[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 15945-15954]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here on the floor of the 
House tonight, I am reminded of the television series the ``Twilight 
Zone.'' And these days I half expect Rod Serling to appear from behind 
a curtain and announce, ``This is the Twilight Zone.'' Yes, there is an 
almost bizarre sense of unreality here in the Nation's Capital.
  The transformation of private liability into public debt on a massive 
scale. The unprecedented level of deficit spending, debt piled upon 
debt, borrowing from China to give foreign aid to other countries. The 
willingness to pass draconian restrictions and controls on our national 
economy and on the lives of our people. And while seeking to save us 
from a recession, Congress shovels hundreds of billions of dollars into 
the financial industry, much of which has ended up in the pockets of 
fat cats and wheeler-dealers who have been giving themselves multi-
million dollar bonuses even as they drove their own companies into

[[Page 15946]]

bankruptcy. The giveaway and the lack of oversight has been mind-
boggling. And we don't know where hundreds of billions of dollars have 
gone, and we don't know to whom. Yet we know that the taxpayers are now 
on the hook for this increase in our national debt.
  We have watched as this has been happening, and, of course, there are 
so many things that are being done here today to our people. But we 
also note how much is not being done that needs to be done to protect 
our people, which is just as mind-boggling.
  Our Nation's borders leak like a spaghetti strainer. Millions of 
people illegally continue to pour into our country to consume our 
limited health care. And, by the way, we just heard a lot about health 
care. Why are we not hearing that we should not be picking up the tab 
for the tens of millions of illegals that have come into this country? 
But that's not part of the discussion. But millions of people are 
flowing into our country, and they are consuming the limited health 
care, education, and other social service dollars that we have. We have 
limited money; and yet they are taking that money, and they're taking 
jobs from our people.
  And sometimes they come here and they commit crimes against our 
people. And our government just sits and lets it happen even while we 
are passing all these hundreds of millions on to wheeler-dealers in the 
financial industry. We can't even come to grips with our illegal 
immigration problem. We can't even build a fence.
  In California we can't even build a new water system in the middle of 
a drought. This we are told is because of a tiny fish, the delta smelt. 
So our people will have to suffer because of concern over a little tiny 
worthless fish that isn't even good enough to be used as bait.
  So last week even amidst California's tremendous difficulties, with 
drought conditions and a shortage of water at near crisis, this House, 
the House of Representatives, voted not for the people of California 
but for a fish. No water for our people because if we would give it to 
the people, that little fish might be affected in a detrimental way.
  Perhaps the most damaging of the weird policies that I have described 
is America's longtime commitment not to develop its own domestic energy 
resources. Even as high energy prices have brought suffering and 
economic hardship to our people, we have not been developing our own 
resources. Even as we see dollars being siphoned from the pockets of 
our people and deposited in coffers overseas, enriching foreigners, 
some of those foreigners who hate us, while our hard-earned dollars are 
being extracted from us, massive deposits of domestic oil and gas worth 
trillions of dollars are untouched, untapped, and unused.
  Even as California sinks into an economic catastrophe, off the coast 
are huge caverns filled with massive deposits of oil and gas just 
sitting there. And even as California cuts and cancels public services 
to our own people, billions of dollars of tax revenue could be derived 
by utilizing that oil and gas that's just sitting there right off our 
shore. Yet the State of California lets it sit there while our people 
suffer and the State goes broke. Trillions of dollars have been sent 
overseas for energy, while at home no new oil refineries, no 
hydroelectric dams, no nuclear power plants.
  As I say, all of this seems a bit bizarre. And it may be a bit 
bizarre, but it is not meaningless nonsense. Those who have insisted 
upon these antidomestic energy development policies know exactly what 
they're doing. They want to change our way of life whether we like it 
or not. So a few decades ago, they grabbed onto a theory, a theory that 
the world is heating up because humankind uses carbon-based fuels. Read 
that oil, gas, and coal. This theory gives them the ability to stampede 
politicians and even stampede scientists with a certain amount of 
prodding and promises of being excluded from grants or promises to 
receive grants, but that theory gives them the ability to get these 
people, whether they are scientists or politicians, to support 
draconian policies and mandates, changes in our economy and lifestyle 
that they otherwise would never dream of considering and supporting.
  All of this is in the name of protecting us from a climate calamity: 
man-made global warming. Well, the Good Book says: ``The truth shall 
make you free.'' A caveat might be: ``And a lie can destroy your 
freedom.'' Man-made global warming has given respectable cover to 
advocates of a tax and regulatory policy that no one would even 
consider except, of course, unless it's to take care of an emergency.

                              {time}  2240

  In reality, the effort behind the man-made global warming juggernaut 
is the biggest power grab in history. It gives politicos who always 
wanted to control the behavior of normal people a seemingly legitimate 
reason to do so, even over those normal people's objections. This power 
grab was set in motion in the very first days of the Clinton 
administration in 1993.
  When the Clinton administration took over, one of the first actions 
that the administration was to do was to fire Dr. William Happer, a man 
who dared challenge Vice President Gore. Yes, Dr. Happer believed in 
science, not in the junk science of radicals, and he was skeptical, 
although not an advocate of either side of the global warming debate.
  He didn't fit in, so out he went. From there on, the pattern was very 
clear, and it's very clear. In order to receive even one penny of 
Federal research money, a scientist would have to tow the line on the 
man-made global warming theory. Any dissident would be quickly squashed 
or at least be cut off from any Federal research funding. That went on 
for 8 years.
  So when approaching this concept of man-made global warming, we must 
examine the science behind it. So let's state right off, the 
unconscionable intimidation of the science community during the Clinton 
years has ensured that bad science permeates the entire argument of the 
alarmists who are perpetuating this man-made myth. This man-made myth 
global warming is based on bad science, and it's very easy to discern 
this by the Herculean efforts made by the man-made global warming 
advocates to cut off all debate on this issue.
  So not only did we see people in the scientific communities being 
intimidated with the promise of having their research funds cut off, 
but now, after this, and after the presentation of the global warming 
alarmist alternative, let's say, alternative projects and alternative 
policies, that there has been an intense effort to cut off debate on 
the issue of man-made global warming itself. That is why in Congress 
they are now trying to quickly slip by a drastic life-altering 
legislation that is based on the science of man-made global warming. 
And they want to do this without confronting the basic science.
  So, if we want to take a look at the science of global warming, the 
first thing to notice is why have those people who believe in global 
warming spent so much effort and so much time and been so abusive in 
trying to cut off debate? Has anyone ever heard the slogan, case 
closed?
  Come on, if you really are honest, admit that is an attempt, and it 
was a huge attempt, to cut off debate. The debate is over.
  How many heard that? Again, an attempt, not to discuss the issues, 
not to have an honest discussion of the science, but never to discuss 
the science. That is what the language--and that is the language of the 
debate. And what we have here is a language of debate and discussion 
restriction, not the language being used by the advocates of global 
warming for let's have an honest discussion, the words they used are 
aimed at limiting and restricting and cutting off debate. Case closed.
  Al Gore never takes any questions. Do you know that, when he goes out 
and speaks and goes to universities, not only does he not debate, which 
would be a good idea, he refuses to take questions.
  I don't know how many times have we heard, every prominent scientist 
agrees, so you must be a kook if you disagree. Well, every prominent 
scientist doesn't disagree and the names

