Pete Olson

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud HCSS, a small business in my district in Sugar Land, Texas. HCSS was recently honored by the Wall Street Journal as one of the top 15 small business workplaces in America. In this tough economy, the company that puts employees first is the one that stands out. I recently met with Mike Rydin, the founder and CEO of HCSS, about the success of his company, and he said, ``We try to provide an environment that attracts and retains top talent and helps keep employees happy. Hiring top talent that loves coming to work allows us to provide topnotch software and service to our customers.'' HCSS was one of nearly 630 private, nonprofit, or publicly held organizations across the country that were nominated for this prestigious award. According to the Wall Street Journal, they select employers that foster teamwork, flexibility, high productivity, and innovation, while also helping their employees grow personally and professionally and providing benefits that improve lives and communities. HCSS has taken a hands-on approach to wellness for their employees that should serve as a model for private-sector solutions to our Nation's health care problems. HCSS recently opened a new Sugar Land headquarters, which includes a one-third-mile, crushed-granite jogging trail, an exercise room, a game room, a gym with a basketball court, and a putting green. The company also pays fitness and wellness trainers to counsel employees on nutrition and exercise, and it offers on-site yoga and Pilates classes. Each year, all employees are eligible to receive $100 for each good result in an annual health screening, such as good cholesterol levels, not smoking and moderate body mass index. HCSS recently contracted with a company that will provide employees doctor consultations over the Internet right there in the HCSS offices. A focus on employee wellness should be part of the solution to our Nation's health care debate. Small companies need a level playing field in cost and affordability for their employees. That is why Congress should provide the same tax incentives for small companies that large corporations enjoy. Targeted tax relief would allow more companies to follow the HCSS model for health care for their employees. As a result of the wellness programs at work at HCSS, their company- paid annual health insurance premiums fell over $600 per employee in 2008 from 2004--$600 per employee over a 4-year period. The company credits this to its vast wellness program and to its introduction of a high-deductible health plan, coupled with health reimbursement accounts to which the company contributes $1,000 to $3,000 annually for employee and dependent out-of-pocket health care expenses. These are important examples of how health care costs can be reduced without looking to massive government programs to achieve greater coverage and lower costs. This is only one component of the debate, to be sure, but it can address many of the problems small businesses face to provide affordable health care to their employees. Mike Rydin has future plans to build a school to train low-income people new skills so they can become more integrated parts of the communities in which they work and live. HCSS has the kind of innovative and entrepreneurial vision to provide wellness and a comprehensive work environment that America has always relied on to find solutions to our bigger problems. I am proud of HCSS for their recognition as a top small workplace in America. This is the first Houston area company and only the second in the great State of Texas that has been recognized with this award. Washington would do well to look at how small businesses like HCSS are achieving the results that we seek. Oftentimes, the great ideas come from the small innovators.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following column which appeared in the Houston Chronicle on September 17, 2009 from the Bay Area Houston Partnership. [From the Houston Chronicle, Sept. 17, 2009] Ripple Effect Makes Fund for NASA a Wise Decision (By Bob Mitchell) The highly anticipated report from the Augustine Committee has been released. The panel is to be commended on writing such a thorough review of U.S. human space flight options in a short period of time. The report identified various alternatives for NASA's human space flight program. While each offers a varying degree of human space flight options, they all rely on humans as an integral part of space exploration. Why is this significant for the Johnson Space Center and its many contractors? We are home to human space flight. Within the next few months, decisions will be made by the White House and Congress on which alternative is best for the future of NASA. Regardless of the decisions made, if adequate funding is not provided, we will continue to see erosion in the U.S. space program, and it won't be long before we relinquish our position as the world's number one space- faring country to a more ambitious and forward-looking nation. The alternatives present unparalleled opportunities for the United States to continue to expand its leadership role in the international space community. The International Space Station is an excellent example of how much can be accomplished when multinational resources are engaged toward a common goal. We, as a nation, can choose to continue our investment in scientific discovery and international relations or we can choose to lose our leadership position to Russia, China, India or Japan. Insufficient funding for the world's premier space program will undoubtedly erode our leadership role with significant consequences for our security and our competitive position in the world. With our loss of leadership in other high-tech industries, do we want to give up this one as well? Do we want to have to buy our rides to space from a foreign government? This should be unacceptable to us as a nation. What will it take to keep America first in flight? The Augustine report states, ``Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less constrained budget, ramping to approximately $3 billion per year above the FY 2010 guidance in total resources.'' Compared to recent government expenditures, this is not that much to invest, especially considering the return to the American taxpayers on this investment. According to a recent congressional oversight report, we have spent $74 billion to help the nation's auto industry, an industry that has relied on the technology developed in space to enhance its product. Investing the same amount in NASA would ensure America's pre-eminent position in human space flight for the next 25 years. Why do this? Why fund NASA to the tune of an additional $3 billion or more per year? Go beyond the obvious and consider the