war ii. unemployment hit a 26-year high, consumer confidence plummeted, the gross domestic product contracted at near unprecedented levels. the stock market plunged, foreclosures skyrocketed and millions of americans found themselves out of work. monthly job losses continue to worsen each month in september of 2008 the monthly losses were more than 300,000. by december, 2008, and january, 2009, in the waning days of the bush administration, job losses exceeded 700,000 and it wasn't just 2008. under the clinton administration, from 1993 to 2000 the average monthly private job growth was 217,000, one of the most robust job growths in american history. during the bush eight years that average monthly job creation was just 2,000. . as this administration took

office in january, we immediately took action on a number of fronts. the recovery act provided critically important investments, save or creating 1.6 million jobs so far. states and localities would have been forced to layoff hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, and firefighters, but the recovery act saved those jobs, including, in my district, 404 teachers in fairfax county and 304 in prim -- prince william county. businesses in my district received at least 205 contracts, grans, and loans, totaling almost $200 million thanks to the recovery act. they have had a noticeable impact. the unemployment rate in my district began to fall in advance of the national rate, declining in october from 5.3% to 5.2% in prince william county, and from 4.7% to 4.5% in fairfax. it re-authorized the cops

program. the 21st century green schools act and student aid and fiscal responsibility act invested billions of more dollars to modernize public schools and community college campuses, creating tens ever thousands of new construction jobs. the american clean energy and security act creates incentives for new research and development creating thousands of new jobs, opportunities related to the production of advanced batteries, wind, turbine, solar power, and other sustainable technologies. in addition, madam speaker, we passed a number of bills to spur small business job creation through tax incentives and employment opportunities for our veterans. ultimately for sustainable job growth the private sector must feel comfortable to return to hiring employees. large companies will not expand while the value of their firm drops. small companies will not expand while the owner's assets are disappearing, and those assets did drop. from its high of over 14,000 in october of 2007, the dow jones industrial average began a

precipitous decline to just over 6,600 in march of this year. since then, thanks to our actions, the market's recovered more than 50%. companies will not expand while consumer confidence declines and it did key klein to 25 points in february of this year. the lowest level since the conference board's inception since 1967. since then, thanks again to our actions, consumer confidence has improved hitting 48.7 in october. companies will not expand while the national economy is contracting and it did indeed contract. starting in the third quarter of 2008 it declined an astounding 6.3% in the fourth quarter and 5.7% in the first quarter of 2009. but our actions have helped. g.d.p. increased 2.8% in the third quarter of 2009 and continues to grow this quarter as well. this february, the horrific pace of job losses began to ease. job losses in pay fell to 300,000. in august they averaged 135,000

a month. in november, just 11,000 jobs net were lost in the american economy. continuing to contribute to the decline in the unemployment rate. madam speaker, we are not out of the woods just yet. millions of americans are still out of work. but we have started to turn the economy around. we have begun to stabilize the stock market, the housing sector, and the g.d.p. madam speaker, we have begun to create conditions for job growth and now we must partner with the private sector to ensure that millions of americans can return to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. dicks from washington. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> ask unanimous consent to assume the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: madam speaker, thank you very much. on the kansas prairie in a small town named smith center, an exceptional tradition has been built and maintained over the course of decades. the redmond of smith center high school have acheeved great

things on the football field. there are few football fans in kansaser who are unaware of their reputation. the parents and boosters of smith center high school have watched with pride as their sons bested opponents on the gridiron in 79 consecutive contests. the coach and his redmond football team have won over 300 games in the past 32 seasons. they have wracked up five state championships -- eight state championships, five in a row. smith center was on the longest active 11-man high school football winning streak in the nation. the streak was snapped in kansas state 2-1-a championship game two weeks -- 2-a championship game two weeks ago. every man on the squad experienced their first high school defeat at the hands of the panthers. it was a heartbreaking loss for an extraordinary group of boys. i had opportunity to participate in several pregame coin flips over the past few

seasons, including this year's state title game. each time i witnessed a very talented football team with a very spirited group of fans. yet all the success the team has enjoyed on the field has never been what it makes them so remarkable. football is just what attracts note right -- notoriety and applause. it's the building of character and lifelong traits that matter. following their first loss in six years, the coach reminded his players we have never judged ourselves on wins and losses. the truly exceptional work being done on the plains of kansas is the development of character in the boys of smith center football team and the students of smith center high school. it is the respect each athlete is taught by their coaches. it's the insistence of integrity, insisted upon by their teachers. it's the values instilled in each son by their parents and community. joe, a "new york times" sportswriter, recently authored

a book entitled "our boys, a perfect season on the plains with the smith center redmond." in his book he exstoles the virtues we in rural america hold dear -- humility, sacrifice, unwavering commitment all are characteristics that are exemplified by the redmond and their fans. additionally as i was told by one of the game officials after the state title game, this is the only team that year after year every game they gather on the field, hold hands, and a prayer is offered by one of the coaches or one of the players on the team. redmond football is what received the attention but behind the scenes is where the most impressive and longest lasting accomplishments are discovered. football is simply a teaching tool used by the community. the coach was quoted in the book as stating, none of this is really about football. what we are doing is sending kids into life who know that every day means something. this attitude exemplifies the teaching, coaches, and parenting philosophy of rural

america. our population may be dwindling and our communities aging, but our commitment to raising good children and preparing them for life after high school is something that will never diminish. school pride is important to a community, but it pails in comparison to the role of teacher, coach, or parent plays when he or she helps a child succeed. i'm thankful that coach barta and his staff understand this and i'm thankful to come from a part of the country that understands this. congratulations to the smith center redmond, their football team for their remarkable success, and thanks to the team, the community, and school that they are such great ambassadors for our way of life on the plains of kansas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton from indiana. mr. sestak from pennsylvania. without objection, the gentleman has five minutes.

mr. sestak: madam speaker, i rise to honor and mourn the loss of a great american. rear admiral david m. stone, united states navy retired, recently passed away. as a result, we are a lesser nation. he was a proud son of illinois not the commonwealth of pennsylvania. my state. but i am compelled to see that the achievements of this remarkable man are forever captured in the record of our proceedings because david stone was my shipmate. regraduated from the united states naval academy in 1974 and served as surface warfare officers for nearly three decades. in the course of those years, i witnessed dave stone consistently offer our nation all of his enormous talent and energy. at the academy, he led navy's basketball team with an unmatched passion and competitive spirit. upon commission as an ensign he went to sea with a work ethic

and selflessness that characterized the very best of the graduates of annapolis. with a total commitment to the personal and professional excellence. he never forgot the importance of a sailor's family and he put in countless hours tending to the concerns of a parents, wives, and children who sacrifice so much in offering the loved ones to the naval service. tactically his fighting spirit and natural sense of competition drove him. systems operators and decisionmakers to outthink and outfight every adversary. when our fleet was challenged by maintenance concerns, he rolled up his sleeves and took charge of the most complex engineering plan the navy had devised. he set a standard for engineering readiness that astounded only those who did not know him. as a result, his rise from the ranges was deservedly fast.

every ship and sailor he served reached new standards of excellence. he commanded the u.s.s. john hancock 981. destroyer squadron 350. and the u.s.s. nimitz aircraft carrier battle group with skill, courage, and extraordinary professionalism. he was the officer. our nation needed in the persian gulf as that theater became increasingly dangerous. he was the surface warrior, best qualified, to support actions in the adriatic that helped close hostilities in kosovo quickly and favorbly. on his promotion to admiral, he was offered the precisely the intellect and sense of the world our navy and nation needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. upon retirement, his patriotism and sense of responsibility continued unabated. as a first federal security director los angeles international airport, and

later as head of the transportation security administration, he helped security our frorgs infrastructure so quickly and so completely that his work stands out as one of our government's greatest and most impressive post-9/11 achievements. however dave always considered his greatest achievement the fortune to fall in love with and marry his wide. -- bride. of clearwater, florida. together dave and faith represented all that was right and good about life in the naval service. they were partners and best friends to the joy and pain of countless deployments, household moves, and the pressures of ever increasing responsibilities for the safety of our nation's greatest treasure. the young men and women who wear the uniform of our military. madam speaker, i ask that we pause to reflect upon the many contributions admiral dave stone made to our country and the world and to thank faith

stone for inspiring her husband to serve us all so proudly. through the pain and frustration of losing this great shipmate every who knew, loved, and spreekted dave is comforted by the fact that today there are countless midshipman at indianapolis -- annapolis who will follow his model. therein lies the greatness of the united states navy and our nation and our shipmate and classmate dave stone. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: miss rinet. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that i be given the five minutes allotted now. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, madam speaker. following the antics of chavez and/or tagea, there were growing concerns over the ability of free people in the western hemisphere to defend democratic principles and

institutions against the assaults of these and other oppressors belonging to alba. the fierce commitment to democracy and the rule of law demonstrated by the people of honduras have renewed our optimism about the future of freedom and the consolidation of democracy in our region. last week the honduran national congress voted decisively to reject silas' return to office. the supreme court made this same ruling months ago and now it is final. the honduran supreme court, the attorney general, the national commission for human rights, and the honduran general accounting office were all consulted prior to this congressional vote and unanimously rejected the return. the united states has accepted the decision as a matter left to the discretion of the national congress and even some

of the strongest supporters inside honduras have finally publicly stated that their mission is no longer focused on his restitution. the writing is on the wall, madam speaker. the people of honduras are ready to write the post-silas chapter of their nation's history. the newly elected president has already taken steps to help bring national reconciliation to honduras. last week, he began meeting with individuals from broad spectrums of the honduran government and society to discuss long-term goals for the future and stability of honduras, and he has already warned chavez not to intervene with honduras' sovereignty. .

it's time for responsible nations and specifically for us in the united states to turn the page and rebuild the relationship with the people of honduras. i am pleased that the obama administration has finally lifted the travel alert on honduras, which has had a severe economic impact on the well-being of american businesses operating in the country. however, this is just the beginning. honduras is a traditional ally of the united states and a vital partner to us in our regional counternarcotics efforts. it is under attack by narco traffickers and their violent network. just this morning, general gonzalez, the top anti-drug official in honduras, was assassinated. witnesses report that his body was riddled with bullets. general gonzalez and other high-ranking law enforcement officials engaged in the counternarcotics efforts in

honduras are declared targets of the drug trafficking network in the country. it threatens our vital security interests. as such, the u.s. must immediately restore all assistance, particularly counternarcotics cooperation, to honduras. visas and other nonsecurity-related assistance must also be reinstated. today, honor duran president-elect lobo travels to san jose to meet with the panamanian president. also on thursday, lobo will visited -- will visit the dominican republic. meanwhile, zelaya stays hidden. he has said, as long as i have brazil, as long as i have brazil's support i will be here.

