Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1473, the continuing resolution for FY11.

We cannot stand here, in good faith, and call this legislation a compromise.

This bill includes a provision that will prohibit the District of Columbia from spending its own money to provide abortions to low-income women.

D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray certainly wasn't at the table for this compromise.

This bill includes a provision that would remove wolves from the endangered species list in Montana.

This science-based decision, a decision that's central to the Endangered Species Act, is not a compromise for politicians to make.

This bill includes a provision that guarantees Senate debate on healthcare repeal and defunding Planned Parenthood.

And, this bill includes a provision that would block a funding increase for the IRS to hire additional agents for oversight and enforcement activities.

I cannot stand here, in good faith, and support this legislation.

I would be compromising my constituents' trust in my ability to represent their beliefs, their values and their best interests.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the thousands of Polish- American constituents residing in the 5th District of Illinois, I rise today in recognition of the 20th Anniversary of the Lajkonik Song and Dance Ensemble. For 20 successful years, the Lajkonik Song and Dance Ensemble has promoted Polish folk culture and history to constituents of Polish and non-Polish decent alike.

Founded in 1991--under patronage of the Polish National Alliance Group 3241, and belonging to the Holy Trinity Polish Mission--Lajkonik has had the opportunity to flourish to an influential organization and cultural asset to the City of Chicago.

The Lajkonik Ensemble has performed in various locations in Chicago; some include the Chicago Cultural Center, Taste of Chicago, Daley Plaza, Chicago Public Libraries and Millennium Park, among others. Additionally, Lajkonik has traveled the Midwest and also represented the Chicago Polish Community at the International Folk Dance Festival in Rzeszow, Poland on four occasions.

Though the event focuses on Polish traditions, Lajkonik also reaches out to the American population to promote and encourage all people to learn about Polish culture, to support and appreciate it. The performances consist of different Polish regional folk songs, dances and colorful authentic Polish costumes.

Sunday, May 29th, 2011 marks the 20th Anniversary of the Lajkonik Song and Dance Ensemble. All the community support and time volunteered by numerous individuals have made two decades possible and hopefully many more anniversaries to come. The 20th Anniversary celebration will be held at the Copernicus Cultural and Civic Center consisting of hundreds of children performing in a Gala Concert displaying regional costumes, folk dances, songs, and other performances.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize this exciting day on behalf of my 110,000 Polish American constituents. I congratulate all those who contributed their time and passion of preserving the Polish culture toward another successful celebration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today because in a few short days this body will consider an extreme and devastating anti-choice bill. H.R. 3 attempted to redefine rape, aims to ban private insurance coverage of reproductive health care, and imposes tax penalties on plans that include care.

These unprecedented provisions have been widely debated, and it is my hope that the American people will realize the severity of this bill and that their Representatives will stop it. But my fear is throughout this debate, a dangerous provision of H.R. 3 has been overlooked, making permanent the Medicaid abortion ban, or the Hyde amendment. It is dangerous because if the extreme provisions are stripped out as a ``compromise,'' we are left with a ban that permanently bars poor women from accessing care, and we have still lost.

Let's call the abortion ban what it really is: a ban on constitutionally protected health care that poor women cannot afford on their own. I encourage my colleagues to stand with poor women struggling to make ends meet around the Nation, in staunch opposition to any Medicaid abortion ban and H.R. 3.

Madam Speaker, we spend a lot of time these days talking about costs--costs of regulation, costs of repeal, costs of implementation.

Conveniently missing from this discussion are the human costs: lives lost, those altered by heart attacks, asthma, and brain damage due to fine particulate matter in our air and mercury in our water.

My hometown of Chicago knows this all too well. Chicago ranks second of all cities in the country adversely affected by power plant pollution.

Two particularly egregious emitters, the Fisk and Crawford power plants, emit fine particulate matter that directly contribute to 41 deaths, 550 ER visits, and 2,800 asthma attacks annually. EPA estimates that fine particle pollution from power plants shortens the lives of 1,356 people from my home State each year.

Talk about costs.

In 2001, the Harvard School of Public Health put out an Illinois power plant study. In the 8 years since these harms were modeled and publicized, the Environmental Law and Policy Center estimates the continued Fisk and Crawford coal plant pollution has caused from $750 million to $1 billion in health and environmental-related damages.

