Floor Statements

I thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Dicks, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. After serving with Chairman Dicks as ranking member of this subcommittee during the 110th Congress, I know how hard he has worked to make sure that communities have access to EPA grants to help with their State and tribal assistance grants and clean water needs.

It has come to my attention that the fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act contained money for the city of Manhattan and Riley County for the Konza sewer line. However, with the delay in getting the money, the city had to go ahead with construction of the sewer line and now needs to use the money for a water line. EPA is supportive of the correction.

I will include in the Record a letter from the EPA Region 7 office expressing their support for the correction.

United States Environmental

Protection Agency,

Kansas City, June 25, 2009.

Re Technical Correction to STAG Earmark Grant Authorization

for Riley Co, Kansas.

Hon. Todd Tiahrt,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington DC.

Dear Representative Tiahrt: Representative Boyda requested

funding for Riley Co. for the Konza sewer main extension in a

letter to the Chairmen Obey dated March 14, 2008. By the time

that grant was authorized, the sewer project was nearly

completed.

EPA does not normally approve construction completed before

a grant is awarded because the procurement action would not

comply with EPA grant regulations. If the grantee has

additional water or wastewater construction pending, we

prefer to direct the grant funds to a pending project. We

discussed this with the County and suggested that they

contact Representative Jenkins office to request a technical

correction so that the grant could be used to fund the

construction of the Konza waterline extension project. Since

the County and the City of Manhattan are sharing costs on the

project, and since Manhattan has agreed to do the contracting

for the water line, I also suggested that the grant name be

changed from Riley Co. to the City of Manhattan so that EPA

could award the grant funds directly to Manhattan.

Although these changes are a Congressional decision, EPA

does support using the funds for the waterline project, so

that an area adjacent to Manhattan which currently has an

inadequate source of drinking water, can receive high quality

drinking water from Manhattan to help protect the public

health of those living in the Konza area.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (913) 551-7417 or

[email protected] if you have any questions or need

additional information.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Gibbins,

EPA Grant Project Officer, Wastewater & Infrastructure

Management Branch, Water, Wetlands & Pesticides Division.

I would be glad to yield.

It is correct. My fellow Kansan, the distinguished Member of the 2nd District of Congress, Ms. Lynn Jenkins, has worked hard on this issue. It is a critical need of her constituents. The region is experiencing high growth due to the ongoing troop buildup at Fort Riley with the return of the Big Red One.

The City of Manhattan, Kansas, and Riley County are cooperating to provide municipal-level services along the K-177 corridor near Fort Riley. Strong interest has been expressed in the area by the development community, and there have been limitations on future growth on Manhattan's west side.

The 2003 update of the Manhattan Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which was a joint planning initiative with the city and the county, specifically identifies the K-177 gateway area as a potential urban growth corridor if municipal level services are provided. That's why the city could not wait on the sewer line project. It is already underway and being managed by the county.

The city will be responsible for the design, bidding, and overseeing of the water project. The cost of both the water and sewer projects will be shared by the Federal Government, the city of Manhattan, and Riley County.

Clearly, it was congressional intent that Manhattan's needs be funded. I understand the committee is not making technical corrections on EPA projects in this bill and is working out a new policy to do so in the future.

I hope that the chairman will take into consideration Manhattan's need and as the process moves forward work with Ms. Jenkins and myself to correct the issue. The delegation has been working with the EPA regional office in Kansas City, but in order to proceed the project description in Public Law 111-8 should read, ``The city of Manhattan for water line extension project.''

I thank the chairman for his consideration on this important issue.

I thank the chairman.

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. 2892, The FY 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act:

Heartland Preparedness Center, Wichita, Kansas. This bill includes $500,000 in FEMA State and Local Programs funding to the City of Wichita, Kansas, for the Heartland Preparedness Center. This emergency operations center will be the primary coordination center in the event of a disaster for local, county, state and federal emergency response personnel and officials. Facility enhancements and equipment are needed to increase the communication, cooperation, training and response capabilities of the Wichita Police Dept, Sedgwick Co Sheriff, Kansas Army Nat'l Guard and USMC. Jointly locating the partnering entities will enhance the overall level of cooperation, coordination and preparation for various emergencies, and provide for more efficient use of resources, including training time and costs.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks in H.R. 2647, The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010. H.R. 2647 contains $8,700,000 for TFI--Upgrade DCGS Facilities (PRQE089032) in the Air Force, Military Construction account. This project is for Air National Guard at McConnell Air Force Base located at 57837 Coffeyville St., Kansas, 67221.

