Mike Pompeo

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I submit this letter of support from the International Association of Machinists on H.R. 1848, the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Upper Marlboro, MD, July 16, 2013. Dear Representative: As the largest union in the general aviation industry, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) strongly supports the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013, H.R. 1848. This bipartisan legislation will provide much needed support to an often over looked, but important sector of the U.S. aerospace industry. After an extensive review of the current regulatory structure that garnered input from government and industry experts, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Rulemaking Committee developed the recommendations that form the basis for H.R. 1848. Under this legislation, the FAA will modernize the regulatory structure for small, certified aircraft--commonly referred to as Part 23 Aircraft by the end of 2015. Modernizing the existing cumbersome regulatory structure and process will have the beneficial effect of improving safety while stimulating much needed investment. I urge your support of this important legislation. It will make general aviation safer and help grow an industry that has been a source of good paying American jobs. If you have any questions, please contact Legislative Director Hasan Solomon. Sincerely, R. Thomas Buffenbarger, International President.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the general aviation industry and ask my fellow Members to support the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act. This commonsense, broadly bipartisan regulatory reform bill will spur economic growth, improve aviation safety, and help strengthen the health of the lighter, entry-level segment of the industry. Mr. Speaker, there is no better reason to support this legislation than it saves lives and improves lives. Think about that. We can do both in one fell swoop. Let's first talk about how the bill improves lives. I represent Wichita, Kansas. It is the Air Capital of the World. It is home to Cessna and Learjet and Beechcraft and dozens and dozens and dozens of suppliers to those great aviation businesses with such great aviation histories. It's the home of the National Institute for Aviation Research and the National Center for Aviation Training. There are engineers, machinists, researchers, flight instructors, fixed base operators, among others, that all depend on a healthy general aviation industry. And then there are the operators in the industry and general aviation. This vital productivity tool for both small and large companies is critically important. Sixteen years ago, I joined the Kansas general aviation industry, building a business with three of my colleagues, founding a company called Thayer Aerospace, a machine shop in Wichita, Kansas. We made parts for the thriving aircraft industry, but the downturn in 2008 was a tremendous blow to Wichita, in particular, and general aviation, more generally. We experienced thousands and thousands of layoffs and dramatic downsizing all across the region. The downturn exacerbated the unique challenges that the lighter, entry-level segment of general aviation had been experiencing over the past several decades. Today, the average general aviation airplane is 40 years old. That means most of the new aircraft were built in the 1960s and 1970s, with designs of that same vintage. Current general aviation production represents less than 2 percent of the existing fleet. We've had an over 10,000-person-per-year decline in active private pilots over this last decade. The steady decline in new pilots, flight activity, and the sales of new small general aviation airplanes that result from that are indicators of significant problems in the industry. To tackle this problem, this bill, the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act, requires the FAA to implement the FAA's part 23 certification process and modernize it no later than 2015. The FAA Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), composed of aviation authorities and industry representatives from around the world, has worked over the last 18 months to create a regulatory environment that will contribute to revitalizing the health and safety of new and existing airplanes. These changes will remove lots and lots of barriers and it will improve lives. Let me tell you how it will save lives. The gentleman from Wisconsin talked about safety and innovation being retarded by the absence of a streamlined regulatory process. He spoke of this example of ``loss of control.'' That creates more than three times the cause of aviation accidents than any other single cause. Since the dawn of aviation, we've taught pilots how to avoid that; but because they remain a significant safety problem, there's tremendous interest in technology and interventions to resolve it. And yet today's part 23 makes that more difficult. By putting these technologies into the new and existing fleet, it's widely believed that the safety of light general aviation aircraft could see dramatic improvements. We need to cut this red tape. It will create savings for sure, but, more importantly, it will save lives. This is a commonsense and important reform. America's general aviation industry is not asking for a single handout, not one subsidy. It's simply asking for a streamlined set of regulations that will permit them to get their airplanes, their designs to market more quickly, and still doing so safely. I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman LoBiondo for their support, and my original cosponsors, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Graves of Missouri, and Mr. Rokita, and all the folks of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on both sides of the aisle that have allowed this bill to get this far and make it to the floor. I urge support of all of my colleagues this evening and hope we'll have a unanimous vote on behalf of this bill.