Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I do have the honor of representing Colorado Springs in my congressional district, which has the Missile Defense Agency and some of these other important assets for our Nation's defense, and I totally oppose this amendment of my colleague's from northern Colorado.

We do have ground-based interceptors on the west coast. We have ground-based interceptors in Alaska. We need them also on the east coast. We need to start planning for that. The money that would be slashed by this amendment would go to starting the planning process, and it doesn't happen overnight. It's a multiyear process. We need to start the planning now so we can defend the heavy population centers on the east coast from intercontinental ballistic missile threats. There are rogue nations in this world that mean us harm. There is the possibility of an accidental launch by a number of countries. We have to have that type of defense. The Institute for Defense Analyses did a study that Congress called for. It said we need an east coast site. Should this amendment pass, that money will not be there to begin that process.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama has been slashing missile defense for 3 years now. This bad amendment would continue that same trend. The CE I interceptor has worked three out of three times. That's a 100 percent record.

I also disagree with the gentleman from New Jersey, who just spoke, who said fix it first and then fund it. It's the other way around. You fund it so you can fix it.

They have it backwards, I'm afraid. A vote for this amendment is really nothing more than a vote against a strong missile defense for the United States. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment bans cooperative threat reduction funds going to Russia unless the Secretary of Defense, with the Secretary of State, first, can certify that the Russians are no longer supporting the Syrian regime, and, secondly, are not providing Syria, North Korea, or Iran equipment or technology to develop weapons of mass destruction.

This amendment sends a clear message condemning Russian support to Syria and the Assad regime. Since the anti-regime protests in Syria began in March of last year, Syrian security forces have killed well over 10,000 people. Some people say 12,000 people. They have wrongfully imprisoned tens of thousands more.

Russia, unfortunately, has proven repeatedly that they are willing to send technology and weapons to all buyers, including to regimes like Syria that are brutalizing their citizens.

We need to send a clear and consistent message to the Russians and to the rest of the world that the United States will not tolerate or support the oppression that the Syrian Government is inflicting on its people.

How can we continue to send military aid to Russia while they knowingly and deliberately turn around and support the brutal and corrupt Syrian regime?

The U.S. will not tolerate either direct or indirect military assistance to the Assad regime in Syria. We will not support the Russian transfer of weapons of mass destruction or ballistic missile equipment and technology to countries like Syria, Iran, or North Korea.

This amendment begins to put some teeth behind the words of the President and others in Congress on both sides of the aisle who have called for action. This amendment begins to support the seriousness behind our words. We must do everything we can to end the Assad regime's escalating use of indiscriminate violence against its people. Join me in supporting this important amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The term that's used for this program is the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Russia has to cooperate. When they're turning around and supporting regimes like Syria with, we think, $1 billion worth of weapons transfers last year alone, what kind of cooperation is that?

Yes. Originally, 20 years ago, this program had a laudable purpose, but now Russia is doing something that is a bigger threat to our security, I believe. We have to find some way of sending a message to a country that is supporting these brutal regimes. I believe that this is the best way to do it, and I would urge the support of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on May 20, 2012 the Honorable Ma Ying-jeou will be sworn in for a second term as President of the Republic of Taiwan. President Ma has already served four years as president and his tireless dedication to public service has been rewarded by the people of Taiwan with a well-deserved reelection this January.

During President Ma's first term, Taiwan has been accepted as an Observer in the World Health Organization, reduced tensions with the People's Republic of China, and crafted 16 trade agreements. I rise to congratulate President Ma on his election and the people of Taiwan for their decades of dedication to democracy and freedom.

As demonstrated over the decades, the United States of America and Taiwan enjoy a close and strong relationship based on shared democratic values and free market economies. Today, Taiwan remains a major trading partner and friend.

Our strong economic and cultural ties go back nearly a hundred years. I know this strong bond will continue for another 100 years, and, under President Ma's leadership, thrive in the immediate future.

As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Taiwan, I offer my sincere congratulations to President Ma and the people of Taiwan and look forward to our continued cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 97th Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. Today, I remember the one-and-a-half million Armenians that endured unspeakable suffering and loss at the hand of the Ottoman Empire during the first World War.

Only with a thorough examination of history and open acknowledgement of the past will the plight of the Armenians be fully understood. As my colleagues know, last month was Genocide Awareness month. In addition to the genocide of Armenians, the 20th century bore witness to the loss of 6 million Jews and 400,000 other persons deemed ``non-desirable'' by the Nazis, and the modern-day horrors in Cambodia and Rwanda. All too often, we have not learned from past genocides.