The funds will build an adequately sized and properly configured facility for personnel, equipment, and materials, for near-real time intelligence mission conducting the processing, exploitation, and dissemination of U-2, MQ-1 Predator, and RQ-4 Global Hawk sensor data around the world in support of warfighters by the growing 161st Intelligence Squadron of the new 184th Intelligence Group. Security features, high-capacity environmental control equipment, high-capacity secure fiber optics, and redundant power supplies are all prerequisites to accommodate the sophisticated Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operation Center. No matching funds are required for this military construction project.

Madam Speaker, I heard of a climatologist who went to apply for a job recently. During his interview, he was asked, ``What do you predict will happen with the earth's climate next year?'' He immediately replied, ``Whatever you want me to predict.''

Unfortunately, this joke seems to hit a little too close to home, when we are considering global warming legislation. Rather than responding to serious questions with serious answers, Congress is replying with what we think people want to hear. Rather than considering all angles before offering a solution, Congress is rushing through legislation in hopes to score points with voters back home. And instead of basing a bill on sound scientific data, we will be considering legislation that is devoid of input from this side of the aisle.

I rise today to express my strong opposition to Waxman-Markey ``cap and tax'' bill. I believe there are three interrelated problems with this misguided legislation. I am concerned with the process by which we have arrived at the point we are today. I am concerned with the political showmanship that has gone on as the bill was written. And I am concerned with the policy itself, which bears the tragic scars of both the process and the politics.

Madam Speaker, from the beginning of the 111th Congress to the present, the cap-and-tax bill has been subjected to unfortunate abuses of the legislative process. In April, the Energy and Commerce Committee held four days of hearings, with the intention of, according to the Committee's website, ``examine the views of the Administration and a broad range of stakeholders,'' on a discussion draft of Chairman Waxman's bill. However, these hearings reflected only the Chairman's perspective. Only four of the twenty-one witnesses called before the Committee expressed any opposition to cap-and-tax, despite a petition signed by more than thirty thousand meteorologists, climatologists, and other scientists stating their skepticism about the evidence of man- made greenhouse gases being responsible for increases in the earth's temperature. Contrary to claims made by the Committee, and witnesses at the hearing, there is no ``overwhelming consensus'' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

The bill was drafted without input from our side of the aisle. At no point was any Republican consulted regarding the contents of the bill. In the rush to get the legislation passed through Committee, it seems no one had time to read the entire bill, or figure out what it means. Committee members repeatedly asked questions regarding the potential cost of particular provisions or amendments, but received no answers.

All of this raises the question, ``why''? Why was the bill rushed through the Committee, with hardly enough time to read it, let alone determine the impact that it would have on American taxpayers, farms, and businesses? The only answer I can come up with is the desire on the part of some in this body to score points with their voters back home.

What I see happening here is similar to what happened at the end of World War II. When American soldiers first reached Nazi extermination camps, they found men, women and children that were gaunt, emaciated, and starving. A few soldiers offered children chocolate bars, not realizing that the very thing they thought would be helpful actually ended up killing the children, because their digestive systems were unable to handle the chocolate. The same sort of thing is happening here. In

order to look like a hero to one part of their constituency, this cap and tax bill is being pushed through Congress, and forced on the American people, much to their detriment.

Which brings me to the third problem with Chairman Waxman's cap and tax bill--its just bad policy. Earlier this week, Investor's Business Daily had a front page article about the failures of Europe's program, called the Emissions Trading Scheme, or ETS. The article cites numerous studies finding that the ETS has significantly increased energy prices, ``with `uncertain' effects on greenhouse gas emissions.'' That hardly sounds like a model of success that we should be emulating here in the United States.