[[Page 15947]]

of hundreds, of those people in the scientific community, people who 
are heads of universities like Richard Lindzen, one of the great 
scientist from MIT, from all over the world there are major scientists 
who have put themselves on the record and taken great risk in doing so, 
telling them that they are, no, very skeptical and have serious doubts 
about the man-made global warming theory.
  The name calling and stifling in this debate by the man-made global 
warming advocates has been shameful and a disservice to democracy. If 
someone so much as tries to make a joke, it is reported as if it is 
being serious. The people who do that are themselves admitting that 
they cannot stand a major scientific and truthful scrutiny and exchange 
of ideas.
  So what about the science? Let's take a look, and I would challenge 
any Member of Congress to come here and debate me on the science of 
this issue.
  First, let's talk about the so-called global-warming cycle that's 
being caused by human activity. That's the bases of what this whole 
issue is. We know that there have been weather and climate cycles 
throughout the history of the world, going back to prehistoric times. 
The global warming alarmists now are using a low point of a 500-year 
cycle of cooling, and that was at the end of the Little Ice Age, as the 
baseline for determining if humankind is making the planet hotter at 
this time.
  So, let's get back to it. There have been all of these cycles through 
the history of the planet, and this cycle, there is a cycle that is 
going on. But to analyze that cycle, those people are saying man-made 
global warming, as differentiated from all the other cycles, are using 
the 1850s as their baseline, and that is at the 500-year low in the 
temperature of the Earth. It was the end of what they call the Little 
Ice Age.
  Is that good science? Should we really be upset when there is a 1- or 
2-degree rise from a 500-year low point in temperatures? So, come on, 
let's answer that scientific question. Let's not call me names, which 
is what's happened over and again, as if I don't believe in science, 
and I am some sort of Neanderthal, or that I am any number of 
pejorative names. Let's look and be honest.
  Those people using names do not understand the issues and are afraid 
to discuss the science and the issues at hand. They are doing a 
disservice to our country, and they are exposing themselves as being 
people who do not believe in the very issue they are advocating because 
they can't defend it.
  So, science question number one: Are they not using an unreasonably 
cooler moment as the baseline for analysis? Is that not an unreasonable 
thing to do, to start your settings and use as a baseline a 500-year 
low in temperature when trying to tell us that we should be concerned 
about the warming trend that's going on?
  Question number two: What about those other weather cycles that we 
have had long before humankind emerged on this planet? A thousand years 
ago, even after we had people, things were much warmer than now. 
Iceland and Greenland were farmed by Norsemen. Farms, there were farms 
there. It was a time period a thousand years ago when there were not 
only cattle, but there were plants going there.
  Vineland, was actually--people thought Vineland was something that 
Leif Erickson made up. No, there was a place, a Vineland, back in Nova 
Scotia, and in those days grew grapes. Well, that's because the weather 
was warmer then, and there was a cycle, as I say. Was that cycle--as I 
say, was that cycle--was the decline in temperature by the Little Ice 
Age, was that caused by human beings?
  What about all the other cycles taking place. Were those caused by 
human beings? If we see that there were cycles that even happened 
before prehistoric man even existed, well then there must be some other 
explanation. Well, what is that explanation?
  So, if there were cycles before human beings were forced on the 
planet, what is the other explanation? Well, it seems to many 
scientists who believed this that the cycles of climate have followed 
solar activity.
  That's why, and I get that, the sun is the biggest force of energy on 
the planet, and they believe that many scientists believe that it's 
solar activity and not human activity that's creating this cycle, just 
as it did the other cycles that we have gone through long before human 
beings even existed on the planet.
  And that also explains why we have cycles, monitoring those on Earth, 
that have been observed on other planets. That's right, on other 
planets.

                              {time}  2250

  In recent years, we have been treated to the outcries of agony about 
the melting that is taking place in the Arctic. This is being used to 
touch people's hearts to get them alarmed so they will accept the 
draconian controls that will come from those people who are advocating 
policies to deal with man-made global warming.
  They're saying, Oh, it's our activity that's causing the ice caps to 
melt. Well, who hasn't seen these pictures of these polar bears? The 
poor polar bears on the ice floe, obviously a victim of man-made global 
warming.
  Well, not so fast. Yes, the ice cap is retreating. There's no doubt 
about that. But what about the ice cap on Mars? Yes. Right now, at the 
same time we have our ice cap that is retreating, the ice cap on Mars 
is retreating at exactly the same time, and it seems to be mirroring, 
paralleling what's going on on the Earth. Doesn't that indicate that it 
might be the Sun and not somebody driving an SUV or using modern 
technology that is creating such a cycle; it's creating the situation 
that left the bear in a warmer climate?
  Well, if so, let us note this. If it is indeed caused by the Sun, and 
yet we have had all this propaganda to touch our hearts and get us to 
think, not to feel about the poor polar bear, let us note that if it is 
the Sun and it's not us, then that polar bear is the victim and has 
nothing to do with man-made global warming, but is being challenged, 
just like animals have been challenged throughout the history of our 
planet by planet cycles.
  By the way, let me just note this. How many have not heard the polar 
bear is becoming extinct? The polar bears are not becoming extinct. In 
fact, the number of polar bears on this planet has dramatically 
expanded.
  There are four to five times the number of polar bears on the world 
than there were in the 1960s. But you would believe from what you have 
seen and the movies and the ice caps melting and Al Gore showing, by 
the way, a false--a piece of Styrofoam that was breaking off in a 
movie, presenting to us as if that's the ice caps breaking off the 
Arctic. You'd think that it was that the polar bears were doomed and 
that we were to blame for it.
  Well, here's another scientific challenge. Okay. If we have cycles 
already, if the ice is melting on Mars, just as it is here, what is the 
science behind this claim that mankind is causing the climate cycle, if 
there is a climate cycle, and what climate cycle it is?
  So, let's have an answer to that. Let's not call me names. Let's not 
just say, Oh, the polar bear--I remember reading this on the Internet--
the polar bear is near extinction, when it is clear from many other 
sources, which I will be happy to provide, that the polar bear 
population is actually going up. Besides that, that's not the point.
  The point is that the polar bear is, whatever condition it's in, is 
not due to the fact that human beings can drive in automobiles or that 
we have to change our lifestyle and be controlled by the government in 
order to protect the polar bear from climate changes that our 
activities bring about. Man-made global warming theory?
  And my colleague from Texas, if he would like to step in for a few 
words, I'd be very happy to have him.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I certainly appreciate my friend from California 
yielding. With regard to the polar bears, in the Natural Resources 
Committee we have been hearing that by 20 years ago we were up to under 
12,000 polar bears in the whole world, and now we know there are over 
25,000 polar bears in the world. They're doing pretty well.

