Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a rushed process. This should be considered under an open rule, as it has in the past. Even Louise Slaughter, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, was cited in Congress Daily today saying she didn't know why the House is even taking up the bill.

I offered an amendment that said two-thirds of the people of Puerto Rico should vote affirmatively for statehood in order to move forward, yet that was not ruled in order. Believe me, we want to make sure that more than 51 percent of the people want this before we move forward. You don't want to get married to someone who is only 51 percent sure, for goodness sake.

Nobody necessarily even knows what is in this bill; sovereignty and association with the United States has been pointed out. I don't think the people understand what that necessarily means, certainly in this body.

And there is no need for a federally sanctioned vote. In 1967, 1993 and 1998, the people of Puerto Rico voted. They voted against statehood. There is no reason that the heavy hand of the United States Congress needs to come down and force the people of Puerto Rico to vote on this.

They can do it themselves. And if they do it, they should do it with a very simple question: Are you in favor of statehood, yes or no? That simplicity would go a long ways with people like me and a lot of others. Let's have that kind of straight vote.

We love the people of Puerto Rico. They're fellow citizens; they've served in our military. There is a great kinship. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the people of Puerto Rico want statehood. If they're going to have a vote, they should do so in Puerto Rico. They don't need the heavy hand of Congress; let them vote on that straight vote.

I stand in opposition to this rule and in opposition to this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the time.

Isn't it ironic that a bill about self-determination has got to have the heavy hand of the United States Congress dictating to the people of Puerto Rico about this vote. I find that terribly ironic.

There is no need for the United States Congress to pass this bill. No need. Four times, in 1952, in 1967, in 1993 and in 1998, the people of Puerto Rico were able to vote on this. They didn't need the approval of the United States Congress to do it; they don't need it today. But it is a manipulation of the process to try to get a desired outcome.

If you want to vote on statehood, take a straight vote. Do the people of Puerto Rico, yes or no, do the people of Puerto Rico want statehood? Simple, straightforward, to the point, and let's understand if that is truly what they want.

I am a conservative person. I do not believe that I should be trying to manipulate what is happening in Puerto Rico and what they want.

Finally, I will end with this. Please, as you consider this bill, understand that you are empowering people to vote in this election that have no business voting in this election. If you were born in Puerto Rico, you lived there 2 months and then you suddenly moved to the United States and you've lived here for the last 30, 40 years, you get to vote in this election. Why should a resident of Utah or Indiana vote in an election in Puerto Rico? That is fundamentally wrong and it is there because they want to manipulate the end result.

This is about Puerto Rico and the vote should be taken in Puerto Rico by the people of Puerto Rico if the people of Puerto Rico choose to do so, and not because of the heavy hand of the United States Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I'd just encourage my colleagues to listen to the argument on the other side. They don't want the status quo to be one of the options. This is supposed to be a bill about self- determination, yet it's this Congress that's going to force its will to determine what is even going to be on the ballot. This is fundamentally wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chair and my colleagues, this amendment should pass unanimously. I don't care where you are on this issue. If you fundamentally believe that the people of Puerto Rico should be given a voice, then the voice that they should be able to allow, one of the boxes they should be allowed to check is ``none of the above.'' Last time, 50.3 percent of the residents there voted in favor of this. It is not right for us to deny them the opportunity to check the box that says, ``none of the above.'' This should pass unanimously.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. I believe that English should be the official language of the United States of America, but that's a different issue. Let's be realistic. The people in Puerto Rico predominantly speak Spanish. Let's provide a ballot to them in Spanish so that they can know what they're voting for. And the amendment provides that if anybody wants an English ballot, they can get an English ballot. I think that's fair. I think that's reasonable. It just allows the people of Puerto Rico to know what they're voting on. I think that's a simple request.

And there is no additional cost to the people of the United States of America, because I was able to pass an amendment in the committee that said that there will be no cost to the United States taxpayers here in the continental United States.

So again, I think it's reasonable. I rise in support of this and urge its support.

Madam Speaker, the most fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government is to ``provide for the common defence.''

America's national defense strategy fundamentally depends on supremacy in space. Our troops on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq depend on crucial intelligence-gathering and communication capabilities, which in turn rely on a robust space program.

But the current Administration proposal would cancel the Constellation program, NASA's safest and most proven means to return to space.