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. There are a few facts that I think are appropriate to bring to this debate. I oppose this amendment vigorously. Just 2 weeks ago I was down at Guantanamo Bay on a trip that was part of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. I will tell you that the soldiers and marines and airmen of Joint Task Force Gitmo are taking tremendous care of the facilities, our assets and the detainees. Those who suggest that this facility should go away will create a problem that is worse than the one that we have today. This amendment is simply a pattern of appeasement that does not comport with the fact that radical Islamic terrorists will not cease to attack us simply because we wish they would go away. A few more facts. If we close Guantanamo Bay, we try to release them to countries that will accept them, we know that at least a quarter of them will return to the battlefield. We could bring them back to the United States, where they'd go to civilian courts, and undoubtedly some of them would end up walking the streets of the United States. One of the final facts, and one that I've heard said in support of this amendment, is that if we simply close this facility that recruiting for radical extremists will diminish. This seems illogical. There's no support for such a statement. They will continue to attack us whether we keep this open or closed. This facility is legal, it's just, and it is an important national asset.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Economic growth of just over 1\1/2\ percent is unsatisfactory. We all want a better economy and better jobs. In south central Kansas, the aviation manufacturing industry has been hit particularly hard. Machinists, engineers, small business owners, and families are very worried about what their future might hold. That's why I've offered bipartisan legislation offered in the Senate by Senator Klobuchar which will reduce the burden on manufacturers who are building airplanes in the United States of America, trying to compete with global companies all across the world. The Small Aircraft Revitalization Act, H.R. 1848, would greatly reduce that burden and help manufacturers all across south central Kansas and indeed all across America to get their products to market faster so that we can compete and provide aircraft, great tools for all businesses, to compete all around the world. It will replace an outdated certification system and greatly ease the burden on those who are trying to build these great products here in the United States. This bill would ensure that this industry can continue to thrive in the years and decades ahead.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, it's been just under 2 months since the attacks in Boston, and in those intervening weeks, the silence of Muslim leaders has been deafening. And that is sad, but perhaps most importantly, it's dangerous. There have now been at least a dozen attacks by Muslim terrorists on U.S. soil since Ramzi Yousef's parked rental van exploded in the basement of the World Trade Center on February 26 of 1993. Some have caused death and injury, such as the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and Nidal Hasan's mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. Other attacks, such as Faisal Shahzad's fizzled Times Square bombing, or the unsuccessful underwear bombing of a flight, were thwarted or aborted. But yet, fatal or not, all of these attacks were successful in scaring Americans, successful in reducing our freedom in the most freedom-loving Nation on Earth, successful in slowing our economy, and successful in demonstrating that an open society can potentially be vulnerable. They were, in former Attorney General Mike Mukasey's words, ``crimes that are nonetheless meant to send a terrorist message.'' When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith. Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts and, more importantly still, in those that may well follow. If a religion claims to be one of peace, Mr. Speaker, its leaders must reject violence that is perpetrated in its name. Some clerics today suggest that modern jihad is nonviolent, and is only about making oneself a better Muslim. Perhaps that's true for moderate Muslims. But extremists seek to revive the era when most Islamic clerics understood jihad to be holy war. Mr. Speaker, decades of Middle Eastern oil money have propounded this more extreme, violent interpretation in mosques around the world. Less than 2 months after the 9/11 atrocities, an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood preacher, who is probably the most influential Sunni cleric today, declared suicide bombing to be legitimate. He said, ``these are heroic commando and martyrdom attacks and should not be called suicide.'' So what is it that these Islamic leaders must say? First, that there is never any justification for terrorism. No political goal legitimizes terrorism. Terrorism is never excusable as resistance. Imams must state unequivocally that terrorists' actions, killing and maiming, sully Islam. They must also publicly and repeatedly denounce radical clerics who seek to justify terrorism. There is a battle of interpretation within Islam. It's not enough to deny responsibility by saying one's own interpretation doesn't support terrorism. Moderate imams must strive to ensure that no Muslim finds solace for terrorism in the Koran. They must cite the Koran as evidence that the murder of innocents is not permitted by good, believing Muslims, and must immediately refute all claims to the contrary. Finally, Muslim leaders must say that there is no room for militant Islamism in the religion of peace. These statements must be made publicly, frequently and in the mosques, yes, in the mosques and in the madrassas, where many learn their Islamic religion. You know, we have to call evil by its name in order to stamp it