[[Page 15948]]

  But as we know--and there's some friends here from Texas--in Texas we 
have a problem with overpopulation of deer because they don't know when 
to stop overpopulating, and so we have seasons to help keep them from 
starving themselves to death.
  So it is a little misleading to see the ice cap breaking off and the 
starving mother bear and the cub. That's heartbreaking. And, 
apparently, it's heartbreaking enough that millions of people--or at 
least millions of dollars come flowing in.
  You kind of hate if you've got millions of dollars coming in from 
people that feel bad about the polar bears--by the way, the Bush 
administration was asked to say that the polar bears should be on the 
endangered species list. But the Bush administration knew they were 
increasing, just like you were saying, and so what they did was 
compromised and allowed polar bears to be listed as threatened, even 
though they're increasing in population.
  I'm pleased the polar bears are doing well. Hopefully, we won't have 
to open up additional seasons, that they will moderate their behavior.
  But we also saw with the caribou and people talking about how 
terrible it is to produce oil in Alaska. And we heard that if they ever 
put that pipeline up to Prudhoe Bay, it would kill off the last 2,900 
caribou that were in the area, that we just couldn't do that. It would 
destroy their mating habits.
  Turns out, caribou now, when they want to go on dates, invite each 
other to go to the pipeline on cold winter nights because that oil is 
warm going through the pipeline and it makes them amorous. And now 
we're up to 30,000 caribou in that herd. So it turns out man and 
caribou and polar bears can do just fine.
  But it does remind one a little bit of the scare that went across the 
Nation about chlorofluorocarbons just as the Freon patent was coming 
up, and lo and behold we had to outlaw CFCs that were destroying the 
ozone layer. It turned out we found out that one eruption of Mount St. 
Helens put a thousand years' worth of CFCs in the atmosphere--one 
eruption.
  So sometimes I think that we think much too highly of ourselves as 
human beings and the effect that we have on the world and on the globe, 
when actually we do need to be good stewards of this wonderful planet, 
but we also should not be fearmongers that scare people out of doing 
things to help themselves and their families.
  I appreciate so much my friend from California and his yielding.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. I appreciate my friend from Texas 
reminding us of a past scare that proved not to be based on science. I 
remember about cranberries. Couldn't eat cranberries for 2 years 
because that caused cancer. I remember when they took cyclamates off 
the market to the cost of a billion dollars for the industry, then, 20 
years later, found out that that was not legitimate.
  I remember during the Reagan years, the same sort of intensity now 
being used on global warming was used to advocate we have to have 
massive controls on our economy based on controlling acid rain. And 
what happened to that? Ronald Reagan held firm. There was a scientific 
research project that went through for a $500 million research program 
that showed that, yeah, there's a little bit of a problem with acid 
rain, but not very much. In fact, it was not the threatening force that 
we were told at that time, which would have cost tens of billions of 
dollars if we tried to use their agenda, what was being put forward in 
order to ``stop acid rain.''
  Well, the man-made global warming theory, again, is like that. It is 
based on another scientific factor, and that is CO2. So 
let's talk about CO2.
  CO2 is a part of what is in the atmosphere. 
CO2, carbon dioxide, is a miniscule part of our atmosphere. 
So, CO2 is, yes, part of the atmosphere, but it was always 
considered a very small part of the atmosphere.
  Let me just make sure we get this right. That CO2, most 
people believe that it is a large part of the atmosphere, because I 
have asked them, but in reality it is less than .04 percent. So what 
we're saying is much less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the atmosphere 
is CO2.

                              {time}  2300

  So at that rate, basically when we take a look at that, one-tenth of 
1 percent and 80 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not 
traced to human activity. There has been, over the years, times when 
CO2 was going up. Now we are being told that the rise of 
CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm. But we have times 
when CO2 was going up, but it didn't seem to affect the 
climate and the planet. For example, if man-made CO2 causes 
warming, then why is it that when mankind was using much more 
CO2 in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, as the CO2 was 
rising, there was an actual cooling going on in the climate?
  Okay, so let's hear the science about CO2. Why is everyone 
afraid to try to look at the specific science? If CO2 causes 
warming, why is it, when there were dramatic times of CO2 
increase that the Earth got cooler? I had one person suggest that the 
pollution in the atmosphere completely overwhelmed the greenhouse 
effect during that particular time period. Well, if that is true, then 
what we have to say is the Clean Air Act of 1970 is directly 
responsible for man-made global warming. And does anyone believe that? 
No, of course not. By the way, anyone telling a joke or trying to make 
humor is always reported as if that person is being serious.
  So here is another scientific challenge. The recent studies show that 
over 80 percent of America's temperature and weather stations, the 
monitors who have been collecting the information that is being passed 
on to us by the global warming, man-made global warming advocates, that 
80 percent of these stations have been compromised and are faulty in 
the information they are providing. The numbers have been skewed. They 
are suspect because the monitors have been placed in locations that do 
not meet the National Weather Service basic standards. In other words, 
the equipment is being compromised. The figures coming out of the 
equipment cannot be relied upon. And our system, with its 80 percent of 
the monitors that do not meet the standards, has been heralded as the 
best in the world.
  So think about that, what is going on in the rest of the world. What 
we are talking about here is we are talking about a 1-degree, of 
course, rise in temperature, from the depths of the mini-ice age, and 
yet now we have these monitors that even by today's standards are 
substandard. And that is by today's standards, not back in the 1860s 
and not in other parts of the world.
  So how is that for a scientific challenge?
  If the data is being based on monitors that don't meet scientific 
standards either today or in the past, how could we pass laws with 
taxes and controls on our people if the so-called problem is based on 
bogus or absolutely unscientifically obtained numbers? And even with 
the current methods of collecting data, we have been warned time and 
again of dire predictions.
  So the numbers themselves are suspect. But those people who have been 
warning us about those numbers over the last 20 years have been 
spreading incredible alarm, as exemplified by Vice President Gore and 
others. The temperatures, we were told over and over again, were going 
to climb. And they were going to continue to climb, and then it would 
reach a tipping point, and then the temperatures would really jump up. 
Well, wake up. Let's talk reality here. Again, let's talk science. 
Let's quit saying ``case closed.'' Let's not give speeches but never 
take any questions. Let's quit saying that all the scientists agree 
when there are scientists all over the world disagreeing.
  They were wrong. When they said that there was going to be a 
continued climb in the temperature, they were 180 degrees wrong, much 
less having reached a tipping point which then jumped the temperature 
of the world by even a larger amount.
  It has not gotten warmer for over a decade. And it looks like it is 
still getting cooler. Now, that is totally contradictory to the 
predictions of the alarmists and those media people

