Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the government's continuing failure to address our Nation's gut-wrenching unemployment stems from a fundamental disagreement over how jobs are created in the first place.

We're now in the third year of policies predicated on the assumption that government spending creates jobs. We've squandered 3 years and trillions of dollars of the Nation's wealth on such policies, and they have not worked because they cannot work. Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy until it's first taken that same dollar out of the economy.

True, we see the job that's saved or created when the government puts that dollar back into the economy. What we can't see as clearly is the jobs that are destroyed or prevented from forming because government has first taken that dollar out of the economy. We see those millions of lost jobs in a chronic unemployment rate and a stagnating economy.

Government can transfer jobs from the productive sector to the government sector by taking money from one and giving it to the other. That's at the heart of the President's plan to spend

billions of dollars to hire more teachers and firefighters and police officers. But these temporary government jobs come at a steep price. Every dollar spent sustaining one of these jobs is a dollar taken from the same capital pool that would otherwise have been available to productive businesses to invest in creating permanent jobs.

Government can also transfer jobs from one business to another by taking capital from one and giving it to the other. That's how we got Solyndra. We put a half-billion dollars at risk to create 1,100 jobs. That's $450,000 per job. Now that half-billion dollars is gone and so are the jobs. And who pays for these losses? Other businesses and their employees, meaning fewer jobs created.

What government can do very effectively is to create the conditions in which jobs either flourish and expand or wither and disappear. When we place additional taxes on productivity, jobs disappear.

The President says he only wants to tax millionaires and billionaires, but the tax increases in his so-called jobs plan actually hammer more than 75 percent of net small business income, at a time when we're counting on those small businesses to produce two-thirds of the new jobs that our people desperately need. That is insane.

When we place additional regulations on productivity, jobs disappear. That's what we're watching in real time--thousands of pages of new regulations from Obamacare, from Dodd-Frank, from the EPA stifling American job creation.

It's no secret why business isn't expanding. Just ask a businessman. They're scared to death of the additional taxes and regulations they may be facing in the next few years, and they're pulling back to see what happens. Ask bankers why they're not lending; you'll hear the same answer.

House Republicans have laid out a comprehensive plan to revive the economy through the same policies that worked under Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, under John F. Kennedy in the early sixties, under Harry Truman in the mid-forties and under Warren Harding in the early twenties. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that ObamaCare by itself will cost our economy a net loss of 800,000 jobs. A few weeks ago, the Natural Resources Committee received testimony that, just by getting government out of the way and opening up American energy resources to development, the economy could create 700,000 jobs and $660 billion of direct revenues to the national and State treasuries. So repeal ObamaCare and open up American energy resources; there's 1\1/2\ million jobs right there at no cost to taxpayers.

Now, imagine doing that across all sectors of the economy. That's what Republicans are proposing to do. The fact that the President doesn't even recognize this as a jobs plan leaves me to conclude that he simply doesn't understand how jobs are created in the first place.

When Ronald Reagan inherited an even worse economy from Jimmy Carter, he reduced the tax and regulatory burdens that were crushing the economy , just as Republicans proposed to do today. According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, if the economy today under Obama had tracked the same as it did under Reagan, 15.7 million more Americans would be working today and per capita income would be $4,000 higher than it is today, $16,000 higher for a family of four.

Mr. Speaker, freedom works. It is time we put it back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Police Chief Nicholas Sensley of Truckee, California.

Chief Sensley began his public service in law enforcement in 1987 as a police and fire dispatcher with the UCLA Police Department. Nicholas was promoted to Police Officer in 1988 after graduating from the Los Angeles County Sherriff's Academy STARS Center, where he would begin serving as a Recruit Training Officer in 1990--one of the earliest returning instructors in the Academy's history. In May of 1991 he joined the Santa Rosa Police Department where he served in numerous assignments until ultimately departing in November 2008 as Patrol Lieutenant. In December of that year, Nicholas was appointed Chief of Police in Truckee, where he has served to this day.