out. Downplaying atrocities and rampages ensures more of them. Every Muslim leader must unequivocally proclaim that terror committed in the name of Islam violates the core tenets of the Prophet Mohammed, and they must do so repeatedly, period. My own faith has occasionally been hijacked in the name of violence and cruelty, including in Kansas, my home State, by Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. In response, hundreds of Protestant ministers preach that Mr. Phelps' actions violate the most fundamental Christian traditions, and they have denounced him and his church's evil acts. Pope John Paul II similarly apologized, in 2000, for the Catholic Church's failure to do more to speak out against the evils of Nazism, and to protect Jews from the Holocaust. Just as these religious leaders have called up those who have killed and acted brutally in the name of their faith, so too must Muslim religious leaders refute terrorist theology. We're now 2 decades into Islamic radicals attacking Americans on U.S. soil. I know that not every Muslim supports these actions. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy has spoken out in a clear and consistent way. So has Zainab al-Suwaij of the American Islamic Congress. But the silence in the face of extremism coming from the best-funded Islamic advocacy organizations and many mosques across America is absolutely deafening. It casts doubt upon the commitment to peace by adherents of the Muslim faith. This is utterly unacceptable, it is dangerous, it must end.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on May 17, I missed rollcall votes numbered 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, and 160 because I was in Kansas. Rollcall No. 155 was a vote on the Previous Question. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 156 was a vote on the rule for H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory and Accountability Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 157 was a vote on an amendment to H.R. 1062 offered by Representative Hurt to express the sense of Congress that rules adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) comply with the same standards required of the SEC, and requires the SEC to ensure that any rules adopted by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), and other national securities associations comply with the standards set forth in the bill. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 158 was a vote on an amendment to H.R. 1062 offered by Representative Maloney to strike all text after the enacting clause and insert findings and a sense of Congress that the SEC is already required to conduct economic analysis as part of its rulemaking. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 159 was a vote on a motion to recommit H.R. 1062. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 160 was a vote on passage of H.R. 1062. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, I had the good fortune of being in Rosalia, Kansas, at the high school graduation for Flinthills High. Flinthills High has 11 strong graduating in 2013, but it was remarkable. With all the challenges the country faces, we had young people going to be nurses, young people entering our Nation's Army National Guard. We had a young man who was off to attend school but who knew that he was going to be coming back to help his father and mother on the farm. With all of the challenges we face today, it was incredibly heartening to see this next generation of leaders being raised in the heartland. Congratulations to those 11, six young women and five young men. Go, Mustangs.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for all of their hard work over many months, now years, in bringing this to where we are today, and I want to thank all of the committee staff who worked so hard to bring it to this point as well. I'd like to keep things pretty simple. If there were a sergeant from the Chinese People's Liberation Army inside one of our power plants or inside one of our banks and if they were trying to steal stuff and if they were looking around, trying to figure out how to get in and how to access our systems or to take property or to do damage to our power grid, the American people would demand that the government do whatever it could, and they would be thrilled to learn that that company was permitted and, indeed, protected if it decided to share with others that potential threat to its piece of the infrastructure. That's what we're doing today. The world has changed just a little bit. In just this last month, the last M-1 tank left Europe. It's the first time we haven't had a tank in Europe since D-day when the great Kansan invaded on the great quest to free us from Nazi totalitarian domination. There are no tanks. We fight in a different world today. We use the word ``cyber,'' and sometimes folks forget what we're really talking about. We're talking about nation-states trying to do terrible harm to American interests, to American property and, indeed, to American civil liberties. Now, in the last minute I have here, I want to talk about a couple of myths that have arisen about this piece of legislation. When I first learned about it, I, too, shared some of the concerns about what might be happening, about what might take place here. I offered an amendment last year, which is now incorporated into the bill, along with dozens of such amendments, to make sure belt-and-suspenders that we protected civil liberties. I've heard the myth propagated that this piece of legislation violates contract rights, that somehow through CISPA we're going to take away the ability of people to negotiate privately for contractual things that they want. I don't know how that could be. This bill is purely voluntary. It mandates that no one participate. It simply allows businesses to voluntarily participate and share information they have about attacks that have been foisted upon them. I've heard a second myth that this will authorize warrantless searches across the United States of America.

