Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as a leader on earmark reform among House Republicans, I am committed to honoring House Republican rules that provide for greater transparency. The fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act contains the following funding that I requested:

Requesting Member: Representative Zach Wamp.

Bill Number: H.R. 5658.

Account: Military Construction, Army National Guard.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Tennessee National Guard.

Address: 3041 Sidco Drive, Nashville, TN.

Description of Request: $10,372,000 for the construction of a new Army National Guard Readiness Center to replace the inadequate Readiness Center that was constructed in 1954. The existing facility has numerous health and safety issues as well as significant electrical code issues, and ADA violations. The new facility will house the 20th Troop Command, and the Company Headquarters of the 1175th Transportation Company. This project is in the Army National Guard's Fiscal Year 2012 Future Year Defense Plan.

Requesting Member: Representative Zach Wamp.

Bill Number: H.R. 5658.

Account: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Weapons Activities.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Y-12 National Security Complex.

Address: Oak Ridge, TN.

Description of Request: $5,000,000 in the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Program.

Operations and Facilities Account for basic operational needs at the Y-12 National Security Complex, a Department of Energy nuclear weapons manufacturing plant. Its vast facilities and infrastructure require routine maintenance as Y-12 performs its national defense and security missions.

Requesting Member: Representative Zach Wamp.

Bill Number: H.R. 5658.

Account: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Weapons Activities.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Y-12 National Security Complex.

Address: Oak Ridge, TN.

Description of Request: $3,000,000 in the Safety and Security Program to continue to improve the physical security at the Y-12 National Security Complex, a Department of Energy nuclear weapons manufacturing plant. Post 9-11, federal standards were created to achieve maximum safety at national security

sites. These funds will achieve compliance with the Design Basis Threat Policy.

Requesting Member: Representative Zach Wamp.

Bill Number: H.R. 5658.

Account: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Weapons Activity.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Y-12 National Security Complex.

Address: Oak Ridge, TN.

Description of Request: $2,000,000 in the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Program Storage Account for Y-12 National Security Complex, a Department of Energy nuclear weapons manufacturing plant. Y- 12 is transitioning to the new Highly Enriched Uranium Manufacturing Facility and following Congressional direction to transform and modernize the nuclear weapons complex.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I don't want to get into the blame game because the American people are sick and tired of the blame game. I think the truth is, Republicans screwed up running this place, and now Democrats are screwing up running this place. So there's plenty of blame to go around. And they're sick and tired of this process debate because they don't understand how it affects them.

But let me say to the people who are talking process. If the Congress is not going to work together on matters of the military funding at a time of war, the Congress is never going to work together. And that is the underlying problem, and it does affect our lives.

I've got a nephew in Iraq right now. I've got another nephew on his way to Afghanistan and that affects our lives.

I am the ranking member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. I heard my chairman, Mr. Edwards, whom I very much respect, go through 3 minutes of excellent reasons why to support this bill, but not one time did he talk about anybody on this side because we didn't have any voice in the process. He didn't compliment anything over here because we were not involved this time around. I think we should be.

And the way that they pay for the extras in this bill are with taxes. We don't want to raise your taxes. And I know that we're spending a lot of money in Iraq, but it's easy for everybody to forget, over half the Democrats in the United States Senate voted to remove Saddam Hussein by force. Almost half the Democrats in the House voted to remove Saddam Hussein by force.

The President of the United States acknowledged just a week ago that he never should have said ``Mission Accomplished,'' and he shouldn't have because it's not. We've got a long way to go.

This is the serious business of freedom, and it needs to be funded without all the extraneous stuff, and frankly, all the tricks associated with getting what they want in addition to what we need. And they're doing it with tax increases, and it's the wrong way. And I'm sorry, I'm not blaming anybody; we just need to do better.

Madam Speaker, the reality of 2008 is that the nexus between national security, energy, and the environment is the most important public policy issue that we face in this country. The nexus has a lot of different angles to it, but these three issues together is the greatest policy challenge that we face.

The farm bill is now in a sense an energy bill. The national security challenges that we face are indeed tied to the cost of oil. Unfortunately, these are the realities of what we face today.

Tomorrow in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory which is one of the lead laboratories in our country on alternative fuels, biofuels, research, mostly looking at cellulosic ethanol research and how to best bring that about, tomorrow at that laboratory my senior Senator, Senator Lamar Alexander, will lay out a Manhattan Project style approach to energy.

I don't want to preempt what he is saying there tomorrow, but he is joined tomorrow by Congressman Bart Gordon, a Democrat from our State who happens to be the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee here in the House on a Manhattan-style approach because of this nexus, because there is a lot of clamor about global warming and because people are looking to our country to take some leadership, and the President of the United States has said we do need to lead. I believe this is an opportunity for us.

But I will tell you what my position is on energy, and this is after 8 years as the Republican co-chairman of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House of Representatives, which is over half of the House, it is about 60 percent Democratic members and 40 percent Republican members. I have chaired it for 8 years with Mark Udall. I am the chairman of that, but my position on energy is an all- of-the-above position. It has to be an all-of-the-above position. We cannot pick winners and losers. They did that in California and the lights went out. You can't pick winners and losers, not when we have the capacity challenges that we have today. And we do have capacity challenges everywhere.

At $122 a barrel, this is a supply-and-demand problem. If the people who don't like us around the world that produce oil would increase the supply, the price would go down. Or if the demand would reduce by conservation and not so much growth in India and China, the price would go down. But this is a supply-and-demand problem. We have to have an all-of-the-above solution.

Let me talk about a few things because transportation is the big driver, and gasoline is the most painful thing for the average consumer. I would suggest to you today, and Members say this a lot, but I know a lot about this, alternative fuels are only a bridge to the future. They are not the end all. That is not where we are going to end up in terms of transportation.

