Floor Statements

We all agree the loss of life that occurred last week when a flotilla designed to challenge Israel's effective blockade of Gaza ended in military confrontation, but Israel has a right to defend itself.

The history is clear in that region. Gaza is controlled by a terrorist organization known as Hamas. Hamas used Gaza as a launching pad for thousands of rockets that killed innocent civilians in Israel. Israel responded with military force and has instituted a blockade that has saved lives in Gaza and in Israel.

There's no humanitarian crisis. Ten thousand tons of food and medical supplies are transferred into Gaza every single week.

Remarkably, yesterday, the President said it was time for Israel to sharply limit its effective blockade in Gaza saying, ``The situation in Gaza is unsustainable.'' The truth is, Mr. President, your policy in Israel is unsustainable. The American people are on the side of Israel and Israel's right to defend herself.

Mr. President, whose side are you on?

As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have been a strong supporter of the U.S.-Turkish alliance. I've been to Ankar, Turkey. I have met with officials there. I knew the President before he was President of Turkey.

So you can imagine my dismay, Mr. Speaker, with the recent aggressive action by Turkey toward our most cherished ally, Israel. The complicity of Turkey in launching a flotilla to challenge the blockade in Gaza, the ensuing violence that occurred, the grievous loss of life is deeply troubling to those of us who have supported the U.S.-Turkish alliance in the past.

A few things need to be said. We grieve the loss of life, but Israel has a right to defend itself, and Turkey must know that America will stand with Israel in her inviolate right to defend herself. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Ten thousand tons of food and medical supplies are transferred into Gaza every single week, and the blockade has saved lives.

Hamas used the Gaza strip to launch vicious and brutal attacks, thousands of rockets on civilians. It costs lives in Gaza. It costs lives in Israel. Turkey needs to count the cost. Turkey needs to decide whether its present course is in its long-term interests, but America will stand with Israel.

Madam Speaker, on Thursday, May 13, 2010, I was absent from the House floor during rollcall vote No. 268 on the Halvorson of Illinois Amendment No. 38 to H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, May 19, 2010, I was absent from the House floor, during rollcall vote No. 277 on H.R. 5325, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his outstanding leadership.

This is a challenging time in the life of this country. Families are hurting, businesses in the city and on the farm are struggling. It's the worst recession in the last 25 years, and from Washington, D.C., failed economic policies.

So what do you do after your Big Government stimulus bill is a failure? Well, apparently the answer in this Congress is pass another one. Really, seriously. About a year and a half ago, with the support of this administration, Democrats in Congress passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill. Unemployment was at 7.5 percent, and we were told we had to borrow $1 trillion from future generations of Americans for this liberal wish list of spending priorities or unemployment would go over 8 percent. Unemployment now, as we all

know, is hovering at a painful 10 percent.

But after the stimulus bill was passed and failed, we came to March of this year, and the Democrats' answer was pass another stimulus bill built on the same economic policies, the HIRE Act, $17.6 billion. And now after the ``stimulus'' bill and after ``son of stimulus'' bill, we are now considering ``grandson of stimulus,'' and the American people are getting tired of it.

Democrats literally want us to take the same failed economic policies of this administration of the last year and a half and spend another $102 billion. This ``grandson of stimulus'' is another last-minute, patched-together hodgepodge effort to say they're working on jobs that will tack $54 billion onto our deficit and will increase taxes by more than $47 billion. They throw on $23 billion in there for a doc fix with no offsets. This is what Democrats actually kept out of the recent health care legislation to keep it under it's so-called ``$1 trillion'' number. It really doesn't fix anything.

As the ranking member of the committee just said, we've got temporary extensions paid for with permanent tax increases, and the American people are catching on. But this is what happens when a Democrat majority has no budget and no plan and no vision to get America working again. We've seen this movie before: ``Stimulus'' fails, ``Son of Stimulus'' fails, and now, as we all prepare to leave the Congress this weekend and remember those who fell defending our freedom at home and abroad, ``Grandson of Stimulus'' is on the floor.

