John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. That's correct. They have been in a cooling period. And we have now 3,400 instruments that go into the oceans. And every 10 days they pop up, and they give satellites information of what is on those instruments about the temperatures. And there has been no warming in the oceans.

Mr. LINDER. That's correct.

Mr. LINDER. That's correct.

Mr. LINDER. No, we do not. In the last 2 million years, we have had 20 ice ages, 20 glaciations, the last on average about 100,000 years, interrupted by about 10,000 years of warming. It has been 11,400 years since the last glaciation. It is likely the planet is looking toward going cooler again. We have had less sun activity in the last 11 years than we've had in many, many years.

Mr. LINDER. Than are receding, that's right. But 388 parts per million is not even high. It's at the low end of the comfort scale. Roughly 65 to 135 million years when the dinosaurs roamed this Earth, CO2 levels were five and 10 times as high they are today and produced a tremendous amount of greenery that fed those animals. 542 million years ago was the Cambrian period. It came to be known as the Cambrian explosion because in a very short period of time, 5 to 10 million years, which in a 4\1/2\ billion-year-old planet is the blink of an eye, in that short period of time, all of multicellular complex life that has ever existed on this Earth was deposited in the fossil evidence. How did that happen? That happened because temperatures were warmer. The CO2 levels were 7,000 parts per million, 20 times what it is today. The entire planet was covered with greenery and had immense amounts of oxygen and all of complex life as we know it, 96 percent of which is no longer existent.

Mr. LINDER. But it would have been better than a glaciation. I always like to ask people who tell me the temperature is growing too much to say what should the current temperature be. Tell me. Should it be the temperature 1,000 years ago when Greenland was settled for agriculture? Or when the people in Scotland were growing wine grapes? Or should it be 879 A.D. when the Thames froze over? Or should it be a little ice age when Greenland was empty of life again?

Mr. LINDER. They don't move to Greenland.

Mr. LINDER. CO2 is a beneficial trace, helpful gas that feeds plants. And this whole notion that we should control it somehow is nothing but vanity. We are not going to change what is put on this planet for 4\1/2\ billion years. Now we are told, and we heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts, that there is a scientific consensus. He said 98 percent of the scientists, tens of thousands, agree with his position. Well, I would like to ask him to produce that list. Because only 600 of them shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore. A scientist from Australia has said only 35 people actually wrote the IPCC reports, and they were controlled by 10 people.

Mr. LINDER. He did? What is not popularly known is that 32,000 scientists, including Edward Teller, 9,000 of whom are Ph.D.s and the rest masters, have signed a statement that says there is no evidence that humans are causing any impact on the global warming that occurred between 1975 and 1998, none whatsoever. In fact, five scientists who contributed to the first IPCC report said in their papers there is no evidence that humans are contributing. Those five statements were removed by the top bureaucrat at the IPCC and replaced with one statement that said there is no doubt that humans are causing this. He was asked about that under oath in a legal action. Why did he remove those statements? He said under immense pressure from the top of the Federal Government of the United States. Now, ``consensus'' doesn't mean much in science. ``Consensus'' is important in politics. In science, we have to be seeking truth and fact. Indeed, in science, only two conditions are ever obtained. One is theory and the other is fact. You put forth your theory. You release your underlying documents and sources and methods, and you let your peers review it and try and replicate it. That is the point at which I got very nervous about this science because I tried to get underlying documents from Jim Hansen, who had the first computer model. He first testified before Congress in 1989, I believe, in the Senate. He recently attested, recently spoke in England. He said, We have 4 years to save the planet. He doesn't release his source documents because he says they are proprietary. Well, he is an employee of the Federal Government. The Federal Government ought to own those documents. They ought to be released. When somebody is hiding something, when somebody is hiding things, you begin to wonder why he is hiding it.

Mr. LINDER. That's right.

Mr. LINDER. That's correct.

