Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct privilege of rising to honor an outstanding Hoosier for his patriotism and military service. CAPT Stanton E. Cope served with honor in the United States Navy from 1989-2012, where he served in the Medical Service Corps as entomologist for 20 years.

Captain Stanton Elijah Cope was born January 5, 1954 in Huntington, Indiana. In 1976, he graduated from Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania with a B.A. degree in Biology and received a Master of Science degree in Entomology from the University of Delaware in 1981. In 1988, he completed his Doctorate in Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and was commissioned in the United States Navy.

Captain Cope's first assignment, in 1989, was to the Navy Disease Vector Ecology and Control Center, Jacksonville, Florida, where he served as the Head of the Operations Department. In June 1992, he reported to the Naval Medical Research Unit No. 3, Cairo, Egypt, where he served as Head, Medical Zoology Division and Head, Risk Assessment Branch. In July 1994, Captain Cope reported to the Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit No. 6, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, as Assistant Head, Department of Entomology and became Head in August 1995. He also served as Special Assistant to the Officer in Charge for Operational Issues. In August 1997, he reported to the Navy Environmental Health Center in Norfolk, Virginia as Entomology Department Head. In January 2000, he was selected to be Executive Assistant to the Assistant

Chief for Operational Medicine and Fleet Support, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Washington, DC. Captain Cope served as the Executive Officer, Naval Institute for Dental and Biomedical Research, Great Lakes, Illinois from September 2001-August 2004, at which time he fleeted up to Commanding Officer. He also served as the Surgeon General's Specialty Leader for Navy Entomology August 2002-May 2004. In August 2006, Captain Cope reported to the Armed Forces Pest Management Board as Research Liaison Officer. In August 2008 he took over as Director.

During his tenure as the Director, Captain Cope distinguished himself by superior service. He organized his workforce into three divisions: Operations, Research and Information Services, aligning the AFPMB to increase efficiency and enhance direct warfighter support. He was directly responsible for superior improvements to installation pest management and insect-borne disease prevention programs resulting in increased readiness and warfighter protection. During this period, he demonstrated the highest levels of leadership, initiative and dedication to duty. As a result, his leadership of DoD pest management received international recognition for contributions to the global public health community for their work on the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI).

Furthermore, in support of U.S. allies, Captain Cope reestablished liaison with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) counterparts to foster effective and efficient multi-national medical entomology, preventive medicine and pest management collaborations during contingency operations. Through NATO's Force Health Protection Working Group, he secured updates in the U.S. section to Standardization Agreement 2048, Chemical Methods of Insect and Rodent Control, which provided NATO members with information on pesticides that the U.S. may use during NATO operations.

Captain Cope's passion stayed with him after he left the service, as he maintains membership in the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, the American Mosquito Control Association and the Society for Vector Ecology. He is currently serving as the Director of the AMCA, Mid-Atlantic Region and serves on the board of Armed Forces Pest Management in Silver Spring, MD. In addition, he has presented at meetings, authored or co-authored over 70 scientific publications and holds an Adjunct Assistant Professorship at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.

Captain Cope is married to infectious disease epidemiologist Amyanne N. Keswani of St. Peter, Minnesota. They have a daughter, Kemmer Keswani and a son, Stanton Elijah.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me now to thank Captain Stanton E. Cope for his service and sacrifices for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to commend the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights on the opening of their new National Public Affairs Office here in Washington, DC.

I want to thank my friend Sam Brunelli, the President and CEO of Team Builders International, for the role he played in bringing the good work of the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights to my attention. Since 1969, the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights has tirelessly worked to educate the public about the dangers of some drugs. As part of this effort, CCHR has been at the forefront of the debate over whether parents' have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit; and that includes making decisions about evaluation and treatment of mental health conditions.

As some of my colleagues may recall, back in 2003 a Presidential Commission recommended that the government implement mental health screening in public school. The Commission contended that early detection, assessment, and links with treatment and support programs would help prevent mental health problems from worsening. However, neither the Commission's report nor any related mental health screening proposal under discussion at the time required active parental consent before a child was subjected to mental health screening.

I appreciate the value of having mental health problems diagnosed and treated early, but cutting the parents out of the process was deeply troubling to me. More often than not, the typical course of action when a child is diagnosed with a mental health condition--typically Attention Deficit Disorder, ADD, or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, ADHD, is to prescribe a powerful psychotropic drug, such as Ritalin. But these drugs have some serious side effects which include mania, violence and dependence. In fact, these drugs are so potentially dangerous that in 2007, under pressure from members of Congress and groups like CCHR, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, was finally compelled to require that the makers of all antidepressant medications update their black box warning on their products' labeling to include warnings about increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality.

Yet, inexplicably, not only were parents being cut out of the loop with regard to these drugs, parents who were informed, and who wanted to say no, were actually being threatened by school districts with child abuse charges for not drugging their children.

As a Christian, parent and grandparent, I have throughout my Congressional career staunchly defended the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children as they see fit. I believe this right is embedded in the U.S. Constitution, affirmed by Supreme Court case precedent, and exemplary of the inalienable rights and freedoms this country was founded on. To deny parents the right to know about the potential dangers of these drugs and the right to say ``no, this is not the right treatment for my child,'' is simply mindboggling. This is the same flawed mentality that condones putting toxic substances like mercury in medical products like vaccines and dental fillings and then not telling people the mercury is in there. Mercury is the most toxic substances on earth after radioactive materials. It has no place in any medication for children or adults; and I'm proud of the work I've done in Congress to get mercury removed from medicine. I'm also proud to have worked with CCHR and other like-minded groups to raise awareness of the potential dangers of psychotropic drugs, and to fight to put parents back in charge of their children's health care decisions instead of government bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, the price of defending our freedoms from the intrusion of big government is to be eternally vigilant. The economic and political life of America has changed profoundly over the last four years, and once again, the government is trying to intrude upon the relationship of parent to child.