Mr. POMPEO. There's talk about warrantless searches all across America. The legislation does no such thing. It's a short bill. It's 26 pages. I would urge everyone to go read it for themselves. It fairly clearly limits what government may do, what information government may receive. It limits what private companies can share with government and amongst themselves. It limits what government can do with that information once it is received. It has greatly capped what is going on here. Its design is simple: it is to make sure that all of the information about direct attacks on America are widely known, easily disseminated, and available for all to help in the protection of the American state. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on April 11, I missed rollcall votes numbered 97, 98, and 99 because I was at the White House on official business. Rollcall No. 97 was a vote on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 146, To Provide for Consideration of H.R. 1120, Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relation. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 98 was a vote on agreeing to H. Res. 146, To Provide for Consideration of H.R. 1120, Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor- Management Relation. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall No. 99 was a vote on Approving the Journal. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. It is an honor today to tell you about one really good man. He was born in Pilson, Kansas, and later became an ordained priest in Wichita in 1940. This very good man, a fellow named Emil Kapaun, served as a military chaplain during World War II and again in September 1948, this time entering the Korean battlefield with his unit, the 3rd Battalion of the 8th Cavalry Regiment of the 1st Cavalry Division. There we saw what comes of a good man when placed in dangerous times. Father Kapaun became a hero. He died after saving hundreds of lives on the battlefield and in a prisoner of war camp, having dedicated himself to the physical and spiritual health of his fellow prisoners for a very long time. Tomorrow, President Obama will bestow upon Father Kapaun, this very good man, the Medal of Honor, America's highest military honor. I want to take this moment to recognize his fellow POWs who never wavered in an effort to secure this medal for Father Kapaun, to the Catholic Diocese of Wichita, and everyone else who has worked so hard for this recognition. Finally, I want to thank the fellow Members of this body who supported my provision in the NDAA to allow a waiver for the statutory time exception so that he could receive this award. Father Kapaun is a true American hero, a hero of mankind and so deserving of this Medal of Honor.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, we're now some 11 weeks out from the tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. And while all the talk today is about the sequester, we still have politicians and pundits all across the country that are purporting to try and solve this epidemic of gun violence with new rules taking away guns from ordinary citizens. Unfortunately--and this is humbling for many in politics--no law or set of laws can possibly address in a meaningful way all of the challenges that we face today with a violent America. In fact, we face a much deeper, more malignant problem. It's a culture that degrades and cheapens life. That's why I continue to be disappointed to hear the President propose further gun control. The President's plan isn't so much an attempt to solve a problem as an attempt to fulfill a wish list for gun control advocates. Unfortunately, for the American people, an opportunity for a real national dialogue on the root causes of this type of violence is being missed. I've heard from hundreds of Kansans on the issue of gun control, and the vast majority of them understand that Washington restricting their Second Amendment rights will do very little to end the violence in our society or to improve the safety of their families or in their schools of their children.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, when I go around in Kansas and talk to folks and talk to them about a business that supports 1.2 million American jobs and over $150 billion of wealth creation across the U.S. economy and ask, ``What do you think a President would do if they knew about an industry like that?'' they'd all say the same thing folks all across the country would say. They'd say that the President ought to encourage that, ought to thank the people that work in that industry, and ought to promote that industry all across the world, a great American- manufactured product doing great things in America. Yet, that industry, the general aviation industry, is used by our President as a rhetorical punching bag. Everywhere he goes, he talks about corporate fat-cat jet owners and those rich, wealthy people flying around in corporate airplanes. Well, I know what this industry does. I came from this industry. I know precisely who these people are. When you use language like that and you talk about an American manufacturing industry in that way, you're talking about welders, you're talking about union mechanics, and you're talking about all the support people that work at fixed-base operations all across the country. You're talking about good, hardworking Americans, not corporate fat-cat jet owners. Yet this President continues in the same way that he has. I had hoped that I wouldn't have to come back and talk about it again, but I anticipate that tonight, from this very Chamber, we'll hear about those same corporate fat-cat jet owners yet again. The general aviation industry doesn't ask for a handout, and it doesn't need what Detroit received. It only asks that a President acknowledge and recognize the importance of this industry. It creates aircraft that are used by small businessowners all across the Nation