Proponents of the cap and tax bill claim that they have learned from Europe's mistakes, but I disagree, Madam Speaker. The article identifies the giving away of the program's carbon allowances as the largest reason for the program's failure. This bill follows that same model, giving away roughly 85 percent of the emissions allowances.

The entire idea of a cap and trade program fails in practice. We are told, ``The cost of polluting will be paid by the polluters.'' And believe me, the authors of this bill expect them to pay a hefty price. In fact, President Obama's budget assumes that even with the sale of only 15 percent of the total emissions permits, the federal government will still take in more than $650 billion. As the cap gets lower, and there are fewer permits available, the cost for ``polluters'' is going to grow ever higher. But that is exactly what the authors want. President Obama recently stated that the only way for a cap-and-trade system to work is for energy prices to ``skyrocket.''

There is nothing in the bill to keep the ``polluters'' from passing those skyrocketing costs on to the consumers. In fact, they will be forced to so. Any business that cannot pass the costs on to consumers runs the risk of being driven out of business. In the end, it will be the American taxpayer that foots the bill for this program, in the form of higher prices at the pump, higher home energy bills, and lost economic growth. But don't just take my word for it. Even the director of the Congressional Budget Office has said that, ``under a cap-and- trade program, consumers would ultimately bear most of the costs of emission reductions.''

One analysis of this bill found that if the standards within the bill are met, by 2035 Americans will see gas prices rise 74 percent, electricity prices increase by 90 percent, and a loss of at least 850,000 jobs every year. The average American household will see its annual energy bill go up by nearly $1,500. For my home state of Kansas in particular, we are going to have to purchase an estimated $206.8 million worth of carbon credits. That is $206 million more that Kansans are going to have to pay in energy costs every year. My district will be particularly hard-hit, as estimates show my district standing to lose nearly half a billion dollars of production in 2012, and more than 5,000 non-agriculture jobs. It's this kind of economic pain that advocates are counting on to force a reduction in carbon emissions.

The European system proves this idea doesn't work. With no signs of a reduction in carbon emissions, Europeans have seen their household energy costs rise by 16 percent, and the industrial energy costs increase by 32 percent.

Spain is an especially poignant example of the failure of the European system. They committed to reaching the benchmarks set out by the Kyoto Protocol, with renewable energy standards, so-called green- collar jobs, and a commitment to reduce their carbon emission levels. But the high cost of energy in Spain has destroyed their economy, which is currently facing a 17.5 percent unemployment rate. Proponents of this bill say that we will be creating new, green jobs. But most of these jobs are temporary construction jobs that go away once facilities, like wind farms for example, are built. In Spain, for every 4 jobs that were created, 9 were lost due to the higher cost of doing business under the Emissions Scheme. We should avoid going down this same path.

There is huge potential for exploitation of the system, on multiple levels. Especially with permits being given out, rather than auctioned, government officials are in a prime position to divert additional credits towards industries or companies of their choice. There is also the possibility that utilities here in the United States could follow the lead of one European company that immediately raised their rate by 70 percent, explaining to customers that the rate hike was necessary to cover the costs of cap-and-trade. But this utility company was given more credits than it needed, and sold them on the open market.

Tack on a renewables standard to this bill, and we have the perfect recipe for failure. No place that has implemented a renewable standard has ever been able to meet the required levels. And there is little to indicate that a federal standard would be any different. As a 2008 article in the Energy Law Journal stated, ``The DOE has little, if any, experience in administering a program on the scale of a national RPS, and has shown no indication that enforcement of a major program is within the agency's capabilities...[this is] an area in which the DOE has already failed to show effective leadership.''

So what we have here is a bill that has been rammed through with no minority input, to create a system that is ripe for abuse, costs the American taxpayer thousands of dollars, cripples our businesses, and in the end, has no measureable result. This is a bill I cannot support, and urge my colleagues to reject as well. Instead, I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the American Energy Act, a comprehensive energy bill that increases access to domestic energy sources, encourages conservation, and promotes the increased use of renewable sources of energy.

Across this country, we are, once again, seeing gas prices rise. Since the beginning of the year, gas prices are up 60 cents, and crude oil has raised more than $20 a barrel, with no end in sight. Just last week, Russian oil executives predicted that crude prices could reach $250 per barrel.