In the past, parents were threatened by government officials with child abuse charges if they resisted efforts to drug their children with ADHD medications. Today, parents are penalized by government for sending their children to school with a brownbag lunch that does not meet some arbitrary government nutritional guidelines. These may seem like widely separate things but they are at the most basic level the same; an usurpation by the government of the right of parents to make decisions for their children.

Under the rubric of ``Children's Rights,'' advocate of big government are pushing the argument that children should have, and the state should recognize, greater autonomy for children from their parents in deciding how to live, or that government agencies must have the power to step in to protect children from ``bad parents.''

I believe this concept of ``Children's Rights'' is flawed for two reasons. First, parents possess the maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions that children lack. Second, as the Supreme Court said in the case of Parham v. JR.19 simply ``because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks, does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision''--nor in my opinion should it--``from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.''

In his Oval Office farewell address, President Ronald Reagan said two things that are particularly relevant to our discussion tonight; he said: ``As government expands, liberty contracts;'' and that ``All great change in America begins at the dinner table.''

President Reagan understood that family is the foundation of our society; and that parents do have a profound impact on their children. If we are to recapture a common denominator of right and wrong in America, we must begin in the homes of America with conversations at the dinner table between moms and dads and growing children.

By respecting and defending a parents' fundamental right to teach their children that there is acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior, appropriate speech and inappropriate speech we can re-instill in our children a moral character of trust, honesty, respect and tolerance, qualities that are so necessary to having safe and prosperous communities--and which are at the core of CCHR's own philosophy.

Make no mistake, though, stopping the further spread of government power in the area of the family and ensuring that parental rights are protected with the strength and certainty they deserve will not be a quick and easy victory. That is why organizations like CCHR are so important. If good people like the men and women who work for CCHR refuse to give up the fight, victory is inevitable.

Again, I want to commend CCHR on the opening of their beautiful new facility here in Washington, DC and wish them good fortune in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor an outstanding Hoosier for his patriotism and service during World War II. Brinton W. Overholt, Sr., 90-years young this year, served with honor in the United States Army from 1944-1946. Trained stateside at Camp Blanding, Fort Meade, and finally Camp Shanks; Brinton was eventually shipped overseas to support the Allied march liberation of France. Landing in Le Havre, France, Brinton was assigned as a casualty replacement for the 106th Division, 423rd Battalion, Squad 4 of the 3rd Platoon. The 106th Division served with distinction in France; helping to trap some 20,000 German soldiers around St. Lazare; a vital submarine base near Paris. Of the Division's original compliment of 1500 soldiers; only 88 would survive the war.

Shooting the 81 mm mortar, Mr. Overholt served in the Heavy Weapons Unit. Later, he would become the squad leader, directing the shots of the mortar men. While Overholt was still in France, Nazi Germany surrendered; and the 106th Division became part of the United States Army of Occupation in Germany.

The American soldiers moved into German houses and Brinton Overholt was assigned the of taking inventory of the household so that if the U.S. soldiers broke anything or if something went missing, our government would replace it. Brinton was in the midst of an inventory when an officer informed him that he was going to be shipped out to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. Fortunately, for Brinton and the Japanese, Brinton was granted a 30- day furlough in the U.S., before his rotation to Japan and the war would be over before his furlough ended.

Brinton spent the rest of his military career at Camp Campbell in Kentucky. (now called Fort Campbell) where he served as a medic's and Chaplain's Assistant to special troops. Brinton would in fact serve under three different Chaplains over the time he was there--including Chaplain John Brown.

If you ask him about his service during the war, Brinton will tell you quite honestly and matter-of-factly, that he doesn't consider himself a hero, just a kid who served his country because it was the right thing to do. I ask my colleagues to join with me today to honor and thank Brinton W. Overholt Sr.; because it is the right thing to do.

I move to strike the last word.

I support the military 100 percent and I think we ought to give them all the equipment and spend the funds that are necessary to make sure they're prepared to fight a war anyplace. And I think we need to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda and make sure that the threats to America are eliminated, at least as much as is humanly possibly.

The reason I took 5 minutes to speak today is not because I don't support the military or the appropriation for the military, but because I was shaving the other day before I came into work and I heard the newsman talking about a young family and a young man that was in the military. I came out while I was shaving and I looked at the television. It was a beautiful family--young man and a woman and their child. And they announced that he had just been hit with an IED and lost both arms and both legs, and I was thinking what a tragedy for this young man and for his family and the horrible things they're going to have to endure throughout the rest of their lives.

And then I started thinking about all the technology we have. We have satellites that can pinpoint a pack of cigarettes on the ground, and we have drones that can fly over enemy territory and pick out a target and hit somebody with a Hellfire missile and blow them to smithereens. And somebody from a thousand miles away sitting at a computer with a television screen can direct that drone and that Hellfire missile. And I started wondering to myself: Why in the world don't we use more of those instead of sending young American men and women into harm's way day in and day out like we do? We have the technology to knock out anybody anyplace in the world that we want to.

So I would just like to ask this question of my colleagues: We have to have special forces. We have to go into certain spots and knock out bad guys. We've got to do that. But when we don't have to, when we know that the enemy is in a certain area, instead of sending our young men and women in there, why don't we send a drone over to a site that we've discovered from a satellite and blow the hell out of those people? Don't send our young men and women into that kind of a situation where they're going to lose their arms and their legs when we've spent all the money on this technology to stop the enemy. And that's my biggest concern. Why in the world don't we use that technology instead of young men and women going into harm's way when it's not necessary?

