Pete Olson

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent and yield as much time as he can consume to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. OLSON. I rise in support of H.R. 1709, the STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague in supporting H.R. 1709, the Federal STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009. With this bill, Congress is basically elevating a subcommittee within the National Science and Technology Council to a full committee to ensure that STEM education activities within the Federal Government are getting the attention they need. In addition to coordinating all Federal STEM education programs, this committee will be responsible for developing a strategic plan and for maintaining an inventory of all Federal STEM education programs. I believe this is appropriate and important. It is just as imperative that we will be able to identify those STEM programs in the Federal Government that are effective and that could serve as models for other agencies as it is for us to eliminate those programs that are duplicative and wasteful. Ranking Member Hall and Dr. Ehlers, the ranking member of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee, are original sponsors of this measure and have worked closely with Chairman Gordon and Mr. Lipinski on this legislation. I join them in support of H.R. 1709, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I see no one on my side of the aisle requesting time. So I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. I rise in support of H.R. 1736, the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2009, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I join my colleague today in supporting H.R. 1736, the International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2009. Our Nation has a long history of engaging with international partners on a variety of scientific issues, and this is an area of great importance to our Nation. H.R. 1736 incorporates many recommendations made by the National Science Board in its report ``International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for U.S. Foreign Policy and our Nation's Innovation Agenda.'' The primary purpose of this legislation is simply to build a stronger coordination link between the scientific activities of our Federal agencies and the Department of State in order to strengthen the U.S. science and technology enterprise, to improve U.S. economic and national security, and to support U.S. foreign policy goals as appropriate. This will be achieved through the creation of a committee under the National Science and Technology Council. The Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of State will cochair the committee. International S&T cooperation takes several forms. It provides a researcher's access to other researchers and to research sites around the globe. It enables partnerships to share the burden of the cost of expensive world-class facilities in the U.S. and abroad. It provides the ability to address global issues of importance to the United States, such as nonproliferation and infectious diseases, and it helps foster positive relationships with other nations. H.R. 1736 will promote these important scientific activities by making sure that the Department of State is working in tandem with OSTP and with other Federal agencies. We will help ensure that our foreign policy goals are not compromised. In fact, more often than not, they may be enhanced by S&T cooperation. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1736. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, looking around, I have no further requests for time on my side of the aisle. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 492, supporting the goals and ideals of High-Performance Building Week, and I yield myself as much time as I will consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 492, supporting the goals and ideals of High-Performance Building Week. I would first like to thank the Congressional High-Performance Building Caucus cochairs, Russ Carnahan and Judy Biggert for their work on this important issue and for bringing awareness to the Congress and the public on the importance and benefits of high-performance buildings. This resolution declares the week of June 15 through June 19, 2009, as High-Performance Building Week. According to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a high-performance building is defined as a building that integrates and optimizes on a life-cycle basis all major high-performance attributes including energy conservation, environment, safety, security, durability, accessibility, cost-benefit productivity, sustainability, functionality, and operational considerations. It is important to focus on making our buildings high-performance buildings for many reasons, some of which are that our homes, offices, schools, and other buildings consume 40 percent of the primary energy and 70 percent of the electricity used in the United States annually; that buildings consume about 12 percent of the potable water in this country; and that construction of buildings and the related infrastructure consume approximately 60 percent of all raw materials used in the United States economy. Madam Speaker, I could go on, but I think you get the point. There are a lot of efficiencies to be gained by focusing on high- performance buildings, and the benefits to our society are great. Again, I commend cochairs Carnahan and Biggert for their leadership and hope that my colleagues will see the value that awareness of the benefits of the high-performance buildings will bring and support this resolution. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Thank you to my friend from Pennsylvania. I will be quick here. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, and I urge its immediate passage. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I was pleased by the serious bipartisan manner in which this legislation was considered. In fact, the hard work and dedication that the committee members showed in crafting this bill makes me hopeful that we can enact a much-needed, full Department of Homeland Security authorization bill rather than continue to legislate piece by piece. I rise specifically today to speak about the general aviation security provisions in the bill and the TSA's Large Aircraft Security Program. The TSA's notice of proposed rulemaking to address the perceived threats posed by general aviation aircraft essentially took the Department's principles of risk-based security measures and threw them out the window. The deficiencies of the proposal were the direct result of consultation without collaboration. The TSA met with industry stakeholders and interested parties and then dismissed their input. Given the terrible flaws in this process, it is not surprising that the proposed product is less than satisfactory as well. Many of the provisions will place a heavy financial burden on the general aviation community yet result in little genuine improvement in security. Now is not the time to put a financial squeeze on an industry that contributes so much to our national economy. The TSA has proposed using third-party private contractors to review general aviation manifests and conduct watch list verifications. I find it unacceptable that unaccountable contractors would have access to travelers' personal information and have the authority to bar them from a private flight. Any check against a No Fly List or Terrorist Watch List is an inherently governmental function and must be performed by a democratically accountable agency. I am glad the committee adopted my amendment that will prohibit such a practice. But let me be clear, I strongly support improving security for general aviation and airports. What I object to is a heavy-handed approach that abandons the risk-based principles upon which TSA operates. The provision I was able to include in H.R. 2200 is a step in the right direction but there is more to be done in the future. I thank the committee for hearing my concerns and I am pleased to join them in supporting this bill today. I would like to thank subcommittee Chairman Jackson-Lee and Chairman Thompson for making this a bi-partisan bill and bringing both sides to the negotiating table at an early stage. I would also like to thank subcommittee ranking member Dent and Committee ranking member King for their work on this important issue. I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, as the House moves closer to taking up legislation to tax carbon emissions of American businesses, we must consider the real costs versus the theoretical benefits. Recent CBO analysis indicates the potential loss of jobs in my home State of Texas, by the year 2020, due to the cap-and-tax bill that is before the House now to be between 53,000 and 300,000 jobs, resulting in a loss of personal income between $3.9 billion to $22.8 billion. CBO also estimates that a 15 percent mandatory reduction in carbon dioxide emissions could cost the average household $1,600 in higher energy prices, with a disproportionate burden placed on low-income families. Energy costs are already high, and we're experiencing one of the worst economic periods in history. Economic impacts aside, we must also look at whether this costly program will achieve its intended goals. The answer, based on the evidence before us, is clearly no. A global problem requires a global solution. Unilateral U.S. action will only hurt our country's ability to compete in a global marketplace. Texas and America simply cannot afford to further cripple our already fragile economy with a risky, costly Federal mandate that does little or nothing to impact the global climate.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Yes, I will.

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, while my home State of Texas doesn't have near the opportunities for icebreaking that the chairman's home State of Minnesota has, like him, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1747 and this body's continued efforts to enhance the Coast Guard's operational capabilities in the Great Lakes and nationwide. A new Coast Guard icebreaker of the Great Lakes would significantly enhance the safety and efficiency of maritime traffic in the region. The Coast Guard is aware of the need for further capabilities in the Great Lakes. Earlier this winter, the Coast Guard temporarily stationed an ice- strengthened buoy tender in the Great Lakes for the end of the icebreaking season. This move, while greatly appreciated, is not a sustainable solution. H.R. 1747, the Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act, will address future icebreaking needs by providing a fully capable, multimission icebreaker to the Great Lakes. In addition to its role as an icebreaker, the new vessel will be equipped with capabilities to support all of the Coast Guard's many missions, which will greatly enhance the service's ability to carry out search and rescue, fishery enforcement, and maritime homeland security missions throughout the year. I hope this bill is only the beginning of Congress' efforts to enhance the Coast Guard's icebreaking capability. As many Members know, the Coast Guard's seagoing polar icebreakers are in dire need of rehabilitation or of outright replacement. I would hope that we could address this issue through the Coast Guard reauthorization bill later this year. Historically, polar regions have been closed off to vessel traffic for a significant amount of time. However, in recent years, we have seen an increase in the amount of open time and water and a corresponding interest in the commercial use of these waters. We have extensive scientific, national security, homeland security, and economic interests in the Arctic; but we do not have the vessels necessary to project a continued maritime presence in these regions. We must come up with a solution to address this gap to protect our national interests as other Arctic nations are racing forward to explore and stake claim to resources in the polar regions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all Texans, I think your solution to an icebreaker in Texas would be much appreciated there. And I want to thank you, too, for your kind and insightful remarks about the needs of our ports in the gulf coast, particularly the Port of Houston and Port of Galveston and Texas City. As you alluded to, the ports there, unfortunately, have a lot of silt coming down from the rivers above. They fill up from time to time, and we need to keep them dredged out. And you have eloquently made the point that when the Panama Canal project is completed--widened and deepened--the ships that are currently coming across the Pacific Ocean and stop at our west coast are just going to continue right on through and come to our heartland. So I look forward to working with you to make sure that the gulf ports are ready for that when it happens.

Mr. OLSON. I appreciate the gentleman's comments on that as well. I was down at the Port of Texas City last month, and they brought a ship in early this year, as you alluded to, after the hurricane had come through. The way it rolled in, a lot of the way the storm was moving, it pushed the water, it brought the silt back towards the ocean, and they brought a ship in with 6 inches of clearance, a 5-, 600-foot boat and that much clearance. And I appreciate your commitment to work with that. I see no one on my side of the aisle. I thank the chairman for his kind remarks. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I'd like to thank our chairman for his kind words, and more importantly, for your leadership on this committee. This is a very important issue, and I'm proud to stand with you today in support of this bill. And I do rise in support of H.R. 1746, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009, which reauthorizes the successful pre-disaster mitigation programs for the next 3 years. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program was originally authorized by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 as a pilot program to study the effectiveness of mitigation grants given to communities before a disaster strikes. Prior to the creation of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, hazard mitigation primarily occurred after a disaster had occurred through FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. We know that every disaster costs us in damages to homes, businesses and infrastructure and potentially to the loss of lives. Implementing mitigation measures against disasters has proven to go a long way in minimizing damage and saving lives. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program prevents damage and destruction by helping communities to act proactively through projects that reduce the costs and limit the adverse impacts of future disasters. It has been shown that mitigation programs like the pre-disaster mitigation program also save taxpayer dollars. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the National Institute of Building Sciences have determined that, for every dollar invested in mitigation, $3 are saved in future losses. Since their inception, mitigation programs have helped local communities save lives and reduce property damage through a wide range of mitigation projects, such as home elevations, buyouts, improved shelters, and warning systems. Ensuring this program continues and supporting mitigation efforts is critically important as our communities prepare for disasters. In conclusion, mitigation works. It saves lives, limits future damage and reduces Federal disaster costs, and the pre-disaster mitigation program is an effective program that advances that goal. Thank you again. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Chairman, do you have anymore speakers on your side?

Mr. OLSON. In that case, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, there being no Members wishing to speak on my side, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was proud to introduce H.R. 1981, the Taxpayer Conscience Protection Act of 2009. This bill would require individual State departments of health to document whether they are providing any Federal funds they receive through Medicaid to organizations that perform, promote or refer for abortions. No matter where you stand on the questions of life, this bill would protect the fundamental right that every American taxpayer should enjoy and, frankly, should expect--the right to know whether their money is being spent on activities or organizations to which they are morally opposed. This administration and this Congress have pledged a new era of government transparency. The legislation would bring increased transparency for the millions of pro-life Americans who are currently in the dark regarding whether and how much of their tax dollars are being funneled to abortion providers. Only by shining the light of day onto this area of government can we ensure that Federal tax dollars do not fund morally objectionable practices.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. Well, thank you very much, my friend and colleague from Indiana, the chairman of our conference. I appreciate those eloquent remarks. I'm just going to echo them in a, probably, less eloquent way, but you are right on the money, my friend. Last week, like my colleagues from Indiana, Utah and Minnesota, I was privileged to attend TEA parties across my district and to listen to my constituents express their outrage at the out-of-control spending that's going on here in Washington, D.C. While Washington goes on a spending spree, the American people are struggling to pay their mortgages on time, are concerned about keeping their jobs or about finding new jobs and are worried that their paychecks won't cover their bills. Instead of trying to ease the economic burden on our families, congressional Democrats have decided to move forward with what I'll call a cap-and-tax plan--energy legislation that would place burdensome new taxes on American industries in the name of a shortsighted, politically correct and unscientifically proven environmental agenda. Even as families struggle to make ends meet, these new taxes could increase the cost of living of every single American, as my colleague said, by $3,100 per year for a family of four and could pull $860 billion out of family budgets to put in the Federal budget. I can't imagine a worse idea, and I can't imagine a worse time to do it. In these trying economic times, we should be doing