Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come to rise in support of this bill, but most of all, to tell the American people what a great man this bill is named after. Under his guidance, the House Armed Services Committee, the first hearing that was held under his leadership was to address the problem of underbody explosions to American vehicles. Under Ike Skelton, the previous Secretary of Defense wanted to build 5,000 mine- resistant vehicles. The first hearing under Ike's watch was to discuss the possibility of building mine-resistant vehicles. We set the bar at 15,000. The next day, the new Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, said, No, it's not going to be 15,000. It's going to be 17,000. Now that number stands at about 19,000.

What has that accomplished? In 2005, the Mississippi Guard went to Iraq. Twenty-eight of my fellow Mississippians died from underbody explosions to vehicles. In 2009, the Mississippi Guard went back to Iraq. They were attacked 85 times. They did not lose a limb, they did not lose a life, because of the mine-resistant vehicles they were traveling in.

On Ike Skelton's watch, the fleet has grown by seven ships. We have a friendly game of one-upmanship in this Chamber, incoming Mr. Chairman. I've got believe Ike Skelton set the bar very high for you. I look forward to you doing even better.

Ike Skelton, thank you for the magnificent job you've done in saving the lives of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us, on a nearly trillion- dollar bill between spending and tax cuts, apparently does not allow for any time for the opponents of this measure. If you look at page 2, line 4, it says this resolution allows for 3 hours equally divided and controlled between the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

It is my understanding that both of those gentlemen are for the bill. What guarantee do those of us who oppose increasing the deficit by a trillion dollars have of being able to voice our objections if this rule passes?

If Mr. McGovern would like to answer that question, I would welcome it.

Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, there is no guarantee for those of us who are opposed to raising the national debt by $1 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, May 9, 2001, was my son's 13th birthday. Thirteen was a very unlucky year for him, and every other kid in America. On that day, unemployment was 4.3 percent. Our Nation was $5,600,286,010,418 in debt.

Nine years and 7 months since the passage of the Bush budget, unemployment is 9.8 percent, and our debt has grown by a staggering $8,204,749,146,330.57. If there's anyone in this body who wants to tell me that the intended effect was to double the number of unemployed people and to add $8 trillion to the debt and, therefore, we should do more of this--I rise in opposition to this rule, and I beg this body to defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

I understand that under the rule just passed, the time has been allocated to a proponent on this side of the aisle for the bill, a proponent on this side of the aisle for the bill. The understanding was, though, that time would be allowed to the opponents of this bill.

I am asking if the Chair or someone would identify who that time will be yielded to.

Our country is going bankrupt. On May 9, 2001, Mr. Camp, our Nation was $5.643 trillion in debt with a 4.3 unemployment rate. Guys like you came to the floor and said let's pass the Bush tax cuts. They did. I didn't vote for it. Eight years later when the President left office, our debt had increased by $4,983,609,000,000, and the unemployment rate had gone up to 7.7 percent.

The argument that somehow these tax cuts are going to magically put people to work is bunk. Since the Bush tax cuts, we are now $8,204,749,000,000 deeper in debt, and the unemployment rate is a shocking 9.8 percent. How much is enough? How much debt is enough? How many more bills are we going to stick on my kids and my grandkids so that you and others can get reelected?

It is time to draw the line, Mr. Camp. I do believe in a balanced budget, and I would beg my colleagues, I would beg my colleagues, to defeat this measure.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6494) to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to improve the Littoral Combat Ship program of the Navy, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the Littoral Combat Ship Program started off as a very good idea. It was to be a single purpose, low-cost war ship that would help our Navy get to the stated goal of at least three Chiefs of Naval Operations of getting back to a 313-ship Navy.

With that said, the program has had, admittedly, a number of problems. First of which was, we were going to build it to commercial specifications. That was a mistake that Congress later corrected because this is a warship. It needed to be built to warship recommendations. You don't build disposable ships unless you want to have disposable crews, and our Nation will never settle for disposable crews.

Madam Speaker, having solved that problem, we found that the two vendors took a ship that was supposed to stand for LCS, Littoral Combat Ship, and it came late, costly, and subject to protest. And only because of the great work, in my opinion, of Under Secretary of Defense Sean Stackley of devising a strategy about a year ago that, in effect, read the riot act to both vendors and told them they were going to do a number of things.

No. 1 in order to submit their package to Congress, their proposal, they were going to submit with that a technical data package which meant that our Nation that has paid to develop these ships would have the specifications to those ships so that if either vendor continued to underperform, we could then go out and seek additional vendors to build this ship if we felt like our Nation was not getting the ship we deserved at the price we need to pay. Under Secretary Stackley came back with a proposal that said we would give to one vendor a contract for 10 ships and then take that technical data package, put it out on the street and give a second vendor a contract for five, a winner-take- all strategy between a monohull ship and a trihull ship and gave the vendors about 8 months to come up with a price.

