not just long lead procurement items.

One of the most disturbing recent developments on the F-22 is the release of a letter signed by Air Force Combat Commander General John D. W. Corley, wherein he verifies in writing that there are NO studies which support the Administration's decision to end the F-22 production at 187 aircraft, and he further maintains that 250 aircraft are necessary to ensure a ``moderate risk'' level. A copy of his letter was included in the House Committee report to accompany this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to read it. General Corley also states that the Administration developed its F-22 termination plan without even consulting with Air Combat Command. That's very disturbing. The very command with the technical expertise in charge of fighter operations was not even consulted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense? This alone raises very serious questions about the soundness of the Administration's decision. This decision on F-22 will have profound implications on our nation's strength and air dominance 15 and 20 years from now. We cannot afford to go ``high risk'' at only 187 aircraft. Not with Russia, China and other nations fielding advanced fighter aircraft in the next two years.

It is also ironic that, at a time when the Administration is spending hundreds of billions in tax dollars to create jobs, that it would be so intent upon cutting the F-22, which is responsible for 25,000 direct and 70,000 indirect jobs. Why are good defense jobs any less valuable than those that the Administration claims to have created in the $800 billion Stimulus package? These are good jobs that are producing a vital defense weapon system to protect our homeland, which will be lost unless funding is restored.

The F-22 and F-35 are not duplicative aircraft. They are not interchangeable. They were designed for different, but complimentary roles. We need both, but we also need adequate numbers of both.

I also oppose the cuts proposed by the Administration to missile defense programs such as Ground Midcourse Defense (GMD) and Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). It seems that the ``savings'' from these cuts, at $1.8 billion, are rather small in comparison to the lost opportunities for further research and development in improving our defense of the homeland against emerging and future missile threats.

These cuts also have devastating impacts on the defense industrial base, especially large defense solid rocket booster production. If allowed to stand, every program associated with large-scale defense solid booster production will be decimated. Someone must pay more attention to the cumulative impact of these different programmatic budget decisions on the solid rocket booster industrial base as a whole. It also seems wasteful that DoD and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will not proceed with a planned booster test firing in September of this year with the KEI program when the booster has already been produced and delivered to the test site at Vandenberg AFB. The MDA should move forward with this test that has already been bought and paid for by U.S. taxpayer investment since 2004, and which could result in a significant harvest of scientific data for use on future defense projects.

It is highly ironic that the Administration's announcement to end the Ground Based Interceptors at 30 land-based missiles occurred on the very same day that North Korea conducted its long-range missile test threatening Japan and possibly parts of the United States. Just this past week, with renewed missile threats from North Korea against Hawaii, the Secretary of Defense touted our ground-based interceptors as providing protection, even as the Administration continues to advocate a halt to their production! This is no way to protect the homeland. Secretary Gates has said his recommendation for GMD is ``not a forever decision.'' That's fine, but one cannot quickly restart a production line in the future. And we may not have the luxury of time in the future.

Were any of our 30 interceptors to be fired, there would be no replacements. It is also highly likely that two or more interceptors would be fired at any incoming threat. So potentially one rogue missile threatening Hawaii, or the western U.S. would require the use of two, three or more of our ground based interceptors. The Administration's termination of

GMD allows for no replacements and worse--no defense industrial base capability to easily or quickly restart production of land based interceptors. Again, this is a short-sighted budget decision which endangers our long-term national security.

In conclusion, I urge that the cuts in missile defense be restored in order to adequately defend our homeland now and into the future. There is nothing more fundamental to the very survival of America than the United States military. Everything else is a corollary to that fundamental principle. It is my profound hope that we can work together over the next 3 to 4 years to build the additional F-22s until we reach the 240 to 250 numbers that Air Force planners have repeatedly stated are absolutely necessary.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure information regarding project funding I had requested and which was included within the legislation H.R. 2647, as reported. To the best of my knowledge, funding for this project: (1) is not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) is not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark; and (3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds. I further certify that neither my spouse, nor I, have any personal financial interests in this request.