Nicholas's service to the communities in which he has lived undoubtedly deserves the thanks and appreciation of his many constituents, but it is impossible to measure his contribution as a public servant if we limit the examination to California alone. Throughout his career, Chief Sensley has developed an expertise in mitigating the terrible plight of human trafficking that affects millions each year. He has worked as a consultant and developer in the United States, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the South Caribbean since 1998, playing an instrumental role in facilitating training, education and effective counter-human-trafficking initiatives globally. He has also been acknowledged as an international expert on significant community problem-solving by the US Department of Justice, the US Department of State, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the International Centre for Migration Policy Development, and by other international governments and organizations for his contributions.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a grateful heart that I rise today to thank Chief Nicholas Sensley for his many years of public service to the people of California. I wish him well as he retires from police work to accept a position to continue advancing human freedom with Humanity United in Washington, DC.

Mr. Speaker, 40 years from now, a beloved high school history teacher at Tahoe High School named Garrett Fant should be celebrating his retirement surrounded by generations of his students and his children and grandchildren. They would have all told affectionate stories about how Mr. Fant inspired them or helped them and wished him a happy and well-deserved retirement.

Unfortunately, history has willed a different story. Army Specialist Garrett Fant instead returned to Lake Tahoe last week as a fallen hero at the age of 21. This young man sacrificed all those years, all those memories, all those pleasures--and all that life--in the service of his country.

He loved the Army, and he had a plan for his life--he'd serve his country as a soldier for 20 years, and then he would come and serve his community as a high school history teacher. From everything I've learned about Garrett

Fant, he would have made a great history teacher. His mother told a reporter, ``His thought was that high school was the last stop for kids, and he wanted to influence people.''

He'd have made a great family man. His older brother remembers looking up to Garrett as if Garrett were the older brother. Knowing full well the dangers that surrounded him in Afghanistan, his foremost attention went to reassuring his family that he was safe and secure. His mother said, ``He always tried to protect me from the dangers of being over there. He was just someone that, if you were his family or his friends--or his country--he gave you his all and loved you with everything.''

Above all, Garrett Fant wanted to be a soldier. His brother tried to get him to enlist with him in the Navy, but Garrett would have none of that. He was all Army and had known from the time he was a little boy that's what he most wanted to do. On Facebook, he listed his occupation as ``grunt,'' telling his friends, ``You can't spell Infantry without `Fant.' '' He was the top marksman in his class of 1,000.

I wish I'd known him. I wish my grandchildren might one day have been his high school history students. Instead, Army Specialist Garrett Fant takes his place in history, among nine generations of American heroes who sacrificed all those precious years to protect those who couldn't protect themselves, to stand up to the bullies of the world, ``to proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.''

In his farewell address at West Point, General Douglas MacArthur turned his attention to fallen heroes like Army Specialist Garrett Fant, and with searing insight he observed, ``Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago and has never changed. I regarded him then as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless.

``His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or any other man.''

And MacArthur goes on to say, ``But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words.

``He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom.''

And so Garrett Fant became a teacher after all. As Shakespeare said, ``this story shall the good man teach his son.'' Succeeding generations of students at South Lake Tahoe High School and also at Valley Oak High School in American Canyon, which Garrett also attended, will know his story. Every Memorial Day in his hometown, his name will be read with a special pride that his friends and neighbors will share. Strangers will pass by his honored grave, adorned with flags and flowers, and they'll note the few years he had and the sacrifice he made and be humbled by it and perhaps inspired by it to become better citizens. No history teacher can do more than that.

To his grieving family, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I can only say that you do not mourn alone. Your pride in Garrett is shared by your community, by your country, and by many, many history teachers who will tell his story to the latest American generation.

Madam Speaker, this generation is facing spiraling electricity prices and increasingly scarce supplies. Californians have had to cut back to the point that their electricity consumption per capita is now lower than that of Guam, Luxembourg, and Aruba.

What is the administration's solution? Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday that the administration is moving forward with a plan to destroy four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River, capable of producing 155,000 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet, enough for about 155,000 homes.

Now, why would the administration pursue such a ludicrous policy? Well, they say it's necessary to increase the salmon population. Well, the thing is, we did that a long time ago by building the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery. The Iron Gate Fish Hatchery produces 5 million salmon smolt every year--17,000 of which return annually as fully grown adults to spawn. The problem is, they don't include them in the population count. And to add insult to insanity, when they tear down the Iron Gate Dam, we will lose the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery and the 5 million salmon smolt it produces annually.

