Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow hundreds of young people from across Kansas will join thousands of Americans, young and old, on The National Mall for the March for Life. They are here to remind us all that, in the midst of all the important issues we talk about here in Washington, D.C., every single life is a gift.

This year is the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Since then, over 55 million abortions have been performed in the United States. This stain upon our Nation has been allowed to continue for far too long. Yet in the face of this continuing tragedy, I am encouraged by the fact that today the pro-life movement is stronger than ever.

I see the evidence of that movement in the eyes of the young people, young people that will come to Washington tomorrow from Benedictine College, from Conway Springs High School, from Bishop Carroll High School, from Kapaun Mt. Carmel, and from both Kansas State University and Newman University. It will encourage me to continue my efforts to protect the unborn each and every day.

While some just talk the talk, tomorrow the young people from Kansas will walk the walk, and I look forward to joining with them on this very special and important day to protect this very important right.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I rise in support of H.R. 161.

We are tens of thousands of miles of pipeline capacity short of the necessary pipelines to carry natural gas to consumers who need it and businesses who demand it today in America. You don't have to take my word for it--prices will tell you.

The gentleman from New Jersey just said he opposes this bill. Allow him to explain to his constituents why they pay six or seven or eight times as much for natural gas as someone else in the Midwest, or in places where there is adequate pipeline capacity today. It is unnecessary; it is unconscionable. America now has the resources to provide this gas to all Americans so they can heat their homes and cool their homes, so businesses can use natural gas to build products here in America. We no longer live in a world with energy scarcity here in America. We have an opportunity to get this product from where it is found to the consumers and businesses that are demanding it.

The other side of the aisle may tell you we don't have a problem, but I will

tell you that as you talk to your constituents, as one who does this all the time, constituents say: I am paying too much for my product. This is a solution that will work.

We don't make in this legislation a single change to the Clean Water Act, not one change to the Clean Air Act, not a single change to any legislation that has to do with pipeline safety. Not one. All those laws remain in effect. All we ask the government to do is its job. We give them a timeline. We give them ample time. If 12 months is not enough, I am happy to give them 13. We will change the legislation.

But, in fact, the opposition isn't because this is being rushed but because in fact this will speed the process. That is why folks are opposed. They know this will produce this gas in a way that is safe and reasonable, and we will have great outcomes. And yet they want to keep this product in the ground. That is the real reason for opposition to this bill.

So those of us who want to get this energy to the consumers, to where it needs to go, I urge them to support this.

Frankly, when you read the articles about the challenges of pipeline capacity in America, the place it impacts the most isn't the place from which I hail. It is not Kansas; it is not the Midwest. It is, in fact, the densely populated areas of the Northeast. They are the places that need this energy the most and the soonest and the safest, and we can get it for them. I urge those who live in those places to talk to their constituents and to do the work to make sure that they understand what H.R. 161 can accomplish for the people in the areas that they represent.

You know, this administration has taken a lot of efforts to reduce the capacity of coal to provide energy for businesses and consumers. I regret that. I am doing my best to push back in every place that we can, as I know our chairman is as well. But as coal-fired power plants become more difficult to build, the need for natural gas will become even more increased.

This legislation is aimed directly at making sure that we don't have shortages and outages and catastrophes in energy production and energy delivery that America cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 161.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the 931st Air Refueling Group--McConnell Air Force Base's reserve unit--on receiving the Raincross Trophy, which recognizes it as the best unit in the 4th Air Force.

I have spent a lot of time with the fantastic airmen out of McConnell, and I am not surprised, but I am extremely pleased to see that they have been granted this outstanding award. It is only fitting that the 931st has been selected as the first reserve unit in the Air Force to fly and maintain America's new KC-46 tankers. McConnell-based tankers flew nearly half of all missions of Air Mobility Command's total KC-135 flying hours over the past year, and many of this unit's soldiers and airmen were deployed in support of operations all around the world.

This award is a wonderful recognition of the hard work of Colonel Mark Larson, Chief Master Sergeant Kathleen E. Lowman, and all the men and women of the 931st Air Refueling Group.

I know I speak for all Kansans in saying we are proud of the 931st and the entire McConnell family. November Kilo Alpha Whiskey Tango Golf.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity.

The President spoke last week and he presented nothing that could be remotely considered a strategy, and yet, the American people understand the destruction of radical Islamic terrorism is mandatory. It is not mandatory for creation of democracy around the world, it is mandatory for keeping people safe in places like Omaha and Denver and Wichita, Kansas, the place that I represent.

Today, the world is watching what we will do here, what Congress will do. There are folks watching this in bunkers, there are people from Hamas watching how we will vote today. They are looking at how this Congress will respond to a President who has not laid out a strategy, who has now asked us to provide one arrow in the quiver, one small piece that doesn't amount to hardly anything remotely close to a strategy. They are looking to watch and see how we will respond.

And, today, we should respond by telling the President of the United States we will support his efforts to train and equip, but that we are going to watch and demand that he develop a strategy for the destruction of ISIL and for containment in the region as well.