We have such quick development in ion lithium batteries that the people in the auto industry will tell you that we will be plugging in our automobiles very, very soon at a cost-competitive price point, not like the hydrogen fuel cell which is a 25-year proposal because the cost is prohibitive today, we can't pay $300,000 for a car, so we can't have hydrogen fuel cell cars yet, but that technology is out there. And maybe it will work.

But I will tell you what will work right now in the marketplace is electric cars, and they are coming quick. Plug-in hybrids, GM and Toyota, the year after next, will be commercially viable at a price point such that consumers will use them. So fuels are important, but technology is going to develop. Transportation is two-thirds of our oil consumption, and we have to move quickly there because this is very, very painful.

But here is the technology opportunity for the United States of America, and I call this the in-tech agenda. How did the budget get balanced for 4 years here? I was here. I think Shimkus was here. Four years ago, Lee Terry was here. For 4 years in a row it got balanced, not by cutting spending. We did slow the growth of spending below inflation for 4 years which was very admirable because that hadn't been done in 40 years. But what we did do is we

had such a robust, export-driven U.S. economy that revenues surpassed expenses. That's how the budget got balanced.

Now what drove the revenues up? Well, guess what, we led in an area of the economy, and it boomed with our leadership, called the information world. Bill Gates and people like him so led the world that if you wanted the best in software and computers, for a long period of time they were from this country. I grew up when you didn't want to drive an American-made car. You didn't want to have an American-made television; for a while it had to be Japanese. Cars had to be German. Things changed. We led in the information world, and revenues surpassed expenses.

Guess what can happen early in the 21st century if we get off our tails: we can lead in energy technologies. We can solve the world's problem by being proactive and not even beat a retreat on climate change. I don't want to argue about how much man contributes to climate change because, frankly, the science is not clear on that. But it is an opportunity for us because if we provide these technology solutions to the world, the budget will get balanced again with a robust manufacturing-driven U.S. economy. Part of an all of the above.

We should provide the nuclear solutions to the world and not be afraid of it because, like the speaker said, in France and Great Britain and the Netherlands and other countries, nuclear is very much a part of their portfolio because they have a balanced portfolio, because they know they need to do these things in order to reduce their emissions.

While we are going to vigorously debate next year this issue of global warming, anybody in this place who says they are for cleaning up the air globally and making progress on zero emissions and carbon sequestration and reducing the carbon footprint and they are not for nuclear, they are kidding themselves because it has got to be a part of the portfolio given the capacity demands of today and tomorrow.

And if we are going to plug our cars in, capacity has to increase on energy. It is an all-of-the-above strategy.

Just today in the House, Congressman Steve Buyer, with me as an original co-sponsor, introduced the Main Street U.S.A. Energy Security Act. It opens the Outer Continental Shelf to responsible energy production. It allows energy development within the ANWR. It streamlines the refinery permitting process assisting new refineries to be built in the United States for the first time in 30 years. It supports the development of coal-to-liquid plants. It supports the building of more nuclear plants. It provides a 3-year production tax credit extension for wind, biomass, geothermal, and many of the renewable investments. It invests in research and development programs for the energy needs of tomorrow.

You say, What are you doing introducing that today? Well, that is just a package of things that we are reintroducing again that we voted on in this House over and over and over and over again in the last 14 years because I counted, and it is dozens and dozens of times that we have had these votes, and the people who were for more capacity lost. On the floor of this House, on the floor of the Senate, we lost.

Bill Clinton vetoed the bill to open up oil production in Alaska. I'm not picking on him. Maybe that is what people wanted then, but they sure don't now. Why are we not responding? Why is our head buried in the sand? We have to have an all-of-the-above policy to compete. And we can balance the budget again. It is good for us. The world sees us reducing our carbon footprint, leading with new energy technologies and solving the world's problems.

We sat on the couch from 1973 to 2008. Since the oil embargoes of 1973, we sat on the couch as Americans and didn't make the changes we needed to make. And now we are in a mess. A $122 a barrel mess. But we sat on the couch. Guess what happens when you sit on the couch and you don't exercise and you don't get ready; that's where we are. We have to change.

You cannot vote against energy capacity in any segment of our economy or energy production without ending up either the lights go out or the price is too high, access is not there, and people are hurting. That's where we are today. It is an all-of-the-above strategy.

Let me close on this note. I am a conservative, and conservation is a good thing. People can begin to reduce demand by conserving, and consumers can join us. We need to do better, and so does the consumer in this country. Use less, be sensitive to lights, drive less, move to smaller vehicles; demand goes down and price goes down. We need to do that, and it is not wimpish to propose that. It is a good, solid, pro- American thing. Let's be more efficient, let's move to alternatives. But I'm saying an all-of-the-above strategy. Don't say we can do all of this with renewables. It is not there to meet tomorrow's demand. We have to have all of the above. Some things are long term and I know that, but right now we have to respond. This takes a balanced approach.

I thank Members from both sides who have that attitude, and I look forward to tomorrow at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank Mr. Bartlett for this lesson. I should say Dr. Bartlett. It is rare that a person has been in Congress for as long as you have. I first met you, Congressman Bartlett, when you and I were running for Congress in the 1992 cycle. I did not prevail, and you did, so you got a 2-year jump on me here.

And I've been here on the floor in the past when we talked about this challenge, and my only regret tonight is that all of the Members of the House were not here to hear again your comprehensive explanation of some of these problems and the solutions and the realities, and that everyone in our country could not understand as well as you understand the realities of what we are seeing today.

I want to begin elementally by saying that the nexus between energy and national security and our environment is the most important policy challenge of our time. And all of the conflicts of the world have some relation to those three challenges. There's obviously religious undertones and whatnot, but those have been around forever. These challenges now all kind of collide. That's this nexus that I am talking about.