We've spent billions to build an International Space Station. Do we want to rely upon the Russians whenever we need to return? Under the Administration's proposal, we would.

Do we want to be buying rocket parts from China because we have decimated our national industrial base? Or do we want to maintain the strong industrial sector on our own?

Do we want our military to rely on others to send vital navigation and communication satellites into orbit? Or do we want our country to decide when and how those vital coordination satellites are launched into space?

We need to restore the Constellation program and maintain our superiority in space.

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

(Mr. CHAFFETZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Act establishes and authorizes funding for two programs, one of which has been a total creature of appropriations earmarks.

There are two simple and compelling arguments for why I am opposed to this legislation: first, it spends too much money that our government just doesn't have, and it singles out two of the more than one dozen NOAA education programs for special treatment when the entire effort is subject to a top-to-bottom review.

The Capps substitute amendment provides authorized spending levels that provide a 10 percent increase each year for 5 years. The Federal Government and American taxpayers simply cannot afford to increase spending by 10 percent year after year. What American gets a 10 percent pay raise every year? What small business is guaranteed 10 percent more in sales or 10 percent growth? None. And this government program should not be promised such lavish increases.

Now, we are told that they have compromised on these spending levels, that the new amounts are lower than in the bill that was first introduced last year. And it can be acknowledged that they have floated this bloated spending balloon a little lower, but it is still sailing high up in the clouds of out-of-control spending. It needs to come all the way down out of the sky and face the harsh realities of the ground down here. Our Nation is running record Federal budget deficits and the national debt is at historic levels, some $12-plus trillion.

We are paying over $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. We need to put a stop to bills like this that just make the problem worse.

It is especially troubling that the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee didn't allow the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, to offer an amendment that would have frozen spending at the amount being spent this year. Apparently, giving a government program the same amount next year as they got this year is a concept the Democrats believe is so radical and dangerous that they don't even want Members of the House to vote on it, which isn't surprising these days. And this despite what the President has said, that he wants a spending freeze.

Now, it's not just Republicans that are objecting to these high levels of spending on these two programs. In President Obama's own budget proposal that he sent up to Congress in February, he proposed giving zero funding to one of these two programs included in this bill and giving less than half as much to the other one. President Obama has proven time and time again he doesn't have a problem with massive spending increases; and, yet, even he believes Congress is spending too much on these programs.

The second fundamental objection that I expressed with this bill is it is trying to write into law special funding and treatment for just two out of many of NOAA's education programs, when the entire effort is subject to top-to-bottom review.

NOAA itself is looking into how to best conduct its education program. The agency contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to review and critique NOAA's entire education effort. That study was just completed 2 weeks ago after more than 2 years of work. Just 2 weeks ago, this report came out. The American taxpayer spent over $1 million producing this report, and despite this nearly 200-page document just being delivered into our hands, this House is apparently ready to ignore the work and recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences by moving this bill and voting on it today.

If Congress is going to ignore the National Academy of Sciences report and was going to tell NOAA which education programs it was going to pick and choose to authorize, we could have saved the National Academy a lot of time, and we could have saved the taxpayers over $1 million.

This bill needs to be sent back to the drawing board so that spending levels can be cut back and so the National Academy of Sciences report can be taken into consideration. Until the changes are made, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and the substitute amendment.

I would also like to note, Madam Speaker, that to suggest that the administration fully supports this bill, I think, is a mischaracterization of the facts. In fact, testimony was given that ``we also note that NOAA supports education and outreach programs in the Office of Education and throughout NOAA's line offices. The authorization levels of H.R. 3644 could divert funding from these other programs.'' That should be noted as Members consider this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman from California 2 additional minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am a freshman here. I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. And to suggest this is the direction we should go, I thought the campaign they said was about change. I thought we were going to try to raise the bar in this institution, but evidently not.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I guess that's the fundamental challenge. I don't want to live in his world. And I don't want the people of the United States to have to live in his world. That's the fundamental difference in the approach that's dealing with this health care bill. We have an opportunity in this country to do the right thing. I think the more the people of the United States of America have gotten to know this health care bill, the less they like it. The more sunshine that's shown on this, the less they like it. Only in the United States of America can you spend a trillion dollars and it's not going to add to the deficit when we're already $12 trillion into debt. This bill that we're considering here today will add to that debt. Even the President didn't even ask money for this program.

