. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-317 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: thank you, mr. chairman. while the clean air act obviously serves the useful purpose, all too often states and localities are tied up in knots just trying to comply with provisions of it while the rules promulgated in response to the law or amendments to the law just weren't well thought out. and in this regard in 2005 congress amended the clean air act so states and localities could get off the regulatory hook for so-called exceptional events, dust events, events they cannot control but impact air quality. in 2007, the e.p.a. adopted the exceptional event rule implementing congress'

amendment to the clean air act, but this rule has proven flawed, costly and inconsistently implemented. let me give you an idea of what we're talking about here. . this is a photograph of one of the events that happened just this year in the phoenix area, phoenix metropolitan area. this was caused by the monsoon. the monsoon comes along and when it rolls along flat ground it tend to pick up every loose bit of dust or dirt that's there and it causes an event like this. obviously this is not something that the state or the local governments can control. yet we are forced to go then to the e.p.a. and beg for an exception to the cheap air act. and it's proven extremely costly when we have to do it over and over again. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i ask

unanimous consent to speak on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: i wanted to say to the gentleman that i think his amendment makes a great deal of sense. it complies with what i think e.p.a. ought to do under these exceptional circumstances and we are prepared to accept his amendment. the chair: does the gentleman y50e8d back his time? mr. waxman: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i'll just summarize a little more. if you can put that picture back up while we are speaking here. just to give you an idea how prevalent the problem is, in arizona the maag has said there are about 100 exceedences of standard this year, all but one, all but one was from an exceptional event. dust storms that occur naturally. and so what happens then is state and localities have to go to the e.p.a. and beg for an exception to the rule. in some cases just for an

example if you take all of the events in 2011, the association of governments has estimated that it will cost over $1 million, $1 million to just argue and put together the paperwork to go to the e.p.a. and say this was a big monsoon that caused this. it was an exceptional event. in the end they may rule in our favor but the cost of actually going through it, it's not just miracopa county. the san joaquin valley they have noted that the paperwork for just one high wind exceptional event takes more than 400 staff hours to prepare, to got to the e.p.a. 400 staff hours for one exceptional event like this. to go and say this shouldn't count against our air quality or account against us in terms of new regulations that will be imposed and cost upon us.

this is an important amendment. it's not just an academic question. i'm glad that all sides recognize this. i thank the gentleman from california for accepting the amendment. i wish to yield time to the gentlelady who is sponsor of the bill itself. i just want to say that i am a co-sponsor of the bill, the underlying bill, upon which this amendment will be attached, and i support it. i thank her for her doinged work at bringing this forward. the chair: the gentlelady from south dakota virginia tech. miss -- ms. in a moment: i -- ms. noem: this would have a sense of congress that the e.p.a. should exclude exceptional events. they would give us a consistent and transparent manner for dealing with these events, and certainly rural america and other parts of america need the certainty that the regulation is not triggered by natural events that are out of control. and so i certainly appreciate that. i yield back the balance of my time.

mr. flake: i thank the gentlelady. the e.p.a. does recognize there is a problem here and they are working to correct it. it's just taking a long time. the rule was promulgated in 2007. we have had three, four years since that time and every year it costs states and local governments millions of dollars just to seek exceptions with these exceptional events. so i -- this language, this amendment simply encourages the e.p.a. to move for quickly. and that congress stands ready to help them to fashion a new rule that will truly account for these exceptional events. with that i urge support for the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-317. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. schock: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in house report number 112-317, offered by mr. schock of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. schock: i rise today to offer an amendment with my good friend and colleague, congresswoman shelley moore capito of west virginia. our amendment is simple and sprord. it requires -- straightforward. it requires the ep taupe consider the impact of new agricultural jobs and the economy before issuing new rules and regulations. similar amendment to the clean water cooperative federalism act passed this house in july, and it enjoyed broad bipartisan support. my amendment today says that if jobs in the economic well-being of farmers would be negatively impacted, that the e.p.a. will be required to hold public hearings in the impacted state. it would also require the e.p.a. to notify the state's governor,

legislature, and congressional district. and it would require that the e.p.a. post their analysis of the negative job impact on their website, request the secretary of agriculture to do the same, and request the governor of that state to post that similar analysis on the state capital website. i don't believe this is too much to ask. we are simply asking for the e.p.a. to calculate the number of jobs lost and the economic impact on the agricultural community with a new rule that would do such. if their calculation turns out to be detrimental, we want the e.p.a. to let our nation's farmers know before they implement additional red tape. we expect the bureaucrats in the e.p.a. here in washington, d.c., to go out to the real world and understand the impact of the rules that they are implementing, that they are suggesting, and that have a real effect on farmers who are trying to run their operations across america. they are helping to feed the world's population.

this past weekend the illinois farm bureau in my home state had their annual meeting and they conduct add survey of the thousands of farmers who participated at that convention. they asked them an open-ended question -- what posed the biggest threat to their future profitablity as familiar farmers? their answer? was an input costs. lower commodity prices. land prices. commodity price swings. no, their answer was overwhelmingly government regulation. dale, a farmer from jacksonville, illinois, told me, and i quote, the thought of the e.p.a. continuing to place more regulation on my farming operation is unfounded. my family prides itself on being environmentally stewards of our property and making our farm better for the next generation. we do it better here than any other place in the world. jamie another farmer from my

district told me, that quote, the e.p.a. overregulation has the potential to shut us down. we wouldn't be able to farm with modern equipment, livestock, walk across the field, and create dust when it's dry out. we need to take regulators out to our farms and personally show them there is no way around dust or dirt. it's just a part of the natural environment. let's let dale, jamie, and other farmers in our country continue to do what they do best and let the e.p.a. bureaucrats understand first before they implement any rule what kind of effect, if any, it will have negatively on jobs and the economy throughout our country. i urge a yes vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is required. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i rise in opposition to the amendment. seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i have several concerns about this amendment. which seems to ignore the reality of how agencies communicate along with the well established process for how

e.p.a. proposes and finalizes a rule. first of all this amendment requires e.p.a. to conduct additional economic analysis for a broad range of agency actions that could affect agriculture. including guidance documents and policy statements. requiring an expensive and time consuming detailed economic analysis for every policy statement makes no sense. secondly, this amendment singles out one favored sector for special treatment. why should we have an entirely different rule making process in place for agriculture? if the republicans are concerned about the rule making process, then they should work with us on a bipartisan basis to improve the way rules are adopted for all sectors. not just one. this amendment also isn't necessary. e.p.a. already has to evaluate the costs and benefits of each rule to satisfy requirements in

numerous statutes. when issuing a rule, e.p.a. has to comply with the administrative procedure act, the paperwork reduction act, the regulatory flexibility act, the small business regulatory enforcement, fairness act, the unfunded mandates reform act, specific environmental statutes, executive orders on regulatory planning and review, requirements of the office of management and budget, and others. a minute ago we accepted an amendment, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, that called on e.p.a. not to have a burdensome process when they would grant the exceptional events issued for not to count a violation when it was an exceptional event that caused the problem. he argued we didn't need all that burdensome regulation to get to that result. this additional burdensome regulation is unnecessary.

according to the g.a.o., these requirements are clearly voluminous and require a range -- wide range of procedural consult at thisive and analytical action on the part of the agencies, end quote. this amendment appears to ignore the well established process and instead would add another burdensome layer to the already lengthy review. it serves no purpose. it bogs down the agency. it creates more bureaucracy. it costs more money. it does not accomplish anything. and insofar as it accomplishes anything, it just stalls the agency from acting in only one area, for agriculture. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment as well as oppose the underlying bill. i reserve whatever time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from illinois. mr. schock: can i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. schock: thank you, mr. chairman. i would respond to my friend from california with a couple of

points. first of all we did have the opportunity to apply a similar rule to the entire bureaucracy. we passed that yesterday. it's called the reins act. but with regard to specifically pointing out agency by agency, a similar amendment passed earlier this year to the clean water bill, a clean water act, that has bipartisan support and i certainly would hope that this amendment would as well. finally to the concern about expense, i can't imagine what's more expensive than putting americans out of work. i can't think of what's more expensive than asking the american farmers to come up with more cash and more expenses because of bureaucrats' new rules in washington, d.c. and finally, this does not contribute the agency from doing anything. it just requires the agency to know what they are doing and the impact on jobs. and that to be known by the farmers, the states, congressional delegation, and certainly the bureaucrats of the e.p.a. with that i yield a minute to my

friend from colorado, mr. gardner. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from illinois for this amendment. it's ironic the opposition to this amendment characterizes the amendment as a burden. however the burden being placed i would suggest if it's a burden at all is on the e.p.a. the e.p.a. who actually has to take a look at whether or not this is impacting jobs before the regulation is promulgated. how about that? we did something around this place that takes the burden off the private sector and makes government to do their job to make sure they are not hurting jobs in private industry. you know this is an amendment that makes absolutely common sense. absolute common sense to look before you leap. to make sure you understand the impacts of a regulation before you issue it. and that's why i support this house amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, the e.p.a. goes through an incredible analysis now, the cost and benefits, and all the other considerations. it's appropriate.

to add another review of regulations at e.p.a. is to require paralysis by analysis and perhaps that's the objective of the amendment. the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, has indicated he can't imagine any more expensive than what this regulation might do to farmers. well, i'll tell you something that's more expensive, tax breaks for stillaires and billionaires and millionaires is a lot more expensive than what requiring e.p.a. to do even more. . let's not burden the agency with reviews only for one sector that adds nothing to the analysis that they already achieve before they adopt any regulation. and these regulations that are already in effect now are not costing jobs. this whole bill is supposed to prevent regulations that isn't

adopted. we're not losing jobs because of that. we're losing jobs because our economy is not functioning, because we don't have a willingness by the republicans to stimulate this economy, get people back to work and get our -- get jobs for those who need them. i oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-317. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. green: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk. -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-317 offered by mr. al green of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 487, the gentleman from texas, mr. al green, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. green: i thank you, mr.

chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: thank you. there has been much debate as to whether this bill will create or save jobs. there is much speculation based on whether this bill will create or save jobs. when you have few facts, you generally speaking can have much speculation. this amendment addresses speculation. there is some sense in this country that our approval rating is low in congress because of much speculation. speculation can breed distrust. speculation can lead to fact-free debates, a term inside good friend, emanuel cleaver, representative from missouri, uses. fact-free debates. this amendment can help us

eliminate fact-free debates. this amendment contains less than 100 words, and it addresses the elimination of fact-free debates. it reads -- not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act the administrator of the environmental protection agency shall transmit to congress a report estimating the increased or decreased in the number of jobs in the united states that will occur as a result of the enactment of this act. this amendment eliminates fact-free debates and speculation. so if you really want to eliminate fact-free debates and speculation, then you should support this amendment. if you believe that this bill really does create or save jobs, then you should support this amendment.

if you believe that carlisle is right, that no life can live forever, and this eliminates mall ace aforethought, then you should vote for this amendment. if you believe that bryant is right, that truth crushed is rise give, then vote for this amendment. if you believe that fact-free debates ought to be eliminated, you are to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. does the gentleman from colorado seek time in opposition? >> i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: i understand the confusion about jobs and the e.p.a. i think there is a great deal of confusion when it comes to whether or not the e.p.a. is considering jobs in their analysis. the administration has issued an executive order. through the energy and commerce

committee held a number of hearings on the executive order that says, hey, you need to take a look at the impact of jobs when regulation is promulgated. we had testimony from pair yuss officials at the e.p.a. whether or not they look at -- various officials at the e.p.a. whether or not they look at jobs. there is concern whether or not they care about jobs. the problem is we need to take a look at those jobs before the regulation is issued. that's the amendment we passed by mr. schock. addressing jobs clearly is not the authority or the -- excuse me -- the expertise of the e.p.a. in fact, just ask assistant administer matthew stanislas, they didn't take a look at jobs. 30 seconds in his statement before he said they did take a look at the impact on jobs. to the extent that e.p.a. does include the jobs impact, it has been widely criticized for making far-fetched claims that

regulations create jobs. we had a hearing with gina mccarthy who testified that for every regulation, $1 million in regulations it creates 1.5 jobs. 1.5 jobs for every $1 million in cost of regulations. that's their idea of a job-creating idea. we don't need to spend money on a study to know that avoiding overregulation will benefit the economy. avoiding overregulation will benefit the economy. regulations, 1.5 jobs for every $1 million, that's the kind of math that my constituents, many constituents across this country simply don't understand. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. green: it is an opinion well stated and i appreciate

the opinion well stated. however, the best way to ascertain whether or not jobs are being created or eliminated is to utilize impurecal evidence developed after -- comburecal evidence developed after the -- imperical evidence developed after the fact rather than before. if you believe, and i believe your hearts are in the right place, if you believe this is an opportunity to dispel any myths, to dispel any speculation, then let's have a study done after the bill has passed and after there has been some time for implementation. i'm willing to extend the time. i'm willing to have fwoo do the study. -- g.a.o. to do the study. my heart's in the right place. i want us to have proof positive that this bill does or does not eliminate jobs. i want to eliminate the speculation, and i believe i have enough time left to yield some to my friend -- how much do i have left, mr. speaker? the chair: the gentleman has 1