On the national security front, you mentioned Thomas Friedman's column, and there is one quote in it that I wanted to point out where he says, `` `There are 23 countries in the world that derive at least 60 percent of their exports from oil and gas and not a single one is a real democracy. Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and Nigeria are the poster children' for this trend where leaders grab the oil tap to ensconce themselves in power.''

That makes this peak oil challenge a critical national security problem for the United States of America.

When I talk about the environment, one of the most important issues now as we face the next Congress and the next administration after this fall's election will be the American response to this global warming challenge. And I would argue this: We can't deny the problem. We can't bury our head in the sand from the problem. We should not ignore it, but we better be very careful that we don't over-regulate our free society as we respond to it.

The world needs to see us proactively addressing this problem, but I would say the best way we can do it is deploy the technologies, use the innovation, parlay and capitalize on our free-enterprise system to solve these problems for the world, much in the same way that the information revolution in the last 30 years in this country was led by the United States of America and the likes of Microsoft; and in doing so, a robust U.S. economy erupted that led to a balanced budget in this modern era that was unprecedented where revenues actually surpassed expenses.

So we see energy and the environment and national security all come together.

Now, earlier tonight I talked about an all-of-the-above approach that I promote that we should promote because the capacity needs, both from transportation and fuels and electricity are so great, even today but even more so in the future, the capacity needs are so great with this demand that we have to not, in my view, leave anything off the table but have an all-of-the-above solution.

But I want to zero in, because you have rightly talked about these issues of conservation, efficiency, new technologies, renewables; and I want to highlight a few because I said earlier tonight on the floor, I'm a conservative. I think conservatives should promote conservation. That's a logical thing to say and to do. And that should be first and foremost, and it is not wimpish, as I said earlier, for us to promote conservation. It's smart. It reduces demand and lowers price. That's what we have to see. And it should be led by the top, and it should be a grassroots call for us to be as efficient as possible in all aspects of our life, frankly.

We have sat on the couch for a generation knowing these problems existed, and we haven't acted, and there's plenty of blame to go around. I don't want to come to the floor and blame everybody. There's a lot of that that goes on. Frankly, that's one reason people tune out Washington so much is there's too much of a blame game going on here. American people want these problems solved, but I really believe we should look at these incredible technologies that we have.

So let's talk a little bit about transportation because there's a Farm Bill coming. There's a lot of talk about alternative fuels.

I believe in the south that cellulosic ethanol will be part of the solution, but it's a bridge, in my view. Even at best, it's a bridge to the future. It's not the permanent solution. The fuel mix could certainly be improved, and cellulosic ethanol doesn't destroy our agriculture and our food capabilities and pricing like corn-based ethanol does, so that obviously has been a net loser for the environment; it has been a net loser for agriculture; it has been a net loser economically in some ways.

But cellulosic ethanol, say switchgrass that you don't eat, it could actually be productive in creating an alternative fuel. But that's a bridge to the future because if you ask the automotive industry leaders, they will tell you that in a couple of years, the price points on plug-in hybrids will be such that Toyota and General Motors in 2010 will have a cost-competitive plug-in hybrid.

So the vehicles of the future are going to run probably for a while on some form of electricity, some kind of a battery, an ion lithium battery. The technologies are developing very quickly. Imagine plugging your car in in your garage overnight and having it charged where you can take it 400 miles before recharging it and getting an equivalent horsepower of 260 to 280 horsepower. People would be excited about that if they could afford it. Right now the price point on a hydrogen fuel cell car is not cost effective. It's a couple hundred thousand dollars at best, which obviously is not ready for the marketplace. That may be 15 to 25 years from now.

And there is a silver lining in the cloud. You talked, Dr. Bartlett, about the silver lining during the Carter years, that it caused us to blunt the sharp increase in consumption. The silver lining today with these price points is that technologies are rapidly being deployed because the marketplace knows there's opportunity there.

And we were with the President of the United States yesterday discussing this, and he talked about that specifically that you're seeing the most rapid movement towards alternative transportation systems and technologies that we've seen in the modern era because people cannot afford gasoline today, and therefore, alternatives will hit the marketplace faster. And surely we could have done better in the past, but we've got to find these solutions so we're going to have some kind of electricity.

Now that brings all of the energy problems together when you're talking about electric cars because two-thirds of the oil consumption's in the transportation sector, and we've got some capacity problems in the electricity sector, and we are not bringing on nuclear plants at anywhere near the rate of European countries because we're still caught in this Three Mile Island time warp of safety and security. And the waste stream is such here that you can't permit a place to bury it, like Yucca Mountain, in a timely manner.

So we need to look at the proposition that they do in France of recycling the spent fuel back into energy. Reprocessing spent fuel. It's a closed-fuel cycle. We can do that. We should look at that. And we should bring nuclear up.

But I want to throw a new technology into the electricity production which could very well help us on transportation as we move towards battery-powered cars if they're cost effective. See, I believe the market will determine which ones come first and which one consumers will buy and which ones hit the price points quickest, and that's where people, I think, will buy.

So I think if electric cars or the plug-in hybrid is the first one there at $25,000, $35,000 for a new car, that's where consumers will go. But where is the electricity going to come from if we do this? We don't have the capacity right now to meet today's demand based on commerce and industry, let alone new transportation systems that need electricity.

And we are the most abundant source of coal. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal for the world. But we have got to, if we're going to take this leadership position on climate change and not bury our head in the sand, we've got to have clean coal technology, we've got to have carbon capture. We've got to invest there. We've got to still use coal, but it's also a finite resource, which you have identified.