Look, it's time for some new ideas here on the floor. I say to my colleagues, men and women that I respect, who have all earned the right to be here, why don't we try something completely different. How about fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C. right now? And how about let's do what John F. Kennedy did; let's do what Ronald Reagan did: across-the- board tax relief for working families, small businesses, and family farms. Get government under control, get government out of the way, and this economy will come roaring back.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. With all due respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts who just spoke with great passion about his position, I believe the American people don't want to see the American military used to advance a liberal political agenda, especially when the men and women who serve in our military haven't had a say in the matter. That's precisely what this Congress is poised to do today with a vote essentially repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Look, we all know that success on a battlefield requires high morale, unit cohesion. Standards of conduct over the years have been a critical part of this. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been in place for 17 years. Repealing it without waiting till we hear from our military in December is essentially a disservice to those who are putting their lives on the line every day.

I urge this Congress to stop and put our priorities in order. The American people don't want the American military used as a vehicle to advance a liberal social agenda. Give the men and women in uniform a say before bringing this change to the floor of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the efforts to eliminate the engine competition for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In the interest of full disclosure, let me say how proud I am of the more than 4,000 Hoosier employees of Rolls Royce who worked to develop this engine. But that is not why I am here.

I am here because I really do believe, as the Heritage Foundation has cited, that the essential choice between us today is competition or sole-source contracting. Either we can require two companies to engage in head-to-head competition each year for the next 30 years, or we can give one company a sole-source contract worth $100 billion for the next 30 years. Which do you think is more in the interests of the taxpayers?

Oppose this amendment.

I rise in opposition to efforts to eliminate the engine competition for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me say first how proud I am of the more than 4,000 Hoosier employees of Rolls Royce, which teamed with General Electric to develop the F136 engine for the F-35.

But let's look at the facts regarding this competitive engine program, which began 15 years ago and today is 70 percent complete,.

History tells us that competition serves the taxpayer well and this is no less the case when it comes to fighter engines.

In its study, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office found that the F-16 engine competition yielded savings of 21 percent in overall lifecycle costs. Using that as a model, we might anticipate a 20 percent benefit from the JSF engine competition, but it would only need to generate 1 percent to 2 percent cost benefit to recoup the remaining investment needed to complete the F136 program.

In addition to the outstanding opportunity for cost savings, competition also improves operational readiness and contractor responsiveness.

Building the F-35 using two interchangeable engines from two separate manufacturers provides insurance against fleet-wide engine problems down the road. As the Heritage Foundation noted recently, without the F136, it is estimated that by 2035 nearly 90 percent of our fighters will use a single engine, the F135 baseline engine.

A competing engine program also hedges against the risks posed by testing failures, required redesigns, cost growth and delays in the primary engine program. And because it is a follow-on program, the F136 provides growth

paths for propulsion systems and technological innovation that can address problems that arise such as potential aircraft weight growth.

The essential choice before us is between competition and sole source contracting. Either we can require two companies to engage in head-to- head competition each year for the next 30 years--or give one company a sole source contract worth $100 billion for the next 30 years. Which do you think is most likely to control costs and deliver the best engine to the American taxpayer?

The answer is clear: competition provides an important cost-control mechanism in defense procurement, it encourages innovation, and mitigates risk.

I urge my colleagues to support competition and military flexibility, and oppose the Pingree Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Murphy amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey for a parliamentary inquiry at any time.

I rise in opposition to the Murphy amendment.

Let me say I do so because I believe the American people don't want to see the American military used to advance a liberal political agenda, especially when the men and women who serve in the military haven't had a say in the matter, and they have been promised to have a say. We've received correspondence from leading voices in the American military who have suggested, were the Congress today to enact this legislation, it would break faith with our men and women in uniform.

Now, let me concede to the point. I was raised by a combat veteran. I did not wear the uniform of the United States, but I have strong objections to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I believe that that compromise of 17 years ago has been a successful compromise. It has preserved unit cohesion. It has preserved morale. It has enabled us to go forward with readiness and recruitment without interruption. It, of course, itself, was a compromise that represented an historic change from the policy of the American military.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Murphy amendment.