Even if you don't care about global warming and you don't believe climate change is manmade, you can't argue with these numbers. So if you want to talk costs, let's talk costs. Fisk and Crawford power plants cost Chicagoans 550 ER visits per year. They cost Chicagoans 2,800 asthma attacks per year. And Fisk and Crawford power plants cost Chicagoans $750 million to $1 billion in only 8 of the 50 plus years

we've been collecting data on these pollutants.

The answer to these costs is not to repeal the law that cleans our air, that protects our children and allows us to remain competitive in a global market. The answer instead is to transition away from the antiquated and outdated industry that pollutes and toward green infrastructure that encourages domestic economic development.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and H.R. 910, the dirty air act.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would require that the GAO report to Congress the results of a study of health care costs in the U.S. as affected by the elimination of EPA regulation under this act. Further, the report would also detail health care costs in the U.S. proceeding under the EPA's current regulatory authority as determined in 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA.

It is science, hard facts, and figures that have led hundreds of scientists to confirm that global warming is real. Despite the other numbers you may have heard, the most convincing one is that there are over 200 peer reviewed scientific studies that have determined that global warming is real and that man contributes to that, and exactly zero that have proved or shown evidence to the contrary.

It was science that led the Congress to pass the Clean Air Act, the act which designated the EPA as the body charged with overseeing, adapting, and implementing these regulations. It was science that led the Supreme Court to rule in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

My amendment is simple. It directs the GAO to report the cost of health care under the Clean Air Act, and then to report the costs of health care with this bill passing as it modifies the amendment.

In 2010 alone, the EPA reported the reduction in fine particulate and ozone pollution from the Clean Air Act prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost workdays, and 1.7 million asthma attacks. These are serious health issues that burden the government with serious bills.

We face serious budgetary times. We may be out of a recession, but we are far from recovered. If we are committed to making the government more efficient and effective to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, we must acknowledge that spending a smart dollar up front saves many dollars on the back end.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that will allow the experts at the GAO to show us a world with the Clean Air Act and a world without. My estimation is that a world with less mercury in our water and less ozone in our air will cost far less in dollars and deaths than the opposite, but I will defer to the experts and look forward to their report on this subject.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I guess my response is, with all due respect, prove me wrong. If there is no health care risk, let the GAO independent analysis prove us wrong.

But there's a lot at stake here, and I would defy anyone to say that greenhouse gases are not in and of themselves--putting aside the issue of global warming--dangerous because many of them are precursors to ozone. I live in Chicago, which is the morbidity and mortality capital of the United States for people who are afflicted with asthma, and there is a dramatic and direct impact of what ozone does to those people suffering from asthma.

So prove me wrong. Show me how we're wrong on this. Let there be a study which goes to this, because if I'm wrong, no damage done. But if there is some danger here and we have decided that it is not worth our study, then we have done a grave disservice to the American public and put their lives at risk.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing, but also honor the distinguished career of Herb Kawainui Kane. For more than 80 years, Mr. Kane exhibited a love for the arts and a passion for Hawaiian culture that has been an inspiration for his people.

After leaving the Navy, Herb attended school in Illinois, where he would go on to earn his Masters degree from the University of Chicago. Herb went on to become a successful graphic artist in Chicago, before moving to Hawaii. There he would continue his career as an artist, and go on to become both a noted historian and an author. He went through life exemplifying hard work and dedication in his craft and culture.

Throughout his career, Herb received praise and admiration for his works as an artist, historian, and author. Herb's paintings have graced such locations as the Hawaii State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and the National Park Service. In 2009, Herb helped design a commemorative stamp for the U.S. Postal Service, celebrating 50 years of Hawaii statehood. He has also been selected as a Living Treasure of Hawaii for his work as a historian and has received an award for excellence from The Hawaii Book Publishers Association for his writing.

Herb's crowning achievement was his recreation of Polynesian canoes that were used by his ancestors. These canoes have been used to travel from Hawaii to various islands including, Tahiti, New Zealand, Easter Island, Tonga, The Marquesas Islands, The Cook Islands, Micronesia and Japan; of which the voyage to Japan totaled over 110,000 miles of navigation without modern equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Herb Kane and his numerous accomplishments. His life and career has inspired many and will continue to influence generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, Colstrip, Montana, is home to the second largest coal plant west of the Mississippi. One boxcar-full of coal is burned every 5 minutes.