Remember, it is not just ISIL that is the threat. The threat extends from Damascus to Tehran, it threatens Lebanon and Jordan, it threatens all the Middle East, and, indeed, if that territory is allowed to remain inflamed, will threaten us here in the United States.

Today, we take a very small action, a measured action, one that is necessary but hardly sufficient.

I urge my colleagues to support the McKeon amendment, and I urge the President of the United States to take action in a way that will defeat ISIL and defeat radical Islam and keep us all safe here in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 380, 382, 383, 384, 386, 387, and 401 I was unavoidably absent.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 381, 385, 389, 390, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, and 404 I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 24, I was unavoidably detained. On rollcalls 343, 344, 345, 346, and 348, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcalls 341, 342, 347, and 349, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 308 and 310 I was not available to cast my vote in person. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 309, 311, and 312 I was not available to cast my vote in person. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, first, thank you to Mr. Carney for working with me to craft this amendment, and Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for accepting it.

The issue of America's cyber capabilities has moved to the forefront of our national security discussion. The Secretary of Defense, the Intelligence Community, congressional leaders and even the President have all pointed to the need to strengthen our nation's capabilities in this arena.

The National Guard has experienced personnel and capabilities that are unique not only to their branches, but to the military as a whole.

This is reinforced to me every time I visit the 184th Intelligence Wing, and its component 177th Information Warfare Aggressor Squadron, both located at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita.

The work done by the 184th, and that done by men and women like them in Guard units around the country, provides critical intelligence to our warfighters across the globe and is absolutely integral to our national security.

Our amendment simply requires the Director of National Intelligence certify that the recommendations of the report required under Section 933 of the FY 2014 NDAA are consistent with the cyber operations capability needs of the United States before implementing any changes recommended by the study.

Because these Guard units provide experience and capability that exist nowhere else in the military, it is critically important that any proposed changes to their mission and structure are completely vetted. America's security, and the men and women of our National Guard, deserve nothing less.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, today, I rise to ask my fellow Members of Congress to take one small step towards fiscal sanity.

Chairman Wolf has done very nice work on this bill, but we are all familiar with agencies that have outlived their usefulness and no longer can withstand budget scrutiny. In these times, if we don't set priorities, nothing is a priority. Here is one opportunity for all of us to make one tiny step towards getting rid of what is now over $17 trillion in debt.

We often talk on our side of the aisle about having a spending problem. Here is a chance for all of us on both sides of the aisle to begin to attack that. We have an opportunity.

Part of the Department of Commerce, the Economic Development Administration, was established in 1965 as an element of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The current administration and, to be frank, many administrations, have used this for their own pork barrel projects and their own cookie jar. The EDA has spent over $3.2 billion in grants and does nothing more than pick amongst winners and losers by region, industry, and community. At its very core, the

EDA is nothing more than the purest of wealth distribution programs.

My amendment would eliminate funding for the EDA, totaling $247 million in fiscal year 2015, and send this money to the deficit reduction account. Based on current levels, eliminating EDA will save over $2.5 billion over the next decade.

Even though I ran two small businesses for 16 years, I had never heard of the Economic Development Administration before coming to Congress. I suspect many of my colleagues are similarly situated.

First, let me describe what the EDA does. It takes dollars from all across the country. That money comes to Washington where the EDA takes 20 percent of it off the top. That is the cost of the administrative burden of running the Economic Development Administration. They then ask companies and communities to apply for ``free money'' from the Federal Government to renovate a movie theater or to build a new industrial park.

While many much these projects aren't necessarily bad, some are just plain ridiculous. These are local projects that either have enough support from their local communities so they could certainly advance without Federal funding or they require Federal money because the local community won't support them. Either way, the Federal Government has no role in being involved.

You might not be familiar with EDA projects, so let me just talk about a couple of them.

In 2008, the Economic Development Administration provided $2 million to begin construction of the UNLV Harry Reid Research and Technology Park in Las Vegas, Nevada. Currently, this technology park features a paved road and a Web site claiming to be the first anticipated tenant moving in in 2010. No construction has even begun.

In 2010, $25 million was spent by the EDA for a Global Climate Mitigation Incentive Fund and $2 million for a ``culinary amphitheater,'' wine-tasting room, and gift shop in Washington State.

The EDA then gave New Mexico $1.5 million to renovate a theater in 2012.

In 2013 it gave Massachusetts $1.4 million to promote video games.

Back in the 1980s, the EDA used taxpayer dollars to build replicas of the Great Wall of China and the Egyptian pyramids in the middle of Indiana. They were never completed. It is now a dumping ground for tires.

After doling out your tax dollars, the Economic Development Administration often, along with a local Congressman or Senator, takes credit for these projects. They go to ribbon cuttings. The EDA is a frequent flyer, traveling all around the country, for just such ceremonies.

I first heard about the EDA in one such project. I was sitting in a committee where the director of the EDA proudly took credit for the jobs created at a $1.6 billion new steel plant. There was a $1.4 million grant, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the project. My guess is that the company's CFO knew nothing of the EDA grant.