Madam Speaker, one of the few pleasant surprises of this Congress was that both vendors came back with remarkably good prices when given that all-or-nothing proposal. And I want to compliment, give credit where it's due to Under Secretary Stackley. I also want to give credit where it's due to the Seapower Subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), and the other gentleman from Missouri, Chairman Skelton, for allowing us to work with Under Secretary Stackley to get this program back under control.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, Under Secretary Stackley, once he looked at those prices--and I deeply regret the gentleman from Arizona was exactly right over in the other body when he said yesterday, What's the price? The public needs to know. Unfortunately, under the rules of our Nation, we are not allowed to divulge them just yet. Part of that reason is the fear that both vendors will drop their bids and come back later at higher prices.

So one of the limitations we are going to be working under today is the inability to give the exact price to Congress but to tell you that this ship that started out to be about a $220 million dollar ship grew to be about a $720 million ship. We have now got the price a heck of a lot closer to the first number than the last number which is where we needed to go all along.

Under Secretary Stackley is now asking, since both prices came back, and since there is a working ship of each variety out in the fleet right now that are performing well, he has asked for permission to buy both ships at the low price that the contractors have agreed to build them on. Having given that some thought, I think he is right. And also given the economic circumstances that the price of aluminum is down by about half since 3 or 4 years ago, the price of steel is down by about half from 3 or 4 years ago, that American vendors need work, that because they need work, they are supplying the kind of prices that our Nation should have been paying all along, that we can get the Navy the ships they need at a price our Nation can afford and build 20 ships for about $2 billion less than we had originally budgeted to build 19 ships. For all of these reasons, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this program. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for being a cosponsor to this measure.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6494, a bill granting authority for the Secretary of the Navy to construct up to 20 Littoral Combat Ships, 10 each from the shipyards currently building the vessels. This is a change in already passed authorization to ``down- select'' to one of the two types of ships and build 19 of them over the next 5 years. This change in acquisition strategy is the result of lower than expected construction proposals from the two competing shipyards.

The LCS has a very troubled history, but the bill before us today is about the future, it is about how true competition between vendors has actually forced these contractors to return competitive bids that this Nation can afford. These are good ships. Up until now they have just been too expensive to build. Neither contractor, until faced with the prospect of being shut out of the program, had ever submitted a realistic proposal for affordable construction. They now have.

I would not be here today requesting this House pass this legislation if I was not highly confident that this is the right thing to do, and that this action will not come back to be an issue that my friend and colleague from Missouri will need to deal with in the next Congress as he takes the gavel of the Seapower subcommittee.

I will also be the first to admit that the timing for this new acquisition proposal from the Navy is flawed. Normally, this is not the kind of decision that we would consider at the end of a Congress. However, the Navy has bids in hand from the two contractors that will expire this month if not acted upon. Unfortunately, time is of the essence.

For my colleagues, the bottom line is this: The Navy has budgeted approximately $12 billion dollars for 19 ships over the next 5 years. This new strategy would buy 20 ships for approximately $9.8 billion dollars, a savings of over $2 billion from the budget, with the additional benefit of getting an extra ship. I believe this is a good deal and we should take it.

I would like to state for the record that this affordable strategy for the purchase of this class of ships would not have been possible without the tireless work of our Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, the Honorable Sean Stackley. He was the official responsible for the strategy which forced the contractors to offer affordable bids, at a firm fixed price, to build these ships. I congratulate him on the effort. If the Department of Defense could just get 100 Sean Stackleys working over there, we would have far fewer issues with cost overruns and program delays on weapons and equipment our warfighters need.

I urge my colleagues to agree to this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, first let me again thank future Chairman Akin, former Chairman Bartlett.

I believe it was CNO Vernon Clark who first proposed this program. The idea was to build a ship under the speed

of light, an inexpensive ship. That obviously didn't happen, and we learned some very painful mistakes as a Congress, and I hope those of you who remain on the committee will remember those painful mistakes. We can make mistakes doing things too rapidly. We made a lot of mistakes in this program.

But the thing I want to most compliment the Armed Services Committee for, and particularly the Seapower Committee, was, when we recognized those mistakes, we admitted them and we went as far as to threaten to cancel the program if it wasn't corrected. I think those threats and, again, the phenomenal work of Secretary Stackley and Secretary Mabus in holding the vendors' feet to the fire, the economic circumstances of our Nation where people need work, the fact that the Navy needs the ships, that the frigates that these ships will replace are getting to the end of their useful life, and, again, the willingness of all the members on both sides of the aisle to hold these vendors accountable was the key element in turning this program around.

So, again, I want to thank future Chairman Akin, former Chairman Bartlett, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Conaway for being cosponsors of this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Number one, I want to thank Mr. Akin for allowing us to go into your time a little bit. As a fellow Missourian, it's obviously time well spent.

Mr. Speaker, I have a Vietnamese American friend who has a limited use of the English language. He is also very devout. I once saw him at his boatyard hit his thumb with a 5-pound maul. And having a limited use of the English language and also being very devout, he did not use the kinds of words I would use in that situation. He just shouted over and over as he was shaking his thumb, ``No joy.'' This is a ``no joy'' moment.