The burning coal creates sodium, thallium, mercury, boron, aluminum, and arsenic, which is pumped out of the factory and into the air. The chemicals that are pumped into the air are caught in the factory's scrubbers and then dumped with coal ash into giant settling ponds. These ponds are shallow artificial lakes of concentrated toxicity which leach this poison into wells and aquifers.

The sludge flows into the surrounding towns and countryside, bubbling up against foundations and floorings, cracking the floor in Colstrip's local grocery store. Ranchers in eastern Montana are now suing the plant for damages; noxious water, they cite, is the only liquid that fill their wells and stock ponds.

James Jansen, a renowned climate scientist, says Colstrip itself will cause the extinction of 400 species. But Colstrip burns on. Why? Because we have no national energy plan, and because there are currently no Federal enforceable regulations specific to coal ash.

This lack of federally enforceable safeguards is exactly what led to the disaster in Tennessee, where a dam holding more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash failed. The TVA disaster destroyed 300 acres, dozens of homes, killed fish and other wildlife, and poisoned the Emory and Clinch Rivers.

From Tennessee to Montana and across the Nation, the story is the same: We have no national conservation plan, no national energy policy, no regulatory enforcement authority.

What is worse, today we are faced with a bill, H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which purports to protect citizens from taxation. In reality, this bill is a death sentence not only to our land, air, water, animals, and plants but to humans.

This bill overturns proven scientific findings that carbon pollution endangers the health of Americans. It repeals the greenhouse gas reporting rule and removes the Environmental Protection

Agency's authority to require energy efficiency at power plants and refineries. This bill simply says that science doesn't matter.

I stand here today to refute that claim and, further, to protect the integrity of science. It is this science, these facts and figures, that have led hundreds of scientists to confirm that global warming is real. In fact, over 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies have found that global warming is real and that man contributes to it. To this date, zero peer-reviewed studies have found otherwise.

It is this science that led the Supreme Court to rule that the Environmental Protection Agency does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and it is this science that led the Congress to pass the Clean Air Act, the act which designated the EPA as the body charged with overseeing, adapting, and implementing these regulations.

In the coming months, EPA will begin regulating greenhouse gases from certain emitters for the first time. These regulations have become hugely controversial and, sadly, political. These rules seek to combat man-made climate change; man-made climate change that is melting our polar ice caps, that is raising the level of our oceans, and that is modifying our seasonal temperatures; man-made climate change that is altering the duration of our growing season, that is flooding part of the world and is causing multiyear droughts and others; man-made climate change that is allowing particulate matters to infiltrate our children's lungs, making them suffer from lifelong asthma and making us die earlier.

And still, here we are, ignoring cries from health and medical professionals who have asked us, as Members of this body, to fulfill the promise of clean, healthy air for all Americans to breathe.

Support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay, or block progress toward a healthier future for all Americans.

Ignoring requests from former senior military officials who wrote just last week, ``America's dependence on oil constitutes a clear and present danger to the security and welfare of the United States,'' and that, ``As former senior military officials, we are concerned about congressional efforts to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority that is critical to reducing our dependence on oil,'' Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford the costs of the Energy Tax Prevention Act: Lost and devastated ecosystems, lost jobs, and lost lives.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This amendment serves no legitimate purpose and would only compromise our national security and put more Americans in harm's way.

By barring the use of Federal funds to mandate Federal firearms dealers to report the sale of multiple long guns such as semiautomatic assault rifles, this amendment would undermine the Obama Administration's efforts to combat cross-border illegal gun trafficking.

We must do everything we can to secure the border, strengthen our anti-gun-trafficking efforts, and help the Mexican Government fight the drug cartels.

The Mexican drug cartels are killing people at a staggering rate-- more than 30,000 since 2006. And long guns are widely known as the cartels' weapon of choice.

Some may shrug their shoulders and conclude this is just another problem beyond our reach. That would be a mistake.

The drug cartels are getting their guns from the United States.

Since 2006, the ATF has seized more than 10,000 firearms and nearly one million rounds of ammunition destined for Mexico, where the public is not allowed to purchase or possess guns.

Authorities in Mexico say most of the guns used in police assassinations and cartel bloodshed originate in the United States and have pressed the U.S. to reduce the flow of weapons south.

And this isn't just a border state problem. The impact of this trafficking is felt in my hometown of Chicago.

According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug trafficking organizations have infiltrated small and large cities in 48 U.S. States, affecting our national security.

For example, Mexican drug cartels have a significant presence in Chicago, which Federal officials say is a key transfer point for drugs heading to Minnesota and points north and east.

