Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the January 24 statement by Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, contained two claims that were not worthy of a diplomat of his wide experience. First, he misstated the rationale for why the United States has spent over 10 years, 1,800 lives, and half a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, claiming, ``the United States is committed to supporting the efforts of the central government, to build a strong, secure, democratic, and unified Afghanistan. We have no other aim or goal.'' As much as we may care about the Afghan people, the defense of America is the only legitimate reason for the deployment of such a large combat force. We went to Afghanistan in 2001 to avenge the slaughter of 3,000 Americans that was planned by terrorists hiding in that country. We did not go to Afghanistan to indulge in a nation-building social program. What we have done in Afghanistan must be justified on the grounds of whether it has made America more secure. Crocker seems to be moving away from that objective; perhaps because the current policy is failing to meet the security needs of our country. Yet, the current policy he does defend is failing to provide stable, honest government in Afghanistan. Crocker claims in his second misstep, ``Rumors that the United States has a plan to divide Afghanistan or change its form of government are, frankly speaking, lies that dishonor the sacrifice of more than 1,800 American service members who have died in the cause of a unified Afghanistan, governed by its Constitution.'' While it is true that the U.S. has no plan, certainly a discussion on how to change the current corrupt and incompetent system in Kabul has been going on for a long time. Questions like whether governors and mayors should be elected or appointed and what constitutes a sustainable Federal system are for the Afghans to decide by democratic methods which depend on free debate. Ambassador Crocker seems to want to stifle the debate on how to reform and improve the Afghan structure so as to leave behind a more sustainable and legitimate government in Kabul when the U.S. and its allies withdraw in 2014. It is not a ``lie'' that such a debate is in progress, nor is the debate a ``dishonor'' to those who have died fighting enemies of the United States. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty not to look for alternatives to the present failed policy. Many Afghans feel that the current governmental structure will not survive beyond 2014 because it has not created a system that is rooted in the people. It's over centralized form, remote from tribal and village society, does not command the allegiance of those who will have to fight to protect Afghanistan after 2014. Crocker's attempt to insult and discredit those who engage in an honest dialogue is not what one would expect from a professional diplomat and trouble-shooter with his reputation. Though he has had a long and distinguished career in the State Department, he has never held elected office nor served in the Legislative branch. He, thus, does not fully appreciate the role and authority of members of Congress to engage in spirited debate and oversee how U.S. policy is conducted in foreign lands. I ask that the full text of Ambassador Crocker's statement be printed in the Record at this point. Embassy of the United States, Kabul, Afghanistan, January 24, 2012. Statement by Ambassador Crocker From Remarks Delivered at the Afghan Government Media Information Center A free and independent media plays a vital role in any democracy by keeping the public well informed of key issues, as do government spokespersons who provide accurate information to those who report the news. Afghanistan's media and the government spokespersons who interact with it--but do not control it--are important elements in our close bilateral relationship. And it is a close, multi-dimensional relationship that is vitally important to both our countries. That is why we are negotiating a long-term Strategic Partnership that will affirm our mutual commitment far into the future. Afghanistan will not be left alone. Simply put, the United States is committed to supporting the efforts of the central government, to build a strong, secure, democratic, and unified Afghanistan. We have no other aim or goal. Rumors that the United States has a plan to divide Afghanistan or change its form of government are, frankly speaking, lies that dishonor the sacrifice of more than 1,800 American servicemembers who have died in the cause of a unified Afghanistan, governed by its Constitution. It is for the same cause that American taxpayers have provided billions of dollars over the past decade, supporting the government and people of Afghanistan in rebuilding this country, supplying electricity, improving health, and giving access to education, as well as our support for the Afghan Government Media Information Center. We will continue this important work with our Afghan partners through our long-term strategic partnership. Let me also address another false and absurd rumor: that the United States is seeking a secret deal with the Taliban at the expense of the Afghan government and people. As you know, Ambassador Grossman was just in Kabul. During his visit, we engaged in a comprehensive discussion on the way forward with President Karzai, his senior advisors, and with the leadership of the High Peace Council. Afghanistan and the United States both support a peace process for Afghanistan. But only Afghans can decide the future of Afghanistan. President Karzai, in his speech to Parliament, spoke in support of opening an office in Qatar for the Afghan Taliban. For a peace process to succeed, Afghans must talk to Afghans. The President also spoke of Afghan government contacts with representatives of Hizb-i Islami. This is another example of an Afghan-led process that we are pleased to support. As Secretary Clinton said after she met the Qatari Foreign Minister earlier this month, nothing has been concluded on the opening of an office, and more work needs to be done. As Ambassador Grossman said, that work includes first, direct contact between Qatar and Afghanistan on the subject of the opening of any office. Secondly, for an office to open, we also need to have a clear statement by the Afghan Taliban against international terrorism and in support of a peace process to end the armed conflict in Afghanistan. And for reconciliation to take place, we are in full agreement with the Government of Afghanistan that three conditions must be met by the Taliban and other armed insurgents: a complete break with al-Qaida; an end to violence; and respect for the Afghan constitution, including its protections for women and minorities.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, below is the text of a detailed report of a speech given on the floor of the House of Representatives that I believe will be of interest to my colleagues. The description was included in a book titled ``Speeches on the Passage of the Bill for the Removal of the Indians,'' published by Perkins and Marvin in 1830. The speech was given by Rep. David Crockett of Tennessee on May 19, 1830, in opposition to the Indian Removal Act. Unfortunately, the Congress disregarded Crockett's objections and passed the bill, which was then signed into law by President Jackson. A Sketch of the Remarks of the Hon. David Crockett, Representative From Tennessee, on the Bill for the Removal of the Indians, Made in the House of Representatives, Wednesday, May 19, 1830 Mr. Crockett said, that, considering his very humble abilities, it might be expected that he should content himself with a silent vote; but, situated as he was, in relation to his colleagues, he felt it to be a duty to himself to explain the motives which governed him in the vote he should give on this bill. Gentlemen had already discussed the treaty-making power; and had done it much more ably than he could pretend to do. He should not therefore enter on that subject, but would merely make an explanation as to the reasons of his vote, He did not know whether a man (that is, a member of Congress) within 500 miles of his residence would give a similar vote; but he knew, at the same time, that he should give that vote with a clear conscience. He had his constituents to settle with, he was aware; and should like to please them as well as other gentlemen; but he had also a settlement to make at the bar of his God; and what his conscience dictated to be just and right he would do, be the consequences what they might. He believed that the people who had been kind enough to give him their suffrages, supposed him to be an honest man, or they would not have chosen him. If so, they could not but expect that he should act in the way he thought honest and