I understand war is important. I know we have to defeat the Taliban and those who would take away our freedoms. It's extremely important. And we should support the military every way we can, give them all the tools that are necessary. But let's use the tools that we have to stop the enemy as much as possible without putting young men and women in that situation. I don't want to turn on the television next week or next month and see more young men and women who have suffered this way. I've been out to Bethesda and Walter Reed and I've seen the damage that war does. And so if we're going to go to war--and we have to go to war, only when we have to. But if we do, let's use the technology we have and defeat the enemy and minimize the loss of life that our young men and women are experiencing.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There has been a lot of hyperbole and a lot of repetition, but a lot of the things that have been said haven't really been factual. So let's look at the facts:

Brian Terry was murdered. Hundreds of people have been murdered in Mexico with guns that went across the border. The Justice Department said in February of 2011 that they had no knowledge about this, and then 10 months later, they admitted they lied. Now they said they didn't know, and then they said they did. I don't know what you call that, but to me, it's a lie.

Then Chairman Issa tried again and again to get information so we could get to the bottom of this, like the 32 Democrats wanted, and they refused. He sent subpoenas; they refused. They hid behind this being an ongoing investigation and they couldn't give those documents. We got a fraction of the documents that should have been given to us, but they wouldn't do that.

Issa met with the Attorney General's people to try to come to some conclusion, some kind of a resolution of this so we wouldn't have to move the contempt citation; nothing, absolutely nothing.

And then finally, at the 11th hour, when we knew that we were going to have to move with the contempt citation, the President of the United States issues an executive order claiming executive privilege. Something is funny.

Something is wrong. There's just no question. Something is being hidden from the Congress and the American people. And no matter how much is being said here tonight, the fact of the matter is we aren't getting the information.

A Border Patrol agent has been killed, maybe two. Hundreds of people have been killed in Mexico with American guns that our government knew were going across that border. The Attorney General has not been giving us the information. The Justice Department has been hiding it from the Congress and the American people, and the President has claimed executive privilege. If that doesn't tell you something, nothing will.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2012 recipients of the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition (NECO), the Ellis Island Medal of Honor pays tribute to our Nation's immigrant heritage, as well as individual achievement. The medals are awarded to U.S. citizens from various ethnic backgrounds who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage. We honor these outstanding individuals because they create a better world for all of us in the future by the work they do today. Since the Medal's founding in 1986, more than 2,000 American citizens have received Ellis Island Medals of Honor, including six American Presidents, several United States Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, outstanding athletes, artists, clergy, and military leaders.

This medal is not about money, but about people who seized the opportunities this great country has to offer and who used those opportunities to not only better their own lives but make a difference in the lives of those around them. As we all know, citizens of the United States can trace their ancestry to many nations. The richness and diversity of American life makes us unique among the Nations of the world and is in many ways the key to why America is the most innovative country in the world. The Ellis Island Medals of Honor not only celebrate select individuals but also the pluralism and democracy that enabled our ancestors to celebrate their cultural identities while still embracing the American way of life. Even in the midst of difficult financial times, this award serves to remind us all that with hard work and perseverance anyone can achieve the American dream. In addition, by honoring these remarkable Americans, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to America. I commend NECO and its Board of Directors headed by my good friend, Nasser J. Kazeminy, for honoring these truly outstanding individuals for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as promote unity and a sense of common purpose in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the good works of NECO, and in congratulating all of the 2012 recipients of the Ellis Island Medals of Honor. I also ask unanimous consent that the names of this year's recipients be placed into the Congressional Record.

2012 Ellis Island Medal of Honor Recipients

A. Marshall Acuff, Jr., Michael W. Allen, PhD, Nancy

Arabian, Carol M. Baldwin, Michael D. Bennett, Neil Berg,

Peter Bheddah, Ravishankar Bhooplapur, Herman Chanen, Sam

Chang, Johnson Chen, Sanjiv Chopra, MD, MACP, William A.

Cooper, Bita Daryabari and Helene Irma der Stepanian.

Leena Doshi, MD, NYS Lieutenant Governor Robert Duffy,

Angelo Dundee, Robert F. Dunn, Annie Falk, Leonard A.

Ferrari, PhD, Jason C. Fu, Bob Gaudio, Fletcher Doud Gill,

Nishan Goudsouzian, MD, Richard H. Grace, Dr. Peter Gruss,

VADM Robert S. Harward, USN, David A. Hirsch and Chung-Wha

Hong.

Surendra Jain, MD, James J. Jimmerson, Esq., Robert Trent

Jones, Jr., Dr. Henry (Hyun Suk) Kang, Kevork Karajerjian,

AIA, Declan Kelly, Howard Kessler, Michele Kessler, Dalida

Keuroghlian, Dongsuk Kim, Paul Klaassen, Gerda Weissmann

Klein, Emrah Kovacoglu, Thomas C. Lee, MD and Harry

Leibowitz, PhD.

Sugar Ray Leonard, Hoi Ken Leung, William Li, MD, Emily E.

Lin, AIA, Superintendent David Luchsinger, Felix Luu, David

E. Luzzi, PhD, MBA, David S. Mack, Spiro J. Macris, DDS, Kai

D. Mai, DDS, Ray Mancini, Steven G. Mandis, John A.

Mattiacci, DPM, Leonard Mazur and James H. McGuire.

Hon. Gregory W. Meeks, Papken Megerian, Lt Col Ed Monroe,

USAF (Ret), Dr. Gordon H. Mueller, Colonel Mark Mykleby, USMC

(Ret.), Ryan Nabors, MSIR, Ohannes Nercessian, MD, Helen Ngan

Shim Ng, General Raymond T. Odierno, USA, BGen Joseph

L. Osterman, USMC, Edith Padilla-Serrano, John A. Peca, Helen

K. Persson, Alice Petrossian and H.E. Dr. Vanda Pignato.

First Deputy Commissioner Rafael Pineiro, NYPD, Pasquale

Pistorio, CAPT Wayne Porter, USN, Dominic L. Pugliani, Thomas

C. Quick, Edward J. Rappa, Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ghassan

M. Saab, Peter Kaivon Saleh, DrPH, Theresa Patnode Santmann,

Wido L. Schaefer, Dr. Tamer Seckin, Dr. Hasu P. Shah, Peter

Stephen Shelley, MME, Brooke Shields, Joan Ellyn Silber, PhD,

Dr. Rajendra Singh, Ronald E. Spears and Joyce Philibosian

Stein.