Let me say again: The American people don't want the American military used as a vehicle to advance a liberal political agenda, especially when the men and women who serve in our military haven't had a say in the matter. That is what this Congress is poised to do today. Make no mistake about it.

I urge my colleagues, regardless of what one thinks about social issues and social values, to respect our military. Let's respect men and women in uniform. Let's hear them out before we introduce such an enormous change in the culture and in the practice of the American military, one that would be represented by the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for the courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply pose a question to the gentleman: Did not the author of this amendment say that it is not whether we will repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell but how and when, from recent press reports?

After years of being shut out of the debates here on Capitol Hill, seeing runaway Federal spending, bailouts, and takeovers built behind closed doors, the American people finally have a way in-- an unambiguous seat at the table. It's called AmericaSpeakingOut.com.

Since the outset of this Congress, Republicans have been offering positive solutions to the challenges facing this country. In building a governing agenda for this Congress, Republicans have been listening to the American people, and AmericaSpeakingOut.com is a continuation of that process.

Now let me say, this is not a listening tour. House Republicans are not a party in search of our principles. We know what we believe. We're committed to the principles of economic growth, fiscal discipline, a strong defense, and traditional American values. But we simply believe that the best ideas in America come from the American people. That's why we launched AmericaSpeakingOut.com.

So I urge all Hoosiers and, frankly, all my countrymen, whatever your politics, whatever your philosophy, join us

for the conversation at AmericaSpeakingOut.com. House Republicans are listening.

Mr. Speaker, back in my beloved Indiana and all across this country, families are hurting. This is a difficult time in the life of our economy. Families are sitting down and making hard choices. They are writing a family budget. Small businesses and family farmers are doing the same, sitting down, sharpening their pencils, and making the tough choices to keep the doors open and the lights on. They are doing that everywhere but in Washington, D.C.

The American people deserve to know that this Democrat majority has not produced a budget. For the first time since the adoption of the Budget Act, the House of Representatives has decided to abandon its responsibility to sit down and write a budget. It's truly extraordinary.

The chairman of the Budget Committee, the distinguished gentleman John Spratt, said famously, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.'' Well, by abdicating their responsibility to sit down and make the hard choices, this majority is arguing that they in and of themselves cannot govern, they are unwilling to govern. The American people deserve leadership in the Congress that is as good as our families and our small businesses. They deserve a Congress that writes a budget.

Mr. Speaker, where's the budget?

Our country is weary of borrowing and spending and bailouts from Washington, D.C. So the American people deserve to know we're bailing out Greece, and future Americans may be picking up the tab for as much as $50 billion in additional loan guarantees for the rest of Europe in the form of a bailout.

Here's how it works: the European Union's members and the IMF recently pledged $145 billion in a Greek bailout; $40 billion of that came from the International Monetary Fund. Since the United States pays 17 percent--we're the largest contributor to the IMF--American taxpayers are on the hook for $6.8 billion in loan guarantees from the IMF, and it may just be a down payment. The EU this last weekend talked about a $1 trillion bailout plan that could put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for $50 billion in additional loan guarantees to bail out Europe.

Look, the EU was formed to compete with the US of A economically, and it is simply not right to ask the people of the United States of America to provide loan guarantees to bail out an economic competitor in Europe. Nobody wants to see the EU fail, but we're not asking for their help in New Jersey or California. They shouldn't be asking our help for Portugal, Spain, or Greece.

Madam Speaker, today is the 59th celebration of the National Day of Prayer.

Like most Americans, I believe that the effective and fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, and what is true of individuals is also true of nations.

The truth is that America has always been a Nation of prayer. Pilgrims relied on prayer during their first and darkest winter. Our Founding Fathers prayed during the Continental Congress in 1776. President Lincoln offered his famous proclamation for humility, fasting, and prayer at the height of the Civil War, and President Truman named the National Day of Prayer in 1952.

Sadly, voluntary prayer has been under attack of late. It has been driven from our public schools and from our graduation ceremonies by activist courts. Just last month, a Federal court declared this National Day of Prayer to be unconstitutional. That ruling ignored our history, our traditions, and it should be overturned.