right. He had always viewed the native Indian tribes of this country as a sovereign people. He believed they had been recognised as such from the very foundation of this government, and the United States were bound by treaty to protect them; it was their duty to do so. And as to giving to giving the money of the American people for the purpose of removing them in the manner proposed, he would not do it. He would do that only for which he could answer to his God. Whether he could answer it before the people was comparatively nothing, though it was a great satisfaction to him to have the approbation of his constituents. Mr. C. said he had served for seven years in a legislative body. But from the first hour he had entered a legislative hall, he had never known what party was in legislation; and God forbid he ever should. He went for the good of the country, and for that only. What he did as a legislator, he did conscientiously. He should love to go with his colleagues, and with the West and the South generally, if he could; but he never would let party govern him in a question of this great consequence. He had many objections to the bill--some of them of a very serious character. One was, that he did not like to put half a million of money into the hands of the Executive, to be used in a manner which nobody could foresee, and which Congress was not to control. Another objection was, he did not wish to depart from from the foundation of the government. He considered the present application as the last alternative for these poor remnants of a once powerful people. Their only chance of aid was at the hands of Congress. Should its members turn a deaf ear to their cries, misery must be their fate. That was his candid opinion. Mr. C. said he was often forcibly reminded of the remark made by the famous Red Jacket, in the rotundo of this building, where he was shown the pannel which represented in sculpture the first landing of the Pilgrims, with an Indian chief presenting to them an ear of corn, in token of friendly welcome. The aged Indian said ``that was good.'' The Indian said, he knew that they came from the Great Spirit, and he was willing to share the soil with his brothers from over the great water. But when he turned round to another pannel representing Penn's treaty, he said ``Ah! all's gone now.'' There was a great deal of truth in this short saying; and the present bill was a strong commentary upon it. Mr. C. said that four counties of his district bordered on the Chickasaw country. He knew many of their tribe; and nothing should ever induce him to vote to drive them west of the Mississippi. He did not know what sort of a country it was in which they were to be settled. He would willingly appropriate money in order to send proper persons to examine the country. And when this had been done, and a fair and free treaty had been made with the tribes if they were desirous of removing, he would vote an appropriation of any sum necessary; but till this had been done, he would not vote one cent. He could not clearly understand the extent of this bill. It seemed to go to the removal of all the Indians, in any State east of the Mississippi river, in which the United States owned any land; Now, there was a considerable number of them still neglected; there was a considerable number of them in Tennessee, and the United States' government owned no land in that State, north and east of the congressional reservation line. No man could be more willing to see them remove than he was if it could be done in a manner agreeable to themselves; but not otherwise. He knew personally that a part of the tribe of the Cherokees were unwilling to go. When the proposal was made to them, they said, ``No; we will take death here at our homes. Let them come and tomahawk us here at home: we are willing to die, but never to remove.'' He had heard them use this language. Many different constructions might be put upon this bill. One of the first things which had set him against the bill, was the letter from the secretary of war to colonel Montgomery--from which it appeared that the Indians had been intruded upon. Orders had been issued to turn them all off except the heads of the Indian families, or such as possessed improvements Government had taken measures to purchase land from the Indians who had gone to Arkansas. If this bill should pass, the same plan would be carried further; they would send and buy them out, and put white men upon their land. It had never been known that white men and Indians could live together; and in this case, the Indians were to have no privileges allowed them, while the white men were to have all. Now, if this was not oppression with a vengeance, he did not know what was. It was the language of the bill, and of its friends, that the Indians were not to be driven off against their will. He knew the Indians were unwilling to go: and therefore he could not consent to place them in a situation where they would be obliged to go. He could not stand that. He knew that he stood alone, having, perhaps, none of his colleagues from his state agreeing in sentiment. He could not help that. He knew that he should return to his home glad and light in heart, if he voted against the bill. He felt that it was his wish and purpose to serve his constituents honestly, according to the light of his conscience. The moment he should exchange his conscience for mere party views, he hoped his Maker would no longer suffer him to exist. He spoke the truth in saying so. If he should be the only member of that House who voted against the bill, and the only man in the United States who disapproved it, he would still vote against it; and it would be matter of rejoicing to him till the day he died, that he had given the vote. He had been told that he should be prostrated; but if so, he would have the consolation of conscience. He would obey that power, and gloried in the deed. He cared not for popularity, unless it could be obtained by upright means. He had seen much to disgust him here; and he did not wish to represent his fellow citizens, unless he could be permitted to act conscientiously. He had been told that he did not understand English grammar. That was very true. He had never been six months at school in his life; he had raised himself by the labor of his hands. But he did not, on that account, yield upon his privilege as the representative of freemen on this floor. Humble as he was, he meant to exercise his privilege. He had been charged with not representing his constituents. If the fact was so, the error (said Mr. C.) is here, (touching his head) not here (laying his hand upon his heart). He never had possessed wealth or education, but he had ever been animated by an independent spirit; and he trusted to prove it on the present occasion.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I go into my prepared remarks, I would like to point out that I personally have opposed all of the bailouts and the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Obama administration has channeled to different financial wheeler-dealers and cronies, like Goldman Sachs and the others that have received so much money as directed to them from this administration, just to put it on the record. Many of these so-called corporations that my colleague just pointed out, if we take a look, when we say if we're going to increase taxes on them, these corporations' biggest stockholders happen to be pension funds. What we're really talking about by trying to say we're going to just tax these big corporations, what we're really doing is taxing the pension funds and are taxing the entities that provide the money for the pension funds for the rest of the citizens of this country. But that is another issue that I will discuss some other day. Today, Mr. Speaker, as a strong advocate of human progress through advancing mankind's understanding of science and engineering, I rise to discuss the blatant abuse and misuse of science. A few nights ago, I watched a video of President Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address. Unfortunately, his much-heralded warnings about the military industrial complex, which were right on target, I might add, that warning has unfortunately obscured another warning in that farewell address that is just as significant. Eisenhower pointed to the danger ``of domination of the Nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.'' In my lifetime, there has been no greater example of this threat, which Eisenhower warned us about, than the insidious coalition of research science and political largesse--a coalition that has conducted an unrelenting crusade to convince the American people that their health and their safety and--yes--their very survival on this planet is at risk due to manmade global warming. The purpose of this