Floor Statements

Let me try and hit, for just one moment, two potential areas to address that particular question, and it goes back to the fact that we did read the Constitution on the floor today.

You know it's amazing, as P.J. O'Rourke once said, that the Constitution is 16 pages, which is the operator's manual for 300 million people. The operator's manual for the Toyota Camry, in contrast, is four times as large, and it only seats five.

But you also contrast that with what we have done in the lame duck session when the Senate's omnibus spending bill, it's not 16 pages, it was 1,924 pages. Those are the kinds of issues we're talking about. And I think if we really want an answer of how we make those decisions, we go back to the document that was read this morning.

The general welfare clause today usually puts the emphasis on the word ``welfare.'' When they wrote that thing, they put the emphasis on the word ``general.'' What the Federal Government should do is that which affects all of us.

Monroe, Madison, Jackson vetoed road projects because they said those road projects didn't meet the general welfare. When Savannah burned to the ground, Congress had a great deal of empathy for Savannah, but it did not actually appropriate any money for Savannah because they said giving money to Savannah to rebuild would simply help Savannah and was not general welfare.

Now, I made this speech once on the floor a couple of years ago, and I got a nice letter, kind of, from a lady in Alabama who took me to task and listed all the programs that she thought were viable and good and she wanted continued. And I said, ma'am, you actually missed the ultimate point. The point is not should these programs be available for citizens. The point is, who should be responsible for providing those programs?

Not every idea has to germinate, be funded, be appropriated, be regulated from Washington. The States are equally competent. And if, indeed, we divided our responsibilities together, we could provide better services for the people for a cheaper price.

Now, Mr. Akin, if I could just give one second of a simple example. David Walker has written a great book called ``The Rebirth of Federalism,'' where he simply made the effect that dangling money we don't have in front of cash-starved States does not necessarily help out the States or us, or the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for both levels of government.

For example, he said when we put conditional grants to States with strings attached that eventually become regulations and mandates, it undercuts both the inter-level cooperation between those two bodies, and it is a term he invented called ``creeping conditionalism,'' which means the cost to the taxpayer actually increases.

By doing his estimates, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 cost the States $2 billion to $3 billion more than the States would have spent to provide their own safe drinking water. From '83 to '90 he estimated that the regulations imposed by the Federal Government was $9 billion to $13 billion more in local taxes that did not provide a benefit to the citizens. It was just the creeping cost to them.

So our mandates, supposedly with free money given to States, end up costing the taxpayer not only for the free money we don't have, but costs the States to do more than they would have done or needed to do to actually address the problem.

Thank you.

I do appreciate the Congressman from Georgia talking about the difference between ``provide'' and ``promote.''

Let me just go with one historical example of how that works, because I think in one of your earlier questions it was said, How are we actually going to handle this spending problem? Part of it is we have to think outside the box and make some things that have been common assumptions not necessarily have to survive.

And instead of going with some issues that we're funding right now, which may be too close to people, let me just go back to history. In most of the history books that I do, that I have seen, when we taught high school history, they always talk about how this nation came together with the uniting of the railroads, the UP and the Central Pacific joining together and how the Federal Government subsidized that process and was the only viable way of getting that done. We provided the railroad system.

One of the concepts, though, as I was reading another book that took a closer look on this issue is that not only did the Federal Government help with this railroad building craze but the idea that the Federal Government became involved changed the mechanism in which railroads were built and the kinds of ways they were built.

We paid railroads for every mile of track that was laid, which meant you gave them more money if they went to a mountainous route than on flat land. So many of those routes took a very circuitous route going through some elevated terrain because they got more money than if they had just taken a simpler flat route. One of the, I won't mention which one but they refused to put up masonry supports. They put up wooden culverts only for their train tracks. In the winter they laid track over ice which meant as soon as the thaw came, the tracks disappeared. Much of our railway system had to be rebuilt within 2 years of its actual completion.

I live in the State of Utah and my only national monument is the Golden Spike National Monument in my district in which both the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific came and they passed one another continuing to lay track because they were paid for it by the Federal Government, until Congress finally told them not to track off and link up somewhere; and they picked Promontory Summit which is in the State of Utah in my county to finally link up.

Ironically enough, in 1893 James Hill built--maybe the Madam Speaker has the name of this railroad--Northern Railroad that went from Chicago to Seattle. He did that without any government subsidies whatsoever. He paid private property for renting his lines even during the panic. It survived. It was functional. It was profitable.

Sometimes we make assumptions that only the Federal Government has the ability of doing things when in reality we don't. And we forget that once again if we were to make States a true partner with us in projects, States

have the ability of being creative, much more than we do; they have the ability of providing justice for its circumstances much more than we do; and more importantly if the States make a mistake, it doesn't harm the entire country. I think ObamaCare may be one of those particular examples, where State creativity was going on a proper road with some wonderful ideas that were stopped dead in their tracks, no pun intended, by ObamaCare.

I appreciate that very well, because, to be very honest, this is not an easy task which this Congress faces. We have spent probably eight or nine decades digging the hole which we are in. To think that there is a simple way of getting out of it is naive. To think that in one year we could get out of this is maybe also naive. We have to think in terms of moving forward in a general direction that would go there.

I am very proud that the rules that were passed yesterday will enable this body, if we decide to do it, to take the time to think outside the box with new ideas. The idea that for the first time since the 1960s we have set aside a specific time during the day so that the committees could function will allow every Member on this floor to sit and work in a committee to come up with ideas to reach this goal of how we can control or at least limit the runaway spending that we have had.

You make me embarrassed right here. I wish I could take full credit for the time management plans that we are implementing here. I may have said it, but somebody else had to make the decision to go forward with it. I think it was the right thing to do because it requires us, instead of running around in circles like a bunch of squirrels on a treadmill or chipmunks on a treadmill wasting a lot of time, we try to focus our energies so that when we are on the floor it makes some kind of difference.

Let me just give one other historical example of what I think we need to be doing and dedicate ourselves, since I have been throwing out too many already.

I believe it was in the first Congress that the issue came up of postal roads, where to draw the line, where would the postal roads for the new Post Office go. There is some kind of economic benefit of having actually mail dropped along a route.

But Congress, eager to get out, said let's just allow the President, the executive branch, to decide where the postal routes will be, which seems to be a logical thing to do. And I believe it was Congressman Paige, I hope from Virginia, who stood up and said, no, our job of Congress is to legislate, which includes taking the time to agree on where those postal routes will go. It is not our responsibility to give it to an executive branch or a bureaucracy or some other group to come up with all the details. And he forced Congress to stay there, and they did their job.

Too often we as Members simply have the tendency of coming up with a grand and noble idea, and they say all right, we will empower. I think the language in the TARP bill is a perfect example of where we empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to make all kinds of decisions which were legislative decisions by their very nature.

Well, I hope what this schedule allows us to do and what you were talking about is to say we have a great deal of work to be done here. We are still looking at ideas. I am sure there are great ideas that are out there that will be coming from the people as time goes on, but we have to make sure we dedicate the time to not simply running around in circles playing silly games, but coming here and zeroing in on our task.