During these days of challenge for American families at home and abroad, on this National Day of Prayer, let it be said now more than ever: we are a Nation of prayer.

Mr. Speaker, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an ongoing tragedy, and the American people deserve action to protect our gulf, and they deserve answers.

The American people deserve to know what happened on April 20, and Congress should investigate it thoroughly. The American people deserve to know why the administration was slow to respond, why the necessary equipment was not immediately on hand in the area, and why the President did not fully deploy Cabinet-level Federal officials until he spoke at the White House on April 28.

Lastly, the American people deserve answers for a pathway toward energy independence. There would be those in this country who would exploit this ongoing disaster to deny the American people more access to American oil, but the American people know better. The pathway toward energy independence is an environmentally responsible expansion of domestic drilling for oil and natural gas. It is more wind and solar and nuclear and more conservation.

Republicans are determined to give the American people the answers about what happened on April 20 and about the slow Federal response, and Republicans are determined to give the American people answers and a pathway toward energy independence that uses all of the above.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, which simply grants the people of Puerto Rico a say in their future.

First, a little history lesson. The American flag has flown over Puerto Rico for more than a century. It has been a U.S. territory since 1898. The people of Puerto Rico have been citizens of the United States since 1917. Citizens born in Puerto Rico are natural-born U.S. citizens bound by Federal law. They pay Federal payroll taxes, and they are even eligible to be elected President.

American citizens from Puerto Rico have been drafted into military service during World War II and every war ever since--five Medal of Honor winners from Puerto Rico--65,034 Puerto Ricans served in World War II alone.

It has been an enormous contribution to the life of this Nation by these American citizens.

As a conservative who believes in the power of self-determination and of individual liberty, I believe the 4 million American citizens in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should be able to voice their opinions about Puerto Rico's relationship to the United States, although the ultimate determination of that fate rests with this Congress, and I am pleased to stand in a long line of Republicans who have taken that view. Every Republican President for the last 50 years has been committed to self-determination and democracy for the American citizens in Puerto Rico.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan said, ``Puerto Ricans have borne the responsibilities of U.S. citizenship with honor and courage for more than 64 years. They have fought beside us for decades and have worked beside us for generations.'' He also added Puerto Rico's ``strong tradition of democracy provides leadership and stability'' in the Caribbean. I agree.

If the American citizens of Puerto Rico choose independence, I will support that vote. If the American citizens of Puerto Rico choose statehood, I will support that vote. I am equally confident that this Congress will be able to resolve any difficult issues about taxation, obligations of individuals and, most importantly, about the need for English to be the official language prior to any offering of citizenship to that territory.

The American citizens of Puerto Rico have fought, have bled, and have died in our military, on virtually every continent, in order to spread democracy and the right of self-determination. It seems to me it would be the height of hypocrisy for this Congress to deny the very same rights for which Americans have fought all over this world to the American citizens of Puerto Rico.

I know this is a difficult and a contentious debate, and I hold in the highest regard my colleagues who take a different view; but for me, for President Ronald Reagan, and for all freedom-loving Americans, I believe with all of my heart the time has come to adopt the Puerto Rico Democracy Act and to begin the process of allowing the American citizens of Puerto Rico to determine what will be their destiny, and we will determine it as well.

Well, after months of debate and assurances that their government takeover of health care would actually result in lowering the cost of health care for Americans, the truth landed with a thud last Thursday. A new report from the Obama administration's own Medicare agency confirms what we have known all along: the President and congressional Democrats passed a health care law without any idea how to pay for it.

They promised to lower the cost of health care, but instead ObamaCare will send those costs soaring by $311 billion. Again, this is from their own analysts within the administration. The same report says some of the ways Democrats set out to pay for the bill are unsustainable, and some of the methods they used to control costs are, quote, ``negligible''.

The reality is that we need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with the kind of health care reform that will lower the cost of health care without growing the size of government. And House Republicans are determined to be on the side of the American people until we do just that.