ripple effect. Arguably, perhaps, the space industry is the only industry in the world that consistently creates new technology. Our cars and trucks are lighter, stronger and safer due to NASA technology. Computers, cell phones, GPS and many life-saving medical advancements all have roots in the space industry. The human factor is equally important. Generations of our young people have been inspired by NASA. The promise of working in America's space program has, for the past 50 years, influenced students to go into science, technology, engineering and math careers. For example, 35 percent of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle program is composed of young professionals. Consider this. We will have a seven-year gap where no Americans are launched into space on American rockets. At no time in our history of space flight have we experienced a gap of this magnitude. Think for a moment of the loss of inspiration to millions of our young people that can never be recovered. Think of the lost opportunities to the U.S. in terms of high-technology innovations and breakthroughs that will not occur when students choose non-technical careers. Do we break our promises to our nation's children and young professionals by opting to take the easy route and not provide much-needed funding to NASA's human space flight program? This, too, should be unacceptable to us as a nation. The U.S. is unquestionably the world's leader in space exploration, something that can no longer be said about many industries we led at one time. The question remains, are we willing to give this up for the lack of a very reasonable investment? Congress and the president are faced with tough choices. Fully supporting human space flight, on the other hand, should be an easy choice. By making the choice to provide the additional funding necessary for a robust U.S. space exploration program, government and private industry jobs will be retained and created, international relationships will be secured and strengthened with America leading the way, and our youth will continue to dream of exploring the universe, taking those steps necessary to do so. Not only is this the most reasonable course of action, it's the right thing to do--for America and for the world.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, this past spring on one of my visits to the Johnson Space Center, I visited the facility where they house the lunar samples that we collected during the Apollo missions to the Moon. At that time, we had every reason to believe that the Moon was as dry as west Texas. But it turns out that is not the case. Three different spacecraft have confirmed unambiguous evidence that there is, in fact, water on the Moon. These are not pools or rivers or oceans like we know, but there are water molecules present. Two robot probes in the nineties, Clementine and Lunar Prospector, suggested that water ice is present in the cold, dark areas of the poles. Now we find that water is much more pervasive. Water is essential for our astronauts when Americans return to the Moon, just like it was for our Founding forebearers Lewis and Clark when they immigrated west through the United States. Too many Americans closed the book on the Moon with our final Apollo mission in 1972. This finding tells us what we did know and, more importantly, what we don't know. There are still some things we don't know. Our Nation needs to understand that it was the Apollo program that ended in 1972, not lunar exploration. This discovery proves that, in this regard, we have only just begun.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, yesterday we heard from Norm Augustine, the chairman of the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee on the recently released options they have provided the Obama administration regarding the future of our Nation's human spaceflight program; but as we debate the future of human spaceflight, we must not overlook the present. Last week was a wildly successful one in America's space agency. On Friday, the space shuttle Discovery and the crew of STS-128 returned home after a very successful mission to the international space station. Last week, NASA released new and, frankly, stunning images from the recently serviced Hubble telescope. Finally, NASA completed a successful test of the ARES I first-stage rocket motor. This is another milestone of the Constellation program, our next-generation vehicle, to take us back to the Moon. All of these were amazing accomplishments, but it was just another week at NASA. The American people have invested in space exploration for over 50 years. We continue to reap the benefits of that investment.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday, the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee released the options they have provided the Obama administration regarding the future of our Nation's human space flight program. Their opening sentence says it all: ``The U.S. human space flight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory.'' Two prior Congresses and two Presidential administrations have endorsed the course NASA is on, but without providing the necessary funding. This Congress, this Congress, needs to meet the commitment to our Nation's space agency. The work being done benefits science, education, and our economy. We have stood on this floor and spent money bailing out the past. It is time we reinvested in our future. The achievements of the men and women of America's space program cannot continue to be received with empty promises and constant second guessing. We have been the world's leader in human space flight for nearly 50 years. We must always be so.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember Mrs. Mamie George--a very special woman who devoted her life to serving those in Fort Bend County, Texas. Mamie is remembered as a gracious and selfless community servant and philanthropist. In 1896, she married Albert George, and they began to grow the thriving 22,000 acre George Ranch, in Richmond, Texas. With the fortune that they created, they set out on a lifetime of helping those around them. Having no living children of her own, Mamie was famous for making everyone feel like family, regardless of social status or race. She was very active in her own church and began studying the financial needs of other churches throughout Richmond. Overwhelmed by the need, she was inspired to create the George Foundation, a private charitable trust for religious, charitable, and educational purposes for the residents of Fort Bend County. To date, the foundation has made well over $50 million in grants to Texas organizations, ministries, humanitarian and educational foundations. The legacy of Mamie George will long live on through the organizations that are supported by her generous contributions. I am honored to recognize her years of service here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Continental Airlines on their 75th Anniversary. Continental was founded 75 years ago as a mail service by Walter T. Varney and Louis Mueller. Continental has risen to one of the most respected commercial passenger airlines flying more than 2750 flights daily to more than 260 destinations on five continents. They have been named for the fifth time, in as many years, as the Best Airline in North America at the OAG Airline of the Year Awards; In addition, Continental has been rated as the top airline on Fortune magazine's annual industry list of World's Most Admired Companies for six consecutive years. I would like to congratulate Continental and their employees on their 75th anniversary and look forward to many more years of flying to come.