to get to places they need to be. Every week, I fly on commercial aircraft from here back to Wichita, Kansas. It's no easy task. If you want to get to two or three of your suppliers or four or five of your customers in a day located all throughout the heartland, the most efficient tool to use to do that is a general aviation airplane. And, of course, we know the President understands that, Mr. Speaker. He flies around in the nicest personal aircraft in the history of the world, actually built in Wichita, Kansas. And government employees use general aviation aircraft to travel all around the country. They do so because it is an efficient means of conducting their business. Now, when the President talks about these corporate fat-cat jet owners, he's doing so because he says he wants to close a loophole, he wants to generate more money coming to Washington, D.C., and he talks about this subsidy. We looked long and hard to find out what subsidy it was he was referring to. Frankly, we think it is a depreciation schedule--a depreciation schedule--something that every asset in America is subject to. Yet, somehow, he has picked on this particular depreciation schedule as offensive and antithetical to the American way of life. Mr. President, the revenue that is generated in 1 year if we eliminated the provision about which we think you're speaking, Mr. Speaker, would generate enough revenue to run the government for a single day--1 day. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the President continues to use this language of class warfare against an industry that has created so many tens of thousands of jobs all across our country. It is unexplainable why anyone would be critical of this industry. The President has also proposed a new tax, a general aviation fee, of $100 per flight segment, which would require an entire new bureaucracy to implement and to execute. It is incomprehensible to me why anyone would think that was the right approach. Mr. Speaker, I have invited the President of the United States to come to Wichita, Kansas, to see Beechcraft, to see Cessna, and to see Learjet and to see all the suppliers and all of the people who work so hard to make these airplanes. He has not taken me up on that yet, Mr. Speaker. I urge that he do so. But, sadly, if he continues to decline and continues to talk about this industry in the way that he does, he will not suffer, but tens of thousands of Americans who work on these airplanes all across the country will. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the President will change his direction, change his course of action, and recognize the value of this important industry.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Today, I stand here on the 40th anniversary of one of the worst decisions of our United States Supreme Court. It was deeply flawed. Too many Justices spoke of emanations of penumbras but missed the core principle contained in the Constitution: this notion that every human being is endowed with this special dignity that we call life. The cost of that decision has been enormous: 55 million souls were not brought into this world. We can feel it in families torn asunder and in lives that didn't get to become the next great leaders in our Nation. These lives were lost to each of us. They're lost to the families. They're lost to our community. They're lost to their Maker. But I want to talk today about hope. Ever since this decision in 1973, there's been a march. And I was in the Army. When you march, you march to victory. We've had this special march. We'll have this march again this week. We'll have it in Kansas. Kansas has a very special relationship to this march. In 1991, in Wichita, Kansas, the city which I represent, we held the Summer of Mercy, where people came together in peace to talk about these lives that should have been protected but had not been. And this week, the airlines permitting, I'll be back to watch young people from all across south central Kansas board buses bound for Washington, D.C. I'll see them off from churches and cathedrals and synagogues, folks coming to Washington, D.C., to once again march on this town to demand that we do everything we can in our power here in Washington, D.C., to protect every human life. I'm very proud of the rich history and the contribution that the citizens of the Fourth District of Kansas have made to this movement. It is certainly important to me as a matter of faith. But as a matter of science, we have this one right as well. We must protect every unborn life. I'm dedicated to doing so. I look forward to being with that next generation, these young people coming to Washington, D.C., so this fight can continue.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Today, I rise to talk about a bird, the Lesser Prairie Chicken. Actually, it's not about the bird; it's about jobs. I happen to represent Cassoday, Kansas, the American capital of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. The Environmental Protection Agency and this administration are about to do great harm to the bird but, more importantly, present great risk to energy exploration all across America. They want to put the Lesser Prairie Chicken under the Endangered Species Act. The impact of this decision will be enormous on our burgeoning domestic energy industry. Millions of public acres could be closed to exploration, and a labyrinth of bureaucratic nightmares awaits any investor foolish enough to explore land that might be home to even one Lesser Prairie Chicken. The uncertainty that listing this bird would create will discourage investments where they are most needed in our country. It's time to find a practical, realistic solution to protect our environment and spur economic growth, but manipulating the Endangered Species Act and exploiting the Lesser Prairie Chicken is simply wrong.