Declining salmon runs are not unique to the Klamath. We have seen them up and down the Northwest Pacific coast over the last 10 years as a result of the naturally occurring Pacific decadal oscillation--cold water currents that fluctuate over a 10-year cycle between the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. In fact, during the same decade that salmon runs have declined throughout the Pacific Northwest, they have exploded in Alaska. We are now at the end of that cycle.

The cost of this madness is currently pegged at a staggering $290 million, all at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers. But that's just the cost of removing the dams. Consumers will face permanently higher prices for replacement power, which, we're told, will be wind and solar.

Well, not only are wind and solar many times more expensive; wind and solar require equal amounts of reliable standby power, which is precisely what the dams provide. We're told that, yes, this may be expensive, but it will cost less than retrofitting the dams to meet cost-prohibitive environmental requirements. Well, if that's the case, maybe we should rethink those requirements, not squander more than a quarter billion dollars to destroy desperately needed hydroelectric dams. Or here is a modest suggestion to address the salmon population-- count the hatchery fish.

We're told that this is the result of a local agreement between farmers and stakeholders. Well, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the Klamath agreement was the result of local farmers succumbing to extortion by environmental groups that threatened lawsuits to shut off their water. And obviously the so-called ``stakeholders'' don't include the ratepayers and taxpayers who will pay dearly for the loss of these dams.

Indeed, local voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly repudiated the agreement and the politicians responsible for it. The locally elected Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors vigorously opposes it.

Finally, the administration boasts of 1,400 short-term jobs that will be created to tear down these dams. Just imagine how many jobs we could create if we tore down the Hoover Dam or Duluth, Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, amidst a spending spree that threatens to bankrupt this Nation, amidst spiraling electricity prices and chronic shortages, to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams at enormous cost is insane. And to claim that this is good for the economy gives us chilling insight into the breathtakingly bad judgment that is misguiding our Nation from the White House.

The President was right about one thing when he spoke here several weeks ago. Fourteen months is a long time to wait to correct the problem. Fortunately, the administration will need congressional approval to move forward with this lunacy, and that's going to require action by this House.

Earlier this year the House voted to put a stop to this nonsense. I trust it will exercise that same good judgment as the administration proceeds with its folly.

Mr. Speaker, the attack against our nation ten years ago today was our generation's Pearl Harbor. Indeed, in many ways it was far more infamous. More Americans died on September 11th than in the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was an attack not upon some distant outpost but upon our nation's greatest city and our nation's capital city. It was an attack not upon heavily armed warships, but upon defenseless Americans peacefully going about their business.

This atrocity set new records for its ruthlessness and barbarity and depravity. Benjamin Netanyahu called it a ``wake-up call from hell,'' and that's exactly what it was. It is appropriate, though, to note one constant that defines us as a people and that guarantees us that all will come right. I speak of something that can only be described as the Spirit of America.

The attack on our nation ten years ago reminded us that the American spirit is still very much alive, and that this generation is more than capable of rising to great acts of heroism.

The attack ten years ago produced a pantheon of heroes--Americans who had gone about their business one peaceful morning, and in a few brief moments found themselves facing well prepared, intractable and barbaric adversaries.

At that fateful moment, they rose to the occasion. They resisted with everything they had. On December 7th, cooks became gunners and nurses passed the ammunition. On September 11th, office workers became rescue workers and businessmen laid down their cell phones and took up hand- to-hand combat in the skies over Pennsylvania.

Centuries from now, Americans will proudly remember the story of the young men and women aboard Flight 93 as it headed for our nation's Capitol: how they responded instantly to their country's peril -- and armed only with their bare hands stopped cold those who would destroy our nation. In his last words heard over his cell phone, Todd Beamer asked--not just of his fellow passengers, but of all of his fellow countrymen: ``Are you guys ready''? His answer on behalf of us all was, ``Then let's roll.''

The memory of firefighters and police officers rushing into the burning buildings as everyone else rushed out personified duty and honor for an entire generation.

For those young people in our nation who were not alive to experience, or were too young to remember that day just over ten years ago, we have an obligation as a society to pass on our memories and the lessons we learned, purchased at the high price of innocent life and years of conflict.