greatest-of- all propaganda campaigns is to enlist public support for, if not just the acquiescence to, a dramatic mandated change in our society and a mandated change to our way of life. This campaign has such momentum and power that it is now a tangible threat to our freedom and to our prosperity as a people. Ironically, as the crusade against manmade global warming grows in power, more evidence surfaces every day that the scientific theory on which the alarmists have based their crusade is totally bogus. The general public and decisionmakers for decades have been inundated with phony science, altered numbers, and outright fraud. This is the ultimate power grab in the name of saving the world; and like all fanatics, disagreement is not allowed in such endeavors. Prominent scientists who have been skeptical of the claims of manmade global warming have themselves been cut from research grants and have been obstructed when trying to publish peer-reviewed dissenting opinions. How the mainstream media or publications like the National Journal, for example, have ignored the systematic oppression that I speak about is beyond me. If you've heard the words ``case closed,'' it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the purpose of such a proclamation is to limit and repress debate. Well, the case isn't closed, so let's start with some facts about manmade global warming and the theory of manmade global warming. First and foremost, the Earth has experienced cooling and warming climate cycles for millions of years, which a significant number of prominent scientists believe is tied to solar activity--just like similar temperature trends have been identified on Mars and other bodies in the solar system--and that is the Sun. So how about those icecaps on Mars that seem to expand and recede, mirroring our own polar icecaps? Doesn't that point to the Sun rather than to human activity? After all, there are very few, if any, human beings around on Mars, and certainly millions of years ago, when we had other cycles in the world, there weren't very many human beings, if any, around. So where do the climate cycles come from? What causes climate cycles? Right off the bat, let's acknowledge that manmade global warming advocates, who I suggest are alarmists, do not believe the Sun has no impact on climate cycles. They just believe that the Sun has a minimal impact as compared to the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically, they believe that the Sun does have some impact but nothing compared to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Today, they believe this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has become very frightening because mankind is using fossil fuels, which they believe is causing this dramatic increase in CO2. Similarly, skeptics like me believe the solar activity of the Sun is the major factor in creating the Earth's climate cycles, including the one that we're currently in. We also believe that manmade CO2 buildup may have a minor impact. The debate isn't all Sun or all manmade CO2. It's over which of these factors is a major determinant or even the significant determinant. At this point, one other fact needs to be understood. Many intelligent people believe that CO2--carbon dioxide-- represents 10, 20, even 30 percent of the atmosphere. If anyone is reading this or is listening to this, answer this question: What do you think the percentage is after all we've heard, time and time again, of how CO2 is changing the climate of our planet? As I say, most people think it's 10, 20, even 30 percent of the atmosphere. In reality, CO2 is less--less--than one half of one-tenth of 1 percent of the atmosphere, and humankind's contribution to that one half of one-tenth of 1 percent is a small fraction of that. So to say that what we're talking about is minuscule, no, that's not smart enough. What it really is is microscopic. Frankly, I believe that CO2 is so irrelevant that it should not be the focus of air standards and regulations. After all, it is not harmful to human beings unless, of course, you stick it into your automobile in the garage and shut the door for hours and hours at a time. The CO2 that's in the atmosphere is not harmful. Other gases, like NOX, which are damaging to human health, should be a much higher priority than CO2. NOX is harmful to people's health. It's global pollution, not global warming, that we should be concerned about. Not making this distinction has cost us billions, maybe more. The temperature of this planet isn't manmade, and we can't do anything about it. Our energy challenges and the air quality that we have are man-influenced, if not manmade. We can do something about these maladies. But the alarmists are not interested in solving those problems. They are part of a coalition that wants to change our way of life, which requires us to acquiesce--or, better yet, to frighten us into submission. Make no mistake: The manmade global warming theory is being pushed by people who believe in global government. They have been looking for an excuse for an incredible freedom-busting centralization of power for a long time, and they've found it in the specter of manmade global warming. For the past 30 years, the alarmists have been spouting ``Chicken Little'' climate science. This campaign was turbocharged in the 1990s when the Clinton administration made it part of its agenda, thanks to Vice President Al Gore. One of the first actions that the administration took was to fire the top scientist at the Department of Education, Dr. William Happer, a professional who, at the time, dared to be open-minded about the global warming theory. Al Gore decided Dr. Happer just didn't fit in, and out he went. From there, the pattern became all too clear. In order to receive even one iota of Federal research funds, a scientist had to toe the line on manmade global warming. There is a biblical quote: ``The truth shall set you free.'' Well, this is a battle for the truth, and we are up against a political machine that has been yelling, ``Case closed,'' and restricting Federal research grants only to those who agree with them. That we have politicos who believe in centralizing power and are willing to use their own power certainly should surprise no one, but that a scientific-technological elite, the very group that President Eisenhower warned us against 50 years ago, has allied itself with such a political power play is totally contrary to what science and scientists are supposed to be all about. Because of the retaliation of those alarmists in charge of bestowing the Federal research grants, opposition to this power grab has taken time to coalesce; but the opposition to the manmade global warming theory is now evident and won't be ignored. There have been major conferences here in Washington and at other locations around the Nation, with hundreds of prominent members of the scientific community. Individuals, many of whom are renowned scientists, Ph.D.'s and heads of major university science departments, including a few Nobel Prize winners, have all stepped up and spoken out. Even with little news coverage, this group, who are accurately referred to as skeptics, are gaining ever more recognition and ever more influence. They face a daunting challenge, however, and they, as I say, have to fight for any attention, even though they have just as good credentials as those people who are advocating on the other side. For a list of some of these credentialed and very well-respected skeptics, one can visit my Web site. I'm Congressman Dana Rohrabacher from California. So what is this apocalyptic manmade global warming theory that the globalists and radical environmentalists would have us believe? It is that our planet is dramatically heating up because we human beings, especially Americans, put large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of using oil, gas, and coal as fuel. The CO2 has an impact in that it entraps a certain amount of heat in the atmosphere, thus dangerously warming the planet. We have been warned about huge changes in our environment, including a 10- degree jump in the overall temperature, and thus a serious rise in the level of the oceans of the world. Vice President Gore, in his movie, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' showed what seemed to be a video of melting and breaking icecaps. Inconveniently, somebody squealed, the video was actually a special effect. It was Styrofoam made to look like melting and breaking icecaps. But that's no problem. People still listen to Al Gore. Over and over again, the alarmists have said that the Earth is dramatically heating up. Look closely at the data that they're talking about. Look closely at the date that was picked by these people as a baseline for comparing temperatures. It is 1850. And what is 1850? It's the