Mr. LINDER. What we are learning from East Anglia--and I want to make a point that the gentleman----

Mr. LINDER. I want to make a point that those are not stolen documents. Those documents were released from inside by a whistleblower.

Mr. LINDER. Of course. But somebody working inside that organization realized they were destroying documents that were being asked for in the Freedom of Information Act, and someone released those documents. I believe that we ought to be thinking about releasing everything. Let scientists pour over it and establish whether the theory is actually a fact and move on.

Mr. LINDER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINDER. Sadly, that data that the IPCC uses from East Anglia is also the basis of the data that NASA uses in Huntsville, Alabama, and all of the other future models that have been built have been somehow shaped by that data. So there is no place to go now, since all of the source documents have been thrown away, to reconstruct all of that.

Mr. LINDER. I want to make one point. The data that you are talking about and that we are acting on in this country with cap-and-trade is also the data being used in Copenhagen today, as we speak, to begin what Al Gore called the ultimate reason for all of this: global governance, turning over the sovereignty of the United States to an unelected bureaucracy and the United Nations.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have been listening ad nauseam for months from the Democrats, who have been saying that anybody who doesn't support a government takeover of health care is supporting their insurance friends or their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. Guess who contributes to political campaigns? Lawyers contribute more than all the rest together. To who whom do they give their money? Surprise. Surprise. Ninety-six percent was given to Democrats in this year. Is that why they are left out of the health care reform bill? Everyone who has looked at this issue for years has said to start with tort reform. Start with tort reform. The three most recent studies all this year said that Americans are spending $200 billion a year on tests and procedures that are unnecessary, defensive medicine, because, if they are not done, the doctors will be sued. That's $2 trillion over 10 years. That would pay for this $1.5 trillion behemoth. It is ignored except in one fashion: there is mention in this bill that, if your State has already reduced jury awards and has gotten control over tort reform, you will be punished. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not about health care. This is about rewarding your friends and about punishing your enemies. It has been going on all year, and it is a huge mistake.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor and enthusiasm that I rise today to recognize Dr. Sheila O'Shea Kahrs, the Principal of Haymon-Morris Middle School in Winder, Georgia, who has been named the 2010 MetLife/National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP, National Principal of the Year. The MetLife/NASSP National Principal of the Year program honors distinguished middle level and high school principals who have provided first-rate learning opportunities for students and made significant contributions to the education profession. Each state, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense Education Activity selects one middle level and one high level school principal to represent them. From these individuals, six finalists are chosen as candidates for the National Principal of the Year award. Dr. Kahrs distinguished herself from these outstanding educators and was chosen as the 2010 MetLife/NASSP National Principal of the Year. The Seventh District of Georgia is privileged to have such an accomplished educator serving our children. Extending my sincerest thanks to Dr. Kahrs for all her hard work and dedication to the profession of teaching, I wish her the best on her future endeavors.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Six weeks ago, we stood on this floor to discuss a prior version of this bill providing extended unemployment benefits. Since then, we have gotten additional checkups on jobs and unemployment in the United States, and the Democrats' 2009 stimulus plan has received more failing grades. Another 263,000 jobs were eliminated in September, and the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent. More job losses and higher unemployment are expected to be announced tomorrow. This and other Democrat legislation is perpetuating unemployment, not solving it. The Democratic energy policies would increase the price of energy and kill millions of jobs. The Democrat health policies would make health care and health insurance more expensive and kill millions of jobs. Democrats promised a stimulus policy that would keep unemployment from exceeding 8 percent. It is now 9.8 percent, soon to reach 10 percent. Despite administration claims that 1 million jobs were saved or created, nearly 3 million real jobs have been destroyed since the stimulus plan was signed into law, and yesterday we found out how they count saved jobs. Stimulus money went to a south Georgia community organizing group. They took all the money and gave raises to their employees and put information into the administration that they had saved 980 jobs. They have 508 