Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Shane Kennedy for his quick thinking and level-headedness during the severe tornado outbreak in Oklahoma on May 10th.

Kennedy, a co-manager at the Country Boy IGA in Norman that was leveled during last week's tornado outbreak, left his place of employment, observed the oncoming tornado, and returned to the store to direct 40 customers and employees to seek shelter in the store's freezer. While the store sustained irreparable damages, none of the 40 patrons suffered significant injuries. As two tornadoes ripped down Highway 9 and through the Country Boy IGA, Kennedy led the group in prayer until the storm system passed.

Madam Speaker, had it not been for Kennedy's foresight and resolve, this severe storm could have ended in great tragedy. But his fortitude and strength protected these 40 lives from grave danger.

Time and again, Oklahomans have risen to the challenge in the face of adversity. I am once more impressed by the strength and resiliency of Oklahomans through Kennedy's swift and skillful response to protect his fellow Oklahomans.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Kennedy deserves our thanks and appreciation. As an American and an Oklahoman, I am proud to be able to represent Mr. Kennedy, and wish him well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great public servant, the outgoing Army Corps of Engineers Commander and Division Engineer for the Southwestern Division, Colonel Anthony C. Funkhouser.

Colonel Funkhouser began his public service at West Point, New York where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering at the United States Military Academy. During his 25 years of distinguished service as an engineer he has had the opportunity to serve in theater during Desert Shield/Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as serving at numerous installations including Eschborn, Germany; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; and Fort Irwin, California. He has served as the Tulsa District's Commander since 2007 and in 2009, while retaining the Tulsa Command, was promoted to Commander and Division Engineer of the Southwestern Division.

Madam Speaker, his outstanding service and bravery has earned him the Bronze Star Medal with ``V'' Device, the Combat Action Badge, Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal, Army Achievement Medal with five oak leaf clusters, National Defense Service Medal, Terrorism Expeditionary and Service Medals, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Military Outstanding Volunteer Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with five oak leaf clusters, and Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti Liberation medals.

During Colonel Funkhouser's service as Commander of the U.S. Army Engineer Division's Tulsa District beginning in June 2007, he has shown tremendous leadership, professionalism, and adaptability. He has performed his duty in such a way as to earn great respect from his colleagues. Immediately at the conclusion of his change of command ceremony on June 29th, he was challenged to address historic flooding issues at Lake Texoma and Lake Waurika. In the past three years of Colonel Funkhouser's service at the Tulsa District, he has addressed infrastructure needs and shown that his skills lie not only in engineering but working well with all of the diverse groups that rely upon his leadership and judgment.

Madam Speaker, it is a great honor to recognize Colonel Anthony Funkhouser for his dedication to the United States Army. We are a better and stronger nation because of his service.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, Wilma Mankiller led a remarkable life. As my friend Congressman Boren so eloquently stated, her beginnings were awfully humble. Frankly, they didn't get much better for a long time. She traveled to California, and unlike a lot of Oklahomans, did not find the prosperity that so many had found, so she returned home and went to work for the Cherokee Nation. For over a decade, she worked through a succession of posts of increasing responsibility. Eventually, she became, of course, the principal chief of the second largest Indian tribe in America, the first woman to do so and arguably the best leader the tribe has had since its removal from North Carolina to Oklahoma.

During her tenure as chief, she more than tripled the number of Cherokees. She doubled tribal employment. She added dozens of programs in nutrition, social services, education, and cultural awareness. Frankly, she made the Cherokee Nation even more than it was--a force to be reckoned with, but a beneficent force, not only in northeast Oklahoma, not only within the lives of its citizens, but, quite frankly, in Indian Country and in American politics.

She was recognized for her extraordinary achievements over a lifetime--honorary degrees, boards and foundations and, of course, again, as my colleague and friend Mr. Boren mentioned, the highest civilian award that any American can receive, the Medal of Freedom.

I knew Wilma Mankiller very well. She led a life based on principles. The first one was just absolute personal integrity. She was one of the most honest and honorable people I had ever met in my life. The second was humility. She was the most approachable person you would ever want to know. She had a total lack of pretension, and she believed very profoundly in service to others--in service, yes, to her tribe; in service, yes, to Native Americans; but in service beyond, as a creed and as a value, that she lived and acted on every single day of her life.

She was a remarkable person to talk to because she was completely candid in her conversations, which is very unusual, particularly for a political figure. If you are chief of the Cherokee Nation, I can assure you, you are a considerable and skillful politician in your own right. On many occasions, I remember getting advice, and I remember her speaking in a very unvarnished way. I can't count the number of times that I heard her say in speeches when she got up--she loved to speak truth to power--that she identified herself: either I am or have been the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation. If the United States Government had had its way, I would never have been a chief; there would never have been a Cherokee Nation or it would have ended, and also tribes would have been eliminated. That is where she began her conversation.

She was a role model, of course, to women and to Native Americans everywhere, particularly to my mother, who was the first Native American elected to the State Senate in Oklahoma. She was a close friend of Chief Mankiller's. Like me, my mother admired her quite profoundly.

As a leader, she was always principled; she was determined; she was visionary, but she was supremely practical in her political pursuits. She was tough; she was shrewd; she was dedicated to the Cherokee people, and she was dedicated to Native Americans. She was an extraordinarily fierce defender of the concept of tribal sovereignty. She understood it in her bones; she advocated it and, frankly, enhanced it, not only for her own people but for Native Americans everywhere.

Having said that, she was always willing to partner with anyone. It didn't matter what your point of view was. It didn't matter what your values were. She was a very devoted Democrat. My mother was a very fierce Republican. They found common ground again and again on issue after issue.

In closing, I want to join my friend Mr. Boren in expressing my profound sympathy to her family, obviously to the great Cherokee Nation and to Native Americans everywhere. I mean this with all sincerity that I have not seen her like before in my life. I don't think any of us will see her like again.

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concerns about what's in the bill, but I'm also concerned by what's not in the bill and, frankly, that's money to fund the settlement of the so-called Cobell lawsuit.

As my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, this lawsuit against the Federal Government stems from the mismanagement of Indian trust accounts and trust land since 1887. It involves over half a million claimants; it has drug on for 14 years through three different administrations involving both parties.

Finally, in December of last year, a settlement was reached, $3.4 billion: $1.4 billion to individual claimants, $2 billion to allow for the repurchase of fractionated lands, and some money set aside for an Indian scholarship fund.

I want to particularly, frankly, commend Secretary Salazar, who did a wonderful job in bringing this issue to closure. But it's now squarely in our court in the Congress of the United States. The President has asked us to solve this problem or to fund the settlement that he's negotiated.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enter the President's letter to the Speaker asking action on this particular item. So it's now squarely in our court.

When the settlement was negotiated, there was a deadline that we would act in Congress by December 31 of last year. Obviously, we missed that. There's a second deadline of February 28. We missed that. The last deadline is April 15.

I know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle sincerely want to settle this issue, and I look forward to working with them as we try to move toward that; but I find it very difficult to keep people that have been waiting over 100 years waiting a while longer while we do things in a more immediate framework. So I urge the Congress to act, and I urge us to, frankly, support the administration's negotiated settlement. When we do that I'll be there to help my friends on the other side of the aisle.

The White House,

Washington, DC, February 12, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: I ask the Congress to consider the

enclosed amendments to Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in my

FY 2011 Budget.

Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland

Security, Disaster Relief, for the continued response and

recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as

Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods. The proposed total

for FY 2010 in my FY 2011 Budget would increase by $1.5

billion as a result of this amendment.

Also included are amendments to general provisions that

would provide authorization and funding for FY 2010 to

implement the settlement of a case involving the management

of individual Indian trust accounts related to Indian lands

and to settle claims of prior discrimination brought by black

farmers against the Department of Agriculture.

The details of these requests are set forth in the enclosed

letter from the Director of the Office of Management and

Budget.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama.

Enclosure.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, February 12, 2010.

The President,

The White House.

Submitted for your consideration are amendments to the

Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in your FY 2011 Budget.

Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland

Security, Disaster Relief. Also included are amendments to

general provisions that would provide authorization and

funding for FY 2010 to implement the settlement of a case

involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts

related to Indian lands and to settle claims of prior

discrimination brought by black farmers against the

Department of Agriculture. These amendments are described

below and in more detail in the enclosures.

The proposed Budget totals for FY 2010 would increase by

$1.5 billion as a result of the following amendment:

Department of Homeland Security, Disaster Relief. This

amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion and would

increase the pending $3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental

request included in the FY 2011 Budget to $5.1 billion. These

supplemental funds are needed before March 2010 for the

continued response and recovery efforts associated with prior

large events, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest

Floods. This supplemental request is also being re-

transmitted to underscore the importance of acting in a

timely fashion.

Two FY 2010 proposals were included as mandatory requests

in the FY 2011 Budget, with an expectation that authorization

language would be transmitted at a later date. However, at

this time there are no other appropriate legislative vehicles

available to allow for expeditious consideration of these

proposals. Therefore, they are now being requested as changes

in mandatory programs and as such, are being transmitted to

the Appropriations Committee for their disposition.

General Provision, Sec. 1: Cobell v. Salazar. This

amendment would provide authorization and funding to

implement the settlement of Cobell v. Salazar, a case

involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts

related to Indian lands. Pending congressional action and

final approval by the Court, $3.412 billion will be expended

from the Department of the Treasury's Claims, Judgments, and

Relief Acts account in FY 2010. Within this total, the

settlement agreement provides that $2.0 billion from the

appropriation to this account will be transferred to a new

Trust Land Consolidation Fund in the Department of the

Interior for the buy-back and consolidation of fractionated

land interests and other activities.

General Provision, Sec. 2: Discrimination Claims

Settlement. This amendment would provide authorization and FY

2010 funding of $1.150 billion to settle claims of prior

discrimination brought by black farmers against the

Department of Agriculture that were previously addressed by

section 14012 of Public Law 110-246, the Food Conservation

and Energy Act of 2008.

Recommendation

I have carefully reviewed these requests and am satisfied

that they are necessary at this time. Therefore, I join the

heads of the affected agencies in recommending you transmit

these proposals to the Congress.

Sincerely,

Peter R. Orszag,

Director.

Enclosures.

FY 2010 Supplemental Proposal in the FY 2011 Budget

Agency: Department of Homeland Security.

Bureau: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Heading: Disaster Relief.

FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1362.

FY 2010 Pending Supplemental Request: $3,600,000,000.

Proposed Amendment: $1,500,000,000.

FY 2010 Revised Supplemental Request: $5,100,000,000.

(In the appropriations language under the above heading,

delete ``$3,600,000,000'' and substitute $5,100,000,000.)

This amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion for

the Disaster Relief account and would increase the pending

$3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental request included in the FY

2011 Budget to $5.1 billion.

This request is submitted to: (1) reiterate the need to

provide the proposed funding before March 2010, and

underscore the Administration's support for this proposal;

and (2) request an additional $1.5 billion in anticipation of

arbitration panel decisions likely to impact the Disaster

Relief Fund in a previously unexpected manner. This proposal

provides additional funding for the continued response and

recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as

Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods.

Through the Disaster Relief Fund, the Federal Emergency

Management Agency provides a significant portion of the total

Federal response to Presidentially-declared major disasters

and emergencies. Primary assistance programs include Federal

assistance to individuals and households, public assistance,

and hazard mitigation assistance, which includes the repair

and reconstruction of State, local, and nonprofit

infrastructure.

FY 2010 Change in a Mandatory Program

Heading: General Provisions--This Act.

FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1366.

FY 2010 Pending Request: $3,412,000,000.

Proposed Amendment:--.

Revised Request: $3,412,000,000.

(In the appropriations language, insert the above new

heading and the following new language directly following

section 2 of the ``General Provisions'' that appear on page

1365:)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. Frankly, this rule sets a deplorable precedent, deplorable in terms of limiting Member participation and silencing millions of voters whom they represent.

This bill cuts $523 billion out of Medicare and diverts it to an entirely new entitlement. Sixty-five Members filed amendments offering new ideas and better approaches. None of those amendments were made in order.

My amendment, Mr. Speaker, would have prohibited cuts in Medicare, would have kept the money saved in Medicare in that program. Democrats are turning a blind eye to the future unfunded obligations of that program just as the baby boomers are retiring by the millions upon millions.

This rule is flawed. This bill is fiscally irresponsible. We should vote ``no.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the rule at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer what I believe is a noncontroversial amendment that would amend the Public Lands Service Corps Act to allow the Secretaries to enter into arrangements with tribal governments in order to provide temporary housing for Corps workers. This would be in addition to other Federal agencies, States, local governments, or private organizations. Because tribal governments are not included under the umbrella of any of the bill's other categories, it is necessary to modify the bill's language to include them.

Tribal governments enjoy a unique government-to-government sovereign relationship with the United States. Tribal governments regularly enter into similar agreements with a variety of Federal agencies and have done so for over 200 years, so this change would not disturb precedent.