[[Page 15949]]

around the world who pushed that idea. It is totally contradictory to 
what was aggressively told to us, to what was foisted off on the 
American people and people throughout the world. They were totally, 180 
degrees wrong.
  Please let's talk about the science here. Come and talk to us about 
why, if your major prediction was that the Earth was going to continue 
getting warmer because of this CO2 that comes out of the 
engines that we use and the coal and the oil and natural gas, if that 
was what you were saying and that you were very aggressive in your 
advocacy of this, now that it hasn't happened, come and talk to us. 
Don't dismiss us. Don't try to pass a piece of legislation here based 
on the alarms that went off 15 years ago that have been proven not to 
be true.
  So that is another scientifically based challenge, again, not just 
ignored; but I would say that this is the arrogance behind never 
answering these types of science charges remains evident. Please don't 
ignore it anymore. Please let's respect each other, and let's get away 
from this basic idea that you can just shut off debate. But let's pay 
attention to what the debate was like before, if there was any debate. 
There was just a one-sided debate, because people weren't able to get 
any government grants, so we had a one-sided drumbeat going on. But 
those people were aggressive in that man-made global warming was being 
caused by CO2, and we have got to control human beings for 
this.
  Well, by the way, they don't even use the words ``global warming'' 
any more. Think about that. We have a situation that people who were 
just aggressively talking and putting down anybody who disagreed with 
them about man-made global warming, now they use the word ``climate 
change.'' Now if I am proven wrong in a point, if I were to be proven 
wrong in any point of this speech, I will apologize, and I will change 
my position. I won't try to change my wording so it sounds like I was 
never wrong in the first place. These people were wrong. Remember it. 
Every time they say ``climate change,'' remember that that is an 
admission that they didn't know what they were talking about before. 
Man-made global warming. Their dishonesty is underscored every time 
they use the phrase ``climate change.''
  Now, no matter if it gets warmer or if it gets cooler, they can tell 
us that that backs up their theories, and we should do what they say, 
because now whether it is warmer or cooler, they have been proven right 
because they were saying and they were predicting nothing. Well, they 
believe they should have the power to tax and control us, even though 
the preponderance of evidence shows that the cycles that we are talking 
about were not global warming cycles created by human activity or even 
a cooling cycle created by human activity, but instead something that 
is based on solar activity.
  Let me note this, the gang that told us that human activity was 
causing the planet to warm and to dramatically heat up, now I say they 
are using the word ``climate change,'' is an admission of something. 
But what is it an admission of? They were saying ``global warming,'' 
and now they are saying ``climate change.'' It is basically an 
admission that, yes, for 10 years the world has been getting cooler. So 
if human activity through CO2 was making it warmer, then 
maybe it is a good thing that human beings will mitigate the cooling 
cycle.
  Now they are sort of admitting we are in a cooling cycle because they 
are saying global ``climate change'' and not ``warming.'' So if they 
said that our activities were going to make it warmer, and now they 
have admitted they were wrong because they are using a different word, 
and it is actually getting cooler, then will the human activity that 
they were complaining about before that was making it warmer, well, 
logically then shouldn't Al Gore and these other people be advocating 
more fossil fuel use? Anybody who advocated global warming before and 
now says ``climate change'' is admitting that it is cooler now, that 
maybe we are in a cooling trend.
  Well, if they believed that human activity made things warmer, maybe 
they should be advocating that we use more fossil fuel to mitigate the 
problem of a declining temperature of the planet.

                              {time}  2310

  So all of Al Gore's scientific mumbo jumbo is deceptive, and the 
contention that all of the prominent scientists that agreed with him 
was not true, wasn't true then, and it is especially not true now, and 
I would like to add to the Record, Mr. Speaker, a long list of 
prominent scientists who opposed the man-made global warming theory.
  Temperature predictions have been wrong. The CO2 premise 
is wrong, and we now find out that the monitors that were used to 
collect the data that were placed next to the air-conditioning exhaust 
vents in parking lots and on top of buildings near to heat sources, 
which of course made all of their data unreliable, we now know that was 
done wrong. And we also know the methodology of using computer models 
has been questionable from the very beginning.
  We know the saying garbage in and garbage out. But let's look at the 
computer models we have been told are the basis for all of these 
predictions, many which we now know are wrong. No one was permitted to 
hear the questions, and no one was permitted to ask follow-up 
questions. And what about the information that was fed into the 
computer?
  We weren't actually able to find out exactly what the basis of and 
what was going into those computer models. That was kept from us as 
well. But we do know that the projections have been wrong. We know 
there has been an attempt to stifle and shut up debate. People have 
been called names. Grants have been denied and personal attacks have 
been evident. All of this has been wrong.
  So let's review the scientific challenges of man-made global warming, 
of the man-made global warming theory, which they have even given up 
because they now note that it is getting cooler, which is contrary to 
all of their predictions, because now they use the word ``climate 
change.''
  I have issued a challenge to any of my colleagues to debate me on 
this issue. No one has come forward. And yet these very same people who 
refuse to debate the science will vote for draconian legislation that 
will implement the recommendations of global warming alarmists, even 
though these people have not stepped forward to debate, they will vote 
for the program that these alarmists have been advocating.
  I am afraid that we should have some confrontation of ideas here and 
an honest discussion, and this issue has not been honestly discussed in 
terms of the science.
  The baseline comparison, I just noted, started in a 500-year decline. 
It was based at the bottom of a 500-year decline in temperature. 
Science measurements were partly or severely flawed by monitoring 
systems that do not meet minimum acceptable standards. And past climate 
cycles were frequent even before the emergence of mankind, cycles like 
the retreating of polar ice caps that we are shown all of the time to 
touch our hearts so we won't think but will feel. Those solar ice caps 
and the retreat of the solar ice caps are very similar to the cycles on 
other planets, especially the planet Mars, for example, suggesting that 
solar activity rather than human activity is the culprit.
  Increasing levels of CO2 did not cause warming back in the 
1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and even the 1970s, when there were large 
increases of CO2, yet we are told now that the 
CO2 was causing the world to get warmer. But yet more 
CO2 has even been produced and for 10 years we haven't had a 
warming. Now that man-made global warming has been driven into the 
public consciousness, the alarmists have the leverage here in 
Washington.
  I could talk all night long, but no one is going to confront the 
science on this, as rotten as the science is. So right here there is a 
price to pay when the American people have been lied to in a big way. 
If the truth will set you free, lies will enslave you. There is a price 
to pay. Like, for example, the millions of children dying in Third 
World countries of malaria, all because we wanted

[[Page 15950]]

to prevent the use of DDT. Why did we want to stop DDT? Because bird 
eggshells were thinning out, we believed, because of DDT. And thus, 
millions of children in the Third World have lost their lives to 
malaria because birds were more important to those who made policy than 
the millions of children in the Third World who were going to die as a 
result.
  Remember, there is a serious price to pay for listening to irrational 
alarmists. And now all of this confronts us, and there is a bill to be 
voted on this week called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 
2009. I call it the Destroy American Jobs and Use Candles Act.
  It is a bill, of course, that is based on the theories of the man-
made global warming alarmists that I have just demonstrated is totally 
flawed and wrong science, and a science that these people refuse to get 
up and defend.
  This bill, of course, comes at exactly the wrong time, and its 
negative consequences will be ever more severe in economic hard times 
as we are suffering right now than they would be if we were in times of 
prosperity.
  Even if it were true that man-made use of CO2 was causing 
a warming, a global warming, this wouldn't be the time to try to 
implement it, at a time when we are going into such a recession and 
depression.
  Maybe we are like the Third World children in the minds of the people 
who are going to vote for this horrible legislation. Maybe the birds 
are more important than the suffering of our own people. Maybe it is 
more important to posture yourself as a friend of the planet than it is 
to try to take care of the people of this country and try to alleviate 
their suffering.
  So let's be clear. Our unemployment is currently at 9.4 percent, and 
that is expected to rise into double digits. There are unsubstantiated 
boasts coming about jobs saved through the Stimulus Act, but that 
doesn't help the 345,000 Americans who lost their jobs just last month. 
It doesn't put food on their table.
  Our projected Federal deficit this year is going to reach $1.8 
trillion, almost $2 trillion, which our children are going to have to 
pay for. We are going to have to service that debt. When the interest 
rate goes up, it will destroy all of our discretionary money. We will 
soon auction off an unprecedented $104 billion of debt. That $104 
billion has $11 billion in interest. That is $11 billion that we are 
going to pay, and that is just thrown away. Wait until the interest 
rates go up. This $11 billion will not save anybody's job or pave any 
roads or provide any health care. It will just be used to continue our 
massive level of deficit spending.
  And yet, excessive taxation and regulation mandates are now being 
proposed in Washington to deal with man-made global warming, which is a 
total fraud, as I have demonstrated, and which they admit because they 
are unwilling to debate the basic facts of global warming, the 
scientific facts that I have over and over again, myself and Senator 
Inhofe and others, have over and over presented, but instead we are 
called names and belittled by this arrogant group that just has in mind 
they want to tax and regulate and control us, and they always have.
  So here and now we are asked to pass this economy-killing bill in the 
name of stopping man-made global warming.
  What's in the bill? I don't have to go into total detail here, but 
let's just mention that Chairman Waxman was asked about a certain 
section of the bill. And he said, and this was in committee, Why are 
you asking me? I certainly don't know everything that is in my bill.
  I would suggest if you are writing a bill that will have such 
profound repercussions for decades to come by killing our economy and 
subduing our people, that is an unacceptable answer.