Project Title: Senior Center, Brigham City, Utah

Amount: $250,000

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)

Bill Number: H.R. 2892

Account: FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation

Address of Requesting Entity: Brigham City Corporation

Location: Brigham City Corp., 20 North Main, Brigham City, UT 84302

Matching Funds: $125,000

Detailed Spending Plan: FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation project grants require a minimum local cost share of 25% or the total project cost. This project is estimated as costing $500,000. Under regular FEMA guidelines, Brigham City would be required to expend $125,000 as the local cost-share. Request for federal share was for $375,000. However, the committee decided only to fund $250,000 of the regular federal portion, which may require up to an additional $100,000 local cost share for a total of $225,000 local cost share to fully complete the project. Funds will be used to perform seismic upgrades to existing senior center facilities, such as strengthening the roof system, and the wall structures. Minor bracing will be used on existing walls, doors and windows.

Description and Justification of Funding: Project would strengthen an existing Senior Citizen Center facility in Brigham City, Utah, against future seismic threats. Brigham City is located along the Wasatch Fault and according to the U.S. Geological Survey, there is a 25% chance of a 6.5 to 7.0 earthquake along this fault within the next 100 years. This Senior Center services thousands of local residents as well as senior populations in outlying areas in a large geographical region. Located

less than one mile downhill from the Wasatch Fault, there is a significant chance that liquefaction of the subsurface would occur during a major seismic event, and that the center could sustain severe damage or, at worst, collapse outright resulting in numerous fatalities and serious injuries.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure information regarding project funding I had requested and which was included within the legislation H.R. 2647, as reported. To the best of my knowledge, none of these six requests: (1) are directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) are not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark; and (3) meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I further certify that neither my spouse, nor I, have any personal financial interests in these requests.

Project Title: Optimizing Natural Language Processing of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT)

Amount: $1.5 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)

Bill Number: H.R. 2647

Account: Research and Development, Army

Address of Requesting Entity: Attensity, Inc., 90 South 400 West, Suite 600, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable

Description and Justification of Funding: Project, in conjunction with the University of New York at Buffalo, would fund research and development of an ``all-source'' fusion tool for collecting open-source data from the web, blogs, social networking sites, and RRS feeds, to provide more effective defense intelligence analysis and improving military decision making in asymmetric warfare situations

Project Title: PCC Apron NW End Taxiway A

Amount: $5.1 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)

Bill Number: H.R. 2647

Account: Military Construction, Air Force

Address of Requesting Entity: Hill AFB, Utah. 75th Air Base Wing, Hill AFB, Utah 84056

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable

Description and Justification of Funding: Project would correct runway deficiencies and allow for more aircraft to be prepared for flight at the same time that airstrip landing and take-off operations are being conducted, increasing military readiness, safety, and reducing jet fuel costs

Project Title: Propellant Conversion to Fertilizer Program for Tooele Army Depot

Amount: $3.4 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)

Bill Number: H.R. 2647

Account: Research and Development, Army

Address of Requesting Entity: Archtech, Inc., 14100 Park Meadow Drive, Chantilly, VA 20151

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable

Description and Justification of Funding: Project would fund new conventional ammunition demilitarization method at Tooele Army Depot, Utah, as an environmentally-responsible alternative to the Army's current ``open-pit, open-burn'' method of disposal

Project Title: Repair Technology Insertion Program (RepTIP)

Amount: $5.2 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)

Bill Number: H.R. 2647

Account: Research and Development, Air Force

Address of Requesting Entity: General Atomics Inc., 16969 Mesamint Street, San Diego, CA 92127

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable

Description and Justification of Funding: Project would fund the development of repair

and overhaul technologies that increase productivity and reduce the cost of sustaining weapons systems in military depots, and incorporates Level II roller bearing refurbishment, heat tolerant tube fabrication, inside-diameter protective coatings to metals, heat-treat, and foundry process improvements for the 309th Maintenance Wing, Ogden Air Logistics Center, at Hill AFB, Utah

Project Title: Small Responsive Spacecraft at Low-Cost (SRSL)

Amount: $4.5 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)

Bill Number: H.R. 2647

Account: Research and Development, Air Force

Address of Requesting Entity: Space Dynamics Laboratory, Utah State University, 1695 North Research Park Way, North Logan, Utah 84341