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that sharing real stories from people in our communities is the best opportunity to put a human face on the task before us with respect to reforming health care. We have spoken about costs, tax increases and job losses. We've spoken about access to care and about government-run options. These are all deeply important factors in this equation, and we have a duty to the American people to debate them fully, but there is also a human element that cuts through the debate and the rhetoric and that perfectly crystallizes what is at stake here. My Republican colleagues and I have tried to impress on the other side the importance of maintaining the doctor-patient decision-making process. I think that Joshua Loya's story says it all. Brittany Kraft is a constituent of mine from Pearland, Texas. She was 24 weeks pregnant in March of 2002 when her unborn son was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. She was told that he would not be born alive. Her cardiologist consulted with groups of surgeons around the country, but none could offer the help that she needed. Brittany was advised that her child could be put to sleep in utero, and she could go directly to the hospital for a stillbirth. She was unwilling to accept this as her only option, and she decided to fight for her unborn baby. Brittany made copies of the fetal echocardiograms and sent them to the top five pediatric cardiothoracic surgeons she could find. Only one, Dr. Ed Bove at the University of Michigan's Mott Children's Hospital, said if Brittany came to Michigan, they would do everything they could to save her unborn child. On June 26, 2002, Joshua Ruben Loya was born. He was immediately intubated and wired. He was in critical condition, and doctors felt that he was not a good candidate for the corrective surgeries available. He was listed for a heart transplant the day after he was born, and after 16 life-threatening days, at 3 in the morning, Brittany got the call that there was a heart for Joshua. Almost 7 years later, you would never know what Brittany and Joshua went through. He is a happy, growing boy, with medical needs but with no limitations on a good day. He can run, play, sing, laugh, and dance. Unfortunately, he is immune-suppressed, and will be for the rest of his life. He takes eight medications twice daily, and must adhere to a very strict schedule to control the levels of medication in his system. Too little and he is at risk of rejecting his heart. Too much and the medications trigger kidney failure and disable his immune system, making him even more vulnerable to every germ around. I tell Joshua's story because, quite frankly, if the health care plans being promoted by the administration and by my Democratic colleagues were to become law, I'm not confident that Josh would be here today. I know that his mother is deeply concerned that, with government-run health care, she might not have had the choice to deliver her baby or to have access to the life-saving medical procedures needed to keep him healthy and alive. In a massive government-run bureaucracy, Americans may not have the freedom to make the individual decisions that Brittany Kraft made to bring little Joshua into this world. She was in a position to not accept the word of a doctor and was able to search across the Nation for a better chance at life for her unborn son. While some maintain that Americans like Brittany can stay on their private plans to keep government out of Joshua's health care, they are not considering the far-reaching implications of the government plan. A government-run plan means bureaucrats make the decisions and that private insurers will be forced to follow suit to remain competitive. There is valid concern that otherwise healthy people will flock to the cheaper government plan and that sick people will try to stay on private plans, putting private insurers out of business. Joshua's story puts all of this in a crystal-clear context for me, and I urge all of my colleagues to remember Josh Loya as we go back home for the August recess and talk to our constituents about health care reform. Any reform must include freedom for individuals and for their doctors to make their own personal health decisions.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the folks in Galveston, Texas, who have worked to make the reopening of the University of Texas Medical Branch emergency room possible. Last September, Hurricane Ike hit Galveston, swamping parts of the island and forcing thousands of residents to evacuate. The emergency room's floor is at one of the highest physical elevations on the island, more than 30 feet above sea level. Yet the power of Ike's damage delayed the reopening of the emergency room until last week. Southeast Texas lost one of three level one trauma centers, putting a strain on the whole region. But thanks to tremendous community support, the emergency room will begin receiving patients and eventually offer the same level of trauma care it did before. Every minute counts in a life-threatening emergency. And the reopening of this facility will help provide timely emergency medical services to the area residents. As a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I am committed to continue to do all I can to ensure complete recovery for the impacted areas of Texas by Ike. This is a tremendous step forward for the recovery of Galveston and the neighboring communities devastated by Hurricane Ike. I wish UTMB, its doctors, its nurses, and its staff a successful future. Welcome back.