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the 1,300 citizens of Buhler, Kansas--and indeed all Kansans--and in fact all Americans who value religious freedom and religious liberty. The citizens of Buhler are under assault. They are the latest victims of an ungodly extortion racket perpetrated by the Freedom from Religion Foundation based in Madison, Wisconsin. On September 14, 2012, the Freedom from Religion Foundation sent a letter to the mayor of the town of Buhler, Daniel Friesen, alerting him to the foundation's intent to sue the city for its city seal, which contained a cross, and for a billboard that included elements of that city seal that was in a city park. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. The seal and sign are harming no one; they are widely embraced by the citizens of Buhler, Kansas. The seal contains the words ``traditional values'' and ``progressive ideas.'' Unfortunately, in this case, progressive ideas are making war on traditional values, and it's high time for that to stop. Some will claim that the First Amendment to the Constitution requires the cross to be removed from this seal and sign. That's hogwash. The First Amendment begins with the words: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' In this instance, Congress made no law. For that reason alone the First Amendment does not apply. Furthermore, it cannot be said that this simple seal in any way is an establishment of religion; meaning that there is no officially supported sect or denomination here in the manner that some of the American colonies had. This is not in any way an endorsement of any particular religion or any religious denomination. In short, the First Amendment, as originally written, has nothing to do with this city's sign. Indeed, for the first 175 years of our constitutional history, no one would have read the First Amendment in any way that would have prevented this seal or this sign. Mr. Speaker, in this very room in which I stand, this very Chamber, right over my right-hand shoulder is a sign that says ``In God We Trust.'' Near the rotunda of the Capitol is the Congressional Prayer Room, a chapel that's been in use since 1955 as a place where Members go to pray for divine guidance in debating the issues of the day. A stained glass window there shows President George Washington kneeling in prayer and the words of Psalm 16:1 surround him: ``Preserve me, O God, for in thee do I put my trust.'' And a Holy Bible rests on the alter beneath that window in this very building. Of course I grant you that the First Amendment has been badly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, the 10th Circuit's rulings are even more troubling. It could well be that in this case the city would lose this case. I don't fault the citizens of Buhler, Kansas, for the process that they're going through in trying to figure out how to proceed. Indeed, the Freedom from Religion Foundation knows this. They know that they've attacked a city, threatened to sue a city with very few resources. We will have a very difficult time battling an extended period of litigation. I do not fault the folks in Buhler at all for trying to figure out a way to move forward without resulting in litigation. But why didn't the Freedom from Religion Foundation sue the United States Congress for all that I spoke about just a minute ago? The reason is obvious. The reason is they are being bullies. They are seeking to put their secular vision in a place where they believe they can do it without opposition, a place that has fewer resources. Folks will face a very, very difficult decision about how the town and the city should move forward. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this assault on religion in the public square will end soon. I am very saddened by the recent events in Buhler, Kansas. I am angered by the extortionary tactics of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. And, above all, I am determined to ensure that the religious heritage of our great Nation will not be cast aside.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you think of coal and jobs, you don't necessarily think of Kansas. But in Kansas we depend on affordable, abundant energy to build airplanes, to grow crops--all of the things that come with affordable energy. This legislation stopping the President's war on coal is important to jobs not only in coal country, but in Kansas and everyplace. We're trying for economic growth all across the country. It's simply implausible to imagine how you can regulate an industry and try and shut down any new coal-fired power plants, and then try and take money and subsidize it and think you've got good energy policy all across America. It should come as no surprise that we have 23 million people out of work, economic growth under 2 percent, and these EPA regulations that continue, one on top of another, are a primary cause of that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to come down to support this piece of legislation. It's important to America and to the taxpayers to protect them. I want to thank Chairman Stearns and Chairman Upton for letting me participate in this important investigation. Just yesterday, two facts that I think support us completely in passing this legislation. Yesterday, that conservative jewel, The New York Times, reported that Mr. Spinner, who was critical to pushing this loan guarantee through when the Obama administration was inclined to reject it but kept pushing and whose wife was counsel to the company, was reported by The New York Times to be the number 10 bundler for this administration. Also yesterday, we had a hearing in which we saw that America has the opportunity to become energy independent within the next decade if the Federal Government will just get out of the way and stop picking winners and losers as we have done with these Department of Energy loan guarantees for far too long. I'm confident that we can move away from this program. I'd urge all of my colleagues to support it. The conservative groups of the American Conservative Union, AFP, Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage Action, Let Freedom Ring, and the National Taxpayers Union have all submitted letters in support of this legislation. It's time to end this loan guarantee program, and we should do it today.