As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states ``No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'' and that ``Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.'' Though nothing changes the fact that mass killings and unspeakable acts of brutality occurred, today I wish to learn from the past to better bring about hope for a brighter, more peaceful future and reconciliation of the people of Armenia and Turkey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Captain Thomas Gramith of the 336th Fighter Squadron, Seymour Air Force Base, United States Air Force.

Captain Gramith died in an F 15E crash while providing air support to ground troops during Operation Enduring Freedom near Ghazni Province in Afghanistan.

Captain Gramith is survived by his wife Angie, their daughters Stella and Eva, and his father and step-mother Frederick and Cynthia and his mother and step-father Patricia and Robert.

Captain Gramith was an honorable and dedicated airman who died serving his country. His commitment to his country will stand as an inspiration to all Americans. To his family and friends, I offer my humble thoughts and prayers. May God bless them in this time of remembrance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Captain Mark McDowell of Colorado Springs and the United States Air Force.

Captain McDowell died in an F 15E crash while providing air support to ground troops during Operation Enduring Freedom near Ghazni Province in Afghanistan.

Captain McDowell is survived by his wife and parents. Captain McDowell was an honorable and dedicated airman who died serving his country. We will never forget his example and his dedication. To his family and friends, I offer my sincere thoughts and prayers. May God bless them throughout the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and say thank you to the outgoing President and CEO of the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, Dave Csintyan.

Dave has been a dedicated and devoted servant to our region and our Chamber since 2002. He has also loyally served our country for 28 years as an officer in the United States Air Force. The culmination of that career was in Colorado Springs serving as the Air Base Wing Commander at the Air Force Academy.

Dave accepted new challenges this year in guiding the merger of the Springs Chamber and the Economic Development Corporation. He is a passionate worker and advocate for the Pikes Peak Region and I offer him my sincerest thanks and wish he and his wife Margo the best of success in their future service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Stephannie Finley, the outgoing President of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs and Public Policy Division.

Stephannie began her career working for a small food distribution business that served Peterson AFB, the Air Force Academy, and Ft. Carson. After the business was sold, Stephannie entered the world of politics.

She has extensive experience including: working for the White House Advance Team in the early 1990s, serving as a staffer to the Colorado General Assembly, the Chief of Staff for Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, the Director of State Government Relations for the University of Colorado, and the Chief of Staff to Lt. Governor Jane Norton.

Stephannie first joined the Chamber in February of 2006. She has been a passionate and

dedicated servant to the Front Range of Colorado, and I extend her my sincerest thanks and wish her the best of success in her future service.

Thank you, Representative. You do such a great job representing New Mexico, and you know so much about energy issues and financial institutions, issues like that as well. But this is a great forum. I thank you for organizing this and your leadership on energy issues.

I want to quickly address an issue that is of great concern to many people, myself included, and that is: Who should be regulating things like hydrologic fracking, fracturing--or fracking, for short--here in the United States? We have about 10 different Federal agencies that have their hand involved one way or another in regulating fracking, or at least trying to do so, from the EPA all the way to the Securities and Exchange Commission, if you can believe that.

I'm concerned because in my work on the Natural Resources Committee, along with Rob Bishop that you heard from earlier, we have been hearing that the Bureau of Land Management, one of the agencies that our agency oversees, is proposing rules regulating fracking on public lands. The concern about that is that right now, in a State like Colorado, my own State, those State regulators are already doing a great job regulating fracking. They know the local geology. They know the water, the water aquifers. They know the things that someone in Washington is not really going to know.

If you add a second layer of bureaucracy onto what the States are already doing, you have the potential--in fact, the certainty--of crippling job production, crippling energy production, because you'll have twice as many regulations to have to deal with if you're an energy producer. Why in the world do we need to, when the States are already doing a good job, add another layer of red tape and bureaucracy? I'm really concerned about that.

The subcommittee that I'm the chairman of on Natural Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, is having a hearing in Denver next week on Wednesday, the 2nd of May, at the State Capitol in Denver. We're going to get right into this very issue.

Should the States be regulating fracking, or do we also want to have the Federal Government regulating as well? I hope that the evidence shows--and I believe it will--that the States are already doing a great job. We can only lose by having another layer of regulation.