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable

Description and Justification of Funding: Project would continue previous-years' efforts in conjunction with the Air Force Research Labs to develop and demonstrate technologies for new, low-cost space systems with military utility. Current space-based reconnaissance assets are cost-prohibitive and too massive to be used in a quick-reaction tactical environment. This effort could lead to providing local field commanders a dedicated space asset for tactical actionable intelligence under the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) construct

Project Title: UAV Sensor and Maintenance Development Center

Amount: $5.5 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)

Bill Number: H.R. 2647

Account: Research and Development, Air Force

Address of Requesting Entity: Space Dynamics Laboratory, Utah State University, 1695 North Research Park Way, North Logan, Utah 84341

Matching Funds: None

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable

Description and Justification of Funding: Project would provide technical assistance to the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, Utah, in the areas of developing, calibrating, and integrating sensors and other payloads onto Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), which will facilitate future development of UAV capability within the military

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. --

Whereas the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, a Representative from

California, served from 1997 to 2002 as Ranking Democratic

Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence;

Whereas Representative Pelosi currently serves as Speaker

of the House, a position of considerable power and influence

within the Congress;

Whereas title 3 of the United States Code designates the

Speaker of the House as third in line of succession to the

Presidency;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi has publicly challenged the

truthfulness of what she and other congressional leaders were

told by Central Intelligence Agency officials about the

agency's use of enhanced interrogation techniques on

suspected terrorists;

Whereas in an MSNBC interview on February 25, 2009, Speaker

Pelosi stated, ``I can say flat-out, they never told us that

these enhanced interrogation techniques were being used'';

Whereas, Speaker Pelosi's public statements allege a

sustained pattern of deception by government intelligence

officers charged by law with informing Congress about the

agency's activities;

Whereas when asked at a press conference on May 15, 2009

widely reported by the news media, ``Madam Speaker, just to

be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you in

September?'' Speaker Pelosi stated, ``Yes'';

Whereas during the same press conference the Speaker

subsequently stated, ``So yes, I'm saying they are

misleading, the CIA was misleading the Congress'' and

further, ``they mislead us all the time'' and ``they

misrepresented every step of the way'';

Whereas in a memorandum to CIA employees released publicly

on May 15, 2009, Leon Panetta, the CIA Director, stated, ``It

is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is

against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated

previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our

contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA

officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu

Zubaydah, describing the enhanced interrogation techniques

that had been employed'';

Whereas when asked in a press conference held June 4, 2009,

``Madam Speaker, are you still receiving intelligence

briefings?'' Speaker Pelosi responded by saying, ``Yes, I am;

yes, I am.'';

Whereas a June 5, 2009 article on Human Events.com

entitled, ``Pelosi Still Receives CIA Briefings, But Won't

Say If They're Truthful'' stated, ``She refused to answer

when asked whether or not she believes intelligence

professionals are still lying to her.'';

Whereas national and international media reports on this

controversy have damaged the reputation of the House by

raising questions about whether the effectiveness of

congressional oversight may have been undermined through

false or misleading statements by intelligence officials; and

Whereas in order to safeguard the reputation of the House

it is imperative to reconcile as soon as possible the

aforementioned contradictory statements by Speaker Pelosi and

CIA Director Panetta: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) a Select Subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee

on Intelligence shall be established to review and verify the

accuracy of the Speaker's aforementioned public statements;

(2) the Select Subcommittee shall be comprised of four

members of the full committee, two appointed by the chairman

of the committee and two by its ranking minority member;

(3) The subcommittee shall have the same powers to obtain

testimony and documents pursuant to subpoena authorized under

clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House; and,

(4) the Select Subcommittee report its findings and

recommendations to the House not later than sixty calendar

days after adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, that is the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore offer the resolution. I assume it has to be read, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is very similar--it is not exactly the same, but it is similar to a resolution we presented a few weeks ago. It is presented again for one simple reason. The reason that this is before here is still that there is no cloture on this particular issue.

In ``A Man for All Seasons,'' Sir Thomas More may have used silence as his legal argument that silence denotes consent; but in a political setting as we are here, silence is not a solution. In an era in which perception is the same thing as reality, silence does not solve the problem, and indeed, harms are still there.