It is possible for us to relieve some of this pressure by tapping into our own vast resources. The Department of Energy estimates that nearly 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil lie offshore beneath restricted waters, the equivalent to nearly 30 years worth of current imports from Saudi Arabia. Substantial offshore natural gas reserves are also restricted. Even though longstanding restrictions on offshore energy production were lifted last year, the process of leasing these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.

Unfortunately, new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar refuses to allow additional drilling permits, dredging up every excuse not to produce energy in these areas. The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, reported to hold more than 10 billion barrels of oil continues to remain off-limits. He has also sought to block progress on oil shale, a promising source of oil trapped in rock under parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The Department of the Interior has even cancelled some existing oil and gas leases.

Often, environmental concerns are cited as the reason for opposing additional drilling. However, technological advances have greatly increased the safety of drilling. During hurricanes Rita and Katrina, less than one cup of oil was spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, despite damage to more than 120 drilling platforms. There is absolutely no reason why permits for additional drilling should be denied. Furthermore, revenue generated by these oil leases will be invested in the development of cleaner, alternative sources of energy. The end result is a reduced dependency on foreign oil, lower levels of pollution, and new jobs for Americans, all without crippling our economy.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, the American Energy Act includes one key source that could provide clean energy without emissions--nuclear power. The Department of Energy has stated that the best way for energy companies to reduce their carbon emissions is to increase their use of nuclear energy. Despite encouragement from DoE, and the fact that that it has been proven safe by countries like France, where more than 80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear power, the Waxman- Markey bill does nothing to encourage nuclear power.

Instead, this administration has begun to walk away from the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The American Energy Act would provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authority to complete its review of the Yucca Mountain facility, repeal the limitations on Yucca's Mountain's storage capacity, and establishes a method for recycling spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. Furthermore, it would reduce the bureaucratic hoops and length of time required to receive a permit for the construction of new nuclear plants.

In conclusion, let me again encourage my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill that would cripple our economy, without addressing their environmental concerns. Instead, lets support the American Energy Act, which provides real solutions for our energy problems in an economically, and environmentally sound manner.

Madam Speaker, this administration and the Democrat Congress are pushing us towards European socialism through more government control. This week it is the energy economy. We are scheduled to consider the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax scheme that will cap our growth and tax all of us.

In 2005, the Europeans implemented the emissions trading scheme, or ETS. ETS has increased household energy

costs by 16 percent and industrial energy costs by 32 percent in just 4 years with no measurable effect on greenhouse gases.

The Heritage Foundation projects the Waxman-Markey impact on America will be a 74 percent increase in gasoline prices, a 90 percent increase in electricity prices, and at least 850,000 jobs lost every year. The energy bill for the average American household will go up over $3,000 per year. That is exactly what the authors want. President Obama recently stated that the only way a cap-and-tax scheme will work is for higher energy costs. They have to ``skyrocket.''

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill that is all economic pain and no environmental gain and, instead, join me in supporting the American Energy Act that promotes and develops domestic energy sources, encourages conservation, and advances renewable technologies while pursuing America's competitive edge.

Madam Chair, I rise today to express my concern regarding the provisions of this bill relating to the National Bio- and Agro- defense Facility, NBAF. The threats facing this country are numerous and varied. With the intention of closing the research facility at Plum Island, NY, it is imperative that a new research facility be constructed as quickly as possible.

This is one of the many reasons why officials at the Department of Homeland Security selected Manhattan, Kansas, as the site for the new NBAF research center. Kansas State University is already home to a Biosafety Level 3, BSL 3, research facility, which means that right this minute the Plum Island facility could be relocated, with minimal disruptions in its critical research.

Construction is ready to begin on the new BSL 4 NBAF facility. State and local funding is already in place to assist in the development of the facility. The only thing lacking is action by those in Washington.

This bill, however, ignores not only the requests made by myself and other Members representing the great State of Kansas, but

also the decision of the Department of Homeland Security. By not funding NBAF, this bill leaves our nation and its food supply vulnerable to dangerous diseases, including Rift Valley Fever and African Swine Fever. Furthermore, it allows live cultures of these and other dangerous diseases to remain in facilities at Plum Island that DHS defined as, ``reaching the end of its life cycle.''