For those of us who have had the privilege of working with Ike, we want to say thank you. If you are the mother or father of a troop, a marine, a coastie, a sailor, you should know about Ike Skelton. You should know his name. In our line of work, if you do something stupid, you are a headline. If you do the right thing, people don't know your name.

But if your child has been saved because of a mine-resistant vehicle, you should know Ike Skelton's name. If you are a military retiree who is enjoying the benefits of TRICARE for life, you should know Ike Skelton's name. If you are a guardsman or Reservist who is now eligible for TRICARE, you should know Ike Skelton's name.

What he won't ever tell you, out of concern for his kids, and I won't tell you the branch, but he has two sons who are officers in the United States military. But what every mom and dad should know is that there was one more parent out there looking out for their kids, and that was Ike Skelton.

So, Ike, for all of those things and for your great humility, I got to tell the story. Ike visited a Coast Guard buoy tender on the Missouri River. And given his nature, obviously he paid his respects to the captain, engineering officer. But then he sought out the lowest- ranked person on that boat, a seaman apprentice. Went back to him and said, Hi, how are you doing? I am Ike Skelton. I am a Congressman from Missouri. How do you like the Coast Guard? I do. He said, Have you ever had a Congressman on your buoy tender before? And the kid said, No, and I hope to hell we never do again. They have been working my butt off for the past 2 weeks scraping and painting, getting this boat ready for you, sir.

Now, only Ike Skelton would tell that story about himself. So now the rest of America knows. And I hope that seaman apprentice is listening tonight, and I hope he made chief one day.

But, Ike, you have been an incredible role model. Someone who put together a $600 billion bill that involved the lives of airmen, marines, sailors, and to some extent coasties, certainly the troops in the field, and it passed out of your committee unanimously. That is an incredible feat. And all of us are grateful for your service. God bless you.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1251) recognizing and honoring the United States troops who gave their lives on D-day at the Battle of Normandy, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 1251, to recognize and honor the United States troops who gave their lives on June 6, 1944, D- day, at the battle of Normandy on the coast of France.

I would like to thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe) for bringing this measure before the House.

In June of 1944, Nazi Germany still controlled all of Europe, save those portions of Italy which had already been liberated. Operation Overlord, the code name for the main landing of Allied Forces in France, was to be the deciding battle of the war in Europe, opening up a major second front which would lead to the ultimate defeat of the Nazi regime.

Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight Eisenhower proclaimed that it was a battle that he would accept nothing but complete victory. Shortly after midnight on the 6th of June, 24,000 Allied Forces consisting of American, British, Canadian, and Free French parachuted behind enemy lines in Normandy. Their mission was to disrupt the German ability to successfully repel the upcoming invasion.

During the night, the largest flotilla of vessels ever assembled before or since began its trip across the English Channel to disembark some 150,000 Allied troops across a 50-mile stretch of the Normandy beach. The initial beach assault began at 6:30 that morning. The code names of those beaches are seared in our memories: Utah and Omaha, the American objectives; and Sword, Gold and Juno, the British and Canadian objectives.

Approximately 70,500 American soldiers went ashore as part of a larger operation to secure beachhead from which to continue the offloading of troops, supplies and equipment necessary for the push across France into the German homeland.

This undertaking was one of the largest single amphibious operations ever conducted in the history of warfare. On that one day, American Armed Forces suffered an estimated 5,400 casualties with 1,400 killed in action. The immeasurable sacrifices of those men should never be forgotten.

House Resolution 1251 is our way of commending the United States Armed Forces who participated in Operation Overlord for their leadership and valor in a mission that helped bring an end to World War II. This resolution commemorates the actions of heroism and military achievement by those soldiers.

So I now call upon the Members of the House to join me in supporting this resolution, thereby expressing our common appreciation and gratitude for the members of the United States Armed Forces involved in the D-day operations and honoring the sacrifices made by our fellow countrymen so that others around the world may continue to know the gift of freedom.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Poe for bringing this to our attention. At the end of what was possibly the greatest movie ever made, ``Saving Private Ryan,'' the central character played by Tom Hanks is a Captain Miller, and, as he is dying, he says in a voice barely more than a whisper to the character that is playing Private Ryan, ``Earn this.'' It is a phenomenal message for every American, and it is great that Congressman Poe brought this message to the floor for those of us who are here and the descendants of those who survived that battle to say ``Thank you'' to those who didn't.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6102) to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G aircraft.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6102, a necessary amendment to section 128 of the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act which granted permission for the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for F/A-18 series aircraft.

Madam Speaker, I mention this is a necessary amendment, and I ask the patience of the House as I briefly explain the technical issue in law which will prevent the Navy from entering into this cost-saving contract unless the House passes this bill and it is taken up in the Senate and passed before the end of this month.

In the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress granted permission to the Navy for a multiyear contract if they could meet the intent of the requirements contained in title 10 of the United States Code for projected cost savings. The authority granted the Navy one- time permission to miss the title 10 reporting timelines as long as they submitted the required reports by March of this year. The Navy subsequently reported the significant cost savings this type of contract would achieve but missed the reporting requirement by a month, due to a variety of factors.