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans and some Democrats have been highlighting the problems with the proposed Democrat health care bill. The Rosenberg-Richmond Chamber of Commerce in Fort Bend County, Texas, represents over 800 businesses that have deep concerns with this massive intrusion of government-run health care. Last week they passed a resolution strongly opposing the current health care proposals. Highlights of the resolution include: ``a government plan would be an unfair competitor, with the government acting as both a team owner and the referee.'' Another quote: ``New taxes and fees for businesses and/or individuals that cannot afford health insurance would be dramatically counterproductive.'' And one final one: ``Taxation of health benefits will lead to a reduction in benefits offered by employers and will lead to higher taxes for many individuals and businesses.'' Local chambers of commerce and small businesses understand better than most the problems with government-run health care. The Rosenberg- Richmond Chamber of Commerce gets it. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did. I include in the Record a copy of the resolution. - Resolution in Opposition of Proposed Health Care Reform Whereas, The United States has the world's best health care system, but it is being priced out of reach for more and more American citizens and companies. Companies struggle to find health care plans that provide adequate coverage and are still affordable, and worry about what will come next year; and Whereas, the Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce, under various names, has been working for and with local businesses to create a positive economic environment in Fort Bend County, Texas for over eighty years and is currently the voice of 800 businesses; and Whereas, the Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce recognizes that most health care coverage is provided by employers; to make it easier for employers and their employees to afford the health care coverage they need, we SUPPORT legislative action to: Retain viable employer-sponsored health care. Employers provide voluntary health insurance to over 177 million. ERISA allows many of them the flexibility to provide uniform benefits and is the backbone of employer-provided coverage and must be preserved. Reform the delivery system including payment and reimbursement reform to reduce costs while increasing quality and outcomes including: implementation of comprehensive strategies to boost health information technology, wellness, prevention, disease management and care coordination. Create a more vibrant private health insurance market for individuals and small businesses. Control soaring health care costs due to the explosive growth in medical liability awards and insurance costs through specialized health courts. Encourage more Americans to purchase health insurance by enacting refundable tax credits for that purpose. Encourage more Americans to save for medical expenses tax- free by expanding Health Savings Accounts and allowing those with Flexible Spending Accounts to roll over unused balances to pay for future medical expenses. Whereas, the Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce OPPOSES legislative action that will: Create a Government-run (public) plan: A government-run plan would be an unfair competitor, with the government acting as both a team owner and the referee. Government programs shift costs to the private sector. The Lewin Group estimates 130 million people would move from private sector to public insurance. This could lead to a government- controlled single-payer system. Create Employer Mandates: Punishing employers who cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage, including requirements to pay or play, is not the answer. Employer mandates, by their nature limit flexibility and innovation-- the cornerstones of American health care. Create Minimum Required Coverage Level: Proposing a huge Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)--like minimum coverage package will bankrupt employers and workers. High-end coverage like this will not appeal to the young. The minimum level of coverage should be reflective of a high- deductible health plan with coverage of preventative services. Impose additional tax burdens individuals or businesses: The implementation of new taxes and fees for businesses and/ or individuals that cannot afford health insurance would be dramatically counterproductive. Further, the taxation of health benefits will lead to a reduction in benefits offered by employers and will lead to higher taxes for many individuals and businesses: Now therefore be it Resolved, that the Board of Directors of the Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce OPPOSES the passage of legislation that is currently proposed by the President of the United States and Congress which will create a public insurance plan and employer mandates and major tax increases including imposing an additional ``surtax'' on high income earners. Adopted this 21st day of July, 2009. Lynne Humphries, Chairman of the Board Gail Parker, President/CEO.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure pursuant to Republican standards on congressionally-directed funding, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I support included in H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Olson Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Other Procurement, Air Force Name of Recipient: Texas Air National Guard Address of Recipient: 147th Fighter Wing at Ellington Joint Reserve Base, Houston, TX 77034 Description of Request: $2,000,000 in funding for the One Air Force/ One Network Infrastructure. The funding would be used to upgrade the Air National Guard's core infrastructure of wired and wireless networks to the Air Force standard architecture. The resulting capability will significantly increase the readiness and agility of the Texas Air National Guard mission by ensuring network compatibility and interoperability across Air Guard, Air Reserve, and AF Active Duty bases. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Olson Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Name of Recipient: University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Address of Recipient: 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, TX 77555 Description of Request: $5,000,000 in funding for the National Biodefense Training Center. The funding would be used to train staff working within containment facilities across the nation. There is a major need for a systematic approach to biological safety level -3 and -4 (BSL-3, BSL-4) containment training to prepare personnel in the safe and secure handling of infectious pathogens.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure pursuant to Republican standards on congressionally-directed funding, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I support included in H.R. 3293, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Olson Bill Number: H.R. 3293, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)--Training and Employment Services (TES) Name of Recipient: San Jacinto College Address of Recipient: 4624 Fairmont Parkway, Pasadena, TX 77504 Description of Request: $350,000 in funding would be used to purchase equipment to help displaced workers in the Houston area obtain training to reenter the workforce in high-demand positions. The goal of this project would help train new workers and retrain or upskill existing workers to become welders, pipefitters and nondestructive testing personnel for the petrochemical industry.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans and even some Democrats have been highlighting the problems with the proposed health care bill this Congress is considering. Santa Fe, Texas, in the district that I represent, has 10,500 hardworking folks with concerns about this massive intrusion of government-run health care. Just this week, the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution strongly opposing the proposals the majority has put forward. I think the voice of small-town America can say it even better than I can. The highlights of the resolution include: ``The Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce expresses its opposition to any legislation that develops national health care in the United States.'' This proposal will require huge tax increases in order to subsidize the planned program. And one more passage: ``The Federal Government should not be in the business of controlling and manipulating the health care system.'' The good people of Santa Fe, Texas, understand the problems with government-run health care. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did as well. Resolution Be it resolved that the Board of Directors of the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce express its opposition to any legislation that develops National Healthcare in the United States, and Whereas, the health care plan as proposed creates huge inequities among all hard-working wage earners in America, and Whereas, this proposal will require huge tax increases in order to subsidize the planned program, and Whereas, the Federal Government should not be in the business of controlling and manipulating the health care system, and Whereas, the enactment of a government-run, health care insurance program is not sustainable. No confidence exists in the Federal Government's ability to deliver the cost containments necessary to expand coverage of the uninsured, and Whereas, the private health care insurance industry has the existing tools to contain costs and the incentives necessary to improve quality and affordability for their customers, and Whereas, under the health care reform bill, access to health care will become unreasonable to the highest degree. The rationing of health care in countries with socialized medicine has led to patients dying because they were forced to wait too long to receive treatment, and Whereas, the solution in health care reform lies in improving the quality and affordability of health care through market-based changes, and Whereas, the focus on health care reforms should be directed in finding ways to make private health care coverage more affordable and to provide fair and adequate reimbursements for care. Therefore, be it resolved that: The Board of Directors of the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce representing 225 businesses in our community states through this resolution its strong opposition to the proposed changes in our country's health system through government interference and control, and Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded immediately to our elected representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Passed this day of July 21, 2009 Signed by: Andrea Brinegar 2009 Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce, Inc., Chairman of the Board.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure pursuant to Republican standards on congressionally directed funding, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I support included in H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Olson Bill Number: H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Federal Highway Administration, Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Name of Recipient: Federal Highway Administration Address of Recipient: 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE. Washington, DC 20590- 9898 Description of Request: $500,000 in funding would be used on development of the I-69 route in Texas, particularly the expansion to interstate standards of highways 77, 281, and 59, from Laredo and the Lower Rio Grande Valley through Houston to Texarkana. This project has been authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and designated by Congress as a ``high priority corridor.'' This funding would be used to work to obtain environmental clearances so as not to further delay ongoing construction of the corridor.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the administration argued that an $800 billion taxpayer-funded spending spree was necessary to create jobs. It was rushed through with no time to review the policies that would implement this massive spending plan. The administration sold this spending spree as a jobs creation measure. Yet, it turns out that jobs weren't a priority at all. A $3.9 billion stimulus funding announcement was made for smart grid investment grants by Vice President Biden in which he stated, ``This is jobs--jobs.'' Well, the Department of Energy didn't seem to get the memo. Application forms for grants asked: ``Will DOE use the number of jobs estimated to be created and/or retained as a criterion for rating a proposal for funding?'' The grant guidance says: ``No.'' Where are the jobs? Job creation was supposed to be the primary requisite for receiving recovery funds, and yet it was simply a reporting requirement. It was never about jobs.