everything we can to keep jobs in America and to encourage reinvestment in our own resources. The Democrats' plan will increase the cost of doing business in the United States. It will put U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage, and it will likely force millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. The Democrats' bill even acknowledges the potential problem because they include rebates for specific sectors, industrial sectors, that would be harmed by the energy tax imposed by the bill. These specific industries are not named in the bill. Rather, the administration would get to pick and choose which industries would be eligible for the rebates--who wins, who loses. As my colleague from Indiana eloquently said, the least the sponsor of this legislation could do is allow an honest debate over the course of the measure. Unfortunately, because of the lack of details in the draft legislation, the Congressional Budget Office is still not able to provide a cost estimate. The bill does not identify how the tax would be levied or where the proceeds would be spent. How can we expect to debate a bill that will deeply alter our Nation's energy production and affect every American without the most important details? Specifically, how will the Federal Government collect the more than $640 billion of taxes estimated to be imposed by this bill? And where will that money go once it is in the hands of the Federal Government? Any plans to implement a cap-and-tax program cannot be considered in a vacuum. We must engage in a broader, more comprehensive energy discussion. But I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to create an all-of-the-above energy solution that increases domestic energy production, supports renewable fuel innovation and encourages cleaner fuel technologies. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, last week I was privileged to join my constituents at TEA parties all across my district, people who are frustrated with the spending here in Washington who wanted to say enough is enough. They are tired of runaway government spending dressed up as stimulus, and more importantly, they are tired of saddling our children with a debt they can never repay. I came away from these events with hundreds upon hundreds of tea bags from my constituents protesting the spending spree that's going on here in Washington. But for me, one little girl summed it up. At a TEA party in Friendswood, Texas, I got to meet Brittany Hornick, a little 12- year-old girl who lives in Lake City, Texas. She had this sign that sums up what this battle is about. Her sign said, ``Stop spending my future income.'' And that's what this is all about, Mr. Speaker. The bills that the administration and the Democrats are running up in Congress today will be paid by Brittany and her generation. My Republican colleagues and I will continue to push for responsible spending measures that will ensure that Brittany and her generation are not the first generation of American children worse off than their parents.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. If I had been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, the threat from Iran is real. It endangers Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, many of our NATO allies in Europe, and indeed, the United States of America herself. The President has said that Iran with nuclear weapons would be a ``game changer,'' and last week he sent a video message to the people of Iran. What was contained in the message was not as striking as what was left out. The President did not call on the Iranian Government to give up uranium enrichment. He did not insist that the Iranian Government stop arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. He did not insist that the Iranian Government stop threatening Israel. What he did do was call for a ``new beginning,'' without saying much more. Israeli President Shimon Perez also appealed to the people of Iran before making clear that the country would be run by religious fanatics. I urge the President to rely more on our friends in the Middle East, who deal with Iran on a daily basis, and less on Youtube and sports metaphors. The United States must make clear that we support Israel, their President, and their new prime minister in their continuing struggle with Iran and its misguided leaders.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus, my good friend from New Jersey, for leading this discussion tonight on this critical issue, and I want to identify myself with the comments of the speakers who preceded me, the chairman, Chairman Pence, Dr. Broun and our good friend, Congressman Jordan, for their impassioned comments in defense of innocent life. I rise today out of grave concern over President Obama's decision yesterday to lift restrictions on Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. His decision is financially overburdensome, scientifically unnecessary and morally offensive. The President's new executive order opens the door to Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Tremendous results have already been found using adult stem cells in the treatment of cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and heart disease. Creating more lines of pluripotent stem cells should be our continued focus. It's more versatile. You don't have to deal with the issues of rejection, and it doesn't take an innocent life. This administration continues a disturbing path of spending taxpayer dollars on programs and policies that are deeply offensive to millions of Americans, placing questionable science ahead