[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 21]
[House]
[Page 28934]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CAP-AND-TRADE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, this House 
passed what is known as cap-and-trade legislation which would place 
limits on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted into the 
atmosphere. And the reason given for the need for this legislation is 
that man-caused global warming poses a very grave threat to the future 
of our planet.
  We have been told that the debate is over, that the science is 
incontrovertible. We've been told that this action must be taken to 
save our world, even though it would threaten our economy and cause 
redistribution of wealth from our Nation to others and would lead to 
massive job losses and outsourcing from the United States to other 
nations. Particularly hard hit would be industry, agriculture, and 
States that rely upon coal for electricity production.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted against cap-and-trade because I wasn't convinced 
of the problem and because the solution to the perceived problem would 
cause further economic devastation to my constituents. I am from 
Michigan, where we currently have the highest unemployment in the 
United States. We also derive two-thirds of our electricity from coal, 
and our number one industry is industrial manufacturing, and our number 
two industry is agriculture.
  If cap-and-trade were to pass, Michigan's economy would be 
devastated, but we were told that it had to happen because the 
alternative is worse.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, a few weeks back, a series of emails from within 
the world's foremost climate change research facility, the Hadley 
Climate Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, were 
either hacked or they were leaked by a disillusioned insider, which has 
blown away the scientific foundation for the manmade global warming 
theory. It's being called Climategate.
  Mr. Speaker, these troubling emails show that some of the most 
respected and quoted and public scientists used tricks to manipulate 
data, refused to release the data that is the foundation for their 
research, and they've attempted to silence any critics of their 
hypothesis and even expressed dismay that they could not explain recent 
cooling taking place across the globe. And these scientists seemed to 
have allies cooperating with them, including some here in the United 
States.
  It has become very clear that the science is, in fact, not settled, 
that the debate is very much alive, and that the tactics and methods 
used by the most trusted scientists have, in fact, very serious 
problems.
  One email said this, which suggests a manipulation of data: ``I've 
just completed Mike's trick of adding in the real temps to each series 
for the last 20 years and for 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.'' 
Hide the decline? An inconvenient truth that temperatures were 
declining required a trick to hide it.
  And then another email expresses frustration that temperatures are 
actually going down: ``The fact is that we can't account for the lack 
of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.''
  Mr. Speaker, another email exposes the attempts to silence dissent: 
``I think we need to stop considering `Climate Research' as a 
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our 
colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to or 
cite papers in this journal.''
  Well, that is absolutely wonderful. Call those who disagree with 
their hypotheses cranks because they have not been published in peer-
reviewed journals, and then when they were, to discredit the journal.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, the fix is in. And most troubling of all 
is the destruction of raw source data that could be used to verify 
their work. The leader of the CRU for years refused to release source 
data, and now they claim the data was ``lost.'' It sounds to me like 
the old elementary school excuse, ``The dog ate my homework.'' That 
excuse didn't work for third graders and it certainly is unacceptable 
from scientists who are asking us to upend our economy.
  And even worse, emails exist that suggest that the data wasn't lost 
but instructs scientists to destroy data which was subject to Britain's 
freedom of information laws. And that is not just bad science; that is 
a criminal act. And now we're being asked to radically restructure our 
economy based largely on the research of these scientists.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to hold hearings into this matter. We 
need to investigate these very troubling revelations. If we are to make 
policy that will so profoundly impact our Nation, that policy must be 
made on facts, not on articles of faith or manipulated data.

                          ____________________