1/2 minutes. mr. green: i would engage in a colloquy with my friend. i would yield to you to -- mr. gardner: thank you very much for the time and consideration. again, we did adopt an amendment that does take a look at the regulation before it's offered. mr. green: if i may reclaim time. before. you see, comburecal evidence under the scientific -- imperical evidence under the scientific method is best required after you have the evidence. you utilize speculation to come to a conclusion and then call that a fact. this would eliminate speculation. i would yield back. mr. gardner: thank you. i know if i stub my toe it will hurt before i do it. we ought to check out whether or not it will cost jobs before i do it. mr. green: reclaiming my time. the question is will you'll actually have the opportunity to hurt your toe, as you put it. there is no need to avoid things that don't exist. let us get the actual imperical, raw evidence to use that in order to draw our conclusions on whether or not

this bill creates or save jobs. mr. gardner: the groups in colorado know this issue the best, the farmers and ranchers who know this the best. mr. green: excuse me. reclaiming my time. because supporting something is not imperical evidence as to whether or not it will do a certain thing. i respect all who is supporting it. by the way, i don't disrespect you. i believe your heart's in the right place. what i'm trying to get you to see is if you utilize the scientific method you will get your imperical evidence after you have given this an opportunity to be enacted. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. green: thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i'd like to continue with the list with the overwhelming support of those in my district that believe this will indeed cost jobs. we adopted an amendment that says, hey, let's look at it before it gos into effect. the -- goes into effect. the colorado association of wheat growers, the colorado cattle association, the

colorado lamb council, the colorado livestock association, the colorado sheep and wool authority, the colorado wool growers authority and the colorado farm bure e. they will work each and every day under this regulation. the e.p.a. says, hey, we are not going to do this right now. they are very concerned -- mr. green: will the gentleman yield? mr. gardner: i will yield. mr. green: with all due respect, the world is larger than colorado. mr. gardner: i understand there are concerns from boston. there are some concerns in houston. there are some concerns in los angeles. but i can tell you in rural colorado, in rural america there are grave concerns that there are many people in this body that think their concerns over farm dust are nothing more than concerns over pixie dust. mr. green: will the gentleman yield? mr. gardner: i think we can go on voting for this. mr. green: if you have time. we have a rock crushing company

in my district. it yields dust, particulate matter. that is something that is a concern to rural people as well. mr. grarder in: reclaiming my time. and the gentleman will -- mr. gardner: reclaiming my time. and the gentleman will know that they'll enforce their own dust regulations according to their own local conditions. i will just oppose this amendment. i believe we will get on to the underlying bill and adopt the underlying bill so we can move forward creating jobs, making sure we are not killing jobs and do what's right for this country when it comes to the economy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. green: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-317 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 1 by

mr. rush of illinois, amendment number 2 offered by mrs. christensen of the virgin islands, amendment number 4 by mr. markey of massachusetts, amendment number 5 by mr. waxman of california. amendment number 8 by mr. green of texas. the unfinished business is the request of a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-317 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. wish, on which further proceed -- rush, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-317 offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 150. the nays are 255. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-317 by the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-317 offered by mrs. christensen of the virgin islands. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 159, the nays are 250. the amendment is not adoppeded. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-317 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 165. the nays are 249. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-317 by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-317 offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 158. the nays are 257. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-317, by the gentleman from texas, mr. al green, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in house report number 112-317, offered by mr. al green of texas. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 170. the nays are 247. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is aconted. -- adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1633 and pursuant to house resolution 487, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nay a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to establish a

temporary prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit federal regulation of nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regulated under state, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. please take your conversations from the aisle. all members please be seated. for what purpose does the gentlelady from colorado rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. degette: most definitely i am. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. degette of colorado moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1633, to the committee on energy and commerce, with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of the bill, add the following section, section 4, protecting the public from toxic dust that causes cancer and brain damage. nothing in this act or the amendment made by this act shall prohibit the administrator of the environmental protection agency from proposing, finalizing, implementing, or enforcing any regulation promulgated under the clean air act, 42 u.s.c., 7401 relating to emissions and particulate form of cad mi yum, lead, or asbestos , including asbestos released from mining activities and release interested demolition and renovation activities.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mitts degette: thank you, mr. speaker. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house is not in order. the chair would ask all members to please take their conversations from the floor. ask all members to please take their seats. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. degette: thank you. really? really, mr. speaker? with one week left in the legislative session, we have spent an entire day debating about a bill that does not address an existing problem and with the continuing resolution expiring one week from tomorrow, we are not working on an appropriations bill to keep our government operating? we are not here today voting on an extender that would extend the payroll tax for middle americans? just as the economy begins to recover. and really? we are not voting on extending

unemployment benefits to help struggling families stay afloat while they continue to look for work? really, mr. speaker? once again we are not doing one thing today to put americans back to work? unfortunately -- mr. speaker, this house is still not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the gentlelady deserves to be heard. all members will please remove their conversations from the floor. and please take their seats. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. degette: thank you, mr. speaker. unfortunately as ridiculous as today's effort has been, the consequences of the bill are no laughing matter. the truth is the e.p.a. does not currently regulate farm dust. this bill would prevent a regulation that doesn't actually exist from overseeing something undefined.

an e.p.a. administrator, lisa jackson, has said unequivocally, that she does not intend to regulate farm dust in the future. but to add insult to injury, the consequences of this proposed solution could be devastating. the bill that came out of the energy and commerce committee could be interpreted broadly to limit existing and future clean air act public health protections for different pollutions. this final amendment that i offer today offers us the chance to protect our children and our grandchildren from asbestos, lead, cad mi yum, and other toxic air pollutants. i want to be clear, this is the final amendment to the bill and even though i'd like to it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted it would then be voted on on final passage as amended. now, mr. speaker, if we are going to adopt this bill, we should make sure that we don't inadvertently roll back e.p.a.

rules relating to toxic dust containing cadmium, lead, and asbestos, this should be something all of us could agree on. currently the bill exempts particulate matter from regulation under the clean air act if it's natural material, commonly produced in rural areas, and not produced by combustion. well, asbestos is a natural material. activities involving asbestos are considered typical in rural areas, and asbestos emissions from mining and demolition do not vf combustion -- involve combustion. unfortunately asbestos is also a known carcinogen. what would happen if we exempted asbestos from the clean air act? unfortunately we already know. to see the realities of asbestos, a natural material, we could simply ask the rural families of libby, montana. in 2009 the environmental

protection agency declared a public health emergency in libya after decades of asbestos exposure from local mines. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the chair would ask all members to please take their conversations from the floor. ask all members to please take their seats. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. degette: thank you. in libby, montana, even though the mine closed in 1990, the e.p.a. believes that the current conditions continue to present significant ongoing threats to public health. there remains significantly higher rates of asbestos related disease in libby compared with the national average. too bad that the managers of the mine told their workers that the dust they inhaled was just, quote, nuisance dust and would have no permanent effect. h.r. 1633 would also exempt lead

and cadmium particulates from the clean air act because they are natural materials, activities involving lead and cadmium such as sefment kilns and smelters are typical in rural areas, and they produce lead and cadmium without combustion. sounds safe, right? unfortunately, cadmium is a known human car sin began. -- carcinogen. lead is a potent neuro toxin. infants and young children are especially sense thive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems. is that what this distinguished body really wants to do? actually take steps to cause behavioral problems, learning efficiencies, and lower i.q.'s in our nation's rural children? mr. speaker, this entire session of congress has felt to many of us like a trip into ally's

wonderland. while our nation struggles with a devastating economy, we do nothing about jobs or getting americans back to work. instead, we repeatedly fall down the rabbit hole's extreme legislation and now with this so-called farm dust regulation prevention act, it seems that we are even having tea with the chesser -- cheshire. to quote, we are all mad here, you're mad, you must be mad or you wouldn't have come here. sadly for the american people h.r. 1633 simply underscores the madness of this body right now. it's a -- an imaginary problem. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five

minutes. the gentleman will suspend. jats may proceed. mr. whitfield: thank you, mr. speaker. american farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses like many other sectors of this economy have faced an onslaught of e.p.a. regulation. regulations that are costly and make it more difficult to create jobs in america at a time when america needs jobs. the congressional research service recently reported that agriculture alone has been facing new clean air act greenhouse gas standards, engine emission standards, national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulates, clean water act permitting and other requirements. superfund reporting requirements. regulations for permitting and other regulatory requirements relating to the use of pesticides. .

there are 2.2 million farms in american and 1.8 million people employed in those farms. those provide 5.8% of the exports from america and provide $154 billion to our economy. this legislation that we have on the floor today has the support of 120 democrats and republicans. we have over 197 organizations representing rural america that support this legislation. the bill is very simple. it does not change any of the existing e.p.a. regulations. it simply says that e.p.a. cannot change its standard for coarse material earlier than one year after the ep actment of this legislation and it defines and exempts nuisance dust. so why do we need this bill? people are saying that lisa

jackson said she's not going to regulate p.m.-10. that is true. she has said that. but we know that many of the environmental decisions in america today are made by people and groups an entities that file lawsuits against the e.p.a. every time that's happened recently, e.p.a. will enter into a consent decree for the entity that brought the lawsuit. that's what we're afraid will happen in this instance. so we can pass this legislation and we can make it certain that local governments, state governments and tribal governments will decide this issue of nuisance dust. now some people have said ordinary care my god, this dust is so dangerous to health. it includes all sorts of substances. well, i might remind everyone

that one of the authors of e.p.a.'s most recent integrated science assessment for particulate matter testified before our committee and he said for the long-term effects of coarse particles, there's not one shred of evidence in support of long-term health effects. this is a common piece of legislation, protects jobs in america prork tect ours exports, and i would urge everyone to vote against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection -- the chair: without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. degette: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes

by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 156,

the nays are 252. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. degette: mr. speaker, i ask for a rored vote. those in favor of a recorded vote will stand. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 267. the nays are 150.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 267 f 68. the nays are 150. the bill is agreed to. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i ask unanimous consent that mr. cooper, the gentleman from tennessee, be removed as a co-sponsor from h.r. 3538. he was inadvertently placed on

the bill and i ask unanimous consent he be removed, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the secretary: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house the senate has passed without amendment, h.r. 470, cited as the whoever power allocation act of 2011. -- hoover power allocation act of 2011.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for up with minute. >> i thank the courltcy of the members of the house and colleagues on both sides of the aisle and ask everyone here and across the nation to pray for those individuals in virginia tech, in blacksburg, virginia, who are dealing with the

shootings that took place there today and the two people who regrettably have passed away. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute to inquire of the majority leader the schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman may proceed. -- may proceed. mr. hoyer: thank you. before yielding to the majority leader, let me say i join the gentleman from virginia and i know certainly mr. cantor, who also represents virginia, but the entire country, we don't know the facts yet, don't know exactly what's happened but the information i have is that two people may well have lost their lives at this point in time and we certainly want to send our deepest sympathies to virginia tech, to the families that are affected by this incident, and hope sincerely that there are -- that there is no further

loss of life and on that issue, let me yield to the majority leader who i know will want to say something as well. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding -- the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. i want to join in expressing our sorrow and extending our thoughts and prayers to those in the hokie nation and blacksburg who unfortunately have endured more pain today and reminiscent of the pain that so many have felt in that fine university in the past. hopefully things can look up and i know that there are reports in which law enforcement was involved and we also want to extend our thanks to law enforcement in that community as well as everywhere else in this country, certainly in this capitol, for what

