Pete Olson

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a letter that I received from my friends at the Houston Citizens Chamber of Commerce. The Houston Citizens Chamber of Commerce is the oldest and largest African American Chamber of Commerce in Houston. They are strongly in support of efforts to preserve NASA's Constellation human spaceflight program. In their letter, they stated, ``The future of our Nation's long-term prosperity and national security is dependent on innovation and more young Americans being educated in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.'' They also stated what a source of pride and inspiration human spaceflight has been for African American children who see African American astronauts and know that the sky is not the limit. Mr. Speaker, the Houston Citizens Chamber of Commerce understands the national value of human spaceflight. I urge my colleagues to support the Constellation program in our upcoming budget.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss NASA funding. The President's proposed budget would end the Constellation program and shift funds to private companies, effectively killing United States human space flight. This shift to private sector is not a taxpayer savings. The Federal Government has already spent $9 billion on NASA'S Constellation program. The new budget proposes to spend an additional $2.5 billion to kill the Constellation, and billions more will be spent on unproven private sector entities. So, we're wasting $11.5 billion to ensure that America's 50-year reign as the global leader in human space flight is over. The President's budget does not even cut NASA's funding. It simply shifts funds dedicated for actual human space flight to unproven commercial entities, forcing us to reinvent the wheel on human space flight. This is not sound fiscal policy. It's not good for America's future. I urge my colleagues to join me to support efforts to restore Constellation funding.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, since NASA's inception, the challenges that American scientists and engineers overcame to put men in space and on the Moon has brought forth a slew of cutting-edge technologies that made their way into our daily lives. Now the administration is willing to throw away 50 years of progress on a sub-orbital taxicab that places the U.S. firmly behind China and other nations who are willing to make the investments we used to because they understand the importance of human space exploration. On the campaign trail in Florida the President said, We cannot cede our leadership in space. That's why I will help close the gap by speeding the development of the Shuttle's successor. His proposed budget kills that successor, the Constellation program, thereby directly contradicting his commitment. It is a path to second place for the United States. The President has a voice in the Federal budget process, but not the final word. I intend to fight to maintain hundreds of thousands of high-technology jobs in America and America's global leadership in human space exploration.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, my constituent, Deana Hebert, last saw her then 18-month-old daughter, Bianca Lozano, on April 7, 1995. Bianca's father, Juan Lozano, took her for a scheduled child custody visit and then abducted her to Mexico. That was almost 15 years ago. I was shocked to learn that there are over 950 open reports of U.S. citizen children being taken into Mexico by a parent. No parent should ever go through Deana's nightmare. That is why I have been working with all levels of government to urge cooperation with Mexico and allow this mother to see her child again. Congress should pass H.R. 3240, the International Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009, which would establish an Office on International Child Abductions within the State Department. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, which would strengthen the tools we have available to ensure that children like Bianca Lozano know they have a mother who loves them and come home.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. The threat from Iran is real. Just last month, the IAEA censured Iran for its secret nuclear facility. In response, Iran vowed to no longer cooperate with the IAEA and, soon after, announced their plans for 10 additional nuclear enrichment sites. Iran is also the leading state sponsor of terrorism and is supporting extremist organizations in the Middle East and beyond. It is time for this Congress to say ``enough is enough.'' This legislation sends a clear message: foreign entities selling petroleum to Iran will pay a price and will not enjoy the benefits of having the United States as a customer. I commend Mr. Berman for this fine piece of legislation and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2194.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, in what has become a familiar move, House Democrats have decided to increase spending yet again. But sadly, they have opted to shut out debate on this matter by attaching a $300 billion increase in our Nation's debt ceiling to the Defense appropriations bill. They know they will have serious trouble getting support to increase our Nation's debt limit, so they are using our troops to carry them. This is one of the reasons the American people are fed up with Congress. And as a Navy veteran, I can assure you that exploiting funding for our troops is both deplorable and demoralizing, and I will continue to oppose such actions. We owe the American people, our children, our grandchildren, and the men and women risking their lives in defense of our freedom better than this. At Christmas, we should be hanging ornaments on a tree, not massive spending bills on the back of our troops.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from a trip to Afghanistan to assess the conditions on the ground. I want to update my colleagues on what I saw. First of all, our military leadership has expressed confidence in our ability to achieve victory, and they need the additional troops promised by President Obama. The bigger problem lies with Afghanistan itself. President Karzai must do the following to ensure success in Afghanistan: end the corruption, provide credible Afghan security forces, eliminate the illicit drug production, and grow the Afghan economy. These conditions are paramount to achieving victory when the U.S. military departs the country. And finally, Pakistan has to step up and stop serving as a safe harbor for terrorist insurgents. The morale of our troops are high, and our commanders on the ground are confident that we can win if Afghanistan and Pakistan achieve these goals. None of these goals are easy, but they are crucial to the success of the security of Afghanistan.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas, Congressman Boozman, for yielding me time; and I rise today to express my disappointment that we are only considering a 1-year extension of the section 214 language. Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 allows the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds contributed by non- Federal public entities to expedite the processing of permits through the Army Corps of Engineers. By funding additional staff to work on permanent evaluation, existing Corps staff are able to process significant backlogs more quickly. Hiring additional staff results in a reduction of permit waiting times not only for the local funding entity, but also for any individual or organization that makes an application with the Corps district. In my district, the Harris County Flood Control District has used section 214 for the past 6 months to move forward with vital infrastructure and maintenance projects that have minimal environmental impact. According to a letter they sent my office, Harris County Flood Control District has ``already noticed a significant improvement in the length of time it is taking to receive our reviews and permits that are required to proceed to construction of our projects.'' In the past 9 years, section 214 has been extended five times. Two of these extensions were for less than 1 year. This program has been hamstrung by short-term extensions that discourage both Corps districts and local public entities from participating. And today, we again add to the uncertainty of this program by extending it for 1 additional year with no guarantee of continuing it past that. I sponsored legislation that would make section 214 authority permanent and ensure non-Federal project sponsors have the ability to move forward with vital water resources infrastructure projects and maintenance more efficiently year after year. My bill is ready for consideration; but, instead, we are considering another short-term extension. I will reluctantly support this 1-year extension but hope that as we move forward with the debate on the Water Resources Development Act that we can have a serious conversation about making this provision permanent. Non-Federal project sponsors need to be able to count on the longevity of section 214 in order to make the most out of it.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, yesterday the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, began. The work of the summit is supported in large part by the research developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. This panel is responsible for assessing the state of scientific knowledge related to climate change and reporting its findings to the convention. And it is not a stretch to say that policymakers in the United States and many other countries rely upon and use the data compiled by the IPCC as a basis for making predictions on future climate conditions and setting policy to limit potential causes of climate change. The emails that emerged recently from the University of East Anglia call into question the accuracy of the IPCC data. There is evidence that researchers suppressed science and data that did not conform to their preferred outcomes. I would like to read from one of the emails that was discovered: ``I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.'' This is scary. The availability of accurate, objective, and scientific data is essential for decision makers. Given that the data was manipulated and hidden and that opposing data was potentially suppressed, it's clear that the United States should not commit to any international agreement on climate change or implement a domestic regulatory system that could damage the economy and kill jobs. And I'm proud to be a cosponsor of Ranking Member Hall's resolution regarding scientific protocols and peer review standards. Science is based on facts and data, but there is also an element of trust when public policy and science meet. If that trust is broken, it is irresponsible for government to legislate on half-truths, incomplete findings, and bogus claims. This administration promised openness and transparency, and they use science as a primary means to demonstrate that practice. It's time for the administration to stand up for the principle of openness, even if it means exposing findings that don't meet their preexisting policy initiatives.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the President for finally making the right decision to send additional combat troops to Afghanistan. However, I have deep concerns with the President's insistence on a hard July 2011 deadline for withdrawal. The President seeks to send our troops into battle while at the same time notifying our enemies of when they will be coming home. And to confuse matters more, the President also spoke of making decisions based on conditions on the ground. So which is it, a withdrawal on a date certain, or based on the conditions on the ground? The President offers many what-ifs but very few answers. Our Nation's troops have fought admirably in dangerous conditions to turn the tide against those who attacked our Nation on September 11. The President cannot have it both ways, and I urge him to focus this new strategy on victory and not withdrawal.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a great public servant upon his retirement from the United States Navy--a man who has served his country diligently, my friend Brian Klock. After 28 years of service to his country, Brian retired from his post as a Commander in the Navy on July 1, 2009. Throughout his career he served as an intelligence officer working as an analyst, an aviation intelligence officer in a P3 Squadron, and as a Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Agent. On many occasions his service took him overseas, including during the Cold War and the Bosnian conflict. After September 11, 2001, Brian was called to serve in NCIS and was assigned to counter intelligence operations overseas. Upon his return to the United States, Brian was asked to join the Protective Services Division. It was here that he spent two years protecting the leadership of the Department of Defense and visiting foreign military dignitaries. At the conclusion of his career, Brian was serving as the operations officer for a CENTCOM intelligence unit. It is with great pleasure that I congratulate Brian for his years of exemplarily service to our nation. I wish him the best in his years to come and hope he lives life to the fullest during his retirement years.