Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, in 2005, the U.S. Congress adopted the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, which was signed into law by the President in 2005. The amendment at the desk simply provides funding of $10 million for this authorized program. The $10 million is taken from the Secretary's Management Account, so the offset is taken care of. On March 29 of this year, 2007, Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton and the chairman and ranking member of every subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, as well as other Members, sent a letter to Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis requesting that they consider funding this program. And we had hoped that it would be included in this HHS appropriation bill because NASPER, as passed by the Congress, is located and placed at HHS. Now, the Appropriations Committee on another bill has provided funding for an unauthorized drug monitoring program located at the Department of Justice. That program is primarily based and focused on law enforcement. And we do not object to that program in any way, but I might say that last year, for 2007 and 2006, money was made available for both the NASPER program at HHS and the Department of Justice program, which is more based on law enforcement. The NASPER program really addresses the prescription drug addiction problem and helps physicians work with patients and makes physicians aware of prescriptions that those patients have. So last year we were quite pleased that both programs were funded. And we were disappointed that this year's program, the authorized program, was not funded; the unauthorized program was funded. And so we come today and ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member, both of whom have worked diligently on a very complicated bill that provides great services to our country, we come this morning and ask them to consider funding this authorized program. I might add that Secretary Leavitt testified for it. We had 2 years of hearings on this program. Secretary Leavitt endorsed it. Former Secretary Tommy Thompson endorsed it. And as I said, we're not asking that they defund the unauthorized program because we know that it's doing a good job, but we're simply saying the Energy and Commerce Committee had 2 years of hearings, passed this legislation. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly. The President signed it. It was funded last year, and we strongly request that the chairman consider funding it again this year. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. You know, every Member of this House has great respect for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee from Missouri and the ranking member from California. And like the American people, most Members of this House are torn in different directions on this issue of our involvement in Iraq and what steps we should take. But this resolution says as a requirement that the Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this act. General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate, and in the supplemental, there was a requirement that, on September 15, General Petraeus would make a report to the Congress on the conditions in Iraq. And I believe that it is premature to come forth with this resolution today. But if it comes back at the end of September, after General Petraeus has made his report, the commanding general in Iraq with the responsibility, I think that all of us have the responsibility to read his report, to make an assessment which would be best for the American people.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. It is illegal to hunt polar bears in America today except for subsistence. You cannot do trophy hunting of polar bears today. So what happened is you have wealthy American hunters that go to Canada. They pay $30,000 to kill a polar bear for one reason, and that reason is to cut its head off, send it back to America, and put it above their fireplace. There are only 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears left in America. This amendment simply prohibits funds from being used to permit these wealthy hunters from sending polar bear parts back to the U.S. We should protect polar bears. This amendment is the right approach to take.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. But I can yield time to her for her to speak?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WHITFIELD. Before I speak, I would like to make one parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WHITFIELD. If I yield time to the gentlelady from North Carolina at the end of my remarks, and if she made a decision that the House do now rise, is that permissible?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all thank the chairman of the subcommittee on the Democratic side and also on the Republican side for the hard work that they have shown in establishing this appropriation bill for Homeland Security. Last night I was reading a poll, and I noticed that Congress, as an institution, has an approval rating of less than 30 percent. That certainly is not caused by the leadership of the Democratic Party, because when the Republicans were in control a few months ago, Congress had an approval rating of less than 30 percent also. But I think it reflects the frustration of the American people about the institution of Congress and how Congress works. I welcome this debate on the earmarks, because I do not view this as a delaying tactic, but I think this is an issue that is even deeper than earmarks and the way that they're handled by the Appropriations Committee. I am speaking specifically of the fact that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee yesterday mentioned that there was something like 32,000 earmark requests, and that there was not ample time to get through these appropriations bills. Yet every year Congress is consumed by the appropriations process, and every year it takes more and more time, and every year, frequently, we do not even pass all the appropriations bills in the House and the Senate, and we do continuing resolutions, and then we do omnibus