As a result of the missing of this reporting requirement, the letter of the law prevents them from entering into this cost-savings contract. To fix this new problem, this House subsequently agreed to the exact language contained in this bill when H.R. 5136, the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, passed the House in May.

This stand-alone bill is necessary because the Senate has yet to take up the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, which means we may not have an authorization act signed into law by the end of this fiscal year.

Madam Speaker, this is not an argument about the number of strike fighters the Navy needs. That is a debate for another day. This is an argument that we know that we can save hundreds of millions of dollars by using a multiyear contract to purchase the remaining 84 aircraft that are scheduled to be built.

The majority of economic savings in a multiyear contract come from savings in the cost of materiel and equipment. As any businessman or - woman who has been successful will tell you, the more of any item you order, the lower the per-unit cost will be. In this case, a multiyear contract will allow the prime vendor, in this case the Boeing Company, to contract with their vendor supply base for the materiel and equipment for the remaining 84 aircraft all at once instead of contracting for 25 to 30 per year. They will get a much better price with the larger order and save our Nation $590 million. Madam Speaker, with just the savings on this contract alone the Navy will be able to purchase an additional Littoral Combat Ship.

Madam Speaker, an almost $600 million savings is too large a figure just to sweep under the rug. The bill that I offer today along with my cosponsor, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), and, I must add, strongly supported by the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, and the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, will allow the Navy to enter into this contract by the end of this month. I am assured by Assistant Secretary of the Navy Stackley that all the contracting negotiations are complete, and, as soon as this bill is passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by the President, the Navy and the Boeing Company will complete the contract.

Madam Speaker, to use a phrase popular today, this is a ``no- brainer.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill which will result in an almost $600 million savings to the taxpayers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Madam Speaker, if I was a shill for the insurance industry, and apparently we have our share on the floor today, I would do everything but talk about what the insurance industry did to south Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina. I would forget, if I was a member of the Rules Committee, the 12 years that they controlled the floor of the House of Representatives, the 12 years that they could have cut the Amtrak subsidy had they wanted to, but they didn't.

So let's get back to what we are going to talk about today. And, again, I thank the leadership for bringing this to the floor.

If you had visited south Mississippi in August of late 2005, gone to a little town called Bay St. Louis, you could have driven down the street and seen this house. It belonged to some folks named Corky and Molly Hadden. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit south Mississippi. So the Haddens left this because their Nation warned them that a bad storm was coming, and came home to this.

Corky is a financial manager; he is a smart guy. He had lot of insurance, he thought. As a matter of fact, Corky had $650,000 worth of insurance on that house. The problem was under the rules of the National Flood Insurance Program that Mr. Sessions agrees needs changing, and I am trying to change today, we paid the private sector, State Farm, All State, Nationwide, we pay them to sell the policy; they get a premium. We pay them to adjust the claim.

The problem is no one bothered to think that wait a minute, we are letting that claims adjuster decide he is playing God. He can say the wind did it, which means his company has to pay, State Farm, Nationwide or All State; or he can say the water did it, which means the taxpayers have to pay.

You are right, Mr. Sessions, we should not have paid that $18 billion. The reason we paid that $18 billion is a bad set of rules that allowed companies like State Farm, All State, Nationwide to stick the taxpayers with their bills. So 18 months after this event, Mr. Hadden, who had $650,000 worth of insurance on that nice house, was paid nothing by his insurer, State Farm Insurance Company.

Again, if you are a defender of the insurance industry, if they are helping you with your campaigns, you sure as heck don't want to talk about that, do you?

The next house, if you had gone a little bit further down the same street, you would have seen one of the oldest houses in Bay St. Louis, built around 1800. So from 1800 to 2005, no telling how many hurricanes it survived. It belonged to the Benvenutti family, a pretty old house.

This is what it looked like when they left because their Nation told them to get the heck out of there, there is a bad storm coming. Let's see what they came home to. This is what they came home to.

You know, for most people, including Mississippians, your house is your biggest investment. It is, to a large extent, an extension of yourself. So the Benvenuttis, realizing that that house meant a lot to them, had a lot of insurance, or so they thought, $586,000. When they filed their claim, for almost 24 months they were paid nothing on their wind insurance.

Now why is this significant? Well, NOAA, the Navy Oceanographic Lab and others went back and looked at the events that were called Hurricane Katrina, and NOAA tells us that for 4 hours before the storm surge arrived in south Mississippi, that house, the house before it, was subjected to hurricane-force winds for 4 hours before the water ever got there. Yet the insurance

companies wanted to turn around and blame everything on the water. Why? Because they could stick the taxpayers with the bill.

The next house is a more typical home, more modest home. This one is about a mile inland, about a mile inland, pretty good ways from the water. Beautiful home. This is what the folks who lived there, when they left, looked at last.

This is what they came home to.