                              {time}  2320

  We know that there are many dangers that are going to be unleashed by 
this legislation, and it's an economy-killing piece of legislation. Its 
aim supposedly is to reduce CO2 emissions--and let's again 
say this. CO2, 80 percent of it in the atmosphere is traced 
not to human activity, it's a minuscule part of the atmosphere. Yet the 
goal of this draconian legislation, this oppressive, anti-economy 
legislation is to reduce emissions to around 80 percent of the current 
level of the world level by 2020. From there, it would be gradually 
reduced further. In order to do this, the Federal Government would 
issue permits that companies would use in exchange for the right of 
emitting CO2.
  Now, let's make this very clear; CO2 does not harm human 
beings. CO2, we pump it into these greenhouses to make 
tomatoes grow better. I am all in favor of controlling pollution, 
pollution of the water, of the air, of the ground. CO2 is 
not a pollutant that hurts human beings, but that's what we are being 
asked to focus on and that's what this legislation that will destroy 
the jobs of the American people focuses on.
  Well, one wonders who will decide who will receive the vouchers that 
are going to be given out. Apparently, 85 percent of the vouchers for 
the next few years will just be given out by the government, and those 
vouchers will be used to give permits to people who want to do business 
that produces CO2. Who is going to get those? This is an 
invitation for corruption, an invitation for corruption. We don't even 
know where the money went from the TARP bill where we spent hundreds of 
billions of dollars.
  So let's remember that this bill will have a dramatic impact on our 
economy and the American family. There will be over $1,600 in new taxes 
per American family by this legislation. And all the jobs will then go 
to India and to China. That's what we're doing. We're taxing our 
people, regulating our business, and encouraging our businessmen then 
to go to China and to India. It will destroy millions of jobs by 2012.
  Electricity rates will go up 90 percent above the inflation rate. We 
will incur $33,000 worth of additional Federal debt for every man, 
woman, and child in America because of this legislation. And gas prices 
will rise over 50 percent, natural gas prices well over 50 percent.
  And who will be helped by this? The Chinese and the Indians. That's 
what we're going to get out of this legislation. What did you expect 
from legislation that was designed to meet a phony problem, man-made 
global warming, which I have just demonstrated doesn't exist.
  So, why is this happening? Why are we on the verge of passing 
legislation? Why have people even advocated man-made global warming? 
Well, this has all come about because there are people in our country 
and throughout the world who want to control the American people. They 
have wanted to do this forever. They have wanted to change our 
lifestyles whether we like it or not. But this is a democracy, and they 
had to scare us and they had to skew the argument. They had to beat 
down anybody who wanted to offer alternative arguments in order to get 
us to this point of passing legislation that will dramatically control 
our people and control industry and put us under a burden of taxation 
and regulation that will destroy the meaning of opportunity in America 
in the years to come.
  Now, why do they want to do this? Because they want to build a whole 
new world based on benevolent control of people like themselves. And 
that's where the real threat comes in. The real threat comes in that 
this is not just the idea of centralizing power in the Federal 
Government--which in and of itself is contrary to what America is 
supposed to be all about. We're supposed to let local government and 
State governments control many things, but this is a centralization of 
power into the hands of global government.
  Yes, you hear global answers, We're global this and global that. What 
that means is international organizations like the United Nations--
which is filled with corrupt governments and representatives from 
corrupt governments, filled with representatives from governments that 
are despotic gangsters who murder their own people. We should not be 
transferring power globally. That is the worst possible scenario. But 
this, too, like the man-made global warming theory, is their dream,

[[Page 15951]]