We can't even take care of our seniors in this country or our veterans. We have a Veterans Administration, and I have soldiers in the State of Utah that are trying get care and services, yet we got a notice recently from the Veterans Administration saying, Don't even bother applying because we have such a backlog of people. The American people understand this. They understand how deep our deficit and our debt is. They understand how irresponsible the health care bill is and what a detriment it's going to be to this Nation and this country. And I would challenge Members to try to articulate what this bill is even going to do. There's some 158 programs, and administrations, and departments, and boards. Somebody stand up and try to articulate what's going to happen--not what it's going to do, but how is it going to work? Because I don't think there's anybody in this body that can actually answer, How is it going to work?

Now going back specifically to this bill that we're considering here today. Again, I want to reiterate the point, Madam Speaker, that we spent a million dollars coming up with a study from the National Academy of Sciences and just totally ignored it. Two hundred pages, 2 years of work, and yet because we've got to fill some time here so we can get to health care--they don't even want Members to go home for the weekend--we're going to throw up this bill prematurely. Why are we ignoring this report?

I want to highlight a couple of things that are said in here. This is from that National Academy of Sciences report recommendation 1:2: ``In order to adequately address the mismatch between its available resources and its ambitious education agenda, NOAA should better align and deploy its resources. This may require the termination of certain activities and programs that, based on appropriate evaluation, do not directly and effectively contribute to its education and stewardship goals.

``NOAA's role in education is shaped by the distributed nature of its education efforts across five line offices and the Office of Education. Because of their diverse missions, the line offices . . . and the Office of Education can act independently and sometimes even in competition with each other.''

Further, ``The differences in management structures, missions, and education mandates are obstacles to creating a cohesive and coordinated education portfolio.''

At a time when we are paying over $600 million a day just in interest, we have a debt that exceeds $12 trillion, close to a $1 trillion new health care proposal that's moving forward, some how, some way, the Democrats want to offer a bill that gives an automatic increase year after year. Ten percent. Just keep adding 10 percent to it over the next 5 years. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

Now the ranking member of Natural Resources, Doc Hastings, offered an amendment that said, Let's just keep the funding level flat. That is a simple, reasonable proposal. But somehow the Rules Committee couldn't find it in their heart to allow Members to vote on it.

Please, don't come here and lecture to somebody and say, Oh, we're about openness and transparency. We're about change in America. I don't buy it. You're not living up to it. You have the opportunity to do the right thing--and you consistently don't. You consistently offend the American people and offend me. I'm a freshman here. I didn't create this mess. I don't want to hear about how the Republicans messed up, because you know what? They had the House and the Senate and the Presidency and they did blow it. I'll be the first one to stand here and point criticism to them. But if we're going to rise to the level that this body demands, then we need to raise the bar and start acting like adults. Vote on what we're supposed to vote for. Be open and transparent. Allow a rule that will come to this floor and make America proud. Let people without the disguise and the nuances. That is within your power, and yet it's not being done. And it's not being done consistently. There are a lot of people here that are fed up with it. I'm one of them. It's disgusting what you're doing. It is disgusting. And I think you know it.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I'll reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers, but I will continue to reserve the balance of my time, unless you're prepared to close.

Sunday, Bloody Sunday. Can't wait.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time as we have no further requests for time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do think we should go back and review history. The reality of this bill is the fact that it spends nearly $1 trillion, and the reason you can try to say that it's deficit-neutral or reduces the deficit is because it raises taxes. Only in America do you try to get away with saying, Hey, we're going to spend nearly $1 trillion, and by the way, it's not going to hurt the deficit. And let's also go back and review history and understand that during that time you like to tout when President Clinton was in office, the reality is that the debt continued to increase. There was a reduction in the annual deficit, and a Republican Congress was in charge. It is the Congress of the United States of America that originates spending. So let's also make sure that we're fair on that point as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are several concerns with this. In fact, in the bill there are several good programs and things of quality that I would applaud, but there are some basic fundamental flaws that put me in a position, and others in a position, where we are unable to support this amendment and the overall bill.