bills. The omnibus bills come to the floor, and sometimes they are 8 or 9,000 pages and Members don't even know what's in there, and we are voting on those. I would remind the Members that about 6 years ago we introduced legislation that would ask the House to go to a 2-year budget and 2- year appropriations process. That bill received over 200 votes in support of it, because I think all of us recognize that this appropriations process and budget process that we now operate under is broken. It simply does not work. One of the frustrations, I will be very honest about it, on the earmarks is that there is a perception among Members who are not on the Appropriations Committee that the vast majority of earmarks go to the appropriators. Yet all of us represent the same number of people, all of us represent taxpayers, and all of us are entitled to earmarks. But it's an unfair process. I know, from discussions that I have had with a lot of Members, I know appropriators get upset with authorizers and say authorizers are not doing their job, and authorizers get upset with appropriators in saying appropriators are authorizing on appropriations bills when they want to. So I think what this institution needs to do is go to a 2-year budget process, a 2-year appropriations process so that one year we can sit here and argue about money, but the next year we can argue about authorization and reforming education and health care and some of the substantive problems that the American people face instead of every year being totally consumed by the appropriation process. To me, that's the problem we have today. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, as we debate the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, I want to commend the members of the Judiciary Committee for the tremendous job that they have done, but I did want to ask a couple of questions regarding this legislation because I've not had an opportunity to look at it in its entirety. But title I is referred to as closing the revolving door, and we all understand that that relates to former Members of Congress who leave Congress and become registered lobbyists and represent private interests before the House of Representatives. And then title II is talking about full public disclosure of those people engaged in lobbying. And the question that I would like to ask Chairman Conyers, and maybe Mr. Smith knows as well, but we have a lot of Members of Congress, and last year the Congress passed legislation on the floor, an ethics package that prohibited former Members of Congress who became registered lobbyists from going to the House gym. And so my question is, in this bill, does this bill prohibit a former Member of Congress who is a registered lobbyist from parking in House parking spaces, reserved for Members of Congress and staff? And then if it does not, in title II, do we require a former Member of Congress who is now a registered lobbyist to report that as a benefit that he receives from the taxpayers of the United States? And those would be the two questions that I would appreciate the gentleman answering.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I really appreciate the gentleman responding to the question. And what raised it, I was pulling into the garage this morning, and two former Members who are registered lobbyists were parking there, and it reminded me again that it is an issue that is still outstanding. And I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking member for yielding time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. So this bill would not prevent former Members of Congress who are now registered lobbyists from continuing to park for free in government parking spaces, nor would it require them to file disclosure of that benefit that the taxpayers provide them? But it is your understanding that the House Administration is looking at that issue?

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the National Marina Day. Kentucky's Marinas aye a substantial impact on the Commonwealth's economy. The First District of Kentucky is home to many of the United States' most adored lakes, which provide recreation areas for Kentuckians and important habitats for fish and wildlife. While it would be too exhaustive to name every lake, two of the largest lakes are Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley. Together they create the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area, LBL. LBL contains nearly 17,000 acres of habitats, trails, and campsites, providing tourists with a wide array of outdoor experiences. A canal connecting Lake Barkley with Kentucky Lake forms one of the greatest freshwater recreational complexes in the country. This site has been used for numerous fishing tournaments and other outdoor events. These lakes are also home to many marinas that facilitate boating and fishing activities. Their presence helps ensure safe and reliable access to our lakes. On the eastern side of my District is another exhilarating outdoor experience. Lake Cumberland is visited by more than 4.7 million people annually. According to the Travel Industry Association of America, the tourism economic impact for the four-county area, Clinton, Pulaski, Russell, Wayne, with access to the lake is $152.6 million. Recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began a rehabilitation project at the Wolf Creek Dam on Lake Cumberland, which has impacted some of the marinas in the area. However, the lake continues to be a great recreation and vacation spot, and we welcome visitors to come enjoy the opportunities available at the lake. Marinas are instrumental to recreation and tourism and that is why I stand today in support of this industry. I ask that my colleagues do the same by voting in favor of H. Res. 343 sponsored by U.S. Representative Hal Rogers.