I rise today in recognition of the ongoing work of the Young America's Foundation to preserve our history for future generations.

Each year Young America's Foundation helps students--many of whom comprise the ``9/11 generation''--to properly remember the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks through their 9/11: Never Forget Project. Young America's Foundation began this program in 2003.

Young America's Foundation works with students to establish American flag memorials--displays consisting of 2,977 American flags representing each person tragically killed in the terrorist attacks. This year, students at more than 280 schools erected such memorials on their school grounds. Students held campus-wide moments of silence or prayer on September 11, at 9:11 a.m., hosted patriotic speakers and first responders at their schools, and provided 9/11: Never Forget posters and other materials to distribute on the anniversary. Young America's Foundation is making sure that future generations understand the events of that horrific day, remember its victims and remember the many examples of courage, patriotism and dedication which have, and will continue to inspire so many.

This tenth anniversary year is not just a time to memorialize the fallen--as important as that is. This upcoming September 11, we humbly celebrate America's endurance, strength, and goodness. In doing so, we will ensure that future generations will never forget.

While we can erect grand edifices and give speeches about 9/11, it is this simple and poignant tribute in remembrance of those we have lost and all those who serve that speaks loudest across the years. It is my privilege to rise today and thank the Young America's Foundation for its ongoing service to our nation and our posterity.

Mr. Speaker, on June 26, a roadside bomb in Julula, Iraq, claimed the life of a young man from Oroville, California. He was Army Staff Sergeant Russell Jeremiah Proctor, age 25, on his third tour of combat duty.

He was laid to rest last week in solemn ceremonies in California. Sergeant Proctor leaves behind a grieving widow, a devastated family, and a 9-month-old son who will know his father only by reputation. And it is reputation I want to speak of today.

I never met Sergeant Proctor. I too know him only by reputation. It is a reputation commemorated by, among other decorations, two Army Commendation Medals, two Army Achievement Medals, two Army Good Conduct Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraqi Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, two Overseas Service Ribbons, a Combat Action Badge, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart.

It's a reputation memorialized by those who knew him best, the men he served with. ``He was a leader among leaders,'' said one. ``His drive to be the best motivated all of us to reach our potential.'' Another said, ``He led from the front. He inspired everyone around him to better themselves.''

Perhaps the most poignant was this simple post on a local newspaper site: ``My son was killed with Sergeant Proctor. Private First Class Dylan Johnson and the rest of the soldiers in the unit all looked up to Russell for leadership and guidance. They are both heroes to me as well.'' It's signed, ``A grieving dad.''

I had the honor to speak last week with Sergeant Proctor's widow, Soila. She's also active duty Army. They met while serving at Fort Hood. She was deployed at the same Forward Operating Base as Russell. They were billeted together. She was nearby when he was killed.

I cannot begin to imagine the hell that she has been through. And yet, having endured all this, she plans to continue her service to our country in the U.S. Army.

Mr. Speaker, James Michener's question thunders down upon us at times likes these: Where do we get such people?

As I talked with Soila last Monday, I was struck by the transcendent nobility that accompanies her grief.

Perhaps a more pertinent question is: What would our country do without such people as Sergeant Proctor, or the nine generations of Americans who have preceded him in the defense of our Nation?

General Patton was right when he observed: ``It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.''

And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise today for exactly that purpose, to thank God that Russell Proctor lived and to pray that his infant son, Ezekiel, grows up in a Nation made safer by his sacrifice, and a Nation that will never forget not only what we owe to those who Lincoln called ``the loved and lost,'' but what we owe to the families who so personally bear that loss.

A chaplain who brought the dreaded news to the family wrote a commentary over the 4th of July weekend, a weekend filled with barbecues and picnics and fireworks, in which he noted the grief of this family amidst all of the frivolity around them. And he noted that at the age of 25, Russell Proctor will never again celebrate a birthday, take his son fishing, or hug his wife.

Sergeant Russell Proctor and all those who preceded him since the first shots on Lexington Green believed enough in our country and what it stands for to sacrifice all of those precious years of love and life and joy so that we, their fellow Americans, could enjoy those same blessings of liberty and safety and security, including a baby boy named Ezekiel, whose dad won't be there to take him fishing or hug him or celebrate birthdays with him.