If an agency of government intentionally misleads Congress--and the CIA has denied they did that. If they intentionally mislead Congress or a Member, an important or a significant Member of Congress, it creates a problem for the integrity of the House as a whole.

If the data we are to receive is in question, then the solutions and the arguments we derive are equally in question, and that becomes an untenable decision. All of our decisions, therefore, become suspect. There is only one solution to this, and it is the same solution that we have said before:

If we don't want this issue to simply be subject to political maneuverings, establish a bipartisan committee--two Republicans, two Democrats. Make that committee a subset of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, so they understand the verbiage, so they understand the questions, so they don't have to have a lot of time to be brought up to speed.

If you have that kind of committee, their report will, by the very nature of the makeup of that committee, not be subject to political spin, and we may be able to move on. That's the important part. It is the integrity of the House that is in question here, and that needs to be answered so decisions of this House will be considered without any other kind of question or implication.

Now, as we are starting the appropriations process, it becomes an ideal time in which any kind of solution we may wish to impose on this particular situation should be before the House and should be done.

Mr. Speaker, I do this as a former speaker in Utah where several times you had to stand up to defend the integrity of the institution. This is about the integrity of the institution, to make sure we were not intentionally misled by an agency of government.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop

Bill number: H.R. 2847

Account: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Legal name and address of requesting entity: Ogden City School District, located at 1950 Monroe Blvd., Ogden, Utah 84401.

Description of project: $375,000 to the Ogden City School District for the Ogden Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Initiative, to collaborate with the district juvenile court and Morgan-Weber Mental Health Department to create a comprehensive delinquency, gang, and violence prevention program.

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop

Bill number: H.R. 2847

Account: Edward Byrne Discretionary Grants

Legal name and address of requesting entity: Clearfield City, Utah, located at 55 South State Street, Clearfield, Utah 84015.

Description of project: $425,000 to Clearfield City for the Digital Technology for Drug Enforcement Initiative, to purchase digital law enforcement equipment to help combat drug and gang-related problems in Clearfield.

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop

Bill number: H.R. 2847

Account: COPS Meth account

Legal name and address of requesting entity: American Detoxification Foundation, located at 3090 S. Main Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84118.

Description of project: $200,000 to the Utah Meth Cops Program, to treat law enforcement officers that are experiencing detrimental health effects from their exposure, during the course of duty, to chemicals involved with the production of methamphetamine.

Offered By: Mr. Bishop of Utah

Amendment No. 101: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 535. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act

for the Bureau of the Census may be used for salaries and

expenses of the Bureau of the Census unless, effective

beginning with the 2010 decennial census of population, in

taking any tabulation of total population by States under

section 141(a) of title 13, United States Code, for purposes

of the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the

several States, the Secretary of Commerce takes appropriate

measures to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that

all Americans residing abroad on the decennial census date

are fully and accurately counted, and are properly attributed

to their respective States.

(b) The measures described in subsection (a) shall include

at least the following:

(1) One or more methods by which, at the request of a non-

governmental organization, administrative records of such

organization may, if such records satisfy such criteria as

the Secretary may establish, be used to enumerate members of

such organization who are residing overseas as of the

decennial census date.

(2) One or more methods under which an international ``Be

Counted'' form may be completed at an embassy of the United

States by Americans residing overseas as of the decennial

census date.

(c) Nothing in this section may be considered--

(1) to affect the methods used in the enumeration of any

civilian or military personnel of the United States; or

(2) to permit or require that the data obtained under this

subsection be used for any purpose other than the

apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the

several States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have all the cosponsors on H.R. 2300 withdrawn.