individuals and capitol police and other police forces do for us every single day. again, we express our sorrow to those who are mourning the loss of life and extend our thoughts to president steger at virginia tech and to that community. i do thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be post-toned until 6:30 p.m. at this point, the house is scheduled to be in session for the remainder of the week with a weekend session possible. per our usual weekly schedule, i expect morning hour to begin at 10:00 a.m. and legislative business to start by noon. however, because this will likely be our last week in session prior to the end of the year, the daily convening times may fluctuate to accommodate our business. i can assure members we do not

expect votes on tuesday, december 13, prior to 1:00 p.m. that is as far as tuesday, december 13 is concerned. mr. speaker, our legislative business next week will include a number of suspensions, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition, we expect to consider a conference report on the remaining appropriations bills for f.y. 2012 as well as the conference report for the national defense authorization act. i want to thank both chairman hal rogers and chairman buck mckeon for their hard work throughout the year. finally, we anticipate a vote on the year-end package of expiring laws that include the payroll tax holiday, unemployment benefits and the physician reimbursement issue. before i yield back my time, i want to take a minute to highlight a bipartisan event that took place here in the capitol this week. yesterday, the democratic whip and i hosted the first ever facebook hack-a-thon, to allow

software developers to get together to talk about utilizing social media to make congress more accessible to the country. 200 people participated and shared their ideas. i thank the gentleman for joining me for his help in facilitating this cause and i look forward to working with him to make congress a more transparent and accessible institution for people who have sent us here. i yield back my time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his comments and leadership on the hack-a-thon event that occurred yesterday, he and i both had the opportunity to address a large number, other 250, i think, individuals who were there, who will in fact bring their expertise, their technical knowledge to bear on what the gentleman referenced as making

our institution more accessible and transparent to our citizens. we all believe, i think, that doing that will make the products that we produce better and make citizens better able to make judgments on the work that we do. i want to thank the gentleman and his staff for their leadership on this effort. we were glad to join in that. mr. speaker, i understand that unemployment insurance, the payroll tax issue which will continue to give the middle class tax cuts to those who need it most, the unemployment which will keep millions of people from losing their unemployment, as well as the physician adjustment are scheduled next week. it's my understanding that bill has not been filed yet. can the gentleman tell me when he believes that bill will be

filed? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i respond to the gentleman by saying we are still in discussion about that bill and in drafting and we do spend to abide by our necessary three-day notice period so that all sides and all members as well as the public can enjoy their right to know what will be in that legislation. but the gentleman is correct, we do expect that bill on the floor next week. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that comment. i have had discussions with the gentleman and with mr. mccarthy in particular and also briefly with the speaker that we are certainly prepared to participate in discussions leading toward a successful passage of those three pieces of legislation, particularly the unemployment insurance and the payroll tax extension which we believe are critical before we end this year. we are pleased to see that legislation moving forward but i will tell my friend that i would be pleased to participate

in discussions with him so we can assure that that bill will in fact pass and hopefully pass in a bipartisan fashion. i want to tell the gentleman that i'm a little bit concerned and i want to ask him whether this principle will be followed. i think i used this quote last week but it bears repeating. speaker boehner said we will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation to circumvent the will of the american people. instead we'll advance major legislation one issue at a time. that was in the republican pledge as well. the speaker has reiterated that at the beginning of this session. now i'm concerned because republican study committee chairman jim jordan of ohio is quoted in "the washington post" as saying the following, quote, the fact the president doesn't like it, the it referring to the keystone pipeline provision

which we understand is under discussion, i'm glad to hear those discussions have not concluded, but again, he quoted, the fact that the president doesn't like it makes me like it even more, said the g.o.p. leadership proposal as he left thursday morning's closed door meeting. i will say to my friend that we are at the end of the session, we are hopeful, as i have said, and as we have demonstrated, on the two c.r.'s, the debt extension and the min enee bus appropriations bill we passed that we are prepared to respond in a bipartisan fashion to assist in passing must-pass legislation. and would hope very much that we don't put controversial items in that. the president has clearly enunciated that he will veto a bill that has the keystone pipeline and i will say as my friend clearly knows there is

bipartisan concern, as a matter of fact, the governor of nebraska, a republican,ened the republican legislature, whichall though nominally nonpartisan, as the gentleman knows is 2/3 republican, one-third democrat have voted to delay this project because of their concern about thing a fer and the impact of the keystone pipeline as currently platted will have in reference to the aquifer so that there is bipartisan concern, as the gentleman knows, as a result of nebraska's passing legislation which said they wanted to do a study on the aquifer and alternative siting of the keystone pipeline course, that that study would take them five to six to seven months. as a result the president indicated they would, in giving time to the nebraska governor and the nebraska legislature, again, republican organs to look at that, has given them

additional time and he said he won't act until the beginning of 2013. i ask the gentleman, does he believe that provision? i understand what mr. jordap says, it may be a nice political gesture but i would hope that that would not be the kind of provision included in the legislation whether it's individually bills or a comprehensive bills, including those three items hopefully we can pass in a bipartisan fashion. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman and i understand the point he's trying to make. mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield back? i thought i made the point. mr. cantor: you may have made the point, what i'm trying to say is i disagree with the gentleman that if the provisions dealing with the keystone pipeline are in the measure that makes it to the floor that we shouldn't join together and to what was done in the past and that is demonstrate a strong, bipartisan vote in support of

that project. as the gentleman knows, organized labor in this country is very supportive of that bill, of that provision, it means immediate jobs nevment continues to say he is for creating jobs, doing all we cap to get america back to work, this is a provision that allows for that. we also have seen, mr. speaker, in response to the gentleman's concerns about nebraska and the issues raised by its govepbor as well as its state legislature, i believe and am told that that there have been in discussions in which an alternative route has been determined and there's agreement on that to allow for a proceeding of the construction of the pipeline. again, knowing there is strong bipartisan support for the project, knowing that labor is in support of it, knowing that it puts people back to work immediately, it would seem to me that this is a consistent provision to go along with making sure that we deal with

the unemployment situation in this country, through an extension of the u.i. provisions, with hopefully some reforms as well as the extension of the payroll tax holiday. as you know, the gentleman knows, our side is concerned. we don't want taxes to go up on anybody. especially in an economy like this. but again, i hope the gentleman can consider joining us in terms of helping promote an environment for job creation. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. i will say this, though. it seems inconsistent when the president of the united states yesterday said he would veto such a provision that we would include it in legislation that is must-pass. by the way, the unemployment insurance, economists tell us, will provide for 100 times as many jobs so therefore we're

for that, some 500,000 jobs may be affected by extending the unemployment insurance, in addition to that, i tell my friend, the president has offered a jobs bill, i know that you're concerned about jobs. the pipeline bill, in and of itself is about 5,000 to 6,000 job over the lifetime of the pipeline. the jobs bill, economists tell us, is a million jobs or 200 times as many jobs, notwithstanding that, very frankly, that has been languishing since september and not brought to this floor. so it seems to me that if we are really interested, and i think you are, in extending unemployment insurance and providing for continued tax cut for middle income americans, and for providing for the payment of docs who are serving medicare patients, that we not

include in that bill an item that is apparently popular on your side just because the president doesn't like it, according to mr. jordan. i think that's not the way we ought to be operating. the last seven days of the session, or five days, six days, seven, assuming we went through sunday, we shouldn't be doing that, i suggest respectfully to my friend the majority leader, because it will simply put us back into the situation the american public doesn't want us in. that's confronting up with another. playing chicken with one another. bringing us to the precipice of defeat and lack of success. public doesn't want us there, we shopt want us there, and i would urge the gentleman not to include items as i have urged you with respect to the appropriations bills that must be passed, that's not in this list but you did mention it in

the announcement, with mr. rogers and mr. dicks have been working hard and others have been working hard to get our appropriations bys done. we have urged that we not put controversial items in that and we showed our good faith on that representation when we passed the mini bus, 165 democrats joined 135 republicans to pass that legislation. so again i would urge the gentleman to -- if he feels strongly about that, and i know that he feels -- he said labor is for that bill. labor is for that bill. i think i'm for that bill. i want the gentleman to know. so this does not come from my particular opposition to this bill. i am concerned about the alignment and the aquifer. that's a legitimate concern. but i think that that oil is gb -- is going to be drilled no matter what we do. it seems to me it's better for us to have it than for others to have that and have that

availability. but having said that, gratuitously putting it into a bill that the president has already said, i don't agree with that, is simply playinging chicken on -- playing chicken on legislation that's very important. if the gentleman wants to comment on that i'd be glad to yield to him. mr. cantor: i just say to the gentleman, i've already responded to the notion of issues arising in nebraska that i'm told have been resolved. so the issue that he is concerned about has apparently been resolved. i would say to the gentleman, there are 47 members on his side of the aisle, including five ranking members of committees, that have supported the measure allowing for the construction and proceeding on the keystone pipeline. there's no gratuitous move here. it's an attempt to try and bring the two sides together on the most important issue which is creating jobs. this is a provision that i believe has been demonstrated,

has support on both sides of the aisle. and again, mr. speaker, i would hope the gentleman could refrain from trying to say and impede motives here. we're trying to work in a fashion, open, transparent, together so that we don't come to any kind of end that doesn't produce a result for the people. that's it. so, again, i appreciate the gentleman's sentiments. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i was quoting, not imputing. mr. jordan's comments seemed to be pretty clear. i know the gentleman has -- will conclude, but before we conclude , the stock act, there was a bill that was ready for markup in the committee. we understand that was pulled. as you know, that bill has 220 co-sponsors and is a bipartisan sponsorship. it simply says that members should not use inside

information to trade with information the general public may not have about legislation that may or may not be reported or passed to the floor. i understand that was pulled. i think that was unfortunate. can the gentleman tell me what the status of that piece of legislation is? mr. cantor: sure. absolutely, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. first of all, the issue of insider trading is something that we abhor as well. do not tolerate and believe that all members of congress should fall under the same laws that apply to anyone. and want to make sure that is the case, if it is not. and, you know, transparency is the key because the public needs to know what their members are doing and we intend to take this issue, make sure that concerns that had been raised -- been raised by members on both sides of the aisle are being vetted.

this is an issue of extreme import for the confidence of the public towards this institution. we intend to do so in a deliberate manner. there are issues raised again by members on both sides of the aisle about this bill not being brought up in a vetted way. there are many other chairmen who have jurisdiction in this matter, who need to be involved in this, with the full vetting, and we intend to do that. and i do hope the gentleman will work with us in doing so and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments and as he knows, the congressman has been working hard on this and i know that he will be very inclined to work with you and with the committees of jurisdiction and i will certainly be able to work with you as well on this issue. because, as i say, congressman walz has worked very hard on this. i think all of us agree, as you just indicated, that no member of congress ought to be using

insider information to trade in the stock market to disadvantage, obviously, others who are trading in the stock market. so i thank the gentleman for his comment and look forward to working with you and -- with him and in closing i hope we can reach bipartisan agreement on so many pieces of major legislation that we need to pass prior to leaving. i will tell the gentleman, and i hope his side agrees, my side will not want to adjourn, nor will it support adjournment until such time as we act on the unemployment insurance and the middle class tax cuts and i appreciate the gentleman's -- does the gentleman -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow and further when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at noon on monday, december 12, 2011, for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for

legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker is prepared to entertain one-minute speeches. the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized. ms. berkley: i'd like to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. berkley: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of nevada's middle class families. because of the economic downturn, thousands of nevadans are struggling to find a job, pay their rent and put food on their family's tables. they cannot afford a tax increase. however, washington gridlock is threatening just that. a massive tax increase on middle class families. why? because some washington republicans refuse to roll back special tax breaks for wall street millionaires in order to pay for our middle class tax cut for $1.2 -- 1.2 million

nevadans. that's just not right. so my message today is this -- no holiday vacation for congress without extending the middle class tax cut. we cannot go home while nevada families are hurting and desperate for this extension of their payroll tax cuts. however, that's going to require washington republicans to stop protecting wall street millionaires and stop putting nevada's families first. the only fair way to achieve this is to roll back special tax breaks for wall street millionaires, not slash medicare benefits, not lay off thousands of people. it's time to stop putting wall street first and before main street. washington ought not go on vacation until we take care of this problem. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house

the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. davis of illinois for today, mr. jackson of illinois for today and mr. pastor of arizona for monday, december 12, and until 4:00 p.m. on use it, december 13 -- tuesday on december 13. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. it's great to get a chance to come back down to the floor to visit with my colleagues and talk about an issue that i've been raising seven or eight weeks in a row. i'll have a little more extended time to go over what transpired over the past six to seven months and that's that this country really needs to address this high level nuclear waste problem in this country. and i'm glad to be joined with some of my colleagues who i'll yield to in a couple of minutes, but just to start in a sin op sis, based upon the areas of the country that -- parts of the country that we visited, for us to move past the log jam that's

in the other body, we have to find 60 senators who will vote to move forward what we now -- what we know is federal law. the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 recognized and determined that yucca mountain would be the national repository for high-level nuclear waste. so i think a lot of folks would say, well, so it's if -- so if it's a law, why aren't we there? well, the reason we're not there now is because the majority leader of the senate has blocked it, along with the president of the united states, and so this time is being spent to help educate the american public, mr. speaker, on where is the high-level nuclear waste? what communities, what states are affected, and what senators should be held somewhat accountable for the positions

they take as far as high-level nuclear waste? so, on the chart to the far -- my far left, throughout this last half a year we've got -- we need 60 votes. we've got at least 27 senators who we know already support this based on votes or public statements. we have eight that have not had a chance to address this by a vote or haven't made a public statement on it yet. and we have seven nays or seven no votes. so, with that, just because i appreciate my colleagues taking time out, i'd like to first yield to my colleague from the state of illinois, no disrespect to my colleague from the state of georgia, to go into a discussion about one of the areas that we addressed, one of the first sites we talked about.