end of a 500-year decline in the Earth's temperature. The Little Ice Age was ending in the 1850s. Skeptics say that a 1- or 2-degree increase in the planet's temperature is irrelevant if the basis of comparison is a 500-year low in the Earth's temperature. To skeptics, currently we are just in another natural climate cycle. That's what we as skeptics believe. This is another natural climate cycle, and it's been going on, as was the 500-year decline in the Earth's temperatures. If it's going up a little bit now, that is a natural climate cycle. To alarmists, however, the sky is falling. A couple of degrees warmer and the sky is heating, or it's falling, that is, or heating, and all of this is caused by mankind pumping CO2 into the air. This theory of manmade CO2 causing global warming emerged when scientists mistakenly believed that the data they were studying from ice cores indicated that a warming of our planet was happening after a major increase in CO2. However, later, it was found that the ice cores were misread. Nicholas Caillon pointed out in Science magazine in 2003 that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacierization warming by 800 to 200 years, give or take 200 years. So the heating came first, and then the CO2 increased, not the other way around. Yes, when Earth heats up, there is more CO2. But we've been told the opposite over and over again, and we were told it was the CO2 that was making the Earth heat up, and they were telling us that the Earth will keep heating up until it reaches a tipping point, and then there will be a huge jump in the temperature. The temperature will shoot up once it reaches this tipping point. And we could expect, this is what we were told over and over again by the scientists predicting over and over again that we could expect this warming to go on and on until we quit using CO2 and quit using these CO2-emitting fossil fuels as a major source of our energy. The future they described was hot and bleak, but their frightening illusion began to disintegrate when, about 9 years ago, even as more CO2 was being pumped into the air and has continued to be pumped into the air, the Earth quit warming and, in fact, it may be now in a cooling cycle. That's right. The NOAA National Climate Data Center shows that ground surface temperatures have flattened, and there hasn't been any net warming since 1998, and the RSS microwave sounding units-- that's MSU--operating on NOAA satellites show a net cooling since 1998. It's totally the opposite of every prediction of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that's the IPCC, and their faulty computer models, as well as the army of global warming scientists who have been warning us about higher and higher temperatures of what we could expect. Well, miraculously, the frantic claims and predictions of manmade global warming have now been replaced with an all-new encompassing warning. So if it gets colder, or it gets warmer, the alarmists will have their way because that's being caused by too much CO2. Well, what is being caused? Well, whatever it is, it's being caused by it. And so they changed the words from global warming to climate change and have replaced, as I say, global warming with their climate change. Well, I guess they think that we would just forget about the predictions and their predictions over and over again being 100 percent wrong. Even the much-touted melting of the icecaps has now reversed itself in the last few years. According to the most recent data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, not all the icecaps are melting now. There's melting, and there is also refreezing going on. So the polar icecaps aren't going away and, yes, the polar bears are not becoming extinct. They were put on the extinct list even though they weren't extinct. In fact, there are some number of polar bear families that are growing dramatically in the last few years, even as we were warned that polar bears were becoming extinct. Warming has ended, but the power grab continues. What we are now finding out is exactly how ruthless and, yes, deceitful that power grab has been. One example of blackballing is of prominent scientists like Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and the head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Science. Gray had the courage and honesty to point out that there have not, in recent years, been more or stronger hurricanes and other such storms than in the past. No more research grants for him, no attention in the media, either. Zealots can usually find high-sounding excuses for their transgressions against other professionals like Dr. Gray. Professional figures in white coats with authoritative tones of voices and lots of credentials repeatedly dismiss criticism by claiming that their so- called scientific findings had been peer reviewed, verified by other scientists. It sounds so much beyond reproach. They gave each other prizes as they selectively handed out research grants. To those who disagreed, like Dr. Gray, no matter how prominent, they were treated like nonentities, like they didn't exist, or were personally disparaged with labels like ``denier.'' Well, you know, Holocaust denier, that's what you do. Now, how much uglier does it get? How much against the standard of professional science can you be than to try to paint someone like that because he disagrees with you? Well, these unprofessional tactics won't work forever, and it's becoming ever clearer that the man-made global warming steamroller is beginning to fall apart. We now know that the scientists clamoring for subservient acceptance to their theory of man-made global warming were themselves making a sham out of the scientific methodology. We now know what they were doing. I'm speaking, of course, of Climategate, the publication of over 1,000 emails and 3,000 other unofficially obtained documents from one of the world's foremost global warming research institutes, the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University in the United Kingdom. And we have all heard of those quotes. Here's a few of them: ``We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it's a travesty that we can't.'' How about another quote: ``I've just completed Mike's nature trick . . . to hide the decline.'' Here's another quote: ``We'll keep them''--meaning the skeptics of their science. ``We'll keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.'' How about this for another quote: ``If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.'' Deleting files? Trying to prevent peer review? What kind of scientists were these? Well, arrogant and politically motivated scientists, that's who. The unauthorized release of those internal memos exposed the shenanigans of the man-made global warming alarmists and the crime being committed against science and the public. Even though handpicked panels of their peers held the a kangaroo court--yeah, their own peers judged them, that's right--and that kangaroo court loudly proclaimed there had no wrongdoing by these people, well, public confidence was justifiably shaken in the global warming science advocates. Now, just as that scandal was about to be forgotten, we have an even larger database being exposed showing even more clearly how this elite operates, and it ain't pretty. Here are some of the quotes from the newly released database: Unfortunately, there is no way to fix the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its information over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. Here's another quote: If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you were left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC's effort. Here's another one regarding the IPCC: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it. Here's another one: It's very likely that the mean temperature has shown much larger past variability than caught by previous reconstructions. We cannot, from these reconstructions, conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500 to 1,000 years. What's that mean? That means the current cycle we're in has nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuel by human beings. I would like to insert an article from James Taylor of Forbes magazine who said Climategate 2: ``These scientists view global warming as a political `cause' rather than a balanced scientific inquiry.'' Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate (By James Taylor) A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal. Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political ``cause'' rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures. ``I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,'' writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email. ``Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get--and has to be well hidden,'' Jones writes in another newly released email. ``I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.'' The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. ``Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?'' Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. ``Keith will do likewise. . . . We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!'' The new emails also reveal the scientists' attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes. ``The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out'' of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC's most recent climate assessment. ``I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but its not helping the cause,'' wrote Mann in another newly released email. ``I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose'' skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email. These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists ``must get rid of'' the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis. More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions. ``Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,'' writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office. ``I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,'' Thorne adds. ``Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,'' Wigley acknowledges. More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion. Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of all of this, amid all of the consternation about their malpractices to which we have now been exposed: The global warming elite just keeps a straight face. They keep up their PowerPoint presentations, distorted graphs and all, and continue projections of man-made global doom and gloom. They try to ignore the uproar and change the subject, but these recent revelations seriously call into question the basic science of man-made global warming fanatics. In the meantime, a report was recently issued by world-respected scientists at CERN in Switzerland. The CERN study demonstrated it is cosmic rays from the sun that determine global cloud cover, and the clouds have dramatically more to do with temperature than the minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Cloud Project at a highly respected CERN laboratory published a paper in the journal Nature this past August based on this research which shows that the sun's activity is influencing cloud formation and may account for most of the recorded temperature changes in the last century. I would like to submit an editorial about this project from The Wall Street Journal by Anne Jolis for the Record. The Other Climate Theory Al Gore won't hear it, but heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends. (By Anne Jolis) In April 1990, Al Gore published an open letter in the New York Times ``To Skeptics on Global Warming'' in which he compared them to medieval flat-Earthers. He soon became vice president and his conviction that climate change was dominated by man-made emissions went mainstream. Western governments embarked on a new era of anti-emission regulation and poured billions into research that might justify it. As far as the average Western politician was concerned, the debate was over. But a few physicists weren't worrying about Al Gore in the 1990s. They were theorizing about another possible factor in climate change: charged subatomic particles from outer space, or ``cosmic rays,'' whose atmospheric levels appear to rise and fall with the weakness or strength of solar winds that deflect them from the earth. These shifts might significantly impact the type and quantity of clouds covering the earth, providing a clue to one of the least-understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends. The theory has now moved from the corners of climate skepticism to the center of the physical-science universe: the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN. At the Franco-Swiss home of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, scientists have been shooting simulated cosmic rays into a cloud chamber to isolate and measure their contribution to cloud formation. CERN's researchers reported last month that in the conditions they've observed so far, these rays appear to be enhancing the formation rates of pre- cloud seeds by up to a factor of 10. Current climate models do not consider any impact of cosmic rays on clouds. Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn't get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth's surface temperature since 1860. ``I had this idea that the real link could be between cloud cover and cosmic rays, and I wanted to try to figure out if it was a good idea or a bad idea,'' Mr. Svensmark told me from Copenhagen, where he leads sun-climate research at the Danish National Space Institute. He wasn't the first scientist to have the idea, but he was the first to try to demonstrate it. He got in touch with Mr. Friis-Christensen, and they used satellite data to show a close correlation among solar activity, cloud cover and cosmic-ray levels since 1979. They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, ``everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time.'' He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): ``I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.'' Mr. Svensmark had been, at the very least, politically naive. ``Before 1995 I was doing things related to quantum fluctuations. Nobody was interested, it was just me sitting in my office. It was really an eye-opener, that baptism into climate science.'' He says his work was ``very much ignored'' by the climate-science establishment--but not by CERN physicist Jasper Kirkby, who is leading today's ongoing cloud-chamber experiment. On the phone from Geneva, Mr. Kirkby says that Mr. Svensmark's hypothesis ``started me thinking: There's good evidence that pre-industrial climate has frequently varied on 100-year timescales, and what's been found is that often these variations correlate with changes in solar activity, solar wind. You see correlations in the atmosphere between cosmic rays and clouds--that's what Svensmark reported. But these correlations don't prove cause and effect, and it's very difficult to isolate what's due to cosmic rays and what's due to other things.'' In 1997 he decided that ``the best way to settle it would be to use the CERN particle beam as an artificial source of cosmic rays and reconstruct an artificial atmosphere in the lab.'' He predicted to reporters at the time that, based on Mr. Svensmark's paper, the theory would ``probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole'' of 20th- century warming. He gathered a team of scientists, including Mr. Svensmark, and proposed the groundbreaking experiment to his bosses at CERN. Then he waited. It took six years for CERN to greenlight and fund the experiment. Mr. Kirkby cites financial pressures for the delay and says that ``it wasn't political.'' Mr. Svensmark declines entirely to guess why CERN took so long, noting only that ``more generally in the climate community that is so sensitive, sometimes science goes into the background.'' By 2002, a handful of other scientists had started to explore the correlation, and Mr. Svensmark decided that ``if I was going to be proved wrong, it would be nice if I did it myself.'' He decided to go ahead in Denmark and construct his own cloud chamber. ``In 2006 we had our first results: We had demonstrated the mechanism'' of cosmic rays enhancing cloud formation. The IPCC's 2007 report all but dismissed the theory. Mr. Kirkby's CERN experiment was finally approved in 2006 and has been under way since 2009. So far, it has not proved Mr. Svensmark wrong. ``The result simply leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate,'' stresses Mr. Kirkby, quick to tamp down any interpretation that would make for a good headline. This seems wise: In July, CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Die Welt that he was asking his researchers to make the forthcoming cloud-chamber results ``clear, however, not to interpret them. This would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate-change debate.'' But while the cosmic-ray theory has been ridiculed from the start by those who subscribe to the anthropogenic-warming theory, both Mr. Kirkby and Mr. Svensmark hold that human activity is contributing to climate change. All they question is its importance relative to other, natural factors. Through several more years of ``careful, quantitative measurement'' at CERN, Mr. Kirkby predicts he and his team will ``definitively answer the question of whether or not cosmic rays have a climatically significant effect on clouds.'' His old ally Mr. Svensmark feels he's already answered that question, and he guesses that CERN's