The names of the cosponsors are as follows:

Mr. Akin

Mr. Alexander

Mrs. Bachmann

Mr. Bonner

Mr. Boozman

Mr. Boustany

Mr. Brady of Texas

Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. Brown of South Carolina

Mr. Burton

Mr. Carter

Mr. Cassidy

Mr. Chaffetz

Mr. Coffman

Mr. Conaway

Mr. Culberson

Mrs. Fallin

Mr. Fleming

Mrs. Foxx

Mr. Franks

Mr. Gallegly

Mr. Gingrey

Mr. Goodlatte

Mr. Harper

Mr. Heller

Mr. Hensarling

Mr. Herger

Mr. Hoekstra

Mr. Hunter

Mrs. Jenkins

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas

Mr. Jordan

Mr. Lamborn

Mr. Latta

Mr. Lee of New York

Mr. Linder

Mr. Lucas

Mrs. Lummis

Mr. Manzullo

Mr. Marchant

Mr. McCaul

Mr. McCotter

Mr. McHenry

Mr. McKeon

Mrs. Myrick

Mr. Neugebauer

Mr. Pence

Mr. Pitts

Mr. Poe

Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. Radanovich

Mr. Rehberg

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

Mr. Scalise

Mr. Sessions

Mr. Simpson

Mr. Smith of Texas

Mr. Souder

Mr. Sullivan

Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania

Mr. Thornberry

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Westmoreland

Mr. Young of Alaska

I thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding time.

It has been an enjoyable time being a part of the Page Board as part of the page process. To the pages who are here and the ones who are not here because you still have to do work in the

morning, we are very grateful for your having joined us here, some for a semester, some of you for a year, but for your time and your dedication in helping to serve the House of Representatives.

I think, if nothing else, you have written many eloquent words about what you have seen and what you have not seen and what you have experienced here. But, if nothing else, I hope that it instilled within you this idea the United States had of self-government still does work, that you put together people who are not experts, not trained to be parliamentarians, put us all together and give us the information and still, in a very cumbersome process, we can come up with the right answers and with solutions.

Man can govern himself.

Through all the years that I have stayed involved in politics, first in the State legislative system and then here in Congress, I still come back to that one belief: The system of self-government does work. People can govern themselves.

And that is the positive element that I hope you take with you back home as you return from this experience here in Washington, D.C.

So the pages who are here, the pages who are still part of the program and not here this evening, we are thankful for you. We are grateful for you. We hope you have had a wonderful experience, and we hope you take back some kind of thrill of the idea of participating in government with you as you go back to your homes and continue on with your education.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that opportunity and the opportunity of being here. As somebody who is old, I remember the good old days when we still had vinyl albums. If I wanted to buy a song, I had to buy the entire stupid record. Today, my kids tell me they have these neat things called ``iPods'' in which, if they want a song, all they have to do is download a song. They get to pick exactly what they want to.

I'm in one of those situations where I go in a supermarket and I realize I can stand in that aisle and I have literally hundreds of cereals from which to choose. Or if I want to watch a movie, Netflix has thousands of options for me to choose from. There are millions of songs I could download. There are even 34 types of Eggo waffles. Our entire life is run with options and choices by American people.

In fact, the only segment of our life in which the concept of options seems to have dissipated is with the government, because the government is still here to pick winners and losers and decide how I will or will not live my lifestyle. The government is still here to try to go back to those halcyon days of the Carter administration where the government told you where to put your thermostat, how fast to drive and on which days you could or could not get gasoline for your car. It is a lifestyle that happens to be there.

We are dealing with a situation which may be, in essence, one of the biggest lifestyle changers we have ever had in this world with cap-and- trade, because we are talking about carbon policy. As was written in 2007, controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you can control carbon, you can control life.

One of the fears I have right now is that we are moving into an area in which, instead of giving Americans options on how to live and how to produce and how to go forward with their lives, we are starting to tell them how to live their lives, because the government is the one that is going to be picking winners and losers.

We are going to be talking about energy. We are going to be talking about cap-and-trade tonight, the implications of cap-and-trade and the tax policies of cap-and-trade, with the idea that what we should be trying to do, as a government, is giving people choices and options to let them choose how they live rather than having the government be the one to pick out who is going to win, who is going to lose and how we will proceed.

I've been joined by several of my friends here tonight. I appreciate their service to this Nation as a Member of Congress. I'd like to turn some time over to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) who is on the floor right now, even though his committee is still meeting in a markup. But I'd like him to have the opportunity of taking as much time as he wishes to consume so he can get back to his other work, which is trying to keep the Science Committee on the right track in their particular markup.