Last year, eleven alleged drug traffickers with connections to the Sinaloa Cartel were indicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago as part of ``Project Deliverance,''--a multi-state and agency effort to disrupt the flow of drugs and guns across the border.

The drug cartel's violent war for control, which is fueled by illegal trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico, seriously impacts our public safety.

The ATF's proposal to compel federal firearms dealers to report the sale of multiple long guns is not about gun control or compiling a registry of long gun owners.

This is a law enforcement response to the evidence from successful tracings of weapons recovered in Mexico.

Recent tracings show that a large number of these weapons were first sold by a licensed gun dealer in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas.

This amendment would undermine law enforcement's capacity to combat illegal gun trafficking and put Americans at even greater risk of gun violence.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Amendment No. 273, offered by my colleague, Congressman King.

This amendment's intent is to defund wage law requirements as established by the Davis-Bacon Act.

Davis-Bacon doesn't just help the workers who build our country support their families; it also makes sure that taxpayers get their money's worth.

The Davis-Bacon Act fosters competition based on quality, attracting workers who are more productive, more experienced, and well-trained.

The Federal Government should not be the engine driving the ``race to the bottom'', and Davis-Bacon helps ensure that public projects do not facilitate low ball bids that undercut the American worker.

Reports show that projects constructed with Davis-Bacon wage provisions are more likely to be completed on time, within budget, and with fewer future repair costs.

Problems arise in projects when you have unskilled workers who are working at the lowest of wages and do not have benefits to support their families. Prevailing wage laws help ensure the best condition for workers, and employees respond by putting their best work forward, benefitting the community and the taxpayer.

Elimination of the Davis-Bacon Act--which stabilizes wages, provides benefits to families, and promotes competition based on quality--would only foster an environment of low bidding, low wages, and poorer quality of work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished career of Dr. Michael Collins. For more than 25 years, he has exhibited a drive and work ethic on and off the ice that serves as inspiration to his colleagues and friends.

Dr. Collins, a Chicago native, attended the University of Notre Dame. In South Bend he played varsity hockey and shoveled furnaces to pay the bills, but still graduated in three and a half years. Upon graduation, Michael spent several years driving a cab, and working construction before entering medicine. After returning to college for another two years to take pre-med courses, he attended the Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine followed by five years at the Mayo Clinic. He is now a full-time, board-certified orthopedic surgeon.

In addition to his medical practice, he has written professionally for more than 30 years. His first book, Hot Lights, Cold Steel, continues to be a best-seller in the medical memoir field. Since its publication, Michael has lectured extensively on topics relating to medicine and writing.

Dr. Collins' hard work and accomplishments have earned him national attention, and in 2010 he received the American Hockey Coaches Association Lou Lamoriello Award. The Lamoriello Award recognizes a former college hockey player or coach who goes on to a distinguished career in or out of hockey.

Michael and his wife, Patti, have raised 12 children and today he still plays hockey twice a week. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Michael Collins and his life of achievement. His career has inspired many and continues to impress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Stearns, an amendment which seeks to hamstring the EPA's ability to do its job.

A job which Congress determined was the responsibility of the EPA.

A job which the Supreme Court ruled was the responsibility of the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with an amendment that would, quite simply, allow the President to continue to consult an Advisor on Energy and Climate Change.

Section 1535 of this bill, which forbids the President from hiring such an advisor, wouldn't save taxpayers a penny.

Section 1535, which my amendment would strike, is a misguided attempt to tell the President who he can and cannot consult.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, would any member of this body allow us to deny them counsel on energy and climate issues?

This is NOT a rhetorical question--every member of this body that employs a staffer on energy or climate issues should carefully consider whether they would deny the President that same counsel.

Whether or not you agree with the President on energy and climate issues, I would ask you--is it appropriate to silence those with whom you disagree?

I would also remind my colleagues that Section 1535 of this bill, which my amendment would strike, does not save taxpayers any money at all--not even a penny.

All it does is deny the President the ability to consult with a certain type of advisor.

Section 1535 is an unprecedented intrusion into the President's ability to retain and consult advisors on issues of national importance.

And energy and climate change are issues of national importance.

In light of recent catastrophes like the BP oil spill, ongoing efforts to prevent the EPA from doing its job, and rising rates of mortality and morbidity due to unhealthy air, land, and water--it is more important than ever that we support increased resources for the President and the Administration to do their job of keeping us, and our environment, safe and healthy.