Let me tell you about a new technology that's really got potential. It comes out of the Silicon Valley and the Tennessee Valley, interestingly enough, where I live. We're in a partnership with them. We have built a stationary solid oxide fuel cell system. It looks like the HVAC unit in your home. We now have a 100 kilowatt system, meaning it generates 100 kilowatts of electricity, and it runs off of one feedstock going in but no transmission system. So unlike the electricity that comes to your house, it is not connected on a grid somewhere to a power source. It's a standalone system for electricity production, but you do have to have a feedstock going in.

But this unit runs off of the feedstock as natural gas, can run off ethanol, it can run off of solar, it can run off of a variety of renewable sources; but it has to have a feedstock as you know--are you a physicist?

Physiologist. As you know it has to have a feedstock, but it has tremendous potential.

And just recently here in the House, I have promoted, and much to his credit, Dan Beard, the chief operating officer of the House, has been and viewed these systems as has the chairwoman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, been in consultation with us about the notion that in just a couple of years, we could take an entire House office building in Washington, D.C. and take it off of the fossil-fired powerhouse here on Capitol Hill, take it off of that coal powerhouse and put it on a solid oxide stationary fuel cell to demonstrate to the country that emissionless, completely emissionless, not nuclear, but through a new technology called a stationary solid oxide fuel cell, you could completely power and cool and heat and cool the water in a huge House office building or a 100,000 square foot commercial center with this new technology. Tremendous.

You would think every utility in the country would be interested in that because there is no transmission grid. It makes us more terrorist- proof because you can't shut down the transmission grid because everybody's got their own electricity source. And if transportation is moving towards electricity, it has tremendous potential.

I would just say that your energy efficiency, renewable energy, conservation programs should be at the forefront followed by a real understanding that we have capacity needs in this country. I, too, was in China in January. I have a great concern because what I heard and saw in China about their attitudes towards the environment is that this is indeed their industrial revolution and they're entitled to it.

The problem with them having an industrial revolution in 2008 is they're almost one-fourth of the world's population, and if they have an industrial revolution without environmental responsibility at the same time the rest of the world is being called on to reduce carbon and their carbon footprint, it's a regulatory burden to the industrialized world and it lets these developing nations, including China, off without those regulations.

That levelizes the world at our expense. That's a dangerous notion.

So back to the nexus. This is critical. You're taking excellent leadership. I want to thank you for that, and I want to thank you for the time tonight.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Sammy George of my hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee, as he departs the broadcasting industry at the height of his career with 35 years of service. Mr. George has been an outstanding leader at home, in the industry and within our community. Now that he will be spending more time with his family and friends, I want to take a moment to recognize his tremendous accomplishments and thank him for all he has done in Chattanooga.

Alter serving in the U.S. Marines in Vietnam, Sammy returned to his hometown of West Blocton, Alabama, where he worked as a disc jockey, DJ. He moved to Chattanooga in 1985 to become the general manager of the upstart radio station WUSY US-101 where he has remained for more than 22 years.

During his term, the station has won countless awards and has been recognized for its distinction and excellence These include nine Country Music Association Station of the Year awards, four R&R Station of the Year awards, one Academy of Country Music Station award, a National Association of Business, NAB, Marconi for Personality of the Year and the NAB Crystal award.

Most importantly, Sammy has focused his talent and energy on helping those in need. He has humbly led our community in raising millions of dollars for charitable causes, including $5 million for the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and $800,000 of supplies for Hurricane Katrina victims.

Sammy retires as the market manager for Clear Channel/Chattanooga where he oversaw three popular radio stations: WUSY US-101, WLND 98.1 The Legend, and WRXR Rock 105. After taking some much deserved time off, he will bring his wealth of experience to Northwest Georgia Bank where he will be vice-president for new business.

Sammy George is a man of integrity, loyalty and outstanding leadership, and I am proud to recognize him today.

Madam Speaker, the nexus between national security, energy, and the environment is one of the most important issues of our time. And on energy, I'm an all-of-the-above Republican. It is wise to conserve, and we need to promote conservation. It is wise to advance energy efficiency technologies. We need to invest. But new capacity, new energy sources are also sorely lacking. We need new national gas supplies in this country. We need refinery capacity. We need our own oil, albeit limited. But we've got to, number one, grow our capability to create energy in our country to be energy independent.

I want to talk about nuclear energy because the cars of the future are going to run off of lithium batteries, some form of electric. We've got to have new capacity. We need nuclear energy in this country to be self-sufficient even on transportation. If we're going to reduce our carbon footprint, don't leave nuclear off the table.

This is a time to come together for new energy technologies, to promote an in-tech agenda, to actually balance the budget again with a robust manufacturing economy. It's pro-American.

Madam Speaker, as I closed the rally today with 400 veterans in support of our troops and their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, I quoted John Stuart Mill, who said, ``War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral unpatriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A person who has nothing for which they are willing to fight, nothing they care more about than their own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of ever being free unless those very freedoms are made and kept by better persons than themselves.''

Those better persons are our Nation's veterans, the men and women in uniform, and today may God almighty, Jehovah God, bless and keep those brave Americans in harm's way on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because every now and then a person's story will so inspire us that the example is set for all young people to look up to, to follow in their footsteps. And that happened 9 days ago to a young man from East Tennessee whom so many people are so very proud of today.

His name is Jordan Leen. And 9 days ago, in the 157 pound weight class at Cornell University, Jordan Leen achieved his life's ambition of becoming a national champion. Among all universities from sea to shining sea, against some very difficult odds, this young man became a national champion.

He has moved up weight classes in his last couple of years at Cornell until he got comfortable and didn't have to lose weight to wrestle. So this is probably about his natural weight. He's what my son would call a ``beast.'' I've seen him in all ways of his life.

He beat the number one seed, even though he was seeded eighth going into the tournament in the quarter finals, and he beat the number two seed in the finals just 3-2 in the most hard-fought match you've ever seen. And it was glorious. It was electric. He was distinguished through his high school career. And I want to focus on three things that made Jordan Leen a champion so others can look up to him and know that these are some of the ingredients for success.