initial results ``could have been achieved eight to 10 years ago, if the project had been approved and financed.'' The biggest milestone in last month's publication may be not the content but the source, which will be a lot harder to ignore than Mr. Svensmark and his small Danish institute. Any regrets, now that CERN's particle accelerator is spinning without him? ``No. It's been both a blessing and the opposite,'' says Mr. Svensmark. ``I had this field more or less to myself for years--that would never have happened in other areas of science, such as particle physics. But this has been something that most climate scientists would not be associated with. I remember another researcher saying to me years ago that the only thing he could say about cosmic rays and climate was that it was a really bad career move.'' On that point, Mr. Kirkby--whose organization is controlled by not one but 20 governments--really does not want to discuss politics at all: ``I'm an experimental particle physicist, okay? That somehow nature may have decided to connect the high-energy physics of the cosmos with the earth's atmosphere--that's what nature may have done, not what I've done.'' Last month's findings don't herald the end of a debate, but the resumption of one. That is, if the politicians purporting to legislate based on science will allow it. In this piece, she says: charged subatomic particles from outer space, or cosmic rays, might significantly impact the type and quality of clouds covering the Earth, providing a clue to one of the least understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends. And while scientists have discovered the sun's relationship to cloud cover, even more recently there's been a study directly undermining the theory that CO2 levels are a major determinant of the Earth's temperature. A recent editorial from Investor's Business Daily on the topic of this new study about temperature sensitivity to carbon dioxide undermines the case-closed arguments of the scientific elite. From the editorial: The left's proposed solutions to the world's ills are based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a climate-heating poison that must be scrubbed from the global economy at all costs. Yet another study shows this to be foolishness. And I submit that for the Record at this point as well. [From the Investor's Business Daily Editorial, Nov. 25, 2011] Global Warming Models Called Into Question By New Study Climate: The left's proposed solutions for the world's ills are based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a climate- heating poison that must be scrubbed from the global economy at all cost. Yet another study shows this is foolish. The study in the journal Science found that global temperatures appear to be far less sensitive to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than originally estimated. This sounds prosaic, but it's a bombshell--another in a long line of revelations showing the scientific fraud at the heart of the anti-global warming movement. The study's findings are simple and devastating. ``This implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought,'' said Oregon State University's Andreas Schmittner, the study's main author. Even with a doubling of CO2 from levels that existed before the Industrial Revolution, the study found a likely increase in Earth's temperature only from about 3.1 degrees Fahrenheit to 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit. That compares with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report, which predicted an increase of 3.6 degrees to 8.6 degrees. Coupled with the fact the average global temperature hasn't increased at all over the past decade--even though under all of the global warming models now in use, this is impossible--warmist ideology is crumbling. There is no climate armageddon on the horizon. But don't expect global warm-mongers to admit this. As we've discovered from a new trove of emails sent by leading European climate-change scientists, there has been a vast, global green conspiracy to silence scientific opposition to the idea--even to the point of falsifying data and ruining others' careers. Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast--The left's entire prescription for solving the world's ills--ranging from population control to strict regulation of businesses to shrinking CO2 output--are premised on the notion that carbon- dioxide is a poison. Happily, the left's pernicious, economy-destroying and false global warming ideology is collapsing under a growing body of evidence that the CO2 scare is a fraud. Who says we have nothing to be thankful for? And despite the weaknesses of the linkage between CO2 and temperature, the alarmists continue with their tactics. We just heard a report published in Nature Climate Change in the last few days that CO2 emissions in 2010 went up by 5.9 percent, which scientists claimed was the highest total annual growth ever recorded-- except they didn't record any CO2 emissions. They estimated that based on energy use. They didn't take into account new technologies that make gas and oil and coal cleaner and greener. The scientists didn't care about how cleanly coal and oil might be being burned; they just estimated--or guesstimated--CO2 emissions based on the total amount of coal and oil used. And the media, like their lapdogs, faithfully reported that this sounds like a calamity when you have so much more CO2 coming in, even though they never measured any CO2 emissions. None of it was actually recorded. The truth is CO2 is not a pollutant. Anybody perpetuating that myth that CO2 is dangerous, a dangerous pollutant, is contributing to the health-destructive impact of real pollution by diverting resources and attention away from these very real challenges. We have wasted $25 billion or more on this foolishness. That is money that could have been used to develop new energy technologies, for example, that could have moved us off of our dependence on foreign oil. Some examples of these technologies are the small modular nuclear reactors which could offer us safety and no pollution, no leftover waste, but we didn't have the money for that. How about space-based solar power, which could collect solar energy from the sun out in outer space and transmit it to the Earth? Developing these new technologies will take hundreds of millions of dollars for these new reactors, billions of dollars for a space-based solar. Instead, we've squandered our billions of dollars and our limited science money and technology dollars on trying to prove that man-made global warming is something that we have to worry about and spread the fear. We have not pursued these or other technologies which could have fundamentally benefited everyone on the Earth because we have been wasting our time and our resources. We have been trying to figure out how to bury carbon in the ground and other such things. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm here to explain that this is utter nonsense and to warn of the danger that lurks behind this high-sounding cause. Don't miss the significance, by the way, of the Durban conference in South Africa that is gathering now to determine how best to control our lives. As happened in Kyoto and Copenhagen in the past, they now are meeting in Durban to try to find ways of issuing mandates to the people of the world in the name of stopping global warming. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the people of the United States they pay close attention to this. Eisenhower isn't here to protect us anymore. The fact is our freedom is at stake. The globalists would like to control the people of the United States. It's up to us to defend our freedom. The patriots will win if we stand together. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the people of Thailand in celebrating the seventh cycle birthday anniversary of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej on December 5th. During his reign of over 65 years, Thailand continues to be the United States' long-term military ally, trade and economic partner, and friend in southeast Asia. King Bhumibol holds a special relationship with our country beginning with his birth in Cambridge, Massachusetts while his father was attending Harvard University. As part of his continuing efforts to strengthen the ties between the United States and Thailand, the King visited America in 1960 and 1967. Under King Bhumibol's stewardship, Thailand has become a model of democracy and economic development in the region. Thailand's role as a regional democratic leader is a critical factor in the development of a stable Bangkok-Washington relationship. I had the distinct honor and privilege of visiting King Bhumibol on my past visits. His continued efforts to provide guidance to improve the lives of his people were evident. Fittingly, he was awarded the United Nations Development Programme's first Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award in 2006. Mr. Speaker, I extend my best and warmest wishes on his 84th birthday and for a long life of good health. I am pleased to join our Thai friends in recognizing this special day.