Mr. Broun.

Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia being able to join us in the middle of his committee markup, and I appreciate him being here and talking about simply some of the major problems that would take place with this overall system that may be here. It's one of the reality checks that we have to deal with is why, indeed, are we going to do this kind of an approach.

I happen to think that one of the reasons why we're marching down this path right now, so rapidly marching down this path, is simply because the government promised to do something, and the something that they decided to do is a cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax policy, which simply means to put government pressure on the business community to try and lower their amount of CO2 emissions by putting, insisting they put economic pressure on them so that right now, to try and get those caps exceeded, they have to buy some kind of credit, and then put the economic pressure on them to change over to a new way of doing business.

Both of those costs, both the cost of buying the cap-and-trade process right now as well as the change, will be passed on to the consumer. So the consumer basically gets hit both ways, two times, once going and once coming in this process at the same time; because the consumer basically has, all of our life is surrounded in some way by a fossil fuel economy, and the consumer, therefore, has to have a life change at the same time the business is having a life change.

Now, I don't care how you want to try and spin this, as a new way of living or whatever it is, this is going to be the opportunity to change lifestyles based on bureaucratic decisions. And it will be, as the gentleman from Georgia just said, a concept of a tax on people. For the rich amongst us, this new tax is going to be an annoyance. For poor people, where 50 percent of their income has to go to energy choices, this tax is going to be the difference between being able to have a luxury like Hamburger Helper that night. This is not going to be fairly distributed throughout society.

In fact, you'll notice, I think the gentleman from Ohio is here to talk to us in just a moment, and his area is going to be even more severely hit than some of the other parts of this country.

And what it will be, though, is a windfall profit tax for the government. As the gentleman from Georgia said, this 400-plus billion dollars we're talking about does not go into improving our lifestyle or does not go into coming up with alternative energy sources. It goes to the government, pure and simple.

Sure, be happy to.

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Georgia as well. I want to concur in the last part of what he did say very clearly that this is going to be a tax, it's going to be a windfall for money for the government, not necessarily to go back into this issue but for the government.

The Washington Post simply said that the proposals will require a wholesale transformation in the Nation's economy and society. One of our former colleagues who is now in the Senate, he said, cap-and-trade is the most significant proposal of our time. Friends of the Earth published way back in 2007, The concept of a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources. Alan Greenspan said cap-and-trade systems, or carbon taxes, are likely to be popular only until real people lose real jobs as their consequence.

There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of our economy.

Now, there's a couple of reality checks that I want to deal with today. And I'm joined by two of my good colleagues, one, the gentleman from Ohio, and also the gentleman from Louisiana, who are going to talk about some of the problems that we presently have; and especially the gentleman from Ohio because his area is going to be hit perhaps as hard as anyone in this unfair distribution of income. It's going to be a byproduct of this approach.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio who can tell us what's going to be happening in his backyard.

I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio for talking about some of the realities that happen to be there. I hate to say this, but sometimes we need to make a reality check on this entire issue of what the goal is. When we are told the goal is to have an 80 percent reduction in CO2 by the year 2050, what does that really mean for us?

In my own State of Utah, we have a yearly output of approximately 66 million tons of CO2 per year and a population of 2.6 million. Now, if you simply do the math, to reach that goal that everyone says we have to reach, we would have to go down to 2.2-tons of CO2 emitted every year in the State of Utah. The last time that happened, I hate to admit this, but Brigham Young hadn't even arrived. If you want to do the kind of math that it takes to reach that goal in the United States, the Pilgrims weren't here yet on Plymouth Rock.

One of the things that we have to reconcile is that, look, there are 6.2 billion people in the world. Two billion of those people have never flipped on a switch because they have never had electricity. To reach the kind of goals that we're talking about here, we have to insist that those 2 billion people

never have to experience things like lights and flat screen TVs and computers that we all take for granted and live with; that they don't have to have adequate food free of bugs because, I'm sorry, the fertilizer is fossil fuels; and they don't have to have clothes which are made of fossil fuels. My pen is a fossil fuel. Everything in the emergency room except for the steel is a fossil fuel. We make composites for aircraft to make them lighter and more efficient right now. You get on plane; you are riding on gas. All those things are there, and we have this schizophrenic idea that we want to get rid of fossil fuels, at the same time it is our lifestyle, without recognizing what it is.