John P. Thomas, MD, FACS, Dr. Ronan Tynan, Frankie Valli,

Mohammad Reza Vaziri, Helen verDuin Palit, DHL, CAPT Joe

Vojvodich, USCG, Paul E. Wakim, DO, Jose M. Wiley, MD, FACC,

FACP, FSCAI, Maj. Gen. James L. Williams, USMC (Ret.), Dr.

Carolyn Y. Woo and Tommy C. Xie.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in Indiana last week due to family health problems and therefore unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 294 through 314 inclusive.

Had I been present I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote 294; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 295; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 296; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 297; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 298; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 299; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 300; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 301; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 302; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 303; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 304; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 305; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 306; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 307; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 308; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 309; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 310; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 311; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 312; ``nay'' on rollcall vote 313; and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 314.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Dr. Kamel Fuad Muakkassa, a neurosurgeon whose passion, intellect and generosity changed the lives of everyone around him, died on Sunday at the age of 62.

Dr. Muakkassa's life was one dedicated to attending lives. A supremely skilled neurosurgeon, he had a zest for life so profound that it will live on in all those who had the privilege of knowing him. He was married to the love of his life, Rola Mansour for 27 years. He enjoyed spending time with his wife, his children and grandchildren, upon whom he imparted many of his best qualities, including his giving nature, his unique love of life, his humor and his wit. Dr. Muakkassa mastered an extraordinarily wide range of talents and insisted on sharing his expertise by teaching those around him. His passions included playing golf and backgammon, travel and international affairs. All of this was in addition to the undeniable impact of his life's work: his relentless clinical and humanitarian achievements in the world of neurosurgery.

As Primary Founder, President and CEO of The Center for Neuro and Spine Inc. (CNS) and former Chief of Pediatric Neurosurgery of Children's Hospital of Akron, Dr. Muakkassa was a Board Certified Neurological Surgeon who had been serving the community for over 27 years. He most recently co-founded Akron General's Neuroscience Institute in 2011, which focuses on the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitations of the disorders of the brain, spine and peripheral nervous system. Dr. Muakkassa performed more than 8,000 neurosurgical procedures and treated over 10,000 patients and had the uniquely broad background of addressing both pediatric and adult spine, brain and peripheral neurological disorders. Dr. Muakkassa advanced the treatment options in his community by being the very first surgeon in Akron to perform an Anterior Cervical Diskectomy with Fusion and Plating. Thousands of these surgeries are now performed here annually. Additionally, Dr. Muakkassa was the first surgeon to perform cutting- edge awake surgery for treating epilepsy patients at Akron General Medical Center back in 1986. Other firsts include placing pumps or spinal electrodes for pain management and spasticity, vagal nerve stimulators for depression and seizures and untethering complex spina bifida tumors.

Dr. Muakkassa graduated from The American University of Beirut with a degree in Medicine in 1974. He went on to complete his residency in General Surgery where he served as Chief Resident. Dr. Muakkassa continued his education with a residency program in Neurosurgery at The Upstate Medical Center in New York where he was again elected Chief Resident. Pursuing his pediatric interests, Dr. Muakkassa studied Pediatric Neurology at Strong Memorial Hospital and completed his Pediatric Neurosurgery fellowship at the prestigious Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto where he served as Chief Fellow.

Dr. Muakkassa most recently served as Associate Clinical Professor in Neurosurgery at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (presently NEOMED). He also served as Chief of the Neurosurgery division at Barberton Citizens Hospital and Mercy Medical Center. He is published in peer review journals and received multiple awards including the Summit County Award of Excellence for Outstanding Medical Services to the Community, Teacher of the Year Award and the award for medical services to the Bosnian war victims. He was also a member of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), the Congress of Neurosurgeons (CNS), Summit County Medical Society, Ohio State Medical Association, International Society of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Ohio State Neurological Society and the Joint Section on Neuro-trauma and Critical Care of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.

In addition to his professional accomplishments, Kamel devoted considerable time and resources to charitable organizations. Most notably, he was president of the Druze Orphans and Charitable Organization, which provides housing, education and healthcare to Lebanese children in need.

Dr. Muakkassa, survived by his wife, Rola; his son, Fuad; his daughter, Leila and grandchildren, will forever be an accomplished Doctor, philanthropist, husband, and father whose dedication to medicine, and selflessness will be carried through the legacy he has left in the field of medicine.

When I was chairman of Government Reform and Oversight, we had hearings for about 2 years on the autism issue. And while I'm not going to speak on this particular motion, I would just like to say that it is a real tragedy that we are facing in this country. We used to have one in 10,000 people that were autistic-- kids--and now it is 1 in 88. It is an absolute epidemic, and there's really not much of a recourse for the parents. These kids are going to live a normal life expectancy, and it's going to cost the taxpayers of this country and all the States a ton of money. And so we have to get a handle on this as quickly as possible.

So I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. I'm not going to be able to support his position, but if I can work with you in any way to deal with this problem, I hope you'll contact me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in congratulating President Ma Ying-jeou for winning this year's presidential election in Taiwan, the Republic of China, ROC. He will be officially inaugurated as the fifth freely elected president of the Republic of China on May 20, reminding the world once again that Taiwan is a nation to be admired for her unwavering commitment to democracy and freedom.

It has been my joy to watch the success of the Taiwanese people in overcoming great obstacles and I know that President Ma will continue his record of achievement in this, his second term. We admire Taiwan's flourishing market economy and vibrant democracy. Their successes are directly attributable to the wisdom and industry of the people of Taiwan. Today nearly everyone in Taiwan is middle class and enjoys good nutrition, good health, excellent schools, low crime rates and safe neighborhoods. Politically, people are free to voice their opinions. Press freedom and human rights are guaranteed by the ROC's Constitution.

