Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3962. I cannot and will not support this government takeover of our health care system that will restrict choice, ration care, increase the cost of health care, greatly increase government spending, and lead to the destruction of the world's best medical care.

Americans are fed up with Washington's out of control spending, with more and more power over their daily lives being put in the hands of nameless, unaccountable bureaucrats, and with the systematic shift of the United States Government from a government OF the people to a government FOR the people. The growing discontent began with the bloated stimulus bill that did nothing but grow a bigger Washington and create more bureaucratic jobs. It increased with the government takeover of General Motors, the cap and tax bill, the placement of power in the hands of unconfirmed and unconstitutional czars, and the grossly inflated spending bills passed for fiscal year 2010. With the Democrat attempt to takeover health care, the discontent has now come to a full boil.

This spring, summer and fall the American people have spoken loudly and clearly about what they do and do not want in health care reform. The Democrats ignored these sentiments and introduced H.R. 3200 and the two Senate bills. This led to the most lively, spirited town halls in my 15 years in Congress, followed by an unprecedented number of phone calls, emails and letters sent to my office by concerned Kansans.

The American people told us what they do and do not want: they do not want a government takeover of health care, the American people do not want higher taxes, the American people do very much want to keep their health insurance and increase their choices and access for those who do not have insurance.

What was the Democrat response to their constituents? A new, bigger bill that again ignores the input of the American people and is even worse than H.R. 3200.

The new bill is a government takeover of health care. H.R. 3962 is double the original H.R. 3200 at 1990 pages long and loaded with new mandates. The word ``shall'' appears 3,425 times--in other words--this is the government telling you to do something. The bill creates 118 new bureaucracies. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculated the cost of the bill at $1.2 trillion but this does not include 28 instances of hidden costs indicated by the ominous words indicating that certain programs be appropriated ``such sums as may be necessary.'' The bill raises taxes, on individuals and job creators, including a $461 billion surtax on small businesses according to the U.S. Chamber of Congress. The Pelosi bill will result in 5.5 million job losses at a time when unemployment is already over 10 percent. And to top all of that off--this bill completely rewrites 16th of our nation's economy.

H.R. 3962 cuts benefits to seniors, does not ensure that Americans can keep their health insurance, limits choice, covers even more illegal immigrants than H.R. 3200 (2.5 million more according to CRS), and allows for taxpayer funded abortions.

If H.R. 3962 is enacted into law, even the Democrats acknowledge that health care costs will increase. As PJ O'Rourke said, ``If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.''

My biggest concern with the Democrat proposals is the intended rationing of health care. The Obama administration has already begun to set the framework for rationed care with comparative effectiveness research. This is a very dangerous road to travel down.

In addition to all the other concerns I am also opposed to the Baucus and Pelosi attempt to destroy Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs are what we should be promoting as a way to expand choice, give patients more control over their medical spending, and reduce health care costs.

I want health care reform and am saddened that this process has become so political that we won't see the much needed modernization that will ensure Americans have access to the best health care for decades to come. I am saddened that states like my home state of Kansas are forced to take drastic action to try to protect their citizens from being affected by Washington's takeover of health care.

Republicans have offered better solutions and principles that should be included in any health care reform. Those principles should: let Americans who like their health coverage keep it, give all Americans the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs; ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats; and improve Americans' lives through effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs, while developing new treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases.

The Republican 219 page bill is a plan that will lower cost and improve health care access. This bill includes: tax incentives; Association Healthcare Options to let Americans group together for greater purchasing power; limitations on defensive medicine and implementing comprehensive medical liability reform; tackling waste, fraud and abuse (a $10 Billion annual cost to taxpayers generated from Medicare alone); and incentives for savings and increased use of personal Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). In addition, the Republican plan will ensure that Americans are not prevented from health coverage due to pre-existing conditions and are not subject to lifetime caps on treatment. Unlike the Pelosi and Obama plans, the Republican plan protects Medicare for seniors. Finally, the Republican plan protects taxpayers from funding abortions or health insurance for illegal immigrants. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the Republican bill will lower premiums for the American people by up to 10 percent. Under our plan, premiums for families and small businesses would be nearly $5,000 per year lower.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for the Republican substitute that will provide real solutions that will meet the needs of the American people. Our constituents have spoken loudly and clearly and it is our duty as their representatives to listen to them, not ignore them and use the sacred Speaker's gavel to impose personal political goals upon them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to both the rule and to the massive government takeover of health care that is before us today. There are a large number of issues that I could raise, but right now I would like to focus on one of the most blatant examples of disregard for the will of the American people found within this bill. The bill includes abortions paid for by federal dollars.