It's not just three houses; it's not 30 houses. It was 30,000 houses that this happened to. So, again, these folks, knowing this was a big part of their lives, had $249,000 worth of insurance. Their insurance company was slightly more generous than the previous two times and offered them $10,000.

Now, Mr. Sessions points out that, incorrectly, that maybe government shouldn't be doing this. Well, maybe he doesn't talk to his folks in his State capital often enough because if he had he would know that his State is already doing this.

In the aftermath of Katrina, on a State-by-State basis, the insurance industry pulled out, left a vacuum. People had to have some form of wind insurance; and so on a State-by-State basis, the State picked up that obligation.

In the gentleman's State of Texas, the Texas wind pool in 2004 had an exposure of $20.8 billion. That has expanded to $58.6 billion. That's not private sector that's going to pay that bill; that's the Texas wind pool. They are on the hook for that.

In my home State of Mississippi, it has gone from $1.6 billion to $6.3 billion. I can't speak for every State, but I can tell you that pretty well equals the Mississippi State budget. If there was a catastrophic storm in Mississippi that hit all three coastal counties on one day--and, by the way, that's happened three times in my lifetime--it would break the State of Mississippi.

Now, at some point they are going to come up and say, well, they have got reinsurance, okay. Almost all the reinsurance is out of the Bahamas and the Caymans. So let me ask you a simple question: If the Benvenuttis couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, if the Haddens couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, if the other family couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, does anyone really think a company from the Bahamas is going to willingly write these checks? Who is kidding whom?

On a State-by-State basis, Florida has gone from $2.2 billion to $436 billion; South Carolina, $6 billion to $17 billion; Georgia, the gentleman from Georgia's State, $565 million to $2.1 billion, a 265 percent increase, not private sector, State liability.

So why do we want to do this? Because, quite honestly, the purpose of insurance, to people who pay their premium, to live the way they are supposed to, but they want the certainty that if something bad happens to them, they are going to get paid.

Secondly, why should the Nation do it? Because, quite frankly, it would break any one of these States. The chances of every coastal county in Mississippi getting hit all in the same day has happened three times in my lifetime. In 2004, Florida had four catastrophic storms, hit almost every square inch of the State. But the chances of the same storm hitting every State on the same day is minuscule. And if it does happen, don't worry about paying claims, it's just going to be called Armageddon.

So what we are proposing is a program that, instead of letting the private sector collect the premiums and the Nation pay the bill, would allow people to, as an extension, as an option to their flood insurance, pay for a wind option. That way if they come home to nothing, if they come home to a substantially destroyed house, it doesn't matter if the wind did it, it doesn't matter if the water did it; the fact is they built their house the way they were supposed to, they built it in a place that was safe, they paid their premiums, and they are going to get paid.

The last point of course the insurance industry doesn't want to tell you, so I will. In the same year the National Flood Insurance Program lost $18 billion they made $48 billion in profits. Why? Pretty simple. They collected the premiums; you, the taxpayer, paid the bill. You paid the bill for the FEMA trailers because, again, a typical insurance policy says if your house is destroyed, if your house is damaged to where you can't live in it, they will pay to put you up. But when they denied these claims in full, as they did thousands of times, then someone had to do something. President Bush, to his credit, stepped forward and said we're going to make FEMA trailers available. That cost the taxpayers $4.3 billion; $7.2 billion for temporary housing; CDBG grants totaling $15.4 billion. And what was one of the prerequisites to get a CDBG grant? You had to have insurance and you didn't get paid. So who paid that bill? Uncle Sam, you, the taxpayers paid that bill. Lastly, SBA disaster loan, $7.6 billion. So for a total bill of $34.5 billion. It wasn't $18 billion the Nation lost that year, it was over $50 billion. We are trying to change that. We are trying to come up with a program where the premiums pay for the program.

So, again, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to the floor.

I would remind my Republican colleagues that in the 12 years that they ran the House, I don't ever recall a vote on cutting the subsidy for Amtrak. I would have voted with you, but I just don't remember your bringing it up.

So let's talk about this problem this day. I would remind my Republican colleagues that on a regular basis they come to the floor and say, you know what? We shouldn't be doing all these things that don't make sense, all these things that don't contribute to each other. Amtrak is not an insurance problem. This is an insurance program. It is a single-shot bill to do one thing, and that's to let those people who want to buy wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance so that they will know that if they paid their premiums, they built their house the way they were supposed to, if something horrible happens they will get paid.

Yesterday, I appeared before the Rules Committee and offered an amendment that would allow people in coastal America to buy wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance, a measure that is identical to what had passed this House less than 3 years ago as a part of the base bill. It is my understanding that that was not made in order.

My question to the Rules Committee is since the Speaker says she is for it, since Majority Leader Hoyer says he is for it, since the chairwoman of jurisdiction, Ms. Waters, says she's for it, I've got to admit my amazement that it was not made in order, since it's already passed this House by about 270 votes 3 years ago. So I was hoping if the gentlewoman could enlighten those of us who are in support of that amendment what happened.