well, brazil, the o.e.s. and any other country should not help him be so cowardly. the o.e.s. should stand up to zelaya so that freedom can prevail. regrettably, the countries announced during their meeting just today that they will not recognize the honor duran elections. -- honduran elections. but the people will not be deterred. the honduran people put their principles to the test. they looked to their congress, they looked to their supreme court, and finally they looked to themselves and carried out peaceful and successful elections. in closing, madam speaker, i would like to quote from honduran president-elect lobo who talked about recent developments in honduras. following his victory, which

was resounding, he said, and i quote, there were no winners and losers, only democracy has triumphed. i am happy looking forward to the future. you keep asking and zelaya, zelaya is history. he's part of the past, end quote. madam speaker, may democracy and freedom continue to triumph in the hemisphere and throughout the world. thank you for the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, may proceed. mr. kucinich: i request unanimous consent to claim five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: thank you very much. madam speaker, this morning i stood before this house and pointed out that a magazine did an investigation that showed that u.s. tax dollars were going to u.s. contractors who then gave the taliban money so that the taliban wouldn't attack shipment of u.s. goods

to u.s. troops. and, of course, u.s. troops would use those resources to attack the taliban. the war in afghanistan is a racket. we have a strategy to pay off insurgents, warlords, the taliban, and pretending that somehow this practice is going to help make an already corrupt central government more stable. i've been in this house now more seven terms. and i have seen the slow and steady erosion of the constitution of the united states, and in particular congressional authority with respect to article 1, section 8

of the constitution which very explicitly puts the power to create war in the hands of the united states congress, not in the hands of the executive. when the founders crafted the constitution, they were very clear that they did not want a monarchy. they wanted to what was called restrain the dogs of war by placing the power to commit men and women into combat in the hands of an elected congress. in this case, in the hands of the house of representatives. unfortunately, over a few generations we have seen that power of congress erode. today, according to abs -- according to abc news, hamid karzai, the president of afghanistan, in a joint press conference with secretary of defense robert gates said that his country's security forces

will need financial and training assistance from the united states for the next 15 to 20 years. now, since we're already spending at least $100 billion to $150 billion a year in afghanistan, we are now committed through mr. karzai, we're embarked on a strategy that could lead us to spend $2 trillion, maybe more. we've had speakers precede me today that talk about jobs in the united states. goes without saying we should take care of things here instead of pouring our resources into a corrupt

administration and furthermore engage in a kind of corruption through trying to pay off warlords and the taliban in order to prevent shipments to our troops. as president obama prepares toess can late military operations in afghanistan and pack -- to escalate military operations in afghanistan and pakistan, we need to look further. the united states has been involved in wars since this inception. the president has never submitted a report of the war powers resolution. madam speaker, when congress returns in 2010, i intend to bring to the floor of the house privilege resolutions reasserting this congressional prerogative. my bill will trigger a timeline for timely withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan and pakistan, invoke the war powers resolution of 1973, and secure the constitutional role of congress as directly elected

representatives of the united states for congress to decide whether or not america enters into a war or continues a war. despite the president's assertion that previous congressional action gives him the authority to respond to the attacks of september 11, 2001, a careful reading of the authorization of military force makes clear that this authorization did not supersede any requirement of the war powers resolution and, therefore, did not undermine congress' ability to revisit the constitutional question of war powers at a later date. we will have an opportunity in this house, in january, to vote on this issue of afghanistan and pakistan. and i urge my colleagues to join the resolution which i'll begin to circulate the notice of starting tomorrow. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hall of texas.

>> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hall: in the last few weeks, there's been some very disturbing correspondence that's surfaced and presents a real dilemma for the scientific community and even a greater dilemma for this congress as the united states climate change conference begins in copenhagen. as ranking member of the science committee, i'm concerned about these revelations dubbed by the press as, quote, climate gate, and their implications for the scientific community, congress and the american people. allegations of manipulations of scientific data would be troublesome under any circumstance. the fact that the scientific data in question here appears to be used as the basis of a global agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions or changes to the regulatory regime of the united states makes these allegations that much more disturbing. i've introduced a resolution which highlights concerns about

moving forward with greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of scientific data which email excheanings indicate have been manipulated or deleted in order to advance a political agenda. forcing americans to meet carbon emission reductions may worsen our high unemployment rate and slow our economy while other nations advance their own growth at our expense. considering the loss of confidence in the scientific process is even more troubling that policymakers are pushing forward with the scheme that could alter our economy and our prosperity. in the past few weeks through the disclosure of more than 1,000 emails, there is extensive evidence that many researchers across the globe discussed the destruction, alteration and suppression of data that did not support global warming claims. these exchanges include a leading climate scientist

encouraging other scientists to alter data that is the basis of climate modeling across the globe by using the, quote, trick of adding in the real attempt series to hide the decline in temperature. the u.s. science and technology council defines research misconduct as fabrication, faultification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research or in reporting research results. all of this would be troubling enough on the basis that much of this research is taxpayer funded. however, it's even more troubling when one considers that this data is held up as the reason to implement new regulations and laws and potentially enter into global agreements all in the name of reducing emissions. policymakers are asking citizens to agree to alter the economic structure of our country and possibly sacrifice jobs in the name of preserving this warming planning. even as these scientists final

lie accepted scientific practices and seek to stifle contrary points of view. federal policy for progressive research misconduct requires a full inquiry and full investigation of the misconduct as well as the research record and potential referral to the department of justice. i've sent a letter to the chairman of the science committee asking that there be an investigation into these matters. even more troubling is that these exchanges describe attempts to silence academic journalists that publish research skeptical of significant manmade global warming and refer the efforts to exclude contrary views from publication in the scientific journals. some encourage the deletion of data and emails to avoid disclosure in the event of the freedom of information request. all of this presents a troubling pattern of attempts not only to misrepresent the data on global warming. to me the expectations contained in the theories, but

also to cover up inappropriate data manipulation. the emails show that raw data not meeting an expectation of the scientists are showing a pattern of warming where altered and the raw data in question was destroyed so as to ensure no further examination. when accepted scientific practices are not followed, there can be implications well beyond the scope of the narrowly focused project. i believe that this is a situation we have before us. these documents reveal actions that may constitute the serious breach of scientific ethics in violation -- and violation of the public trust. certain actions appear to qualify under the definition of u.s. federal policy on research misconduct. while this investigation is an important step, the resolution stays states that the united states should not consider limitations unless a robust overnight and oversight meck anything has been done --

oversight has been done. in addition to the economic and regulatory concerns about international climate agreements, congress should not allow any agreement with any other country nor agree to legislation or regulatory action that will alter our economy until we can be assured that this data, which forms the basis for these laws and agreements, is based on sound science on -- obtained. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hall: it will kill jobs. mr. duncan: i ask to consume the time of the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. duncan: i wish everyone would listen to these words from a column in the current issue of the american conservative magazine.

this conlum says, quote, we ran saddam out of kuwait and put u.s. troops in saudi arabia and got osama bin laden's 9/11. we responded by taking down the taliban and taking over afghanistan. and we got an eight-year war with no victory and no end in sight. now pakistan is burning. we took down saddam and got a seven-year war and ungrateful iraq. meanwhile, the turks who share the border with saddam have done no fighting. iran has watched as we destroyed its two greatest enemies, the taliban and saddam. china, which has a border with both pakistan and afghanistan, has set back. india, which has a border with pakistan and fought three wars with the country has stayed aloof. the united states on the other side of the world plunged in. and now we face an elongated military pressence in iraq. an escalating war in afghanistan, and potential disaster in pakistan and being pushed from behind into a war with iran. and then in the december 3

issue of the "washington post," it says this, it says president obama's new strategy for combating swlamic insurgents in afghanistan fell on skeptical ears wednesday and next door pakistan, a much larger nuclear arm state that obama said was at the core of the plan and had even more at steak stake than afghanistan. analysts and residents on both sides of the 1,699-mile border expressed concerns about obama's plans to send 30,000 more troops into afghanistan. on that same day, "the washington post" had a headline that said, a deadline written in quicksand not stone. i think most americans feel that eight years in afghanistan is not only enough, it's far too long. after all, we finished world war ii in just four years. now under the president's most optimistic scenario, we are going to be there another year and a half. that's 9 1/2 years. and we are going to be there, we have 68,000 troops there

now. they want to add 34,000 more at a cost of $1 billion per 1,000 per year which means over $100 billion a year. the center for war information says we have already spent almost half a trillion dollars or more on war related costs in afghanistan at this point. and then i would like to ask who is in charge? because this weekend on the interview program, secretary of state clinton and secretary of defense gates said, well, the year and a half withdrawal plan presented by the president at west point doesn't mean anything. that we are going to be there probably another three or five more years. that would bring our time there to 11 or 13 years. that is ridiculous in a country like afghanistan. a small country, very small country where we are fighting a very small force that has almost no money. and then i understand from one

of the previous speakers that president karzai said that he needs american troops to be there another 15 or 20 more years. he wants our money, that's for sure. and like any gigantic bureaucracy what, do they want? they want more money and employees. so the defense department, being the most gigantic bureaucracy in the world is going to continue to want more money and more personnel, but when we have a $12 trillion national debt and almost $60 trillion in unfunded future pension liabilities, madam speaker, we simply can't afford it. we got to start putting our own people first at some point. it's not going to be long before we are not going to be able to pay our social security and veterans pensions and things we promised our own people with money that will buy anything if we keep spending hundreds of billions for very unnecessary wars. i'd like to mention just a couple things about pakistan. in the "los angeles times" on

november 1, in a story about secretary clinton's visit to pakistan, it said this, a televised town hall meeting in islamabad, the capital on friday, a woman and a mostly female audience characterized u.s. drone missile strikes on suspected terrorist targets in northwestern pakistan is de facto acts of terrorism. a day earlier a college student asked clinton why every student who visits the u.s. is viewed as a terrorist. the opinions clinton heard weren't the voices of radical clerics, some of the most biting criticisms came from well-mannered university students and respected seasoned journalists, a reflection of the breadth of dissatisfaction pakistanis have with u.s. policy toward their country. this is a country, madam speaker, that the congress in a voice vote at a time when almost no one was on the floor, most members didn't even know it was coming up, voted to send another $7.5 billion in foreign aid to pakistan on top of $15.5

billion we spent since 2003 there already. this is getting ridiculous. a country we are sending billions and billions and billions in foreign aid to and it's becoming so anti-american and they don't appreciate this aid at all. we simply can't afford to keep doing these ridiculous and very wasteful expenditures. i'll say again we need to put our own people first once again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. akin of missouri. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for five minutes and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olson: madam speaker, yesterday the u.n. climate change summit in copenhagen,

denmark, began. the work of the summit is supported in large part by the research developed by the intergovernmental panel on climate change or the ipcc. this panel is responsible for assessing the state of scientific knowledge related to climate change and reporting its findings to the convention. and it is not a stretch to say that policymakers in the united states and many other countries rely upon and use the data compiled by the ipcc as a basis for making predictions on future climate predictions and setting policy to limit potential causes of climate change. the emails that are most recently from the university call into question the accuracy of the ipcc data. there is evidence that researchers suppress science and data that did not conform to their preferred outcomes.

i'd like to read from one of the emails that was discovered. i can't see either of these papers being in the next ipcc report. kevin and i will keep them out somehow. even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is. this is scary. the availability of an accurate, objective, and scientific data is essential for decisionmakers. given that the data was hidden and that opposing data was intentionally suppressed, it's clear that the united states should not commit to any international agreement on climate change or implement a domestic regulatory system that could damage the economy and kill jobs. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of ranking member hall's resolution regarding scientific protocols and peer review standards. scientist -- science is based

on facts and data, but there is also the element of trust when public policy and science meet. if that trust is broken, it's irresponsible for government to legislate on half truths, incomplete findings, and bogus claims. this administration promised openness and transparency. and they used science as the primary means to demonstrate that practice. it's time for the administration to stand up for the principle of openness, even if it means exposing findings that don't meet their pre-existing policy initiatives. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. inglis from south carolina. mr. inglis: thank you, madam speaker. i address permission to address the house for five minutes. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. inglis: thank you, madam speaker.