I've stood on this House floor many times, some of them in recent days, and talked about decreasing wasteful government spending.

I've written whitepaper reports, both in Congress and while a Cook County Commissioner, detailing the importance of streamlining and reinventing government.

But, the crux of those arguments is predicated on the fact that I believe that what the government does matters--that government's mission matters.

What we do here today, and tomorrow, and the day after that, matters.

But this CR, which combines ideologically driven cuts with pretend cuts, like Section 1535, is not the answer.

Taking a sledgehammer to non-defense discretionary spending is not the answer.

We've got to talk about what programs are working and support them at the same time we cut the ones that don't work.

We're facing a climate crisis--a climate crisis that has become political and polarizing, pushing leaders into opposite corners of this debate.

But the facts aren't a debate if they're based on science.

And science says that for decades and centuries to come we're going to be dealing with rising temperatures, acidic oceans, extinct species, and skyrocketing healthcare costs due to dirty air.

In these trying times, we're trying to tell the President of the United States he doesn't have the right to counsel on energy and climate change?

With all due respect, Section 1535 is an unserious attempt to achieve some measure of fiscal responsibility.

But the truth is, it hacks away at the constitutional separation of powers and doesn't save taxpayers any money at all.

How we address energy and climate change issues will matter for our children, and our children's children.

We must not hamstring our ability to do so.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey). This amendment would restore vital funding to the title X family planning program.

Now, I am all for reducing our deficit and for getting our fiscal house in order, but let's be clear on something: this cut to title X will not save money.

The proponents of eliminating family planning funds want us to believe that cutting these funds is fiscally responsible and that it has to be done to balance our budget. What they don't want us to know is that investing in family planning actually saves money. For every public dollar invested in family planning, taxpayers saved nearly $4. So while cutting family planning appears to be a savings up front, over the long run it will cost us both in dollars and in the health and well-being of millions of women.

While we are being honest, let's also discuss the other motive of the proponents of cutting title X. They argue that cutting funds for family planning will reduce abortions. Once again, they are wrong. In fact, if they wanted to reduce abortions, they would increase funding for title X. Why? Because title X services prevent nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion.

If we want to get serious about cutting Federal spending and reducing abortions, a good start would be investing in title X, not eliminating it, which is exactly what this amendment will do. Of course, in addition to reducing unintended pregnancies and saving taxpayers' money, family planning providers, like Planned Parenthood, provide essential life-saving and preventative care.

In 2009, title X providers performed 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 million Pap tests, over 6 million tests for STIs, and close to 1 million HIV tests. For six out of 10 women who receive care from women's health centers, this is their only source of health care. Eliminating all funds for family planning would cut millions of women off from their primary and, in many cases, their only source of health care.

To the millions of women out there who want comprehensive reproductive health care: this is what they think of you.

They think that women should not have access to basic reproductive health care, including birth control. Recent legislation revealed that they think you shouldn't be able to access care even if you are a victim of rape or incest.

This is what they think of you.

All these bills reveal the true mindset of the opponents of choice: women are not capable of making their own decisions about their own health and their own lives.

These cuts to family planning programs would have a devastating impact in my community. Ten Planned Parenthood health centers in Illinois that provide primary and preventive care, including flu vaccines, diabetes screening, and cholesterol screening would all be forced to close. This would affect approximately 30,000 low-income patients and eliminate the jobs of 200 health center workers. Not exactly the kind of job-stimulating legislation we should be focusing on.

The conversation we're having today is not about choice, but choices. With family planning, we can reduce abortions and save the Federal Government money; without, we only pretend to do either. With family planning we can embrace educating and providing health care to women; without, we abandon women when they need care the most. With family planning, we can empower the women of America; without, we undermine them.

We have the choice. And we must choose to stand up to these attacks and fight back against the mistruths because the health, well-being, and lives of millions of women and their families are at stake.

This amendment is a strike against these wrongheaded cuts to family planning. I encourage my colleagues to restore funding to title X family planning programs and vote ``yes'' on Mrs. Lowey's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment introduced by my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez). If we are truly serious about reducing our long-term deficits, we must look at the whole picture, a picture that includes defense. There can be no sacred cows or pork.

Today, defense spending, including security-related programs, comprises almost 20 percent of Federal spending, yet it is the only part of this budget that is exempt from the tough cuts facing all other Departments.