One is family. His father, Mark; his mother, Tammy; his sisters, Andrea and Tara, they're a unit. The scriptural principle is that a cord of three strands is not easily broken; and with the Leens, a cord of five strands is not broken. They're a unit. They're a team. I know this because this young champion grew up across the street from me. He and my son, Weston, are best friends. This was a glorious moment not just in my family's life but in all of these Tennesseeans' because this family was represented on the mat in front of the national ESPN audience a week ago Saturday, and we all took joy in this accomplishment from this fighter. He had been sick the week of the national championship, but he battled through that to become a national champion.

Ingredient number two, a foundation. He got it at the Baylor School with an outstanding wrestling program, an incredible tradition, and the foundation was there for him to become a collegiate athlete and a scholar athlete. He was the greatest wrestler in the history of the State of Tennessee by anyone's standard: a 4-year State champion; 215 victories; 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th State champion all the way through high school at the Baylor School. He had the foundation from the program, and Baylor School is proud.

And, third, faithfulness. He was faithful through the years. He had a goal and he stuck with it. His work ethic was greater than anyone's. He worked out harder. He fought harder. He suffered more through injuries. He was faithful all the way through. His father in the account said that that whole week of the championship he knew something was different because Jordan had turned the week over to the Lord. He was faithful. He gave it to God and said, I'm here to do my best. I'm sick, but I am here to do my best. And he was honored. And he was faithful.

He's an incredible young man. He's an inspiration to all. He's an excellent student, making a 3.3 at Cornell in pre-med, and a national collegiate champion in the 157 pound weight class.

Jordan Leen, East Tennessee salutes you. You're one of the greatest athletes in the history of our region. You have reached the climax, but you're still the same guy. And we love you for the example you have set for young people.

Young people, if you want to be a student athlete, follow Jordan Leen. Follow Jordan Leen.

Thank you, Jordan. Your family loves you, and we salute you on the floor of the House tonight.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I stood right here a few years ago against my party in favor of reform. I got scars on my back from standing for reform. But I heard John Tanner say when I got to Congress that neither party has an exclusive on integrity and ideas, and I believe that is true.

I want to tell you tonight, on the same platform I stood a few years ago when I joined then minority in this reform, there is good reform and there is bad reform. This is bad reform. I don't care what you say about it, how kind you are about it, this is bad reform. It is not good for the institution. It is not workable.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a four-page document by Ken Kellner, the senior counsel for your majority Ethics Committee, explaining all the problems.

Review of Task Force Proposal

Bill: I looked over the draft resolution forwarded by Rep.

Smith. I suggest you review it closely as well. Review of the

draft was not to critique the need for or merits of the

proposal, but to identify areas in which the proposal would

interfere with the operations of the Committee. We cannot

anticipate all plausible areas of concern prior to actual

implementation, but I did the best I could.

1. The new ``Office'' or ``Board'' is expressly authorized

to take up matters on its own initiative and to conduct

interviews and obtain testimony in its ``review'' of such

matters. See Section 1(c)(1)(A). This raises several

concerns, listed below:

As the Committee noted in its earlier feedback to the task

force, the interview of witnesses by both the new entity and

the Committee might result in conflicting statements that

would undermine the value of testimony from that witness.

Statements from witnesses would also likely be obtained

prematurely due to the time deadlines imposed on the new

entity. Sometimes there are valid investigative reasons not

to reveal the existence of an investigation to a witness

until other witnesses are interviewed or other evidence

obtained. In the course of its proceedings, the new entity

might reveal critical evidence or information to key

witnesses. The failure of those witnesses to keep this

information confidential may be very harmful to the integrity

of any future Committee inquiry.

The ``self-initiation'' discretion could undermine current

rules that limit complaints to those filed by Members. An

agent could provide information to the new entity that would

trigger review under its rules. There is no accountability as

to the source of information, unlike with respect to

``complainants,'' who must certify that the ``information is

submitted in good faith and warrants the review and

consideration of the Committee,'' and who must provide a copy

of the complaint and all attachments to the respondent. See

Committee Rules (d) and (e).

2. The new entity must ``transmit to the individual who is

the subject of the second-phase review the written report and

findings of the board[.]'' See Section 1(c)(2)(C)(ii). In

addition, the report will include ``findings of fact,'' ``a

description of any relevant information that it was unable to

obtain or witnesses whom it was unable to interview [] and

the reasons therefore,'' and a recommendation for the

issuance of subpoenas where appropriate.''

It is a bad idea for the Committee's purposes that the

``written report and findings of the board'' be transmitted

both to the Committee and to the individual under review.

This will provide information to a potential respondent at an

inappropriate stage, including alerting the respondent as to

witnesses who have been identified as potential recipients of

subpoenas. At a minimum, this would provide opportunities for

the coordination (or appearance of coordination) of

testimony. Potential respondents would also be alerted as to

difficulties encountered in obtaining information from

certain witnesses. This could discourage negotiated outcomes

if a respondent knows that certain individuals are not

cooperating witnesses.

This process is not sensitive to the need for

confidentiality of witness information at the early stages of

an investigation. Members, staff, and private individuals

should be able to provide information in confidence, at least

at the initial stages. The new rules may have an anti-

whistleblower effect and possibly employment ramifications

for individuals as well. For example, what if it is revealed

that a current employee is providing or refusing to provide

information about his or her employing Member? A previous

ethics task force was ``mindful'' of the need to ``protect

the confidentiality of a witness prior to publicly

disclosing'' a statement of alleged violation. Report of the

Ethics Reform Task Force on H. Res. 168, 105th Cong., 1st

Sess. at 25 (June 17, 1997).

The proposal is also inconsistent with Committee rules and

practices that keep investigative information confidential.