a number of physicians would tell you that longevity is based only on genetic makeup. but you might ask them, doctor, if i were to diet and exercise safely, might i extend my life? well, most physicians would say, if you can do it safely, go ahead. that's really what i think we should be talking about when it comes to climate change. if we can do it safely as to the economy, we should act. if we can't do it safely, then we should hold up. in the case of cap and trade, which has passed this floor, unfortunately, it's pending in the other body, it can't be done that way. in other words, it will harm the economy. we are talking about a tax increase in the midst of a recession. we are talking a wall street trading scheme that would make traders blush. and it punishes american

manufacturing. so for all those reasons cap and trade, i wish were off the table. hopefully it falls apart over in the other body. then the question is could we act in some way that sort of like the longevity question might not extend our lives, but on the other hand would it hurt us? and in this case what we are looking for is something that would work that wouldn't hurt us, that wouldn't hurt our economy. and what i have proposed is a 15-page alternative to the 1,200-page cap and trade and that 15 pages describes a tax cut on payroll and a shift on to missions. the result being that we would change the commings -- economics of the incumbent fossil fuels and begin replacing them with better fuels that can create jobs and improve the national security of the united states. along the way, though, big debate about whether the climate change models are

right. and it's very important that we get it right as to those models, but that process is going to take a long time. it's going to take a longer time with this setback here recently with the revelation that various climate data has been manipulated. what we have here is a teachable moment for all scientists everywhere that when this kind of misconduct occurs, the result is all of science is questioned. it's not a good result because the reality is we need this science to advance and we need it to advance in a transparent way where the evidence can be pushed on and replicated if it's accurate. if it's not accurate and can't be representp pli kated, it's rejected. but in the rejection we learn and science advances. so i join with ranking member hall in asking for a full investigation of these

revelations about the manipulation of data because we need to get to the bottom of it, especially in the science committee. we need to use this as a teachable moment, to figure out how to advance sighens, true science, without manipulation of data and calling to account those who have manipulated data. in the process, we'll all learn a lot about the climate models, we'll advance science, and we'll make better public policy. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you, madam speaker. -- mrs. biggert: i thank you, madam speaker. according to the american

physical society, science is the systematic gents prize of gathering knowledge about the universe and orsing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. the success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of scientists to, number one, expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. this requires the open exchange of data, procedures, and materials. two, abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence. adheres to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science. madam speaker, the recent emails out of the university of east angola on the substantive climate change call into question the scientific integrity of several of the

researchers involved in developing the climate sciences being used by decisionmakers around the world. allegations of fraud and manipulation in the scientific community are troubling in and of themselves, they are even more concerned when the data in question is being used by the united nations negotiator as the basis for a global agreement to limit greenhouse gases. . recent events have uncovered evidence from the climate research unit at the university of east englia have altered climate data that do not support the narrow global warming claims. the emails further indicate an attempt to silence academic

journal that is at odds with their ideology and even refer to contrary views from publication in scientific journals. scientific research should meet high standards of quality and not be held hostage to the ideologies of those presenting the data. it is beyond comprehension that we would even consider implementing a carbon reduction scheme that will irrevokeably alter the economy and lead to more joblessness based on these fabrications. before we move any further we should restore scientific integrity to the process. recent events really show that this has not happened. the hacked emails proside evidence that researchers suppress science and data that did not conform to the

preferred outcomes. for example, one researchers committed himself to ensuring that no nonconforming science will be mentioned in the ipcc's fourth assessment report. he writes, and i quote, kevin and i keep them out -- will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is, end quote. as a senior member of the house science and technology committee, i cannot stress enough how important the availability of objective scientific data is for both decisionmakers and researchers. when it comes to our economy and environment we cannot afford to make the decisions on bay the basis of corrupted data. -- on the basis of corrupt data. the president should call on the ipcc to establish a robust mechanism before further climate legislation or regulatory measures are taken. such action is necessary to

prevent future infringement of faultification and fraud. and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. markey: thank you very much. and without question, we are now engaged in historic debate. and that debate is over the question of whether or not the united states is going to become a leader and not a lager on the question of climate change and energy independence and clean energy job creation in our country. and what is happening on the republican side is that they have decided to engage in a

phony debate. a debate about science which is in fact not debatable. a debate about whether the united states should be the leader in green job creation and energy independence, which should not be debatable. so let's begin. first, with the science. and the science is quite clear, that over the last 140 to 150 years as there has been a tracking of the tetcht of the -- temperature of the planet, it is clear that we have now entered as the world has industrialized a period of rapid warming of the planet. in fact, since 2001, nine of the 10 warmest years in the

history of our country has been recorded. nine of the 10 warmest years in the history of the planet has been recorded. so this trend line, this rapid warming of our planet is something which, of course, is of great concern because glaciers melt, arctic ice cap melts. the deserts in africa and asia begin to widen. water evaporates. the world as a result sees fundamental changes in the way in which it operates. and so this undeniable increase in warming due to the co-2, the greenhouse gases which are going up into the atmosphere, is something which we really

don't have an ability to debate. but what the republicans have done is they've taken a couple of emails from some scientists who have a fight scientifically over whether or not they would properly be characterized at some point in the task and have taken that as an aunt ray to question the con-- entree to question the national academy of sciences of every country in the world. it's kind of the death panel equivalence for the climate debate, for the energy debate. how can we find something that's irrelevant, minor and elevate it to the point where it obscures the need for us to really debate the big issues that are in front of us? so this warming trend is

absolutely indisputable. what they contend is that at this point it really hasn't spiked much higher in the last 10 years. it stayed at this relatively high historical plateau. and so their concern is that there needs to be a re-evaluation as to whether or not the planet is actually warming. it's kind of like saying to you a mother, well, you know average temperature is 98.6 for all human beings. and little joey, his temperature is now up to 100.6, two degrees higher. but it's only been there for the last 10 days. so don't worry about it. that's normal for his temperature, 100.6. well, who as a parent accepts

the two-degree increase in temperature for 10 days as being the new normal? well, that's what they're saying about the temperature of the planet. the planet is running a fever. there are no emergency rooms for planets. we must engage in preventative care. but what they're saying is that this new temperature is the new normal, the new temperature for the planet even though we can see the beginnings of the catastrophic consequences of having that temperature at such a high level. and so this debate does turn on science. ours is irrefutable. no one denies even on their side that the temperatures have risen dramatically. they don't debate that. they don't debate that the arctic ice cover is eroding

rapidly. they don't deny that there has been a 30% increase in the acidification of our oceans over the last 40 years or so. they don't deny that there's been a six-degree warming, six degrees warmer in alaska during the winter over the last 50 years. none of this do they deny, but what they are really trying to do is to stop any legislative attempt, any international attempt to put together a set of solutions for these problems. that's really at the heart of this matter. so as we move forward, you know, the issue for us is how

do we deal with it. you know, i thought i would sink into some analogy we could use. and what i thought about was baseball. you know, in baseball going back to 1920 when babe ruth was playing, the average number of players in the major leagues who hit more than 40 home runs in a season is 3.3 players. that's going all the way from 1920 up until very recently. and so that covers babe ruth, mickey mantle, willie mays. that's why they were so famous. anyone that hit more than 40 home runs was famous. and then all of a sudden beginning about 20 years ago more and more players started hitting more than 40 home runs. now, major league baseball said, well, don't worry about

it. the players are getting stronger. don't worry about it. the ball pops must be getting smaller. people said maybe, just maybe, the players are injecting steroids into themselves. well, major league baseball said, no, no, no, don't worry about it. until finally we reached a point where 10 players were hitting 40 home runs, 15 players were hitting home runs, 17 players were hitting home runs. and they weren't just breaking babe ruth's record, they were blowing them away. they were so much stronger. and then all of a sudden baseball decided because of congressional intervention to start testing for steroids. and guess what happened? after they started testing for steroids, all of a sudden very quickly just over the last three years the same average for 40 h.r. hitters that existed -- for 40 home: hitters

existed -- home run hitters existed. i wonder why that happened? maybe because they tested with the injection of artificial stimulants into baseball players. well, this is true when it comes to our planet. when you inject artificial stimulants into the atmosphere, into the stratosphere, you get a warming. you are now playing with mother nature. and the warming of the planet has dramatic consequences for all of its inhabitants. and we in the united states are not immune to the consequence. we are going to be radcally, adversely affected by -- radically, adversely affected by the impact. so what's the solution? well, you might remember just about a year and a half ago

president bush went to saudi arabia, and president bush at a point where we had gas prices up around $4 a gallon, our economy was starting to teeter on the brink because of this impact of oil, well, president bush went to saudi arabia. and president bush said to the saudi prince, please produce another million barrels of oil a day that we could purchase from you. send us more oil. have us buy more of your oil at $147 a barrel. that is a low point in american history. and by the way, do you know what the saudi prince said to president bush? the saudi prince said, i will consider selling more oil to you at $147 a barrel, but you must first promise me that you will stop selling nuclear power

plants to saudi arabia. and do you know what president bush's response was to the saudi arabians, we will start selling nuclear power plants to you. now, which country in the world doesn't need nuclear power for its electricity? which country in the world has so much sun, so much wind, so much oil, so much gas that to build a nuclear power plant would really be a waste of money? i wonder why the saudi arabians would want nuclear power, uranium, plutonium. but, that is the promise that president bush made to the saudi arabians. now, we are in the midst of a debate over climate, a debate over some emails. now, who do you think partnered with these skeptics? who do you think has partnered with the republican party in now questioning the validity of climate change?

the saudi arabians yesterday said we want an investigation, say the saudi arabians. we want an investigation as to whether or not there is climate change affecting the planet. now, i wonder why the saudi arabians, the number one producer of oil on the planet, the number one exporter would start to question climate change. start to throw some doubts as to world should be moving away from imported oil, moving away from this dependence upon middle eastern oil. i wonder why they would be the partner with the american petroleum institute on this issue. in the same way why you would wonder why the american tobacco institute used to question whether or not smoking caused cancer and all of the science which they funded at the american tobacco institute these fumes were being inhaled

by human beings as the fumes were being inhaled by those children and those families. well, now, we have a different kind of fume that's being going up from coal-fired plants, from oil that is consumed in our country and around the planet. . and yet like the american tobacco institute, the american petroleum institute says let's question what's going on. the saudi arabiaians say let's question what's going on. maybe we don't want to move too fast. in 1970 when the united states was just really beginning to get addicted to imported oil, we imported about 20% of the oil, which we consumed in the united states. well, today,, ladies and gentlemen, we import 60% of the

oil that we consume. and we import it from very dangerous places in the world. as a matter of fact, here's an astounding number. one half of our entire trade deficit is importing oil. so when you hear people talk about america's trade deficit, everything else that we import combined is equal to the price we have to pay for oil to bring it in to our country. we produce eight million barrels a day, we import 13 million barrels of oil a day. half of our trade deficit. now, here's another astounding fact. 3% of the world's reserves of oil are controlled by the united states. but we actually consume 25% of the world's oil every day. 3% of the oil reserves, 25% of

the consumption. now, you keep that going for another five years, 10 years, 20 years, you can see where that's going to lead from a national security perspective. you can see whether that's going to lead from a trade deficit perspective. you can see where that's going to lead -- >> would the gentleman yield? mr. markey: i choose not to lead. you can see where that leads from a clean energy jobs revolution. those who don't want this revolution -- want thr evolution to be stopped,, wind, solar, geo thermal, biomass, ought -- ought motive technology, we don't have to use that all that energy, all of them are going to jump on

this very, very thin read and try to use it as a way of undermining our ability to pass historic legislation and the world's ability to come together to create historic international agreements to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that we burn in our atmosphere. so people say, well, can you do it? is it possible for the united states? is it possible for us to lead in this new direction? well, i would point back to the 1990's. in the 1990's, we were still living unfortunately in this kind of black rotary black phone world and we were living in a world that cell phones were about the size of a brick and it

cost 50 cents a minute to make a phone call so we had to change the laws in the united states. i happened to be the chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee at that time. if we wanted an 18-inch satellite dish, we had to change the law. if we wanted cell phones that people could have data, video and voice, we had to change the laws. if we wanted broadband rather than narrow band and wanted to have a capacity to have google, ebay, amazon, hulu and youtube, we had to change the laws. the chamber of commerce opposed the telecommunications act. they said it will be bad for our country. can you imagine if we had listened to the chamber of commerce and had no changed our laws? all of these products would have

been created but not in the united states. we would not have branded it made in the u.s.a. we are a technological giant. that's our strength. our weakness, our greatest weakness is we only have 3% of the oil reserves in the world and allow it to control our destiny. so this revolution, the telecommunications revolution, created 1.5 million to 2 million jobs. tremendous. and people across our country are able to go down and check their blackberry even as they are listening to us here. that's great. that's what we should be looking for. that's what young people want. that's what the green generation wants. no brainer. why don't we move towards these, wind, solar, move that way. no. they're saying. no.