This is an issue that affects energy in the West on public lands, and I'm really concerned that we have Federal agencies getting involved when the States are already doing a fine job and it's only going to hurt the production of energy and the creation of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exemplary organization in Colorado Springs that provides shelter and services for homeless veterans in Southern Colorado.

The Colorado Veterans Resource Coalition is celebrating the 10th Anniversary of its Crawford House this year. The House provides emergency shelter to veterans in downtown Colorado Springs.

Established in 2002, the House is named after World War II Medal of Honor recipient, retired Master Sergeant William J. Crawford.

The Colorado Veterans Resource Coalition takes great pride in offering safe, healthy, alcohol and drug-free emergency housing. The group also offers VA-sponsored substance abuse rehabilitation.

The Crawford House and the transitional homes can take in up to 25 residents at a time. Currently, the House has a waiting list of 100 veterans. The Crawford House is very unique in homeless programming in that, they provide job placement assistance through coordination with workforce centers, compensated work therapy and numerous other partners including the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Colorado Veterans Resource Coalition has served more than 1,100 homeless veterans since it was established.

Eighty-one percent of veterans who successfully completed the 90-day homeless program were gainfully employed and moved into their own housing.

I thank the Colorado Veterans Resource Coalition for their compassionate service to our veterans in Colorado Springs and congratulate them on the 10th Anniversary of the Crawford House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the committee chairman.

This amendment promotes the Republican all-of-the-above approach to energy policy in this country and will just streamline the NEPA process to ensure the efficient production of energy on public lands.

Right now we don't have a balance. We need to strike a balance. Yes, there are good environmental laws in place that are well-intended and that need to be followed to protect our air and water, but sometimes the threat of litigation or the burdensome application of regulations is used to simply slow down the production of energy, even renewable energy projects on public lands.

So this amendment will allow renewable energy developers to commit their limited resources to a single project and have some certainty that the project will actually take place. They will make the investment necessary, put in the dollars that are required to bring forth wind, solar, geothermal, even tidal types of renewable energy projects that right now will otherwise be held up by burdensome regulations.

These projects have the potential to provide many thousands of American jobs and generate millions of dollars of benefits because right now we're not getting these projects built on public lands. We need some streamlining of the burdensome regulations.

The administration claims to have placed a priority on renewable energy development; and yet roadblocks keep popping up, litigation keeps coming forward, and we don't have anything really happening on public lands. We have to get the ball rolling. That's what this amendment does.

I'm sorry that my colleague from New Jersey doesn't see it that way, but this is intended to bring forth and actually see the realization for once of some of these renewable energy projects. So I would ask for support of this amendment.

I thank my colleague from Idaho.

I rise in strong support of this amendment. It would streamline the geothermal exploration process to expedite the development of geothermal energy on Federal lands. Being from Colorado, I know well the potential for geothermal energy development. In fact, just last year, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, teamed up with IKEA to build the first IKEA store in the United States that is partially powered by geothermal energy.

As our Nation heads down the path of energy security, we should be facilitating the development of renewable energy on Federal land. This is a good amendment that could potentially shave years off the process of geothermal energy exploration and contribute to our increasing domestic energy portfolio in the United States.

I urge your support of the Labrador amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

America has a long history of religious freedom.

In the 17th century, colonists fled to what would become the United States of America in search of religious freedom. In 1789, Congress drafted the First Amendment, ensuring the right to the free exercise of religion. Throughout the 20th century, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the rights of individuals to practice their religions according to the dictates of their own consciences. In 2001, President Bush established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to ``encourage faith-based programs without changing their mission.''

But today, the Obama administration's policies threaten that fundamental freedom. President Obama's new health care mandate, despite a flimsy, politically motivated, so-called ``compromise,'' forces religious organizations to pay for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans.

So much for over 200 years of religious freedom.

The mandate is an unprecedented act of government trampling over the deeply held beliefs of millions of Americans. I stand with my colleagues tonight in showing our united opposition to any efforts by the Obama administration to flagrantly disregard deeply held religious beliefs.

I am a cosponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, introduced by Representative Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, which would protect the rights of conscience for faith-based organizations and would leave Federal law where it was before the President's divisive health care plan was passed.

A number of Representatives from around the country are very troubled by this unprecedented government intrusion into the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. We are going to take the next 60 minutes to explore just how wrong this decision was, how meaningless the so- called ``compromise'' is, and how vital to our country freedom of religion is today.