The amendment, again, that has already passed this House as a part of the base bill of an identical bill 3 years ago, I'm having a little trouble understanding how that's not germane.

I would urge people to oppose the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to clarify a provision in the existing law. The existing provision was used to deprive thousands of homeowners of the wind coverage they should have had in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It, unfortunately, had the additional effect of sticking the taxpayer, through the National Flood Insurance Program, with billions of dollars that they should not have paid.

Under the national Write Your Own program, we hired the private sector to write the policy. No problem there. We pay them a commission of 29 percent to write that policy. It saves us the cost of having additional government employees. The problem comes in in that we also let the private insurance company adjust the claim.

So think of it. You are a 29-year-old father of two. You are counting on your Christmas bonus. You work for State Farm, Nationwide or Allstate. A hurricane comes through and your house is gone. Now, you can look at it and say, you know, I see trees falling down. That is an indication of wind. I see tin up in trees. That means the wind blew it up there. But that means that my company is going to have to pay something. Or I could say the flood did it all, which means the taxpayers have to pay it all.

You see, under the law, they are called upon to do a fair adjustment of the claim. But buried in a typical wind insurance policy, in the case of a State Farm policy in Mississippi, on page 10 of a 24-page document, there is one paragraph that said, If any two things happen concurrently, then State Farm wasn't going to pay at all. This question was actually raised before the Mississippi State Supreme Court. And the attorney for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Mr. Landau, was asked a question by the chief justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, Justice Pierce, ``I'm giving you--the example is 95 percent of the home is destroyed, the flood comes in and gets the other 5 percent, and you know that. Does your interpretation of the word 'sequence' mean you pay zero?'' The attorney for Nationwide Insurance, Mr. Landau, answered, ``Yes, Your Honor.''

See, that goes beyond just hurting individuals on their payment. Number one, a typical insurance policy says that if your home is destroyed, the insurance company will pay to put you up until it's repaired, but if they deny your claim in full, then they pay nothing. So in the case of Hurricane Katrina, our Nation went out and bought 140,000 trailers at $15,000 per trailer, then paid a friend of the Bush administration another $16,000 per trailer to deliver those trailers just 60 miles, hook them up to a water line and a sewer line. So $31,000 per trailer times 44,000 trailers, and that was just in Mississippi. That's $1.3 billion that the taxpayers paid that the insurance companies, in almost every instance, should have paid. On top of that, there were the homeowners grants; on top of that, there were SBA loans, for a total of $34 billion.

I understand the gentlewoman's concern that this program lost $18 billion. The taxpayers lost $34 billion because the insurance companies didn't pay. This amendment would prohibit the language that was buried in that State Farm insurance policy. This amendment would prohibit that language that was buried in that Nationwide policy. It would go back to, if these people want to do business with the Nation under the national Write Your Own program, then they are going to stick to their obligation of doing a fair adjustment of the claim.

If the house is 50 percent destroyed by water, flood insurance pays 50 percent. If it's 50 percent by wind, then the wind insurance company has to pay 50 percent. But whatever the ratio is, a fair adjustment of the claim, as it should have been, is already spelled out in the contract with the Nation. But the contract between the insurance companies and the individuals had this language buried in there that is completely contrary to what they told our Nation. And, quite honestly, I would like to see which shill for the insurance companies wants to defend what they have done to individuals in the gulf coast and what they have done to the taxpayers as a whole.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Madam Speaker, I supported the version of the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that my colleagues and I on the House Armed Services Committee passed through Committee on May 19, 2010 by a unanimous vote of 59-0. The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' issue was never debated or considered by the House Armed Services Committee at all this year during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act.

I associate myself with the remarks of Ranking Member Buck McKeon who stated that ``The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked Congress to respect the process they developed to study the ramifications of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' He further stated that ``we have a duty to honor that request and hear directly from our military personnel--and their families--before making a decision on a sensitive issue that directly affects them.'' I also agree with Chairman Skelton's statement on this issue: ``In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this spring and in a recent letter, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen asked Congress to defer any legislative action regarding `Don't Ask, Don't Tell' until after the Department of Defense completes its comprehensive review later this year. In a statement today, the Pentagon indicated that ideally, Secretary Gates continues to prefer that the Department complete this review before

Congress considers legislation. This is a reasonable and responsible request that I respect.'' He went on to say that ``My position on this issue has been clear--I support the current policy and I will oppose any amendment to repeal `Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' I hope my colleagues will avoid jumping the gun and wait for DOD to complete its work on this issue.'' I consider it an insult to our military leaders and service members for Congress to legislate change before the military's comprehensive study is complete.

Unfortunately, last night, during floor consideration, the House voted to attach an amendment to National Defense Authorization Act repealing the military's current ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy.

I voted against this amendment and I can no longer support the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act if the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is included in the final bill. For the first time in my 20 years in Congress, I will be voting against the House approved version of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill as it passed committee, and in particular of the Sea Power and Expeditionary Forces section of the bill.