It was said by you, it was said by the gentleman from Georgia as well as the gentleman from Louisiana, it is the spending. That is our problem. That is what is hurting jobs, that is what is hurting Americans, that is what is bloating our budget. We need to zero in on that, and until we do that, we will never come close to meeting what the American people expect the Congress to do, nor what we really morally need to do.

I yield back to the gentleman.

If I could just add one comment to that as well. I think it is very clear that we need to say it is not that the Federal Government will always be bad and is incompetent at doing things. The problem the Federal Government has is the size of the Federal Government.

Any big industry has waste, fraud, and abuse, and that is one of the reasons why if we could coordinate and work with local governments-- that is why the old cliche that the government that is best is the one that is closest to the people. It is not necessarily that they are smarter or better; it is because they don't have the problem of size in a one-size-fits-all issue and they have the freedom to be creative.

As you were talking about, especially with the entitlements, this is an area in which creativity is going to be the most important element. And some things, especially with the cost of Medicare, are driven by one-size-fits-all Federal mandates and Federal decisions, when allowing creativity could help us solve this problem.

I also want to say one other thing too when your comment about the general defense is so significant. It is not because we are funding for the defense of the America today. The decisions we make, the plans we make for defense today will not come to fruition for another 10 to 15 years, and indeed, the ability for us to have diplomacy in the future depends on wise decisions that we make today.

I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri coming with this issue. This is something that the people care about, something that the Congress cares about. I think the fact that we just passed a 5 percent cut on ourselves with overwhelming bipartisan support says that this is the direction we should be taking, and we should continue to talk about this over and over and over again. I appreciate you allowing me to be part of this.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California recognizing me.

Every time we talk about rules, I realize for the majority of people, their eyes kind of glaze over. But every kid who has spent time in an elementary yard realizes that the rules are important to the game.

We are here, though, on this floor doing the people's business, and it is not a game, and the rules become significant. And the rules are significant because they are responsive to what the people have said.

People told us very clearly they are interested in jobs, they are interested in spending. The rules package before us right now facilitates the growth of the former and helps in the limitation of the latter.

True, PAYGO will be replaced in this rule. PAYGO was the process that was honored in its breach and suspension as often as its application, and it is replaced with CutGo, a process that zeroes in on the real problem, which is spending. And if indeed we suspend CutGo as frequently as PAYGO was suspended, then it would be justified to criticize us at that particular time.

This rule says committees are important. It's not just a box you check to say you have done regular order. We have now provided for time for committees to do their job. We have provided for pre-meeting requirements and post-meeting requirements and accountability, and respect for the product of the committees will be here on the floor.

Once again, in this rule the Constitution is now in vogue again, and the bills coming to the floor will become readable so that you will never see again a multihundred-page amendment coming before this body in the wee hours of the morning of its actual debate.

Many of us who worked on these rules have had legislative experience in our home States. We brought different ideas, realizing that a better process equals a better policy. We have changed the schedule so that time management will be seriously considered. We have added to transparency for what takes place on the committee as well as on the floor. We, to use cliches, thought outside of the box. But in so doing, we included more Members than ever before, Republicans and Democrats, who were invited to give specific input into what we indeed are doing.

We reached consensus. We found that making the right decisions is not necessarily a difficult process. All you need to do is throw strikes.

Satchel Paige, when he was advising a young pitcher who was having a problem with his control trying to hit the corners simply looked at him and said, ``Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move.''

This rule is strikes, because home plate don't move. Will it change Washington and the way we do business? Yes. And appropriately so.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding the time.

I know full well from my experience in the State legislature, as well as working on the transition team here, that when one speaks of procedural issues, usually people's eyes glaze over. They are boring issues. However, good procedures do create good policy. Poor procedures create what we are doing here today.

As was said by the gentleman from Minnesota, had the motion to recommit, an amendment, been approved by this body, it would be attached in its entirety to the entire bill. This bill, if it goes to the President's desk, would have all of that language in it.

By changing the procedure, pulling the bill from the floor before the vote and now stripping out part of the motion to recommit and doing it as a suspension, it allows us once again to have political coverage that won't take place in reality of making changes in what happens to this bill or in the real world. For we all know the suspension that we pass here has a very high likelihood of dying in this session.

So we can come down here and say, yes, we want to protect our kids from predators and vote for the suspension knowing full well that that probably will never go into effect. It will die over in the Senate, if it gets that far, and then we'll vote for a bill that no longer has that concept that the House seemed, or at least appeared that it wanted, to add to this provision part of that.

And one of the rationales for doing that is because, well, most of the States already have those types of procedures. I hate to say this, but that argument can be used for almost all of this bill. See, one of the things that would not be included if indeed the suspension passes and then the motion to recommit fails is the deal with section 205, which, as was mentioned earlier, deals with the amount of money that people will pay--not for reduced lunches--but people will pay just because they don't qualify for reduced lunches.

I hate to use a personal example, but I've got to. As many of you know, I was a school teacher before I joined this august body. Now, this is not something great to note, but as a school teacher, I qualified under the standards for reduced lunches for my five kids. And as a school teacher who qualified for those reduced lunches, I refused to take advantage of that opportunity. I figured that no one had a gun to my head when I had the kids; it was my responsibility now to take care of my kids.

I don't think I'm unusual in that respect. I think there are hundreds of thousands of people who have the same attitude, that they want to take the responsibility for their progeny and the responsibility for what takes place. And, unfortunately, if this provision, section 205, is allowed to stay in the bill, it means the Federal Government--not local school districts, not boards where you actually have a chance to talk to people and they understand the demographics and the reasons-- they will make the decision of what people who are paying the full price will pay for that price.

It can go up whenever someone wants it to go up, and has been mentioned, it becomes a disincentive for people to be responsible, to not ask the government to bail them out, to take responsibility and pay for at least school lunches for their own kids or school breakfasts or whatever the process has.

It becomes a counterintuitive argument that harms the process. And why? It's because the decision on what level that payment will be will no longer be made on the local school district level or at least at the State level. It will be made here where a one-size-fits-all program does indeed fail the process.

Now, this is simply--I don't want to call it political gamesmanship, but it is poor procedure that will result in two votes: one vote that is totally meaningless and another vote that misses the mark and does not improve what we're trying to do or what we should do in schools, and that is, allow people who really understand the process to have the final say at the local level where kids are, where the parents are, and where reality should hit. Not here.

Once again, this is not a school board. However often we have tried to act like one, we still are not.

I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota allowing me some time.

I come down here in an effort to try and talk, perhaps somewhere balancing this particular act.

There is nothing wrong with child nutrition. There is nothing wrong with trying to provide that kids have the opportunity to be well fed so that they can function in school. There is nothing wrong with the goals or the desires of those who are sponsoring this legislation. Admittedly, there is something wrong with allowing the Senate to write everything and ignoring what the House did and bringing this here on a closed rule, but that's a process issue.