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a great American--a man who gave much for his community and country, Morris Benjamin Zeidman, who passed away on November 13. Mr. Zeidman was born on February 21, 1909 in Brooklyn, New York. He met and married Beatrice Schwartz, who he accompanied back to Wharton, Texas. It was in Wharton that Mr. Zeidman got his start in business by joining the Schwartz family's dry goods store. He ran the store until his retirement in 1992. In 1990, he lost his wife Beatrice. In 1994, Mr. Zeidman married his second wife Marjorie Franklin. They shared eleven joyous years until her death in 2005. Morris Zeidman served his country in World War II and fought in the D-Day Invasion on June 6, 1944. Throughout his life, Mr. Zeidman served his community as a leader in numerous organizations, including the Lions Club, the Shriners, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Legion, the Wharton Industrial Foundation, and the Boy Scouts of America. He also served as president of the Shearith Israel Synagogue and was active with B'nai B'rith. Morris Zeidman led a life that was truly admirable and that placed service to country and others above self. Our thoughts, prayers, and sympathy go out to all the family members of this truly great American.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing bill that cuts Medicare, piles debt on our children, raises health care costs, and raises taxes on the American people. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for sponsoring this amendment with me and for his leadership on this issue. Two years ago, the Department of Homeland Security began developing the chemical facility anti-terrorism standards, and since that time DHS has implemented an objective, risk-based approach to regulating chemical facilities. This includes a risk-based tiering system for chemical plants and requires them to implement specific security measures in accordance with their level of risk. While much progress has been made, much remains to be done. Instead of allowing the work to be completed properly, the majority wishes to rush to solutions and mandate that DHS scrap the current program and start over. Such a move would take 2 years of hard work and throw it out the window. Our amendment is simple: Extend the current risk-based regulations through 2012 and let the professionals do their job. Nothing more, nothing less. I urge Members to support the Dent-Olson amendment.

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment allows the Secretary to provide guidance, tools, methodologies or computer software to assist small covered chemical facilities in complying with the IST assessments and implementation requirements of the act. While I support the sentiment behind the amendment, given the costs associated with IST assessments and mandatory implementation, I am genuinely concerned there will be few small businesses left that would benefit from any guidance the Secretary may or may not provide based on this provision. This amendment simply gives the Secretary the option of providing guidance to small businesses to meet the costly IST provisions of the bill. How much guidance do we expect from an office that employs fewer than 200 people and is responsible for overseeing a program that covers 6,100 facilities? While it's difficult to object to Mrs. Halvorson's amendment, I find it ironic that the majority would make in order an amendment that recognizes that small businesses will be affected by the IST mandate. But rather than address the problem before they create it, they ask the Secretary to clean up the mess for them. I would have preferred to debate Mr. Austria's amendment that was not ruled in order. That amendment would have been a real benefit to the 3,630 smallest of the small businesses by exempting them altogether from this costly and unnecessary provision. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I don't necessarily oppose the bill.

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, with no one on my side waiting to speak, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses academic laboratories which is defined as a facility owned by an institution of higher learning where relatively small quantities of substances are used for teaching or research purposes. These types of institutions are vastly different from the majority of chemical facilities that we all think of in terms of large manufacturing plants. The Secretary is required to take these differences into account and may develop modified or separate procedures for such institutions. The American Council on Education supports this amendment. They will still be required to conduct security vulnerability assessments and site security plans. The qualifier ``as appropriate'' included in the amendment still gives the Secretary some direction as to if she wants to provide separate procedures for conducting the vulnerability assessments and site security plans. Most colleges and universities have already completed these required vulnerability assessments, and so this language, while well-intended, will have little impact. It is unfortunate that the amendment does not provide colleges and universities any exceptions or alternative procedures for the IST assessment and implementation requirements of this legislation. Despite this amendment, 99 colleges and universities will have to conduct costly IST assessments, and 23 of them in 14 States may be required to implement the findings of these assessments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but do not necessarily oppose the underlying amendment.

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3962, the Pelosi health care bill, would have a significant impact on the Texas economy and existing physician- owned hospitals and the quality of health care in my home State of Texas. Texas leads the Nation with 50 physician-owned hospitals. But under this bill, these hospitals will be prohibited from adding beds or otherwise increasing capacity. Medicare payments to any new doctor- owned hospitals would be prohibited. According to a January 2009 study by Health Economics' Study Group, physician-owned hospitals employ over 22,000 Texans and have a net economic impact of $2.3 billion on the Texas economy. The Pelosi health care bill will have a significant impact on the economy and, more importantly, the quality of care that these hospitals provide our communities. It's wrong to pay for government health care by punishing these providers.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the majority have repeatedly promised that under their public option plan, individuals can keep the coverage they currently have and nothing will change except they will have more choices at a lower cost. As I speak with employers and small businesses in my district, the truth is vastly different. Several employers in the district I represent have candidly stated that dropping private insurance for employees, instead of paying a mandatory 8 percent surtax, makes the most economic sense for their business. Employees will no longer have the choice to keep the coverage they currently have under this scenario. Raising taxes, eliminating choices for Americans, and placing the government in charge of health care, that hardly strikes me as a choice. The hardworking Americans in the 22nd District of Texas and cities and towns across America were promised a choice. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, where is the choice in this government-mandated care?