i figured i better come forward and talk about my own state, if i'm going to talk about other states i better talk about the state of illinois. the state of illinois is a 50% of our electricity is generated by nuclear power. we're one of the biggest nuclear power states in the country. we pick a facility that's actually closed which is the zion power plant, and with that i yield to my colleague, mr. dold, to kind of talk about zion, the state of illinois and its location. mr. dold: i want to thank the gentleman for yield and certainly for taking this issue up which i think is so very, very critical, not just for the state of illinois but for facility it's all across the country -- facilities all across the country, as we look at how we can best store the used material from the nuclear facilities. so the spent fuel rods or, more specifically -- rods, more specifically. if you'll notice here in zion, which is just north of the district but certainly affects

the district where the -- where i represent, it's right on the shores of lake michigan. the great lakes, 95% of all fresh surface water in the united states are from the flakes -- are from the great lakes. and when we look at the amount of drinking water that the state of illinois uses, it's a enormous percentage that's coming from the great lakes yet we've decided that we want to store the fuel rods, just a sheer several hundred -- rods just a sheer several hundred feet from the shores of lake michigan. five feet above the water table. and if we take a look at yucca mountain, the reason why yucca mountain was chosen is yucca mountain is uniquely suited as the premier place if we were to store anyplace spent fuel rods, -- place, if we were to store anyplace spent fuel rods, this would be the ideal location. 1,000 feet above the water table. a very dry, arid environment, and correct me if i'm wrong, where's the nearest inhab tans

of yucca mountain? is it 100 miles? mr. shimkus: the city of las vegas, which is the major metropolitan area, is 100 miles from yucca mountain. what people have a hard time understanding about the nuclear test area, this is where the nuclear test site was. federal government owns numerous parcels of land around yucca mountain. the communities right outside the reservation and i think the whole test site area is like the size of new hampshire. but the communities -- what's interesting about this debate, the communities right outside the gate are fully supportive of yucca mountain being the repository for high-level nuclear waste in the state of -- and why do i know that? because i visited them, i have been in their communities, i went to the community center, they welcomed me and we talked about how this was important for the country and their local

communities. >> this is critical for the cupry, the state of illinois has 13 reactors, our neighbors to the north have three commercial reactors, on two dncht site, both on lake michigan. when we look at the 8.5 million people who rely on the drinking water, much less recreation and fishing and all the commerce on the great lakes, this is something that sing -- that i think is critical. the senators from the state of illinois and the state of wisconsin have been in fare of trying to utilize this facility at yucca mountain. why to we want to store, mr. speaker, why would we want to store over a thousand metric tons of nuclear waste hundreds of feet away from the greatest source of fresh surface water in our nation. mr. dold: it is indeed the jewel of our ecosystem, something we need to protect,

something we need to have a long-term vision for. yet what we don't need to do is have scattered sites across the country of nuclear waste that has a greater potential for disasters to happen. they're being stored right now in casks that are about five feet above the ground water, above the water table, we want to take it 1,000 feet below the water table, 1,000 feet below ground. this is something that makes perfect sense. i welcome the gentleman's colloquy in terms of talking about not only this site but also for bringing it week after week trying to get through to our colleagues on the other side oaf this building to make sure they can move this common sense piece of legislation forward. how much have we spent at yucca mountain? i think it's in the $14 billion range. mr. shimkus: the gentleman is

correct, we have spent $14.5 billion in the research, test, a lot of money, time, effort, some of our greatest minds have been involved. but you know, i don't really think you have to be one of the greatest minds. the point i always say is common sense says in the desert, underneath a mountain. isn't that where you would want high level nuclear waste? versus right off the shore of lake michigan. mr. dold: it seems like common sense to me. i applaud the gentleman's efforts an thank you for giving me the time. i want to make sure that not only, that this isn't just important for the folks in the state of illinois and the folks in wisconsin and michigan that are surrounding the great lakes and specifically lake michigan, it's all the great lakes. it's not just in illinois. there are nuclear power facilities across the country. we need to have a safe, secure way to be able to store spent fuel rods. i think yucca mountain have

been muvene to be the place to do it. mr. shimkus: before the gentleman yields, can you tell me the disposition of zion power plant? what's going on there now? mr. dold: it's been demissioned at -- decommissioned at this point in time. the spent fuel rodses are being transported to a location on the site, that's just literally a few hundred feet away from the beaches there and probably about 20 to 30 miles north of the city of chicago. this is not the place that we want to be storing spent fuel rods and so zion, you know, was a great source of electricity for the people around the area and has been decommissioned other the last two years, so it is now sitting idle and they're trying to go through the process of dismantling it. mr. shimkus: i tried to briefly show this article from the "salt like tribune," dated

september 8, talk about the reactor parts going out to utah. but it says, the site, however, will not take the illinois plant's used fuel rods. the united states currently has no site to dispose of spent fuel from commercial reactors. a form of high-level nuclear waste. so if we don't have a location, where is that high level nuclear waste, the spent fuel, going to remain? it's going to remain, seriously, right in the middle of a high population area, hundreds of feet away from ethis jewel of our ecosystem in the great lakes at lake michigan. it's the wrong place for it to be. common sense would say, let's move it out to a place, a location like yucca mountain, $14 billion have gone into the site, let's put it 1,000 feet below the ground, 1,000 above the water table, it's a perfect

environment. it's the best interest and the safety of the american public to do something along these lines. mr. dold: i'm told that -- mr. dold: it's 40 miles from downtown chirg, in the greater chicago produce vobal 6.5 to seven million people, not what we want to have in terms of nuclear. mr. shimkus: and the reason this is important is because of fukushima in japan a great tragedy, a lot of people think about the containment issue, which has always been the fear. part of the fukushima problem was the spent fuel in the pools, which might be a bigger environmental disaster based upon things that cannot be planned. that's why we continue to push this i appreciate my colleague coming down. i thank the gentleman for allowing me to have some time with you today and --

mr. dold: i thank the gentleman for allowing me to have time with you today an talking about this porn issue. mr. shimkus: and now i turn to my colleague from georgia who also serves on the energy and commerce committee. we have jurisdiction over this. my subcommittee is the environment and the economy. i deal with a lot of the waste disposal issues, nuclear waste being one of those, when my colleague has followed this issue as long as i have and last time i came to the floor, i mentioned a couple of facilities in georgia, but the one that i have highlighted, if it's here, if not, we're going to get it up to my colleague, is savanna river. -- savannah river. the point we're trying to make today is, here you have yucca

mountain in a desert and a mountain. then you have nuclear waste all over this country. look at this one, savannah river, right next to the river. at yucca mountain, we have no nuclear waste on site. at savannah river there's 6,300 canisters of waste on site. the waste would be stored, as my colleague bob dold said, 1,000 feet underground where in savannah river it's stord right below ground. at yucca mountain, 1,000 feet feet above the water table, at savannah river, zero to 160 feet above the water river. 24e waste at yucca mountain is 100 miles from the colorado river, and here it's adjacent to the savannah river. i appreciate my colleague joining me. mr. gingrey: i'm glad to join

my colleague from illinois, the subcommittee chairman on the environment and economy subcommittee on this very important subject. our colleague from illinois specifically point out the existing situation in their state in regard to these nuclear reactor sites in illinois and what they do with spent nuclear fuel. the poster that the gentleman has presented in regard to my great state and my neighboring state of south carolina in regard to what we're faced with is equally as telling. i think it might be instructive, mr. speaker, if i go back, take a walk down memory lane a little bit in regard to my background, when i was growing up in north augusta, south carolina, this central savannah river area,

which includes the southern part if you will, or the western part of south carolina and the eastern part of georgia, separated by the savannah river. and there was a facility built on the south carolina side in a town called ellington, south carolina, back in 1950. i hate to tell my aim but i was 7 or 8 at the time. mr. speaker, my parents owned a little motel on the river. they very insightly named it the riviera motel. during the construction of this nuclear plant, there were 50,000 -- 50,000 construction workers involved in that facility, constructing that facility for three years and i can't tole you how happy my parents were every evening when

the sun went down to turn on that no vacancy sign at the riviera motel. all these workers stayed with us. they were only paying $8 a night but it's just to point out the importance of jobs. in the nuclear industry. and the capability of expanding our employment sector in this particular lane of energy this country right now, today, i'm told that we produce about 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. in the state of georgia, it's 24%. not much higher. we have two sites, four reactors, we're in the process of adding two more. right on the savannah river, as the gentleman from illinois points out, at plant vogel and hopefully we'll get that done but the problem, which the gentleman is bringing before all of our colleagues and hopefully a lot of other folks

that are viewing or listening, is, why is it for the last 30 years we have had no nuclear site -- no new nuclear sites. we have literally had a moratorium, you have about 103 across the country, those in illinois, those in georgia, and what are they doing with the spent nuclear fuel? it is either shallow underground in pool tanks, not very much above the water table, or evening worse aboveground in these concrete and steel containers, talk about a risk of terrorism, of an attack in the radiation release. so the gentleman is so generous to ask me to join in this colloquy about the issue. i'm looking forward to continuing as i yield back to him to discuss the real problem here, what to do with that spent fuel. i yield back to my colleague. mr. shimkus: i appreciate you

joining me today. i want to quote from a chicago tribune edtorial of march 19. i'll just do three short paragraphs. here's why that is potentially a bigger problem than a meltdown. in the japanese reactors, as in many u.s. reactors, the spent fuel is housed in larbling, watt her filled pools in the reactor building but outside the concrete and steel fortress that surrounds the reactor core. if the core melts down, any radiation released is likely to be bottled up by the containment vessel. not so for the spent fuel, which often contain far more radioactive material than the reactor. if the water containing them leaks or is boiled away, they can catch fire with a large

amount of radioactive material spewing into the air. the obvious question, with why do they store it that way? the obvious answer, in the u.s., yucca mountain isn't open. in the 1980's, the u.s. launched a plan to ship radioactive material to the mountain and let it slowly and harmlessly the kay. our discussion here is about, there are benefits of nuclear power. if you're a climate change person and don't want carbon dioxide and still want a lot of electricity for us to use in our new technology, you have to have a generator. but in this case, it's the used fuel, not properly -- i shopt say -- it is properly stored but it would be better stored

under a single repository in the desert underneath a mountain for all the reasons -- you're talking about four reactors right now in georgia, two more coming online, that's six, illinois has 11. there are over 104 across the country and of course we spent our time talking about the used nuclear fuel from the industry, but when i started this debate about what do we do with high level nuclear weas, i started with a d.o.e. facility that goes back to the world war ii and the development of the nuclear bomb and the bomb that was built at hanniford, washington, and all that waste, going all the way back to world war ii, is in hanniford. and there are 53 million gallons