Under the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, the fleet has grown by seven ships since he became chairman to a total of 286. I guess it's in the direction, however slowly, of the 313 ships that CNO wishes to have. It also takes some far-reaching steps, one of which is directing the CNO that in the future, that in order to go to the fleet, he may only retire two ships for every three ships we commission. I think this is very important language. This is the third CNO who has said he wanted 313 ships, but ironically, they keep submitting budgets to Congress that actually shrink their fleet rather than grow it.

So I want to thank Chairman Skelton for working with us on that, my colleagues, on directive language that actually keeps some of those great vessels that would go to someone else's fleet in our fleet a bit longer.

Specifically the bill takes many steps to continue the work of the world's greatest Navy and the world's greatest Marine Corps. It authorizes the construction of nine battle-force vessels and one auxiliary oceanographic research vessel, along with 214 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps. It authorizes $5.1 billion to construct two Virginia-class submarines--the first time Congress has ever authorized two Virginia-class submarines; $950 million for the first increment of funding of the Marine Corp's amphibious assault vessel LHA-7; $3 billion to fully fund two DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to work off of the Navy's surface fleet and the centerpiece of our Nation's missile defense; $1.5 billion to fully fund two littoral combat ships; $180.7 million to fund one Joint High Speed Vessel for the Navy; $380 million to fully fund the remaining construction costs for the first of the class maritime landing platform vessel for the Marine Corps; $3.3 billion for 30 F-18 Superhornet strike fighters, as well as 12 EA-18 Growler expeditionary electronic-warfare aircraft.

That will make a total of 186 of these fine aircraft built on Chairman Skelton's watch. $4.1 billion for 20 Navy and Marine Corps F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; $4.6 billion for 180 Marine Corps rotary-winged aircraft; $359 million for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, including $100 million for the Merchant Marine Academy.

The bill strongly supports funding for our Overseas Contingency Operations, authorizing $3.4 billion to build the life saving Mine Resistant Vehicles. This is on top of the $16.4 billion under Chairman Skelton's watch that was allocated in 2007 for a total of 16,000 of these vehicles that have been built as we continue to build 1,000 of them a month to protect our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Marine Corps programs, this bill fully authorizes the $3.1 billion for a request for Marine Corps procurement, with an additional $126 million for unfunded requirements that will protect our Marines.

Mr. Chairman, I fully support the bill as recommended by the committee.

I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Akin for all of his help on this and all of the Seapower Subcommittee, and in particular I want to commend our great staff: Ms. Jenness Simler, Captain Will Ebbs, Heath Bope, Jesse Tolleson, and Liz Drummond.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Since 2007, the House Armed Services Committee under

Chairman Ike Skelton has continued to grow our nation's air,

land and sea forces to address the threats facing the United

States from both foreign nations and terrorist organizations.

Chairman Skelton's predecessor, Duncan Hunter, deserves

credit for leading House Armed Service Committee member's

efforts to provide up-armored Humvees, Improvised Explosive

Device (IEDs) Jammers, and other initiatives to counter the

IED threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the game

changing improvement in the IED effort was the rapid

development and fielding of the Mine Resistant Ambush

Protected Vehicle (MRAP) that occurred under the leadership

of Chairman Ike Skelton, The actions of the Democratic

majority speak much louder than words when it comes to our

national defense.

The Mississippi National Guard's 155th Heavy Brigade Combat

Team returned home to Mississippi in March 2010 after

completing their second tour of duty in Iraq. During their

deployment they encountered more than 80 attacks from IEDs

without suffering any fatalities or serious injuries compared

to their 2005 deployment where they suffered 28 fatalities

from lED attacks. During their most recent deployment, their

unit was equipped with MRAPs. Prior to 2007, the demand for

MRAP's was ignored for four straight years by Secretary of

Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The Republican majority in Congress

did not prod Secretary Rumsfeld to build these vehicles at

the rate our forward deployed commanders were requesting.

In 2004 military officials in Iraq began requesting MRAPs

from the Pentagon to counter the enemy's most successful

means of attack--the IED. At the time, 60% of U.S. fatalities

in Iraq were the direct result of IED attacks. Secretary

Rumsfeld and top leaders at the Pentagon originally ignored

these requests from the forward deployed commanders to make

fielding MRAPs a priority. By the end of 2006 the Department

of Defense's (DoD) established requirement for MRAPs for the

Iraq war effort was an absurdly low amount--4000 vehicles.

Before MRAPs were available in Iraq or Afghanistan,

military patrols were conducted in up-armored Humvees. The

enemy quickly discovered this vehicles vulnerability to

under-bottom explosions. Since Secretary Rumsfeld had refused

to provide MRAPs despite the requests coming from the theater

of combat, the result of continuing to use up-armored Humvees

was unnecessary American injuries and deaths. The MRAP is

designed with a ``V'' shaped bottom that provides an

effective defense against bottom exploding IEDs by forcing

the impact of the explosion away from the bottom of the

vehicle, unlike the Humvees.