the dream of a planet being planned out by benevolent people, as if 
people on the international scale and Washington, D.C., are naturally 
more competent and more benevolent than the people themselves or the 
people in local government.
  What can we expect? Yes, as this moves along, this is the first major 
step. This bill that will be coming up this week, the cap-and-trade 
bill based on fraudulent science, this will be the first step towards 
what? Towards centralizing money and power in the Federal Government.
  The next step is centralizing that power globally, all in the name of 
benevolent ends, all in the name of stopping this horrible threat 
that's hanging over our heads, man-made global warming. Of course, they 
don't use that anymore. Again, remember, every time the word ``climate 
change'' is used is an admission that the people who advocated man-made 
global warming were wrong all along.
  So I would suggest that this is the time for the patriots to stand up 
to the globalists. This is the time for us to say, We don't want this 
legislation. It will be harmful to our families. It will centralize 
power and money and resources in the Federal Government. It will 
destroy our economy at a time when people need jobs and a stronger 
economy. It will actually help the Chinese and the Indians more than 
us, all in the same benevolent-motivated activity, which is very 
similar to the ending of the use of DDT, which caused millions of 
children in the third world to die.
  I don't care if people are benevolent. I don't care what their 
motives are, if their motives are benevolent. What is important is 
whether they're rational and whether they're right. I have pointed out 
in this speech numerous examples where the science is wrong, and I 
would suggest that the theory that big government controlling our lives 
as the way to solve our problems is also wrong. It will lead us not to 
more prosperity and not to more liberty, but a diminishing of the 
liberty and prosperity of our people.
  Again, wake up America. It's time for the patriots to act. We still 
have time to turn this around. We have seen $4 trillion being given 
out, $4 trillion of private liability put on our shoulders as public 
debt in this last year. This is a tremendous centralization of power.
  We will not give up our freedom and let this happen. We are not 
powerless. This is still a democracy. People need to call their Member 
of Congress. They need to call their Senator and say man-made global 
warming was a hoax. It was not something that we should be basing a 
centralization of wealth and power in the Federal Government, and 
certainly not something that we should be getting involved in in order 
to enrich the power of the United Nations and other international 
bodies.
  I would invite my fellow Americans to get involved in the system. If 
one does not get involved in the system, we will not go the right way. 
And I will say that in our country's history, it has always been the 
intervention of the American people at the right moment that has kept 
us on the right track. It wasn't just sitting back and allowing special 
interests--like are so evident in this cap-and-trade legislation that 
will be voted on later on this week--to write the legislation, to 
control what sounds like a benevolent-sounding initiative which will 
wreak havoc on the life of the American people. They want to control us 
and change our lifestyle. Let them convince us. Don't let them control 
us and take away our democratic rights.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stand here on the floor of the House tonight, I am 
reminded of the television series, The Twilight Zone. These days I half 
expect Rod Serling to appear from behind a curtain and announce that 
``This is the Twilight Zone.'' Yes, there is an almost bizarre sense of 
unreality here in the Nation's Capitol: The transformation of private 
liability into public debt on a massive scale, the unprecedented level 
of deficit spending, debt piled on debt, borrowing from China to give 
foreign aid to other countries, the willingness to pass draconian 
restrictions and controls on our national economy and on the lives of 
our people.
  While seeking to save us from recession, Congress shovels hundreds of 
billions into the financial industry, much of which has ended up in the 
pockets of fat cats and wheeler-dealers who've been giving themselves 
multi-million dollar bonuses even as they've driven their own companies 
into the ground. The give-aways and lack of oversight have been mind 
boggling. We don't know where hundreds of billions of dollars went and 
to whom, yet now the taxpayers are on the hook for this increase in our 
debt.
  We've watched as nothing has been done to protect the well being of 
our people.
  Our nation's borders leak like a spaghetti strainer, millions of 
people illegally continue pouring into our county to consume our 
limited healthcare, education, and other social service dollars, and 
yes, to take jobs from our people, and in some cases commit crimes 
against our people. Our government lets it happen. We can't even build 
a fence.
  In California we can't even build new water systems in the middle of 
a drought, this we are told because of a tiny fish--the delta smelt--so 
our people will suffer because of concern over a little, tiny, 
worthless fish that's not even good enough to use as bait. So last 
week, even amidst California's tremendous difficulties, with drought 
conditions and a shortage of water at near-crisis, this House voted not 
for the people, but for fish. No water for our people if that little 
fish might be affected.
  Perhaps the most damaging of the weird policies I've described is 
America's long time commitment not to develop our domestic energy 
resources. Even as high energy prices have brought suffering and 
economic hardship to our people. Even as dollars have been siphoned 
from our pockets and deposited in coffers overseas, enriching 
foreigners, some of whom hate us. While our hard-earned dollars are 
being extracted from us, massive domestic deposits of oil and gas worth 
trillions of dollars are untouched, untapped, unused. Even as 
California sinks into an economic catastrophe--off the coast, are huge 
caverns filled with massive deposits of oil and gas sitting there? Even 
as California cuts or cancels public services, billions of dollars of 
tax revenue from that oil and gas sits right off shore, yet the state 
of California lets it sit while our people suffer and the state goes 
broke. Trillions of dollars have been sent overseas for energy while at 
home, no new oil refineries, no hydro electric dams, no nuclear power 
plants.
  As I say all of it's a bit bizarre. But it is not meaningless 
nonsense. Those who've insisted up these anti-domestic energy policies 
know what they are doing. They want to change our way of life whether 
we like it or not. So a few decades ago they grabbed onto a theory that 
the world is heating up because humankind uses carbon based fuel--oil, 
gas, coal, etc. This theory would give them the ability to stampede 
politicians, even scientists, into supporting draconian policies and 
mandates, changes in our economy and our lifestyle. All in the name of 
protecting us from a climate calamity: Man-made Global Warming.
  The good book says ``the truth shall make you free''; a caveat might 
be ``and a lie can destroy your freedom.'' Man-made Global Warming has 
given respectable cover to advocates of tax and regulatory policies 
that no one would even consider, except, of course, unless it is an 
emergency. In reality, the effort behind the Man-made Global Warming 
juggernaut is the biggest power grab in history. It gives politicos, 
who've always wanted to control the behavior of normal people, a 
seemingly legitimate reason to do so . . . even over their objections. 
This power grab was set in motion back in the very first days of the 
Clinton administration in 1993.
  When the Clinton Administration took over, one of the first actions 
of that administration was to fire Dr. William Happer, a man who dared 
challenge Vice President Gore. He believed in science, not the junk 
science of the radicals. He didn't fit, so out he went. From there the 
pattern became all too clear. In order to receive even one penny of 
federal research funds, a scientist would expected to toe the line of 
Man-made Global Warming alarmism. Any dissent would be quickly quashed, 
or at least cut off from any federal research funding. So when 
approaching this concept of Man-made Global Warming we must examine the 
science behind it. So let's state right off, the unconscionable 
intimidation of the science community during the Clinton years has 
ensured that bad science permeates the entire argument of those 
alarmists perpetuating this man-made myth.
  That it is based on bad science and lies is easy to discern by the 
herculean effort Man-made Global Warming advocates have made to cut off 
debate. That is why in Congress they are now trying to quickly slip by 
drastic life altering legislation based on the Man-made Global Warming 
theory without confronting the basic science. How many of us have heard 
``Case closed?'' ``This debate is over.'' That is the language of 
debate and discussion restriction.

[[Page 15952]]