Under Committee Rule 26(f), evidence gathered by an

Investigative Subcommittee that would potentially be used to

prove a violation ``shall be made available to the respondent

and his or her counsel only after each agrees, in writing,

that no document, information, or other materials . . . shall

be made public until'' a Statement of Alleged Violation is

made public by the Committee or an adjudicatory hearing is

commenced.

There is no rule or precedent in effect for the new entity

for dealing with concerns of the Department of Justice in

cases of concurrent jurisdiction. As noted, under the

proposed process, there is considerable potential for the

making of inconsistent statements by witnesses and for the

release of confidential information. It this occurs, it

could easily undermine active criminal investigations.

The Board may make ``findings of fact'' as part of their

submission. This is generally a

function for a trier of fact after an opportunity for a

defendant/respondent to cross-examine witnesses or challenge

the evidence. What if the findings differ from those reached

by the Committee?

3. There appears to be a requirement that the Committee

publicly disclose Board submissions to the Committee. See

Section 3(2). This would occur if the Committee declines to

empanel an Investigative Subcommittee or if one year has

passed from the date of the referral from the new entity.

This means that the Committee must release the Board's

findings, even if the Committee has already determined to

handle the matter non-publicly. This is inconsistent with the

discretion now with the Committee (and investigative bodies

generally) to exercise judgment as to what matters to address

in a non-public fashion. With the possibility of review by

the new entity and public disclosure of conduct, there will

be greatly reduced incentive for witnesses and investigated

parties to cooperate with the Committee or to do so with

complete cooperation and candor.

This procedure also may place artificial pressure on an

Investigative Subcommittee to complete its work in well less

than a year, regardless of the impact on the investigation.

While such a time period may be sufficient, neither the

Department of Justice nor other law enforcement entities and

regulatory bodies, are subject to such limitations as they

would generally impact adversely on the completeness of an

inquiry.

4. A provision in the proposal provides that the Office

will cease its review of a matter on the request of the

Committee ``because of the ongoing investigation of such

matter by the Committee.'' See Section 1(d).

This rule should be clarified to make clear that it

includes informal fact-finding efforts by the Chair and

Ranking Member of the Committee. Otherwise, this important

rule may only have effect in the unusual case of empanelled

subcommittees. New language could be ``because of the ongoing

review of this matter by the Committee in accordance with the

Committee's rules.'' Section 1(d) and Section 3(3) should be

revised.

5. If the new entity ceases such review at the request of

the Committee it will ``so notify any individual who is the

subject of the review.'' See Section 1(d).

There are valid circumstances under which the Committee

would not want to notify an individual that it is undertaking

review of a matter until it is ready to do so for valid

investigative and privacy reasons. In general, it is not the

routine practice of law enforcement entities to notify

individuals. Such disclosures could trigger protective

behaviors that might undermine an investigation, as well as

lead individuals to hire of attorneys (perhaps unnecessarily

and at considerable expense). [By analogy, would it be

appropriate in all cases to notify a respondent that the

Committee has referred evidence of criminal conduct to the

Department of Justice? In many cases, it is in the interests

of criminal law enforcement that such referrals be made in

confidence.]

6. The new entity must adopt a ``rule requiring that there

be no ex parte communications between any member of the board

and any individual who is the subject of

any review by the board.'' See Section 1(c)(2)(E)(iv).

This provision should be revised to prohibit communications

from any interested persons and any member of the board, as

well as make explicit that ex parte contacts include those

made by counsel. A useful provision to examine in considering

ex parte prohibitions is the provision contained in Federal

Election Commission regulations pertaining to contacts with

any Commissioner. See 11 C.F.R. Sec. 201.2.

Kenneth E. Kellner,

Senior Counsel, Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct.

They kept a lid on it till today, and the bill is up tonight, and here it is. It is bad reform.

If you think that the steroid and baseball hearings are a distraction over the business of the people of this country, wait until tomorrow when this goes into effect, when outsiders are firing political shots at each other, listening to people back home want us to quit bickering and sniping and firing shots at each other and get these important things done for them.

The gentlelady said she yields the customary time. This is not a customary process. The rule was shut down. There are no substitutes, there is no recommit, there are no alternatives, and there is no consideration of a bipartisan alternative by two people with integrity who have been working together for weeks to have a day to say, no, this is a better approach.

Have former Members, first time ever that outsiders are part of this process, but they are former Members. They have no ax to grind. They will call it like it is. Let's take a logical step.

But let me tell you, if this is based on trying to hold the House, that's a false strategy. When we put our reelection as a majority above the people's business and honor and integrity we lost, and we should have, and you are doing the same thing.

Don't do this, House. It's not good for this country, and it's not good for us.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to make our colleagues aware that besides the Smith bill, which I'm pleased to hear the Rules Committee will take time to hear, there is another bipartisan alternative that Mr. Hill of Indiana and myself have offered as well where there is substantial bipartisan support for a third alternative that's not a Democratic or Republican bill, but when we are considering matters of the House, it is truly a bipartisan compromise. And the gentleman is on his feet from Indiana as well, and I thank you for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Frank Wolf for a distinguished career of public service. We honored the life of Tom Lantos today here in Congress, but Frank Wolf is the same kind of person as Tom Lantos in terms of always caring about what is right, what is just, human rights anywhere and everywhere in the world that need our attention in the greatest Nation in the history of the world. Frank Wolf is one of the people here that I look to always for the integrity on decisions that are controversial, that are impassioned. He seems to have a level- headed approach that honors the Constitution, honors what is right.

So here we are again working together. Jack Kingston and Frank Wolf and I, as long-standing Members of the Appropriations Committee, know that this is a problem. This abuse of earmarks has created clearly the need for sweeping reforms of this process. But I think that we need to do it the right way instead of the wrong way.