What I wish to do here today though, more than anything else, is to plead the 10th Amendment. There are great and noble goals within this particular bill, but this body is not the only place in which great and noble goals can be accomplished. When we, in this bill, give the Secretary of Agriculture the unlimited control and authority to determine what is food and what is not, what kids will eat and what they will not, by nature of that action we take away that responsibility from local school boards, from parents, from local administrators who actually do care about those kids to a greater degree than even our compassionate concern on this particular level.

When we, in this bill, now mandate an exercise program in order to get funds for school lunches--once again, there's nothing wrong with making kids go outside and exercise. It's noble, but this is not a school board. Those are the issues in which local government and local schools and parents and administrators and educators on that level, that is a prerogative that they should be making because, I hate to say this, but they do know better to the local initiatives and local needs of their kids.

When you add 17 new Federal programs in this particular bill, you automatically, if nothing else, take away the ability of schools to concentrate on what they think is more significant and more important. When you, in this bill, allow the Federal Government to establish what will be paid for a school lunch, you take, once again, flexibility away from local people to meet the needs of their particular area. There is nothing wrong with the goals and attitude and hopes of this particular bill, but we are not a school board.

That's why they are there. They understand. They care about their kids. They should be empowered to make these kinds of decisions, not mandated on how those decisions should be made.

Like I say, I appreciate the sponsor. I appreciate the leader of this committee. I appreciate his goals. But once again, not every idea has to germinate in Washington, not every concept has to be authorized, funded, and regulated in this particular body. I plead the 10th Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the last action that we took in this body today was a resolution honoring the Constitution, which we celebrate tomorrow. Since we are not in session tomorrow, I wish to talk for a moment about that inspired document this evening.

It's difficult to do that, because as we talk about the Constitution, I am looking straight at the relief of George Mason, who was one of those unique characters in American history, one of three men who spent the entire time at the Constitutional Convention and then refused to sign the document.

When I was teaching school, I always insisted my students had to tell me why Mason refused to sign it, which, of course, was because it did not have the Bill of Rights. But I was always hoping, and hoping in vain, that some bright student would ask the better question, which is not why did Mason not sign, but why did all the other people who were there at the Founding Fathers convention not go along with Mason for a Bill of Rights?

It was certainly not because they were opposed to civil liberties, but because the rest of the Founding Fathers realized that they could accomplish the same goal by the structure of government, by dividing power by the three branches of government horizontally so no branch had too much power, but equally by dividing power vertically between the Federal and State level. So no level of government had too much power; you could accomplish the same goal of protection of individual freedoms.

The issue at the Constitutional Convention was that of power. As the States met and then ratified this document, the issue of power was still there. We, of course, know of course that two States, North Carolina and Rhode Island, did not ratify the document until after the country was established. But five States, Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland and South Carolina, sent specific amendments that should be added to the document.

Foremost in each of those State's amendments was the concept of sovereignty or the ability of States to make decisions. Their goal and their concepts were incorporated in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which put in written form the unnamed structure that the Founding Fathers had established in the Constitution.

As one of our Justices on the Supreme Court said, the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns, among branches of government, precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as the expedient solution to the crisis of the day.

For a century and a half, this Nation basically honored that concept. In the last half century, though, we have stretched the idea significantly. Starting with the progressive era at the early 1900s, it was President Wilson who called this concept the separation of powers political witchcraft. He said that separating powers into hidden corners prevented us from consolidating powers to be used.

In the early 1900s, the politicians and the philosophers who believed this did not do so because they misunderstood the Constitution, but because they understood it and did not like the fact that it prevented them from doing what they said were marvelous things.

We, today, still have this issue of power before us. For the last couple of years we have debated on this floor the idea whether it is better to consolidate power in Washington with the ultimate goal of uniformity or to hold fast to the idea that States should be allowed to have alternative ideas and that our ultimate goal should be creativity.

The 10th Amendment is not just about smaller government. It's about more effective government, what works best for people and the idea that not all programs have to be evolved from Washington. They also have their idea because the 10th Amendment talks power for States and individuals. In a concept that many of us on this floor can never get, there are some problems that don't need a solution by government at all.

The issue is creativity, efficiency, and justice. The issue is can those best be resolved.

We still have this question of power that we are dealing with today, and I would hope that we would reject the revisionist idea and, instead, go along and support the Founding Fathers. For both the constitutional structure and the 10th Amendment meant that our Founding Fathers were inspired to get it right.

Madam Speaker, before I give my comments on this particular resolution, I wish to yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor of this resolution, as well as probably the most famous alumnus from Miami Dade College, the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support House Resolution 1571, acknowledging and congratulating Miami Dade College on the occasion of its 50th anniversary of service to the students and residents of Florida.

Miami Dade College was founded in 1960, 50 years ago. Only half a decade later, the college had increased its enrollment by 300 percent. As has been mentioned, as the first racially integrated junior college in Florida, Miami Dade College provided an education to all area residents who wanted to better their lives and further their education. Today, almost 100,000 students are enrolled on the eight campuses year round, and if you count part-time students, it increases that number significantly. MDC is now the largest institution in the Florida college system, and it works to educate a diverse student population by offering 300 majors and by providing an affordable education to students from all backgrounds.

The college holds several annual events that benefit both students and members of the community. The Miami Dade College's Miami International Book Fair and the Miami International Film Festival are two such events that are nationally and internationally renowned.

I congratulate Miami Dade College for 50 years of excellence in higher education, and I wish all of its faculty, staff, students, and alumni continued success.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today also in support of House Resolution 1564, commending and congratulating Michigan Technological University on the occasion of its 125th anniversary.

Michigan Technological University was founded in 1885 and is located in Houghton, Michigan. Michigan Tech was established to train mining engineers to support at the time the booming copper industry in that area. Classes began with 23 students and four faculty members. Today, the university's enrollment stands at over 7,100 students and almost 450 faculty members.

Today, Michigan Tech is one of the Nation's premier technological research universities. Students at Michigan Tech can choose from majors in five different schools and colleges, including the College of Engineering, College of Sciences and Arts, School of Business and Economists, School of Technology, and School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science. The university offers more than 120 degree programs in these various subjects.

Michigan Tech students also excel at athletics. The Michigan Tech Huskies compete in Division I and II NCAA athletics and have 14 varsity athletic teams. The Huskies compete in sports including basketball, cross country, football, hockey, tennis, track and field, soccer, volleyball, and Nordic skiing.

Michigan Tech's mission is ``to prepare students to create the future,'' and the university works to do just that. Today, 96 percent of Michigan Tech's students have jobs in their chosen field, enroll in graduate school, or enlist in the military by graduation. Michigan Tech has become a premier university during their 125-year history and promises to be a leader in education in the future.

I extend my congratulations to Michigan Technological University for 125 years of excellence in higher education and once again wish its faculty, staff, students, and alumni continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1480, commending the University of Southern California Trojans men's tennis team for its victory in the 2010 National Collegiate Athletic Association Men's Tennis Championship.

The USC men's tennis team captured the 2010 NCAA championship on May 25 of this year--its second championship in as many years--by defeating the Tennessee Volunteers 4-2. Despite losing their first two doubles matches, the fifth-seeded Trojans fought back hard in singles play and against the second-seeded Volunteers en route to the championship.

USC's Robert Farah and Steve Johnson, who had their streak of 17 consecutive doubles match victories broken in the opening set, each recorded a victory in their respective singles matches. Two fellow Trojans also recorded singles victories to cement the win.

I also want to congratulate Daniel Nguyen for his phenomenal efforts on the court in being named, as was mentioned, the NCAA Tournament's Most Outstanding Player.

USC has won 113 national championships as a university, its 90th men's national championship, and in capturing this tennis title, their 18th men's tennis title championship overall. This feat makes the Trojans the all-time leader in such team victories.

The University of Southern California is one of the world's leading private research institutions. In addition, USC fosters a vibrant culture of public service and encouraging students to cross academic as well as geographic boundaries in their pursuit of knowledge.

The University of Southern California has established itself as a world leader in the field of communication, multimedia technology, and the life sciences, as well as in cross-disciplinary teaching and research. The university has also strengthened its culture of community service, receiving national acclaim for its innovative service-learning programs and community involvement.

Today I commend USC President Steven B. Sample, Tennis Coach Peter Smith for winning his second NCAA championship as head coach, the coaching staff, the team, the fans, the faculty, and the staff. Congratulations to the team for an outstanding accomplishment.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the sponsor of this piece of legislation and appreciate her bringing it forward. I urge my colleagues to support this.

As someone whose alma mater will join the Pac next year, this is probably the last time I can ever publicly say anything favorable about Southern Cal; but in so doing, they certainly deserve the honor they got for what they accomplished this last May.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following:

Lockton Companies, LLC.,

Houston, TX, May 13, 2010.

Hon. Robert Menendez,

U.S. Senator, Senate Hart Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Menendez: Lockton Companies is the largest

privately owned insurance broker in the world, and through

Lockton Marine & Energy in Houston, we service the insurance

needs of many energy companies operating in the Gulf of

Mexico. Specifically, we specialize in the small to midsize

independent exploration and production companies that are

very active in drilling wells in the shallow and deepwater

Gulf of Mexico. In fact, two of our clients are in the top 10

largest lease holders and/or most active drillers in the Gulf

of Mexico; however, they are relatively small companies.

Exploration and production companies are supported by

thousands of workers all along the Gulf Coast from their own

employees to many small to midsized service companies'

employees. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics reported that

there were well over 100,000 petroleum-related workers and

greater than $12 billion in total wages earned in the Gulf

Coast Region alone.

Insurance is critical to our clients and all small to

midsized energy companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico.

All of the companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico

essentially go to the same insurance market to purchase their

liability insurance coverage. The insurance market for

offshore operations is relatively small, and prior to the

Macondo well incident, we estimated the total market capacity

for third-party pollution liability to be $1.3 billion to

$1.6 billion. Following the Macondo well event, we estimate

the capacity has dropped to $1 billion

to $1.2 billion. Furthermore, the cost for the insurance

coverage has increased substantially.

The market for Oil Pollution Act (OPA) coverage is an even

smaller market, with total capacity of $200 to $300 million.

While large exploration and production companies are able to

certify on the basis of their balance sheet, most small and

midsized companies are dependent on purchasing OPA coverage

in the commercial insurance market.

We understand there is legislation under consideration

which could significantly increase the liability cap for

economic damages from the current level of $75 million. Given

the limited capacity in the energy insurance market, a

material increase in the cap will eliminate insurance as an

option for many exploration and production companies. Without

insurance, many of the active exploration and production

companies would be unable to operate in the Gulf of Mexico.

This decision will affect thousands of people, their families

and their local economies.

We respectfully request you give this issue careful

consideration, and we are more than happy to provide

supporting information on the energy insurance market

providing insurance for the Gulf of Mexico.

Sincerely,

John A. Rathmell, Jr.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5610, the Independent Living Centers Technical Adjustment Act.

Independent living centers provide a valuable service, including employment, skilled training, peer counseling, and information for people with disabilities.

H.R. 5610, the Independent Living Centers Technical Adjustment Act, as passed in the House and Senate, allows States to apply to the Department of Education for a waiver to disregard funds received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the fiscal year 2010 allotments.

Because of a discrepancy in how current law factors in prior year funds, some independent living centers will see dramatic decreases in the funding that they will receive this year. This technical fix will enable funds granted through the Rehabilitation Act to be distributed to independent living centers in a more fair and appropriate manner for this year.

The House-passed version of this legislation allows States to apply for these important waivers until July 30. Because the deadline included in the original version of H.R. 5610 does not provide sufficient time for States to take advantage of these waivers, the Senate extended the timeline until August 5.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this bill, which will assist independent living centers that help disabled persons live full and productive lives, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

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

Thank you.

I am actually very honored to be here with two friends who are talking about the significant problems we have in this country--simply, the lack of jobs. As we all know, government does not create jobs, but government can create a policy to discourage jobs, and that is specifically where we are today.

If I could, I'll just go in a slightly different direction from where the two of you have headed so far.

I have my good friend here--the newest Member from the good State of Georgia, so we've got a good southerner here. We have somebody from the Midwest, and I am actually from the West. With all due respect, I think my part of the Nation is taking a bigger hit in this economy, because of government decisions, than are the others. The unemployment rate in the West is actually higher than any other section in this country.

It has been that way for the last 12 months. So, somewhere, somebody has to figure out what is unique about my State and about our area in the West that has given us this wonderful distinction of having the best joblessness in the Nation for well over a year.

I think, obviously, there are a number of causes, but it is also, I think we can say for a certainty, that many of the new policies and regulations that have been adopted during this administration, coming out of Washington, are flat out not helping when we could be unleashing economic upturn as well as providing domestic energy independence for this country, which is a boon to economic development. Yet we're doing the exact opposite.

Let me show you three charts, if I could, simply to illustrate.

You know, every time I come here, I rant about the amount of public lands that we have. The Federal Government owns 650 million acres. That means that 1 out of every 3 acres in this country is now owned by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, in my area--the West--1 out of every 2 acres is owned by the Federal Government.

For example--and this is a different chart than I have used before-- if the amount of land owned in the West by the Federal Government were owned in the East, that is how much area, the area in blue, would be owned and operated and controlled by the Federal Government. If, on the other hand, we in the West had as much land owned by the Federal Government as you out in the East--and by that, I mean everything east of the Rocky Mountains, that is how much of our territory would be controlled.

So, obviously, there is a unique element there, which simply means, of the 12 States that have had the slowest growth in their economies, the biggest joblessness increase--and I hate to say that--then 6 of those 12 are in the West. Georgia gets in there. I'm sorry. I didn't leave you out. Six of those 12 have to be found in the West.

If you want to go one step further and look at the 20 largest counties with 25,000 or more inhabitants, counties which have the highest unemployment and joblessness rates, of those 20, 19 of the 20 are found in the West. You have to go down to number 20 before you finally have somebody--in this case, it's Michigan--that breaks through with a higher unemployment rate than Western counties have.

So I am going to make the contention that there is a reason the West has been hit very hard in what I simply like to refer to as an ``inexplicable war on the West.'' I think the numbers bear it out, and part of it is because of policies. Without taking too much of your time, let me just list off a couple, a slew, of some of those administrative decisions.

Well, we'll all join in the battalion because we are all faced with the results of these decisions.

Let me just check off a couple of things that have happened in the West that have destroyed jobs in the West.

Obviously, in my State, the first thing this administration did is cancel 77 oil and gas leases in the State of Utah, but what we don't know is they have also halted scheduled oil and gas lease sales in Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota. Wyoming, because of the climate of this administration, only is able to lease about 5 percent of the leases that are put on bid because of what we are doing here.

This administration banned uranium mining permits in the State of Arizona. They put multiple restrictions on oil shale development causes.

In California, they blocked water that goes to ranchers in the central valleys there. So, in some communities in California, up to 40 percent of those agricultural communities are now faced with unemployment. This administration tried to provide $400 million in stimulus to that area. Well, it's sad. They didn't need to do that. All they needed to do was to turn the water on, and it's free. Unfortunately, much of that stimulus money went to districts that voted to keep the water turned off, which created the unemployment in the first place.

I spoke to the economic development director from the State of Utah, who is in charge of tourism and movies. The West is a great set for lots of movies, but one of the problems the movie industry is facing in the West is, when you go on government lands, the permitting process to just go on there and do this clean energy of companies is taking so long that we basically don't have the situation taking place.

Let me throw a couple more statistics at you, and then I want to do some dialoguing here because the numbers are good, but we have to put them in context eventually.

This administration is always big about saying, well, we need to have alternative energy sources to help our economy grow. I think we need to have all kinds of energy sources. But the Chamber of Commerce has identified 380 renewable energy projects that have been blocked or stalled over the past 4 years. The total cost of those stalled projects is $560 billion in lost economic activity and approximately a quarter of a million jobs that were not allowed simply because--it doesn't matter whether we're talking about fossil fuels or wind power or solar power or nuclear power--we're not doing anything to develop new energy sources.

Western Energy Alliance did a survey to find out what would be taking place in the West, these areas that I'm saying have been heavily hit. Seventy-four percent of the respondents to the survey by the Western Energy Alliance said their companies are downsizing capital investment in the Rocky Mountain area. That's $1.1 billion of investment that has been shifted from the Rocky Mountains to other parts, simply because of the inability of the government to try and help us to develop energy sources. That is $2.8 billion in infrastructure that would have come into the West and has not.

And it has a ripple effect. If you stop an oil lease or a gas lease or a wind power project or a solar power project in the West, you also stop projects that are on private lands abutting that area, and you stop the need of having truckers bring the equipment in and bring people in. And then you lose the mechanics jobs, and you lose the jobs from the hotel industry where they are surfaced.

Ninety percent of the respondents say that their company will continue to divert investment in the Rockies until there is a change in the regulatory process.

We don't have to have this joblessness. This government is creating it by policies that are not intended to build jobs but actually prevent jobs from being created.

I yield back.

And I appreciate that. I think if you keep--I don't know if they can keep the cameras on that particular chart, but it is a telling chart. And it's one of the things that I think you are trying to say, that we have yet to learn lessons from history.

It is very clear that we are trying with the stimulus bill, a few of the other bills, right now, creating jobs by having tax-funded jobs being created. Unfortunately, that's a sector that's growing, but that's not a sector that will continue and build and has a multiplier effect in the economy. To do that, you have to have the private sector involved.

I hate to say this, but when we went into the Great Depression, there was the history. We'd already learned after the end of World War I how lowering tax rates actually increased the amount of revenue and spurred the economy. Same thing you mentioned also that took place in the 1960s that President Kennedy clearly understood, and it's happened several other times in the history of this country.

But at the beginning of the Depression, there were many people within the business community who had money to invest in business that could have spurred the economy, created jobs, and grown our economy out of the Depression. But they did not invest that money, primarily because they were afraid of what the tax and regulatory policies of the government would do, and, therefore, they simply sat on it. That's what happened as part of the problems we had in the Depression. People with investment opportunities did not do so.

Unfortunately, I think we find ourselves in that same situation.

The future tax policies, and you just mentioned we don't know what will happen at the end of this year, but it could be catastrophic in raising taxes. But in addition to the regulatory policies that we have placed in effect, the effort of the continuous deficit spending that we have done, all of those have added to a portion of unrest within the business community and it simply says, ``I'm going to wait to see where I'm going to invest to see what actually happens eventually.'' That is why the government doesn't actually create jobs, but the government policies can destroy the ability for those jobs to be created at the same time.

So I appreciate what my good colleagues have been saying, because it is true. Our regulatory policies and our tax policies have created so much nervousness within the system, we are not doing that which could encourage a multiplier effect within our economy, and that is exactly what we need at this particular time.

Before you actually put that chart down, I think you understated that sentiment. It's not just people who understand business are not comfortable with that. I don't understand business and I look at that chart and I'm not comfortable with that. Any normal American would look at that and say something is desperately wrong with what we are doing.

Actually some of them we did, but the one especially about renewable energy products, the 380 renewable energy products that have not been allowed to go forward, which would be another quarter of a million jobs and $500 billion in economic input, that was done by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That actually happens to be nationwide; not just in the West.

Would the gentleman from Missouri simply restate what that first line in black actually means. Unless Congress acts, taxes will go up.

So what the gentleman is telling me is that if Congress does nothing, there will automatically be a marriage penalty increase. Child deductions will go down. There will be another death tax increase. There will be a capital gains tax increase; a dividend tax increase. Unless we do something proactive, it will automatically happen.

And so far we're a half a year away from the deadline and we have yet to do anything proactive about it.

While you're there, if the gentleman wouldn't mind for just a minute, let me talk about another concept of taxes which I don't think many people are aware. These are things that will automatically happen. But there are bills that will be coming to the floor sometime soon that deal with tax increases on our form of energy production.

Now one of those things listed in there in the cost of doing business is also the cost of energy that takes place. There is a bill that passed the Natural Resources Committee, it's called the CLEAR Act, which purportedly dealt with what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico which is a terrible crisis and needs to be changed in some way.

But deep within the bowels of this bill is a $2 per gallon tax increase on all oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico, and a 40 cents I think it's per trillion cubic feet of natural gas that will be produced in the Gulf of Mexico. And one would assume, if we are dealing with the Gulf of Mexico, that money could be for restoration work, for cleanup work, for those who have lost jobs and lost income during that period of time. Unfortunately, that's not what that money will be used for if this bill passes.

That money is all going to go to the Federal department into a specific fund which would now bypass appropriations and be just under a billion dollars a year to buy more land in the Federal inventory. So the amount of blue on this chart could grow in every section of this country, but once again primarily I get the fun of it in my State, where most of the public land is.

That is a tax increase on business solely so the government can grow its hold on the amount of property we own here, and in so doing will infringe upon the ability of producing better energy in the future. And like I say, if we were actually moving forward in alternative energy, as we say we want to, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. But this administration is also shutting down alternative energy projects at the same time it is shutting down traditional energy projects. And that's another tax that goes onto that multitude of taxes you are talking about, and actually goes on to compound the amount of spending that we're doing.

I appreciate the gentleman expressing I think the frustration that many of us in Congress are feeling in the direction in which this country is going, and that we can look at concept after concept of either outrageous spending, poor policy that deals with tax policy, poor regulatory policy, poor energy development policy, put those all together, and it still spells a lack of jobs. And what was supposed to be a time period where we were going to be creating all sorts of jobs is simply one where we have lost jobs.

Unfortunately, what we are also finding unique about this recession is people who have lost their job are staying unemployed longer or taking part-time jobs instead. The length of the joblessness is unusually long in this type of recession. And I think part of that goes back to the policies that this country is pushing forward that do not encourage investment in our economy and do

not multiply our economy impact, when we have historical evidence of how that could easily happen. We are ignoring that.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 412, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 422 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, we are here on a bill that allegedly provides supplemental funding for our troops, yet within the bowels of this House amendment are provisions that have implications for our border security, provisions in violation of our rules but nonetheless provide a permanent authority to transfer money from border patrol to the Department of the Interior with absolutely no limit--$50 million this time, but then unlimited after that.

So to have the situation of Congress appropriating money we think is going to border patrol, but then border patrol will have to give that money to the Department of the Interior for alleged mitigation issues, such concepts and projects as, in the past: hiring three employees of the Interior to monitor prong-horned antelope or having a biologist watch the erection of 15-foot towers to verify that no animal was crushed; or having Fish and Wildlife, for one acre of possible habitat loss, insisting border patrol buy 55 acres somewhere else to give to them.

We will have the outrageous situation of Interior and Forest Service regulations blocking the border patrol from their patrols and doing their job, and yet the same provision, the border patrol has to pay DOI, with no oversight from the legislature, no internal rules for caution of spending, no limitation, just to do their job.

Even Secretary Napolitano last year sent us a letter in which she said the Border Patrol stops the drug cartels, the human traffickers, the potential terrorists, and that is a value in and of itself to the environment and should count as mitigation.

Yet, in the provisions within this particular bill, that does not take place. This provision was a dumb idea in the wrong bill. It diverts dollars from the Border Patrol and makes our border less secure.

I appreciate the opportunity of being here this morning on one of the days when obviously our time management skills are not perhaps the greatest, but it still is nonetheless an opportunity to speak on this floor before you, Mr. Speaker, on a couple of issues that are significant. I appreciate also that I will be joined by my good friend from Texas, who just spoke so eloquently about one of those who has given his all for all of us and how grateful we are for this family and this particular individual.

I think we're going to be hitting several different themes this evening as we talk about the future of this country, especially as it deals with space. And here, once again, I'm grateful the gentleman from Texas is here because Mr. Olson has indeed been a leader in this particular issue in charting the future of America as far as space policy will be.

It is very easy in this environment to try and focus, first of all, on jobs. I think we will. Because, indeed, as this particular administration is going to begin their summer of recovery tour in which they will be touting the kinds of jobs that will be created to try and change the economic future this country is currently in, it seems almost ironic that administrative policies, especially with NASA, are going to create a vast amount of unemployed individuals--up to 30,000 individuals who will receive their pink slips and be unemployed specifically because of policies initiated by this administration and the current leadership in NASA. It's at least ironic, but we will be talking about that. However, we want to go beyond that because if you're dealing with simply jobs, that can be a very parochial issue. We're also dealing with the future of space and the importance of space. And, clearly, if indeed this administration and the leaders of NASA today seem to be de-emphasizing the role of space in our future, other nations are not. The Russians, the Chinese, even the Indian government and the Japanese government have a unique interest in taking our position in the leadership role of space exploration. That's another issue I think we will be talking about.

I also want to make sure that we illustrate how sometimes there are unintended consequences in our actions. This administration and, once again, NASA's leadership did not take into effect the consequences of their program changes and the consequences that would have specifically related to our military preparedness, for indeed one of the things we have to realize is that the component pieces that go into the missiles that shoot somebody to the Moon are the same component pieces that go into missiles that shoot down rockets from our adversaries Iran or North Korea, and that if you harm the industrial base that creates one program, you harm the industrial base that creates the other program, and that gives us some pause to think what we're doing on the defense side of this country, which is clearly one of the few roles specifically given to Congress in the Constitution. Finally, I think I'd like to talk some about a communique that came out from the administration today as to their future in space, and say that some of the platitudes that are very nicely written in this communique are contradictory to the actions that indeed take place.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I think if the gentleman from Texas is prepared to lead off, I would like to turn over as much time to Mr. Olson from Texas, who, as I said, has for quite a while been the organizer and the leader of this effort to try and explore what this administration is doing, and maybe make some corrections, as is the role and responsibility of Congress dealing with space. Then I will be happy to make some remarks after the gentleman from Texas has completed.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas, the points that he made and especially the poignant letter that came out and illustrating how the overwhelming majority--in fact, I would say almost all but one--of our retired astronaut core feels very strongly that Constellation was the right approach for this country to do and that we should continue on with that particular approach.

I would like to go back to a couple of points. I hope I am not redundant, but I think they are significant enough that even if we say them a second time,

it's important. And I would hope the gentleman from Texas would stay here and try to fill in the blanks where I miss those, if we could.

There was quick mention, once again, as I said, on the jobs that we are talking about here. The Vice President recently sent out a press release, announcing that he was going on his summer tour to tout the ``Summer of Recovery.'' Now, amongst the bullet points that they put in that press release was that this administration would be proposing programs to build up to 30,000 miles of new roads, up to 2,000 new water programs, up to 80,000 homes that might be weatherized, 800 jobs here, some there, asking this country to add a nongermane issue to the military supplemental to try to protect government worker jobs.

And I just find that so ironic, as was mentioned, that at the same time we were doing that, the policies of this administration with regard to NASA contract jobs would take between 20,000 and 30,000 people who are part of the private sector, who are doing these jobs well--many of them being scientists and engineers--and they're basically giving them the pink slip at the same time we talk about how we're trying to build jobs in some other way. It simply does not compute that that is the way we're doing it.

I readily admit, some of these jobs that have been threatened and have been lost are personal friends and neighbors of mine. I shared a picture with General Bolden, who is the head of NASA, at one of our committee hearings of a personal friend who has spent 26 years dealing with procurement issues at one of the companies, who is just in his mid-fifties and was just released simply because this is the policy of this particular administration. And I would love to be able to go to him and say, Ray, the reason that your job was terminated was because the government decided to try to save money. The problem is, none of these jobs that are going to be eliminated save the government a dime.