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my ranking member and friend from Texas for yielding me time to express my support for H. Res. 607, the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. Like all members of my generation, I remember very well where I was when Neil Armstrong stepped out of the Eagle and into history. But today, as we look back, I offer this question: Where will we be when those next steps are taken on the Moon? For millions of Americans, those steps will be their first chance to witness history. It is right and fitting that we take this time to honor the men and women of Apollo 11. And I say men and women, because although three brave men were willing to strap themselves on top of a Saturn V rocket, it took the support of thousands of men and women to make their success. For some, there are questions about why even go back to the Moon? It's true we can't replace Apollo, but we should try. And I don't mean simply at NASA. First, it boggles the mind that those Apollo journeys, which should have been the beginning of lunar exploration, were the end of them. Budget cuts forced the cancellation of Apollo 18, 19 and 20, and we've been endorsing those cuts ever since. NASA is on a path to return to the Moon and on to Mars and beyond, but we need the support, both here in Congress and among the general public, for these worthy goals. By exploring, we create jobs, we inspire our youth to go into math and science fields, and we ensure that the aerospace industry, which is currently American-centered and American-dominated, remains that way. But the lessons of Apollo should not be limited to NASA. It has become cliche for politicians to reference Apollo when talking about our need to create domestic alternatives to solve our energy solutions. Our Nation wants to rally around a worthy goal, to achieve great things. This is what Apollo showed us, and we should look to that in this Chamber as we debate the issues of the day that will impact the generations to come. Apollo won't be replicated, because you can't replicate Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins. They've become icons in American culture, exhibiting those uniquely American traits: boldness, courageousness, excellence. They, as individuals, were the finest in their fields. But as a crew, and as an extension of the NASA family that made Apollo such a success, and as representatives of this great Nation that sent them forth through the heavens, they became heroes worthy of the praise that will be offered over the next few days. May the example they set as individuals drive us personally. May the success of the lessons of the Apollo program guide us selectively, and may the knowledge of what they achieved as a Nation inspire us to do bold things going forward.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure pursuant to Republican standards on congressionally-directed funding, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I support included in H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Olson Bill Number: H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: O&M, Corps of Engineers Name of Recipient: Port of Houston Authority Address of Recipient: P.O. Box 2562, Houston, TX 77252 Description of Request: $15,603,000 in funding would be used for operations and maintenance of the Port of Houston. The Port is the 7th largest container port in the United States and serves 50 million consumers within a 500-mile radius. In 2007, the Port of Houston provided $285 billion in economic value, $72 billion in personal income, and $16.2 billion in Federal Taxes. It is also home to the second largest petrochemical complex in the world and the largest refinery in the United States. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Olson Bill Number: H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Construction, Corps of Engineers Recipient: Harris County Flood Control District Address of Recipient: 9900 Northwest Freeway, Suite 220, Houston, TX 77092 Description: $2,500,000 in funding for the Clear Creek Flood Control Project. The project on Clear Creek consists of 15.1 miles of channel rectification and a 500 acre-foot in-line detention from Dixie Farm Road to State Highway 288 and a 1,750 acre-foot detention basin. This project will provide lower flood risks to areas in the 22nd District of Texas. It is estimated the number of homes subject to the 1% (100 year) flood would be reduced from 3,380 to 1,130. Flood Risk Management is in the national interest by reducing loss of life, injury and property destruction and reducing the flooding risks to Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties. Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Olson Bill Number: H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Construction, Corps of Engineers Name of Recipient: Port of Houston Authority Address of Recipient: P.O. Box 2562, Houston, TX 77252 Description of Request: $500,000 for additional construction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In order to keep the Port of Houston operating at full capacity, the Houston Ship Channel must be maintained. The increased natural shoaling has placed greater pressure on the Port's capacity to store and manage dredge material and without increasing capacity they will not be able to dredge the channel. Without this necessary funding, dredged material capacity will be unavailable and material will be pumped longer distances increasing the cost of dredging for the same volume of material dredged the previous year. This request is for additional construction.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act early this spring, the administration and congressional Democrats argued that a $800 billion taxpayer-funded spending spree was necessary to create jobs and grow the struggling economy. It was rushed through with little time to review the policies that would implement this massive spending plan. I opposed this unwise scheme for many reasons. It will put an unbearable burden of debt upon our children and our grandchildren. It was loaded down with pork-barrel projects to pay back liberal special interest groups. But I also opposed it because I believe and continue to believe that it will not grow jobs in our economy. The government is not nor should it be an employment service that mandates private-sector hiring decisions. Predictably, we are now seeing that these reckless spending decisions are not growing our economy. The June unemployment numbers saw the unemployment rate rise to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent. This translates into 467,000 jobs lost in the month of June alone. Before passage of the ARRA, the Obama administration predicted that unemployment would peak at 8 percent before decreasing this fall. But unemployment has already reached 9.5 percent, and the situation is not likely to improve until long after the White House predicted. However, the administration hardly has cause to be surprised. In fact, after they sold this massive Federal spending spree as a job creation measure, it turns out that jobs don't seem to be a priority at all. I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to the funding announcement for the Smart Grid Investment Grants, which received $3.9 billion in the Recovery Act. The Vice President himself announced this grant in April when he said this is about jobs, jobs. In the information provided to the applicants for this grant funding, one of the frequently asked questions is, Will DOE use a number of jobs estimated to be created and/or retained as a criterion for rating a proposal for funding? The answer: ``No.'' Le me repeat that again. Will