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I certainly admire and respect the gentlemen who are offering this amendment and making arguments in favor of it. I agree, however, with the gentleman from West Virginia that it has very negligible fiscal impact on the Federal budget. As has been stated, there are less than 20,000 wild mustangs and burros left on Federal lands in the West. And if they are concerned about the fiscal impact of not slaughtering a few horses, I would say there are over 214 million acres of Federal lands in the West that the ranchers and corporations that are leasing that land are paying the Federal Government less than 10 cents per acre per year. Now, that is much less being paid than what my farmers that I represent in Kentucky are paying for leased land. I recognize that this land in the West, much of it is arid, it is not really that rich. But there are lots of people who would be willing to lease land for less than 10 cents per acre. And I think we at the Federal level have a responsibility to protect these wild mustangs and burros; and as the gentleman before me said, at one time the population was around 2 million, now it is around 20,000 head, and we have an obligation to protect these animals. I want to commend the gentleman from West Virginia for offering this bill, H.R. 249, to restore the Federal protections of these animals that have been in effect since 1971. And the only reason that it was changed in the omnibus bill a couple of years ago without anyone's knowledge, those Federal protections were removed. And so H.R. 249 simply restores that protection. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to vote against this amendment and to support H.R. 249.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring renewed attention to the continued situation on the island of Cyprus. On this date three years ago, the inhabitants of the island participated in a referenda put forward by the United Nations under Secretary General Kofi Annan. The Annan Plan, as it is often referred to, foresaw a bi-communal, bi- zonal federation based on political equality. We recall that the Turkish Cypriots in the north of the island voted by an impressive majority in favor of the Annan Plan. Unfortunately, this support was not reciprocated by the Greek Cypriots and a comprehensive settlement was not, nor has been since, agreed to. The Annan Plan was the product of intense negotiations conducted under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary General between the Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots, Turkey and Greece. It was the first plan to date to be submitted for public approval. In addition, it struck a fair compromise between the two sides on the island and was supported by both the United States and the European Union. Had it passed, it would have brought about a resolution to the longstanding separation of the island and contributed to political stability in this region of the world. Following the referenda, the Greek Cypriot side, which rejected the Annan Plan, was granted entrance into the EU. However, the Turkish Cypriot side, which accepted the settlement plan, remained outside the EU. Soon after the referenda, the former U.N. Secretary-General, in his report to the Security Council, pointed out this injustice and stressed that the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots should be lifted given that they had voted for a settlement. In the same report, he called upon all states to eliminate the unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the people of Northern Cyprus and impeding development. The Council of the European Union, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Organization of the Islamic Conference all concurred in declaring the need to put right this injustice. Although it has been three years since the international community made commitments towards this end, and despite the conviction that reducing the inequalities between the economies of the two sides would facilitate the reunification of the island, the necessary steps have not been taken regarding the removal or relaxation of the isolation. Admirably, the Turkish Cypriots have not wavered in their determination to engage in further efforts to find a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem and they welcome the initiatives carried out under the mission of good offices of the U.N. Secretary General. More than ever before, as supporters of a comprehensive settlement on the island, I strongly believe that the removal of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots--economic, social, and political--would be the most positive step in the quest for the resumption of political negotiations on the path to a settlement. The Turkish Cypriots have demonstrated remarkable flexibility and political maturity. They rose to the occasion when the critical moment came three years ago in mutually deciding the future of Cyprus. Acknowledging and properly responding to their constructive behavior is not only the right message to all concerned, but is also a requisite of fairness and justice.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to recognize Mr. Robley Rex of Louisville, Kentucky. Mr. Rex was born in Christian County, Kentucky, on May 2, 1901. He is the only surviving World War I veteran in Kentucky. Robley Rex has faithfully served his country since entering the United States Army in 1919, He has worked as a mail clerk with the railroad. He was ordained as a Methodist minister. He joined the Veterans of Foreign War (VFW) service organization in 1924. Rex Robley began volunteering through the VFW at the age of 86, logging over 13,000 hours of service. He has served his fellow veterans at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Louisville. By his count, he has served veterans for 75 years. He has been honored by the VFW as a National Volunteer of the Year. Madam Speaker, Mr. Robley Rex embodies the spirit, commitment and sacrifice that we all should strive for in our daily lives. I extend my thanks to him for his efforts, and I am proud to bring his accomplishments to the attention of this House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize nominees for the Regional Academic All-Star Team from the Pennyroyal region in western Kentucky. The regional academic All-Star program's purpose is to recognize top academic scholars and performers. Students from Caldwell, Christian, Trigg and Todd Counties of Kentucky were nominated based upon their