First of all, it addresses simply two programs within a list of 16 that are found within NOAA's education programs and supporting offices. Further, you see, and actually Jared Polis, a colleague of ours, had a Dear Colleague letter talking about Environmental Protection Agency educational programs. I don't think it has been addressed how cohesive or incohesive it might be between the overlap and what might be happening or not happening. I don't think that has been properly ferreted out.

Now through some foresight in previous Congresses here, the National Academy of Sciences was tasked with a 2-year study to go out and look at what is going on over at NOAA and what their recommendations are. We have spent, as American taxpayers, over a million dollars to get this report, and yet it seems to be totally ignored. Why does this Congress continue to spend money on worthless reports if the Members are going to simply ignore them and say, Oh, well, these are my two pet projects; and, by the way, let's go ahead and give them 10 percent increases year after year after year?

Is there no recognition that this country is over $12 trillion in debt?

We are paying over $600 million a day in interest on the debt, and yet we continue to fund these programs at record

levels, and giving them amazingly high increases without recognition of the fact that this body has got to make difficult decisions.

We can't be all things to all people. We are going to have to make some difficult decisions in this body. And to what is this body actually going to say ``no''? Where do we actually turn around and say, No. You know what; we are this far in debt and, I'm sorry, we just can't increase the funding for another educational program?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

America gets it, what is happening with this health care bill. America gets it. They understand. The Peoria-based Caterpillar just announcing that in the first year alone they believe their costs will increase $100 million in their first year. I would like to read a quote from Caterpillar, Mr. Gregory Folley, the vice president and chief human resources officer at Caterpillar. Quote, ``We can ill afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors. We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns that we have raised throughout the year.''

Wasn't it the President of the United States that traveled to Peoria to go visit Caterpillar to tout all these great programs he was going to do? And yet Caterpillar, one of our most important manufacturers in this country, is saying they alone will have $100 million in additional costs to their company. I fear for the small businessman and the small businesswoman, while it is touted on the other side, we're going to put root beer in every drinking fountain and it's just going to be glorious, and somehow this $900-plus billion isn't going to add to the deficit. Come on. Come on. Who believes that?

This government can't get anything right when it comes to cost. That is why we are $12 trillion in debt. That is why we are paying over $660 million a day just in interest. At some point we have to become responsible. We can no longer take money out of the American people's pockets only to redistribute it to where the Congress thinks it should go. That is wrong. It is wrong. It is not the proper role of government to mandate this.

These solutions to health care will best come at the States. They will not come from this body, they will not come from Washington, D.C. And we have to have across this country for people to let their Members of Congress know they are not going to stand up for it anymore. Caterpillar is standing up and saying $100 million. Who do you think that is going to affect? It is going to affect the rank and file, the members there in Illinois who may not have a job anymore.

The number one thing we can do to actually help people with their health care is get this economy, get jobs going again, because I guarantee if you have a job, you have much more of a propensity to be able to go out and get the health care that you want and you deserve.

Yet today we are looking at a bill and the other side is saying, we need to spend money on this education program and we're going to increase its spending, its costs, 10 percent year after year after year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, one of the things we are going to have to be careful with this health care debate is trading votes for jobs. Let's keep an eye on Mr. Gordon, where it was reported that he was promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote. Maybe we ought to pay attention to Mr. Tanner, who it was reported that he wants an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote.

I hope we pay very close attention to these types of backroom deals that unfortunately might be happening in this very body.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake to the Amendment in the Nature of a

Substitute Offered by Mrs. Capps

I have nothing to say.

I think it's important that we pay attention to those types of things. This is no doubt an emotional, deep debate.

As I said, it's something that we should be aware of. It's something that we should pay attention to. I think that's fair. We'll pay attention to it.

I appreciate your comments and the direction that you're going. You've had a great and distinguished career. We applaud you for that. I appreciate your service in this Congress, the work that we've done together. But I think it's fair that we pay attention to what might or might not be happening.

I have no reason to doubt your word.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has to get control of spending. We're $12 trillion in debt. We're spending more than $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. At some point, some way, we're going to have to curb spending in this body. This bill authorizes a 10 percent increase every year for the 5 years covered in this bill. This is just too much. This motion to recommit does three very simple things.