Ezekiel, if you should someday stumble upon these words, I hope you will know that, like you, many of us knew your dad only by reputation, and we stood in awe of him.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this vote stands as a defining moment in this crisis. Every rating agency has warned that an increase in the debt limit without a credible plan to balance the budget will do great damage to our Nation's credit. And worse, fiscal experts warn that without such a plan we risk a sovereign debt crisis within the next 2 years.

This measure gives the President everything he has asked for--the $2.4 trillion debt increase to pay for the bills that he and the Congress have recklessly racked up. But it also calls for a constitutionally enforceable workout plan to place our Nation back on the course to fiscal solvency, the centerpiece of which is a balanced budget amendment that has been proposed in one form or another since the birth of our Constitution and that 49 States have adopted.

Now, the gentleman from Maryland reminds us that only a few of those 49 States have both a balanced budget requirement and a two-thirds vote for tax increases. My home State of California happens to be one of them. California's deficits, as bad as they are, have been proportionally roughly half the size of those that the Federal Government has run up in the same period.

These budget protections work--maybe not perfectly, but they do work. And I might add that when California also had a real spending limit, as this measure calls for, California enjoyed an era of balanced budgets, prudent reserves, no tax increases, and steady economic growth.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise in support of this amendment. This is the last opportunity we have, really, to rein in spending that's literally bankrupting our country in this bill.

It's interesting. All the talk of the billions of dollars of subsidies that we continue to dole out to dubious enterprises are all unfulfilled promises of energy independence. You would think after 30 years those promises are starting to ring hollow. After 30 years of such promises, we're more dependent on foreign energy than when we began and even deeper in debt.

I rise also to draw to the attention of the House a provision of this measure relating to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Under current law as that reserve is drawn down either for maintenance or for market manipulation, the proceeds from the oil must go back into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That guarantees that it's maintained in a constant state of readiness to provide for our national security. Whenever a dollar comes out of that reserve, a dollar has to be put back into it--until this bill. There is a half-billion dollars going out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, not to replenish the reserve, but to fund additional spending in this budget. That is a scandal.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I offer this amendment on behalf of the Republican Study Committee to save roughly 10 percent from this appropriations bill, or $3.25 billion, simply by getting the Federal Government out of the energy subsidy business.

For more than 30 years, the Department of Energy has squandered billions of dollars subsidizing research and development that no private investor would touch with the promise it would somehow make our Nation energy independent.

Every year, we have spent untold billions on these programs, and every year, we have become more dependent on foreign oil. We are now running a deficit that threatens to bankrupt our country, and this forces us to cast a critical eye on every expenditure that fails to meet its objectives. None has failed so spectacularly as the Department of Energy's subsidy of energy research, which has left us billions of dollars poorer and has left us stuck with

mediocre technologies that only survive on a lifeline of public subsidies.

I am sure the opposition will try to depict this amendment as some sort of Luddite reaction to green technology, but it is exactly the opposite. By stopping the government from doling out dollars to politically favored industries, by stopping it from picking winners and losers among emerging technologies competing for capital, we restore the natural flow of that capital toward those that are the most economically viable and technologically feasible.

For example, this amendment cuts funding to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program, which functions as an R&D department for every solar, biomass, geothermal, and wind energy company in the country.

We're not funding the most viable research in these technologies. Private capital beats a path to the door of viable technology. These expenditures are for research considered so dubious that no private investor in his right mind would risk his own capital. Yet this Congress has been more than willing to risk our constituents' capital in the form of their tax dollars, and it shouldn't surprise us that those investments have not paid off. This misallocation of resources not only destroys jobs in productive ventures in order to create jobs in subsidized ones; it ends up reducing our energy potential instead of expanding it, and it destroys our wealth instead of creating it.

Politicians love to appear at ribbon cuttings and to issue self- congratulatory press releases at government-supported ``alternative energy'' businesses, but they fall strangely silent when asked to actually account for the billions of our dollars that they've wasted. The best thing we did for shale oil and gas technology was to have gotten the government out of the business of funding it. Guess what happened?