At this point, I would like to yield to the courageous sponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, Representative Fortenberry of Nebraska.

Thank you. And I do want to applaud Representative Fortenberry of Lincoln, Nebraska, for this courageous move that he has taken, for being a leader on this important issue of protecting the rights of the conscience for Americans. I thank you for your leadership on this issue.

And I can certainly count that 200 Members is close to the magic number of 218, which is 50 percent of the House. Likewise, 37 is getting close to the magic number of 50 needed over in the Senate. So you're doing great work. And I appreciate that, and many Americans appreciate your work.

At this point, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, Steve Scalise.

I thank the gentleman for making his remarks.

And he mentioned Colorado Christian University. The president of that fine institution is former U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong, who served Colorado both in the U.S. House and in the U.S. Senate in such a distinguished manner. And that is not necessarily a Catholic institution. It's more of a Protestant evangelical institution, although people of different Christian backgrounds attend there. But this shows that it's not strictly a ``Catholic'' issue. All people of faith are concerned about violations of conscience.

You see here this quote from Martin Luther King. February is Black History Month. And I think it's appropriate to look at what he said. He said, There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right. He pointed to the need to listen to our consciences when deciding matters of great importance. And Martin Luther King left a great legacy for this country, and his respect for the conscience of the individual is one of those marks of his legacy.

I now yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Maryland.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his insight into this issue and his comments.

A couple of organizational things just very quickly. Because of the keen interest to address this important issue, we're going to ask for a 4-minute timeframe for each speaker, and there are several that I need to take out of the rough order that we have to accommodate tight schedules.

So, as Mr. Kelly comes forward, I will read a quote here from John F. Kennedy. Let me read what John F. Kennedy said about conscience:

I would not look with favor upon a President working to

subvert the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty.

What a powerful statement.

I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

There are a number of freshmen, including Mr. Kelly, who are making a big impact here in Congress just at 13 months of service.

Another one, who I would like to refer to as speaking next, is Ann Marie Buerkle of the State of New York.

Thank you for coming and speaking.

I thank the gentlelady for her comments.

There's one other person who has a strong scheduling issue that I would like to come forward, from the State of Kansas, another person in his first term who has impressed me greatly, Representative Huelskamp.

If I could ask the gentleman, is there any chance that Kathleen Sebelius will issue waivers to religious organizations, not just the labor unions who up until now have been the main ones getting waivers?

I thank the gentleman from Kansas. He's been an excellent addition to the newer Members coming here to Congress, an excellent addition.

Among those who are having scheduling conflicts, unfortunately, is me. I have a committee that's meeting right now that's having a markup. We're having recorded votes on amendments and passage of bills out of committee, so I have to leave in just a moment. As much as I so badly wish I could finish up this discussion and hear the comments that have been moving to me so far, I have to depart.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, Dr. Hastings.

I rise in support of H.R. 3408. This legislation does three vital things: it will open up land in the West to oil shale development; open up one of our most promising areas for energy development in the United States, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and increase offshore production as well.

These provisions will create hundreds of thousands of American jobs and ensure the continued production of new domestic increases in our energy security and decrease our reliance on foreign oil--a goal the administration has professed to support time and time again.

Oil shale is one of the most promising new sources of American-made energy. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Western United States holds more than 1.5 trillion, with a ``t,'' barrels of oil--six times Saudi Arabia's proven resources and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years. Opponents to this legislation will argue that this legislation attempts to promote technology that isn't proven.

However, while the American oil shale industry is forced overseas due to regulatory uncertainty and burdensome Federal regulations here, other nations are profiting right now from this technology, countries like Jordan, China, and Estonia.

Just this morning we heard from Secretary Ken Salazar who expressed the administration's support of emerging technologies. You would think that that would include oil shale. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's support amounts to offering leases with such extremely restrictive terms that it attracts hardly any industry support at all.

As a result, countries overseas, which get over 90 percent of their total energy supply from oil shale, like Estonia, have robust oil shale industries.

I asked Secretary Salazar how this administration can say it promotes new energy while stifling research and development of this tremendous energy potential, oil shale, and he had no good answer.