First, it freezes funding in the bill to fiscal year 2010 appropriated amounts for the next 5 years--a very reasonable approach. This means that what these programs are getting this year is what they will get next year. No 10 percent increases. Just flat funding. In fact, I would remind this body that it was President Obama that asked for a spending freeze. I concur with the President on this issue in this matter. This Federal Government has to learn to live within its means.

Second, this motion to recommit would prohibit any entity from receiving a grant under this bill if it is currently suing the Federal Government. This bill allows both nonprofit and for-profit organizations to qualify for grants. The amendment simply disqualifies any of those that have a lawsuit against NOAA. Groups can't expect the American taxpayer to allow them to accept free money with one hand while taking the government to court on the other hand. The grant program in this bill shouldn't be allowed to become an avenue for subsidizing or enabling lawsuits that tie up the courts and waste the taxpayers' money.

Third, it expands the list of areas for which environmental literacy grants may be given. This legislation authorizes two educational programs aimed at teaching young people about the coastal and marine environment, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute adds language that will include lessons about jobs that are created by using the natural resources and the benefits of our coastal economies. However, the legislation does not include one more issue that affects some areas of our coastal environment--natural seepage.

In many areas of our Nation's coastline, natural seeps of oil and natural gas occur. This is common in the Gulf of Mexico, but probably nowhere more prevalent than in the areas off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. The educational programs authorized in this legislation are perfect vehicles to teach our young people about these naturally-occurring petroleum seeps--that they do exist, and they can have an effect on our beaches and our coastal air quality. The program proposed here will offer an opportunity to educate our communities and children about the cause of these seeps and the ability of resources and energy development to lessen the volume and impact of these natural seeps into our environment.

Again, this motion to recommit simply will freeze funding at the current year appropriated levels; block groups that have a lawsuit against NOAA from receiving grant money; and expand the range of grants to include the impacts of oil seeps on our beaches and marine environment. I would urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, the one-size-fits-all federally controlled health care plan proposed by the Democrats as ``reform'' will never address the particular needs of each state the way a successful health care system must do.

It is essential that Congress allow states the flexibility to respond to local markets, institutions, demographics, and issues. At the very least a federal plan must contain opt-out provisions for states. The current plan does not include these provisions and could seriously undermine years of hard work and progress in Utah.

Utah's Governor recently sent a letter to the members of our delegation outlining some of

his concerns with the current proposal for a federal takeover of health care. In his letter, the Governor criticized the current health care legislation as not providing Utah the flexibility to create solutions and address problems in a manner best suited to Utah's unique needs.

The Utah state legislature shares the Governor's concerns about increased federal restrictions on states' abilities to regulate health care. The legislature passed a bipartisan concurrent resolution urging Congress, should it pass health reform legislation that further restricts states, to grandfather certain state laws, regulations and practices that have proven very successful in Utah.

I stand with the Utah legislature and the Governor in urging Congress to refuse to enact any legislation that imposes further restrictions on a state's ability to regulate health care in the way that best meets the needs of its citizens.

Office of the Governor,

Salt Lake City, Utah, March 11, 2010.

Hon. Jason Chaffetz,

Longworth Building,

Washington DC.

Dear Congressman Jason Chaffetz, I am writing to encourage

you to resist the Obama Administration's current push to pass

the White House health care reform plan as quickly as

possible. As I have outlined in previous communications, the

White House plan is not in the best interests of the citizens

of the State of Utah.

While in Washington recently with the National Governors

Association, I discovered, through discussions with my

counterparts, that many are working on state-based health

system reform. It quickly became clear, however, that the

country's governors were not welcome to participate in the

national dialog, which is an unfortunate and critical

mistake. States must have the opportunity to address local

needs with local solutions and to help shape the national

debate.

Simply put, the White House plan does not provide Utah with

the flexibility to create solutions and address problems in a

manner best suited to our unique needs. A one-size-fits-all

``solution'' will never address the particular needs of each

state and its citizens. States must be allowed flexibility to

respond to local markets, institutions, demographics, and

issues. At the very least, a federal plan must contain opt-

out provisions for states like Utah, which has already come

so far in reforming our own health care systems. The current

plan does not contain these provisions and, as it stands

today, could seriously impede three years of hard work and

progress in Utah. These opt-out provisions are critical to

states like Utah, which is leading the way in reform.

The White House plan is a rejection of the concept of

federalism, which is so vital to our nation. It ignores the

fact that the right way to go about reform is to allow the 50

states to be 50 laboratories of innovation. This is the only

way to really learn what works and what doesn't, and for

whom. For the past three years, Utah has been one of the

leading states in developing health care reform, and the

results are beginning to show great promise. We have had

several successes, particularly with the Utah Health

Exchange, and we continue to build on those successes.

Our friends in other states are also beginning to learn

what works for them and what does not. If Washington leaders

are serious about finding a good solution for the nation,

shouldn't they be looking to these states for guidance?

If designed correctly, federal reform that creates

flexibility and rewards innovation will provide benefits well

into the future. In fact, I would like nothing more than to

lend my support to a meaningful bipartisan federal health

reform bill. However, there appears to be little interest

from the White House to create such a bill. The process the

Administration is pursuing all but guarantees that no

bipartisan bill will emerge. Yet, here in Utah, all of our

health system reform legislation has enjoyed broad bipartisan

support. It can--and it should--be done. That message must be

heard in Washington.

As Governor, I ask that you continue to work toward a

bipartisan federal reform bill. One that recognizes the

proper role of the states as laboratories and provides the

support we need to be flexible in addressing our unique

situations and demographics.

Thank you for your leadership and assistance with this very

important issue.

Sincerely,

Gary R. Herbert,

Governor.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the second time in just one short week to honor a young Marine from my district who paid the ultimate price for our country, and reminded us with his sacrifice that freedom isn't free.

Marine LCpl Nigel K. Olsen died on March 4, 2010, while serving in the Helmand province in Afghanistan, just days after Lance Corporal Aragon, a fellow Utah Marine in his unit passed away.

Like so many serving with him, Lance Corporal Olsen rose to answer the call of duty with a maturity and patriotic honor far beyond his years. He had finished high school at Mountain View High in Orem just 3 years earlier, and enlisted right after graduation. He knew from a young age that he wanted to serve in the military, to serve the country he loved, even before he rode on an aircraft carrier from Hawaii to California in elementary school.

We honor Lance Corporal Olsen's mother Kim and father Todd, and his sister Stacy and her daughter as well. They also loved their country-- our country--enoughh to let the son and brother and uncle whom they loved serve in Afghanistan with his fellow Marines.

At this time of their loss, I would ask my colleagues to join with me in extending our Nation's heartfelt condolences and appreciation for the service and sacrifices of Lance Corporal Olsen and his family. We ask so much of these fine young men and women in the Armed Forces.

May we ever keep our servicemembers and their families in our thoughts and prayers, and may God bless them, and the United States of America.

America lost one of its finest. Carlos Aragon, 19 years old, from Orem, Utah, was killed while serving as a Marine in the Helmand province. It's so sad when you hear these reports. Your hearts and your thoughts and your prayers go out to the family. But at the same time, your heart is filled with pride that these young men and women will step up at such a young age to fight and protect this country and fight and protect for the good of the United States of America.

I hope we do more to recognize these young men and women. I thank that family. May God bless them, and may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 53 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

With all due respect to the great people of the Virgin Islands and to my colleague, I stand in opposition to this bill. No doubt, the Virgin Islands is one of the most spectacular, beautiful places on the face of the planet. But this bill is about priorities of the United States of America.

We are $12 trillion in debt. We are spending $600 million a day just in interest on that debt. This Congress momentarily is going to have to raise the debt ceiling another $1.8 trillion. We don't have the money to do this.

Currently, the National Park Service has an estimated $9 billion in backlog, $9 billion that they need to help with the national parks to preserve and to upgrade what we already have in our current holdings.

We don't have the money. We don't have the resources. If you look at what the President is probably going to say here in less than 8 hours, he might come in and try to create this air of, oh, we have to be a little fiscally responsible. We should probably freeze a few things.

For the second time in just over a week here, we are going to actually come and look at this bill to acquire at the cost of $40 million to $50 million property with funds that we don't have.

No longer can this government continue to use the government credit card to rack up debt. Those that decide to vote in favor of this bill, although it's just an authorization--I know it's not an appropriation-- are saying, sure, yeah, let's go buy some beachfront property.

We don't have the money. Think of all the other things that we could do and should do in prioritizing this country. We have 1,500 people a day that die from cancer, and we're not adequately funding those types of things. We deal with homelessness, and we have Homeland Security issues. But this government continues to acquire private property and put it into the Federal Treasury. I think it's fundamentally wrong.

As was pointed out earlier, there is no report. The National Park Service does not recommend we make this transaction because they haven't even finished the study. Why does this government spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a study if it doesn't matter? Maybe what we should have also done is add an amendment to stop the study and recover as much money in funds as we can. There is absolutely no reason, if the Democrats are going to move forward and push this thing through, to actually do the study. I don't care if it's $2,000. Let's save it. And until this body has that type of attitude, we will continue to have the systemic problems that we have in this government.

Just yesterday, the Governor of the territory stood up before the people and said this: ``However, the global economic crisis has had a great impact on our economy. It has devastated our government funds, where we are running a monthly deficit of $25 million and our tax revenues fell by over 30 percent. This means that we had 234 million fewer dollars to spend than we had just the year before. To put this in perspective, $234 million is almost half of the cost of salaries and benefits of our government workers for a full year.''

Now some will say, well, we should move forward with this. Well, guess what? It's going to take property off of the tax rolls and put the burden on the Federal taxpayer. Why should the people of Iowa or Rhode Island or Utah or California have to continue to pay and supplement the people there on St. Croix for this property? I don't think it's fair. I don't think it's right. The Federal taxpayers will be the ones responsible for reimbursing on the lost property tax, plus the million dollars a year that it's going to take in order to just maintain the facility.

Again, as we said, there are existing parks that need our help, $9 billion in backlog. If this was really such a great thing for the island and they really wanted to do it, my suggestion is to do it locally. Locally they can go and acquire this. It does not require the Federal taxpayers to take on this burden.

I think one of the arguments back to that would say, well, we can't afford it. Well, neither can the Federal taxpayers. Neither can the United States of America. It's time we stand up and say ``no'' to a bill like this.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I am a freshman in this body. I didn't help create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. The fact of the matter is we have to spend less than we are spending now. We have to be responsible stewards of the American people's money.

We are $12 trillion in debt. Remember, if you spend $1 million a day every day, it would take you nearly 3,000 years just to get to $1 trillion, and we are $12 trillion in debt. When is this body going to say no?

This body is not making difficult decisions. I am sorry, but the Democrats in control have refused to find a solution to things that don't cost literally hundreds of billions of dollars every time we turn around. We can't be all things to all people. We have to learn to say ``no.'' At what point will there actually be a cap? At what point will there actually be a ceiling? We see no hope on the horizon for that.

We have got to be responsible stewards of the American people's money. We cannot be all things to all people. We are spending nearly $600 million a day just in interest on our debt.

General Leave

Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is really bad government at its worst. I really do believe that in my heart of hearts. It seems to be a vehicle to drop in things that would never pass by themselves, and we are hearing that criticism on both sides of the aisle.

It's 2,500 pages, and the gentleman from Massachusetts asks, Well, why is that important?

It is important because we have been given just hours to try to review this. It is a physical impossibility to actually read and comprehend what is in this bill. I, for one, was elected as a freshman because I was critical of the Republicans and the Democrats. It is a shame that this bill and this rule are being pushed upon us without an opportunity to properly review it:

2,500 pages. $446 billion in expenses. Nearly a 12 percent increase in spending year after year in the base spending. Over 5,000 earmarks that could never withstand the light of day if we had to vote on them and look at them one at a time, as my friend Mr. Flake has brought many times before this floor.

Next week, there is going to be legislation moved forward to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion. Let no person in this body try to kid themselves that they are concerned about the debt and the deficit when they have to continually raise the debt ceiling to try to clean things up. No. We continue to mortgage our future every time we are met with a challenge. The only thing I hear is we need billions and billions more.

It is time for this Congress to make tough, difficult decisions and to limit the spending. That will help grow the economy. That is the responsible thing to do. That is what the American people asked us to do, but that is not what this body is doing. It is time for some personal responsibility here in the United States Congress. We should defeat this rule, and we should get serious about limiting the amount of expenditures that happen in the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work Mr. Gordon has done on this bill with broad, bipartisan support, and I appreciate the leadership of Jim Matheson, who has led out on this issue for years.

In short, for those of you who are supportive of the nuclear industry, and like me want to see the expansion of the nuclear industry, we need to make sure that we reserve the capacity so we can deal with the waste. We won't be able to have expansion unless we have the capacity to actually store the waste.

And for those of you who don't want to see any sort of expansion of the nuclear industry, then why in the world would you ever want to take nuclear waste from foreign countries?

I am a very strong supporter of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear reactors in America provide the United States with roughly 20 percent of its electricity, yet we have built no new reactors since 1978. That is why I am a cosponsor of the American Energy Act, which establishes the national goal of bringing 100 new nuclear reactors online over the next 20 years. Achieving this goal is important for our economy, our environment, and for energy independence. This is why facilities like the one located in Clive, one of the best in the Nation and really the best in the world, need to dedicate their capacities to storage of American products. Expansion of our nuclear capacity will be nearly impossible if we allow our storage facilities to become saturated with foreign nuclear waste.

I support this bill and oppose the importation of waste into the country based on the basic laws of supply and demand. If the waste generated by Italian companies is so valuable, then why do businesses in Europe not step up to the plate? There is a reason why: With $1 billion on the line, there is not one place in Europe that is willing to step up and take it. It is dangerous. It is very dangerous. The answer, I would argue, is that other European countries do not want to take the risk of importing waste into their country. It is not a risk that I want to take for the State of Utah or for my country. And I believe that by passing this bill, I am confident that market forces will find a place for the waste somewhere other than the United States, and we can continue to propel the nuclear industry forward in the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, we would like to recognize Real Salt Lake for their inspiring MLS Championship victory. Some people had all but lost hope that they would compete in the playoffs, but the playoffs were just the beginning of their Cinderella rise to the top. Beginning with their first win in the playoffs against defending champions Columbus Crew and ending with the final win over the star-studded LA Galaxy, Real Salt Lake proved themselves to be a championship-caliber team.

Rather than relying on a few star players, this team proved the power of teamwork and the value of believing in one another. Led by their first-time coach/former player Jason Kreis and Captain Kyle Beckerman, they validated to the world what they already knew. Never giving up, Real came from behind to win in a high pressure penalty kick. We would like to congratulate Real Salt Lake and thank them for bringing a championship home to Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. -Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2009 Little League Softball World Championship team from Warner Robins, Georgia. The Warner Robins Little League softball team competed against six other teams from the United States and teams from around the world, including Italy and Canada. The Warner Robins team went undefeated throughout tournament play, and they clinched the championship by defeating the team from Crawford, Texas. Congratulations to that team as well.

These players showed tremendous desire to win and demonstrated true sportsmanship while ultimately going on to win the Softball World Series. There were many notable achievements on the field because of the remarkable efforts by the entire team and leadership of their dedicated manager and coaches. This victory was the culmination of hundreds of hours of practice and playing and winning many games during the regular season.

The win was of considerable interest to the citizens of Warner Robins, Georgia, because it made the community the first with a Little League to have won both a baseball and a softball world series championship. We should be proud of these young women who showed that teamwork and the ``never give up'' spirit can accomplish much, not only in the game of softball but also as a winning strategy in life. With so much turmoil in the world, it's great to see young women step up and achieve such significance. I hope they carry that through the rest of their lives and recognize this great moment and the team effort that it takes to truly be successful.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and would yield back the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3634 which designates the United States postal facility located at 109 Main Street in Swifton, Arkansas, as the ``George Kell Post Office.''

George Kell played baseball for 15 years and, in that time, established his place in history as one of baseball's greatest third basemen. Over the span of his career, he played with the Philadelphia Athletics, the Detroit Tigers, the Boston Red Sox, the Chicago White Sox, and the Baltimore Orioles. Not only was he a 10-time All Star player, but Mr. Kell is one of only 11 third basemen elected to the Hall of Fame.

Even after he retired, Kell's passion for the game continued. It led him to becoming a broadcaster for the Detroit Tigers. He broadcasted every game from 1959 to 1996, missing only one season in 1964. He was well loved and respected by fans and players alike. It's appropriate that we honor this local icon by supporting H.R. 3634.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. Speaker, with no other speakers, we would yield back the balance of our time.