Cutting the EDA, however, is not just a conservative idea, it is a good idea, and one that gets us closer to fiscal sanity here in America.

Madam Chairwoman, my amendment is fairly modest given the amount of debt we are piling onto our children and grandchildren. But this is an important vote to show that Members of this body are serious about limiting the size and scope of our Federal Government.

I urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, what is taking place today in America's Veterans Administration may be the most egregious case of friendly fire in the history of the United States of America.

This harm to our veterans from our team is coming not from firearms, but from an enormous bureaucracy that is incapable of dealing with providing health care to our Nation's warriors. It is unacceptable.

Words alone, Mr. President, I have to say, are not enough. We need action, not anger. We need results. We need delivery of health care to our warriors now, and whether that health care comes from inside the Veterans Administration or from outside, we need to get folks off our waiting lists, out of lines, and in to see doctors and folks who are prepared to take care of them.

The sacrifices these men and women made are enormous. As a veteran, I certainly understand that.

As a Member of Congress, I understand that it is my responsibility to make sure we fix this challenge, this bureaucratic mess that our Nation has put these veterans in now for years and years.

As we approach Memorial Day, we need to all take this seriously. I would urge this House to continue to work to perform its function of oversight and to correct this most egregious situation and get these veterans the care that they need.

Madam Speaker, Kansans and Americans across the country are exhausted by a job market that is failing them. The most recent report in March showed absolutely no improvement in employment. In fact, for women, we saw an increase in unemployment.

Madam Speaker, the President's latest attempt to redefine the workweek form 40 hours to 29 has already proved detrimental to millions of Americans. There are 7.2 million Americans working part-time for economic reasons. This will leave them with less money to take care of their families.

The President's policies have hit Kansans hard--things like identifying the lesser prairie-chicken as an endangered species or redefining navigable waterways such that puddles will come

under EPA's control. These policies have hit pocketbooks, paychecks, and families.

House Republicans have advanced hundreds of solutions that will help get America back to work.

Madam Speaker, we are 5 years into this administration, and it is no longer anything but a joke to blame President Bush for these challenges in our economic workplace. We need the Senate and the President to join us in providing solutions so we can create freedom so Americans can get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I am here this morning to acknowledge the Wichita State University men's basketball team and its unparalleled success this year. The number 2 ranked Shockers are the only team in the Nation that remains undefeated. At 34-0, the Wichita State Shockers are taking more wins into the NCAA basketball tournament than any team in the history of Division I basketball in the NCAA.

Our Shockers' head coach this year, Gregg Marshall, was just named the National Coach of the Year. The players on the court say proudly they have not played a single game that is tougher than any of their practices, and their play proves that team trumps individual every time.

It is said that some of these players were not five-star recruits, and that may be true, but I know them, and I can tell you they are five-star human beings. They come from places like Rockford, Illinois; Scott City, Kansas; Middletown, New York; and right in Wichita, Kansas. They come with no silver spoons. They are grinders; they are hard workers; they are scrappy; and they are fighters with big hearts.

They reflect our town and the best of America, and we love them. Godspeed to them.

Go Shocks.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

``We are disappointed, but not surprised, that Senate

Majority Leader Reid has once again falsely attacked Charles

Koch and David Koch today on the Senate floor. The Democrats

in general and Senator Reid in particular have targeted

Charles Koch and David Koch and tried to silence their

disagreement on important public policy issues since 2010,

using references to the IRS on occasion to do so. Senator

Reid's attack today--his third against Koch since January

30th--is particularly troubling because he appears to

reference a television advertisement produced by Americans

for Prosperity in which a Michigan woman suffering from

leukemia shared her experiences under Obamacare. While

Charles Koch and David Koch were not responsible for the

advertisement in question, we believe it is disgraceful that

Senator Reid and his fellow Democrats are attacking a cancer

victim as part of their campaign against Charles Koch and

David Koch.''

Philip Ellender,

President, Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC, Government

and Public Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I serve on the House Intelligence Committee, where I spend time trying to figure out how to keep America safe, and on the Energy and Commerce Committee, where I think about how to keep America free.

But today, I want to talk about how American law and our Constitution treats the least amongst us--the unborn.

Ultimately, our Nation will be judged not by how we treat the most powerful, but by the most powerless. The 41st anniversary of ROE v. WADE will be marked next week. There will be a big march here in Washington, D.C. Since 1973, when ROE v. WADE came down, over 400,000 Kansans have been killed. That is more than the largest city in my district, my hometown--Wichita, Kansas.

This national tragedy is why next week thousands of people will come from Kansas, hundreds from south central Kansas alone, for the March for Life. They will come from all walks of life, and they will speak about this violence that is being done upon our Nation.

Hundreds of people will get on buses next Saturday. I hope to greet them there. After the walk, I hope they will come to Cannon House Office Building, where we can talk about the importance of this issue to our community and Kansas and to our Nation.

I look forward to seeing them. I encourage everyone to come to Washington, D.C., and act on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.