of nuclear waste onsite. buried right under -- right off the surface of the ground, in tanks that are 750,000 to a million gallons each, only about 40 of them, there's over 100, only about 40 of them are double line, that means the rest are not. some are leaking. mr. gingrey: and question of who is responsible in hanford and new he willington, to guard and protect? a tremendous burden on the states but even if the department of homeland security, maybe they do some of the oversight and protection of these sites, but 103 different sites across the country, how much simpler, how much safer, how much cheaper if they had one site to protect, that being 100 miles from las vegas at yucca

mountain? mr. shimkus: continuing to speak on this issue of just looking at it, to kind of get away from just the nuclear-generating profit sector, to address our responsibility as stewards of a program that was developed to stop world war ii. and then eventually remedy these environments that have environmental impact. yel yucca mountain, the -- yucca mountain, the waste storage plan for hanford, and i just toured it this year, the plan to gather up the -- deliquefy, deprocess, put them in these canisters, is designed to go to one location. that location is yucca mountain. so, our failure to move forward or our failure -- actually, the other chamber's failure, the

leader of the senate's failure, the president of the united states' failure, just tells washington state, what? guess what? you've got this high-level nuclear waste that's leaking, that's close to the columbia river, and just deal with it. just deal with it. and i find that unacceptable, after, as my colleague from illinois said, $14.5 billion we've spent to prepare this site at yucca mountain, only to have it stop for political purposes. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman will yield to me again, and i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this, because what year did we commission a group to study -- and there were a number of potential sites for permanent storage, from all these 103 facilities, one unified central site, and i'm relatively sure

the gentleman can correct me if i'm wrong, but it was at least a five-year process before it was settled in 1987. and congress at that time designated yucca mountain as the soul site for permanent high-level nuclear waste repository after years of contentious applications. so this is set in law, is it not? i'll yield back to the gentleman. mr. shimkus: the nuclear policy act of 1982 established yucca mountain as the national repository for high-level nuclear waste and again for the educational purposes, mr. speaker, that is spent fuel, sometimes it's spent nuclear waste from our department of defense, now controlled by the department of energy sites, like hanford. our argument is, let's consolidate this waste, safely,

-- waste safely, security, at one location so, that, as my colleague interest georgia says, we can -- colleague from georgia says, we can more safely, i think effect ifrl, i think efficiently, i think cost effectively, manage, protect and eventually try to remediate some of the damage that's been done over decades because of this high-level nuclear waste being located all over the country. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman will yield back to me for a comment or two. i have had the opportunity, as a member of congress and in particular as a member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. speaker, to travel to france and scandinavia recently, to look at their nuclear facility. but in particular their ability to reprocess in france and their ability to store in scandinavia. we have described a little bit

about the yucca mountain area, of the nuclear testside and that arid desert of northern nevada. and they have -- scandinavia have developed a laboratory, i think they call it the clad, but it is literally 1,400 meters below ground in bedrock and you can drive 18-wheel trucks down something like two miles deep in the ground where their spent nuclear fuel is stored. and that's the model. and that's really what we are looking at and planning for at yucca mountain. nothing, really nothing could be safer in regard to storage. and the other thing is, while we were in france we looked at a facility where they take that spent fuel, mr. speaker, and they reprocess it. so, at some point in the future,

if we decide, and we have the technology to do that, that source of spent nuclear fuel that's stored at yucca mountain could be used to recycle and to get more energy out of this spent nuclear fuel. so, i mean, i just -- it's beyond me how a president by executive order can stop the will of congress. and maybe we ought to talk about that in regard to things like the keystone energy pipeline and expand this discussion a little further. i yield back to my colleague. mr. shimkus: again, i thank my friend from georgia for helping out on the special order and just addressing the issue of recycling. what do we do? those of us who follow the

nuclear fuel cycle, most people want it closed. and how do you get it closed? you get it closed by getting as much energy out of the fuel rods as you can. you do that by reprocessing, but it would make sense that if there was someone who's going to attempt to do that, that the nuclear fuel would be close by. there's probably some discussions about if we were going to have a reprocessing facility sometime in the country, like france, where would you locate it? where would it be situated? i mean, i'm just a lehman in this debate. but i think you would want it close by where the nuclear material is. the material that you want to use to reprocess, to create fuel. so i -- i can't speak for the entire body, i do know that the house spoke on yucca mountain and bringing finality to this through a 297 vote.

297 members voted to ensure that we had the final dollars to do the final scientific study to move this process forward. and in that debate it just showed that the will of the house was supportive. and this is a bipartisan issue. we don't have 297 or whatever the number is members who are just republicans. we have 242. that means we brought a lot of our colleagues on the other side on this debate. some of those really believe that the future is reprocessing and that we ought to be exploring that and it's much better to have them located where you can recover that material. if my colleague from georgia wouldn't mind, i see we're also joined by another colleague from illinois. people wonder why we take up this cause. it's because we're a big nuclear state. that is about 50% of our

electricity generation, i do a lot of coal, coal is very important to me, but we are a nuclear power state which means we have a lot of sites, a lot of reactors, and we have a lot of nuclear waste. so i'd like to yield some time to my colleague and thank him for coming down. mr. dold: i thank my colleague from illinois -- >> i thank my colleague from illinois and i want to say thank you for your leadership on this issue, among many other things. this is an issue that's very important. it's important not just for the country, it's important for my state, it's important for my district. the 11th district of illinois, it's kind of northcentral illinois. it's a beautiful place. but we have three nuclear power plants there. and in fact, at each nuclear power plant, of course, there is stored nuclear waste onsite and then we also have an area which was intended to be early on the original site of what was going to be nuclear reprocessing in this country and now it is really just a pool with stored nuclear waste in it.

so, in one district, i think there's 131 locations across the country where we're storing this nuclear waste, and in my district alone we have four of those. so this is an issue that's very important not just to the people of illinois, the people of the 11th district, and mainly to the people of are this country -- of this country. i mean, yucca mountain was -- the fund was created for this soul purpose of finding a place, a safe place, a safe alternative to store nuclear waste. going back to the beginning part of the debate is why do we need nuclear power? i think we've addressed that. most americans are onboard with the understanding that it is good, clean power. provides a lot of great jobs. i mean, i have toured some of the plants in my district and i can tell you they're good, high-paying american jobs. they take us on that road to energy independence. so understanding then that we need nuclear power, understanding that nuclear power plays an important role, we have to talk about the unfortunate

side of it which is the storage. this yucca mountain has been or is being created, i'm told it was zeroed out, for the purpose of storing all this waste. and it just makes sense. you know, regardless of whether we build the nuclear reactors or reprocess them, we have to store this somewhere. now, here's the question, though. if yucca mountain is technologically unable to store this fuel, then i would i think the n.r.c., the nuclear regulatory commission, needs to come out and tell us, oh, it's technologically insufficient. and show us why. but they're not doing that. because the truth is it is technologically almost perfect, probably, as far as something like this would go. but the chairman of the n.r.c. has turned this into not necessarily what's the right thing to do for the industry, what's the right thing to do for the country, but what's the political thing to do? and turn the commission into a political commission. when you talk about this, when you talk about what the safety is of our country, i think for

something very basic like this, and i think very evident, i think we should take politics out of that. and i would think all my colleagues joining me today would agree that this doesn't need to be a political issue. we need to have the n.r.c. free of the political manipulations and only president obama, frankly, can determine the fate of the chairman and i hope he really takes that into account. i hope he takes it into account, what's the right thing to do for this country in the long run. so on top of that, look, we've got great jobs here. we have a need for nuclear power. let's just complete the puzzle. let's complete the puzzle. mr. kinzinger: and let's put this stuff at yucca mountain. mr. shimkus: if my colleague would continue to discuss this for a few minutes, he -- you mentioned a fund in your kind of opening statements. you can, for the benefit of the speaker, kind of explain where this fund comes from and who's paying into it and what's it designed to do and really what's going on and with it right now? mr. kinzinger: if you pay for any kind of nuclear power, rate

payers pay for this fund. mr. shimkus: so you have constituents who have been paying into this fund for -- mr. kinzinger: for a long time. and beyond that, let me just -- let me add this on top of it. for every year that we delay opening, i mean, yucca mountain's not going away, it doesn't disappear off the face of the earth. for every year we delay it's costing us of what -- half a billion dollars more in what it's ultimately going to cost. so, look, my constituents, your constituents, anybody that uses any aspect of nuclear power, which is almost everybody, has been paying for this. this isn't some giant expenditure we're going to have to make out of the general fund when we don't have any money. this is already being funded. it only makes sense. i think the colleagues that are joining me here today will say the same thing. this just makes sense. mr. shimkus: part of this debate about the nuclear waste and where it's stored and the nuclear waste fund has been litigated in federal court. and the courts have said it is

the responsibility of the national government to take this waste. as part of the law, of complying with the law. obviously we have no place to take it to. so, we end up having the utilities store the high-level nuclear waste onsite and some of them, some have not asks this yet, some of them we are actually paying them to hold the waste that we're supposed to be holding. you know -- mr. kinzinger: if my colleague wouldn't mind, he mentioned it just a few minutes ago, this idea passed this body with a large majority. that to me seems like this is the will of the american people. it's not just some agenda or just some crazy pie in the sky deal. this is the will of the american people and it's the responsibility of us to ensure that we're being safe. i mean, it just seems very basic to me. so i'm having a hard time figuring out how and why

politics has come into play in this. i think this is a debate we solved decades ago but nontheless out in washington, d.c., nothing surprises me in the 10 months i've been out here. the speaker pro tempore: if the -- mr. gingrey: if the gentleman would yield. the gentleman from the 11th of illinois let the gentleman from the 11th of georgia be somewhat instructive in regard to the politics, because that's pure an simple what it is. and of course comments were made in regard to the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission but the fact is, it's the secretary of energy, it's the secretary of energy this secretary of energy, a nobel laryat in nuclear physic -- laureate in nuclear physics, who was essentially told by this administration to tell the nuclear legger to commission

that he was requesting that the license application for -- application for yucca mountain be withdrawn from the n.r.c., taken out of their hands, the licensing process stopped, with prejudice, now, i'm not a lawyer, but if there are any lawyers in the body, they understand, when you withdraw something with prejudice that means you can't p bring it back up. this $14 billion have been taken out of the rate payers from the 50 states, at least where these 103 reactors exist, they're paying for this, and yet this this political pressure on a gentleman who has to be much, much smarter than any of us, nobel laureate in nuclear physics, if i were him, as soon as that word came down to me, and i got the memo from the white house, i would immediately resign over righteous indignation.

i yield back. mr. kinginger: -- mr. kinzinger: the acting director made this remark, some senior managers contributed to the budget process to apparently make sewer the yucca mountain project would be left unfunded even if the license application was before the n.r.c. we were up prepared for the political pressure in our licensing processes that would come with the appointment of the chairman in 2009. mr. gingrey: but fortunate if i might, the board of the n.r.c. rejected that, rejected what he recommended. mr. shimkus: and i would just, reclaiming my time, would close this circle, mr. speaker, reminding folks that the chairman of the n.r.c., mr.

yaskell, used to work for now majority leader in the senate harry reid. it's the majority leader in the senate that is blocking the funding for the final scientific analysis and it is the chairman of the n.r.c. who used to work for the majority leader who is complicit in this plan to shut down an investment of this country, of $14.5 billion to comply with federal law we passed in 1982. now in 1982, i was serving my country as an army lieutenant in west germany before the wall came down. that is a long time ago. this has been the policy of this country for decades. and to have one man -- one majority leader of the senate

to put a halt othat, that's why we're down here. because he has raised this to a political debate, not a scientific debate and because it's a political debate what i am attempting to do over a series of weeks is go around the country and just identify where is high level nuclear waste stored? and would it be better for that waste to be stored underneath a mountain in a desert, the most investigated piece of property on the history of this earth, there is no piece of property that has been more studied than yucca mountain anywhere on the face of this earth. so that's why i have, i know this is hard for some folks to see, we're doing a tally as we go around the country, look at where are the votes. where are the votes?

