Mike Pompeo

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, simply put, H.R. 1599 does not prohibit local governments from passing and enforcing bans on cultivation of genetically engineered crops. Similarly, it does not do that with respect to tribal sovereignty either. The bill before us applies only to the food use and labels. There is nothing in this legislation that any opponent can point to that suggests or implies interference with State or local ordinances related to plant cultivation, period. Likewise, the preemption provision that the amendment seeks to modify only applies to States and political subdivisions thereof. Tribal lands are sovereign. They are not affected. If the amendment sponsor wishes only to clarify sovereign rights of tribal governments on their land, then we would be happy to work with him, but the structure of this amendment appears to provide tribal governments with some level of authority over land outside of their boundaries. This may or may not have been the intended purpose of the amendment, but it has serious unintended consequences. I urge the sponsor to withdraw this amendment and allow us the opportunity to work together to address their concerns. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, the language is very clear. It says that ``no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce any requirement with respect to genetically engineered plants for a use or application of food that is not identical to the requirement of section 461 of the Plant Protection Act.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, nothing in this amendment will impact tribal sovereignty one iota. It talks about States and political subdivisions. That doesn't apply in any way to tribal land. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would completely gut the primary purpose of the legislation before us today. In order to prevent a patchwork of 50 different labeling laws for genetically engineered ingredients, preemption is necessary to protect interstate commerce. Of course, we have heard a lot today about states' rights, but the Founders understood what was important about interstate commerce. They knew that local governments were at risk of trying to put in place rules that favored local activities; so they accounted for this. They created what is called the Interstate Commerce Clause. It is right there in the Constitution, and it is pretty darned clear. It was about trade between the States. It said that the Federal Government shall have the authority to regulate this trade. It is important that we do this today, but this amendment would deny us the capacity to do that. Current State labeling initiatives include a number of varying exemptions, loopholes, and caveats, making it very confusing for not only food producers, but for consumers to understand what it is they are truly consuming. H.R. 1599 builds on this idea of a uniform standard to provide clarity and consistency to consumers that they can depend upon, regardless of where they shop for food. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would put us right back where we are today, with a patchwork of laws confusing consumers and making it difficult on American food companies to compete around the world to feed the next billion people. This amendment would drive up the cost of food for every consumer in the United States of America by relegating them to the set of patchwork rules, which would drive costs throughout the food safety and supply chain. We have heard today that this puts farmers at risk, it makes life for farmers difficult. We have heard from Representatives from Maine who said that, and yet the Maine Beverage Association and the Maine Potato Board both endorsed this legislation. We have heard that this will hurt Oregon farmers and Oregon consumers, and yet the Oregon Farm Bureau, the Oregon Feed and Grain Association, the Oregon Potato Commission, the Oregon Retail Council, the Oregon Seed Association, the Oregon Wheat Growers League, and Oregonians for Food & Shelter endorsed this bill. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will gut this entire legislation. It takes away the important balance that has been struck in order to make sure that, in fact, consumers do have the right to know. We have heard these vague epithets trying to rename this bill the DARK Act, Denying Americans the Right to Know, but as a good conservative, I can promise you, this bill doesn't deny any consumer any right to know what is in their food product. If a consumer, like my cousin, who likes her non-GMO food, wants to continue to feed that to herself and her family, when this bill becomes law, she will still be able to do so. I would never deny any American the right to know what is in their food. This is about freedom and consumer choice and affordability. Our bill will achieve that, and this amendment would destroy that. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 424 I was unable to cast my vote in person due to a previously scheduled engagement. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue that is incredibly important not only to America, but to the folks who I represent in south central Kansas. We need to make sure that in south central Kansas we have the opportunity to access markets all over the world and to sell the great products that we make. Mr. Speaker, it sometimes sounds like just statistics, but in 2014, $12 billion in goods from over 3,000 companies were exported outside of Kansas. In the Fourth District alone, over $3.8 billion was exported, making Wichita and south central Kansas one of the three top exporting metros in the entire United States of America. When you visit Wichita, you can see that. If you travel around south central Kansas, you will find great aerospace companies, companies like Learjet, Cessna, Beechcraft, and Airbus, manufacturing goods that are sold all across the world. They need access to these markets overseas. We make the 737 fuselage right in Wichita, Kansas. And we all know the hundreds of small businesses that supply them, machine shops like DJ Engineering and McGinty Machine, that hire hundreds of people in good-paying jobs that are dependent on the capacity for south central Kansas to ship their products around the world, companies like Rubbermaid and Case New Holland that makes farm equipment and Coleman that makes camping goods. This doesn't begin to mention all the petroleum products that move out of Kansas. And, of course, we sell lots of agricultural products as well. Kansas is the top exporter of wheat, with over $1.5 billion per year. It ranks second in the export of meat products and third in cattle. International trade is incredibly important to the people of south central Kansas. These aren't just numbers. These are about real, hard- working Kansans and good-paying jobs. We need to make sure, here in Congress, that we provide outlines for our President to go negotiate deals with both Europe and Asia such that companies like Excel that makes lawn mowing equipment in Hesston, Kansas, can continue to grow. It is their objective to double over the next 5 years. They cannot do so without the capacity to sell their products into Europe and to Asia. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is much controversy about some pieces of trade promotion authority in some of the trade agreements. I have read the document as it currently stands. I can assure everyone who is listening today that this Congress will retain its full authority to approve every agreement that is entered into to make sure that it is, in fact, in the best interests of reducing taxes, reducing tariffs, and reducing regulatory barriers so that Americans and Kansans can sell their products all across the globe. Sometimes the word ``trade'' gets bandied about, but what it really means is the capacity for innovation, creativity, the rule of law, and competitiveness to triumph around the world. Those are the hallmarks of the people of south central Kansas. If we get these trade agreements right, we can enhance the lives of so many folks all across the Fourth District of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting passage of trade promotion authority when it comes before the House for a full vote. It is about trade, which is about jobs, which is so important for the American people.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Captain Christopher Lee Norgren, Wichita, Kansas, Kansas' Fourth Congressional District.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, today, this body will take up the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. It has the noble intention of reducing the risk that the Iranians will develop a nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, I think passage of this bill will do just the opposite. Mr. Speaker, Ben Rhodes, the President's Deputy National Security Adviser, has said that the Iranian nuclear deal is President Obama's second-term ObamaCare. He meant that as a good thing, but we all know what a disaster that law has been for this country. And in reality, the Iranian nuclear deal, as it is being negotiated by this President, is far worse for the American people and for future generations than that healthcare law could ever be. This much-heralded framework agreement between the P5+1 and Iran that the President has talked about has never been written down. Everyone in this Chamber today knows exactly what the ultimate deal will entail, though. The United States and the international community will release Iran from its crushing sanctions in exchange for nearly nothing. Let's be blunt. Iran will continue on the path of getting a nuclear weapon if this agreement is ultimately signed; but, instead of asserting congressional authority and constraining the President, the House today is considering a bill that will do just the opposite. It will give President Obama a blank check to sign a really bad deal with the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. The mullahs will be allowed to enrich uranium and to continue to build their missile program. It is unconscionable for Congress to grant such sweeping power to President Obama, allowing him to lift sanctions on Iran, no matter the cost to our national security, the security of Israel, and the entire world. Even worse, the House is willing to do this today without having even one hearing, one amendment, a grand total of 40 minutes of debate about how we might actually reduce the risk to the world by constraining the President and the agreement he intends to sign. The House is giving this to the President without even trying. I can't be part of that. We can't even use the excuse of timing. The President says we have until at least June 30 before any deal can be struck. On this immensely important issue, an issue that my colleagues tell me is one of the most important facing our Nation--and I certainly agree with that--we will give too short a shrift and move too quickly without doing all that we can. For 35 years, since our Embassy in Tehran was taken over for 444 days by the Iranians, they have been killing Americans. They have killed my friends with IEDs in Iraq by the hundreds. Today, Shia militias run rampant through that country. They talk of Baghdad as an extension of the caliphate. Even today, as I walked here, I watched on the news as the Iranians were firing on cargo ships off the coast of Yemen. They have tried to kill an Ambassador to the United States in this very town; yet we are about to strike an agreement that will grant them the capacity to build a nuclear weapon. This body is not doing all that it can. I urge my fellow Members to oppose this bill and work toward a real solution that has the opportunity to keep Iran from getting that nuclear arsenal.