that's dangerous. that would be dangerous. we've got a couple of emails that we believe call into question the entire science of whether or not the planet is warming, whether the glaciers are melting, whether the coral is being destroyed whether has been a 30% acid fix. they are calling it all into question. they don't have answers for it. they don't have anyway of explaining it. but they are using it as a deliberate political tactic in order to slow down the legislative and international response to the problem. so the head of the international panel on climate change, two days ago, said in the opening session of the united nations

climate change conference. he said, the recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the university of east anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit. but the panel has a record of transparent and objective assessments stretching over 21 years performed by tens of thousands of dedicated scientists from all corners of the globe. i am proud to inform this conference that the findings of the panel are based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the oceans and in the ice-covered areas of the earth. the internal consistency from

multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community including those individuals singled out in the email exchanges, many of whom have dedicated their time and effort to develop these findings in teams of lead authors in the series of ipcc assessment reports during the past 21 years. the ipcc process is designed to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robust per review processes or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent review. the entire report writing process of the ipcc is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as by governments. there were a total of around 2,500 expert reviewers

performing this review process. consequently there is full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of published literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. so the republicans have been unable to win a debate on clean energy and climate based on the facts, the science or the economics. now, in a desperate attempt to manipulate the truth, they have joined with saudi arabia and exxon mobil to promote a manufactured scandal about stolen emails, not science, not science, because they can't answer these questions about the warming of the planet. the perma frost being destroyed up in alaska. the personal emails in question

-- the gentleman will have his time. the personal emails in question do not in anyway disprove or undercut the mountain of scientific evidence on global warming. the republicans are now attacking the scientists who have worked decades on this problem so far as to accuse them of scientific fascism. this is an insult to america's best and brightest scientists. the science that we are relying upon is the science of nasa, the science of noaa, the national academy of sciences and our united states military. that is the evidence that we are relying upon. men and women who had nothing to do with the emails and whose

work has shown climate change is real and a danger to public health. the science activities have -- scientists have used a rigorous approach to come to consensus that evidence of global warming is unequivocal. the emails were transparent and debated in open literature at that time. additionally, the american association of advancement for science has re-afffirmed its statement that global climate change caused by human activities is now under way and is a growing threat to society. on december 4, just a couple of days ago, more than 25 leading u.s. scientists sent an open letter. here's what they said.

the said the content of the stolen emails has no impact what soever on our understanding. the letter states even without including analysis from the u.k. research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence that underlies our understanding of global warming remains robust. the aaas expressed concerns that the emails stolen from university of east anglia should not make the public become confused about the scientific basis of climate change. "nature" published an editorial last week saying there is no reason for i its editors to

revisit papers smithed by scientists whose emails were stolen. the american meetor rolling call society stated that the emails gave them know reason to revisit its conclusion that human activity is driving climate change. brian walsh of "time" magazine writes that the emails, while unseemly do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of manmade climate change. the ipcc chairman in the opening of the u.n. climate change conference, as i just pointed out, made the very same point. so the consensus from the scientific community is clear. that the republicans are trying

to manufacture an issue to derail legislation. they do not have the information. they do not have the scientific backup to maintain their point. however, the saudi arabiaians and exxon mobil, they want to question it and continue business as usual in our country, but the consequences, if we do move forward in their direction will be further catastrophic consequences for our planet. . the emails do not in any way indicate that global warming is flawed or manipulated. they do not undermine the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by manmade pollution. they do not show evidence of a

conspiracy. the emails do not contain admissions of a global warming hoax. and the emails do not show that data was falsified or manipulated. the republicans are cherry picking key words in emails to try to manufacturer a scandal. here are two prime examples. one email suggests using a trick. now this email was written in 1999, 10 years ago. since that time, the planet has had nine of the 10 hottest years in the history of the planet. we have seen category five hurricanes, like ka treea -- katrina, record wild fires out west, villages flying into the -- falling into the sea in alaska and a 500-year flood in the midwest, not to mention the disappearance of arctic sea ice at a rate far outpacing the

climate model. these events are not a trick. they have all found global warming to be a danger. to public health and national security. this work is publicly available and fully transparent. next, skeptical scientists have not been silent or suppressed. the deniers have not been silenced. in fact, their very research and opinions mentioned in the emails were in fact included in the i.p. -- the ipcc report. two of the skeptical papers the emails suggest should be kept out of the ipcc process are cited and discussed in chapter three of the 2007 ipcc physical science basis report. deniers have testified before congress, literally dozens of times. but the majority of their work

has been funded by big oil and by other polluters. let's not forget, deniers and skeptics had eight years of george bush to help them to lay -- to help them delay action. the scientific process has been very robust. but if you want to have a story about emails, let's talk about the environmental protection agency of george bush. after the supreme court decision, massachusetts v.e.p.a. -- vs. e.p.a. was rendered in 2007 they instructed the bush administration and its environmental protection agency to make a determination as to whether or not co-2 posed a danger to the health and welfare of the american people. they told them they had to make a finding, one way or the other.

back in may of 2008, the e.p.a. of george bush made the decision that co-2 was a danger. and they sent an email over to the white house. an email. the bush e.p.a. saying we have found a danger. but vice president cheney found out that they had sent over an email, and the finding was not going to be finalized until the bush white house accepted that email. so what did they do? vice president cheney ordered that the email not be received in the white house. no email, which gives the consensus of the environmental protection agency of george bush that co-2 is a danger. we won't accept that email. there is a scandal. that's a scandal.

the american environmental protection agency has made a finding that co-2 is a danger and vice president cheney says we won't accept it. send the email back. once we get it, we'll have to act on it. there is a scandal. that's the cheney-bush years. holding hands with the saudi prince, please send us more oil. denying the science that their own e.p.a. had developed saying that co-2 is a danger to the health and welfare of our country. that is what is the real scandal. that we are denying science, we are denying the evaluation made by thousands of scientists, following in our own -- not only in our own country but around the world. who are these scientists? they're the people who work at nasa, at noaa, at the navy department, in the army and marines and air force.

these are the people who have gathered this information. our submarine crews have been in submarines going under the arctic to measure the depth of the ice. these are the people with information that's now being called into question by the republicans. these are the people whose emails going -- whose email going into the white house was rejected by dick cheney. no, we don't want to -- we're going to finish up all eight years of the bush-cheney era without ever having done anything about climate change this scientific process is very robust. the emails show that scientists are human. the power of the scientific process, however, has always been its ability to overcome human bias. that is the case with climate science as well. despite the revelation that a few climate scientists may have considered acting inappropriately, there is

virtually no evidence that anything was done that in any way would affect the final conclusion. that was reached. that this is a real danger to our planet. the burden of proof here is all wrong. the climate deniers should be trying to explain why the tens of thousands of scientists who say global warming science is unequivocal are wrong. why they think global warming isn't happening and they can't do it. they cannot take on these tens of thousands of scientists around the world. so instead, they're trying to create a mini continue retemps -- con tremendous talm -- create a mini crisis. they're trying to take the 1%,

% and make it out like there's an even-handed debate. that's what the american tobacco industry did. the american tobacco industry found a couple of scientists who said, don't worry about smoke, still no conclusive evidence that it's harm to feel your lungs. by the way my father, smoking two packs a camels a day, used to basically say to my brothers and my mother and i, don't worry about my smoking, two packs a day won't kill me. until little spots showed up on his lungs and took my father. that didn't convince the tobacco industry or those people in deknill that the fumes being inhaled would lead to the death of people, any more than the science that is overwhelming that the glaciers are melting, that the arctic

ice cover is being destroyed, the tundra, the per ma frost being exposed up in alaska, the villages falling into the ocean, beginning with a village up in alaska because of that. it has nothing to do with the science. sounds like the american tobacco industry. but the overwhelming consensus, not only of our scientists, but the world, is that these fumes that are being inhaled by our planet, are making our planet sick. so that's our choice. it's to make them explain why the arctic has lost an ice cover three times the size of texas, compared to just a couple of decades ago. why alaska winters are 6.3 degrees warmer now than they were 60 years ago.

why the oceans are more acidic than they were in preindustrial times. why this summer, the ocean was the warmest in noaa's 130-year record. in the year 2000, it was the 15th warmest year in nasa's record. 2001 is tie ferd eighth warmest. 2002 is tied for the third warmer. 2004 is the eighth warmest year in the history of the planet. the warmest year on nasa's record, 2005. 2006 is the seventh warmest year in the planet's history. 2008 is the 10th warmest ever recorded in our planet's history. and just today, we discovered that 2009 is projected to be the fifth warmest year in the

history of our planet. all of this leading, inevitably, inex-or pli -- in ex-orably to catastrophic cons inexorably to catastrophic consequences for our planet. the republicans decided not to accept it. dick cheney said, keep that email out of the white house, i don't care where the e.p.a. says, i don't care what the scientists hired by the bush administration says about global warming that email telling us it is a danger to our planet, to our country, that's the finding they had to make. the finding the e.p.a. had to make was not a teenage to the world, but a danger to the united states of america. that scientific email was summarily rejected by dick cheney because once they accepted it, they would have the political and moral

responsibility to ensure that something had to be done about it. so there was no open and free discussion inside the bush administration on that. there was no round table with dick cheney sitting in the middle of it say, let's debate the science. oh, no, no,. no free and open discussion of science. no free and open discussion of how the vice president is going to reject out of hand the consensus of the entire e.p.a. of his administration in the eighth year of the -- of the bush administration. wasn't as though there were a bunch of clinton holdovers at this point. there was a decision made by the bush administration, its e.p.a. rejected without any debate by dick cheney and the white house. all of this, unfortunately, is being covered by the media as

though there's an even-handed discussion going on. 99%, 98% of all scientists on one side, 1% on the other, let's make it even steven. which is kind of how the tobacco debate was handled for a generation. there's two sides to the story. either tobacco and its hainlation into the lungs of human beings causes cancer, or it doesn't. there's a couple of scientists over here that the american tobacco institute has and every other scientist in the world, every doctor, every physician system of this is a huge moment for us as a country. we have two pathways we can go down. we can continue to beg for oil from other countries. we can continue to spew these greenhouse gases up into our atmosphere. or we can say, to america, it

is time for an oil change. and it's time to move to an agenda of wind, of solar, of green buildings, of plug-in hybrids. a new era. where we become the technological giant we should be. that we do in the energy field what we did in the technology sector. that we overhaul our relationship with these technologies so we can overhaul our relationship with other countries in the world. and create the two million jobs here in our country. and that's really what's at stake because china right now is moving toward becoming number one in the world in wind, in solar, in all these technologies. so if you listen to the dissenters here, they're ready for us to move from an era

where it's made by opec to an era made in china, without ever having a made in america period. these jobs in wind and solar, green buildings, plug-in hybrids, they should be american jobs. they should be the future for our country. they should be the next manufacturing sector, they should be what google and youtube and hulu represent as to changes of how we work in our country. that's our challenge. so this is actually a good debate to have. because it gets right to the heart of the matter. a green job revolution, packing out imported oil, and saving the planet in the bargain, or engaging in a debate over emails. the emails were ultimately included in the report of the u.n. not excluded, included, and

during our debate here in congress, we had deniers able to sit at the table and make their point. we heard them. we listened to them. we deliberated. and then we passed the legislation based on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence of scientific evidence. that's our challenge. . we are either going to help or hurt each other on this planet. the glaciers, the coral reefs, the deserts that are being created. the least we should be able to say to ourselves as a people in 2050 is we really tried to do something about global warming, about this imported oil, about

the need to create a new generation of green jobs in our country. we should try to create a world in 2050 where children have to look to the history books to find that there ever was such a time where america imported 60% of its oil, where we allowed the temperature of the planet to warm dangerously, where we missed the opportunity to create two million green jobs in our country. that's what this debate is all about. we have enjoyed the benefits of this fossil fuel era, but we have a responsibility for the generations to come to create a new era for them. that's our challenge. and you have this debate over a couple of emails that ultimately wound up being included in the report anyway is really to do a disservice to the american people and to the planet.