It is my hope that many countries in Asia will follow the example of this great island as a model of democracy and freedom. My colleagues and I greatly admire the accomplishments that have taken place since the end of martial law and the establishment of democracy in the 1980's. I wish the Taiwanese the best in the challenges ahead, particularly in handling cross-strait relations. I hope all of my colleagues here in the House of Representatives will be continually supportive as the Taiwanese pursue a peaceful solution to the China issue. I believe that peace and stability within the Taiwan Strait are in the best interest of the global community.

I have always cherished Taiwan's close friendship with the United States and I admire Taiwan's recent economic and democratic achievements. We look forward to working with the government and people of Taiwan in further strengthening and clarifying the commercial, cultural and other relations between the United States and Taiwan, particularly Taiwan's defense needs and Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organizations.

Again, congratulations, President Ma.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained earlier today on personal business and therefore unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 253, 254, 255, and 256. Had I been present I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote 253; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 254; ``yea'' on rollcall vote 255; and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 256.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my strong support in favor of the H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012. This legislation reflects the support I have for the Republican Budget and the principles I have stood for during my almost thirty years in this House, a return to fiscal sanity and responsibility. This legislation also makes certain that the brave men and women in our Armed Forces will have the resources to protect this Nation from the many threats we face in an uncertain world.

However, I do have one concern. During my tenure here I have been an advocate for equal treatment for our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico, who have defended this Nation in record numbers in every military conflict since U.S. citizenship was conferred on them in 1917. Puerto Ricans take pride in their American citizenship and our Nation should be grateful for their service.

My dear friend and former colleague, Governor Luis Fortuno, was recently able to accomplish what other Puerto Rican Governors have tried to do for decades in lessening the disparities between the funding of federal healthcare programs in the territories and the states. Through his hard work, persistence and dedication, Governor Fortuno was able to obtain an increase in Medicaid funding for the US territories that reduces the gap. Unfortunately, the available legislative vehicle in which this could be accomplished was Obamacare, which I have been a staunch opponent of for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with Medicaid in Puerto Rico. I am, as a result, troubled that we have included the repeal of the expansion of Medicaid for Puerto Rico and the other territories in H.R. 4966. I believe there are other ways to cut spending that do not contribute to the perception that Puerto Ricans are less deserving U.S. citizens than residents of the states.

I want to assure our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico that the action we take today is just a step in what promises to be a long budget negotiation. As we continue to move forward to repeal Obamacare, I know I am not alone among my Republican colleagues in the belief that we should adequately fund federal healthcare programs in Puerto Rico and the other US territories. As we continue to work this year to reach an agreement on the budget with the Senate, I am hopeful that the principle of equal treatment for Puerto Rico will not be lost, and that the final budget product will bring our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico closer than ever to the parity they deserve in federal healthcare programs.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to the situation in Bahrain. Since gained independence from the British in the 1970's, Bahrain has forged close links with the United States, and become one of our most important allies in the strategically important Persian Gulf region. In fact, Bahrain is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.

Since last year, however, the country has been disrupted by a series of anti-government demonstrations. Understanding how important our relationship with Bahrain is, especially to our efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, I recently traveled to Bahrain to assess the situation first-hand. And I would like to thank Dr. Al Khalafalla and the Bahrain American Council for helping to make my visit a success.

I think it's important that we get the proper perspective on what's going on over there. There is no question there have been problems in the past. There has been overreaction by the police in certain instances in the past year, year and a half. As a result, there were people who were hurt severely when they were demonstrating in the streets of Bahrain. But the King and the Crown Prince have worked very hard to solve this problem. As a matter of fact, the King appointed an outside commission, and the commission's report and reform recommendations are strongly supported by both sides of the dispute. Yet, the parties involved seem to be having difficulty approaching the conference table. Why?

One of the problems they have over there is the Iranian Government is working to try to undermine many of the countries in the Persian Gulf, and Bahrain is one of them. Some have suggested that the demonstrations have been infiltrated by outside radical elements--supported by Iran-- dedicated to destabilizing and undermining the Bahrain Government. The evidence is inconclusive but the possibility of Iran doing just that is plausible. Whatever the reasons, for the demonstrators, this conflict is not going to be resolved in Bahrain, it must be resolved through negotiation.

I am submitting an article from the May 1, 2012 edition of the New York Times for the Record which I believe lays out the case for the United States to actively encourage both sides to to take a step back, take a deep breath, and commit to resolving their differences around the conference table. I strongly urge my colleagues to read these articles.

[From the New York Times, May 1, 2012]

The Prince and the Ayatollah

(By Ed Husain)

When I was invited to visit Bahrain by members of the royal

family, I hesitated. They had crushed peaceful protesters

last year, and their police had used tear gas against human

rights activists. Like everybody else, including some of the

Bahraini policemen I later spoke with, I was appalled at the

violence and thought the monarchy had blood on its hands. But

I felt that declining the offer was irresponsible. I wanted

to know the monarchy's side of the story. So I accepted the

invitation--on the condition that I was free to meet

Bahrain's opposition.

Bahrain is a tiny island nation of 600,000 citizens, with a

Parliament of only 40 members, and it cannot be understood if

looked at in isolation. For one thing, it stands at the

forefront of a regional cold war. Saudi Arabia lies to the

west, connected by a 25-kilometer causeway built jointly by

the Saudis and Bahrainis. To the east, across the waters of

the Gulf, lies Iran. Both Tehran and Riyadh have major stakes

in Bahrain.

En route to Bahrain, I stopped by in Riyadh and had many

conversations with top government officials, journalists and

academics. Their views were clear: Saudi Arabia would not

stand by and see Bahrain's ruling al-Khalifa family fall from

power. The Saudis sent in soldiers to help the al-Khalifas

regain control of Bahrain in March 2011 and are prepared to

do so again.