jobs be used as a criteria to determine whether or not this project will be funded? The answer from the DOE is no. In fact, the guidance goes on to say that DOE removed the criterion on the extent of jobs creation and now will require applicants to report quarterly on the number of jobs created and retained. Job creation was supposed to be the primary requisite for receiving recovery funds, and yet now has been changed to simply a reporting requirement. This is typical Washington. Instead of creating more jobs, we are creating more paperwork. The Vice President now says they misread the economy, but the truth is they misread the solution. The stimulus bill was a grab bag of Democrat spending priorities, not a timely, targeted and temporary stimulus package. Government spending does not, does not, create jobs or wealth. It consumes it and destroys it. We are throwing money at a problem that is not increasing consumer confidence, financial certainty or provide a business environment that will encourage job growth. Democrat policies are clearly, clearly, not creating jobs. I cannot, I cannot in good conscience justify throwing good money after bad. That only leaves a legacy of debt for our children and our grandchildren to pay. I will continue to oppose policies that I believe hurt the American people and the people I represent, and I will gladly, gladly work with my colleagues across the aisle whenever there is an opportunity to do so because good policies that help Texans and help Americans aren't Republican, and they aren't Democrat; they are the right thing to do.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, this Democratic cap-and-tax plan is simply a shell game designed to funnel billions of taxpayer and industry dollars through government to fund their restrictive energy plan. Faced with an outcry over the impact their plan will have on family budgets, Democrats have tried to buy off opposition by offering ``rebates'' to help offset increased costs. Let's be clear, this rebate is nothing more than the government giving you your own money back. It is typical Washington: steal your wallet, and pat themself on the back for giving you back the spare change. And let's not forget the fundamental failure of this job- killing plan--it doesn't even reduce carbon emissions. According to analysis from the Heritage Foundation, hard working folks in my congressional district alone will lose nearly 5,000 jobs in 2012 alone. That is just one year of job losses in one district and the numbers only go up from there. And the average household in Texas could pay an additional $1,136 for household goods and services over a given year. My office has received 680 calls this week on cap-and-tax and 671 of them strongly urged me to oppose this bill. In these times of economic hardship, Congress must be focused on creating and maintaining jobs. My Democratic colleagues who are advocating for this legislation tout the fact that more ``green'' jobs will be created by this job. What they fail to mention is that good paying jobs that already exist in this country will be shipped overseas and our national unemployment rate will increase. We have already seen this happen in Spain, where a study found that for every one green job created two other jobs were lost. I do not want this for my constituents, I do not want this for the businesses in the 22nd District of Texas, and I do not want this for the American people. Madam Speaker, this is simply a scheme to restrict needed energy and decide who is worthy of working in which government approved energy job. That is not the role of government and Americans should be outraged. The stimulus plan was designed to create jobs through billions and billions of tax dollars. It has not created the jobs it promised and this energy shell game will not work either.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the differences between the Democrat and Republican energy plans. As we move into summer, energy prices are creeping up, as they do each year, placing higher costs on those in our country who can least afford them. We need an energy plan that ensures a reliable, safe and affordable energy supply. Democratic leaders in Washington have proposed a plan that would replace our present energy supply with unreliable and costly energy alternatives. The cornerstone of this plan would reduce carbon emissions through an aggressive cap-and-trade program. This program would set nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions and create a market-based trading program for companies to meet the cap. The goal of this plan is to force reductions in carbon emissions through government rationing of carbon credits for energy producers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of this plan concluded that the potential job loss in my home State of Texas alone by the year 2020 could go as high as 311,600. Let me say that again. Over 300,000 jobs lost in my State by 2020, resulting in a staggering loss in personal income of up to $22.8 billion. That cost is simply too high. It is not cap-and-trade; it is cap-and-tax. My Republican colleagues and I believe we can still achieve an energy plan that keeps costs affordable, lowers emissions and grows energy jobs right here in America. I'm opposed to a plan that dramatically little increases the cost of energy for American consumers. That is why my Republican colleagues and I have crafted a comprehensive energy bill that not only increases energy production here in America, but ensures that all forms of energy have the ability to compete to provide clean, reliable, and affordable energy for all Americans. The American Energy Act is a blueprint of solutions for American energy problems. We must create an environment where all producers have the opportunity to compete to provide safe, reliable energy, instead of the current stranglehold of bureaucratic red tape and regulatory obstacles producers face. We have an important opportunity to reduce carbon emissions sought by Democrats through increased use of nuclear energy. The American Energy Act would allow nuclear energy to compete with other energy sources based on its merits, such as being affordable, domestic, and, most importantly, emissions-free. The U.S. Department of Energy is now in the process of awarding financing for four American power companies to build new nuclear power reactors to allow more nuclear power to come online between 2015 and 2020. And we can bring more energy onto the grid if we streamline the application process, as the American Energy Act does. The goal of this plan is not to promote one form of energy over the other, but to allow the market system to determine which producers can achieve the goal of providing a safe and reliable energy supply to meet our Nation's needs. Americans need safe, reliable and affordable energy, not government- mandated emission programs that increase consumer costs and kill American jobs. We need a plan that promotes all forms of energy to meet that goal. Madam Speaker, the Republican energy plan is a commonsense approach to increasing domestic energy sources, creating American energy jobs, and promoting a clean environment without dipping in the pockets of American families.