For more than 30 years, the United States federal government has not been in the business of providing funding for abortion. Since 1976 the Hyde amendment has struck a delicate, but respectful balance between those who support abortion and those who do not. While it does not make abortion illegal, it protects those who oppose abortion from being forced to support it with their taxpayer dollars. This is a fair compromise that should be included in the H.R. 3962.

Public opinion is clear on this issue. A number of polls have been conducted in the last couple of months confirming that Americans do not support federal funding of abortion. A Rasmussen Reports poll from September found that only 13 percent of Americans support abortion coverage by government-backed health insurance. A Public Option Strategies poll from September found that only 8 percent of Americans would be more likely to support a health care bill if it included federal funding for abortions. A whopping two-thirds of Americans oppose using federal dollars to pay for abortions, according to the September International Communications Research poll. This is like every other aspect of this health care bill--the American people do not want it, but Democrat leadership is attempting to ram it down our throats anyway.

This is why I support the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Their amendment would extend the same restrictions found in the Hyde amendment to cover this bill as well. It does not outlaw or prohibit abortion, or restrict those who wish to have an abortion from seeking one. But it does prevent federal dollars from being used to pay for those abortions.

I am pleased that we will be allowed to debate the Stupak-Pitts amendment, even without assurance that should it pass, the House would retain the language in conference, and

I hope that my colleagues vote in favor of the amendment. The Republican bill clearly states that abortions will not be paid for with taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Republican bill and against H.R. 3962.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those supporting S. 1211, honoring the life of Jack Kemp by designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post Office Building.''

Jack was an accomplished and respected politician and athlete. He served his country in the United States Army Reserve and was a professional quarterback for 13 years, probably best known for his time with the San Diego Chargers and Buffalo Bills. He served as a Member of this body from 1971 to 1989, as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1989 to 1993, and as the Republican Party's nominee for Vice President and presidential nominee Bob Dole's running-mate in the 1996 election.

Both as a public official and as a private citizen, Jack was a great voice for common-sense conservatism in America. Laws still bear his name, which is a testament to his effectiveness as a Member of Congress. Jack Kemp left behind a legacy of principled determination and resolve to find practical solutions, not only within the Republican Party, but in the realm of public service as a whole.

Even more important than his career accomplishments was Jack's strong character. He had a deep faith that he lived out every day. He cherished his wife Joanne and their four children, making sure that, despite his many roles and responsibilities, he was there for them as a husband and father.

I am honored to have known Jack as a colleague and friend, and hope that the designation of the Jack F. Kemp Post Office Building will serve as one of many different recognitions of his life and service to our country. His family remains in our thoughts and prayers, and I encourage my colleagues to keep his memory alive as we work together in the fight for freedom and opportunity for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, Speaker Pelosi has more than 250 votes in the House of Representatives and she only needs 218 to pass legislation. The Democrats in the other body control 60 votes out of 100. The Democrats have the White House. They can pass legislation to take over the health care system in spite of what the American people are saying and in spite of what the American people are asking for.

Because, you see, the American people do want health care reform; they want to lower the costs; they want to be able to deduct all their health care expenses from their taxes. They want tort reform. They want us to address defensive medicine costs. They want to shop around across State lines so they can get a cheaper price. And they want health savings accounts. But the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is they want the freedom to control their health care, the freedom to choose their own doctor.

Whatever they pass here, Mr. Speaker, I will work to repeal, and I will work for the health care reform that the American public wants to keep them in control of their health care.

Mr. Speaker, a majority of Americans have had enough with the idea of the government taking over their health care. Americans love freedom and deserve the freedom to choose the health plan that is best for their family.