In fact, it is true that this administration is asking for a $6 billion increase in the NASA budget even though they are going to be stopping the manned space program and throwing up to 30,000 high-paying jobs, employees who have proven their worth for years and years, throwing them out. There are some people who said, Well, the new programs would create new jobs within the NASA-private sector relationship. Yet the most they're talking about there is maybe up to 10,000 jobs to be offset by the 30,000 that we're losing? That's a three-to-one loss in the process that is there.

For a fraction of that $6 billion of new additional money above and beyond what we're already spending to be focused directly on Constellation, we could continue this program to a successful conclusion. And once again, jobs, I recognize, are parochial. I am part of that situation. But it seems ironic that in an era in which we're talking about jobs and job creation and more jobs and job creation and realizing that we're never going to get out of these economic doldrums that we're in until we actually do have jobs, we, as a government, are having a policy to try to throw out 30,000 workers who have proven their net, who have proven their worth and are moving this country forward. It just flat out does not make sense.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas, if I could reclaim the time briefly. Changing from just the concept of jobs and, indeed, the future of space and especially to put the emphasis on the fact that, what are we going to do to inspire people to go into science and math and become the engineers of the future. Let's face it, if you only build one new plane for our military once every 40 years or if we're only doing one new adventure into space once every 30 years, that doesn't inspire somebody. In fact, supposedly one of NASA's new goals is to try to encourage education into space. And I think, as the gentleman from Texas clearly cited, kids are not dumb; and they're realizing, if you are at a whim firing 30,000 engineers and scientists, that doesn't give you a whole lot of encouragement to try to move into that particular area.

One of the issues especially is because Constellation is the cutting edge of science. It was granted last year by Time magazine as one of the 50 best inventions of the year. In fact, it was number one of the 50 best inventions of last year, and it shows that what we are doing is right. This is the right approach, and this is the approach that is being threatened by the policies of this administration and the current NASA leadership.

The space shuttle had a couple of very sad disasters. In the last one, there was a study made on how to avoid that in the future, and they said, The most important thing we can do--and I think every astronaut understands this, which is maybe why so many of them signed that particular letter from which the gentleman from Texas read--is two goals: NASA will never be effective if, number one, the safety of our astronauts isn't in the most primary and utmost position;

and, number two, you have a clear, understandable and stated goal--what we are going to accomplish.

It is true that during the Bush administration, we decided to halt the space shuttle program. It had run its course. We have been very successful in going to the space station and back, but there were some issues that we needed to go beyond simply space shuttle. So the effort was made to try to put our best minds together and see where we could go into the future that would meet those two goals: a clear statement of purpose and safety. And the reality of that was Constellation. This is the safety concept. This Constellation program is designed to be safer than the space shuttle by a factor of 10.

It was recognized that if you want to try and stop some of the catastrophes we've had today, you separate the cargo from the passengers. That's what Orion does in that process, allows a safety valve for the safety of the passengers, in this case, the astronauts. And in addition, we clearly realized that we needed to go with solid rocket propellants because it is much safer than liquid propellant, perhaps not as powerful, but certainly much more controllable. And, once again, the concept of safety is important. This is the future, if you really care about astronauts.

And the second one was the goal is very clear. The design was for a specific goal. The intent was for a specific goal. And I don't want to be disparaging to this administration, but the apparent goal of this administration with spaceflight is some day, maybe perhaps at some time, we might land on some asteroid somewhere. That's not a specific goal. That's not even a dream. That's not even a reality that we can deal with. That may be almost cartoonish in the approaches to deal with it.

And unfortunately, if we start scaling back, other countries are not. The Russians are still involved. The Chinese are stepping up their involvement in space exploration. As I said earlier, even the Indian Government and the Japanese Government have stated that they have a plan in mind to try and become involved in this concept.

What becomes so bizarre is the United States, that won the space race, is now forfeiting the space future to other countries. We had a plan between the actual startup of Constellation, which is both the Aries rocket and the Orion space capsule, and the end of the space shuttle in which the Russians would have to do some of the taxi service for us. They would charge us somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 to $35 million per ride. That's a large amount of money. But, however, our good friends in Russia, after they left communism, have found capitalism to their liking, and they realize what a monopoly gives them the power to do.

In the 2011 budget, NASA wants to budget $75 million per astronaut ride from Earth up to the space station and back. Now, that's the kind of cost that's coming to the taxpayers of the United States. And I would, once again, maybe be willing to accept it if that was moving America forward. But simply subsidizing the Russian space program instead of building our own program is not what I call smart use of moving us into the future.

In fact, we simply have said that this summer of recovery should be the summer of the Russian and Chinese recovery. We will be subsidizing their missile program, their space exploration program, at the tune of $75 million every time we send an American astronaut into space on Russian technology to help their program out, to keep their jobs going. And, well, I'm sorry. That just does not make sense as to where our future should be.

I would be happy to yield.

If I could reclaim the time, and I appreciate that comment. And once again, the fact we're throwing out different numbers of what it will cost to send Americans up there is simply because NASA doesn't know what it will cost, and that's why they're budgeting very high. Who knows if that is the actual number. Because once again the Russians realize, when they have a monopoly, they can charge what they want to charge.

Let's deal with another phrase that we often hear from this administration. They are about to commercialize space. I want to try and put that one to rest, if we could. There is no such thing as privatizing or commercializing what we are doing in space.

The Constellation program is being built by private enterprise. There were contracts let by this government that were done on a competitive bid process and won by private sectors, by the private sector, by commercial companies, which means when we cut Constellation, we're not cutting a government program. We're cutting 30,000 jobs in the private sector to build a contract that comes from here.

What the President and the NASA leaders were talking about when they say, well, we're going to commercialize the future of space is not really changing the philosophy of what we're doing. All they're doing is they're going to take the contracts from those who have them now, building Constellation, fire those people, and then we will give some of that extra NASA money that we are going to be appropriating to other companies in the private sector who are going to be winners in the values that this administration places on those particular companies.

In fact, the companies that are talking about the so-called commercialization of space already are under contract with NASA. They are already being subsidized by NASA. They are already behind in their programs with NASA, and they are asking for more Federal dollars for

I yield.

I appreciate that.

And reclaiming the time once again, I'm glad we're talking about the fact that these are real people in the job market that we're going to be harming. I'm glad we're talking about the overall purpose of our space exploration program and what it means to them. I'm glad the gentleman ticked off a bunch of areas. I mean, let's face it. When my kids were growing up, the fact that I could put their shoes on with Velcro was a major advantage than trying to tie their shoes. We have those examples in our life.

I'm glad that we're talking about the fact that the Constellation is the future. It is the best science that we have. It is the safest way of going forward. And I'm glad we're talking about the fact that we're not, this entire idea that we're going to privatize our space program which has caught the fancy of some of our colleagues who aren't really perhaps deeply involved in the Science Committee, as the gentleman from Texas is, to realize that's not what we're talking about here. All we're talking about is, once again, government picking winners and losers amongst the private sector to go on with programs that will still be subsidized by the taxpayers. And in some respects, perhaps this is the right approach to do it.