this should really be about something that is much bigger. and our country deserves that debate. the world wants us to be the leader. we have dangerously gone down a path of imported oil for too long. the other major story that we're debating right now, sending another 30,000 young men and women over there to join the hundreds of thousands that are already over there. how much more do we need to know? where do we send them towards? we send them wards the countries with oil that have fundamentalists that are funded by oil money. that is the other major story. it doesn't take a lot to link them together to make them part of one big opportunity for our country.

let's follow the science. let's follow all of those who have labored to create thr understanding of what's happening to our planet, to our country. and end the debate over the emails and begin a real debate about our energy and climate future. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. barton: we have a fundamental difference on the data, which is part of what our special order is going to be. we have verifyable data that temperature has gone down the last 11 years in the row, but you alluded to the data points about the hottest years on record, how do you reconcile that? we both can't be telling the truth. can't be saying the temperature has gone down 11 years in a row and you say 2005 was the second

hottest year on record and all of that. i mean, how do we reconcile these data points? is there a way, a methodology that we can supply our data and you can supply your data and reconcile it. we can have different opinions, but we ought to agree on what the facts are. mr. markey: the facts are that nine of the 10 warmest years in the history of recorded temperatures have occurred in the last 10 years. and it has reached a plateau. and in china and in the united states and in other country tries, there has been a slower pace of increase in emissions, but it has still plateaued.

this year, it's going to be the fifth warmest year in history. and this is how -- mr. barton: are those data points public? mr. markey: this is the data provided by nasa, which i will provide to you. nasa has been measuring temperatures for us in the last 50 years and i would be more than willing to give it to you. as china and india industrialize, as other parts of the world strilize and start to send up more fuels, do we believe this trend is likely to stop and to abate or is it likely to exacerbate and continue to skyrocket? i think the evidence, since the beginning of the industrialized period is 280 parts per million to 380 million parts per million of co-2 in the atmosphere. and as the people in this

developing world begin want to drive automobiles and begin to have like that in their homes, it's pretty clear that the trendline is heading upward. it is like a child having the same temperature, 106.6 for about 10 days. mr. barton: one of the things -- we can have different opinions, different views on issues, but between you, as chairman of the climate committee and mr. waxman as chairman of the energy committee and mr. sensenbrenner who is your ranking member and myself who is the ranking member member on energy, we should be able to get a data set that we both agree are what the facts are. and i would like your cooperation in doing that. and our data says that i'm going to allude to are different. i know enough to know what i don't know and i don't know if

that is a local temperature that's been annually -- some sort of an annual mean. there are different ways to describe it in the calculation. but we ought to agree as policy leaders on a way to get a data set that everybody says then we are going to debate the implications of that data set, whatever it is. and i hope that you and mr. waxman. mr. markey: we have to agree on whose data we are going to rely upon. if we don't rely upon nasa's data, and noaa's data and national academy of science's data, then we are going to allow a small amount of outliers. mr. barton: some of the scientists that maintain these data sets manipulate change,

eliminate for their own conclusions. and again, it's very fair to have an opinion and have a scientific debate, but it shouldn't be fair to manipulate the data in a way that at best is in some case deceitful. and i would hope you would agree with that. mr. markey: i completely agree with that and i believe the evidence of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world is what is represented by the science that the united nations and all the national academy of sciences and every country in the world has accepted. and again, as i point out, even those dissent financing emails were included in the report of the united nations. it was in and it was a minority view and not accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists and amongst these

human beings who are scientists, they did show human qualities, but never did call into question the fact that human activity was causing the warming of the planet. but the view views were included in section three in the intergovernmental panel on climate change that the report that the united nations produced. mr. barton: if you wish to stay and maybe participate in our special order, you would be welcome. i yield to the -- mr. markey: i yield to the the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding and commend the gentleman from massachusetts for his incredible work on the issue of addressing

global climate change and issue that i know in many ways has become his life's work for so many years and i deeply appreciate his work here in the congress, particularly as he leaves the committee on the environment and global climate change here in the congress. madam speaker, i rise tonight to join my colleague, mr. markey, and so many others in addressing this issue of global climate change particularly during tonight's special hour to recognize the critical negotiations that are beginning to take place in denmark at the united nations climate change conference. like so many of us, i am greatly concerned with the permanent damage that we have already inflicted on the planet by failing to curb carbon emissions, but i believe there is still time to enact meaningful reform that will not only stop the harmful effects of

pollution, but will also jump-start our economy with a greater investment and demand for clean energy. this issue, in terms of addressing clobal warming is important for our environment, it's important for our national security, it's important for our economy in creating jobs of the 21st century and clearly it is vitally important to the future of our planet. the predictions of what will happen to our planet if we do not take action on global warming are startling and often they are too dire to comprehend. as a representative of the ocean state, i can't ignore the situation that's facing my state today and in the near future. now in my home state, the temperature of narragansett bay has risen two degrees leading to dramatic changes in the fishery population.

in rhode island, we rely in our economy on the fishing industry and they are being so adversely affected right now. conservative grasp of our coastal communities in the year 2100 shows cities that are halfway under water. what happens to the investment we made to restore our fisheries, upgrade our waste wear infrastructure? well, they will be under water and the federal investments we have made will be gone. when i listen to my colleagues speak about things like the deficit, they often lament that we are focused on short-term fixes. perpetrating long-term burden that our grandchildren will have to carry. i agree with them. and i don't want the next generation to be burdened with the decisions we make here today and i don't want to leave them with air they can't breathe, water they can't drink and destroyed infrastructure up and down the coastline.

we need to address this issue now and i look forward to working with my colleagues on global warming. i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for his extraordinary work on global climate change issues. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tech as rise? -- texas rise. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, it seems the science behind manmade global warming is melting before our eyes. now there's a chance that nasa will be pulled into the worldwide climategate scandal. they have been stonewalling requests for information surrounding their own temperature manipulations. earlier we learned that the university of anglia where the global warming scientists have

been hiding emails that contradict their theory of global warming. cloimentgate has a sister, nasagate. they reported on nasa being forced to change their climate records that the world has been using for years. they said, quote, that nasa was quote when the head of nasa's institute of goddard studies that 1998 was the country's hottest year on record with 2006, the third hottest. the last speaker, in all due respect, used these false statistics in his speech, claiming global warming is a crisis. the fact is, quote, nasa and goddard were forced to correct the record to show that 1934, decades before the old s.u.v. was in fact the warmest. the new numbers show that four of the countries' 10 warmest years were in the 1930's, end of quote.

how did nasa the scientific agency of the united states, get such calculations wrong? did they cook the books, too, just like the university of anglia? we don't know. nasa has been blocking the freedom of information requests about that information just like the scientists in britain. what are they trying to hide? if global warming is a well settled fact why are they hiding the evidence to the contrary? why isn't nasa following the freedom of information law? it has been three years since that information was requested. the public has a right to see the temperature data in these nasa emails. but there's more, earlier this year, the environmental protection agency was caught suppressing dissenting views just like the climategate warmers in nasa and britain. they refuted manmade global warming science, using the

current information saying the earth is cooling. the earth has been cooling for more than a decade. that is an inconvenient truth for al gore and the global warmers. but the people at the e.p.a. buried the dissenting report just like the climategate warmers did. the e.p.a. bureaucrats said their report wasn't helping their agenda and they threatened the scientist so he would keep thinks mouth shut. the question is, why can't the public see the dissenting view from other scientists? isn't that what science is all about? the reason, it appears to me, that careers are at stake along with millions upon billions of dollars. in the 1970's, "time" and "newsweek" proclaimed global cooling and the world was going to freeze but when climates began to warm, scientists changed that name to global warming instead of global cooling. have we noticed that the planet

has begun to cool again? it even snowed last week in houston. it never snows in houston. a snow in houston is about as frequent as a hurricane in iowa. but the warmers again have changed the name of that catastrophe and now no longer global warming but climate change. that is a safe bet because the climate does change every day. and why would they do this? what's the motivation for them to cook the books on global cooling or warming or climate change? it's money. according to the documents, the british university, at the center of the climategate scandal has received millions of dollars. they stand to receive $1 billion in funding this year alone. global wampling is big business. fox news reported that former vice president al gore may be the first world's carbon billionaire. he preaches fear in the name of global warming.

that is what capitalism is all about but it's not ok to earn money and at the same time enforce regulations on the american people based upon science that is not a fact. in the real world of science, if your calculations are wrong and by data and observation, you have to throw it out. some of the computer models used in c.r.u. data are falsified that includes the global warming claims and these are the top warmer scientists. these scientists is about control and obtaining taxpayer money. ronald reagan said it best, government does not solve problems, it just continues to subsidize it. and that's just the way it is. and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. barton is recognized for of minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. barton: thank you, madam speaker. i think i will use the one hour. i understand there will be a rule reported, we'll certainly yield to the person from the rule committees to file that rule. i rise to discuss a topic that's already been discussed on the house floor this evening, the issue of climate change or global warming. next week, i'm honored to be one of the congressional delegation attending the copenhagen climate change conference. copenhagen, denmark. it's going to be led by our esteemed speaker, the honorable nancy pelosi. i also attended kyoto and the hague's. i have been a participant at the congressional level on the climate change debate for the last 20 years. i'm going to start off by putting into the record a suppressed report congressman

poe just spoke about that has never, before this evening, been made public in its entiring unexpurr gated form. the title of the report is "comments on the draft technical support document for greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act." this report was compiled by doctor allen car lynn who is a -- carlin who is a career scientist at the e.p.a. at one time he self-described himself, i'm told, as a global warming believer. he prepared this report, he works in a group within the e.p.a. that is responsible for conducting an internal review of some of the draft orders before they go public. i'm not going to read the entire report. i'm going to read excerpts of the preface and the executive summary and then i will put the

entire report into the record. this is from the executive summary and the preface and i quote, we have become increasingly concerned that e.p.a. has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. e.p.a. and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the ipcc, which is the international protocol and climate change under the us a pises of the united nations, and the ssc -- the ccsp, without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. if they should be found to be incorrect at a latter date, however, the e.p.a. is found not to have made a careful and independent review of them before reaching its decision on endangerment. it appears likely it is the e.p.a. rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. further down on the executive summary page one, our

conclusions do represent the best science in the sense of most closely corresponding to available observations we currently know of, however, and are sufficiently at variance with those of the ipcc, ccsp, and the draft t.s.d., that we believe they support our increasing concern that the e.p.a. has not critically reviewed the findings by these groups. further, we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warn a serious -- to warrant a serious review of the science by the e.p.a. before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject of endangerment from greenhouse gases. on page two, what is actually note worthy is not the relative apparent scientific shine of the two sides, those that oppose and those that support the global warming argument, but rather the relative ease with which major holes have been found in the greenhouse

gas-co-2 global warming argument. in many cases, the most compelling arguments are based on simple observation of available data, which has surprisingly received little scrutiny. the best example of this is the n.s.u. satellite data on global temperature. simple scrutiny of this day that yields what to us are stunning observations. yet this has received surprisingly little study or at least publicity. in the end, it must be emphasized that the issue is not which side has spent the most money or published the most peer-revufed -- peer-reviewed papers or supports the most arguments. the issue is where the co-2-h.e.w. hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test, conformance with real-world data.