This week, in the great State of Kansas, a coalition of State leaders has unveiled the Health Care Freedom Amendment that reserves the right for Kansans to manage their own health care options. As Kansans, we don't want Washington bureaucrats getting in the middle of medical decisions that should be made by patients and their doctors. We believe Kansans and the American people deserve better. That is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Empowering Patients First Act that allows Americans who like their health care coverage the freedom to keep it, and gives Americans the opportunity to choose the health plan that best meets their needs.

Our bill also ensures medical decisions are made by patients and their physicians and improves Americans' lives through effective prevention, wellness and disease management programs. This is the only bill that won't dampen the development of new treatments that cure life-threatening diseases.

It's time for the Democrats to scrap their current plan, stop the backroom dealing, and start working with Republicans on real health care reform that ensures all Americans have the right to manage their health care options.

I want to thank Ranking Member Simpson for yielding me time. I have to say that I think that he is much better equipped to be the ranking member of the Interior Committee than I was when I was ranking member.

I also want to commend Chairman Dicks. I think nobody has been better prepared to be chairman of the Interior Committee than he has, and he has done an excellent job.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have an honest concern and an honest difference on whether we should have these regulations imposed on the American economy and on American agricultural jobs.

There is an onslaught of regulations going on now, and we forget that, when we hire all of these government workers, they have to do something, so we're reminded when they submit these regulations which do nothing but slow our economy and force more unemployment.

We also forget that it takes five private-sector jobs to pay for each and every one government job, but we very seldom get the opportunity to talk about how we're going to grow our economy in a positive fashion. Instead, we have to play defense on how we're going to save the jobs we have today. Regulations like this do nothing but force more jobs overseas. They do nothing more than raise unemployment.

Is there any belief, when we impose additional regulations as high as this pile is next to me, that it will do nothing less than move agricultural jobs out of America to other countries like Mexico, Brazil and Argentina? Are you convinced that any of those countries will do a better job of regulating this type of production? I don't think they will.

Do you think they will do a better job in Mexico or in Brazil or in Argentina of managing animal diseases? We do a very fine job here. When there is a problem, we respond immediately, but I don't see that in those other countries.

What we are doing by writing these regulations is forcing production of

animals overseas where we will be more vulnerable as a world, where we will have less jobs as America. It's not the type of direction that I think our President wants to go. It's not the type of direction that I think Congress wants to go.

We see this not only in agriculture but we also have seen this in manufacturing, where as we grow the regulatory burden, the jobs move overseas. Today, 12 percent of the cost of making anything in America is consumed by just complying with the regulations. As a result we have seen jobs go offshore.

Now it's not because we have high wages; we want highly qualified workers. It's not because CEOs are greedy; they can only control so many costs. They cannot control the costs imposed upon their companies by the regulations that they are facing from the Federal Government today.

And we are doing this for what reason? So we can control greenhouse gases? I would defy anybody to show a measurable increase or decrease in greenhouse gases because of these regulations, and not only this year or next year, but in the next 50 or 100 years. This is not worth it. It doesn't meet the common sense. I would request that we keep the language that was passed in the Appropriations Committee by Mr. Latham and vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Chairman Costello for his leadership on this legislation and also Ranking Member Petri for his help in recognizing Russ Meyer.

It's with great pleasure that I come to the floor today to commend Russ W. Meyer, Jr., for his induction into the National Aviation Hall of Fame. In April, Russ joined astronauts Ellen Collins, the late Edward White, and movie legend Jimmy Stewart in the class of 2009.

Russ has had a distinguished career both in the private and public arena. While attending Harvard Law School, Russ served with the United States Marine Corps Reserves from 1958 to 1961. After a few years in the private practice of law, Russ entered the aviation industry as president and CEO of Grumman American Aviation Corporation in Cleveland, Ohio. Then Russ came to Wichita, Kansas. Russ joined the Cessna Aircraft Company as executive vice president in June of 1974. One year later he became the chairman and CEO.

There are few who have done more for the general aviation community than Russ. He led Cessna, both as chairman and CEO, for a total of 23 years. During his time with Cessna, Russ led the expansion of the Cessna line of business jets, the world's most popular line of mid- sized jets.

Russ Meyer recognized that business jets are a tremendous productivity tool. It is productivity that has helped our economy grow. We are the number one economy of the world, and it's not because we have fewer regulations. We have more. It's not because we have the lowest wages. We're among the highest. It's because of visionaries like Russ Meyer who gave the American people the ability to do the same work in less time, making us the most productive and strongest workforce and economy in the world.

In the 1980s, the general aviation industry was faced with a tremendous hurdle that threatened to eliminate a big portion of the general aviation aircraft market. Aircraft manufacturers were forced to cease production of their piston-powered aircraft due to liability issues that extended over the life of the aircraft. In response to this threat, Russ put his leadership to work on Capitol Hill. He became one of the principal advocates for the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. This bill provided limited liability on general aviation aircraft and revitalized the general aviation industry.

But this is just one of many contributions Russ has given to the industry as a whole. Far beyond his leadership in the business sector, Russ is also a philanthropist. One person described Russ as one who has a big heart and wants to serve the underserved. This isn't just talk. Russ was the chairman of a campaign to construct a 42,000-square-foot complex for the Boys and Girls Club of South Central Kansas. He led the fundraising effort and raised over $9 million for the project.

Russ was also the originator of the Citation Special Olympics Airlift, where hundreds of Citation airplane owners from around the country transport athletes to the national Special Olympic Games. Russ is also a member of the Kansas Aviation Hall of Fame, a Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy holder, has served on three Presidential commissions, and the list goes on.

Like many others, I've known Russ to be a man of vision and action. Whenever Russ takes on a project, he has the ability to rally and inspire everyone around him behind a common goal. Every community wants a Russ Meyer. Every community needs a Russ Meyer. The children of South Central Kansas needed him, and Russ delivered. The aircraft industry needed him, and Russ delivered. He's a big reason why Wichita is known as the air capital of the world.

Once again, I am pleased today that the United States House of Representatives will congratulate and commend Russ W. Meyer, Jr., on his induction into the National Aviation Hall of Fame.

I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks).

I thank the gentleman from Washington State, and I appreciate his contributions to the aircraft industry as well. He's been a stalwart in helping us get American jobs made by American companies, American aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, in the current health care debate we are overlooking access to health care in rural America. For families living in rural towns all across Kansas and America, access to quality health care is often the primary concern. In fact, right now, less than 10 percent of our physicians serve 25 percent of our population.

In order to improve access to quality medical care, we need to start with three basic reforms. First, we should reimburse providers for the full cost of care so rural medical professionals can do their job of curing and healing. Second, we should repay enormous debt incurred through medical school so more young people enter general practice and practice care in smaller towns. Finally, the Federal Government should stop picking winners and losers with its coverage decisions in urban versus rural health care, because in every case, rural health care gets shortchanged.

We should focus on reforms needed to solve the health care crisis in rural Kansas and in rural America, and, in doing so, we will improve health care delivery to the rest of the Nation. Without addressing these exploding costs or recognition that we need to focus on training new practitioners, the access problems plaguing rural America will only get worse.

Madam Speaker, in April 2009 the United Nations (UN) set upon an ``investigation'' and ``fact-finding'' mission into the recent Israel-Gaza border conflict and released a report on findings on September 15th. Although the facts clearly showed that the terrorist Hamas government in Gaza had launched thousands of rockets on Israel prior to any Israeli response, the UN Goldstone Mission came to a surprising conclusion. It found ``violations of international human rights law . . by the occupying power, Israel.'' This outrageous conclusion was predetermined by the originating mandate's anti-Israel bias.

After lasting six months and producing a 575-page report, the Goldstone Mission apparently had no interest in fairness or engaging in a real investigation. This ``fact-finding'' mission was nothing more than a charade that demonizes a nation for protecting its own citizens, all the while protecting terrorist organizations and damaging any chance of true peace in the Middle East. The Goldstone Report is just another example of the UNHRC's dismal track record.

The Goldstone Report is the epitome of what is wrong with the United Nations in general and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in particular. Dominated by anti-democratic, anti-Semitic nations opposed to any semblance of human rights, the UNHRC has proven itself to be lacking objectivity and interest in truth or advancing the real cause of human rights.