and we have 27 people, bipartisan, who have said, this is where it should go. from washington state, of course, illinois, wisconsin, fey, south carolina, arizona, idaho, utah, wyoming, maine, vermont, florida, alabama, mississippi, louisiana, we had new senators who have not had an opportunity to publicly either make a statement on it or cast a vote, they're in the middle. 27 yes, eight unknown, we're going to give the credit of the doubt, from merck lee, feinstein was a no but fukushima and the two nuclear power plants that are on the pacific ocean in california and the high level nuclear waste that's stored in ponds have her in a quandary. based pob the -- upon the representation of that state. tester in montana, unknown, lee

of utah, brown, massachusetts, iyote, new hampshire, sheehan, new hampshire, bona fide noes. reid of nevada, heller of nevada, cabotwell of washington, bo -- cantwell of washington, kerry of massachusetts, sanders of vermont. so it's a chance to use the bully pulpit, my position as chame of the subcommittee, to help educate not only the floor, my colleagues, the speaker, those who are following us, that there's got to be a better way to store high level nuclear waste than in pools next to lake michigan. next to the savannah river. next to the pacific ocean. surely there's a better place and we know there is 30 years of study and research, federal law says yucca mountain, in the

desert, underneath the mountain is probably as good a place as you're going to find, at least in the united states. mr. kinsing -- -- >> and as you said -- mr. kinzinger: i believe nuclear power is safe, effective, cheap, efficient, but there are four nuclear storage waste facilities in the district. that's by the tall grass prairie, by populated areas, towns, i think the issue right now is the american people don't full fully, and there's a lot of issues in washington, this probably isn't at the top of everybody's priority, but i would encourage everybody who is watching us who sees their

senator's name on the board, if the senator is a yea, call them and say thank you. if they have the three yellow question marks, call that senator and say, hey, really would like to get you onboard with safe knew leer -- nuclear storage. and if they're a nee, call them twice. if the american -- a nay, call them twice. if the american people want safe storage, and i know they do, this is the right option. mr. shimkus: i appreciate the gentleman coming down for this hour of discussion on what should be the policy on high level nuclear waste. didn't get a chance to go through all the areas. i'll end with yucca mountain versus the nuclear generating stations between san diego and l.a., how much nuclear waste in the desert? none.

how many here? 2,000 waste rods on site. the waste would be underground at yucca, it's stored above the ground at pools right on the shoreline of the pacific ocean. the waste would be ,000 above the water table here, of course, as you can see from the photo, the waste is right next to the pacific ocean. the waste at yucca mountain would be 100 miles from the colorado river. again, you can see the waves breaking, almost right up to the nuclear generating station between l.a. and san diego. i've gone to massachusetts, i should have talked about florida today, i've talked about illinois, d.o.e. locations like washington state , there's a lot of nuclear waste to find -- stored

differently all over the country. let's do it right, get it in a single repository and get it in the desert. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 20 1, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. elson, is recognized as the designee of the minority leader. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker, i'm here to claim the hour, i'm going to get my boards over there, i'll be right back.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, thank you for yielding the time, i appreciate it, my name is keith ellison, i am the co-chair of the progressive caucus and a member of congress from the great state of minnesota. but i'm here claiming time to speak on behalf of the congressional progressive caucus. the congressional progressive caucus, mr. speaker, is that group, 77 members, in the united states congress, who believe that when we say the pledge of allegiance, and we say liberty and justice for all, that means all. all, meaning blacks, whites, latinos, asians, straights, gace, the senior citizens and the youngest among us.

people with disabilities and people who are able-bodied. it means the great mass of american people, incolluded, liberty and justice for all. the progressive caucus believes in economic justice, civil rights and human rights for all people. we believe public employees are valuable to our society and we honor an respect the services they give to us. we believe america work our awesome military power should use that power to promote peace in the world. we are the ones who are going to -- who called for the u.s. to not go into iraq and then when we went in there, we were the ones who pushed to get us out. we were the -- we are the ones raising the issues around afghanistan and will continue to argue the case for diplomacy and for development and to make friends with the world to be a good member of the international community in the united nations and under international bodies. we're not the ones who believe that the world is a scary,

dangerous place and we've got to jack up the military as much as we can. we're not the ones who think that the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much. we're not the people who believe in dividing americans based on culture and color and gender an urban versus rural. we believe in unifying americans an having equal rights for all people. yes, we are liberal, and we are proud of it. we're the progressive caucus. and today, mr. speaker, i'm here to deliver the progressive message. the progressive message is what we're talking about today and the topic i'm going to address, mr. speaker, is going to be jobs and the american economy. today, mr. speaker, we want to speak as bipartisan as we can, but there's no question that the arguments that we have in congress have a partisan tone,

therefore for us to sit up here and say that, you know, we're just all getting along here in congress and we don't have a different point of view would be not exactly being straight with the american people system of we're going to say that the debates we have been having in the house of representatives have to do with those of us who believe that we as americans need to live in harmony with the planet, need to try to cut down our carbon footprint, need to try to diminish pollution and those others of us, mostly on the republican side of the aisle, who make the case that -- for the sake of industry, we have to sacrifice our health, our lungs, our good, clean environment. we're making that case and we're trying to ask americans to look carefully at the different programs being offered on this house floor and to make a decision. do you believe that we have a

responsibility to the poor,? the progressive caucus does. do you believe that public employees and government does bring quality and improve the quality of life for americans, not all the time, but you know, government needs to be reformed like everybody, but the republicans and conservatives in this house who make the case that government is the problem, we whole heartedly reject that point of view, that is wrong. we believe in a mixed economy, where the private sector and the public sector exist to benefit the american people in general. you know. so we're here to talk about these things tonight and we're here to lay it on the table so americans of all backgrounds, all colors, all cultures all faiths can make decisions about what kind of america they want because there are clearly two different visions of what america is about being offered on this house floor every day for the last year and for the next year, and i think americans should be able to

say, i think this is the kind of america i want, and others who think that rich people don't have enough money and poor people have too much, they can support the republican program. mr. speaker, i want to talk a little bit about jobs tonight and therefore i just want to make the case that, again, i don't think it's a good idea to always draw the partisan divide but i think it's important to be honest, and my colleagues just have not -- even though they're the majority -- have not introduced a single bill for jobs this whole time they've been in the majority. they say, yeah, we had jobs bills, we had jobs bills. didn't you see us cut the e.p.a.? that's not a jobs bill. didn't you try to let cement

companies be -- didn't you see us let crement companies do -- coal companies, electric coal companies be able to put more emissions in the air? that's not a jobs bill. that's just saying industry can do whatever they want to our lungs. but a jobs bill, to help rebuild america's infrastructure, haven't seen that from our friends on the republican side of the aisle. a jobs bill that would help refurbish public buildings like schools, haven't seen that. a jobs bill to say that, we need to train americans to do the jobs of the 21st century, to promote solar, wind, biomass, the waves, all these kind of ways we can live in harmony with the earth and power the earth at the same time, they haven't had any jobs doing that. to make our grids smarter, our

electrical grids smarter, they don't want to put no money in that. they think that's a waste of money. the fact is republicans have not come up with a jobs agenda. i call it the republican no jobs agenda, and, you know, it's clear that the government has an important role in terms of jobs. you hear some of my republican colleagues say, the government doesn't create jobs. this is absurd. ask any small retailer out there who's trying to make a go of it in their local community. they may have a nail shop or they may have a hair shop or they may sell retail clothing or they may have a small business they opened up, if they don't have any police protection -- that's the government -- then, that's going to cost the number of customers coming to them. that's going to hurt their business. government helping business to thrive. ask a trucker, somebody who may own their own rig or someone

who may owns a trucking company, if we don't have public roads, highways and things like that -- that's the government -- where would their business model be? think about the internet, think about google and all the economic opportunity associated by the internet. the internet was started by the government. yes, it was. whether it's the national institute of health coming up with life-saving innovation and funding basic research or whether it is the food and drug administration giving americans confidence that when they buy that product that it's not going to kill them, the government helps business thrive. it helps the market operate properly so we don't have caveat emtore, so the buyer doesn't have to beware, to make sure that the food is edible and the water is drinkable. now, my friends on the other

side of the aisle that says government doesn't do anything to help the economy, they're wrong. i was proud to hear the president discredit the false economic theory of trickle down. what is trickle down, mr. speaker? trickle down is the theory, look, if we give as much money as we possibly can to the richest americans and we take it from the poorest americans and the middle class, then maybe the rich people through investments and stuff will put money into the economy and maybe it will trickle down and other people will be able to get something out of it. well, the president said it's an ok theory except for it doesn't work. the president's right. trickle down is a failure, and trickle down doesn't work. i'm so glad that the president really helped explain this to the american people because trickle down at the end of the day just leaves -- it doesn't trickle down. it just stays up there. and that's why we see so much well concentrated in the hands

of the so few because the republicans think we need to cut all our health and environmental regulations and to give tax breaks to people who already have more money than they already know what to do with. so my republican friends like to say, you never met a payroll. i met a payroll. i was a small business owner for many years, and i was a lawyer and ran a law firm. had to pay my staff. and it wasn't -- it wasn't taxes and stuff that i worried about. you know what i worried about, mr. speaker? i worried about customers. can i get some clients coming through the door asking me to write a will, to incorporate their business? can i get some clients to say, would you represent me in this accident or i got in a little trouble, would you represent me in that? clients is what i need, and if my customers didn't have any money they wouldn't be able to hire me. but if the customers aren't working and the economy is poor

and there's no money circulating amongst the working folk, my business suffered. and if people were doing well, my business would thrive. you ask any business person what would you rather have, a tax cut or a lot of customers? they are going to say, customers, i want customers. and so this claim that the republicans make that, you know, we don't need to make sure that the average working american is doing well, we just make sure that the money is up -- gets up to the top and it will trickle down is not true and i'm so glad that the president made that point today. we got to -- again, there are people who tell self-serving narratives. they tell stories and narratives that help them make more money. i'm sure that the coke brothers, who have given a lot of donations around, who own this big refinery and make a lot of money, would really like it if we all believed that

giving them a huge tax cut and getting rid of environmental regulations was good for the economy. of course, we don't believe it because it isn't true, but we know that if we keep on arguing that masses of american people would say, you know what, i think it's ok to have unemployment insurance for people who are out of work. you know, i think it's ok to in an economy like this to extend the payroll tax cut. rich people gets tax cut. republicans like it when rich people gets tax cuts. they don't like it when middle income people get tax cuts. they'd rather the rich people get them. the fact is people are waking up all over america. they're saying, hey, when i voted last time, i was upset because of the jobs situation. and my friend on the republican side of the aisle didn't get to the business of jobs. they got in here going after the e.p.a. and going after tax

cuts for the wealthiest americans, and because of that, you know, things haven't been good. now, we'll give president obama some credit, and because of the good work that he's done we -- we have seen private job growth continue for about 24 months. the problem is we have cut the government so badly and at the wrong time that state and local governments have had to shed public employees left, right and center. we are literally seeing gains in private sector employment being offset by cuts in public sector employment. and it's unfortunate that that's the situation that we have. so today i'm here with the progressive message. today we're here to illustrate what's at stake in america today. and this week thousands of americans all across the country came here to washington to raise their voices. they call themselves the 99%, and i have to say it's starting to feel like the people's house

around here. i had a number of folks in my office who came on a 24-hour bus ride, mr. speaker, from my district in minneapolis to come tell me that, look, you know, we got -- we got to rebuild america and put people back to work. infrastructure crumbling, people can work to rebuild it. they say, look, this income inequality isn't working, and as you give more and more tax cuts and loopholes to the richest, it ends up hurting us. 2/3 of all american corporations don't pay any taxes at all. 2/3 of all american corporations don't pay any taxes at all. i brought them this chart, mr. speaker. i pulled this chart out because they -- it was hard for them to believe. i told them, i said, you know, the companies on this chart that i'm about to show you, you know, however much money you have in your pocket, you paid at least as much taxes as these companies because if you paid

nothing then you paid the same as them. if you paid one penny you paid more than them. bank of america paid no taxes. bank of america made bad business deals. when you make a bad deal in business, you are supposed to pay for that. you know, things go wrong. people go out of business. bank of america, they went and bought merrill lynch after this guy, this c.e.o. named stan o'neill, ran the company in the ground. they still gave him a golden parachute of several hundred million dollars, and i often joke and said, i would have been happy to run the company into the ground for just $1 million. they paid him millions to run merrill lynch into the ground, and bank of america bought that company, and then countrywide, which is the leading predatory lender, subprime lender, bought them, bank of america did, got all these bad mortgages that weren't performing because they were never properly underwritten because people made money by just selling the

mortgage and then selling the paper and it was like a hot potato. once you sold the mortgage, you got the fees out of it, sell it to someone and it is a mortgage-backed securities. so a lot of those happened. and bank of america bought those two companies. it caused them losses. then they said, america, america, we're going down. help us, please. and then they called us all together in september and october, 2008, and said we need a bailout. please. we came up with a bill called tarp and bank of america got bailed out. now, the problem is after bank of america got bailed out and got back up on its feet somewhat, they paid all their executives big giant bonuses, they laid off 30,000 people. what? yeah. that's how they repay the american people, helping them out. city group, another one. -- citigroup, another one. got saved.