Back in the 1970s, we had a specific term in there and that's when we came up with the idea that these are alternative fuels. What we really should be saying is they are supplemental fuels, because I hate to say this, but one-sixth of one percent of the energy we use today comes from wind and solar. If you try to do a PowerPoint presentation of a pie chart, all you get is a little thin line because it can't get smaller than that little thin line.

And after 30 years and $20 billion of the United States Government trying to expand wind and solar, we are still at one-sixth of one percent. The President wants to double that, which I applaud him for. Actually, the last 3 years of the Bush administration, we doubled the amount of wind and solar power we were using, but all that does is take us from one-sixth of 1 percent down to one-third of 1 percent. So that line is only a little bit wider.

Now, if you have a coal or a gas-fired power plant that puts out 1,000 megawatts of power, it takes about 40 acres of ground to do that, 40 acres. To accomplish that same power output with wind, you would take 500 windmills that would require 30,000 acres to accomplish that. The Denver Post had this wonderful article about this great solar plant in an area in Denver that was putting out 8.2 million megawatts. To accomplish what that one coal-fired plant would put out, you would have to have 250 of those miracle plants covering 20,000 acres.

In my home State we have a new geotherm plant, which is great, puts out 14 million megawatts of power. We take 10- to 20,000 every year just to keep up with the grid.

So what we have to do as we're talking about all these issues is come up with some kind of realism that the bottom line is the wind does not always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, and we have yet to come up with a way of capturing wind and solar power, let alone the capacity for moving those. We have a reality check before we go marching down this path of where we're going.

I want the gentleman from Louisiana who is here, who has been involved in these issues, has signed one of the early bills that deals with one of the potential solutions to this, especially to talk about some other options out there because what we, once again, need to do is we have to be able to give the American people choices and options, not have the Federal Government telling them what to do.

So I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Louisiana joining us and talking about other kinds of options that are out there for the American people. The reality has always been that reliable and affordable energy has been the great liberator of mankind. It has improved our lifestyle. It has allowed those who are poor to escape that kind of poverty.

One of the things we cannot do is allow us to restrain ourselves so that that does not happen. As we said before, if you're rich, all this stuff could be an annoyance. If you're poor, it's a life-and-death decision, and as one wag simply said, never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer nonsolutions to problems that may or may not exist. We may be looking at that right now, but I appreciate especially the fact that there are other options out there that need to be explored because this is not the only answer and the only solution.

With that, I'd like to yield to our good friend from Indiana who has spoken often on these particular topics and these issues, in fact, is organizing an effort to explore other options that America needs and recently took those conversations on the road to actually hear from Americans. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana giving us what I think is not necessarily bright news, but good news to realize that the cap-and-tax approach or the cap-and-trade policy is not the only one that's out there. There are other options.

The gentleman from Louisiana and I have joined with Senator Vitter on what is called the No Cost Stimulus Bill that solves this problem in a different approach. The Republican Study Committee and the Western Caucus have joined with H.R. 2300, which solves this problem with an alternative approach that provides American energy and American jobs without the harmful side effects.

I just went this afternoon to the National Center for Policy Analysis. They presented 10--they call it 10 cool global warming policies--but 10 specific ideas or concepts, many of them that we have incorporated in some of those other bills that would help our situation without having to impose a tax that hurts the poorest of our people.

Now I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Texas, someone who is, I think, the most fascinating speaker I have a chance to listen to, the last few minutes that we have on this particular issue at this time tonight to try and summarize once again that where we're going, hopefully we can avoid the pitfalls, and there are other options than what we have simply seen placed before us so far.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas. It is one of those things that we live in a new iPod generation in which in all our lives we are given options and choices. In this particular area, it is not the time for the government to now establish who wins, who loses, what is our only path.

We still have to provide our people with options so that they can live and expand their lives the way they deem best. That's the important part here.

I want to emphasize there are options out there on the table that the Republican Party is presenting. Those options need to be heard and explored because they lead us to a proper goal and an easier pattern.