My central concern with the Goldstone Report is the lack of recognition of Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from the internationally-recognized terrorist organization, Hamas, which currently controls Gaza. Despite video documentation, the report alleges no conclusive evidence of Hamas's extraordinary use of civilians and civilian infrastructure for military purposes, and accuses Israel of war crimes. The Goldstone Report shamefully accuses the victims with little mention of the aggressors. It even leaves open the possibility of Israel's prosecution at the International Criminal Court for simply protecting its citizens.

No nation can sit idly by while its people are killed, its children are traumatized, and the daily life of its citizens is severely disrupted by terrorism. Ask yourself, would America tolerate 10,000 rockets being launched against our homeland? No, we would protect our people. Israel has the same responsibility to protect its people as it did in Gaza. To suggest otherwise is a failure to accept the facts.

Americans look forward to peace in Israel and the Middle East; but until Hamas and its terrorist allies relinquish their arms, renounce violence, and acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, the hope for peace can not be realized. Israel can not do it singlehandedly. The UN must recognize Hamas for what it is--a terrorist organization that prevents peace in the Middle East. The Goldstone Report, by rejecting truth and objectivity, brings us no closer to that ultimate goal. It is a disgrace and should be viewed as such by the international community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to fight on behalf of Kansans who are furious that ACORN, the political machine of President Obama, is being funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to carry out fraudulent and illegal activities.

It's no secret President Obama paid ACORN over $800,000 to help him win the White House. For years, this organization has been funded by liberal Democrats, and they have used the money to promote voter fraud and tax fraud, along with other illegal activities.

Despite the dozens of ACORN voter fraud scandals and its 70 convicted members, ACORN receives an outrageous 40 percent of its funding from hardworking taxpayers. This must stop. That's why we are fighting to defund this political machine and prevent further abuse of taxpayer money.

In addition to taking away every single tax dollar ACORN receives, we should strip its tax-exempt status. That's why this week I am introducing a resolution calling for the IRS to stop giving ACORN special tax treatment.

Let's help stop ACORN from using its tax-exempt status to advance liberal political agendas filled with corruption. It's time for Congress to put an end to this fraudulent use of public tax dollars and start working to revive our economy and create jobs.

I want to first thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii for her help in this legislation and for the kind words to Wichita State and also to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who also gave us a wonderful history about this sport and also Wichita State University and his kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer House Resolution 455 honoring the 2009 National Champion Wichita State University Shocker men's and women's bowling teams. By its very nature, a national championship is special, but to have both men's and women's teams from the same school earn the same title in the same year is truly remarkable.

The Wichita State University men's team entered the elimination portion of the tournament seeded first, a ranking which they held all the way through the finals where they claimed the national championship. The Lady Shockers were ranked second entering the elimination tournament and overcame a difficult schedule on their way to becoming national champions. These championship teams carry on a winning tradition at Wichita State University. This is the ninth national title for each of them, the second consecutive national title for the men, and the third women's national title in 5 years.

Wichita State University has been blessed with an incredible coaching staff. Head coach Gordon Vadakin and assistant coach Mark Lewis are both members of the United States Bowling Congress Hall of Fame. Gordon Vadakin has been coaching at Wichita State University since 1976, leading the men's and women's teams to a combined 32 USBC Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship tournaments and winning a record 16 of them. The Wichita State University team has two additional outstanding assistant coaches in Brian Adelgren and Nathan Bohr.

I want to congratulate the men's team of Jake Peters, Nick Pahr, Brandon Hall, Josh McBride, Stephen Cowland, Adam Ferri, Kyle Bischoff, Will Barnes, Geoffrey Young, Kevin Tatrow; and Male Collegiate Bowler of the Year runners-up John Szczerbinski and Josh Blanchard; and to the women's team of Melissa Hurst, Maggie Zakrzewski, Suzana Signaigo, Jessica Baker, Samantha Hesley, Mariana Ayala, Daniela Alvarado, Rocio Restrepo, Samantha Linder, and Female Collegiate Bowler of the Year Sandra Gongora.

Once again, I am pleased today that the United States House of Representatives will congratulate and commend the Wichita State University men's and women's bowling teams for winning the 2009 Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship Tournament. Go Shox.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act because it will increase our deficit, but not help Americans with the expense of college. This bill is just one more area where the President and his party's leadership in the House are seeking to take over private industry. This is yet another one-size-fits-all government program intended to cripple the private sector and force additional financial risk on the American taxpayer.