  Case closed. Al Gore takes no questions. Every prominent scientist 
agrees so you must be a kook to disagree. The name calling and stifling 
of debate by the Man-made Global Warming advocates has been shameful 
and a disservice to democracy.
  So what about the science?
  First, about the so-called warming cycle caused by human activity--we 
know that there have been weather cycles and climate cycles throughout 
the history of the world. The Global Warming alarmists are now using a 
low point of a 500 year cooling cycle, the end of the Little Ice Age, 
as their baseline for determining if humankind is making the planet 
hotter. Should we really be upset when there is a 1 or 2 degree rise 
from a 500 year low point in temperatures?
  So science question number one: are they not using an unreasonably 
cooler moment as a baseline for analysis? Question number two: what 
about the other weather cycles that have had nothing to do with human 
activity? A thousand years ago things were much warmer than now. 
Iceland and Greenland were farmed by Norsemen. What about the many 
other cycles, many of them to prehistoric times, even before man? So, 
all of a sudden it's man's fault?
  So, if these cycles were happening before humans were a force on the 
planet, isn't it likely there is another explanation for the cycles? 
Well, it seems to many scientists that cycles of climate follow solar 
activity. That's why cycles mirroring those on earth have been observed 
on other planets.
  In recent years we've been treated to outcries of agony about the 
melting taking place in the Arctic. Who has not seen the pictures of 
the poor polar bear on the ice flow, obviously a victim of Man-made 
Global Warming? Well not so fast. Yes, the ice cap is retreating. 
There's no doubt about that. But what about the ice cap on Mars? There 
is an ice cap on Mars and it is retreating at exactly the same time as 
our ice cap is retreating. Doesn't that indicate that it might be the 
sun and not driving SUVs or modern technology that's creating such 
cycles, including the one that we are already in?
  So, if a polar bear is hurt it is not caused by human activity. And 
by the way, the polar bear population has dramatically expanded--there 
are 4 to 5 times the number of polar bears as there were in the 1960s.
  So here's another scientific challenge: were there already cycles? 
And if polar ice on Mars is retreating as well, aren't cycles likely 
the result of solar activity? Let's have an answer to that.
  The Man-made Global Warming theory has been focused on 
CO2. Let's talk about the science of this. CO2 is 
a miniscule part of our atmosphere, and if you ask the ordinary person, 
they think it's 20 percent of the atmosphere. Well, actually it's less 
than 0.04 percent. Much less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the 
atmosphere is CO2. And of that, at least 80 percent of the 
CO2 in the atmosphere is not traced to human activity.
  There have been, over the years, times when CO2 was going 
up and down dramatically but did not affect the climate of the planet. 
For example, if Man-made CO2 causes warming, why, as 
CO2 levels were rising dramatically in the 1940s, fifties, 
sixties and seventies why, if the CO2 was rising in those 
decades, why was there actually a cooling of our climate in those 
decades?
  Okay. Let's hear the science. Come on. Why is everyone afraid to take 
on these scientific answers? I had one person suggest to me that the 
pollution in the atmosphere completely overwhelmed the ``Greenhouse 
Effect'' during this period. If that's true, then The Clean Air Act of 
1970 is directly responsible for Man-made Global Warming. Does anyone 
believe that?
  And here's another scientific challenge. A recent study shows that 
over 80 percent of America's temperature and weather stations have been 
compromised and are faulty in the information they're providing.
  The numbers have been skewed. They are suspect because the monitors 
have been placed in locations that do not meet the National Weather 
Service basic standards. In other words, the equipment is compromised; 
the figures coming out of the equipment cannot be relied upon. And our 
system, with 80 percent of our monitors that do not meet the standards, 
has been heralded as the best in the world. So think about that. What's 
going on in the rest of the world when we're talking about a one-degree 
rise in temperature since the end of the little ice age?
  So how about that as a scientific challenge? If the data is based on 
monitors that don't meet scientific standards, how can we pass laws 
with taxes and controls on our people, even if the the so-called 
problem is based on a bogus number?
  And even with the current methods of collecting data, we have been 
warned time and again with dire predictions. Over the last 20 years, 
spreading the alarm, told us, Vice President Gore and others.
  The temperatures were going to continue to climb and then we would 
reach a tipping point and temperatures would jump dramatically. Well, 
wake up. Quit talking theory.
  The Global Warming alarmists' predictions were wrong, 180 degrees 
wrong. It has not gotten any warmer for over a decade and it looks like 
we're even still getting cooler. That is totally contradictory to the 
predictions that alarmists like VP Gore and others aggressively made to 
us. OK, this is yet another science-based challenge.
  Don't ignore it, please pay us more respect than just changing your 
basic mantra from ``Man-made Global Warming'' to ``climate change.''
  If I am proven wrong on a point, I will apologize and change my 
position. I won't try to change my wording so it sounds like I was 
never wrong in the first place.
  These people were wrong. Remember it. Every time they say ``climate 
change'' remember these were the same people who were talking about 
Man-made Global Warming. Their dishonesty is underscored every time 
they now use the phrase ``climate change.'' Now, no matter if it gets 
warmer or colder, they want us to give them the power to tax and 
control us even though the preponderance of evidence now suggests that 
cycles come from solar activity.
  Let me note this, this gang told us human activity was causing the 
planet to warm. Now they are using the words ``climate change,'' which 
is an admission that the Earth is getting cooler. So if human activity 
was making it warmer, then maybe it is good that human beings will 
mitigate a cooling cycle with the human activity that, according to Al 
Gore and others, was making it warmer. Logically, they should now be 
advocating we use more fossil fuel.
  So Al Gore's scientific mumbo-jumbo was deceptive, the contention 
that all of the prominent scientists agreed with him was not true then 
and especially not true now. I'd now like to add a long list of many 
prominent scientists who oppose the Man-made Global Warming theory. The 
temperature predictions have been wrong, and the man-made 
CO2 premise is wrong.
  Now we find out that the monitors used to collect the data were 
placed next to air-conditioning exhaust vents, and in parking lots, and 
on top of buildings, and near other heat sources which, of course, made 
all of their data totally unreliable.
  We also know the methodology of using computer models has been 
questionable from the very beginning. We all know the saying: garbage 
in, garbage out. But no one was permitted to hear the questions; no one 
was permitted to ask follow-up questions; and to this day no one has 
been permitted to view the assumptions and calculations that went into 
the incorrect computer models used to justify the alarmist campaign 
that is now being used to justify punitive taxes and controls on our 
people.
  The projections have been wrong. The attempt to stifle debate and 
shut up those people who disagree by calling them names, denying 
grants, and making personal attacks has been wrong.
  So, let's review the scientific challenges to the Man-made Global 
Warming theory. I have issued challenges to any of my colleagues to 
debate the science of this issue, not one of those who now seem willing 
to vote for draconian legislation to implement the recommendations of 
the Global Warming alarmists have ever stepped forward. What is it they 
don't want to confront?
  Baseline comparison is at the bottom of a 500-year decline in 
temperature. The science measurements were partly or severely flawed by 
a monitoring system that does not meet minimum acceptable standards. 
Past climate cycles were frequent even before the emergence of mankind. 
Cycles like the retreating polar ice caps are parallel to similar 
cycles on Mars suggesting solar activity, rather than human activity, 
is the culprit. Increasing CO2 levels did not cause warming, 
which can be shown in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s where there 
was an increasing level of CO2, but yet it was getting 
cooler.
  Now that Man-made Global Warming has been driven into the public 
consciousness, the alarmists have the leverage right here in 
Washington. There is a price to pay, like the millions of children 
dying in Africa of malaria because we prevented the use of DDT. We did 
this so that bird egg shells would be thicker. The birds were more 
important to them than millions of third world children. So remember, 
there is a serious price to pay for listening to irrational alarmists.

[[Page 15953]]