of morality. Taxpayers are being asked to support an increasingly bloated Federal Government, and yet the administration is moving research from private funding to take advantage of money from President Obama's economic recovery package for further study of embryonic stem cells. How does the destruction of human life help our economy recover, how does that create jobs? It doesn't, and this most recent action by the administration is another example of a step too far. We must not forget the fundamental role of government in our lives, protecting its citizens, particularly the most innocent among us. This administration has not been in office yet for 2 months, and, yet, three times, it has already overturned some basic security rights of our citizens. It has forced men and women who do not want their money spent on morally objectionable scientific research to fund research. They have removed rules that protect medical providers who declined to perform abortions due to moral and religious reasons. And now they have failed to protect the most innocent among us by opening the door to embryo research and a senseless discarding of American life. I'd like to make a couple of comments about the importance of ultrasounds for women who are pregnant. These are personal comments. God has blessed my family. We have two children; a daughter, who's 12, and a son, who's 8. When my wife was pregnant with our daughter, our first child, she had an ultrasound at 13 weeks. We still have that ultrasound. Have it on our refrigerator door. If you look at that ultrasound, you look at the profile of that young human life, and you look at the profile of my daughter today as a 12- year-old, thriving kid in sixth grade, there is absolutely no difference. Kate was a person then, she's a person now. And we need to protect the innocent life. And ultrasounds made available to women who are pregnant only are common sense. Again, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for spearheading this important debate, and I yield back the floor. Thank you.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my colleagues and the Nation to a constituent of the 22nd District and a true American hero. His name is Army First Lieutenant Nicholas Eslinger, ``Nick,'' from the great town of Missouri City, Texas, and his actions on the battlefield of Iraq are nothing short of extraordinary. While serving as a platoon leader during Operation Iraqi Freedom in Samarra during a dismounted patrol, First Lieutenant Eslinger and his men were attacked. When the enemy threw a grenade at his men, Lieutenant Eslinger didn't dive for cover, he dove at the grenade, picked it up, and, like a Nolan Ryan fastball, threw it back at the enemy. While his quick reaction saved the lives of his men, Lieutenant Eslinger wasn't finished. Like a true Texan, he took off after the enemy combatant, eventually leading to the enemy combatant's arrest and detention. For his quick thinking and courageous action, Lieutenant Eslinger was awarded our country's second highest combat award, the Silver Star. This past Saturday I had the privilege and the opportunity to visit Nick, along with his mother Donna, his father Bruce, his brother Danny, and many neighbors and friends at their home in Missouri City. Before leaving, Lieutenant Eslinger gave me a unit medallion of the Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne, commonly referred to as ``No Slack.'' It is something I am honored to have received and something I will carry with me with pride for the rest of my life. Yesterday my State celebrated the 173rd anniversary of the Texas Declaration of Independence. Early in our fight for independence, at the Battle of Gonzalez, the Mexican army tried to seize the town's only cannon. The volunteers of Gonzalez, facing a much larger professional military force, might have been smart to hand over that cannon. Instead, they raised a flag that said ``Come and Take It.'' In Lieutenant Eslinger's brave actions, I see the same spirit of defiance in the face of violence and the refusal to be intimidated that helped my State to achieve its independence. Among thousands of other men and women who make sacrifices and perform courageous deeds for their country, perhaps some at this very moment, Lieutenant Eslinger's actions are worthy of special recognition, and I am proud to do so today. Nick, thank you for the coin. Thank you for your service. God bless you and your family.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, with employment hitting unprecedented highs, it is critical that Congress act quickly and responsibly to turn the economy around. Unfortunately, many of my Democratic colleagues continue to play partisan politics with our children's and our grandchildren's future. Apparently the backers of the stimulus bill believe that any government spending can be justified as an economic stimulus. The result in both this Chamber and the Senate is a bill larded with spending on Democratic policy priorities that will not impact the economy for years, if at all. Republicans have put forth a real solution, one that provides targeted tax relief to hardworking Americans, and provides economic relief to allow businesses to invest in themselves and rebuild our economy. As the President has said, the decisions we make now will have long- term consequences on our future and future generations. At the very least, we owe those future generations a thoughtful debate and objective economic justifications for our actions.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge the passage of the bill and yield back the balance of my time.