If I could take us into one other direction just for a minute as well, and perhaps this comes back to one of my areas of interest, because I'm on the Armed Services Committee. One of the things that this particular administration failed to do when they announced their new program of canceling Constellation for whatever new goal that they want to have in the future is they failed to communicate with other members of the administration and with other policies and programs within government to see what the impact would have in other government areas. And once again, I'm specifically talking about our military defense system.

As I said in the very beginning, we forget that the people who build rockets and have the component parts to put a man to the moon are the same people who build the component parts and build rockets that shoot down incoming missiles from other countries.

If, indeed, we are going--and once again, as was mentioned earlier, the industrial base that creates these jobs is not something you can turn on and off like a spigot on a water fountain. You can't just decide today we're going to have these scientists; tomorrow we'll fire them and turn it off, and then the next day we'll just open it up and they'll be there again.

What we are doing, if we decimate Constellation, is we're decimating the industrial base that builds our Defense Department missiles at the same time.

The House authorization bill has intent language that tries to quantify what this is because, to be honest, as we started our hearings this year on authorization bills, both for NASA as well as for the Defense Department, we simply asked the question that if, indeed, Constellation is taken out, what impact will it have on the military. And it was clear that the military had never been broached. They had never talked about this. They had not anticipated it. However, reports going over a year now, going back to Congress simply said that there would be devastating circumstances and harmful consequences if, indeed, Constellation was stopped for the military side.

Now, in the language that will be presented in the House authorization bill, it simply says that the best estimate we have right now is the cost of military defense on everything that deals with the missile, any kind of propulsion system, is between a 40 to 100 percent increase in the cost to the defense side of our Nation if, indeed, we stop Constellation and you fire those 30,000 workers who are part of that industrial base. That simply means that anything that needs a solid rocket motor, an ICBM, the Navy missile system, double the cost of what it will take just to replace those motors to replace the work and to keep that system functioning. Any kind of strategic missile that has propulsion as part of it, and I hate to say that, but that's every kind of missile that we have, the cost will increase 40 to 100 percent simply because we are losing the expertise and the industrial base. And, indeed, oftentimes those propulsion concepts have a fixed cost to them, so if, indeed, you have to have propulsion in there, there's a fixed cost. If you have less of that, the military will be picking up what is now being shared as far as the cost with NASA at the same time.

Our land-based missile system, our kinetic energy system, even the fact that some of our laser systems in the future will have a negative impact simply because the industrial base that builds those missiles for our military is the same industrial base that builds missiles, the component part, the labor, the propulsion system for NASA for Constellation.

You hurt one, we will hurt the other. And that was a factor that was never considered by the administration or NASA when they came up with their quick decision to try and stop Constellation for something else, some nebulous policy in the future.

Defense of this country is the role of Congress. It's a legitimate question. This administration should have asked those questions ahead of time before they announced the policy. They should have understood what the costs would be and how they planned to handle that cost. As it was, it kind of snuck up on everybody. And now people are trying to play catchup. And the best way of solving that problem is simply go with the winning program, which is Constellation, and continue on with the goal that is safe and has a clear, concise goal message to it. Don't lose the jobs, don't lose the industrial base, don't increase the costs for our military. And let us move forward in an organized, rational approach rather than this helter-skelter idea that takes place at some particular time.

Yes, I will be happy to yield.

If I could reclaim my time very briefly here again, and once again I appreciate you making those points, because they are spot-on accurate. Congress made its voice very clear last year when we specifically told NASA, Constellation is our program of record, and you will not cut funding to Constellation. It's very clear that Congress has never changed that position. Well, this is speculation, but nor do I think we would, given our own choice of what to do.

But as the gentleman from Texas clearly illustrated, there are some things that NASA is doing right now that appear--I don't want to try and ascribe motives--but they appear clearly to try and force the issue so that by the time Congress goes through its process of coming up with a budget and appropriations process and language directing what the bureaucracies will do, in this case NASA, that this will be a fait accompli.

So the idea of withholding the derivatives was not a reduction of their contracts, but it had the same effect. The idea of taking the Constellation manager and reassigning him had a specific effect. And then, as you alluded to, the idea of telling companies that they are going to have to hold out closing costs, which has never been done in NASA before, in fact there was only one time where Congress did tell them in some way, shape, or form that they needed to close a program, but that's when Congress told them to close a program down, not when they were trying to close it down before Congress has a chance to react to it. But what that would do is simply force them to fire people now so the industrial base is gone before anything takes place.

And that is a strange approach for any kind of executive branch of government to do when the legislative branch has yet to give them any clear direction that's what we want to do, or has spoken. In fact, everything we have said so far is the exact contrary to that. So I appreciate that.

If I could just put one last thing in, and then I will yield to the gentleman from Texas again. The government apparently put out the National Space Policy of the United States today. It's an interesting document. It says that we should have a robust and competitive commercial space sector, which is good. But I promise you, if you take all the jobs away from those who are doing Constellation, there will not be a robust or competitive space program.

They say that we should strengthen U.S. leadership in space-related science. Now, once again we have said over and over again if indeed you stop Constellation, you are ceding leadership in space-related science. We're not creating leadership. They say we should retain skilled space professionals. Once again, what is happening today is the exact opposite of this effort or this directive.

They say we should reinvigorate U.S. leadership. You don't reinvigorate something if you destroy the program that is our program of record that will move us towards a leadership position. I find this document unusual.

Now, I haven't had a chance to read everything that is in it, but certainly certain things come glaring out in the process of just skimming through it, saying that what we are doing is not necessarily what our words are. If our words here were indeed what our policy is, I would be very happy and content. But what I see happening is not what this policy statement says that we should be doing.

Sometimes I wonder if we really do understand what we are doing in space. And we need to recognize the significance of it, the importance of it, and the importance it has in other aspects of the government, and to our citizens, and to the future to inspiring kids. I yield back.

If I could just reclaim for just one particular second right here. Once again, and I appreciate you bringing that point out, I think the pushback or the outrage in Congress has been a bipartisan pushback and outrage. Republicans and Democrats alike have said the approach this administration is taking is not necessarily the right approach. Because indeed, Constellation is a safer, better system than the space shuttle. It is the new way forward. It shows what is the best and the brightest that this country has to offer. It is something that makes us good and makes us noble. It is the direction we should go into the future.

And for us to back off now for some program that is not clear, is not understandable, has no discernible goals, that's just not the way a country moves forward. It is indeed the way a country moves backwards, and this country should not be moving backwards.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas's leadership on this particular issue, everything that he has been doing in organizing our review, our reports, some of our complaints, too, as we try and say what we need to do is do that which moves the country forward and ennobles us as a people. Constellation does that. A clear space mission does that. A mission emphasizing safety for astronauts does that. That's what we need to continue on. And I'm sorry, but what NASA is asking us to do right now does not meet those goals.

I yield back for any concluding statements the gentleman has.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your time and efforts. We yield back.