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the Rapid Innovation Fund and save the taxpayers over $250 million. As a veteran, I know how important it is that we use every single dollar that goes to our Department of Defense in an intelligent way. This fund, this Rapid Innovation Fund, has never been requested by the Pentagon. This is money that the Pentagon doesn't say that it wants. It was created in the FY 2011 Defense bill in response, frankly, to the loss of earmarks here in the House of Representatives. So far the Appropriations Committee has put over $700 million in 2 years into this fund, and yet to date the Department of Defense has spent only $32.5 million of the $700 million already appropriate and provided. But instead of waiting to see if the fund is working and if it could be successful and of any value to the warfighter, this year the committee is pushing for another $250 million of taxpayer money to go into the so-called Rapid Innovation Fund. I urge my colleagues to reject this effort. First of all, the Pentagon, as I said, never asked for this money. Four DOD agencies declined an invitation to even participate in the fund. There is clearly no one in the military clamoring for what is essentially a slush fund. With sequestration looming, now is the time to make tough choices, not to add $250 million of wasteful spending. We must focus our very scarce resources on validated military requirements. Second, this Rapid Innovation Fund is neither rapid, nor innovative. The fund allows the Department of Federal Acquisition Regulations Procedures to move forward--just as they do for any other procurement process. The first contracts took over a year to be signed. I don't find anything rapid about that. In addition, this fund simply doles out money to projects that are similar to those previously supported by the now-discredited earmark system. There's nothing innovative about that either. Let me be clear: this fund was created by Congress because Congress ended earmarks, and some have wanted a way to have earmark-type projects continue to receive government money. This fund is, third, wasteful and unnecessary. The DOD base budget is well over $500 billion--built through a time-honored and trusted process to ensure the needs of our warfighters. This fund, however, is completely outside of this process and therefore advances projects that have not been validated and are not proven in this same manner. Finally, the fund itself is unproven. Only $30 million and change has been spent on this fund and there is no data demonstrating that this fund holds any value to our military or to our taxpayers. But even if it does, there's still $670 million sitting in the fund today. Why not just wait? At the current spending rate, there's over 10 years' worth of funds still available. Why put $250 million more of taxpayer money at risk? As a Congress, we have to be willing to make tough choices--certainly in our DOD budget. But this one isn't even tough. We can't just throw good money in the hole and hope it helps our Nation's defense. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMPEO. I just say to the chairman, I'm not urging anyone to rush out and spend this money. I'm urging this money to stay in the pockets of the taxpayers because the Department of Defense has not asked for it. All of the things that have been spoken to, these good ideas, I was a small business owner. I made airplane parts for 10 years. I don't want anybody to rush out and spend the money. I want to leave it in the taxpayers' pockets, where the Department of Defense believes it should be.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, the legislation we'll vote on before too long, has three very simple missions. The first is to lower and create affordable energy for folks all across America. The second is to create the jobs that go with it. And, finally, it's to begin to put American energy policy back on a commonsense, simple standard that allows affordable energy to be produced here in America by Americans for Americans. You know, we've seen in these discussions, these debates, that there are two opposing views on how to do this. The first is the view of the folks on the other side who think if we just had one more rule, one more set of regulations, another subsidy, another handout from the taxpayers, we here in Washington, D.C. could find that next great affordable energy source. We've seen how that's worked. We've got gasoline at $3.50 a gallon. We've got utilities all across the country asking for rate increases. There's another view. There's another way to go about it. It's to let the market respond to price signals. It's to get the Federal Government out of the way, to reduce regulations across the board while making sure that we've still got safe drinking water and clean air. Both of these objectives can be accomplished. This legislation simply streamlines and simplifies the leasing and permitting processes on Federal lands to make sure that consumers have access to affordable American energy. We have tremendous opportunities right here in America. Right in Kansas' Fourth Congressional District, in Harper and Kingman and Stafford and Edwards and Barber and Pratt, all over south central Kansas, an enormous new opportunity, creating real, affordable energy produced by Americans with American jobs. We also, through this legislation, say if we're going to tap this important American resource, the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we're going to make sure and replenish it--again, with American affordable energy. This is one of the most consumer-friendly, ratepayer-friendly, taxpayer pieces of energy legislation to reach the House floor in a long time, and I would urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.