If King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa abdicates, they asked,

then who would be next among Arab kings? What consequences

would the ensuing chaos have on global energy supplies? If

power falls into the hands of the main Shiite opposition

group, Bahrain could join Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Syria and

Lebanon under the Iranian sphere of influence in the Middle

East.

In Bahrain, I was a guest of the king's son, Crown Prince

Salman bin Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, who, in the context of

the country's current political climate, is a liberal's

liberal. Educated in Washington and Cambridge, England, the

42-year-old prince spoke

about Britain's constitutional monarchy, the dire need for

political reform in his country, and his yearning for a

political settlement with the opposition.

He appeared genuinely contrite about the excesses of the

government in Bahrain, but also convinced that the opposition

has no vision of how to improve matters. ``The path to hell

is paved with good intentions,'' he said. Constantly, he

referred to the need for ``evolution'' rather than

``revolution.''

Within the ruling family, he led the charge for reform last

year, but was abandoned by Al Wefaq, the main opposition

party, midway through discussions. The party kept changing

its demands and the leaders were divided over what they

wanted. This strengthened the hand of the more conservative

wing of the royal family, led by the conservative, long-

serving prime minister, Prince Khalifa bin Sulman al-Khalifa,

74.

The opposition wants the prime minister to resign, but

neither the king nor the crown prince can dare ask a family

elder to depart in ignominy.

Just as there are divisions within the royal family, there

are serious splits in Bahrain's Shiite political scene. Not

all the Shiites in Bahrain want to topple the monarchy. Nor

is the opposition composed only of democrats who simply want

to oust a monarchy.

Again and again, in villages and in meetings with Shiite

opposition figures, one name kept coming up: Ayatollah Issa

Qassim, spiritual leader of Al Wefaq, whose writ runs large

across the Shiite opposition movement. Educated in Iran, his

sermons are generally anti-American, anti-democracy and

vehemently pro-Iran. When Iran's green movement challenged

the mullahs in Tehran, Ayatollah Qassim accused the West of

``trying to divide an otherwise peaceful country'' and of

``hatred toward Islam.''

He is also intolerant of Shiites with divergent views back

home. Three Shiite members of Bahrain's Parliament explained

to me the consequences of daring to challenge Ayatollah

Qassim. When they decided not to honor Al Wefaq's call to

boycott elections last October, Al Wefaq-controlled mosques

called on people to attack them; firebombs were thrown at

their homes and their children were harassed on the streets.

They live in fear for their lives, and they are not alone.

Ayatollah Qassim's supporters not only undermined the crown

prince's efforts at reconciliation, but in recent weeks have

taken to rioting in villages across Bahrain. In Sitra, one

such village outside Manama, I spoke in Arabic with a police

official, a Shiite, who said: ``I am Bahraini before I am

Shiite. We must live as Bahrainis and do what's right for our

country, and not be controlled by Iran's clerics.''

Like Bahraini Sunnis, the official felt the monarchy was

not giving him the means to respond to the rioters. They have

no guns, he complained, which left them at the mercy of

rioters with home-made arrows and Molotov cocktails. ``Last

year, my colleagues in the army and interrogation units were

wrong to torture protesters,'' he said. ``But what about the

attacks on us now? How are we to defend ourselves?''

Ayatollah Qassim has not called on his supporters to cease

violence against the police, government and dissenting Shiite

leaders. Instead, he has demanded that Jawad Hussain, one of

the legislators I spoke with, and other dissenting Shiite

political leaders and clerics come to the ayatollah's mosque

during Friday services and publicly repent for betraying

``the community.''

Ayatollah Qassim's message does not justify the torture and

human rights violations exercised by the government of

Bahrain. The demands of the opposition for an end to

discrimination in government jobs and for greater political

freedoms are valid. But calls for greater human rights must

not be selective. Last year the opposition blocked bills that

gave women equality and freedom in Bahrain because the

ayatollahs opposed it, while the monarchy and Sunni parties

supported it.

Bahrain is an important nation because it is a focal point

of what is happening in the Middle East today--the battle to

find a balance between preserving the best values of the

Islamic tradition while the region eases its way into the

modern world.

It is crucial that Western nations help the country achieve

this balance, and that they not provide diplomatic cover for

rioters and clerics in the name of human rights and

democracy.

Instead, they should be using every pressure point to

strengthen the reformist strands within the monarchy in

support of political change, equal right's for women and an

end to the language of Shiite sectarianism in Bahrain.

Negotiations around the political table are the only way

forward in Bahrain.

Ed Husain is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at

the Council on Foreign Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored and humbled to rise today to honor a fellow Hoosier, Lt. Colonel Fredrick L. Spaulding, who was recently awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, our Nation's second highest award for military valor, for his extraordinary heroism at the Battle of Fire Base Ripcord during the Vietnam War.

Between April and July 1970, the United States and North Vietnamese forces fought for control of Fire Support Base Ripcord in the A Shau Valley. July of that year saw the heaviest fighting for control of the base. This battle would mark the last major confrontation between U.S. ground forces and North Vietnamese forces in the war. Then-Captain Spaulding was tasked with planning and coordinating all air assets involved in the orderly withdrawal of the two U.S. Companies being besieged at the Base by elements of four North Vietnamese Army divisions.

Although our soldiers fought bravely they were significantly outnumbered by the North Vietnamese. By July 22nd, the United States' position became completely untenable; and due to heavy anti-aircraft fire from the enemy, extraction of U.S. soldiers had to be suspended. Throughout the night the U.S. troops hung on often being forced to engage in hand to hand combat to defend themselves.

On July 23rd--the last day of the battle--Captain Spaulding voluntarily left the safety of Camp Evans to provide direct aid to his besieged comrades and over the course of the day--at great personal risk--he helped safely extract the final U.S. personnel.