Once we got the government out, it took the productive sector just a few years to develop remarkable new drilling techniques that have unleashed a cornucopia of American energy into the market. Is there really any question at all as to which of these models actually works?

Let me give you another example:

This appropriations act proposes to spend $200 million for vehicle technology research. Isn't that what automobile manufacturers should do and used to do with their own capital? And if they're not willing to risk their own capital, what right has this Congress to risk our constituents' earnings?

These amendments move the government out of all sectors of subsidizing research--biomass, nuclear, solar, wind, fossil fuels--all across the board. Does that mean that research and development will stop on all of these technologies? On the contrary. It means that all of the distortions that government intervention has made in the energy sector can be corrected and that private capital can, once again, flow freely to those technologies that offer the greatest return at the lowest cost.

Thirty years of government energy subsidies promised to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; yet our dependence has become ever greater. All we have done is to squander billions of dollars of our Nation's treasure and to distort and impede the natural flow of investment dollars that could have produced far greater returns in viable technology. We are left with a bankrupt, energy-deficient and dependent Nation while propping up a few politically well-connected interests that are producing ethanol and solar panels at a staggering expense--an expense that we have hidden from consumers with their own tax dollars.

Our energy policy over the last 30 years simply proves that Thomas Jefferson was right when he observed: ``were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.'' For 30 years, we have been directed from Washington on how to develop our energy. It should surprise no one that today we lack energy.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Just to be clear, the $400 million remaining in the nuclear account, as I understand it, is for regulatory activities, not for research and development, which we now place back in the hands of the productive sector.

For regulatory activities associated with this provision.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes language in the bill that allows the Secretary of Energy to redirect unspent stimulus funds from one State to another. What they're really saying is this: $1.5 billion is going to be taken from the States that decided not to use the money and give it to States that not only have spent their allocations but want to

spend even more. If Aesop were writing this tale, I think it would include an ant and a grasshopper.

The principle stinks, and so does the program. These funds are ostensibly to finance weatherization and building design programs to increase energy efficiency. But the potential savings--if anywhere near as great as the administration claims--should be more than enough motivation for individuals to pursue this activity on their own without a government giveaway. After all, why should taxpayers pay to develop and subsidize building materials and technologies to be sold in the private sector to private consumers?

In all matters of energy and energy conservation, we've got to get back to the simple doctrine that the beneficiary should pay. If a product saves consumers money--in this case through energy savings-- that's a benefit, and it is incorporated into the price structure of that product. This elegant and simple process allows consumers to decide for themselves if the added energy savings are worth the added financial cost. If the answer is yes, the world will beat a path to the door of those who manufacture and sell those products. And if the answer is no, taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves $166 million by relieving taxpayers of having to subsidize yet another year of handouts to the solar industry.

Solar power is not some fragile, new technology. Photovoltaic electricity generation was invented by Edmund Becquerel in 1839, more than 170 years ago. And in more than 170 years of continuing research and development and technological advancement, not to mention untold billions of taxpayer subsidies, we have not yet invented a more expensive way to generate electricity.

Yet we're perfectly comfortable telling our constituents that we are taking another $166 million from their families this year to throw at this 19th-century technology for no particular reason other than it makes us feel good.

Not only is this the most expensive way we have ever invented to generate electricity; it also adds nothing to our baseline power. Our electricity systems operate on an integrated grid, meaning we constantly have to match the power going onto the grid with the power coming off the grid. And since there's no way to predict when a cloud passing over a solar array will immediately drop the output to zero, we have to construct an equal amount of reliable conventional power to back it up at a moment's notice.

In other words, for every kilowatt of solar power we add to the grid, we also have to add an additional kilowatt of backup power. If this technology was truly on the verge of a breakthrough, it would be the hottest thing in the stock market right now, and investors would be tripping over themselves to get a piece of the action. They are not.

We have no right to take our constituents' money and put it into yet another losing proposition. We're told the solar industry is making great strides in the marketplace. Lots of new jobs. That's true, but it is making those strides not on its own merit, but solely because we are hiding its true cost from consumers through massive tax subsidies that in turn we are borrowing from the Chinese.

It is true that if you hand over $166 million of taxpayer money to certain solar corporations, those corporations are going to do very well financially. But their government-funded windfall comes at the expense of not only the hardworking Americans who are the source of this largess; it comes at the expense of our ability to generate the most energy for the lowest price.