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 593, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which would support advanced nuclear reactors, particularly those reactors that do not use a light water coolant, which happens to be technology used for decades and seems to be what certain members of the business world are trying to foist off on the American people. No, it is time to upgrade, to update, and innovate. Since I understand that a point of order has been raised against this amendment, I intend to withdraw it. But before I do so, I would like to make some remarks as to why it is important for these new reactors to come forward. As I stated earlier, these new technologies, such as the high- temperature, gas-cooled reactors hold significant promise of meeting our ever-increasing energy needs with safe, clean, reliable, cost- effective, noncarbon-producing, proliferation-resistant, American-built nuclear power plants. A number of our commercial companies out there right now are ready to bring forth this cutting-edge nuclear technology and put it on the market and create new, high-tech private sector jobs for the American people. Their success should be our goal. There is some mention of these technologies in the committee report. I am very grateful for that, but I would like to draw attention to why these are so vitally important for our country. First of all, the small modular nuclear reactors, especially those that do not rely on decades-old light water coolant systems, exemplify the next wave of nuclear power, and we should pursue it far more aggressively than we are today. Specifically, we should be more aggressively pursuing the next generation nuclear plant and make the best use of the technologies that have been developed which include inherently safe reactors that don't require extraneous engineered safety devices to protect the public. We have a new level of safety that is almost unimaginable in these new reactors. We should understand that we need the high fuel burn-up rates that will greatly reduce the proliferation concerns. So we have reactors now that will be available that will not leave the residue and the leftover material that can be turned into nuclear weapons. We also have reactors that are modular, scalable, and can be delivered on the back of a truck. This would make them far more economical and far more feasible for various communities throughout the world. Read that, we can manufacture these somewhere in America and transport them around the country or around the planet. The Department of Energy should encourage and partner with industry to build working reactor prototypes using these technologies to provide the data required for commercial licensing. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should encourage applications from private companies for the purpose of building working commercial reactors incorporating these new technologies. The NRC should also consider these applications immediately upon receiving them and expedite the processing. Ideally, the NRC should be able to complete the process within 2 years of the receipt of the initial application. That should be more than a goal. That should be a commitment. I hope I've made it clear how vital these technologies are to our energy future. We are either going to lead the world in the nuclear arena or we are going to be left behind as a country. Now, I understand that there is a technical problem with this amendment, but I would like to make sure that my colleagues understand the significance of this new technology. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment which would require that the amount provided for in title 17 of the Energy and Water development appropriations bill for loan guarantees for advanced nuclear energy facilities be equal to or exceed that for loan guarantees targeted for carbon capture and sequestration projects. In laymen's terms, my amendment would specify that we cannot use more funds in this act for loan guarantees for carbon capture and sequestration projects than we make available for projects using nuclear technologies such as small modular gas-cooled reactors. The purpose for this is simple. These new technologies hold significant promise of meeting our ever-increasing energy needs with safe, clean, reliable, cost-effective, proliferation-resistant noncarbon-producing American-built nuclear reactors. As a member of the Science Committee, I, along with my colleagues, have studied this technology over the past 7 years. And let me note, the bureaucracy has studied this technology almost to death. Well, the time has come for that study to be left behind. It's time for the study to be over, and it's time for us to act. There are commercial companies out there right now trying to bring these technologies to market, and this amendment will help make this a reality. I would like to also note that the GAO and the committee have stated that there is a lack of transparency in this loan guarantee program. We cannot expect to perform proper oversight without knowing where and how these funds are being used, and it is critical that we become more specific in stating how we intend the funds to be used. And that's what this amendment would do. It would also be important that we require the administration to report back to Congress with a full explanation of how these funds are being used. Thus I ask for support for this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest that, again, we should be taking responsibility, especially when we see something as important to the American people as the issue of energy, especially clean energy, and how we are going to make sure that it is supplied to the people of the United States. Specifically designating that these funds won't be used for sequestration and carbon capture, I mean, that seems to me that is what we should do. We should determine whether or not we believe this is an appropriate use of government funds. I suggest that it is not, especially when we have alternatives that are available to us, like these new technologies in the nuclear field, that can give us what we need in terms of not producing carbon and making sure that you don't even need sequestration then. If you have those alternatives, then we shouldn't be spending the money on this other approach, on the carbon capture and sequestration approach. That makes sense to me. We need, as Members of Congress, to set these type of parameters on the spending of our limited dollars in a way that will have the most positive impact, and the carbon capture and sequestration concept is not the best way to spend our money when we have these other alternatives. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I believe that it is Congress' job to make decisions. We are the ones who should be actually designating exactly where money is going. I'm a senior member of the Science and Technology Committee. We have studied this issue directly, and this is my recommendation. And I think that what we're supposed to do here is make sure that rather than having money, saying we can just spend all we want in sequestration and accepting that alternative, that we must designate what we think is the best use and most efficient use of the taxpayer money. That sounds within the rules to me.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have another amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of my amendment which would require that none of the funds provided for in title 17 of the Energy and Water development appropriations bill be used for the purposes of providing loan guarantees for ``carbon capture and sequestration projects.'' If you think that carbon capture and sequestration is an important goal--and I'm sure there are some people who believe it is. Let me just note that I do not believe that, and I think that having heard the debates that have been going on about this particular issue over the years, that there are large numbers of my colleagues who do not believe that as well. Well, if you do not believe in carbon sequestration and capture as an important goal, then I would suggest that the best sequestration--if you really believe that we must sequester carbon and that that is an important goal, then let me suggest this, and that's what my amendment is all about: it's better to leave the oil and coal in the ground if that's what you really want to do is capture this carbon and sequester the carbon and capture it. And I would suggest that the best way to do that is by promoting new nuclear technologies such as the new, inherently safe, small, modular nuclear reactors, especially those that do not use water as a coolant. We can provide all the clean, safe electricity that we need. And I would hope that any funds that the Secretary might have, in terms of his opinion, determined to use in carbon capture and sequestration, instead that the Secretary will use that limited amount of money that he has available to him on a positive program that will permit us an alternative to oil and gas. I personally, however, do not believe that oil and gas necessarily and the capture of carbon sequestration is an important goal; but if you do, you should be supporting--instead of basically using that as an expensive tool that will hurt the economy, we should be using the funds that are available instead to promote this positive alternative of nuclear energy, especially the high- temperature, gas-cooled reactor. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, a fellow southern Californian recently was featured in the LA Times with respect to an issue involving one of his patents (``Defending patents takes financial toll on inventor,'' LA Times, June 14, 2011). In addition, this week, a letter to the editor from former Senator Birch Bayh appeared in the Congress Blog from Hill.com and referenced a letter that the former Senator recently received from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) about the very same issue. While I am not weighing in on the merits of this particular case, the underlying issue involved should be of great concern. Therefore, I am submitting the aforementioned PTO letter. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, June 3, 2011. Hon. Birch Bayh, Venable LLP, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Bayh: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of Lawrence Lockwood. The letter indicates that Mr. Lockwood filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Federal Circuit's decision affirming the trial court's holding that state tort claims by patent holders against persons who file sham reexamination requests are preempted by Federal patent law. The letter asks the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to confirm that there are no procedures permitting a damages remedy for patent owners subjected to sham reexamination requests, and to state whether it sees a problem with patent owners pursuing state tort claims for such damages. The USPTO can confirm that it does not have a procedure that offers a damages remedy for patent owners in Mr. Lockwood's position. As to your request for the USPTO's support of Mr. Lockwood's case, please understand that the USPTO cannot participate in the case without the Solicitor General, who rarely files uninvited amicus briefs at the cert stage. Moreover, any amicus brief would be due very shortly at this point, given that Mr. Lockwood has already filed his petition. Please know that the USPTO is sympathetic to the concerns of patent owners. The agency is particularly concerned whenever a patent owner is subjected to a fraudulent reexamination or some other form of harassment. Thus, the USPTO will be monitoring Mr. Lockwood's certiorari petition closely. At the same time, we note that the USPTO has the power to police misconduct through its Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED). Anyone with knowledge of unethical conduct can report it to OED for investigation. Sincerely, David J. Kappos, Under Secretary and Director.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which states, as you have just heard, no funds in this bill may go to Pakistan. Pakistan is a country on which we have spent billions and billions of dollars. We've given them $18 billion just since 9/11--not to mention the many billions of dollars we gave to them during the Cold War. What has all that spending achieved for the people of the United States? Pakistan is now the best friend to America's worst enemies: radical Islam and, yes, an emerging and belligerent China. Wake up, America. Was anyone really surprised to find Osama bin Laden was living in a luxurious mansion in plain view in a military-dominated Pakistani city? Let me admit that even I was surprised that the Pakistani Government was so bold, so open in its contempt of the people of the United States, as to arrest five of its citizens for helping us bring to justice Osama bin Laden, that terrorist radical fiend whose leadership led to the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. The Pakistan Intelligence Service, the ISI, is today, as it always has been, a friend of radical Islam and an enemy of Western democracy. With American acquiescence and Saudi financing, the Pakistani Government--read that the ISI--the Pakistani Government created the Taliban as Islamabad's vanguard for the conquest of Afghanistan. In the process, they set in place a fundamentalist anti-Western radical Islamic terrorist state. Let's note that even after 9/11, after 3,000 of our citizens had been slaughtered, the ISI continued to covertly support radical Islamic terrorists, and they are still engaged in such hostile acts, even as American lives are being lost even today. In 2010, the London School of Economics published a report that found agents of the ISI--this is 2010, long after 9/11--were ``funding and training the Afghan Taliban.'' And to top things off, there is substantial reporting that has been done that suggests that Pakistani diplomats are lobbying the Afghan Government leaders, suggesting that they dump the United States and turn to China for a partnership and reconstruction. This isn't shame on them; this is shame on us. Washington may be able to coerce and bribe Islamabad into doing us a favor now and then, but it is time to face reality. The goals and values of the United States and Pakistan are fundamentally at odds. Wake up, America. This bill would provide for another $1 billion to Pakistan. The Pakistani Government and Pakistan, they are not our friends. Why are we borrowing money from China to give to a government that has betrayed us time and time again? Therefore, I urge adoption of my amendment to eliminate any funding in this appropriations bill from going to Pakistan. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is any of the money that we have in this bill going to end up financing the ISI? Will any of that money end up in the hands of the ISI?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is there any language in the bill that would prevent the money in this bill from going to the ISI?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let's just note that Ms. Lofgren last night presented a case to this body which I felt demonstrated the danger that we have in this law. A move to first-to-file system, which is what this bill would do, without a corresponding 1-year grace period in other countries dramatically undermines the patent protection of American inventors. Some of us believe that's the purpose of this bill because they want to harmonize American law with the weak systems overseas. Well, without this amendment that we are talking about right now, without the Conyers-Rohrabacher amendment, if an inventor discloses his discoveries, perhaps to potential investors, his right to patent protection is essentially gone. It's not gone from just Americans. Yes, he would be protected under American law; but from all those people in foreign countries without a similar grace period to what we have here in our system, these people are not restricted. Thus, they could, once an American inventor discloses it, at any time they can go and file a patent and steal our inventors' discoveries. The only way for American inventors to benefit from a grace period here, which this bill is all about, is to ensure that foreign countries adopt the same grace period. And that's what this amendment would do. It would say our bill, which will make our inventors vulnerable to foreign theft, will not go into place until those foreign countries have put in place a similar grace period, which then would prevent them and their citizens from coming in and stealing our technology. Ms. Lofgren detailed last night in great detail how that would work. I call this bill basically the Unilateral Disclosure Act, if not the Patent Rip-Off Act, because we are disclosing to the world what we've got. And our people can't follow up on it because there's a grace period here, but overseas they don't have that same grace period. So what we're saying is, to prevent foreigners from stealing American technology, this will not go into effect until the President has issued a statement verifying that the other countries of the world have a similar grace period so they can't just at will rip off America's greatest entrepreneurs and inventors.