In the last few months, we have watched the national debt level grow at an unprecedented rate. We spent billions of dollars bailing out the automobile industry. We have thrown good money after bad to prop up portions of the financial sector that we are told are ``too big to fail.'' We've bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to watch the housing industry continue to flounder. We have spent more than $780 billion on a stimulus package that has left us with higher unemployment than we had before the bill. And in the next few weeks, we will need to raise the debt ceiling again.

Claims that this bill will save the nation billions of dollars look like a budget gimmick to pay for new government programs. Government has grown enough in recent years. We need to be looking for ways to save money and reduce our deficit, not spend ``projected savings'' on new, duplicative programs.

Furthermore, the money that supporters claim will be made available by these budget gimmicks is only expected to cover the first five years of these new programs. After that, Congress will be forced to find alternative sources of funding for them, or eliminate them. This is as productive as a credit card offering no payments for six months. This is a very poor way to manage the finances of the nation.

A second big problem I see with H.R. 3221 is the federalization of the student loan industry. If we run out of money for this program in the future, what happens to the students? With no private lenders, the students are left without any other source of funding for their education.

Fifteen years ago, when the federal government first got involved in the business of providing student loans, Congress was told that this was not an attempt for the federal government to take over the student loan industry, but simply a way to improve the system, and provide ``competition'' to the private sector. Yet, fifteen years later, here we are, debating a bill that would force private lenders out of the industry.

Does this argument sound familiar? It should. These are the same explanations being offered today by the President and by Democrat leaders in the House and Senate on health care. We are told that the bill will not lead to a government takeover of health care. Proponents say that a ``government option'' will simply compete, not replace, private health insurance plans. But I wonder, if the health care bill were to pass, how long would it be before this body is having a similar vote to eliminate private health insurance plans.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill. This is a big government takeover of a private industry that will saddle taxpayers with the risk of billions in additional debt, while shrinking access to resources for future generations of students. In short, Madam Speaker, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled why this discussion has come up this afternoon. This has been a long selection process to get NBAF to where it is located today.

Many facilities were researched. They looked at it. They decided the best place in all of America, based on past history, based on facility, based on geography, based on the plan and place was to select Manhattan, Kansas.

Now, we have the same similar lab research going on around America today and also in Canada. In fact, there are facilities at Fort Detrick, Maryland, very close here to Washington, D.C. It's considered safe even though the research there is somewhat as dangerous, if not more dangerous, to humans than what we are discussing today.

We also have CDC laboratories in Atlanta, Georgia, and in other high- population areas, places in Texas have similar research going on. But in Winnipeg, Canada, they have the very same research going on 70 miles from the United States border and in the cattle country of Canada, and yet there are no concerns.

Now, the NBAF facility is going to be the same, whether you locate it in Kansas or Georgia or Texas or whether somebody else here would like to have it in their home district. We are going to have plans in place to make sure that this is a well-protected facility, a level 4 security, BSL 4, as it is referred to. It is going to be safe, it's going to be effective, and it's going to provide the continuation of a low-cost, stable food supply that is marketable worldwide because of the safety research.

So for us to put a red herring out there that this is not a safe facility or that there are some concerns, you know, this has been studied by DHS. They do have a preliminary plan in place, God forbid something should ever happen, but they are satisfied that this level 4 facility is going to meet the requirements.

One point I would like to make is that in Kansas State we have been doing similar research for quite some time in the past decade, completely safe in a level 4 facility. We can start the beginning of this research today. The only thing that's really

holding this up is this lack of funding, and there is something critical going on in the funding scheme. The Federal Government has promised to come up with 36 million. It's going to be matched by the State of Kansas.

But if we delay the construction, we delay the protections that would be put in place. And it's very shortsighted for us to question, after the fact, all the research, all the decisions, the fairness in the process and the decision that was made.

It was a good decision. It's the right location. We are going to move forward with this to protect our food supply and protect the people of America and make marketable agricultural products worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, last night President Obama told us that his administration would tackle medical malpractice reform as a way to lower health care costs. Defensive medicine

practices do drive up the cost of health care. It's at least 10 percent of overall cost and as much as 40 percent of some procedures, and it should be aggressively tackled.