In refusing to fund construction on the new NBAF site in Manhattan, the Committee raised concerns over the risk of diseases, particularly Foot-and-Mouth Disease, FMD, being released into the heart of livestock country. On that issue let me point out that DHS was aware of this risk when Manhattan, Kansas, was selected as the new site, and is already taking steps to address these concerns by an anticipated threat assessment which should be released shortly.

I sincerely hope that as this bill works its way towards the Conference Committee that funding for construction of the new NBAF facility can be included. I have spoken with the Chairman and Ranking Member, and have their assurances that once these concerns are addressed, they will take steps to fund this critical program. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee to ensure that our nation remains protected from dangerous diseases.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 415, 416, 417, and 418, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all 4 articles of impeachment.

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. 2487--the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

H.R. 2487 includes $650,000 in the COPS Tech account for the Kansas Regional Community Policing Institute. The entity to receive funding for this project is Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmont St., Wichita, KS 67260.

The funds will be used to continue the operation of the Kansas Regional Community Policing Institute (KsRCPI) to provide training and technical assistance to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Kansas.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the devastating attacks of September 11th 2001 our nation was forced to take strong and decisive action in Afghanistan and throughout the world with the Global War on Terror to protect and defend the values and national interests of the American people. For eight years, Congress has dutifully provided the resources our troops need to carry out the will of this nation.

Today we are considering H.R. 2346, the FY2009 War Supplemental Appropriations bill, to once again provide these resources our troops require. Sadly Congressional Democrats have chosen to use this vitally important funding bill to advance the Obama administration's reckless national security and economic policies. I cannot support a bill that places our citizens and military servicemembers at risk, as well as advances irresponsible economic policies that put our economy at risk.

The detainees currently housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are among the world's most dangerous, hardened terrorists. These detainees masterminded the September 11th terrorist attacks, plotted numerous terrorist attacks around the world, and killed American troops and civilians. In developing a policy to deal with such dangerous people, though, the Obama administration has focused on one single goal: close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Although the facility at Guantanamo Bay is the world's most secure prison, the administration has instead developed a two-pronged plan to abandon these facilities and bring detainees to the United States either for release into our streets or release into our prisons.

I do not want terrorists to come to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, or any American town. Bringing detainees to Fort Leavenworth would conflict with its primary mission of being the educational center of the Army and is impractical from a facilities and logistical perspective. Most importantly, it would place the citizens of Leavenworth, Johnson County, and the greater Kansas City metro area at unnecessary risk.

Unfortunately, this policy, which is designed to placate anti-war activists, fails to address the serious national security concerns that are clearly seen by the American people. In multiple opinion polls, the American people overwhelming reject the notion of bringing terrorists- detainees to the U.S. They know that bringing terrorists to our street or prisons places our nation at risk.

Democrat leadership has rejected the views of the American people and included a provision to create a process for the administration to bring terrorist-detainees to the United States. This provision provides little of the protections and guarantees the American people expect. Let me be clear, this provision will do nothing to prevent the Obama administration from moving terrorists from a secure military facility to our hometowns.

In addition to placing American citizens at risk, this legislation also places American military servicemembers in harm's way by the removal of the bi-partisan Lieberman-Graham amendment. This critical amendment would have blocked the release of photographs of individuals captured or detained by the U.S. military during overseas operations. Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) who sponsored the original amendment, clearly stated, ``the release of the photos will serve as propaganda and recruiting tool for terrorists who seek to attack American citizens at home and abroad.'' Even President Obama has said that the release of these photographs would ``put our troops and civilians serving our nation abroad in greater danger.'' Instead of acting in the best interests of our troops, however, Congressional Democrats have sided with the extremist left and lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) by removing this important provision.

Although Congressional Democrats left out language to prevent terrorists from being brought to our shores and to protect our troops, they found room to add two unrelated provisions that continue this administration's favorite cure-all for our economic woes: bailouts.