Perhaps it is just human nature that the more we invest in our mistakes, the less willing we are to admit them. But with the mistakes of the last 30 years now contributing to the bankruptcy of our country and the impoverishment of our people, perhaps it is time to tell not only the solar industry but every part of the energy sector, get off the public dole, compete on your own merit, and restore to consumers the accurate and unadulterated price signals that they need to make rational decisions in the marketplace.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. McClintock

Amendment No. 31: Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $1,304,636,000)''.

Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $289,420,000)''.

Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $476,993,000)''.

Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $820,488,000)''.

Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Page 29, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $160,000,000)''.

Page 31, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.

Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $500,000)''.

Page 52, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $68,400,000)''.

Page 53, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $11,700,000)''.

Page 53, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $10,700,000)''.

Page 54, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $1,350,000)''.

Page 54, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $250,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $3,250,437,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, for more than 3 months, our Nation has been amidst a quiet constitutional crisis that carries immense implications. My friend, the gentleman from Florida, is sadly mistaken to dismiss this as a meaningless philosophical discussion. This strikes at the very heart of our constitutional form of government.

On March 19, completely without congressional authorization, the President ordered an unprovoked attack against another country. In so doing, he crossed a very bright constitutional line placed there specifically to prevent so momentous and fatal a question as war being made by a single individual.

The American Founders were explicit on this point. For centuries, European monarchs had plunged their nations into bloody and debilitating wars on whim, and the Founders wanted to protect the American Republic from that fate.

James Madison explained why in this passage in a letter to Hamilton. He

said: ``In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confines the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. The trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man. War is, in fact, the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical force is to be created and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and the emoluments of office are to be multiplied, and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. Those who are to conduct a war cannot, in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.''

The President has tried to justify this act in a variety of ways: that bombing another country is not really an act of war, that there wasn't time to consult Congress--though more than enough to consult the United Nations Security Council--or that it was a humanitarian act.

Mr. Chairman, never was there a greater provocation or clearer moral justification for war than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And never was there a more activist President than Franklin Roosevelt.

Yet within 24 hours of that attack, President Roosevelt appeared before a joint session of Congress in this very Hall. He clearly recognized that as Commander in Chief his authority only extended to ordering that ``all measures be taken for our defense.'' He recognized that under the Constitution, anything more, even in this most historic attack, required an act of Congress, which he sought and obtained.

The unprovoked attack on Libya was not authorized by this Congress, and it is accordingly unconstitutional and illegal. Indeed, 2 weeks ago, the House considered a resolution authorizing a war with Libya, and it rejected that measure by a nearly 3-1 margin. It then considered a second measure to authorize acts of war against Libya just short of actual combat, including refueling tankers on their way to targets. The identification and selection of targets, operational support, operational planning, it rejected that measure as well.

The precedent being established right now by the President's deliberate defiance of the Constitution and the clear will of Congress has profound implications for our Nation's future. If this act is allowed to stand unchallenged, it means that the checks and balances painstakingly built into the Constitution on the supreme question of war and peace have been rendered meaningless.

Weeks ago, the House voted to deny authorization for the use of funds for the war on Libya effective October 1. This amendment simply follows through on that decision in the actual appropriations act.

Frankly, we need to do much more than this. Clearly, one of the conditions for increasing the debt limit must be to ensure that no funds, either borrowed or raised, should be used to continue to support this illegal act.

And we need to remember that a war once started cannot always be turned off by an appropriations act. Once we have attacked another country without provocation, we have created an aggrieved belligerent that now has cause to pursue that war regardless of what the Congress later decides.

That's why this precedent is so dangerous. That's why the President's actions are so devastating to our very form of government, and that's why we need to speak clearly and unequivocally through measures like that offered by the gentlemen from Michigan and Ohio today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. McClintock

Amendment No. 7: Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $1,304,636,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $1,304,363,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. McClintock

Amendment No. 8: Page 25, line 18, strike ``2012,'' and all

that follows through ``of the Treasury:'', and insert

``2012:''.

Offered By: Mr. McClintock

Amendment No. 9: Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $289,420,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $289,420,000)''.