Now, this legislation also opens up energy in Alaska, specifically in the less than 3 percent of ANWR that the bill deals with. This area was set aside by President Carter in 1980 precisely for oil and gas development. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge holds the single greatest potential for a new domestic energy source within the United States. Offshore, this legislation would increase drilling in Federal waters while ensuring the protection for our offshore military operations as well as fair and equitable revenue sharing for all coastal States. This energy legislation will create consistent policies to move the domestic energy industry forward and will create good- paying American jobs for thousands of Americans.

People say all the time to me, Why don't we have a better energy policy in this country? This legislation does exactly that.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3408.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It would strike a key provision of the bill that would provide American jobs and tap into a potential natural resource, American oil shale.

This amendment also increases the Federal take from drilling in ANWR from 50 to 51 percent, leaving the State of Alaska with that much less.

Now, proponents of this amendment will argue that we should get rid of the oil shale provisions because the technology is not proven. Estonia does get a sizable amount of energy from oil shale currently. I would like to ask why is the proponent of this amendment so concerned that this is going to be a big thing in the future and affect the western way of life if he thinks it's never going to take off and amount to anything. You know, he can't have it both ways.

So why don't we let the companies experiment at their own expense, on their own dime, and see if they can find a commercial, viable process that works to extract this hugely potential source of energy.

The USGS has estimated that there are 1.5 trillion--with a ``T''-- barrels of oil equivalent in these oil shale formations. I think it's worth at least experimenting to see if it can be commercially extracted because that would be a huge relief from having to get foreign oil, and it would create money for the treasuries of States and the Federal Government and create American jobs as well as the security aspect.

So I just don't see why there's such opposition to this when they say it's not going to work. That just doesn't make sense. They can't have it both ways. I say, let the companies experiment at their own expense and at no cost to the taxpayer.

So, I strongly urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this is one more example of the Obama administration stifling the production of domestic energy in this country. They put out restrictive regulations that made it so untenable for commercial companies to even go into the research and development leases after President Obama took office that there was little interest in pursuing under the new format.

So we need to go back to the previous way of offering these leases so there is at least interest on the part of industry, at their own expense, to see if this technology is commercially viable.

So, once again, I would just ask the question, why is there opposition to something that they say is not going to work? We don't know if it's going to work or not. And with the possibility of 1.5 trillion barrels' equivalent of oil, let's at least let that happen to see if that can be feasibly explored, developed, and produced.

We have nothing to lose. This is a great win for the American consumer, especially should a commercial application and scalable venture be produced. It would create energy, jobs, and money for the Treasury.

I urge strong opposition to this amendment. I have to disagree with my friend and colleague from Colorado on this particular issue, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for putting this time together. And I rise today in support of National Marriage Week.

In so many ways, from so many sources, marriage is under attack in America. When we consider the many social problems facing our country right now, the erosion of marriage and family is at the core of many of them. Scholar Michael Novak once famously referred to the family as the ``original Department of Health, Education, and Welfare'' because of its role in providing for the needs of all its members and, particularly, the next generation.

Study after study has shown the tremendous advantages for children and society as a whole when there is a sustained presence of mothers and fathers in the home. Families in which mothers and fathers strive to nurture their children together have advantages over every other family form that has been studied to date.

Today we are seeing that marriage is increasingly in trouble in America. High rates of divorce, nonmarital childbearing, and single parenthood were once problems primarily concentrated in poor communities. Now the American retreat from marriage is moving into the heart of the social order, the middle class. There is a widening gulf between the middle class, where a sharp decline in marriage is at work, and the most educated and affluent Americans, where marriage indicators are either stable or are even improving.

As unwed childbearing continues to climb, risking continued social breakdown and increased government dependency, national leaders should be encouraging stable family formation, not redefining marriage. I call upon Congress to recognize the intrinsic good that results to all of society when husbands and wives strive to uphold their marriage vows and raise children in loving and stable homes.

I again want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi for putting this time together on such an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in recognition of the over 55 million American lives lost to abortion since the passage of Roe v. Wade 39 years ago.

In President Obama's statement celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he emphasized the principle that government should not intrude on private family matters. Ironically, on Friday, the Obama administration made an unprecedented decision to require all U.S. employers to cover the cost of contraception, including emergency contraceptive drugs, despite the protest from faith-based institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities. This is a violation of citizens' religious convictions. It will force the organizations to either violate their deeply held views or pay a heavy fine and terminate health insurance plans.

Every human life has inherent value because he or she is made in the image of God. I will continue to fight for the right to life for America's youngest pre-born citizens and for freeing taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortions.