Floor Statements

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania states that all we look at are spending cuts alone, that that's the way we believe the budget ought to be balanced. Certainly not. In fact, we believe strongly that pro-growth policies will actually assist in getting us to balance much, much sooner.

The CBO yesterday, in fact, said that currently the revenues within a 10-year period of time are going to double; in fact, the revenues this year, this fiscal year, will reach the 10-year average, and the revenues in the next fiscal year will be the highest level of revenues ever recorded in the history of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, we have a spending debt crisis, not a revenue debt crisis.

My colleague says that we reject a balanced approach. On the contrary. In fact, all you've got to do is read our budget. There's a balanced approach. It brings about appropriate spending reductions, appropriate closure of loopholes in credits and reductions of the Tax Code to gain revenue in pro-growth policy so that we can balance the budget.

My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about needing to vote on the sequester right way, to change the sequester right away. In fact, that's exactly what House Republicans have done two times, Mr. Speaker, in the last year, once in May, once in December. In fact, the recent bill we adopted reprioritized the spending reductions included in the sequester so that there was a calculated way to reduce spending that did not have across-the-board spending reductions. Our friends on the other side oppose that.

Mr. Speaker, the President's sequester, the item that he put in place, we have proposed positive solutions for on two occasions and passed through this House. The Senate has refused to act on those.

The President yesterday proposed a plan in a speech, not specific legislation, that, in fact, we've talked about through our proposals that we passed through this House on two occasions, in May and December of last year.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is pretty doggone simple. It only asks the President to do what families do and businesses do all across this Nation every single year, and that is to make certain that we don't spend more money than we take in.

House Republicans on two occasions over the past 2 years have passed a budget that gets us on a path to balance. We will do it again. Two weeks ago we passed a bill out of this House to make certain that we held the Senate to account, to require them to do a budget, something they haven't done in the last 4 years.

The bill before us today simply says to the President, Mr. President, when you bring your budget to Congress, just let us know when it comes to balance, that's all. And, oh, by the way, the past four budgets that the President has proposed have not ever come to balance.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the House and the Senate and the President work together to get a balanced budget to spend responsibly so we can reinvigorate this economy and create jobs.

Turn down this motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to accept the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Maryland makes some interesting points. The problem with many of them is that they simply aren't true.

For example, the Congressional Budget Office gave their report on the economic situation today, and they have met their deadline, so contrary to what the gentleman from Maryland said.

The gentleman also knows that the amendment that he offered, that he just cited that wasn't to be made in order, was not germane. The rules of the House precluded that.

And then he spent the majority of his time, Mr. Chairman, talking about the sequester, which is an important issue, there's no doubt about it, but it's not this issue. In fact, House Republicans passed a reconciliation bill last year that outlined the spending priorities that we would have, the spending reduction priorities that we would place in place of the sequester, and that sat over in the Senate. So the ball is in the Senate's court, the ball is in the President's court.

Today we're talking about H.R. 444, which is a bill that simply says to the President, Mr. President, when you submit your budget, just let us know when it balances--10 years, 20 years, 40 years, 75 years. When does is it balance? Just be honest and transparent with the American people.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are the minority party here in Washington. Yes, we have the majority in the House, but we don't have the majority in the Senate. We certainly don't control the White House. One of the roles of the minority is to provide accountability to the other side and to provide a contrast.

Well, as Mr. Ryan said in his opening remarks, it's tough to have a contrast when you have specific legislation and you're comparing it to a speech. It doesn't work. The American people can't tell who's telling the truth and whose policies they would prefer. That's why we believe it's imperative--in fact, it's the only fair thing to do--to have the President, when he submits his budget, to say, in fact, this is when it balances.

And it's instructive to know, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, that the past four budgets that the President has proposed have never come to balance, never. That's important information, Mr. Chairman. It's time for the President to admit that.

So the record of the President isn't great, as you well know, on this: $6 trillion of new debt on his watch, 4 straight years of trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits, more borrowing, more spending, more debt, more dreams crushed.

House Republicans have done our job. We put forward two budgets over the past 2 years when we've been in the majority in which we have said this is exactly how we would reform, save, strengthen, and secure the programs that are so necessary for this country, but also how we would get this country on a path to balance, not for balance's sake, but because families do it, businesses do it, and economies that don't demonstrate balance cannot be vibrant, cannot create jobs, cannot allow individuals to realize their dreams. So, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 444 is a commonsense piece of legislation.

The gentleman from Maryland talked a lot about what the American people want. The polling industry, just earlier last month, said 72 percent of the Americans say that reducing the budget deficit is a, quote, top priority for the President and the Congress this year. It should be. Seventy-two percent.

Mr. Chairman, we're on the side of the American people. It's time for the President to show us a budget that balances or to state simply when his budget balances.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to that debate as well, but that's not the debate that we're having today. The debate that we're having today is a serious debate about whether or not we're going to get our fiscal house in order and whether or not the President's going to engage in a positive way. The President has put forward budgets that have not shown balance at all, ever.

This is a serious debate. This is not a game. This is a serious debate about a serious issue. The same words were used by the gentleman on the bill that we had on the floor 2 weeks ago, the No Budget, No Pay Act. That was such a game that the Senate passed it and the President signed it.

No, Mr. Chairman, this is serious business, and the American people know it, and they know that it's time for the President and the Democratic-controlled Senate to step up and do their job.

I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee), a new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), a new Member of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we're each going to take 15 minutes' time, which would allow the gentleman 1\1/2\ minutes, and our side will take 1 minute. And I have no more speakers, other than myself to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, this is what it's about. This is the debt of our country right down here. The red path is where we're headed under this President's proposals. The red path results in extreme hardship to all Americans, but especially those at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

We believe that it's extremely important for the Nation to know that the positive, principled, fair, caring solutions that the Republicans put forward to save, strengthen, and secure the programs are in contrast to a specific proposal from the other side. And to date, we haven't seen that proposal. We've seen a lot of speeches. We've heard a lot of wonderful words. But the American people need to know when the President's budget balances. And this bill simply says, Mr. President, tell us when your budget balances. Very common sense.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, in the late 1990s, Congress came up with a new formula to determine how much to pay doctors for taking care of seniors in the Medicare program. It's called the ``sustainable growth rate,'' or the SGR. And like so many Washington solutions, it doesn't work.

Before coming to Congress, I was a doctor. I took care of patients for over 20 years. I remember thinking at the time that the SGR program was put into place, Well, that won't work. It's a house of cards. It's destined to fail.

Mr. Speaker, here we are. America's seniors are on the verge of losing access to health care. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. America's seniors are on the verge of losing access to health care. How? If Congress and President Obama don't act by January 1, tomorrow, Medicare payments to physicians will be reduced, will be cut by nearly 27 percent. You see, Mr. Speaker, the fiscal cliff is more than just the tax increases that President Obama so dearly wants.

The effect of the SGR formula means that physicians who treat Medicare patients will be forced to limit the number of seniors that they see, fewer patients being seen, doctors forced not to see patients because of foolish Washington policy. This jeopardizes health care for millions of folks. The sustainable growth rate, the formula used by Medicare to determine physician reimbursement, needs to be repealed. It doesn't work for patients, and it doesn't work for doctors. It's destructive to the very principles that we hold dear about health care. It violates accessibility, it violates quality, and it limits choices. It harms real people.

There are positive solutions that we're working on so that we may responsibly reform this broken system. But while we work to put in place a system that actually does make sense, we must provide certainty for patients and their doctors for the new year.

Mr. Speaker, slashing payments to doctors is a terrible idea, and it must be stopped. The SGR needs to be patched now so that seniors may continue to see their doctors, and then we

should move forward with real solutions that work for real people, not just for Washington bureaucrats.

The sad thing about our current dysfunction in this town is that people all across this country get harmed. It's not because of something that they did, but because of something that government did to them or forced them to do. It's time to let Americans be Americans, and in health care that means caring for each other and allowing patients and families and doctors to make medical decisions, not Washington.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 629 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

I thank my colleague from Georgia for the time as well as organizing this, and I rise to join my colleagues in their praise of Jay Pierson.

What a great guy--thoughtful, knowledgeable, calm, respectful, resourceful. Whenever anyone needs anything to make this House run better, Jay is there.

We are all so incredibly fortunate to have worked alongside Jay Pierson, a man whose commitment to our country is unquestioned. And as he starts on a new journey and chapter in his life, we thank Jay for his integrity and his commitment to serving this House and our Nation.

May your days be filled with joy and with accomplishment. Congratulations on your retirement, and God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of fellow Georgian, Eugene Abt. A veteran of World War II, Eugene served in the infantry under General George Patton's 3rd Army. Originally from Pennsylvania, Eugene was born on June 24, 1926. After leaving the military, Eugene began a career at Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. He worked his way up the ladder to become a department head, after starting out as a ditch digger.

Eugene currently resides in Sugar Hill, Georgia with his daughter, Deborah, who is his caregiver. Through the years, Eugene has been highly active in the community. He was a squire in the Elks and a Eucharistic minister in the local Catholic Church. A few years ago, Mae Louise, his beloved wife, passed away. One of his grandchildren, Sgt. Nicholas A. Collins, has followed the tradition started by Eugene when he also decided to join the military. He is currently in the 2nd Marine Division based out of Camp Lejeune and may consider being stationed at an American embassy after his current deployment.

Eugene is currently undergoing serious health challenges. At present, he is undertaking numerous tests to determine treatment plans and has remained in good spirits. Mr. Speaker, considering all he has done for his community and his nation, let's keep Eugene and his family in our thoughts and prayers as he battles this terrible disease.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a former constituent of the Sixth District of Georgia, Commander Andrew Louis Frahler of the U.S. Navy. Andrew was born December 4, 1923 in Oregon. He served one year in the Army during World War II. He entered the U.S. Naval Academy in August 1944. While attending the Academy, Andrew earned a varsity letter every year and was the only person to be captain of the USNA baseball team two years in a row. In his final at bat, he hit a grand slam homerun against West Point. After graduating from the Academy in 1948, Andrew eventually rose to the rank of Commander in the Navy. During his time in the Navy, he served on six ships, including as Supply Officer on the USS Oklahoma City, and was at sea during the Korean War and Cuban Missile Crisis.

After leaving the Navy, Andrew worked at Beatrice Foods in Chicago, ultimately rising to Vice-President. In 1977, he moved to the Atlanta area to teach Management at Baptist University of America. In 1980 he began to teach secondary math and science at Heiskell School and then Providence Academy. He also coached the baseball teams at both schools. Andrew was a deacon in the local Baptist Church, taught Sunday school for many years, helped widows from the church with their taxes, worked at a crisis pregnancy center providing financial assistance, and assisted with an ESL program for Hispanic children.

Mr. Frahler passed away on Wednesday, November 28, a few days before his 89th birthday. He is survived by his beloved wife Mary Claire Jennings Frahler, his four children and their spouses, ten grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. Andrew was preceded in death by his parents Andrew William Frahler and Sophia Kish Frahler, and by his brother, William Michael Frahler. Mr. Speaker, we are forever indebted to those great Americans like Andrew Louis Frahler who worked so hard and sacrificed so much for his nation. We will never forget his invaluable contributions to the well-being of his community and fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the wonderful work being done by the Georgia Aquarium, which is located in the heart of downtown Atlanta. With more than 10 million gallons of water, the Georgia Aquarium is the world's largest with more aquatic life than any other aquarium, and six distinct galleries that portray diverse aquatic habitats, ranging from arctic to tropical waters. Since opening its doors in 2005, Georgia Aquarium has established itself as a leader in aquatic animal conservation and research. The results of this research are shared with the global zoological community for the enhancement of animals everywhere, thus showcasing Georgia as a global center of animal study.

Currently, Georgia Aquarium is one of only six accredited facilities in North America that is capable of providing care for beluga whales, a

species which is presently listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature as ``near-threatened'' in its indigenous Arctic and sub-Arctic environment. In June 2012, the aquarium applied for a permit to import 18 beluga whales to the United States with the purpose of conducting research which must be done in human care, for the continued edification of aquarium guests, and to secure the sustainability of the population in North American zoological parks and aquariums. Applying this important research can help the scientific community better understand the growing problems beluga whales face in their natural habitats. This application is corroborated by a five-year research study, authenticated by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, validating that the acquisition of beluga whales will have no damaging impact to the beluga population of origin.

Mr. Speaker, the extraordinary work the Georgia Aquarium has done in pursuing research and educating citizens is highly commendable. The aquarium's recent efforts to study beluga whales will undoubtedly improve our scientific understanding of this threatened species. Therefore, I enthusiastically support Georgia Aquarium in its endeavor to increase the North American beluga population to help to maintain a sustainable population of whales in human care in certified facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I along with Representative Adams rise in honor of Specialist Brenden Salazar, who gave his life July 22, 2012, while supporting combat operations in the Logar Province of Afghanistan. He died of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted patrol.

Salazar was a 2010 graduate of Paul Hagerty High School in Oviedo and enlisted in the Army in June 2010. He deployed to Afghanistan in July 2012 after being in his unit a little over a year and was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Caserma Ederle, Italy. Brenden came from a long line of soldiers. His grandfather is a retired helicopter pilot and both his mother and stepfather are active duty Army aviators.

Spc. Salazar will be buried at Florida National Cemetery with full military honors. He is survived by his father Chris Salazar and sister, Sophie Salazar of Canton, Georgia; mother, Jovanna Nelson; stepfather, James Nelson; and sister, Hannah Nelson of Chuluota, Florida.

Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest respect and admiration that we honor Spc. Brenden Salazar's sacrifice on behalf of our Nation. He is a hero to his countrymen, his family, and his fellow soldiers. He reminds us that America is blessed to have so many young men and women willing to stand up and fight to preserve our precious freedoms. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and all our military families, whose selfless dedication to this Nation is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 491, I inadvertently voted ``no''. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor two constituents from the 6th Congressional District of Georgia, Kathleen Hersey and Eric Hurd, who will compete in the 2012 Summer Olympics in London. Kathleen Hersey will be participating in 100m/200m butterfly, while Eric Hurd will be in the Slalom Double Canoe event.

By taking second place in the 200m butterfly, Kathleen qualified for her second Olympic games. Last year Kathleen won a national title and a gold medal at the Duel in the Pool, both in the 200m butterfly. She finished eighth in the same event in Beijing four years ago. Kathleen has shown amazing dedication, discipline, and devotion to swimming, training roughly 9,000 yards per day, six days a week.

Eric earned a spot on this year's Olympic team by winning the Gold earlier this year at the 2012 Pan American Championship in Brazil. Eric also finished first at the 2012 U.S. Olympic Teams Trials in Charlotte, North Carolina. Eric's paddling career began at Atlanta's ``Waterworks''--a single Class II rapid with gates set up for training purposes. Since then, he has been preparing rigorously ahead of this year's games by training at the U.S. National Whitewater Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all Members of the House in wishing these two outstanding individuals the best of luck. Their exceptional commitment to athleticism is an inspiration to us all. I know Kathleen and Eric, along with a multitude of other exceptional athletes across this great land of ours, will be a wonderful illustration to the world of American strength and perseverance.

I thank the leader.

As a physician, one of the tenets of medicine is: first, do no harm. Sadly, the President's law does real harm.

The Supreme Court has said that the law is constitutional. That doesn't make it good policy. It harms all of the principles that Americans hold dear as it relates to health care--it increases costs, decreases accessibility, lowers quality, and limits choices--the wrong direction for our country. It harms patients--especially seniors--by removing $500 billion from Medicare and having 15 unaccountable bureaucrats deny payment for health care services--decisions that should be made by patients and doctors, not by government. It harms doctors, over 80 percent of whom in a recent poll said that they would have to consider getting out of medicine because of this law. And it harms our economy, killing over 800,000 jobs and making it more difficult for small businesses, the job-creation engine of our Nation, to create jobs.

And it's that much more frustrating because it doesn't have to be this way.

There are positive solutions that don't require putting Washington in charge. There's a better way, and the first step to that better way is to repeal this law so we may work in a rational, deliberative, and, yes, bipartisan process for patient-centered health care where patients and families and doctors make medical decisions, not Washington.

The President's law doesn't just harm the health of patients and seniors; it harms the health of our economy and our Nation. And the first step to replace is to repeal. And we can start today.

Thank you, Mr. Graves, so very much. I want to commend you for your work on this issue and your leadership for principled solutions, principled solutions in the area of health care and everywhere else.

I know that Republicans think every day is the Fourth of July and Democrats think that every day is April 15. Why would I say that? Today we've been highlighting it in this conversation we're having here, because our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that every day is another day to raise taxes.

Today the Supreme Court of the United States said, If you want to raise taxes, have at it. Raise them as high as you want. In fact, the Democrats are so incredibly happy this day because it's not just that they can now raise taxes or fight to raise taxes on what we do, but goodness gracious, they can fight to raise taxes on what we don't do. In fact, if you don't do something, then the Federal Government can say, Oh, you'd better do that or we're going to raise your taxes. And that is exactly what the Court said today, which confounds and astounds everybody.

I was privileged to sit in the Court today, though, and hear the reading of the ruling, and Chief Justice Roberts said one thing that I found very, very interesting. He said, ``It's not our job to protect citizens from their political decisions.''

``It's not our job to protect citizens from their political decisions.'' And that's exactly what this was. This decision was fixed on Election Day in 2008. This decision came down on Election Day 2008.

As a physician, I want to talk for a very brief moment here about the incredible importance of Election Day 2012 because, as you said, Mr. Graves, there are a lot of things in this bill that we're not just talking about money. As a physician, I know what we're talking about is people's lives, the health care of the American people. And nothing could be so important, nothing could be so personal.

And what the Court said today is, Let the things in there stand. The $500 billion reduction, the $500 billion decrease from the Medicare program--taking the Medicare program and saying, You don't need that money, seniors in this country. You don't need that money. We're going to use it over here.

What does that mean? What that means is that those seniors--your parents, your grandparents, the parents and grandparents of this great country, the people of the Greatest Generation cited by this country, are now going to have diminished health care.

And how are they going to do it? They're not going to do it through the front door. They're not going to say, We're going to decrease this care for you transparently, openly. Oh, no. They're going to do it through the backdoor, something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board that we've talked about before, the 15-member bureaucratic panel. Nonelected individuals are going to have the power, under this law, to say, Dr. Smith, you can't do that for Mrs. Jones. If you do it, we're not going to pay you. That's the coercive power of this government. That's the coercive power that this Court today said is okay.

Well, Mr. Graves, you and I both know that it's not okay for us, and it's not okay for the American people. And that's why we stand here tonight, and we say with every ounce of our being that the election that occurred in 2008 may have written this in stone, but there are some sandblasters out there. And what we're going to do between now and the first Tuesday in November is to make certain that the American people understand and appreciate that there are folks in this town who are fighting as hard as we can to uphold the rule of law, to uphold the Constitution, and to adhere to those fundamental principles, especially in health care--the principles of affordability and accessibility and quality and choices for the American people.

The bad news was written today. The good news is that you can solve all of these challenges in health care without putting the Federal Government in charge of the thing. We've got the solutions. We've talked about them before. We'll be going on the road now talking about them from now until November, because the American people want to know that there is somebody fighting for them in this town on their behalf. And we are.

What we need from the American people is for them to stand up and say, No more. We will not tolerate a government that will reach into our lives and destroy quality health care in this country to the degree that the Court said it was okay to do today.

I thank my friend for the wonderful work you are doing and for yielding me this time.

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

Mr. Chairman, we've all heard about many regulations that come from this town that seem to be ridiculous; sometimes they're innocuous, sometimes they're even humorous. These are regulations oftentimes that don't help anybody at all. Sometimes, however, they harm real people's lives and their homes and their businesses.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, along a half-mile stretch of Remington Road in Chamblee, Georgia, Plantation and Colonial Pipelines, under a requirement from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration, was forced to place 17 new hazard markers on the front lawns of homes-- in a subdivision. That brought the total number of hazard markers to 47-47 within a half-mile stretch, a half-mile stretch of road in a residential subdivision where there's no new construction and the pipeline has been there for decades. You talk about ridiculous.

The regulation states:

Markers must be located at each public road crossing, at

each railroad crossing, and in sufficient number along the

remainder of each buried line so that its location is

accurately known.

Now, though this particular regulation hasn't changed for many years, its interpretation clearly has. So, last month, my office sent a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration for clarification, and in response they said:

While the regulations specify the minimum requirements for

line markers, they do not specify a maximum number of line

markers. A pipeline operator is allowed to exceed the minimum

regulatory requirements.

Well, Mr. Chairman, they certainly have exceeded the minimum number of markers. Look at this front lawn here, five or six markers in the front lawn of a residential area. Now, clearly this is absurd. I'm certain there are other communities across this great country that are similarly affected by an overzealous regulator. This doesn't help a soul, but what it does is likely depress property values at a very challenging time for homeowners. So let's put some common sense back in government.

This amendment that I have offered today is designed to stop the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration from broadly interpreting these regulations in the future by ensuring that no funds from the bill shall be used to require the placement of line markers other than at public road crossings and railroad crossings.

Now, we have struggled to find the right avenue to address this issue, and hopefully we will be able to get the attention of these wonderful folks and bring some sense to all of this. And though not possible to have this amendment brought to conclusion on this legislation, I do know that the chairman is as interested as I am in ending the overbearing regulatory scheme that seems to have overtaken every single department in this town.

If the chairman would be desirous, I would be happy to yield to him for a comment.

I thank the chairman, and I appreciate that.

Again, this is simply ridiculous. If that's your front lawn, Mr. Chairman, that's the last place that you want to see those signs in your neighborhood and in your residential area.

So I appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, for over 60 years, the United States and Israel have forged a very unique relationship. A friendship built upon trust and shared sacrifice and common values. But our relations with Israel, as with a growing number of long-held alliances, seem to be negotiable with this administration.

A stream of highly sensitive information continues to be leaked to the press--information that includes U.S. and Israeli military and intelligence operational capabilities, as well as classified negotiations between Israel and other countries.

On March 20, The New York Times, citing senior administration officials, reported the conclusions of a classified war simulation conducted by the United States that analyzed an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

On March 28, Foreign Policy magazine, quoting four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers, referred to a report that Israel would be granted access to air bases in Azerbaijan as part of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, a move clearly designed to undercut cooperation between Azerbaijan and Israel.

Further degrading Israel's ability to defend itself, The Washington Post's David Ignatius on February 3 reported that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes there's a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May, or June, which reportedly sent Iran's air defenses on high alert.

The release of this classified information not only puts at risk fragile negotiations between countries but also the very lives of the men and women called upon to carry out this mission.

I recently traveled to the Middle East, where we met with senior Israeli officials. Their number one concern was that for the first time in our long relationship, United States was releasing classified operational information and capabilities, willfully putting at risk the lives of Israeli people.

Mr. Chairman, our actions are not the actions of a friend or an ally. A couple of weeks ago, I joined with 22 other Members of the House of Representatives and sent a letter to President Obama calling for an investigation into these leaks by senior administration and intelligence officials. We have yet to receive a response.

Now it's no secret that this administration is seeking to dissuade Israel from launching an airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities, but risking Israeli and American lives and undermining our alliance is unacceptable. The Israeli people should not have to question our support for their security.

So I offer this amendment with Representative Pat Meehan and Representative Randy Hultgren. Our amendment calls for the Attorney General to investigate these leaks and bring those responsible to justice. Trust and cooperation are vital to securing a strong alliance and a future of peace. The persons responsible for this breach of faith should be held accountable, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.