Perhaps most concerning, the War Supplemental Appropriations bill contains a $108 billion loan authority for the International Monetary Fund (IMF)--a Global Bailout. Unrelated to the war effort, this Global Bailout represents a ten-fold increase in the U.S.'s current IMF contribution to fund an expansion of IMF lending. In addition, through the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), countries that oppose U.S. values and national interests would receive access to additional hard currency. Iran will receive a benefit up to $1.8 billion, Syria $305 million, Venezuela $3.2 billion, and Sudan $202 million. I find it very disturbing that Democrats would use a war spending bill to prop-up state sponsors of terrorism.

Finally, I object to the ``Cash for Clunkers'' provision included in H.R. 2346. The automobile manufacturers have already received $110 billion in bailouts from the federal government. Yet, Congressional Democrats have decided to funnel another $1 billion in bailout dollars to the very same industry. I have opposed the bailouts from the beginning. Instead of enacting real solutions to address this economic crisis, Democrats are again pushing their tired, old ideas of more and more government spending. Bailouts and more government spending have proven ineffective in jump-starting the economy. These are the wrong solutions for our economy, and however well-intentioned, will only prolong our economic woes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. As currently written, this bill offers the wrong solutions to real problems. It places our citizens, troops and economy at risk. H.R. 2346 should instead return to the Conference Committee and focus on funding our troops and keeping the American people safe.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, authorizes funding for the Department of State, the United States Peace Corps, and various international organizations. I cannot support H.R. 2410. This legislation recklessly overspends American tax dollars, fails to enact any much-needed reforms of international organizations, and actively supports a radical social agenda that conflicts with the majority views of the American people.

By authorizing more than $40 billion over five years, the House Democrats are again recklessly spending money that the American people do not have. At a time when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, exorbitant increases in foreign policy spending are absolutely inappropriate.

H.R. 2410 authorizes additional funding of 13 percent for the State Department, 32.4 percent for the Peace Corps, and 35 percent for State Department salaries. These types of increases clear demonstrate that Congressional Democrats are failing to be good stewards of the nation's treasury.

H.R. 2410 also provides billions of dollars for the United Nations and other international organizations without demanding any reforms. Without serious reforms the United Nations will continue to fail to meet the challenges facing our world. This legislation does nothing to reformulate the U.S. payments to the United Nations to more accurately reflect current economic conditions. It fails to implement a code of conduct for UN employees, does nothing to reform UN procurement or budgetary procedures, fails to freeze the UN budget, and does not address the UN's continued push for an international tax. Providing billions of American tax dollars without conditions weakens any effort to bring about meaningful reform.

Most concerning, though, is that H.R. 2410 aggressively advocates for a radical social agenda. American foreign policy should advocate for the national interests of the American people, not a divisive, extremist policy to placate liberal activists.

First, this legislation establishes an Office for Global Women's Issues to promote the task of ``women's empowerment internationally.'' Given the rescission of the Mexico City Policy and this administration's strong commitment to abortion, there were serious concerns that this office will be used to promote the legalization of abortion abroad. The Obama administration and Democrat leadership clearly intend to use this office to promote international abortions.

All doubt was removed when Republicans offered a substitute amendment to ensure this office would not advocate for international abortions. It was defeated on a party-line vote.

H.R. 2410 also takes an extraordinary step to require the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to track violence or restrictions based on ``perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.'' The bill would also require that the annual human rights report include information about violence or discrimination based on ``perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.'' Finally, the bill would require Foreign Service officers to take instruction on identifying violence or discrimination based on ``perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.'' Our tax dollars are not well spent monitoring the treatment of homosexuals worldwide.

This legislation furthermore mandates that American diplomats make overturning other country's laws regarding homosexuality a foreign policy priority. During committee consideration of the bill, Rep. Mike Pence offered an amendment that charged the State Department with continuing in their work to ``to protect all people against gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, as described in section 116(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.'' This language would have committed the U.S. to the protection of homosexual people-- as they would any person--against torture, cruel, inhuman treatment, or ``other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.'' Unfortunately, this amendment was voted down by committee Democrats.

U.S. foreign policy should be focused on progressing clear national security interests of the American people. Carving out special considerations regarding homosexuality, irrespective of larger foreign policy goals, could hinder vital diplomatic efforts. U.S. foreign policy should not be used as to promote special interests concerns, but the vital common strategic interests of this nation.

Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2410.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I think it's very important that we understand what is at play here.

The current plan by the President through executive order is to close Guantanamo Bay down. Now, this facility is a state-of-the-art, modern facility. It includes the right strategy as far as the layout of the facility. It also has a modern, new courtroom--a state-of-the-art courtroom--well-suited to handle the challenges that we have in trying to deal with these detainees, these self-proclaimed terrorists.

Now, I've been to Guantanamo Bay twice. I've been to other facilities, like Fort Leavenworth. The idea of moving these self- professed terrorists to American soil is a bad idea. It is a worse idea to put them in our prisons. We've had two incidences within the last month where American citizens have been recruited by radical Islamists in our own prisons. When they were released, they committed acts of terror in our country. It is a bad idea to send these detainees to our prisons. It is a terrible idea to send them to our American streets.

Now, this prison cost less than $100 million to build. Yet the President's plan, as reported, is to send some of these Uyghurs, some of these Chinese terrorists, to Palau, and we are going to give the Nation of Palau $200 million to take care of the Uyghurs--only 17 of them. This does not make financial sense. It does not make sense for our culture or for the safety of our people here in America.

One of the excuses that I've heard is that, Well, we've got to close Guantanamo Bay because it's used as a recruiting tool. Well, let me tell you: On September 11, 2001, Guantanamo Bay did not exist. It was not used as a recruiting tool. What have been used as recruiting tools are the pictures of these detainees, themselves. Yesterday's bill, the supplemental, which was passed by this House against my vote, did not prevent the release of detainee photos. Those will be used. Those will be used to recruit other terrorists, so don't give us that as an excuse as why you've got to close Guantanamo Bay.

Financially, it makes sense to keep it open. As far as the safety of our country, it makes sense to keep it open. So pass this amendment. Do the right thing for our country. Vote for the Lewis amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Obama administration told us the stimulus bill was going to be the salvation of our economic woes. They predicted unemployment would top out at 8 percent, and they claimed that jobs would be created or saved immediately. Well, there has been a significant amount of time since it was passed, and our economic woes haven't changed. In fact, the numbers are in stark contrast to what we see today.

Unemployment now is at 9.4 percent, and it is headed toward double digits. Just this week, CNN reported that Americans saw $1.3 trillion of wealth vaporize in the first quarter of 2009. Despite the massive government spending, foreclosures continue. Car dealerships are closing and layoffs continue. Home values have continued to decline, and the stock market is down 40 percent from last year.

Our government is borrowing money it does not have. It is inflating programs and projects we do not need. Recently, it was reported that over 100 wasteful projects were funded through this stimulus bill.

There is a project that includes thousands of signs, at $300 each, to brag about the projects paid for under this bill. There are projects here that could have been funded under regular order. There is $2.2 million for a State-run liquor warehouse to put skylights in the installation. There is $3.4 million for road tunnels for turtles. Tunnels for turtles. Now, it seems like maybe the turtles will need the signs to find the tunnels. There is over $40 billion in a State slush fund, and there is money for education. Secretary of Education Duncan has admitted he doesn't know how to spend it.

This is your stimulus money at work here in America. Taxpayers don't understand why so much money is being wasted so quickly with nothing to show for it. My amendment on the floor today would keep a quarter of $1 billion from our deficit by taking the stimulus dollars to pay for this legislation and for other legislation. Now, at a time when Americans are pulling back on their spending and are saving more, our government should do the same.

In the first quarter of this year, household debt fell by an annual rate of 1.1 percent, which is $13.8 trillion. Instead of following our constituents' actions, though, our government continues to spend money that we do not have. When our government spends money that we do not have, one of two things happens: either we borrow it from countries like China--and since China isn't buying our debt now, the other solution is that our Federal Government prints money. We have had the Fed pump over $1 trillion of new money into our economy. The problem with the infusion of new money into our economy like this is that it causes inflation. When you have more money available for, roughly, the same amount of goods, you get inflation. The equation is very simple. The more money we print, the less our money is worth.