what these comments show is that this ultimate test, that the hypothesis fails. that the hypothesis fails. this is why e.p.a. needs to carefully examine the science behind global warming before proposing an endangerment finding. this is from dr. carlin in the e.p.a. this is not some disgruntled republican congressman. s that professional scientist, ph.d. in an office with an -- within the e.p.a. that is tasked with reviewing this endangerment document before a final decision is made. and in his words, the ultimate test is whether the greenhouse gas co-2 hypothesis meet thinks ultimate scientific test, conformance with real world data. this shows that it is the ultimate test, the hypothesis fails. further, on page three of the executive summary, there are

several principal comments they wish to raise in their review. as of the best information we currently have, this was in march of 2009, the greenhouse gas co-2 hypothesis as the cause of global warm chg the draft t.s.d. supports is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available, observable data. any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis. the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data. as was said in 1975, failure to conform with real world data makes it necessary from a scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it. unfortunately, this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to, if an accurate finding concerning

endangerment is to be made. the failings listed below, why we should not have an endangerment finding, in order of importance in our view, number one, the lack of observed upper atmospheric heating in the tropics. number two the lack of observed constant humidity level. number three, the most reliable global temperature data we have using satellite microwave sounding units show no appreciable temperature increase from 1978 to 1997. satellite tai ta after 1998 is -- sat late -- satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the hypothesis. number four, the models used by the ipcc do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures. number five, the models in the ipcc ignore the possibility of the indirect solar variability.

number six, the model ignored that there may be other effects on global temperature. number seven, surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island affect. this is what i was asking mr. markey about to see where he got his data set. surface global temperature if you take it in downtown manhattan, for example, than if you take a surface temperature than in a rural area. the urban effect, the concrete, asphalt, buildings raise the temperature. there's some worry that this has corrupted the temperature. these are just seven reasons in this draft document why this author had skepticism about going forward with an endangerment finding. yet this report was not made

part of the record. this report was not made public. in fact this report was suppressed. and because of considerable anxiety on the part of people like myself and congressman issa and congressman sensenbrenner, the author was allowed to put a redacted version of this report on his personal website and we were able to get the unredakotaed version provided to us by the e.p.a. that's the version i'm going to put in the record. this author says, dr. carlin, he was prophetic. we're now seeing that some of the climateologists, maybe more than some, have attempted to suppress data sets to manipulate data set, not get a true scientific review but to reach a preconceived conclusion.

madam speaker, i think that's wrong. now before i go any further, i would like to yield briefly to the distinguished ranking member of the rules committee, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding, i know colleagues of ours are looking forward to participating in this special order and i want to congratulate all of you for for the work you're doing to demonstrate that there clearly is a very wide diversity of views on this question of global warming. i was listening to thics change that my friend had with the chairman of the committee, mr. markey, and i was thinking about the fact that one of the things that would be, i think, very helpful for us to do is try and pursue some bipartisanship. that's a buzz word that's used around here regularly. people talk about how important it is for us to be as bipartisan as we can. and i think that with the controversy that exists from

both sides there may be a way for to us come together on an issue and i wanted to come up and just mention it very briefly. i'm joined, madam speaker, with our colleague from ohio, mr. kucinich. now i know he that that might come as a surprise that mr. kucinich might join in an effort to deal with this question he in a bipartisan way and it might come as a surprise that david dreier would join with mr. kucinich in doing something that would address this issue but it is a measure that i think is very important for us to look the -- look at. there is recognition and mr. markey said this, that we have the potential to create a couple million of green jobs here in the united states and i think that there is a desire to continue to do what we can to improve our environment. i come from the los angeles basin and we have air quality problems there. very serious. and i believe that if we were to take what is our comparative

advantage and my friend from georgia and i worked regularly on the trade issue and take advantage of our comparative advantage which happens to be the development of a wide range of alternative energy sources, whether it's algae, whether it's wind, whatever, and provide a chance for those technologies to move to these developing countries which have not yet been able to comply. bangladesh, india, china, other countries. so mr. kucinich and i have joined to introduce a resolution calling for the tariff free export of all green technology. now i believe that that would create jobs in this country and it would go a long way toward helping us in our quest to deal with overall environmental issues and so while there is a wide range of views on this issue of global climate change i

do believe that it's important for us to know that improving our environment is something we can come together on and i just like to congratulate my friend and say that i hope in a bipartisan way we can encourage organizations like the world trade organizations to negotiate a worldwide agreement that would allow green technology to be exported to all parts of the world. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. barton: i thank my friend for bringing that to our attention and it sounds like a worthy proposal. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> madam speaker, i send to the desk two privileged reports from the committee on the rules for filing under the rule and i thank my friend from texas for letting me have a moment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 955, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4213, to amend the

internal revenue code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and for other purposes. report to accompany house resolution 956, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4173, to provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over the counter derivatives markets and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the gentleman from texas may proceed. mr. barton: i thank the gentleman. i thank my friend from colorado. i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to a member of the committee from the great state of illinois, mr. shimkus. mr. shimkus: i ask nab con -- unanimous consent to revise and extend. thank you, mr. barton, and i thank the speaker for the time. i think what was important, mr.

barton, was your focus on science and your data points and what we should be able to do is agree on the data points. we should be able to agree on what the science is. mr. barton: right. mr. shimkus: and that's in question. and for many of us it's been a question for a long time. we're joined by john who has been following for as long as anyone else has. part of his search and i know he'll speak for himself, part of his search has been because the scientists would not give the data out. they would never tell us what's the base by which they're making this extrapolation. and i'm glad that you highlighted the scientific method which i didn't get on a chart but i brought down here, it's very simple. i taught high school. you're an engineer. i went to an engineering school. this is irrefuteble. this is how science is done. you ask questions, you do

background research. background research in this debate would be get the temperatures. we're already questioning the background research. one based upon the request for freedom of information act and of course now our friends at the ipcc are saying we don't have them. the dog ate the homework. it is amazing. scientists are really some of the most respected professions but they're respected because of this. this process. which should be objective. you should be able to follow it, you should be able to construct a hypothesis. the hypothesis is an educated guess. that's all it is. it's not truth, it's a guess based upon the data points.

and then you analyze the result and then draw your conclusions. based upon the scientific method you can categorically say right now that those who say the science is solid are in error. the science is not solid. that's why all this political activity's going on right now. that's why now the e.p.a., they're saying, oh, we're going to do endangerment findings. they want to do it before we're able to educate the public that the science is not solved and they are not providing with us the data points, they're not complying with freedom of information act request and so this process is skewed. and we have -- so when they tested it they found out that their results didn't match their

educated guess. and then what did they do? these scientists are politicians. they went into, what we call in the military, went into the hole. they lowered the turns, they got underground. don't ask questions and here's some of the emails in essence to prove that. here's the first one. the fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. there are two things about this -- mr. barton: when was that email? was that 10 years ago? was that a decade ago or -- when was that? mr. shimkus: 12 october 2009 at 8:57. it was two months ago. as of two months ago we can't account for the lack of warming. there's two things here. first of all you say we can't account for the lack of warming so their background research is already trying to skew the

research and he has an emotional response. it's a shame. i'm saddened. scientists shouldn't be emotionally attached to the data. they should -- this is the data, let's test it. what we would encourage our friends on the other side to say is, let's bipartisan in a manner, let's get the facts on the table and let's get the scientists to look at the facts. the facts are being hidden. that's sad. one is they don't have the facts, two is he's emotionally distraught because his hypothesis cannot be proven. here's another one, to the ranking member, i can't see either these papers being in the next international panel on climate change report. kevin and i will keep them out

somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is. here's another process on the scientific message. analyze the results. draw conclusions. they've got some -- they've done some analysis that doesn't support, so are they going to add that in a scientific objective fashion and say, this is what we believe, but there are some who disagree, they say that the facts don't speak for the high pot sis? no -- hypothesis? no. these scientists say we're going to bury it, we're going to hide it, we don't want the public to know. you can imagine scientists doing that? again, the scientific community is one of the most respected communities because they go by the scientific method. here they admit that they're going to keep the analysis out

of the report. two analyses that contradict what they want their hypothesis to be. mr. barton: mr. phil jones, he is the head of the climate research unit at east angrilya university in great britain. is he the gentleman that just resigned? mr. shimkus: he is the person that just resigned. mr. barton: and is michael man the professor at penn state that is the proponent initially of the hockey stick theory which has been shown to be discredited and that was actually using data search that was manipulated in a way that they shouldn't have been? mr. shimkus: that is -- mr. barton: those are the two gentlemen that -- the author and the recipient of this email? mr. shimkus: that's correct. mr. barton: and are these two gentlemen two of the leading proponents in the ipcc that the climate is growing warmer because of manmade co-2 emissions?

mr. shimkus: they are the foremost promoters of this theory and there's the follow-up. are they receiving taxpayer dollars to promote this theory? through the ipcc, which is a u.n. natural panel on climate change, or virginia.edu and you can speculate that there are grants, e.p.a. money going and another thing, these scientists are for hire. they're for hire. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. shimkus: i would yield. >> we heard the gentleman from massachusetts talk about big oil and saudi arabia funding all the opposition. i can't find the scientists that are getting those checks but a recent study came out in the last several weeks that says that government money going to climate science on behalf of those who believe in

human-caused global warming has been $79 billion over the last 20 years. they've dwarfed anything on the other side of the issue and they continue to do what you suggested, maybe that's why they continue to hide this information, so the money keeps coming. mr. shimkus: i believe that those who seek taxpayer dollars -- we know here that agencies and programs never go away. if that's why they're not providing the data, that's why they're hiding the fact of the last decade -- you can imagine us in this environment of trying to get control of the deficit and debt and we're spending billions of dollars to scientists who are not using the scientific method? >> i believe this year it's $7 billion from the federal government. mr. shimkus: so, yeah, they're on the dough and they want to keep their jobs so they continue to deceive the public.

i would say that it's a pretty damaging -- i would says that pretty damaging to their name, to the community and also to the taxpayers. now, if i may, i have one more that i'd like to share and there are tons. i mean, this is just a small sampling. the ones i've picked out, wanted to address the scientific method. again, as an engineer, give us the facts, give us the data, test the data, prove if it's right or wrong, if it's wrong, get an analysis and then maybe try again. retest it. let's retest the data points. here's another one. i've just completed mike's nature trick of adding in the real attempts -- temps to each series for the last 20 years, 1981 onwards.

for keith to hide the decline. so now not only are they not providing the data, they are keeping the analysis from being reported in the ipcc report and they're gymying the numbers. they're actually using tricks, these are scientists. now, we're politicians. i think people would have some skepticism. we don't claim to be -- you claim to be an engineer, i went to engineering school, i understand it. but if you were building a bridge or you were designing a building and you jimmyed the number on the pencil -- on the tensile strength of the steel, you'd be in real trouble because the design would be faulty and the building would

collapse. their design that administrator jackson, the design to remake the united states is on faulty data. it's on day that -- data that's been jimmied. and this house of cards will collapse. it'll be jobs in the wake on faulty data. now, bring us real data, go through the scientific method, test it, but don't hide it. don't trick us. don't deceive us. don't discourage your profession of scientist it is by staying on the public dole to receive taxpayer money to continue to promote a fraud. a fraud on the american public. so after i -- so i really appreciate congressman barton, for taking the time to help us

address this, there's a lot of education, and this education is on now, they're going to be making decisions on -- in copenhagen. mr. barton: my assumption is that the gentlemen who wrote those emails and received them, by and large are are in the inner circle of the climate change community and in all probability, they're in copenhagen right now. mr. shimkus: you bet they are. they are the u.n. designees to continue to do -- provide the information to the folks who attend the conference for which to make the decisions on. mr. barton: and if the president were to commit the united states to a legislative path that these scientists support and if we were to adopt as law the climate change bill that passed the house that requires a reduction of 83% of

emissions from co-2, manmade sources, 2005, by the year 2050, then -- if we implemented that, then we'd have a co-2 emissions level in this cuptry we last experienced in 1910. and if we do it on a per capita experienced, that we last experienced per person in 1875. is it the gentleman's position, if we were to do that, our lifestyle in 2050 would be anywhere comparable to what it is today? mr. shimkus: it would be dramatically different. we rely in our jobs and environment on cheap energy. i'm from the coal fields of southern illinois, i spent this whole year and last year fighting for our coal reserves and the importance of that and i usually bring another poster of miners who lost their jobs during the last cycle.