employees. But they gave them raises, and the administration has a formula for how you can call that a job saved. Like those job losses, the bill before us has only grown. In all, this legislation would now make available a record 99 weeks of unemployment benefits in more than half of the United States, but what it doesn't make available are jobs. Americans are rightly asking, Where are the jobs? Our colleagues on the other side have no answers, other than to spend more, tax more, and borrow more. That is not good enough. But the good news is that we can start to turn this around. For starters, we could not raise taxes on jobs, as this legislation does. It raises taxes on jobs by $2.4 billion in the coming 18 months, hitting every employee in America, and that's to pay for benefits paid out generally in the next 2 months. How does raising taxes create jobs? It won't. And this bill isn't the end. Far from it. Before this year is out, we will be back on this floor passing yet another extension of Federal unemployment benefits, only the next bill will be so massive--possibly costing $80 billion--even Democrats won't be able to stomach the tax hikes to pay for it. So we will borrow that money, adding to the $100 billion in unemployment benefit spending already scheduled to be piled onto our debt by the end of this year. How will that create jobs? It won't. Mr. Speaker, we can and must do better. It is well past time for us to shelve Democratic job-killing tax hike agendas. We will then unleash America's job creation engine so that laid-off workers can once again earn paychecks, not unemployment checks. That effort can start with not raising taxes on jobs and by offering unemployed workers real help in finding new work instead of just more benefit checks. Sadly, this bill does none of that. How then will it create jobs? It won't.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3691.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in support of this resolution supporting National Adoption Day and Month. I join in recognizing all of the children in foster care awaiting loving adoptive families as well as the many caring adults who have opened their hearts and homes to take in foster or adopted children. During 2007 an estimated 783,000 children were served by the foster care system, with 494,000 children in care at the end of the year, including 12,236 in my home State of Georgia. In 2006 across the U.S., 50,941 adoptions were completed with public child welfare agency involvement. Significantly, the rate of adoption from foster care has increased from 5.5 percent in 1995 to 10 percent in 2006. That improvement has been driven by specific policies--including the landmark Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997--designed to increase the rate of adoption. While that is welcome progress, there is more work to be done. Congress took additional steps last year with the passage of bipartisan legislation designed to promote more adoption, especially of children in foster care. As that law, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, is implemented, I look forward to reviewing the continued progress we will hopefully be making in improving the lives of children. When it comes to promoting more adoption instead of more foster care, we certainly have a solid track record to build on, and cause for optimism. Beyond the legislation now in place, I call on Congress and the American people to continue working to improve educational opportunities for foster youth, as for all youth. Foster youth face particularly high hurdles in graduating from high school on time, or even at all. The reasons are many, including the multiple home placements that often cause young people in foster care to bounce not just from home to home but also from school to school. Overcoming these challenges is a key goal of last year's legislation, and one that will take the concerted efforts of many in the child welfare and education communities, in addition of course to the dedication of young people and their foster and adoptive parents. Giving each young person a solid chance of success in life starts with ensuring each and every student finishes at least high school and has the basic skills to find and keep a stable, well-paying job. I urge all Members to support this resolution, and work with the many dedicated faith-based and other groups in their districts who promote adoption not only in November, but in every month of the year. We should all work toward the day when every child will be in a safe and loving permanent home, either with their own parents or, if they cannot adequately care for them, with loving adoptive parents. Along the way, it is right to recognize both those who have already opened their hearts and homes to these special young people, as well as those who will do so in the future. They deserve our thanks and admiration for the tremendous commitment of love and devotion they show every day.