Inflation hits our retired Americans the worst. They're on fixed incomes. It hits the working poor the hardest--people who are just getting by. When you take purchasing value away from them, they're worse off. These Americans have worked too hard for their money to see the actions of the Federal Reserve drastically reduce its value.

Our economic instability and uncertainty is making America's bonds toxic. Even countries like China and Brazil are turning up their noses at U.S.-held securities in favor of International Monetary Fund bonds.

Let's follow our constituents' lead. Let's slow the Treasury's printing press. Let's cut up our Chinese credit card and act responsibly by repealing the portion of unobligated funds in the stimulus and pay for the portion of this bill today before us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, the reason that we would repeal the Recovery Act, or the stimulus bill, is that it simply doesn't work.

In the 1930s, we tried a similar philosophy. We borrowed money from other countries and we started programs that had never before been tried, and throughout the 1930s, we had double-digit unemployment. In May of 1939, Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau said that we have borrowed all of this money; we have spent all of this money, and we have nothing to show for it. The Recovery Act does not work.

In the 1990s, Japan tried the same thing. They had a recession. They borrowed money. They started government programs, and it didn't work there either. They call that their ``lost decade'' where the average per capita income in Japan went from 2nd in the world to 10th in the world.

If you want something that works, it's not borrowing money and spending money. Instead, we need to provide opportunity for our economy. Four out of five jobs in America are small business jobs. We need to provide small business jobs. Remember, General Motors started out in a garage, Boeing started in a barn, Pizza Hut started in a building that's smaller than your office, because they had opportunity. And we can provide opportunity without borrowing money from China or printing new money at the Treasury. We can do it by reforming our regulations, put them on cost-based analysis. We can do it by reforming our health care, making it market based. We can do it by reforming our litigation policy, using loser pays. We can do it by lowering our taxes and making capital welcome in America.

Capital is a coward, and we are scaring it off. And you can't create an economy that is strong and recoverable if you don't create small business jobs. So if you really want to do it, you can do it on the cheap and do it successfully.

If you want to borrow this money and force this debt on our kids, this $250 billion, then you can go ahead with this plan. But there is something better. There is an alternative that actually works, and historically it's proven.

So what we want to do is repeal the Recovery Act, the stimulus bill, and provide the opportunity to allow America to grow because when America grows and our economy grows, the Federal revenue grows.

That's how we balanced the budget in 1990s. It wasn't Bill Clinton's budget. It was the House of Representatives coming up with opportunity for small businesses. We limited the growth in government, and we saw our economy expand at over 7 percent per year. And that's how we balanced the budget. We can do that again if we just start by getting some common sense and repeal the unobligated funds in the Recovery Act.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Tiahrt

Amendment No. 69: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Tiahrt

Amendment No. 115: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. II. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to pay the salary or expenses of personnel who

obligate, funds made available under the following headings

in title II of division A of Public Law 111-5:

(1) ``Economic Development Administration--Economic

Development Assistance Programs''.

(2) ``National Telecommunications and Information

Administration--Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program''.

(3) ``National Institute of Standards and Technology--

Construction of Research Facilities''.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Obama administration told us the stimulus bill was the salvation to our economic woes. They predicted, if passed, unemployment would top out at 7 percent and claimed jobs would be created or saved immediately. It was passed, but yesterday's promises are in stark contrast to what we see today-- unemployment is at 9.4 percent, and just this morning CNN reported that America saw $1.3 trillion of wealth vaporize in the first quarter of 2009.

Despite massive government spending, foreclosures continue, car dealerships are closing, layoffs continue, and the stock market and home values continue to decline. The government is borrowing money it does not have, inflating programs it does not need and making promises it cannot keep. Taxpayers don't understand why so much money is being wasted so quickly with nothing to show for it.

I understand. This week I offered a simple solution. Rescind unobligated money from the stimulus bill and save the taxpayers over $250 billion. That's money we won't have to borrow from the Chinese. Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a party-line vote.

Today I am introducing the Repeal the Stimulus Act of 2009, and I urge my colleagues to join with me to repeal the stimulus bill and the spending schemes of the current administration and cut back on the amount of money we have to borrow from China.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 311, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''