1,200 miners in one mine. the state of ohio lost 35,000 coal miner jobs. that's just a fraction of what we'll see in this country if we roll back the carbon emissions. if they could prove it -- but they can't. they can't even -- mr. barton: they can't even prove it with tricks. mr. shimkus: cardon dioxide is not a problem. mr. barton: if it were, there's more co-2 created here for the size of the room except maybe for the senate. mr. shimkus: and i thank you for letting me join you. mr. barton: i'd lime to yield now to the honorable john linder of the great state of georgia. mr. linder: i first got interested in this ave foo --

five or six years ago on a tip to new zealand. it was a congressional delegation. we had a visit with the noaa leader there where they leave to go to an argument ka. they put a power point presentation on the chart on the wall, at that time they'd dug into the ice core for 400,000 years back and from 400,000 years back to today, temperature increases and decreases, and co-2 increases and decreases, were in consonance, they moved with each other. i asked, who was burning fossil fuels 400,000 years ago? he took that as a rude question, and it took me a year to get a copy of the chart. i studied that chart and then i looked at the studies about the ice core. what you -- what you discover when you don't have it on an 8 1/2 by 11 piece of paper and

expand it is that temperature changes precede co-2 changes by about 1,000 years. mr. barton: that means temperature is the dominant variable and it drives the dependent variable, co-2. mr. linder: one study says 1,800 years, one says 2,800 years. mr. barton: so vice president gore is only off by 180 degrees. mr. linder: that's about right. so much of the report, co-2 is a trace gas, and it's a plant food. it's beneficial to all of life. co-2 is a modest gas, methane is 23 times more powerful at trapping heat. 65% of the heat-trapping gases come from water vapor. we're not going after them because we're going after people. what you learn when you discover that co-2 temperatures

follow the temperature changes is that there's a reason for it. there's a -- the reason is, we go through ice ages and global increases and declines in temperature. as the temperature declines, the trees start to die for lack of photosynthesis, then the bushes and then the grasslands. the dust blows out across the oceans. part of it is lead. when that lead settles to the bottom of the ocean, it catalizes growth in the largest biological mass we have on the planet, plankton. that growth emits co-2 to keep going. the oceans contain 70 times as much co-2 as the atmosphere does. as the plankton pull that out of the oceans, homeostasis or equilibrium causes more co-2 to come out of the atmosphere and into the oceans. the reverse happens when the

planet warms up through solar activity. cooler oceans have more co-2 than warm oceans. we have 388 part pers million today. mr. barton: and we believe in the atlantic and pacific we are in a cooling period. something called p.s.o. and an a.m.o. or something. mr. linder: that's correct. they've been in a cooling period. we have now 3,400 instruments that go into the oceans. every 10 days they pop up and give the satellites information about what's on the instruments and there's been no warming in the oceans. mr. barton: i know it's dangerous for congressmen to actually think. we're not accused of doing that very often. but there are sometimes, some congressmen, you and i, i think, are two, not that others do, but -- not that others don't, but we actually think.

i want to build on what you said. the ice core samples that you got the data that show temperature goes up, and then co-2 goes up. if temperature were to go down, then co-2 would go down. mr. linder: that's correct. temperatures go down, co-2 in the atmosphere goes up. mr. barton: we're in a situation -- mr. linder: i'm sorry, you're right. mr. barton: it appears on the data, if the data points we think are correct are correct, we're in a cooling period, the temperature has gone down at least eight years in a row, probably years in a row. we appear to be in a cooling period. but at the same time, we have to admit that co-2 concentrations are going up. i would hypothesize that the co-2 concentration is going up -- co-2 concentrations going up

will prevent as much cooling, it will keep the planet warmer than it would be otherwise, but still cooler overall, which would be a good thing for mankind. we don't want another ice age, do we? mr. linder: we do not. in the last two million years we've had two ice age the last about 100,000 years, interrupted by 10,000 years of warming. it's been 11rks400 since the last glaciation. we've had less sun activity in the last 11 years than in many, many years. mr. barton: i'm told that there are more glaciers in the world go grohing than declining. mr. linder: that's correct. but 388 parts pers million is not high, it's at the low end of the comfort scale. roughly 65 million to 135 million years ago, co-2 levels

were five or 10 times as high as they are today and produced a great amount of greenery to feed those animals. 500 million years ago, the cambria period. -- the cambrian period. it was known as the cambrian explosion. in that short period of time, all multicellular complex life that's ever existed on this earth buzz deposited in the fossil evidence. how did it happen? it happened because temperatures were warmer, co levels were 70,000 parts per million, 20 times what it is today, the entire planet was covered with greenery, and it had enormous amounts of oxygen. all of complex life as we know it, 96% of which is no longer

existent. mr. barton: it would have been a little warmer. we might not have been comfortable wearing a woolen sweater back then. mr. linder: but it would have been better than glaciation. we're teeled that temperatures are growing -- i always like to ask people to tell me, when they say temperatures are growing too much, i ask with what should the temperature be? should it be that of 1,000 years ago when greenland was settled for agriculture or people in scotland were growing wine grapes? or 879 a.d. when the thames froze over? or the lower ice age when greenland was emp tied of -- emptied of life again. mr. barton: all i know is when people retire they move to florida, not greenland. mr. linder: co-2 is a helpful

gas that feeds planet. the notion that we should control it somehow is nothing but vanity. we are not going to change what's put on this planet for 4.5 billion years. we're told we heard from the gentleman from massachusetts that there's a scientific consensus, he said 98% of the sign -- of the scientists, tens of thousands, agree with his position. i would like to ask him to produce that list. only 600 of them shared the nobel prize with al gore. a scientist from australia said only 35 people actually wrote the i.p.c. reports, and they were controlled by 10 people. what is not popularly known -- mr. barton: one of whom just resigned from his position at east anglia. mr. linder: he did. what's not known is 32,000 scientists, including edward

teller, who said there's no evidence that humans are causing any impact on the global warming that occurred between 1975 and 1998. in none whatsoever. five scientists who contributed to the first i.p.c. report, said in their papers, there is no evidence that humans are contributing. those five statements were removed by the top bureaucrat at the ipcc and replaced with one statement that said, there's no doubt that humans are causing this. he was asked about that under oath in a legal action. why did he remove those statements? he said, under immense pressure from the top of the federal government of the united states. now, consensus doesn't mean much in science. consensus is important in politics. in science we have to be seeking truth and fact. and indeed, in science, only

two conditions ever obtain. one is theory and the other is fact. you put forth your theory, you release your underlying documents and sources and methods and let your pires view it and try to reply -- let your peers we view it and try to replicate it. that's when i got nervous about this science. i tried to get underlying documents from jim hanson who had the first computer model, first to testify before congress in 1989, i believe, in the senate. recently spoke in england, said we have four years to save the planet. he doesn't release his source documents because he said they're proprietary. he's an employee of the federal government. the federal government ought to own those documents. they ought to be released. when somebody's hiding something, when somebody's hiding things you begin to woppeder why they're hiding it. mr. barton: it would be similar if we held an election and said,

assume that i won. but we didn't release the ballots, we didn't let them be audited, we just said, let's assume that -- we'll assume that since congressman linder said he won, he did. mr. linder: and we've been learning from east angrilya, i want to make a point -- -- angrilya, i want to make a point, those documents were released from inside. mr. barton: they should be in the public domain anyway. mr. linder: somebody working inside that organization realized they're destroying documents that were being asked for and released those documents. i believe that we ought to be thinking about releasing everything, let scientists poor over it and establish whether the theory is a fact and move on. mr. barton: i agree. we want to turn to the congressman from new orleans, louisiana, a member of the energy and commerce committee, congressman scalise.

mr. scalise: i want to thank the gentleman from texas for yielding and the gentleman from georgia for opening up this discussion and of course what we're talking about and the reason why this is so important is that the world, many of the different world leaders are getting ready to meet in copenhagen, denmark, to start discussing a kyoto type two treaty, a treaty for many countries, including the united states, to literally change the way our entire manufacturing base operates and of course here in congress we've been debating the proposal by speaker pelosi and others to codify that type of treaty in the form of the cap and trade national energy tax. they're trying to bring a national energy tax to our country to tax businesses, to tax not only businesses but also individuals in their house hold electricity -- household electricity use and it's all in the name of stopping manmade global warming. and so of course what brings us

to this debate that you're focusing on is the fact that we have found out recently through climategate that the science that they're using is corrupt. the scientists in fact behind much of the data that's been used to try to sell a cap and trade energy tax, that's been used to try to sell the kyoto treaty and now this new meeting in copenhagen to have a kyoto 2 type agreement, all of it was based on corrupted data. and of course you go back to former vice presidential gore who said the debate is over -- president al gore who said the debate is over. trying to say that all the scientists are in agreement and of course as my colleague from georgia pointed out, the scientists are not in agreement. what's even worse is now we've found out and uncovered this scandal where some of the scientists who have been collecting at that data through the u.n.'s intergovernmental panel on climate change, ipcc,

who is the respected body worldwide on all this data, it turns out they were actually corrupting the data that's been used and some of the examples through these emails, phil jones who just resigned, said, i've just completed mike's nature trip to, and he goes on, he talks about the decline in temperatures, and we go back to the imif a mouse hockey stick graph that al gore used in "the inconvenient truth" and the inconvenient truth for the former vice president is these emails have come out and exposed the scandal. if the gentleman from texas will allow me, i want to read a few of the other emails and i know my colleague from illinois just earlier highlighted some of the other emails but just to show how deep this is. first, phil jones in an email last year said, mike, you can delete any emails you may have

had with keith regarding ar-4 data set? keith will do likewise and he says, you can also email gene and get him to do the same? i don't have his email address. we will be getting casper to do likewise. so here he's talking about deleting data, deleting the emails that show that some of this manipulation and corruption of the data was going on. and this was the person who is the director of the university of east anglia's research unit. a scientist who should not only understand the importance of following the facts, following the data, but also understand that as others try to never nye data, that's something that -- verify this data, that's something he should be willing to share. mr. barton: the data that was used in the ipcc report in 2007, so it's a seminal document that has been used for policymaking decisions, not just in the united states, but all over the world.