This is what we have been saying on the Republican side for years. But who is it? Who will take on this difficult task? And just how committed is President Obama in taking on medical malpractice reform and protecting medical providers from trial lawyers? A simple Google search shows that Secretary Sebelius was the executive director and the head lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association for 8 years. That's right, Secretary Sebelius, head of the Health and Human Services, was a deep political professional and has personal ties with trial lawyers and has been tapped by the President to go after these same trial lawyers and figure out just what kind of malpractice reform should be put in place.

I think this is a classical example of what we call a conflict of interest. The President has made several publicly embarrassing gaffes recently, and when it comes to vetting these people, I would hope that he takes more time in vetting Secretary Sebelius.

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the Republican Earmark Standards Guidance, I submit the following in regard to the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act found in H.R. 3326:

Portable Military Radio Communications Test Set

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3326, contains $1,500,000 for Portable Military Radio Communications Test Set in the Marine Corps, Procurement Account. The entity to receive funding for this project is Aeroflex at 10200 West York Road, Wichita, KS 67215-8999.

The Portable Military Radio Communications Test Set was developed with the military in mind with its portability, rugged build, and weight. The technician can easily perform maintenance checks of radio systems (including antennas & cables); perform diagnostics or troubleshooting of faulty radio systems in order to repair or restore the radio systems. The test set is portable, weighing in at only 8.5 lbs (including the battery). It operates from a rechargeable battery with about 5 hours operating time. With the additional capability to perform quick testing of antennas and cables, the Portable Military Radio Communications Test Set provides for the tester to isolate problems and assess performance of the radio, cable, and antenna systems. It was designed to significantly reduce the number of radios incorrectly removed from vehicles where it was later determined to have no trouble found.

The Marine Corps pays about $10,000 for each tester, with a requirement for 1600 units. This funding will go to procurement of the testers to meet this requirement.

No matching funds are required for this Department of Defense project.

Radio Personality Modules for SINCGARS Test Sets

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3326, contains $3,000,000 for Radio Personality Modules for SINCGARS Test Sets in the Army, Other Procurement Account. The entity to receive funding for this project is Aeroflex at 10200 West York Road, Wichita,

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the February 2008 New Republican Earmark Standards Guidance, I submit the following in regards to H.R. 3288, the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Federal Aviation Administration--National Institute for Aviation

Research (NIAR) Wichita State University

H.R. 3288, the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contains $1,000,000 for facilities and equipment to expand the capabilities of its National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) to conduct Advanced Materials Research in support and improvement of its ongoing aviation safety research in the areas of metallic and nonmetallic structures, crashworthiness, and aging aircraft effects. The entity to receive funding for this project is Wichita State University located at 1845 Fairmount St, Wichita, Kansas, 67260.

Federal Aviation Administration--National Institute for Aviation

Research (NIAR) Wichita State University

H.R. 3288, the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contains $1,000,000 for technical personnel, facilities and equipment at the National Institute for Aviation Research to provide a comprehensive education and training initiative for composite airframe maintenance and airworthiness awareness. The entity to receive funding for this project is Wichita State University located at 1845 Fairmount St, Wichita, Kansas, 67260.

Federal Highway Administration--Interstate Maintenance Discretionary--

City of Wichita, KS: Interstate 235/US 54 and I-235/Central Avenue

Interchange

H.R. 3183, the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contains $750,000 for preliminary engineering and right-of-way costs for the reconstruction of the Kellogg (US-54) and Central interchanges on I-235 in western Wichita. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Wichita, located at City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, KS 67202.

Federal Highway Administration--Surface Transportation Priorities City

of Wichita, KS: 21st Street North Railroad Overpass

H.R. 3183, the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contains $500,000 for an elevated roadway overpass along 21st Street North from Broadway to I-135 in order to eliminate the lengthy vehicular traffic delays and vehicle entrapment issues associated with multiple at-grade rail crossings located along this segment of a busy east-west arterial city street. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Wichita located at 1845 Fairmount St, Wichita, Kansas, 67260.