According to the official account, Captain Spaulding ``took command of a Scout helicopter to locate, mark and direct fire from all available land and air assets against enemy positions. While taking intense fire, Captain Spaulding directly exposed himself to enemy fire while marking enemy positions with smoke grenades. . . . Once the grenades were exhausted Captain Spaulding fired his sidearm at the enemy until his helicopter was rendered inoperable by the mounting enemy fire. When the pilot refused to continue the mission, Captain Spaulding procured a second helicopter. The second aircraft was subsequently damaged by enemy fire, as was the third helicopter that Spaulding obtained. In a fourth helicopter, Captain Spaulding returned to the area of operations to successfully continue the evacuation of the two besieged companies by continuing to draw fire upon himself and the aircraft.''

Major General Benjamin L. Harrison who was Colonel and Commanding Officer of the 3rd Brigade 101st Airborne Division at the time of the Battle of Ripcord, described Captain Spaulding as: ``. . . one of the most outstanding combat officers I have observed during my two tours in Vietnam . . . his battle skill was instrumental in saving many lives that day.''

Four years ago, with the support of some of Colonel Spaulding's old comrades, I petitioned the Army to recommend the Colonel for the Congressional Medal of Honor for his action during the Battle of Ripcord. Although the Army concurred that Colonel Spaulding's actions were extraordinary and worthy of suitable recognition, they declined to support the petition for the Congressional Medal of Honor. I personally believe that the Army is wrong in this instance. There is no doubt in my mind that Colonel Spaulding earned the Congressional Medal of Honor that day. Nevertheless, It is my distinct honor to congratulate Colonel Spaulding on his receiving the Distinguished Service Cross.

In addition to his military honors, Colonel Spaulding's leadership and mentoring abilities has been recognized by his peers through membership in the Army Ranger Hall of Fame, the Officer Candidate School (OCS) Hall of Fame, Distinguished Member of the Regiment (506th Airborne Infantry Regiment), and the presidency of the 82nd Airborne Division Association.

Even after his retirement from the Army, and with the unwavering support of his wife Micki, Colonel Spaulding continued to serve his community, state and country. To his community he donated his time to coach the local high school golf team, and he frequently speaks at various school and association events about the value of military service. To his beloved state of Indiana, he has shared his extensive military experience and knowledge by helping to train the men and women of the Indiana National Guard. To his country, he was instrumental in launching a new company dedicated to national defense and the training of veterans.

Colonel Spaulding's life of service, and his unselfish heroism and acts of bravery while in combat, are an inspiration to all Americans. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing this outstanding Hoosier! Thank you and congratulations, Colonel.

First of all, I want to thank my good friend Congressman Poe of Texas for putting a face on the problem of high energy prices and high gasoline prices.

I listened to all of the things that you were reading there from your constituents about not being able to go to work or buying huge amounts of gas two or three times a week, and it just breaks your heart. You know, I went to the store the other night and I bought two oranges. They were on sale at a dollar a piece. Two oranges for a dollar a piece. The reason for that is not just because they're growing them and it's costing more; it's because the transportation by diesel trucks and gasoline-powered trucks has gone up so much that they have to pass that onto the consumers with higher prices. If you talk to any man or woman who goes to the store, they'll tell you that they're feeling it when they buy their groceries, as well as at the gas pump.

I'd like to tell you a little story real quickly. You'll find this humorous because you talked about gasoline being 20-some cents when you were a little bit younger. I presume it was a little bit younger.

We were on a trip with some friends of ours, and we went to an island down off the coast of Florida in the Caribbean. This friend of mine and I, we rented two little motor scooters to go out to the corner of the island. Gasoline on the island was very high; it was 50 cents a gallon. He says, I'm not paying 50 cents a gallon for gasoline. So we took what we had in the cycles and we rode out there, and he ran out the gasoline. We had to get a coffee can and turn one cycle upside down to get enough gas in his cycle to get back. Well, we couldn't get my cycle turned back on. So he tried to pull me and my motorcycle, with my wife on the back, with a string back to the hotel room where we were staying, and we couldn't do it. It about broke my finger off.

So they left me at a Portuguese gasoline station where nobody spoke English, and they didn't understand a thing I was saying. My face was burned to a pulp from the sun, and I ended up not getting back until late that night with an almost third-degree burn because he wouldn't pay 50 cents for a gallon of gas. Imagine what he would think today at having to pay $4 for a gallon of gas. The poor guy would just die.

Let me just look at this chart. My colleague was talking just a moment ago--and I wish all of the people in America, if I could talk to them, could see this chart. It shows that back in the early part of the Obama administration, gasoline was about $2.68 a gallon, and now in some parts of the country it is over $4 a gallon. It's killing the economy, it's killing people who have to go to work, as Congressman Poe said, and we have the resources to deal with it.

The thing I wanted to talk about real quickly was--and I talked to Congressman Poe about this--Interior Secretary Salazar, as well as the head of the EPA and the Energy Department, are having an all-out assault on Members of Congress who are pointing out that we have energy in this country that can be tapped to lower the price of

energy. They're attacking us, saying that we're just raising red herrings and not dealing with the problems as we should. I want to read this to you. Mr. Salazar, the head of the Interior Department says:

It's in this imagined energy world where we see this

growing and continued divide in the energy debate in America.

But the divide is not among ordinary Americans; it is between

some people here in Washington, D.C.

I guess they mean you and me, Congressman Poe.

He said:

It's a divide between the real energy world that we work on

every day and the imagined, fairytale world.

And the President of the United States has said on a number of occasions that we're doing more drilling right now than we ever have and that the American people are being misled.