and what you're saying is they went to some lengths to manipulate data that that report's based on. mr. scalise: they went to lengths to manipulate the data and to hide it, to try to destroy the evidence and of course some of that data, as you know, when we were having that debate here in committee and on the house floor on the cap and trade energy tax, many of the people who are promoting that national energy tax, speaker pelosi and her liberal lieutenants and others, are using that ipcc data to say, look, we need to act quickly because the data shows and of course now we know that the data was corrupted. but then he goes on and we were all familiar in this country with the freedom of information. this administration came in saying that they were going to be the most transparent administration ever and yet you look at these emails further and he says, this is in an email, the freedom of information line we're all using is this, so he's telling some of his other scientists who were involved in

this corruption, he says, ipcc is exempt from any country's freedom of information act. the skeptics have been told this. even though we possibly hold relevant info, the ipcc is not part, and then he goes on to say, therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on. so he's trying to lay out this groundwork so that he doesn't even have to turn over his data. this is i think before he destroyed it. and then he said, if the royal meteorological society is going to require authors to make all data available, raw data plus results from all intermediate calculations, he says, i will not submit any further papers to the journal. this is phil jones again leading scientists who data is used by many of these people all throughout the world to try to pass kyoto-type agreements in the cap and energy tax that's getting ready to be debated over in the senate. and i yield, yes. mr. linder: sadly that data the ipcc uses from east anglia is also the basis of the da a that

nasa uses -- the data that nasa uses and other models have been shaped by that da is a so there's no place to go now. since all of the source documents have been thrown away, to reconstruct all that. mr. scalise: it's really frustrating because there are scientists who have a different opinion, who have tried to present alternative data to this corrupt scientific data and they've been black listed and in fact i won't go into detail on those here but that information will continue to come out but in some of the emails they actually go on to describe how they are going to try to black list other scientists who try to propose data that shows something different than theirs and in fact even saying they're going to with hold some of their journal writings so that they won't even publish some of this information. so i go on to say this because they're trying to use this corrupt data, this corrupt scientific data, to pass not only a cap and trade energy tax that will run millions of jobs out of this country, but they're also trying to use it now in

conjunction with the e.p.a., with their latest ruling, to try to literally threaten congress about saying, ok, if you don't pass cap and trade here in congress, then the e.p.a. will in a de facto way try to pass their own cap and trade using these radical environmentalists and the e.p.a. again using the corrupt scientific data to try to pass it even if congress won't pass it because the american people have realized, this will run millions of jobs out of our country. many groups, the national association of manufacturers, on the low end said, we would lose three million jobs in our country if cap and trade energy tax was passed and every family would pay over $1,000 more per year in higher electricity rates and all of this is based upon false scientific datas that i been corrupted and we know it from the climategate emails. mr. barton: can i ask the chair how much time we have remaining in our special order? the speaker pro tempore: there are 12 minutes remaining. mr. barton: 12 minutes, ok. i'm going to have to ask with

about 10 minutes to go i regain because i've got some documents i want to put into the record. mr. linder: i want to make one point. the data that you're talking about that we're acting on, this country in cap and trade is also the data being used in copenhagen today as we speak to begin what al gore called the ultimate reason for all this, global governance. turning over the sovereignty of the united states to an unelected bureaucracy in the united nations. mr. barton: i want to thank congressman scalise, congressman linder and congressman shimkus for participating in this special order. what we're attempting to do is actually use the scientific method to determine what steps if any the united states government should take policywise if in fact climate

change or global warming is a major problem that needs to be addressed. and it does appear in my opinion that there is reason, reasonable doubt, about whether we should take some of the radical steps that have been espoused in the climate change bills that passed the house and are pending in the senate. i want to take the remaining time and go through the series of emails that have just become public, we've alluded to them. and go into a little more depth. the first email, which we've already alluded to, is from michael man. michael man is a climatology at penn state university. he's one of the leading scientists in the ipcc. he is the author of the original hockey stick theory that is kind of the genesis, the seminal document for the theory that mankind, this manmade co-2 is the cause of the climate warming in the world. this is a document from him to

phil jones who is until recently the head of the climate research unit at east anglia university in great britain. dr. jones has resigned in the last week or so. but it says, you can delete any emails that you've had with keith? keith is keith briffa regarding ar-4, the u.n. ipcc document from 2007, it's one of these policy documents that's used around the world, and you can see that he says, i'm going to contact gene about this, ok, gene is actually yew gene wahl, he's at the national ocean and atmospheric administration's office in boulder, colorado, that's with the u.s. department of commerce. so i'm going to contact gene about this. you can delete any emails that

you have? i'll get casper to do likewise. casper is casper jones, he is -- i mean caspar amman, he's at the national center for atmospheric research or ncar, in boulder, colorado. it's a federally supported consortium. in this email we have collaboration between noaa, -- noaa, ncar, both in the united states, the climate research unit, c.r.u., in east anglia, great britain, and many prominent ipcc contributors coordinating document destruction. i think that is something that policymakers here in the united states should be concerned about. now let's go to the next document. email number two. now the first one was from michael man to phil jones. this is from phil jones to

somebody named -- a gentleman named tom wigly andity subject is, schle's suggestion. this is last year, december of 2008. says, i am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything i've written about him. about two months ago i deleted loads of emails so we have very little if anything at all. so, what this is showing is that they have, one could say they have conspired to delete data. ben santer is a prominent climate modeler at the department of energy's lawrence livermore laboratory and tom

wigly is a scientist at the national center for atmospheric research in boulder, colorado. the gist of this is, he's already deleted a lot of emails from two months ago. what are they trying to hide here? let's go to email number three. email number three shows an unprecedented data purge at the c.r.u. in east anglia, great britain. here's a public index of documents on one day, and then here's the public index on the next -- very quickly after they've gone through and purged all of this. it says, the next day, on july 28, phil jones deleted data from his public file, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990's. this morning, everything dr. phil's directory had been

removed. it's not just the emails that have been deleted. in a widely reported event, steve mcintyre a canadian research eric who testified before -- reerger, who testified before congress several years ago, he's been trying to get, through freedom of information act, the public document, the documents some of these studies are purported to be based on. instead of releasing them they purged them. they took them away in what is reported to be an unprecedented data purge. they've deleted files relating to station data from the public directories. twhrer data now if they're still in existence? what is it they're trying to hide? if the temperature data records proved their theory, they'd want to publicize them, at least i would think they would. let's go to number four. this is an email from phil

jones who we know well, now to a gentleman named neville nichols. mr. nichols -- let's see, mr. nichols -- i'm not sure who mr. nichols is. but here it says, i hope i don't get a call from congress. ok. i'm hoping that no one there realizes i have a u.s. department of energy grant and have had this, with tom w., for the last 25 years. so, this is back in 2005. this is when i was chairman of the energy and commerce committee and we were conducting the investigation into dr. mann's hockey stick proposal, hockey stick theory. we had asked for documents from professor mann, dr. mann this

gentleman is say, i hope the congress doesn't realize we're getting federal money. we don't want them asking us about documents. as we now know, they have destroyed many of those documents. or apparently have destroyed many of those documents. let's go to number five. this document shows that the link -- the lengths to which they'll go to suppress informing. it says, if they ever hear that there's a freedom of information act now in the u.k., i think i'll delete these rather than send them to anyone. congressman markey a good friend of mine, and is a believer a proponent of man-made global warming, has got data sets he says justify some of the policies that he supports. but here we see that some of these documents, some of these data sets that mr. markey and

others, who sincerely believe there's a problem, appear to be very suspect. in fact, they're so suspect that if they have to release them publicly, they'd rather delete them than comply with the freedom of information act. tom wigly sent me a worried email when he heard about it. he thought people might ask him for his model code. my heavens. keep in mind that this theory that man kind-made co-2 emotions is driving the temperature upwards is just that. it's a theory. these researchers have built these models to try to replicate the planet's temperature mechanism, and all these models show the temperature going up. but that's the conclusion that the modelers want.

it is not factually correct to say the temperature is going up. it's factually correct to say that the modelers who want the temperatures to go up are putting variables and assumptions in these models to drive them up, but apparently don't have the data to back that up. let's go to number six. this is again from mr. jones to a gentleman named gavin schmidt, concerning the revised version of something called the wengen paper. it says, all of our freedom of information officers have be using the same exceptions not to respond. the advice they got from the information commissioner. the freedom of information line that we're using is, that the i.p.c. -- the ipcc, keep in mind, they're the international

funding, it's funded primarily, not exclusively, but primarily by the u.s. government, they're exerpt exempt from any fee freeh dom of information act. therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on. to me, that's just irresponsible to say that the ipcc which is a total governmental agency, admittedly through the unn and a large number of nations, but the u.s. is the primary funder is above federal freedom of information laws, not only in the united states but every other country. the information that's been collected and paid for by u.s. taxpayers and funded by u.s. scientists is now out of reach of the u.s. taxpayer. i think that's just flat wrong, madam speaker. and my last email is number seven, and this shows, while

they accuse people like myself of trying to be bullies and to be -- to ostracize people, here's an email where professor mann -- it's too michael mann from a gentleman named hughes, apparently the con trarnes have an in with g.r.l., the geophysical, a journal, it causes me some unease. later on, this is truly awful. if you think that sayers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp if we can find documented evidence of this, we can go to official channels to get him ousted. they're trying to ostracize those that are honest enough to say that they have some doubts about the theory and i'll end with this.

the theory of global warming caused by mankind is just that -- it is a theory. it is not a fact. as u.s. taxpayers and the guardians of the u.s. taxpayers, we should demand that the facts be made public so we can make a relevant policy decision. i thank the gentlewoman. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for 60 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much, madam chairman. let me agree with the distinguished ranking member that global warming is something other than what it's been presented. he said it's a theory. i would suggest as we go on with my speech, we'll learn it's a fraud. madam speaker, not too long ago, i stood here on the floor of the house and remarked that i have expected rod sterling to appear from behind a curtain and announce, this is the twilight zone.

since then, this body has continued on an agenda fit only for the most bizarre episode of that program. in the last month, congress has passed bailout, rescue, and stimulus packages, dumping trillions of dollars of debt onto the backs of the american people and yes, onto our children's backs, and their children's backs. congress passed a massively expensive and economically destructive cap and trade bill, moved toward a government takeover of our health care system, and now congress appears ready to support president obama's request to dig ourselves even deeper into the mire of afghanistan. optimism over the election of a new president promising change has turned into despair as the american people are realize what kind of change is being imposed on our country. it's going from bad to worse. this week marks the beginning

of the united nations framework convention on climate change in copenhagen. it started yesterday. december 7. parole harbor day. how very appropriate. -- parole harbor day. -- pearl harbor day. how very appropriate this conference could well bind the american people to a series of agreements that would be a boon to globalists while picking the pockets of the american taxpayer and shackling us to restrictions, mandates, and controls inconsistent with our free society and enforced by governing bodies we've never voted for. according to the conference's website, the conference in copenhagen is a turning point in the fight to prevent what they claim will be a climate disaster, and i quote, the science demands it.

the economic support -- the economics support it. the future generations require it. proclaims the website. well, madam speaker, i'm here to explain why that aggrandizing postulation is complete and utter nonsense and to warn of the danger that lurks behind this high-sounding rhetoric. the copenhagen conference is the cullmy nation of efforts that began -- culmination of efforts that began in earnest in 1992. that was the year, our new world order president, george h.w. bush, submitted the world conference on climate change to the senate. it was quickly adopted by a voice vote. for the most part, that 1992 framework treaty was filled with grandiose yet vague principles. it asked for long-term co-2 reductions from 192 nations which signed that contract.

yet few of the obligations were spelled out, and there was no enforcement or penalties written into that treaty. it stated objectives, and that was step number one. step number two came in 1997, when the kyoto protocol was established that included enforceable mandates, mandates that meet all of those stated objectives. madam chairman, if i could ask for a built of consideration from the -- for a bit of consideration from the chair at this point because there's a conversation going on up front that's distracting. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. rohrabacher: the conversation is still going on. thank you, madam chairman.

step 2002 came in 1997 when kyoto established enforceable mandates. mandates to meet the stated objectives started in the earlier network agreement that was sent on to the senate by president bush. well, the 1997 protocol had -- was different than the earlier one because it had enforceable mandates to meet the stated objectives stated earlier. this clearly would have meant a fundamental altering of our economy with a dramatic negative impact on the lives of our people. with the republicans in control of the senate at that time, president clinton never submitted the kyoto treaty for ratification. then, in 2001, president george w. bush announced we would not sign the kyoto treaty, due to the enormous costs and economic dislocation associated with

complying with the chi owe thomanndates. that was the end of -- with the kyoto mandates. that was the end of step number two. here we are at step number three. while a kyoto-like agreement is not likely, copenhagen may well lay the foundations for the future that the globalists who are pushing this agenda envision for us. what they envision for the united states. u.s. us. the threat to us is there and it is real. a few months ago, h.r. 2454, the so-called cap and trade bill, passed the house and is now waiting action in the senate that far-reaching legislation seeks to put in place taxes and regulatory policies that exactly parallel what the copenhagen crowd would mandate and can be traced back to that same alliance between