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my home county of Fort Bend, Texas, for having the third highest increase in jobs during the first quarter of last year among the Nation's largest 334 counties. It is impressive, given that of those 334 counties, only eight saw any job increase at all. We already know what a special place Fort Bend is to live and raise a family. For more than 15 years, Fort Bend has been in the top 20 counties in the United States for economic excellence and population growth. Excellent schools, affordable housing, and extensive recreational facilities have attracted families with impressive demographic profiles. And this creates a local employment base that provides relocating companies with a diverse mix of professional, technical, skilled, and unskilled labor with the highest educational attainment levels in the region. I am very proud of Fort Bend County for this economic accomplishment, and my family and I feel very fortunate to call it home.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri for all your hard work to get this resolution to this point. In June of this year, George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston celebrated its 40th anniversary. Intercontinental is the largest airport in Houston and served more than 43 million passengers in 2008, making it the eighth largest airport in the United States and the 16th largest airport in the world. Serving as Houston's gateway to the world, Intercontinental operates one of the largest international passenger arrival facilities in our country. With five terminals and 125 gates, Intercontinental gives passengers the option of service to over 170 nonstop destinations in more than 30 countries around the world. It is one of few airports in the world with five, five, air carrier runways, and the ability to handle triple simultaneous takeoffs and landings in all sorts of weather. Intercontinental is a key driver for the greater Houston area economy. The airport supports more than 151,000 jobs and contributes more than $24 billion in economic benefits to the Houston region. Bush Intercontinental Airport is an important part of keeping the goods and people moving around our great nation and the entire world. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 138 and recognizing Intercontinental's 40th anniversary.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today in support of House Resolution 445, a resolution I introduced earlier this year honoring 100 years of military aviation. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank Armed Services Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, as well as Subcommittee Chair Abercrombie and Ranking Member Bartlett. Mr. Speaker, as a former naval aviator, I have firsthand knowledge of the vital and essential role the airmen of the United States military play in protecting our homeland and strengthening our global alliances. Given the air superiority the United States enjoys today, it is easy to forget that 100 years ago there was much skepticism about the usefulness of aircraft for our Armed Forces. Shortly after the Signal Corps purchased its first aircraft for military purposes, ``Scientific American,'' a respected publication wrote, ``Outside of scouting duties, we are inclined to think that the field of the aeroplane will be rather limited. Because of its small carrying capacity and the necessity for its operation at great altitude, if it is to escape hostile fire, the amount of damage it will do by dropping explosives upon cities, forts, hostile camps, or bodies of troops in the field, to say nothing of battleships at sea, will be so limited as to have no material effects on the issues of a campaign.'' One hundred years later, American courage, ingenuity, and innovation have proven them very wrong. We have come a very long way since Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, recommended that the Secretary investigate Professor Samuel Langley's so-called ``flying machine'' and report on its potentiality for use in combat. The earliest planes were open-cockpit, single-seat mounts, and the only weapon was a sidearm and perhaps a few bricks that could be dropped on the enemy. During World War I, America's first military aviators wrote their instruction manual as they lived it and created traditions that are still honored and followed today. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, America's airmen delivered the first moral victory of World War II. Flying B-25s from the deck of the Aircraft Carrier Hornet 400 miles from the shore of Japan, Colonel Jimmy Doolittle and the Knights of the Air struck back and struck back hard. And less than 2 months later, U.S. military aviation changed world history at the Battle of Midway. In 1947, Congress and President Truman wisely recognized the important role our country's airmen play on the battlefield and established the United States Air Force, a new, separate branch of military service. From the hills of Korea, where our newest branch rose to the occasion and won 10 out of every 11 air engagements, to the jungles of Vietnam, where the ingenuity and versatility of our military aviators were tested like never before, the stories of the valor and the courage displayed by our country's airmen throughout our history are too numerous to tell. On September 11, 2001, as F-16s were flowing low over Washington, D.C. and our country entered a new, unconventional war against an unknown enemy, America's brave airmen were on duty ready to defend. Whether pinpointing enemy fighters along the ridges of eastern Afghanistan from the cockpit of a P-3 Orion, manning a C-17 to deliver needed supplies to our troops on the ground, or operating strategic air strikes with a Predator drone from thousands of miles away, today in Iraq and Afghanistan our military aviators remain on guard. General Curtis Lemay once said, If we maintain our faith in God, love of freedom, and superior global air power, the future looks good. And, today, as we look back on 100 years of military aviation in the United States of America, we honor the heroes of military aviation and thank them for the shining path they created for our country. Indeed, the future looks good. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 445.