In addition to the chart I have on gasoline prices, I brought this chart down. This chart, Congressman Poe, shows the number of applications for permits to drill and how they've been affected since the Obama administration has taken place. So I just want to go through these facts. If the President were paying attention, and if I were talking to him--but I know I can't--if I were talking to him, I would say, Mr. President, these are the facts. And I don't know who's giving you these facts down there at the White House, but, Mr. President, you ought to take a look at these facts because they're accurate.

First of all, according to the American Petroleum Institute, the number of new permits to drill issued by the Bureau of Land Management is down by 40 percent, from an average of over 6,400 permits in 2007 and 2008 to an average of 3,962 in 2009 to 2010. That's down by almost 40 percent. We're not drilling where we can. They're not issuing the permits.

During this same period, the number of new wells drilled on Federal land have declined. The number of oil wells have gone down by 40 percent, and the number of new Federal oil and gas leases issued by the Bureau of Land Management is down by almost 50 percent. Is it any wonder we're not going after our resources, we're depending on the Saudis, the people in South America and Venezuela, many of whom don't like us very much? As a result, we're paying more and more and more at the pump.

President Obama says that oil production is at an all-time high during his administration. However, the fact is oil production on Federal land fell by 11 percent last year, and oil production on private and State-owned land--where they couldn't touch it--did go up a little bit. That's what he's talking about. Where the government has control over permits, they're not letting us drill.

Federal lands hold an estimated 116 billion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to produce gasoline for 65 billion cars and fuel oil for 3.2 million households for 60 years. Western oil shale deposits alone are estimated to contain up to five times the amount of Saudi oil reserves. Seventy percent of this oil shale is on Federal land, and we can't get to it because the President and his administration will not let us.

According to a recent CRS report, there are over 21.6 million acres of land leased by the Federal Government that are not currently producing oil or that have not been approved for exploration. Returning to the levels of 2007 and 2008, when the administration started, Federal leasing and permitting levels would have projected an increase of 7 million to 13 million barrels per year of domestic oil production, but they cut it back.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, an estimated 12,000 to 30,000 American jobs would be created in energy producing Western States over the next 4 years if we just went back to where we were drilling in 2007 and 2008. Furthermore, the Keystone XL pipeline, which the President has stopped dead, would bring to our economy thousands of new jobs and transport 830,000 barrels of oil to American refineries, which would be converted into oil and gasoline that would help this economy and lower gas prices.

With gas prices, as my colleague said, very, very high at over $4 a gallon--and in some places here in Washington, it was up to $5 a gallon not too long ago. With gas prices that high and affecting every American, it's clear that the United States needs to become more energy independent and signal to the world that the U.S. is open to production. If we started drilling where we can and exploring where we can, make no mistake, the people who sell oil to us will lower the price because they want to be competitive and they don't want to lose market share.

Whether it's the administration dragging its heels on approving permits for offshore drilling or drilling on Federal land, not opening up land for exploration, or not approving the Keystone pipeline, the Obama administration's policies are failing everyday Americans and costing millions in potential government revenue and thousands of new jobs.

So no matter what the administration people are saying, like Mr. Salazar or the EPA or the Energy Department, the fact is we have enough energy in this country to move toward energy independence over the next 5 to 10 years. But this administration wants to go to new sources of energy like windmills and solar panels and geothermal and nuclear. And all those things are important, but while we're starting to transition to new sources of energy, we need to use the energy that we have, which would lower the cost of energy to the average citizen and lower the price of gasoline so people, as Mr. Poe has said, could get to work and live a competent, fair, friendly life.

With that, Mr. Poe, thank you so much for giving me this time. I'm a big admirer of yours.

Down 11 percent.

If I might, we sent $3 billion of American taxpayers' money to Brazil at a time when we have almost a $16 trillion national debt, and they're drilling in deepwater areas like we would be drilling in off the coast of Mexico. But we can't drill there because of the oil spill and because we can't get permits, so we're sending our taxpayers' dollars down to Brazil so they can do what we can't.

That's right.

Let me just say that Sarah Palin, whom everybody

in this country knows, she will tell you, and she's told people all across the country when she speaks, that they have a huge amount of oil in the ANWR and other parts of Alaska, and because of the radical environmentalist groups in this country, they can't drill up there.

Now, I've been up there. I was up there with Don Young. We saw the oil pipeline. If you look at the ANWR, there's nothing up there. You're not going to hurt any of the animals. There's a lot of bugs. There's a lot of vermin up there. But you're not going to hurt the animals by drilling up there, and it's certainly not going to hurt the environment. But it would help if we could bring that oil--millions of barrels of oil--down to the lower 48 States. It would have a tremendous impact, in my opinion, as well as you've said, off the Gulf of Mexico and off the Continental Shelf. We could really move toward energy independence over a period of the next 5 to 10 years. Like you said, it wouldn't happen immediately, but it would be a giant step in the right direction.

Well, T. Boone Pickens said--and everybody knows he's one of the big advocates of natural gas, which is a very clean-burning fuel. He said, if we would convert the tractor-trailer units that bring commerce to all of us, we could lower the cost for all those tractor-trailer units, as far as energy consumption is concerned, by 50 percent--cut it in two--and that would have a dramatic impact on things that are transported by tractor-trailer units.

I would just like to say that the President, when he took office--and I'll conclude with this, because you've done such a good job tonight. You've covered it very well. When the President took office, he said that his energy policies would, of necessity, cause energy costs to skyrocket. Well, as Ronald Reagan would say, ``Well, he did, and energy prices have skyrocketed,'' and we've got to do something about it.

The American people don't want to pay $4 or $5 a gallon for gasoline. They can't live that way. It's causing a deterioration in their standard of living.

So if I were talking to the President--and I know I can't, Madam Speaker. But if I were talking to him, I would say, Mr. President, why don't you get with the program. The American people really need your help. And if you don't pay attention to them regarding the energy policies, it's my humble opinion that there may be a big change in administrations next year. So for political survivability alone, you ought to take another look at what you're doing.

And with that, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me.