Throughout this bill, tribal lands are designated as a place for young adults employed in this program to expend their efforts. It makes sense, then, that these tribes would be able to house some of the participants, thereby enhancing the experience of these workers. Not only would this program connect participants to the land, but housing in the tribal areas could enhance their cultural understanding and awareness.

Indian Country is as diverse as America itself, so obviously housing these individuals would not be ideal on some reservations. It is important, though, to include willing tribal governments in this program, as Native Americans are historically some of the best stewards of the environment and because the potential for cultural interchange in this program would certainly have great benefit for both the national lands conservation workers and the tribes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman very much, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Again, this is a simple modification that will allow Native American tribes to enter into agreements to house the employees of the Public Lands Service Corps just like Federal agencies, States, localities, and private organizations.

This designation will give the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior more housing options for these workers and will allow the tribes to be more fully engaged in the program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my Dad always told me, ``Your friends are the people who tell you what you need to know, not what you want to hear.''

In August, the American people flooded town hall meetings and told their representatives to vote ``no'' on Obama care. The Speaker called them extremists. In November, voters in Virginia and New Jersey elected Republican governors in States President Obama had carried one year earlier. The White House said it was due to local issues. And in January, the voters of Massachusetts elected a Republican to the United States Senate for the first time in 38 years. Senate Democrats said it was because they had nominated a poor candidate.

As we approach the vote on Obama care, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ignore the Speaker, ignore the President, and ignore the Democrats in the Senate. Just listen to your friends, the voters of America, who oppose this $1 trillion, 2,700 page health care monstrosity, and then vote ``no.'' In November, you will be glad you did.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, February 26, 2010, I missed the last vote in a series of six votes. I missed rollcall vote No. 74.

Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 74: ``yea'' (On agreeing to H. Con. Res. 238).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend Mr. Abercrombie for his distinguished career

and our good friendship. And the fact that I am rising in support of this bill and my good friend Mr. Young has risen in support of this bill is certainly an indication it is not a partisan measure. Frankly, our side did not decide to whip this. So this really is a nonpartisan question before the Congress. It is not an issue of race, as some would argue. It is not an issue of States' rights, as some would argue.

It is actually, in the end, a question of Federal authority and how the Federal Government chooses to treat indigenous peoples. And frankly, if we want to look at that, we ought to be guided by our own Constitution, our own legal traditions, and our own actions as a Congress. Over 200 years of American history has taught us from the very beginning, from the foundation of the Constitution, that we had decided we will treat native peoples as individual subordinate sovereign units, and we will negotiate our relationships with them.

Now, we haven't always lived up to that idea, no question about it. Over the course of our history there has been efforts to destroy native nations. There has been efforts to remove them from their homeland. There has been efforts at forced assimilation. But when we have adhered to our constitutional traditions, and negotiated and dealt with native peoples on a government to government basis, the relationship has been a good and productive one.

The facts of this case are very clear. From the very beginning, we recognized Native Hawaiians as a distinct and separate group. We have passed over 160 statutes in the Congress of the United States. And frankly, this measure before us is not going to reshape Hawaii. It will regularize the relationship between Native Hawaiians and their State and Federal Government and allow a negotiation to take place.

Now, I make no bones about the fact that I favored the original 2007 bill. I did that not because it was necessarily a superior bill, but because it allowed a negotiated process that I thought would actually ease this transition. But at the end of the day, the question is one of constitutional propriety and sovereign rights and appropriate procedure. And this bill meets all of those tests.

So I look forward to its passage, and I look forward to the fact that it will have broad bipartisanship support, and I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to once again reflecting on our own remarkable traditions as a country and as a people. We don't always do the right thing, but eventually we do the just thing. And in this situation, recognizing Native Hawaiians is the just thing to do. I urge support for this legislation.

Madam Speaker, as per the requirements of the Republican Conference Rules on earmarks, I secured the following earmark in H.R. 3288.

Requesting Member: Rep. Tom Cole (OK-4)

Bill Number: H.R. 3288

Account: Air Force, Military Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Vance AFB

Address of Requesting Entity: Vance, AFB, OK

Description of Request: Construct an air traffic control tower for $10.4 million. The current control tower at Vance AFB was constructed in 1972. The tower is in need of critical upgrades to remain effectively operational and to comply with base architectural standards. New upgrades will allow Vance AFB to continue safe and efficient aerial military operations. The current control tower at Vance AFB was constructed in 1972. The tower is in need of critical upgrades to remain effectively operational and to comply with base architectural standards. New upgrades will allow Vance AFB to continue safe and efficient aerial military operations.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, November 16, 2009, I missed the last vote in a series of three votes. I missed rollcall vote No. 891. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: rollcall vote No. 891: ``aye'' (On agreeing to H.R. 3767).

Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 3962 will bankrupt State governments across America through the imposition of unfunded mandates, I rise in opposition to the rule and its underlying legislation.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 30, 2009.

Hon. Glenn Coffee,

President Pro Tempore, State Capitol, Oklahoma City, OK.

Dear Senator Coffee: As you know, yesterday, Speaker Nancy

Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Representative

John Dingell introduced H.R. 3962, the ``Affordable Health

Care for America Act''. This 1990 page bill is an attempt to

reorganize the entire health care system in the United States

to cover more Americans.

Unfortunately this comes with a price for state

governments.

As your representative in the Fourth District of Oklahoma,

I take very seriously your input when it comes to matters

involving unfunded mandates and other policy shifts. Before I

vote on this legislation, I would appreciate your insight on

some important issues.

It would seem from the text of this bill and the CBO report

that it creates an unfunded mandate in the amount of $34

billion from 2015-2019 by increasing Medicaid costs to the

States. I am concerned that this might present some budgetary

challenges for the State of Oklahoma, and I am therefore

turning to you to ask your assistance in answering the

following questions:

Can Oklahoma afford these unfunded mandates in the current

fiscally constrained environment?

Should the House version of health care reform pass, what

are your plans for fully funding the unfunded mandate that

will be transferred to Oklahoma?

Would new taxes on the citizens of Oklahoma be necessary to

cover the increased costs of Medicaid?

What do you believe the actual cost would be to Oklahoma?

Before we begin final consideration of this legislation,

your thoughts on these matters would be extremely helpful to

me. Unfortunately, the scheduling of this legislation is

dynamic, and a vote on it could come as early as Thursday.

All indications lead me to believe that we will have no

opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation.

Therefore, before I vote on this legislation, I would ask

for your insight on these matters.

Sincerely,

Tom Cole,

Member of Congress.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Oklahomans I represent oppose this bill because they know what it does and what it does not do.

They know that this bill will raise taxes, not lower them. They know that this bill will grow government, not shrink it. They know that this bill weakens Medicare, not strengthens it. They know that this bill destroys jobs, that it doesn't create any. They know that this bill will force State governments to cut services and raise taxes, and it will put government bureaucrats rather than health care professionals in charge of their health care system.

Oklahomans know this bill does nothing to reform our tort system. They know it does nothing to give individual purchasers individual tax deductions. They know it does nothing to establish national insurance markets and association health plans that would allow small business to provide affordable insurance to their employees.

Oklahomans know the Pelosi health care bill is a giant step backward. And every Oklahoman in Congress will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I respect, like all Members do, everybody in this House, from the Speaker and the minority leader right down to the most junior Member. But the reality is, this isn't our House; this is the people's House. As I have listened to my friends on the other side, I have wondered, frankly, did you listen to what the people had to say in August in meeting after meeting after meeting? Have you taken the time to look at what they say in poll after poll after poll?

This is not an issue that has come on us suddenly. It is not a crisis. The American people have had a chance to study the issue, read the bill, and listen to the debate, and quite frankly, register an opinion. If we listen to them today, Mr. Speaker, we will follow their loud and insistent voice and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, one of the impacts of the proposed health care legislation that has not received the attention it deserves is the huge unfunded mandate that it will place on our respective State governments.

As every Member of this body knows, each State in America is struggling to balance its budget, often cutting services to the bone. I asked my own State legislative leaders how the State of Oklahoma would be impacted by Speaker Pelosi's health care bill. They reported that in Oklahoma this legislation will result in at least $128 million of additional annual cost to State government. That will require either draconian cuts to existing State services, such as education, transportation, and public safety, or substantial increases in State taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic effort to mask the true cost of this legislation is a scandal. If passed, the Pelosi health care bill will bankrupt State governments, destroy jobs, and further cripple the economy.

Our State governments can't afford this bill, and neither can the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, on today, Thursday, November 5, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and I missed a series of three votes. I missed rollcall Nos. 859, 860, and 861. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 859 ``yea'' (On Senate Amendments to H.R. 3548). Rollcall

vote No. 860 ``yea'' (On agreeing to H. Con. Res. 139). Rollcall vote No. 861 ``aye'' (On agreeing to H. Res. 880).