When I became Chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary

Forces Subcommittee in January 2007, under the new Democratic

majority, the very first hearing I chaired focused on the

need to rapidly get MRAPs to

our troops in Iraq. I worked with Chairman Skelton and my

colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to provide an

additional $16.4 billion in 2007 for procurement, building

and transporting 15,374 MRAPs to Iraq. This effort continues

today, and we currently have approximately 16,000 MRAPs in

Iraq and Afghanistan. We also continue to work with DOD on

providing vehicles that provide the same type of protection

as the MRAP but are more suitable for the hazardous terrain

and conditions in Afghanistan. There are approximately 2300

of these vehicles in operational units in Afghanistan, with

6,800 working their way through the pipeline to get to the

theater of combat. We continue to produce about 1000 of these

life saving vehicles a month.

For years the House Armed Services Committee has voiced

concerns over the concurrent and high-risk development of the

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which in turn, has caused a

several years delay in its operational fielding. Because of

this issue, coupled with the planned F/A-18 production line

drawdown, our Naval Air Forces face a significant strike-

fighter shortfall peaking at over 250 aircraft in 2017.

Realizing this significant issue over the last two years, the

committee has added 17 F/A-18s to the Department's request to

help mitigate the shortfall. The Committee, under Chairman

Skelton's leadership, also included candid language within

the FY11 NDAA report stating that ``barring a complete

reversal'' of the F-35 program failures, the Committee

expects the Navy to ``continue production of F/A-18s to

prevent our naval airpower from losing significance in our

nation's arsenal,''

I have made the commitment to my colleagues on the

Committee and to Chairman Skelton to get our shipbuilding

back on track. The United States Navy's goal is to maintain a

313 ship fleet capable of transporting troops around the

world, providing support for military operations, along with

a global U.S. presence. The Navy's fleet is currently at 286

ships, Starting in 2003, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

shifted our defense needs primarily to the Army, the National

Guard and our Reserves. During this time, the Navy's

shipbuilding program went stagnant, lacked direction, and had

no plan in place to reach the Navy's stated goal of a 313

ship fleet.

This all changed starting in 2007. The Armed Services

Committee began addressing the Navy's acquisition reform

process, the cost overruns as a result of Secretary

Rumsfeld's outsourcing of shipbuilding to contractors and

lead system integrators. We have provided the Navy real goals

to meet each year in order to build the Navy back to a 313

ship fleet.

This reformation includes a proposed authorization of 10

ships in this year's National Defense Authorization Act. We

have worked to bring the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) back

under control. These ships had been previously authorized,

but the program spun wildly out of control. It got to the

point where the contractors wanted $600 million for a ship

they originally said could be built for $220 million in

fiscal year 2005. This cost increase prevented the Navy from

building the amount of LCS' originally approved by Congress

which seriously affected the Navy's ability of reaching its

goal of a 313 ship fleet.

Chairman Skelton and the Democratic majority also prevented

another costly over run from occurring by capping the DDG

1000 program at three ships at approximately $3 billion per

ship. This program was running billions of dollars over

budget. By capping this program at three ships, we allowed

the Navy to shift funds into a much more successful

shipbuilding program--the DDG 51 program. This maximizes the

Navy's budget by providing them with a ship that has a proven

track record for success and providing the funds to a proven

shipbuilding program that has already produced 58 ships for

the United States Navy,

The Navy has also received authorization for 15 ships not

including the additional 10 ships in the proposed FY 2011

NDAA, to be built from fiscal years 2009 through 2011, Since

2007, the Navy's fleet has grown by 7 ships to 286 ships.

Prior to this, the Navy's fleet was the smallest it has been

since the 19th century at 279 ships. The progress made by the

Navy's shipbuilding program is the direct result of a clear

and consistent plan and new leadership at the Department of

the Navy. It is by no means a coincidence that the fleet has

grown and continues to grow under Chairman Skelton's

leadership during this Democratically controlled Congress.

While men and women in the United States military continue

to be put in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan we must

continue providing them the real support necessary to allow

them to successfully carry out their mission. It is clear

that the House Armed Services Committee under Chairman

Skelton, has provided much more than mere words or rhetoric

and has acted loudly to ensure that the Department of Defense

and our men and women fighting overseas constantly have what

they need to succeed in protecting and defending the United

States of America.

Gene Taylor,

Member of Congress.

First let me say that I agree with my chairman and the ranking member on the need to defeat the Murphy amendment.

But to Mr. Akin's point, number one, in the past 20 years, the Panamanians, the Filipinos, and even our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico have asked us to leave. If you put your missile defense in Poland or Czechoslovakia, you are one election away from having spent billions of dollars and being asked to leave. If you put your missile defense on ships you can get to within 12 miles of the Iranian coast, you don't have to ask anyone's permission to fire it. It's there. And if you think about it, all of our known enemies have a coastline. That's why it makes sense to put our missile defense on a ship because you put the ship between our Nation and our enemies.

I thank the gentleman very, very much for yielding me the minute, and I thank the gentleman for asking a great question.

Madam Chair, I rise for a unanimous consent request.

I request unanimous consent to support the wishes of Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon in opposition to this amendment.