One of the things I like about John McCain is that he doesn't pander to people based on whatever might be popular for the moment. The right approach to this particular problem with congressional earmarking in 2008 is to step back and establish a bipartisan, bicameral select committee to overhaul the process in its entirety.

I say that because any kind of a ban that is temporary or only for an individual is not lasting. So if you pledge to say no earmarks, well, for how long and who all is affected, and how about the Senate, how about the House, how about the executive branch, how about everybody else? Because unless it is a systemic change, it is not a permanent change; it is not a real change. It is a political posture. Therefore, we should be careful not to pander on this issue, but truly seek change. I think that is what this does.

This select committee, what is a select committee? Well, Congress has this provision so that that committee can rise above the other committees. It has subpoena power. It has tremendous authority. It is unusual. But it is a committee set up to reform a system like this.

Now, a lot of people don't realize that article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution clearly says that Congress shall appropriate the money. We need also look at history and realize over the last 40 years there is a continuing separation of powers under way where the executive branch pulls and pulls more and more authority from the legislative branch.

One of the things that this select committee would allow us to do is over a 6-month period of time, with five public hearings, have a national debate about what is the Congress' role, what is the executive branch's role, both under the Constitution and in reality.

Just 2 weeks ago, February 1, the President's budget request came over. Actually, it was February 4. But when it came over, it was full of specific requests for specific programs which are an earmark. They are earmarks. So one of the first things we need to do with this select committee is define what is an earmark, because right now it is not clear as to what is and is not an earmark.

For instance, is it an earmark for a Member of Congress to request an increase in a specific account at the National Institutes of Health? If it is the National Institutes of Health and you believe that it should be increased and you are a Member of the United States Congress, and under article I, section 9 you have the authority to appropriate money, that should not be an earmark. But I have got news for you. A lot of things right now classified as an earmark should not be an earmark. It should be programmatic in nature; it should be looked at in a different way.

So this whole system needs an overhaul, and that select committee can get to that without people claiming turf protection or feeling like you are stepping on their toes, and then they can come back with these recommendations that would have the force of law and truly change this whole process without the legislative branch retreating from its constitutional responsibility or just ceding more and more authority to the executive branch, many times to people at the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, that submits these budget requests, who are neither elected nor educated enough on these issues to actually make these recommendations. That why it is important for elected representatives to do this in a very responsible way. The select committee is exactly that approach, the responsible way to do this.

It is comprehensive in nature. As Representative Wolf said, it doesn't just apply to the Appropriations Committee. It applies to authorization committees, tax and trade and tariff bills, the executive branch requests, the whole gambit of direction of funding of appropriated dollars. And the whole thing needs to be reformed.

I will give you an example. The Bridge to Nowhere request is one of the most egregious earmarks that we can point to, and it did not come through the Appropriations Committee. It was in fact an authorization bill from the Transportation Committee. That is gas tax dollars that every 5 years the Congress directs to this projects or that projects or this priority or that priority, and in fact that Bridge to Nowhere was an authorization bill. So you can wipe out all the earmarks on appropriations; and if that is allowed to continue, the most egregious abuse we can point to continues.

You need a comprehensive and systemic approach to this, and that is why we have had consensus developing in our conference on the Republican side for basically a timeout, a moratorium: 6 months, no earmarks, hold up the trains, let's stop and do this right. But do it responsibly. Don't just willy-nilly say we are going to do this for political purposes or that for political purposes, or we are going to grandstand or pander. No, we are going to do this the way that people 50 years from now can look back and study the record and say, they put the institution and its congressional prerogatives and responsibilities above the passions of the moment, and they recognized that some people abused it and that needed to be cleaned up and reformed and changed, but they did not give the people down the street at the executive branch more and more authority and violate the separation of powers under the Constitution of the United States.

This is an important principle as we go forward on how to truly have a systemic approach to clean this mess up. But it needs change. Anybody who thinks that this system stands the ``smell test'' in America is wrong. It needs to change, and we are trying to change it from this place because that is the responsible thing to do. People have abused it.

I would argue that the last election in 2006 was lost by our party in large part because of these abuses of earmarks, on authorization, tax, trade, energy bills and appropriations, and we could use an overhaul, a statutory framework that the House and the Senate would both have to adhere to. The public is demanding it.

So some self-imposed thing is not going to bring about systemic change. Systemic change is what this institution needs, change that will still be here 10 years from now, not just for the next election. This shouldn't be political; it should be bipartisan.

Just this week, one of the leading Democrats here in the House basically called for the same thing. He said we ought to have a moratorium; we ought to have a timeout and we need to overhaul this practice. His name is Henry Waxman. I talked to him today. I don't want to put words in his mouth. But I was encouraged that one of the leading Democrats said the same thing, basically: we need to have a comprehensive reform of this process known as earmarking.

But I believe step one is to define it, what is and what is not an earmark, and then go forward. Things that are

existing by law that have been around for a long period of time should not be an earmark.

Another thing we need to do is separate the ability of people to have a cottage industry through lobbying for earmarks. That, frankly, makes everybody in Washington look bad. It erodes the public trust over a period of time.

There are times where someone advocating for you for a specific cause in this country is necessary, and that is called lobbying. Today lobbying has a bad name. If I was a lobbyist I would want these reforms so that my reputation is not tarnished. Just like we appropriators, Wolf, Kingston, Wamp, Kirk, Culberson, Weldon, Goode and others that have helped us with this cause, we don't want our integrity tarnished by the people who abused this prerogative under the Constitution.

They are the ones, just like the local law enforcement guy who takes a bribe, all police officers are not like that, and all Members of Congress are not going to do what these people did. Thankfully, the people that have violated our trust are either under investigation or they are already gone or some of them are in jail. But the system needs to be cleaned up so that they cannot do that again. That is what hasn't happened. Frankly, there are some people in this institution who are kind of arrogant about this, saying that it ought to continue and that there is no reason for reform. But that is not true either.

So we have got to meet in a rational, logical way. That is why the select committee approach is the right approach. I am very, very proud to stand with Representatives Wolf and Kingston and others in support of this approach, and we will have a moratorium on earmarks until we make the needed changes to begin to restore the public trust and uphold the honor and the dignity that should be associated with our fulfilling our responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mahatma Gandhi once said that if all of the people who profess to be Christians would act like Jesus, the world would be at their feet. And I was reminded of that last week, because when we gathered Sunday morning for the Johnson Atchley Sunday School class at Red Bank Baptist Church where I go, ironically the lesson was on witnessing; and many times people consider ``witnessing'' as sharing the Gospel verbally. But we all know the most powerful witness that anybody can give of their faith and their commitment to the Lord is in what they do. And, man, did we ever see that again last week in Tennessee.

I have to tell of the people in Madison County who've been hit and hit and hit again over the last several years by tornados because one of the students at Union University, who was hurt very badly, is David Wilson, who happens to be a very, very close friend of my family. His parents are two of my wife's and my best friends, and he cotaught that Sunday school class with me at Red Bank Baptist Church for a number of years. His son was transported today from the hospital in Madison County across the street to Erlanger Hospital in Chattanooga where he will be continuing in recovery. But he was hurt critically, and he was underneath the rubble for 4 hours with other students at Union University.

I have got to tell you, the experience that the family saw there was a witness of their faith and their goodness. They not only had the basics of water and food and shelter, they found a home and they took care of them, but they went and got him eyeglasses and met every single need, and they made sure he was flown back to the hospital at home today and met every single need. And that's how people express their love for God is by sharing what they have with others, especially in a time of need.

Tennesseans are good people. And, man, when folks are hurting, everybody comes to help. We saw it again in Madison County. And on behalf of the Wilson family, I want to say from the other end of the State, thank you to the good people of that entire area where the tornados hit yet again. Thank you to Union University for meeting every need. Thank God none of the students died.

David Wilson has got a long, long road back to stand and walk again. We pray for the Wilsons. We pray for David. We pray and thank God for all the people who helped at this time of need. Just appreciate the goodness of the people of Tennessee who came out and helped in so many ways and all of those professionals that were there, it has been said.

And thanks to this delegation for pulling together yet again. And for the people who were hurt in other States and affected and for loss of life, our prayers went up. This is really what it's all about is people being there, because that's really all we are here for is to love God and to serve others.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), which continues to be recognized for its critical work on environmental issues. The United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, ``for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change,'' according to the Nobel announcement. The IPCC has benefited from the contributions of ORNL in several areas, from scientific research and policy studies to state-of- the-art tools and facilities.

Several ORNL researchers are co-authors, and in some cases, lead authors on IPCC studies and documents as part of a global effort to assess the realities and risks of human-induced global climate change on the basis of peer reviewed and published scientific literature. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report produced four reports in 2007 that featured the involvement of ORNL scientists such as Corporate Fellows Tom Wilbanks and David Greene, and the Environmental Sciences Division's Paul Hanson, Virginia Dale and Gregg Marland.

A very significant portion of the IPCC's study involved modeling of how climate change will affect a variety of important human and economic factors, from temperature to electrical costs. The scientific discovery for applications such as climate change modeling and simulation would not be possible without ORNL advanced computing capabilities, due to the enormous scale and complexity of climate data collected. ORNL's Center for Computational Sciences, home of the world's most powerful supercomputer for open science, ran the extremely complex models and provided infrastructure for more than one-third of the total U.S. contribution to the IPCC report.

The climate study is the culmination of a six-year international effort. Regardless of one's views on climate change, there is no question that ORNL's computing resources and its human resources provided significant contributions to the IPCC. I am proud to honor the research that ORNL generates on an ongoing basis, but especially pleased to honor the leadership and commitment of everyone at ORNL for the efforts that contributed to the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007.

Madam Speaker, I consider it a privilege to follow the distinguished Speaker of the House in recognizing our support for the people of Pakistan and our remorse that the world community of peacemakers has lost the great Benazir Bhutto. I, too, considered her a personal friend. I spent many hours with her, mostly associated with the National Prayer Breakfast here.

During the years she was in exile, she came many times to our National Prayer Breakfast, which is always the first Thursday in February. She was a proud participant in the Islamic tradition. However, she was always interested in the teachings of Jesus, and she was very much fascinated by the concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation,

and the principles that the last would be first and basically the way that the teachings of Jesus turned the world upside down. And we had coffee with her. We had lunches with her. My wife and I had dinner with her and her controversial husband and got to know him when he was here the last time she was here and visited with us.

She was truly a courageous human being, someone who understood the West, yet maintained her solid heartfelt conviction to her favorite country, Pakistan. She spent a lot of time with us, and she truly was a peacemaker.

I believe the greatest way to honor her courageous death would be for us to work tirelessly to empower the moderates within Islam to stand with us against radicalization, in any faith, frankly. But today, particularly in the Islamic faith, the radicals threaten the world. Yet 92 percent of people within Islam believe that terrorism is not an acceptable means to an end. And she was a leader among that 92 percent.

The problem is 8 percent of Islam is 130 million people who think that terrorism is acceptable, and those are the people that killed her. And they will kill anyone who threatens their ideology. And they killed her.

We need to empower all of the moderates within this very large religion to stand with us against the radicals, and then we can honor her courageous death. She will live on though, really through eternity, as one who, as Mike Pence said, was willing to lay down her life for a friend.

I will quote another Christian idea. It is in the Beatitudes. ``Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.'' Benazir Bhutto was a peacemaker. She gave her life for a cause, and the entire world should be grateful.