they were absolutely going down. i don't know. the citigroup is a company with a lot of problems, paying no taxes. exxonmobil, now these people are making money hand over fist. they are making money. they are very, very profitable. why? because you're happy to pay $3 gas. if you go pay $3 you are like, hooray, this is the store i am going to go to. and you see it going up to $4. over the last few years it's fluctuated between $3 and $4. do you think exxonmobil is not making money on that? they are absolutely making money hand over fist because of that and yet they pay no taxes. so, look, the fact is -- oh, g.e. don't let me forget about my friends at g.e. they got the -- i think they're the biggest corporation in the world. no taxes. g.e. pays no taxes. i'm like, look, g.e., we -- the government, because we cut taxes for the wealthiest people

and 2/3 of all corporations don't pay any taxes, we don't have that much money. we're in a position where we may have to cut head start, home heating oil program for senior citizens, do y'all think you could do a little bit better? and they say, no. can't do nothing for you. . this is amazing. executives of these companies have more houses than they can ever visit and more lakes that they could waterski on. and amani suits and monogram shirts and expensive shoes and travel all over the world and fly around in jets and they won't pay nothing and we got to then talk about cutting home heating oil, liheap program, food stamp program. i mean, how do you sleep at

night? it's amazing to me. shocking. shocking. i'm sure all of them look at each other and say, well, we earned it. you can't tell me that you earned that. this is immaterial. some people want to say they work hard. this is not true. what they do is they take all that money that they make and come down here and get us to argue for loopholes for them and $50 million is spent lobbying congress, $130 million spent to giving donations to campaigns. 94% as of 2008, 94% of all candidates with the most money win the election. and about 261 members of congress and only 535 of us, are millionaires. the average that work here -- the average worth here is $700,000.

and i'm not one of those rich guys. i live on the money that my constituents pay me and i'm working 24/7. i go to the grocery store and i know how much bread costs. what i'm saying is to whom much is given, much is expected. and fr america, a nation that i love so much, has a military that protects us all, has a police department that protects us in our local communities, has a fire department which makes sure that bank of america branches don't burn to the ground, america, if you were one of the executives that gets six, the e.m.t. is going to help them and bring them back to life. the roads and bridges that the people drive on to all these companies, publicly paid for. and yet they turn around and say, you have done that for us,

america, but we have nothing for you. zero taxes. it's wrong. and it should be an occupy movement to say so. now, this is a chart ks mr. speaker, that i -- a chart, mr. speaker, that i like to pull out. i have no beef with donald trump and paris hilton. i'm sure they are both nice people, but do you think they need a tax break, mr. speaker? i think they are getting just fine. i think that some of my neighbors who are firefighters and cops and teachers or who work at the local bank branch or who work at the local grocery store stocking up groceries, i think they could use a little help, but i do believe that if donald and paris don't get a tax

break, they'll manage just fine. these are the millionaires and billionaires of our society. when we cut back from the poor people, you are putting money into the hands of these folks. i don't think that's wise policy. so, my point, mr. speaker, is just this, you want to talk tax breaks, we are actually talking about extending the payroll tax deduction so that -- 1,500 bucks can stay in the hands of people who are struggling. there was a bill in the u.s. senate that said, millionaires, on your first million, we aren't asking you for taxes but on your second million, could we have 3%? they're like, nope. nothing doing. even if it's going to help working-class people, will you help them? nope. nope. cannot possibly do it.

it might sap their incentive to work if we were to help the working-class people of america, so we can't help them. tax breaks for billionaires or tax breaks for teachers, police, firefighters, small business, investment, better schools, clean energy, health care, infrastructure investment, college affordability. now my question is, mr. speaker, what are america's priorities? i think it is with these folks down here. i think america would rather help these folks than these folks. just a wild guess. so that's all we're for. this payroll tax deduction, $1,000 in the pockets of people who really need it, we ask

billionaires and millionaires to pony up a little more, wouldn't even notice it and wouldn't have to cancel your country club memberships, but they said no. they said no. there is a loss of civic virtue among some of our most privileged americans, but i'm proud to tell you about a group of guys and women called the patriotic millionaires and came to a forum that the progressive caucus organized last week and they said, you know what? you have invested in research, which we used to make our products that made us rich, you invested in roads, bridges and education that hell pped make us rich and we -- helped make us rich. and some smarty pants republican said, well, if you want to pay extra and you are rive, you can, i'm sure the treasury will

accept your check. and one of those patriotic millionaires said something really wise. america is not a charity. america is all of our responsibility. and we all -- that's what taxes are. i'm here today, mr. speaker, to argue that taxes are the dues that we pay to live in a civilized society. taxes are not a punishment. relief from what? relief from good schools? when they say tax burden, let me tell you, if you want to live in a society where there is no taxes and no public services, you could move to somalia. that's what it is. no government. i don't see any of our friends who i call the free market fundamentalists, i don't see them moving to mogadishu. mr. speaker, i want to say on

this thursday night in this great country, the greatest country in the world, americans have a question before themselves. are we going to choose community, choose each other or is it going to be a selfish pursuit where everybody is on their own? i view america as people who look out for each other. americans don't think that will helping seniors who are on social security is a bad thing to do. americans don't think that helping the poor and the sick is somehow a bad thing to do. in fact, one of the things that illustrated this debate, this national debate we are having, mr. speaker, is something that happened in the united states senate today, the other body. today -- and i can't blame my friends in the house. my republican friends in the house, they didn't do this. today, republicans in the senate

voted to block president obama's appointment of the head of the consumer protection bureau. the consumer protection bureau came about because of the massive failure of did he sensey on wall street that resulted in all of the for example and america having to bail out the likes of bear stearns and bank of america and a whole bunch of others. and they said, look, a mortgage document can be very complicated and we just want to have a bureau that will try to make these things simpler, a bureau that will say what the interest rate is going to be and the terms, so we can have transparency. the real free marketters around here wouldn't be against more information and better

information going to the consumer. adam smith, the one who wrote -- oh, my goodness, but the one in which he describes the invince i believe -- invisible hand, he said in that book that consumer information is key to a good market operating. i don't know why people wouldn't want a good market to operate. republicans in the senate, can't blame the house members this time, like to claim that the new consumer financial protection agency would be reformed before it gets a new director and said they won't allow to have a director until they change it. we had a vote and they are trying to wreck it before it gets up and running. the truth is these folks who are against consumer protection and the lobbyists that support them are trying to water down our new

consumer watchdog's power so they can't hold wall street and predatory lenders accountable. that's too bad. they don't want anybody to be the new cop on the beat protecting all americans against these predatory lenders. i said if you are offering a good financial product that helps people and is transparent, why would you be afraid? only if your business model is based on cheating consumers would you want to fight a consumer financial protection bureau. without an enforcer and real powers to crack down on predatory loans, we will keep on seeing mortgages that are designed to fail from the very beginning, tricking people with the fine print, cheating consumers to make a quick buck. mr. speaker, i see that republicans are ready to take

the time. i'm happy to yeed. i'm going to yield back the balance of my time in just a moment, but i just want to say that america was a good idea. america is a good idea. but it's an idea that you have to fight for and the idea of liberty and justice for all, living in a fair and prosperous economy is something that americans have to stand up for and assert because if we leave it to the big guys, to the 1%, to the people with all the money and all the dough, they will snatch this great american dream away from us. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 535, an act to authorize the secretary of the interior to leave certain lands within fort pulaski national monument and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for 30 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: before i go into my remarks that i have prepared, i would like to point out that i personally have opposed all the bailouts and hundreds of billions of dollars that the obama administration has channeled to different financial wheelers and dealers and others that have received so much money as directed to them from this administration and just to put it on the record, many of these so-called corporations that we -- that my colleague just pointed out, if we take a look and say if we are going to increase taxes on them, these corporations are actually -- their biggest stock holders happen to be pension funds and what we're really talking about

by trying to say we are going to tax these big corporations, what we are doing is taxing the pension funds or taxing the entities that provide the money for the pension funds for the rest of the citizens of this country. but that is another issue that i will discuss some other day. today, mr. speaker, i would like to rise as a strong advocate of human progress through advancing mankind's understanding of science and engineering. i rise to discuss the blatant abuse and misuse of science. a few nights ago, i watched a video of president eisenhower's 1961 fair well address. his warnings about the military industrial complex, which were right on target, i might add, that warning has obscured another warning in that address that is just as significant. eisenhower pointed to the danger

and i quote of domination of the nation's scholars of federal employment, project allocations and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. yet, and i continue to quote, yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy itself could become a captive of a scientific technological elite. in my lifetime, there has been no greater example of this threat, which eisenhower warned us about than the insidious coalition of research science and political largesse, a coalition that has conducted an unrelenting crusade to convince the american people that their health, safety and yes, their very survival on this planet is at risk due to manmade global warming. the purpose of this greatest of all propoganda campaigns is to

enlist public support for, if not just acquiescens to, a dramatic mandated change in our society and a mandated change to our way of life. this campaign has such momentum and power that it is now a tangible threat to our freedom and our prosperity as a people. . ironically, the crusade -- ironically, as the crusade against man-made global warming grows in power, more evidence surfaces every day that the scientific theory on which the alarmists have based their crusade is totally bogus. the general public and decisionmakers for decades have been inundated with phony science, altered numbers, outright fraud. this is the ultimate power grab in the name of saving the world, and like all other

fanatics, disagreement is not allowed in such endeavors. prominent scientists who have been skeptical with the claims of man-made global warming have themselves been cut from research grants and obstructed when trying to publish peer review descending opinions. how mainstream media or publications like "national journal" for example, have ignored this is beyond me. if you heard the words, case closed, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the purpose of such a proclamation is limiting and repressing debate. well, the case isn't closed, so let's start with some facts about man-made global warming and the theory of man-made global warming. first and first most, the earth has experienced warming and cooling cycles for millions of years which is a significant number of prominent scientists

believe is tied to solar activity just like similar temperature trends have been identified on mars and other bodies in the solar system and that is the sun. so how about those ice caps on mars? they seem to expand and recreed mirroring our own -- recede mirroring our own polar ice caps. doesn't that point to the sun rather than human activity? there are very few human beings around on mars and certainly millions of years ago when we had other cycles in the world there weren't very many human beings, if any around. but so where do the climate cycles come from? well, what causes climate cycles? right off the bat let's acknowledge that man-made global warming advocates who i suggest are alarmists do not believe the sun has no impact on climate cycles just as they

believe that the sun has a minimal impact as compared to the increasing level of co-2 in the atmosphere. so they believe that basically the sun does have some impact but not -- but nothing compared to the increase in co-2 in the atmosphere which today they believe has increased in co-2 in the atmosphere has become very frightening because mankind is using fossil fuels which they believe is causing this dramatic increase in co-2. well, similarly, skeptics like me that the sun is the major factor in making the cycles, like the one we are in. but co-2 buildup may have a minor impact. the debate isn't all sun or all man made co-2. it's over which of these

factors is a major determinant or even the significant determinant. and at this point, one other fact needs to be understood. many intelligent people believe that co-2, carbon dioxide, represents 10%, 20%, 30% of the atmosphere. answer the question if anyone is reading this or listening to this, what do you think the percentage is after all of this -- what we heard time and time again how co-2 is changing the climate of our planet? well, as i say, most people think it's 10%, 20%, even 30% of the atmosphere. in reality, co-2 is less, less than one half of one 10th of one percent of the atmosphere, and humankind contribution to that one half of one tenth of one percent is a small fraction of that. to say what we're talking about

is minuscule, no, that's not smart enough. what it really is microscopic. frankly, i believe co-2 is so irrelevant that it should not be the focus of air standards and regulations. after all it is not harmful to human beings unless, of course, you stick it into your automobile in the garage and shut the door for hours and hours at a time. but the co-2 that's in the atmosphere is not harmful. other gases like nox, which is damaging to human health, should be a priority. it is global pollution, not global warming that we should be concerned about. not making this distinction has cost us billions, maybe more. the temperature of this planet isn't manmade and we can't do anything about it. the air quality we have is man

influenced if not man made. we can do something about these maladies, but the alarmists are not interested in solving those problems. they are part of a coalition that wants to change our way of life which requires us to acquiesce or better yet to frighten us into submission. make no mistake, the man-made global warming theory is being used to push -- the man-made global warming theory is being pushed by people who believe in global government. they have been looking for an excuse for an incredible freedom-busting centralization of power for a long time, and they found it in the specter of man-made global warming. well, for the past 30 years, alarmists have been spouting off chicken little.