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 92, 93, 94 I was unable to cast my vote due to attending a speaking event on the importance of U.S. Cyber Security. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow hundreds of young people from across Kansas will join thousands of Americans, young and old, on The National Mall for the March for Life. They are here to remind us all that, in the midst of all the important issues we talk about here in Washington, D.C., every single life is a gift. This year is the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Since then, over 55 million abortions have been performed in the United States. This stain upon our Nation has been allowed to continue for far too long. Yet in the face of this continuing tragedy, I am encouraged by the fact that today the pro-life movement is stronger than ever. I see the evidence of that movement in the eyes of the young people, young people that will come to Washington tomorrow from Benedictine College, from Conway Springs High School, from Bishop Carroll High School, from Kapaun Mt. Carmel, and from both Kansas State University and Newman University. It will encourage me to continue my efforts to protect the unborn each and every day. While some just talk the talk, tomorrow the young people from Kansas will walk the walk, and I look forward to joining with them on this very special and important day to protect this very important right.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I rise in support of H.R. 161. We are tens of thousands of miles of pipeline capacity short of the necessary pipelines to carry natural gas to consumers who need it and businesses who demand it today in America. You don't have to take my word for it--prices will tell you. The gentleman from New Jersey just said he opposes this bill. Allow him to explain to his constituents why they pay six or seven or eight times as much for natural gas as someone else in the Midwest, or in places where there is adequate pipeline capacity today. It is unnecessary; it is unconscionable. America now has the resources to provide this gas to all Americans so they can heat their homes and cool their homes, so businesses can use natural gas to build products here in America. We no longer live in a world with energy scarcity here in America. We have an opportunity to get this product from where it is found to the consumers and businesses that are demanding it. The other side of the aisle may tell you we don't have a problem, but I will tell you that as you talk to your constituents, as one who does this all the time, constituents say: I am paying too much for my product. This is a solution that will work. We don't make in this legislation a single change to the Clean Water Act, not one change to the Clean Air Act, not a single change to any legislation that has to do with pipeline safety. Not one. All those laws remain in effect. All we ask the government to do is its job. We give them a timeline. We give them ample time. If 12 months is not enough, I am happy to give them 13. We will change the legislation. But, in fact, the opposition isn't because this is being rushed but because in fact this will speed the process. That is why folks are opposed. They know this will produce this gas in a way that is safe and reasonable, and we will have great outcomes. And yet they want to keep this product in the ground. That is the real reason for opposition to this bill. So those of us who want to get this energy to the consumers, to where it needs to go, I urge them to support this. Frankly, when you read the articles about the challenges of pipeline capacity in America, the place it impacts the most isn't the place from which I hail. It is not Kansas; it is not the Midwest. It is, in fact, the densely populated areas of the Northeast. They are the places that need this energy the most and the soonest and the safest, and we can get it for them. I urge those who live in those places to talk to their constituents and to do the work to make sure that they understand what H.R. 161 can accomplish for the people in the areas that they represent. You know, this administration has taken a lot of efforts to reduce the capacity of coal to provide energy for businesses and consumers. I regret that. I am doing my best to push back in every place that we can, as I know our chairman is as well. But as coal-fired power plants become more difficult to build, the need for natural gas will become even more increased. This legislation is aimed directly at making sure that we don't have shortages and outages and catastrophes in energy production and energy delivery that America cannot afford. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 161.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the 931st Air Refueling Group--McConnell Air Force Base's reserve unit--on receiving the Raincross Trophy, which recognizes it as the best unit in the 4th Air Force. I have spent a lot of time with the fantastic airmen out of McConnell, and I am not surprised, but I am extremely pleased to see that they have been granted this outstanding award. It is only fitting that the 931st has been selected as the first reserve unit in the Air Force to fly and maintain America's new KC-46 tankers. McConnell-based tankers flew nearly half of all missions of Air Mobility Command's total KC-135 flying hours over the past year, and many of this unit's soldiers and airmen were deployed in support of operations all around the world. This award is a wonderful recognition of the hard work of Colonel Mark Larson, Chief Master Sergeant Kathleen E. Lowman, and all the men and women of the 931st Air Refueling Group. I know I speak for all Kansans in saying we are proud of the 931st and the entire McConnell family. November Kilo Alpha Whiskey Tango Golf.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity. The President spoke last week and he presented nothing that could be remotely considered a strategy, and yet, the American people understand the destruction of radical Islamic terrorism is mandatory. It is not mandatory for creation of democracy around the world, it is mandatory for keeping people safe in places like Omaha and Denver and Wichita, Kansas, the place that I represent. Today, the world is watching what we will do here, what Congress will do. There are folks watching this in bunkers, there are people from Hamas watching how we will vote today. They are looking at how this Congress will respond to a President who has not laid out a strategy, who has now asked us to provide one arrow in the quiver, one small piece that doesn't amount to hardly anything remotely close to a strategy. They are looking to watch and see how we will respond. And, today, we should respond by telling the President of the United States we will support his efforts to train and equip, but that we are going to watch and demand that he develop a strategy for the destruction of ISIL and for containment in the region as well. Remember, it is not just ISIL that is the threat. The threat extends from Damascus to Tehran, it threatens Lebanon and Jordan, it threatens all the Middle East, and, indeed, if that territory is allowed to remain inflamed, will threaten us here in the United States. Today, we take a very small action, a measured action, one that is necessary but hardly sufficient. I urge my colleagues to support the McKeon amendment, and I urge the President of the United States to take action in a way that will defeat ISIL and defeat radical Islam and keep us all safe here in the United States of America.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 380, 382, 383, 384, 386, 387, and 401 I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 381, 385, 389, 390, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, and 404 I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 24, I was unavoidably detained. On rollcalls 343, 344, 345, 346, and 348, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcalls 341, 342, 347, and 349, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 308 and 310 I was not available to cast my vote in person. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 309, 311, and 312 I was not available to cast my vote in person. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, first, thank you to Mr. Carney for working with me to craft this amendment, and Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for accepting it. The issue of America's cyber capabilities has moved to the forefront of our national security discussion. The Secretary of Defense, the Intelligence Community, congressional leaders and even the President have all pointed to the need to strengthen our nation's capabilities in this arena. The National Guard has experienced personnel and capabilities that are unique not only to their branches, but to the military as a whole. This is reinforced to me every time I visit the 184th Intelligence Wing, and its component 177th Information Warfare Aggressor Squadron, both located at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita. The work done by the 184th, and that done by men and women like them in Guard units around the country, provides critical intelligence to our warfighters across the globe and is absolutely integral to our national security. Our amendment simply requires the Director of National Intelligence certify that the recommendations of the report required under Section 933 of the FY 2014 NDAA are consistent with the cyber operations capability needs of the United States before implementing any changes recommended by the study. Because these Guard units provide experience and capability that exist nowhere else in the military, it is critically important that any proposed changes to their mission and structure are completely vetted. America's security, and the men and women of our National Guard, deserve nothing less.