  And now all of this confronts us. There is a bill to be voted on this 
week--the ``American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009'' though I 
would call it the ``Destroy American Jobs and Use Candles Act.'' It is 
a bill that comes at exactly the wrong time, and its negative 
consequences will be ever more severe in economic hard times as we are 
now suffering. Maybe we are like the 3rd world children in their minds. 
The birds are more important than our own suffering people.
  So let's be clear. Our unemployment is currently at 9.4%, and that is 
expected to soon rise over double digits. There are unsubstantiated 
boasts of jobs saved through the stimulus act, but that doesn't help 
the 345,000 Americans who lost their jobs last month put food on the 
table for their families. Our projected federal debt for this fiscal 
year reaches to one point eight trillion dollars!
  We will soon auction an unprecedented $104 billion in debt. $104 
billion with $11 billion in interest. That's $11 billion just thrown 
away. It will not save jobs; it will not repave roads; it will not 
provide healthcare. It will just be used to continue our massive level 
of spending.
  And yet excessive taxation regulation mandates are now being proposed 
in Washington, and they will have severe consequences.
  So here we are, and now we are asked to pass an economy killing bill, 
in the name of stopping Man-made Globa Warming. What's in this bill? 
Well don't ask the bill's author. During markup of this bill, Chairman 
Waxman, when asked about a section of the bill claimed, ``You're asking 
me? I certainly don't claim to know everything that's in this bill.'' 
Well I would suggest, that if you are writing a bill that will have 
profound repercussions for decades to come, that is an unacceptable 
answer.
  Of course, we know the aim of this bill is to reduce carbon dioxide 
emissions. As I have already said, this goal is foolhardy at best. It 
will reduce emissions of a harmless gas, while neglecting to address 
the dangerous pollutants that have had a demonstrated negative effect 
on human health.
  The current proposal would reduce allowable CO2 emissions 
to around 80 percent of the current level by 2020. From there it would 
gradually decrease further. In order to control this, the federal 
government would issue permits that companies would use in exchange for 
the right to emit CO2. These permits could be traded, bought 
and sold. Companies which emit more CO2 than they have 
allowances for would face heavy fines. The sale of these revenues will 
supposedly cover the cost of the bill. It is surprising then, that 85% 
of these allowances will be given out for free during the next twenty 
years. What?!? One wonders who will decide who receives what will 
become yet another government subsidy, or a political giveaway. 
According to recently released numbers by the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, this bill gives away $821 billion worth of allocations 
to who the hell knows who, while consumers are going to pay $846 
billion more in carbon energy costs. We have no idea where those funds 
will go. The last time we passed legislation with no idea what we were 
voting on, AIG got big bonuses. Who will win big under this bill is 
still unclear, but what is clear is who will lose: The American worker.
  But even if we believe all of the arguments made by those who would 
foist this bill on us, it will still not accomplish any meaningful 
CO2 reduction. Remember, 80 percent or more of the 
CO2 in the atmosphere is not linked to human activity. We 
must ask ourselves if the cost of this bill, over $1600 in new taxes 
per American family, is warranted given the fact that the U.S. share of 
CO2 emissions is falling as China and India's emissions are 
rising. So again, is it really worth it? Both of these countries have 
already stated publicly that they will not match these suicidal 
policies being proposed. All this bill will do is further encourage 
manufacturing to leave the United States for these countries. All of 
this will cost America. All of this, to decrease worldwide temperatures 
by less than one degree over the next 20 years, that might take us a 
little close to the 500-year low in global temperatures.
  So it will not do what the bill's sponsors claim it will. But what 
this bill will also do is reduce our gross domestic product by over $7 
trillion and destroy nearly 2 million jobs by 2012. It will raise 
electricity rates by 90 percent above inflation, incur $33,000 worth of 
additional Federal debt for every man, woman and child in America. Gas 
prices will rise over 50%. Natural Gas prices will rise by 50% as well. 
And it will help the Chinese and other people steal our businesses from 
us. This is the real climate change calamity.
  So yes, this bill costs on average 1.1 million jobs a year. Between 
2012 and 2035 the US GDP will lose $9.4 trillion. All of this leads me 
to ask this simple question Mr. Speaker: What is worse: Living under 
Man-made Global Warming, or living under Man-made Global Warming 
legislation? I would suggest the latter.
  For decades, phony, frightening predictions, false climate 
assumptions and inaccurate information fed into computer climate models 
have been foisted on the American people, including our young people, 
and people throughout the world. Even worse, honest discussion on these 
issues of climate have been stifled, and critics have been silenced in 
order to create an illusion of a consensus that the climate is going 
haywire and that we're in for a Man-made Global Warming calamity. So 
why is this? Why do we have this specter of Man-made Global Warming 
being portrayed as a global calamity in the making? Well, it's being 
used to stampede the public and, yes, stampede officials into accepting 
what appears to be the biggest power grab in history. One doesn't have 
to be a conspiracy nut to realize there are a significant number of 
people who really believe in centralizing the power of government into 
the hands of elected and even unelected officials, centralizing that 
power in Washington and elsewhere. And these unelected officials, who 
now will be given so much power, are expected to be competent and 
expected to be well motivated. They are expected to prove that by doing 
the things that are consistent with the goals and the values of the 
people who are pushing to centralize power in their hands.
  That we have a group of leftists who believe in centralizing power 
should not surprise anyone. But what we have here is the leftist 
politicos in this country who believe in centralizing power anyway.
  Global and international bodies and our own government and our own 
Congress will be given the right and power to intervene in our lives to 
prevent Man-made Global Warming. That's what it's all about, globalism. 
If man makes it, man must then be controlled. That's why it was so 
important for them to steamroll over anybody who is in opposition and 
wanted to ask some questions. They want nobody to ask questions about 
their theory about Man-made Global Warming because they believe men and 
women, people, need to be controlled. That is part of their theory of 
government. It will make it a whole new, more benevolent world. 
Unfortunately, a lot of the government they are talking about is not 
the American Government. We are talking about international mandates 
from unelected bodies that we will then pass on power and authority to, 
which is supported by many of the people right here in this Congress.
  Of course, the proposal before us will destroy the economy, and the 
irony of it is that it will have nothing to do with saving the planet, 
but will in fact perhaps make the environment of our planet worse, 
rather than better. That is why they have tried to stifle the debate 
and the attempt to push climate change legislation has never been more 
intense. People in Washington, we don't need to be told that there has 
been an attempt to stifle debate. But I would ask that the American 
people think about what they have heard about the Man-made Global 
Warming theory over these 15 years, but especially over these last 4 
years. The attempt to ramp up these scare tactics is at an all-time 
high.
  But mark my words, the real calamity will not be an out-of-control 
climate caused by humans; the real calamity brought on by Man-made 
Global Warming will be the economy- killing taxes and regulations that 
are put in place to solve a nonexistent problem. That economic decline 
that we're talking about is just Round one, however. Round two is easy 
to predict.
  For example, in the future, we are going to face all kinds of 
mandates and controls from the Federal Government and the 
internationalcy. Some of these would be, for example, mandated 
increases in parking fees. Do they tell you that now? All your local 
communities are going to have to raise your parking fees. And there 
will be major impediments to the private use of automobiles. And then, 
of course, they've got to end frequent flyer miles and they've got to 
end discount air travel because, believe it or not, and nobody has ever 
been telling you this, they believe that airplanes are the biggest 
CO2 footprint of all. That's right. Your frequent flyer 
miles and your discount tickets have got to go. Of course, the elite 
will be able to fly around in their private planes giving a donation by 
supposedly planting trees somewhere and thus they can fly in their 
private planes. But the rest of us cannot go to see our sick relatives 
on a discounted ticket. No one has heard about this. Nobody has heard 
about these types of controls that are going to be mandated on our own 
people by the United Nations perhaps. What has been the purview of 
local government will be transferred to much higher authorities. Local 
government will be required to follow international guidelines, climate 
guidelines, when it comes to building, zoning, even local planning.

[[Page 15954]]

  This is part of our liberty. Where we live, what we eat, how we run 
our lives, this is what is at stake. It's called liberty. This is a 
fight between the globalists, who found a vehicle to try to gain power 
and grab power, and those people who do believe in liberty and justice. 
We call them patriots. We call them people around the world who do 
believe in these Western values of dignity for the individual and 
freedom and justice.
  If you aren't frightened by this, you should be. We have a fanatical 
movement of steely-eyed zealots who cannot admit they made a mistake, 
who always attack the other person rather than trying to have honest 
discussions of issues. Couple that with self-serving interests, and 
there are many self-serving interests who are involved in this. They 
now have joined in a political coalition that believes they have the 
right to run the economy, run business, run local schools, and run our 
lives. They have been looking for an excuse to assume power.
  We must stand up and defeat this power grab. Wake up America! Your 
freedom and prosperity are at stake.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________