in the 1990's the clinton administration made it part of its agenda, thanks to vice president al gore. one of the first actions that the administration took was to fire the top scientists at the department of education, dr. william happener, a professional who at the -- happer, a professional who at the time dared to the open minded about global warming. al gore said that dr. happer didn't fit in and he was out. the pattern was all too clear. in order to receive any one iota of federal research funds, scientists had to toe the line on man-made global warming. there is a biblical quote, the truth shall set you free. well, this is a battle for the truth and we are up against a political machine that has been yelling "case closed," and restricting federal research grants only to those who agree with them.

that we have politicos who believe in centralizing powers and are willing to use their own power certainly should surprise no one. but that a scientific technological leap, the very group that president eisenhower warned us against 50 years ago, allied themselves with such a political power play is totally contrary to what science and scientists are supposed to be all about. because of the retaliation of those alarmists in charge of bestowing the federal research grants, opposition to this power grab has taken time to coalesce, but the opposition to the man-made global warming theory is now evident and it won't be ignored. there have been major conferences here in washington, and at other locations around the nation. with hundreds of prominent members of the scientific community, individuals, many of whom are renowned scientists with ph.d.'s, the heads of major university science

departments, including a few nobel prize winners have all stepped up and spoken out. even with little news coverage, this group, who are accurately referred to as skeptics, are gaining ever more recognition and ever more influence. they face the daunting challenge, however, and they have to fight for any attention even though they have just as good as credentials as those people who are advocating on the other side. for a list of some of these credentialed and very well-respected skeptics, one can visit my website. i'm congressman dana rohrabacher from california. so what is this apocalyptic machine-made global warming theory that has -- that the globalists and the radical environmentalists would have us believe in? it is that our planet is dramatically heating up because we, human beings, especially

americans, put large amounts of co-2 into the atmosphere as a result of using oil, gas and coal as fuel. the co-2 has an impact that -- in that it entraps a certain amount of heat in the atmosphere, thus, dangerously warming the planet. we have been warned about huge changes in our environment, including a 10-degree jump in the overall temperature, and thus a serious rise in the level of the oceans of the world. vice president gore in his movie, an inconvenient truth, showed what seemed to be a video of melting and breaking ice caps inconveniently somebody squealed and the video was actually a special effect. it was styrofoam made it look like melting and breaking ice caps. but that's no problem. people still listened to al

gore. the alarmists have been over and over again, the alarmists have said that the earth is draw matcally heating up. -- dramatically heating up. well, look close at the data that they're talking about. look close at the date that was picked by these people as a baseline for comparing temperatures. it is 1850, and what is 1850? it's the end of a 500-year decline in the earth's temperature. the little ice age was ending in the 1850's. so skeptics say that one or two-degree increase in the planet's temperature is irrelevant if the basis of comparison is a 500-year low in the earth's temperature. to skeptics currently we are -- to skeptics we are just in a

natural climate cycle. this is what we as skeptics believe. this is a natural climate cycle and it's been going on, as was the 500-year decline in the earth's temperatures, if it's going up a little bit now, that is a natural climate cycle. to alarmists, however, the sky is falling. a couple degrees warmer and the sky is heating or it's falling, it is, or heating, and all of this is caused by mankind's pumping co-2 into the air. this theory of man-made co-2 causing global warming to emerge when -- when this whole theory emerged when scientists mace mistakenly believed that the studies they were study from ice corps the warming of this planet was happening after a major increase in co-2. however, later it was found

that the ice corps -- ice cores was misread. one pointed out in "science magazine" in 2003, the co-2 increased lagged ant arctic deglacierization warming by 800 to 200 years, give or take 200 years, end of quote. so the heating came first, and then the co-2 increased, not the other way around. yes, when the earth heats up, there is nor co-2. but we've been told the opposite over and over again, and we were told it was the co-2 that was making the earth heat up, and they are telling us that the earth will keep heating up until it reaches a tipping point and there will be a huge jump in the temperature. the temperature will shoot up once it reaches this tipping point. and we could expect, this is

what we're told over and over again by the scientists predicting over and over again that we could expect this warming to go on and on until we quit using co-2 and quit using these co-2 emitting fossil fuels as a major source of our energy. well, the future they described was hot and bleak, but their frightening illusion began to disintegrate when about nine years ago even as more co-2 was being pumped into the air and has continued to be pumped into the air, the earth quit warming. and in fact it may be now in a cooling cycle. that's right. the noaa national climate data center shows that ground surface temperatures have flattened out and there hasn't been any net warming since 1998, and the r.s.s. microwave

sounding unit operating on noaa satellites show a net cooling since 1998. . totally the opposite of every prediction of united nations sbrl governmental panel on climate change, and their faulty computer models as well as the army of global warming -- global warming scientists who have been warning us about higher and higher temperatures. well, the frantic claims and predictions of manmade global warming have been replaced with a new warning, if it gets colder or it gets warmer, the alarmists will have their way because that is being caused by too much co-2. whatever it is, it is being caused by it. they change the words from global warming to climate change and replaced, as i said, global

warming with climate change. i guess they think we would forget about their predictions over and over again being 100% wrong. even the much touted melting of the ice caps has now reversed itself in the last few years. according to the most data from the national snow and ice center in boulder, colorado, not all the ice caps are melting now. there is melting, and there is refreezing going on. so the polar ice caps aren't going on and the polar bears aren't becoming extinct. they were put on the list even though they weren't ex tinching. there are a number -- extinct. there are a number of polar bear families that are growing dramatically in the last few years even as we were warned

that polar bears were becoming extinct. warming has ended, but the power grab continues. what we are finding out how ruthless and deceitful that power grab has been. one example of blackballing is like from dr. gray at colorado state university and head of the tropical meet other logical project. gray had the courage to point out that there have not in recent years been more and stronger hurricanes and other such storms than in the past. no more research grants for him. no attention to the media, either. zealots can find excuses for their transgressions against other professionals like dr. gray. professional figures in white coats with important tones of

voices and lots of credentials repeatedly dismiss criticism by claiming that their so-called scientific findings had been per reviewed and it sounds beyond reproach and gave each other prizes. to those who disagreed like dr. gray, no matter how prominent, they were treated like non entities like they didn't exist or disparged with labels like denier. that's what you do. now how much uglier does it get? how much against the standard of professional science can you be than to try paint someone like that because he disagrees with you? these unprofessional tactics won't work forever and it's

becoming ever clear that the manmade global warming steam roller is beginning to fall apart. scientists clammering for subserve yent acceptance to their theory is making a sham of the science. we now know what they were doing. i'm speaking of climategate, the publication of over 1,000 emails and 3,000 other unofficially obtained documents from one of the world's foremost global warming research institutes, global research institute of east andlya and we have heard those quotes. we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't, end of quote. how about another? i just completed mike's nature trick to hide the decline. end of quote.

another quote, we'll keep them, meaning the conceptics of their science, we'll keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what peer rehave you literature is. how about this? if they ever hear there is a freedom of information act now in the u.k., i think i'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone, end of quote. deleting files? trying to prevent peer review? what kind of scientists were these? arrogant and politically motivated scientists, that's who. the release of those internal memos, expose the shenanigans and the crime being committed against science and the public, even though hand-picked panels of their pierce held the kangaroo court, their own peers judged them and kangaroo court

loudly proclaimed there had been no wrongdoing by these people. well, public confidence was justifiably shaken in the global warming science advocates. now, just as that scandal was about to be forgotten, we have a larger data base of communication, showing even more clearly how this elite operates and it ain't pretty. here are some of the quotes of the newly released data base. quote, unfortunately there is no way to fix the ipcc and there never was. the reason that is it's information over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth, end of quote. here's another quote. if disagree with our interpretation of climate change, you were left out of the ipcc process.

they ignore our fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers that might hurt the ipcc. another one, i also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, end of quote. another one, it's very likely that the mean temperature has shown much larger past variability than caught by previous reconstructions. we cannot from these reconstructions conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500 to 1,000 years. what does that mean? that means the current cycle we are in has nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuel by human beings. i would like to insert an article from james taylor of

"forbes," who says that climategate ii, who says, quote, these scientists view global warming as a political cause rather than like a scientific inquiry. i smith that for the -- i submit that for the record. among all the consternation about their malpractice to which we have now been exposed, the global warming elite keeps a straight face. they keep up their power point presentations, distorted graphs and all and continue projections of manmade doom and gloom and try to ignore the uproar and change the subject, but these recent revelations seriously call into question the basic science of manmade global warming fanatics. a report was issued by the world respected scientists. and the study demonstrated that it is cosmic rays from the sun

that determine global cloud cover and the clouds dramatically have much more to do -- the cloud cover around the earth during periods in its history has much more to do with temperature than the miniscule amounts of co-2 in the atmosphere. the cloud project, at a highly respected laboratory, published the paper in "the journal of nature," base odd their research, which shows that the sun's activity is influencing cloud formation and may account for the most of the recorded temperature changes in the last century. i now submit an editorial about this project from the "wall street journal" by ann joyals for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rohrabacher: she said parallels from outer space might significant impact the clouds

that are covering the earth providing a clue to one of the least understood but most important questions, heavenly bodies might be a driving, -- might be driving long-term weather trends. while scientists have discovered the sun's relationship to cloud cover, even more recently, there has been a study directly undermining this theory that co-2 levels are a major determine ant of the earth's temperature. a recent editorial from "business daily" on the topic of this new study undermines and they say it undermines the case closed argument of the scientific elite. from the editorial, and i quote, the proposed solution to the world's ills are based that co-2 is a common heating poison that must be scrubbed from the global economy at all costs, yet another study shows this to be

foolishness and i submit that for the record at this point as well. and despite the weaknesses in the linkage between co-2 and temperature, the alarmists continue with their tactics. we just heard a report published in "nature climate change" that co-2 emissions in 2010 went up by 5.9%, which scientists claimed was the highest total annual growth ever reported, except they didn't record any co-2 emissions. they estimated that, based on energy use. they didn't take into account new technologies that make gas, oil and coal cleaner and greener. the scientists didn't care about how cleanly oil and coal might be burned. they just estimated co-2 emissions based on the total amount of coal and oil used. well, and the media, like their

lap dogs faithfully reported that this sounds like a calamity when you have much more co-2 coming in, even though they never measured any co-2 emissions. none of it was actually recorded. the fact is co-2 is not a pollute ant. anyone perpetrating that myth that co-2 is a dangerous pollute ant is contributing to the health destructive impact of real pollution by diverting resources and attention away from these very real challenges. we have wasted $25 billion or more on this foolishness. that is money that could have been used to develop new energy technologies, for example, they could have moved us off of our dependence on foreign oil. these are the small modular nuclear reactors which could offer us safety and no pollution, no leftover waste, but we didn't have the money for that. how about space-based solar

power, which could collect solar energy from the sun and transmit it to the earth. developing these new technologies will take hundreds of millions of dollars for these new reactors, instead we have squandered our billions of dollars and limited science money and technology dollars in trying to prove that manmade global warming is something we have to worry about and spread the fear. we have not pursued these or other technologies which could have benefited everyone because we have been wasting our time and resources. how to figure out how to bury carbon in the ground and other such things. mr. speaker, i'm here to explain that this is utter nonsense and alert this high-sounding cause. alert this high-sounding cause. don't miss