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, if we were really debating health care, you could wonder if some of these things could be said with a straight face. This isn't about health care; it's about control. Who's going to control these decisions? This entire debate could be put on a bumper sticker that says, simply, ``Who Decides?'' The majority wants Washington decisions and we want individual decisions. Mrs. Clinton summed it up best 15 years ago in the last health care debate. She said, We can't trust the American people to make these decisions. But the majority can't keep their hands off this trillion dollar decision; so they put into one of the bills things like $1.6 billion for streetlights. How many people are going to get insured with that? Or $10 billion to shore up union--their friends--insurance funds? I wonder how many people are going to get insured with that. Or the payoff to the trial lawyers, who cause us to spend $200 billion a year in defensive medicine to prevent being sued, who's helping them? Mr. Speaker, this is about control.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would extend unemployment benefits to as long as 21 months in States where the unemployment rate is 8.5 percent or higher. That's about half the country, and the number is likely to grow. And we aren't even close to the end of the road. On September 11, 2009, Larry Summers, chair of the President's National Economic Council, said today's level of unemployment is ``unacceptably high'' and will remain so ``for a number of years.'' How high? Today's unemployment rate is 9.7 percent. The Administration's August Midsession Review foresees 10 percent at the end of 2009, 9.7 percent in late 2010, and 8.0 percent in late 2011. It's highly unlikely Congress will stop paying extended benefits then. We need to ask how long can this go on, and what does any of this have to do with helping people get back to work? Since this extended benefits program was created in June 2008 and expanded twice, unemployment rose from 5.8 to 6.8 to 7.6 to now 9.7 percent, even though the Administration swore it wouldn't exceed 8 percent under their stimulus law. There are now 6 million more unemployed, including 3 million more long-term unemployed, than when this program was created. We are perpetuating unemployment, not solving it. Larry Summers also has stated that unemployment benefits ``contribute to long-term unemployment . . . by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a `reservation wage'--the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase that reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer.'' A senior Labor official in the Clinton administration reflected on what that meant in terms of when unemployed workers find new jobs: ``There are large spikes in the escape rate from unemployment at 26 weeks and at 39 weeks for UI recipients. Spikes of similar magnitude at 26 and 39 weeks are not apparent for UI non-recipients.'' What happens after 26 and 39 weeks of unemployment? State and Federal unemployment benefits end, and there are ``large spikes'' in people finding new jobs. Is ending a long spell of unemployment easy? Of course not. Does everyone quickly find a job? Unfortunately not. Do those who return to work always make what they did before? No. But government cannot solve all ills, and sometimes makes things worse by trying to. Recent articles have noted that a majority of the unemployed are willing to take a pay cut to get back to work, that ``there is a huge traveling workforce that follows the jobs,'' and that States have innovative options to get unemployed workers back on the job. But extending benefits to 21 months undermines those return to work incentives, leaving workers worse off, and employment prospects more depressed going forward. Just currently approved unemployment spending has drained the State and Federal unemployment accounts, and will lead to deficits totaling more than $100 billion by late 2010 and nearly $200 billion by late 2012. Further extensions and expansions will add massively to that tide of red ink. That undermines job creation by requiring even more massive tax hikes to pay for all the continued benefit spending. Already State unemployment taxes are poised to double in the coming years. Extending benefits even more will require even greater job-killing tax hikes, hurting especially the long-term unemployed we are trying to help. We can and must do better. It's well past time for us to review how we can really increase jobs so laid off workers get paychecks, not unemployment checks.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Representative John Linder Bill Number: H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction General Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District Address of Requesting Entity: 100 W. Oglethorpe Avenue, Savannah, GA 31401 Description of Request: This project proposes to deepen the Savannah River Federal navigation channel an additional 6 feet, allowing the Georgia Ports Authority to more efficiently serve the demands of U.S. commerce; remain a valuable asset to the marine transportation system; and handle the currently constrained vessels calling the port, and allow for larger vessels expected to call the port following the Panama Canal expansion. $1.3 million of the funds are critical for the completion of ongoing environmental studies in order to move to the construction phase. General construction funding of $33.7 million is necessary to continue the initial construction phase of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. The expansion will allow the Port of Savannah to accommodate larger ships and provide the economic stimulus that new, larger ships currently bring rival East Coast ports in New York and Norfolk, Virginia.