academic performance in seven disciplines: English, foreign language, journalism, mathematics, science, social studies and the creative and performing arts. The students are judged on their core academic score, the curriculum of the student, their grade point average, academic honors earned, unique accomplishments and achievements, extracurricular activities, both school related and outside school activities, employment history, and an autobiographical essay. Madam Speaker, education is the foundation upon which we reach our human potential. Students in my district are developing their talents, furthering their education and pursuing their aspirations in life through programs like the Academic All-Star program. Encouragement and recognition develop confidence and achievement among young Americans-- the future leaders of our country. The following students have been nominated for their academic excellence: William Cole Davis, Emily Faulkner, Rachel Marie Furnas, Britni Kay Holder, Stephen R. Incata, Adrian Leigh Nelson, Darian Goldin Stahl, Kelsey Leigh Willen, John David Fourqurean II, Erika Michelle Kirby, Andrew Boyd Newton, Prentice Kyle Robertson, Alexandria Frances Soyk, Jessica Lynn Stallons, Kyle Andrew Winn, Ashlee Castle, Taylor Elizabeth Cline, Kyle Raymond Cobb, Crystal Jo Fishburn, Sarah Joy Galloway, Morgan Michelle Milburn, Matthew Franklin Morse, William Thomas Noel, Philip Allen, Brittney Ann Beebe, Elizabeth Hope Chester, Hykeem M. Craft, Kelsey Elizabeth Lewis, Adrian Leigh Nelson, Clayton Alan Sanderson, Catherine Clark Smith, Millie Beth Deason, Hayla Joi Frye, Clara Elizabeth Heisterberg, Kelsie Marie Nelson, Seth Thomas Riker II, Ami Prakash Shah, Samantha Danielle Adams, Shaena Maria Godwin, Brianna Rose McGuire, Kevin M. McLendon, Joshua Lee Robinson, Paula Lynn Southall, Robert Zachary Thompson, Cameron Ross Williams, Barron Stewart Adams, Benjamin Charles Boden, Carrie Louise Burks, Adam Blake Humphries, Bonnie McCullagh, Margaret Oats, Laura Don Oliver, Robert Joseph Williams, Jr., James Tyler Chapman, Skye Lynn Darnell, Emily Paige Doss, Danbee Mishell Kim, Michael Lee Mason, Heather Nicole Moore, Rebecca Schultz, Amy Ja-Le Weatherford, Kelsey Jo Brown, Cahle Buckingham, Zach C. Gaines, Lester W. Gibbs, Jessica Hanks, Cori Hatley, Meaghan Ann Key, Ashley Matlock, Matthew Kyle Spencer, Rebecca Vargas, Cassie M. Whitt, Craig Hodge, Donovan Kates, Eunbee Grace Kim, Mary Gayle Martin, Shelby Martin, Tess Miller, Ryan Michael Russell, James Sears, Nicki Seay, Matt Treadway, Joseph E. Williams, Jr., Taylor Bennett, Chesika J. Crump, Sarah Curasco, Meagen Dunleavy, Dean France, Daniel Joiner, Griffin Lee Joiner, Kristen Sarene Kursave, Kaitlynn Pritchett, Hayley Stewardson, Mallory Taylor, Russell V. Buzzard, Kaylin Dilbeck, Mara Lynn East, Cory Fish, Cody Grinnell, Rachel Marie Hampton, Brenden Hoffman, Sean Hurd, Russell Jones, Austin C. Norrid, Joel Ben Thomas. Madam Speaker, these students embody the spirit, commitment and sacrifice that we all should strive for in our daily lives. I am proud to represent them in my District. I extend my thanks to these students for their efforts, and I am proud to bring their accomplishments to the attention of this House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise to bring attention to the House an article published in the New York Times regarding former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' As this documentary continues to shape the discussion on the controversial issue of global warming, I would like to highlight the following article, which identifies the inconsistencies of the film. [From the New York Times, Mar. 13, 2007] From a Rapt Audience, a Call To Cool the Hype (By William J. Broad) Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change. But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism. ``I don't want to pick on Al Gore,'' Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. ``But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.'' Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made ``the most important and salient points'' about climate change, if not ``some nuances and distinctions'' scientists might want. ``The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,'' he said, adding, ``I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.'' Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims. Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots. Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for ``getting the message out,'' Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were ``overselling our certainty about knowing the future.'' Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat- trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe's recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence. ``He's a very polarizing figure in the science community,'' said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. ``Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.'' ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No.1 on the New York Times list. Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. ``Unless we act boldly,'' he wrote, ``our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.'' He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees. ``He has credibility in this community,'' said Tim Killeen, the group's president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. ``There's no question he's read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.'' Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, ``Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,'' adding that Mr. Gore often did so ``better than scientists.'' Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president's work may hold ``imperfections'' and ``technical flaws.'' He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States. ``We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,'' Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. ``On the other hand,'' Dr. Hansen said, ``he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate.'' In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. ``Of course,'' he said, ``there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.'' He said ``not every single adviser'' agreed with him on every point, ``but we do agree on the fundamentals''--that warming is real and caused by humans. Mr. Gore added that he perceived no general backlash among scientists against his work. ``I have received a great deal of positive feedback,'' he said. ``I have also received comments about items that should be changed, and I have updated the book and slideshow to reflect these comments.'' He gave no specifics on which points he had revised. He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, ``I think that I'm finally getting a little better at it.'' While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of ``shrill alarmism.'' Some of Mr. Gore's centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe's warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore's message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process. It estimated that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches--down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent. Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. ``Climate change is a real and serious problem'' that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. ``The cacophony of screaming,'' he added, ``does not help.'' So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore's portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore's film did ``indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.'' But the June report, he added, shows ``that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.'' Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore's claim that the energy industry ran a ``disinformation campaign'' that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement. ``Hardly a week goes by,'' Dr. Peiser said, ``without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,'' including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming. Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms. ``Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,'' Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. ``Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.'' In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that ``our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this'' threatened change. Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to ``20 times greater than the warming in the past century.'' Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. ``I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company,'' Dr. Easterbrook told the group. ``And I'm not a Republican.'' Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming's effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria. ``For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,'' Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. ``We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.'' Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity. ``On balance, he did quite well--a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,'' Dr. Oppenheimer said. ``For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you're going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.''

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I genuinely appreciate that. As I said, we simply want to do this for a couple of years to gauge all aspects and the impacts of this action. I look forward to working with the chairman and other members of the committee to try to address the issue.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am offering this amendment today to simply create a 2-year pilot program to extend the summer pool at Lake Barkley, which is located in my district in western Kentucky. Now, I would reiterate that this amendment does not do anything in a permanent nature, but simply asks for a 2-year pilot project. Lake Barkley is one of those very shallow dams throughout the country. At the summer pool, the level is 359 feet. Now, when Lake Barkley was created, in order to create it, a number of small communities in western Kentucky were flooded in the 1960s. And even today, despite the extensive use of this lake, old foundations, streets, highways and railroads are still visible in shallow areas in the lake. And when the Corps begins drawing down the summer pool, moving to the winter pool, they begin on July 1, right in the middle of summer season. As a result of that, it has created an unusually dangerous situation for recreational users of the lake, particularly boaters. And we have had significant and many serious accidents on this lake because of boats hitting tree stumps, old road beds and other obstructions. Just last August, a boating accident occurred, resulting in two fatalities, severely injuring three other people, which is just one example of how dangerous this early lowering of the lake can be. In addition, recreation at the lake in the summer generates millions of dollars for a lot of small businessmen and women. And as I said, the fact that the Corps begins going to the winter pool in July, it does create significant issues for that area. And so as I said, this amendment simply asks the Corps to extend that summer pool level of 359 feet from July until around Labor Day. Now, it is my understanding that the chairman and other members of the committee, through information I received from staff, would prefer that I not offer this amendment today. And I am going to withdraw the amendment. But I would ask the chairman and the other members of the committee to please work with me. I would ask them to work with me to explore opportunities to address this problem in western Kentucky affecting Lake Barkley through either, one, considering my freestanding bill that establishes this 2-year project at the committee, or working with me maybe on the WRDA bill. Or I would not even object if the chairman wanted to consider this at the conference with the Senate. But I am simply asking, and I will withdraw the amendment, and would ask the chairman and the members of the committee to work with me to try to address this unique problem affecting Lake Barkley.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.