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to participate in this colloquy with you here today. This Nation has been the leader in human spaceflight for 50 years, and the decisions we make today will determine whether we will continue to lead in the next 50. And I'm worried that as other nations look at the stars, we're staring at our feet. The proposed cut in the exploration budget threatens our economic, military and technological standing, and would lead to a loss of up to 4,000 jobs, extend up to 2 years the time needed to fully design and develop the Constellation system, and result in additional cost of up to $8 billion. Therefore, I have prepared an amendment to restore that funding. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your pledge to revisit the funding issues based on the outcome of the Augustine panel, and that if the panel agrees, we will work as a Congress to reassess appropriate funding levels. In light of that commitment, I will not offer my amendment, and look forward to working with you to meet the pressing needs of human spaceflight.

Mr. OLSON. Will the gentleman yield to me for the purposes of continuing this colloquy?

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my growing alarm with the Democrat leadership's clear intention to use the conference report on the war supplemental appropriations bill to ram a dangerous and controversial agenda through this Congress. It is now clear that Senate and House Democrats have decided to let their own political agenda subvert a bipartisan agreement on providing the men and women of our military with the support they need to continue the fight against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. I proudly supported the House version of this bill when it originally passed this Chamber. However, Democrats are now preparing to use the conference report, which cannot, cannot be amended, to add unrelated, politically motivated poison pills to the measure. My Democrat colleagues are proposing to add up to $108 billion for the International Monetary Fund as part of the global bailout for foreign nations. Not only is this a bad idea on its own, I have yet to hear any explanation of how on Earth this will benefit our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, this money will have precisely the opposite effect. Iran, which the State Department has repeatedly certified as ``the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world,'' would be eligible for these funds. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who describes America as ``the biggest menace on our planet'' and supports narcoterrorists in neighboring nations, he, too, would be eligible for these funds. The purpose of this bill is to make sure our Armed Forces have the men and material they need to defeat terrorists. That this bill would include funding that could benefit the sponsors of terrorism, it's outrageous. All of this being said, I'd welcome an honest, open debate and vote in this Chamber on the IMF funding, but my Democrat colleagues apparently would rather not risk a separate up-or-down vote. Therefore, they've resorted to playing games with funding for our troops by shoe- horning this measure in a war spending bill with no opportunity for debate here in the people's House. And it won't end there. Unbelievably, reports are that Democrats are looking to include language to permit the transfer of terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay to the United States, and they intend to require the immediate release of photographs of detained terrorists, likely, likely inflaming Islamists across the globe and further endangering our Armed Forces deployed overseas. And again, I will happily debate these wrongheaded measures on the floor of this body any day of the week, but this attempt to ram these unacceptable provisions through the House without a debate or a vote is simply wrong. And I can't think of a more demoralizing message to send to our fighting forces than that a majority of Congress is willing, for political expediency's sake, to load down a war funding bill with unrelated, unpopular provisions. When I served in the United States Navy, we feared the annual games politicians played with military funding. It made us angry to know that we were tasked with a mission, and then politicians played politics with the resources we needed to complete that mission. Mr. Speaker, I did not come here to play that game. There is no honor in a vote that conditions the funding for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coastguardsmen on satisfying an unrelated political agenda. This Congress must not cheapen and degrade our military to simply move forward with political interests.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Needville Blue Jays, who defeated the Celina Bobcats 3-1 at McCombs Field in Austin to win the Texas class 3A girls high school championship last week. The Blue Jays played their hearts out and have made all Texas proud. Only 3 years ago, six members of the Needville team played in the 2006 Junior Softball World Series, where they finished third overall. This State championship victory was the result of exceptional teamwork and years of practice and dedication. The Blue Jays' defense was superb in the finals. Celina had five hits, but Needville made no errors and kept the Bobcats' base runners in check. I would also like to compliment the coach of the Blue Jays, C.J. Mazac. The best teams are always the result of exceptional coaching, and Coach Mazac has clearly inspired and motivated his players. I would like to send a big congratulations to the graduating seniors, and I would also like to recognize all of the team members who made this victory possible. Great job to each of you. The Blue Jays' final record for the season was an impressive 34-8. All residents of Needville and Fort Bend County, Texas, are extremely proud of our Blue Jays, and I extend my congratulations to these talented young athletes.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I want to identify myself with the comments from my colleague over there with the extremely good work that Congressman Carnahan and Congresswoman Biggert have done on this issue. I see no further speakers on my side so I urge support of House Resolution 492. I yield back the balance of my time.