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chairwoman, today, I rise to ask my fellow Members of Congress to take one small step towards fiscal sanity. Chairman Wolf has done very nice work on this bill, but we are all familiar with agencies that have outlived their usefulness and no longer can withstand budget scrutiny. In these times, if we don't set priorities, nothing is a priority. Here is one opportunity for all of us to make one tiny step towards getting rid of what is now over $17 trillion in debt. We often talk on our side of the aisle about having a spending problem. Here is a chance for all of us on both sides of the aisle to begin to attack that. We have an opportunity. Part of the Department of Commerce, the Economic Development Administration, was established in 1965 as an element of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The current administration and, to be frank, many administrations, have used this for their own pork barrel projects and their own cookie jar. The EDA has spent over $3.2 billion in grants and does nothing more than pick amongst winners and losers by region, industry, and community. At its very core, the EDA is nothing more than the purest of wealth distribution programs. My amendment would eliminate funding for the EDA, totaling $247 million in fiscal year 2015, and send this money to the deficit reduction account. Based on current levels, eliminating EDA will save over $2.5 billion over the next decade. Even though I ran two small businesses for 16 years, I had never heard of the Economic Development Administration before coming to Congress. I suspect many of my colleagues are similarly situated. First, let me describe what the EDA does. It takes dollars from all across the country. That money comes to Washington where the EDA takes 20 percent of it off the top. That is the cost of the administrative burden of running the Economic Development Administration. They then ask companies and communities to apply for ``free money'' from the Federal Government to renovate a movie theater or to build a new industrial park. While many much these projects aren't necessarily bad, some are just plain ridiculous. These are local projects that either have enough support from their local communities so they could certainly advance without Federal funding or they require Federal money because the local community won't support them. Either way, the Federal Government has no role in being involved. You might not be familiar with EDA projects, so let me just talk about a couple of them. In 2008, the Economic Development Administration provided $2 million to begin construction of the UNLV Harry Reid Research and Technology Park in Las Vegas, Nevada. Currently, this technology park features a paved road and a Web site claiming to be the first anticipated tenant moving in in 2010. No construction has even begun. In 2010, $25 million was spent by the EDA for a Global Climate Mitigation Incentive Fund and $2 million for a ``culinary amphitheater,'' wine-tasting room, and gift shop in Washington State. The EDA then gave New Mexico $1.5 million to renovate a theater in 2012. In 2013 it gave Massachusetts $1.4 million to promote video games. Back in the 1980s, the EDA used taxpayer dollars to build replicas of the Great Wall of China and the Egyptian pyramids in the middle of Indiana. They were never completed. It is now a dumping ground for tires. After doling out your tax dollars, the Economic Development Administration often, along with a local Congressman or Senator, takes credit for these projects. They go to ribbon cuttings. The EDA is a frequent flyer, traveling all around the country, for just such ceremonies. I first heard about the EDA in one such project. I was sitting in a committee where the director of the EDA proudly took credit for the jobs created at a $1.6 billion new steel plant. There was a $1.4 million grant, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the project. My guess is that the company's CFO knew nothing of the EDA grant. Cutting the EDA, however, is not just a conservative idea, it is a good idea, and one that gets us closer to fiscal sanity here in America. Madam Chairwoman, my amendment is fairly modest given the amount of debt we are piling onto our children and grandchildren. But this is an important vote to show that Members of this body are serious about limiting the size and scope of our Federal Government. I urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, what is taking place today in America's Veterans Administration may be the most egregious case of friendly fire in the history of the United States of America. This harm to our veterans from our team is coming not from firearms, but from an enormous bureaucracy that is incapable of dealing with providing health care to our Nation's warriors. It is unacceptable. Words alone, Mr. President, I have to say, are not enough. We need action, not anger. We need results. We need delivery of health care to our warriors now, and whether that health care comes from inside the Veterans Administration or from outside, we need to get folks off our waiting lists, out of lines, and in to see doctors and folks who are prepared to take care of them. The sacrifices these men and women made are enormous. As a veteran, I certainly understand that. As a Member of Congress, I understand that it is my responsibility to make sure we fix this challenge, this bureaucratic mess that our Nation has put these veterans in now for years and years. As we approach Memorial Day, we need to all take this seriously. I would urge this House to continue to work to perform its function of oversight and to correct this most egregious situation and get these veterans the care that they need.