With that, we yield back the balance of whatever time is left.

I, unfortunately, don't have the wonderful accent that my good friend from Georgia has, but I will try and slur some words together to see if I can emulate that in some small way.

The problem that I think all of us here in Congress are facing, as well as the people out there are facing, is that the government has promised they're going to do something. Not market forces. The government is going to do something. And this cap-and-tax policy is an effort of the government to try to ratchet down carbon emissions into the atmosphere by changing the way industry works in an effort to have them changing the way they produce things. That change passes on to the consumer. Everything we use, as the gentleman said, has some kind of carbon footprint. The essence is that not only industries but individuals will change their lifestyles.

I don't care how you went to spin it. It is still a tax on people--we are looking at estimates around $400 billion--a tax on people that doesn't go to changing the amount of energy we have or changing the way we live our lives to better the people's lives. It's an amount of money that goes simply to the government. It is a windfall to the government.

That is exactly the point there. If people are going to actually put out that kind of money, they should know what they're going to get and they should know what the goal of all of this is.

The goal has been stated that we'll have an 80 percent reduction by 2050. Sounds wonderful. In my particular State of Utah, we have a carbon footprint of roughly 66 million tons of CO2 per year and a population of 2.6 million. If you simply do the math, 80 percent by 2050 means we will be producing in 2050 2.2 tons of CO2. Sounds like a lot. Except the last time in the history of the State of Utah we had a carbon output that was that low, I'm sorry, Brigham Young wasn't there. If you tried to do something for this Nation, the Pilgrims hadn't landed before you do that. So the question is how do we actually do that? How do we reconcile a lifestyle with these elements, especially when there are 6.2 billion on the Earth, 2 billion who have never switched on a light?

It's the only way it works as long as you can keep the other 2 billion people in the world who don't have electricity today from ever getting electricity.

We can keep our lights, our flat-screen TVs, our computers, our cell phones, everything that uses electricity now, our low-cost food without bugs because fertilizer is fossil fuels. We can keep the clothes and the plastics. You go into an emergency room, everything except steel is part of fossil fuels. Composites made for airplanes now that make them lighter weight and more efficient is all gas. You fly here back and forth on gas.

The problem we have with this entire concept is basically we're saying we're going to get rid of fossil fuels at the same time we live with fossil fuels, and that is simply nothing short of schizophrenia on our part.

Here's a problem. I had a great friend that gave a speech at one point. And one of the things we need to be looking at is the fact that all of these, what we classify as alternative fuel sources, really are supplemental fuel sources. If you add everything we do from solar and wind power together, it's one-sixth of 1 percent of our energy consumption. You try to make one of those pie charts with that and it's a thin line. You can't get anything more than that. That's the best a PowerPoint--which also uses electricity--would ever produce. And we get that with 20 years or 30 years of the government having spent $20 billion to try to increase wind and solar power.

President Obama said we want to double that figure. Actually, in the last 3 years of the Bush administration, we doubled that figure. Admittedly, it's a higher base now. It would be harder to do at the next doubling. But if you double it, you go from one-sixth to one-third of 1 percent. And that's on the assumption that no economy grows anywhere else. Everything remains flat.

I am glad you feel excited right now, because one of the things that we are talking about in Congress is alternatives and other ideas. And as we have gone through this, we have shown that the cap-and-trade policy is nothing more then a tax. There are lots of negatives that go around with it. It's idealism, because the alternatives we have are not able to replace fossil fuels yet unless we want to totally change our lives. And there are easier ways than government mandates to get it done: allowing the markets to work--which I hate to say, especially from a ``just say no'' party, but if you include the no cost stimulus bill that many of us here have sponsored, H.R. 2300, which is from the Republican Study Committee in the Western Caucus--I think all of us here sponsored--those are viable options that make life better by having a reliable and sufficient energy to drive down the costs to help us find a bridge to come up with supplemental, not alternative, but supplemental energy and to do it in an orderly and efficient manner where people get to choose.

The government doesn't pick the winners. People get to pick the winners. There aren't those options out there. And what you got excited about is exactly what many of us here are trying to do. It is another voice. It is another option. Let the American people know it is out there and available.