The Osprey is one of the most egregious examples of waste in the defense budget, yet DOD continues to request this costly, ineffective machine. And with due respect, the only threat this amendment poses if it doesn't pass, it could kill our own troops. Even worse, Congress continues to fund it.

The Osprey was originally created to allow Marines to carry troops and cargo faster, higher and farther than a traditional helicopter. Now the Osprey is 186 percent over budget, costs $100 million per unit to produce, it is not suited to fly safely in extreme heat, excessive sand or under fire, and, sadly, this aircraft has killed 30 Marines in accidents.

The Government Accountability Office recommended DOD reconsider procurement of the Osprey, and experts argue a helicopter could achieve many of the objectives of the Osprey at a much lower cost. Let's show our constituents we are serious about cutting the deficit by looking at all parts of the budget. Waste is waste; bloat is bloat. The fact that it comes under the Department of Defense doesn't change anything.

I urge adoption of this amendment because eliminating funding for procurement of a costly, inefficient and over-budget V-22 Osprey will prove to our constituents that we are serious about reducing spending. It will help realign our military strategy to meet today's needs, and it will save the taxpayers $415 million this year alone.

I yield back.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce research and development spending at the Department of Defense by 10 percent. First inclination, we all know research and development is a good thing, but not when it begets wasteful spending. The continuing resolution before us makes deep cuts in non-defense discretionary spending. If we are truly serious about reducing our long-term deficits, we must look at the whole picture--and that picture includes defense.

Non-defense discretionary comprises approximately 15 percent of Federal spending. Meanwhile, defense spending comprises 20 percent of Federal spending. We cannot ignore one-fifth of the budget. As Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said, ``Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.''

My amendment would cut a modest 10 percent from the Department of Defense's research and development budget. DOD's R&D spending has experienced more spending growth since 2001 than any other major DOD appropriation category. DOD's research, development, testing and evaluation budget has increased 63 percent over the last 10 years, rising from $49.2 billion in FY 2001 to $80.2 billion in FY 2010. This is 33 percent more than the Cold War peak in real terms, even though today we face no traditional adversary comparable to the Soviet Union. Further, in FY 2009, R&D spending exceeded China's entire defense budget, the world's second largest, by $10.5 billion.

Surely as we look for places to balance the budget and in light of the vast superiority of our R&D budget, we can afford to reduce spending by 10 percent.

A number of fiscal commissions and watchdog groups agree that DOD research and development should be cut and proposed a number of proposals to reduce this development. The Sustainable Defense Task Force, a panel of defense experts from across the political spectrum, recently recommended requiring DOD to set its priorities and reduce R&D spending by $5 billion per year over 10 years. Additionally, the Cato Institute and the Task Force for a Unified Security Budget agree research and development could be significantly improved without harming security in order to achieve savings.

The Fiscal Commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center have also put forward proposals to reduce research and development costs. The Fiscal Commission proposes reducing DOD's R&D budget by 10 percent, for a savings of $7 billion in 2015. They pointed out this reduction would leave DOD at a level above the peak of the Reagan years in real dollars.

The Fiscal Commission cites several ongoing projects that could be reduced or even canceled in order to reduce R&D costs. These programs include the Marine Corps version of the F-35, which has been put on a 2-year probation period by Secretary Gates for continued technical problems, cost overruns, and delays.

The Bipartisan Policy Center offers a similar plan, calling for reduced funding of R&D proportional to the reduction size of forces, or 18.5 percent. Reduction in R&D would be possible, argues the Bipartisan Policy Center, as we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and reduce our forces abroad. Such a reduction in R&D will impose greater discipline in research investments while continuing to budget significantly more resources than any other country's R&D. A cut in our defense R&D is also enabled by new security threats we face.

Secretary Gates has called for a reorientation of our national security strategy, with a greater focus on counterinsurgency warfare rather than traditional warfare. This reorientation calls for investment in intelligence gathering, devices to sense improvised explosive devices, and investments in lower cost machines such as drones, and will allow us to move away from the more expensive development of major weapons systems.

We must reduce our deficit and we must reduce our spending, but in doing so we must put everything on the table and cut anywhere where waste exists.

Mr. Chairman, there is a universe of thought that less government is best and that government can do almost nothing right. That thought ends at the Department of Defense. There are those who believe they can do no wrong. They have the Department of Defense blinders on, which blind them from the fact that if we are going to make these cuts and we are going to face the very real threats that this debt and deficits will create for us, we have to cut across all lines.

I yield back.