Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of House Resolution 1251, to recognize and honor the United States troops who gave their lives on June 6, 1944, D- day, at the battle of Normandy on the coast of France. I would like to thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe) for bringing this measure before the House. In June of 1944, Nazi Germany still controlled all of Europe, save those portions of Italy which had already been liberated. Operation Overlord, the code name for the main landing of Allied Forces in France, was to be the deciding battle of the war in Europe, opening up a major second front which would lead to the ultimate defeat of the Nazi regime. Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight Eisenhower proclaimed that it was a battle that he would accept nothing but complete victory. Shortly after midnight on the 6th of June, 24,000 Allied Forces consisting of American, British, Canadian, and Free French parachuted behind enemy lines in Normandy. Their mission was to disrupt the German ability to successfully repel the upcoming invasion. During the night, the largest flotilla of vessels ever assembled before or since began its trip across the English Channel to disembark some 150,000 Allied troops across a 50-mile stretch of the Normandy beach. The initial beach assault began at 6:30 that morning. The code names of those beaches are seared in our memories: Utah and Omaha, the American objectives; and Sword, Gold and Juno, the British and Canadian objectives. Approximately 70,500 American soldiers went ashore as part of a larger operation to secure beachhead from which to continue the offloading of troops, supplies and equipment necessary for the push across France into the German homeland. This undertaking was one of the largest single amphibious operations ever conducted in the history of warfare. On that one day, American Armed Forces suffered an estimated 5,400 casualties with 1,400 killed in action. The immeasurable sacrifices of those men should never be forgotten. House Resolution 1251 is our way of commending the United States Armed Forces who participated in Operation Overlord for their leadership and valor in a mission that helped bring an end to World War II. This resolution commemorates the actions of heroism and military achievement by those soldiers. So I now call upon the Members of the House to join me in supporting this resolution, thereby expressing our common appreciation and gratitude for the members of the United States Armed Forces involved in the D-day operations and honoring the sacrifices made by our fellow countrymen so that others around the world may continue to know the gift of freedom. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR. Again, Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Poe for bringing this to our attention. At the end of what was possibly the greatest movie ever made, ``Saving Private Ryan,'' the central character played by Tom Hanks is a Captain Miller, and, as he is dying, he says in a voice barely more than a whisper to the character that is playing Private Ryan, ``Earn this.'' It is a phenomenal message for every American, and it is great that Congressman Poe brought this message to the floor for those of us who are here and the descendants of those who survived that battle to say ``Thank you'' to those who didn't.

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. So, again, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to the floor. I would remind my Republican colleagues that in the 12 years that they ran the House, I don't ever recall a vote on cutting the subsidy for Amtrak. I would have voted with you, but I just don't remember your bringing it up. So let's talk about this problem this day. I would remind my Republican colleagues that on a regular basis they come to the floor and say, you know what? We shouldn't be doing all these things that don't make sense, all these things that don't contribute to each other. Amtrak is not an insurance problem. This is an insurance program. It is a single-shot bill to do one thing, and that's to let those people who want to buy wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance so that they will know that if they paid their premiums, they built their house the way they were supposed to, if something horrible happens they will get paid.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Speaker, if I was a shill for the insurance industry, and apparently we have our share on the floor today, I would do everything but talk about what the insurance industry did to south Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina. I would forget, if I was a member of the Rules Committee, the 12 years that they controlled the floor of the House of Representatives, the 12 years that they could have cut the Amtrak subsidy had they wanted to, but they didn't. So let's get back to what we are going to talk about today. And, again, I thank the leadership for bringing this to the floor. If you had visited south Mississippi in August of late 2005, gone to a little town called Bay St. Louis, you could have driven down the street and seen this house. It belonged to some folks named Corky and Molly Hadden. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit south Mississippi. So the Haddens left this because their Nation warned them that a bad storm was coming, and came home to this. Corky is a financial manager; he is a smart guy. He had lot of insurance, he thought. As a matter of fact, Corky had $650,000 worth of insurance on that house. The problem was under the rules of the National Flood Insurance Program that Mr. Sessions agrees needs changing, and I am trying to change today, we paid the private sector, State Farm, All State, Nationwide, we pay them to sell the policy; they get a premium. We pay them to adjust the claim. The problem is no one bothered to think that wait a minute, we are letting that claims adjuster decide he is playing God. He can say the wind did it, which means his company has to pay, State Farm, Nationwide or All State; or he can say the water did it, which means the taxpayers have to pay. You are right, Mr. Sessions, we should not have paid that $18 billion. The reason we paid that $18 billion is a bad set of rules that allowed companies like State Farm, All State, Nationwide to stick the taxpayers with their bills. So 18 months after this event, Mr. Hadden, who had $650,000 worth of insurance on that nice house, was paid nothing by his insurer, State Farm Insurance Company. Again, if you are a defender of the insurance industry, if they are helping you with your campaigns, you sure as heck don't want to talk about that, do you? The next house, if you had gone a little bit further down the same street, you would have seen one of the oldest houses in Bay St. Louis, built around 1800. So from 1800 to 2005, no telling how many hurricanes it survived. It belonged to the Benvenutti family, a pretty old house. This is what it looked like when they left because their Nation told them to get the heck out of there, there is a bad storm coming. Let's see what they came home to. This is what they came home to. You know, for most people, including Mississippians, your house is your biggest investment. It is, to a large extent, an extension of yourself. So the Benvenuttis, realizing that that house meant a lot to them, had a lot of insurance, or so they thought, $586,000. When they filed their claim, for almost 24 months they were paid nothing on their wind insurance. Now why is this significant? Well, NOAA, the Navy Oceanographic Lab and others went back and looked at the events that were called Hurricane Katrina, and NOAA tells us that for 4 hours before the storm surge arrived in south Mississippi, that house, the house before it, was subjected to hurricane-force winds for 4 hours before the water ever got there. Yet the insurance companies wanted to turn around and blame everything on the water. Why? Because they could stick the taxpayers with the bill. The next house is a more typical home, more modest home. This one is about a mile inland, about a mile inland, pretty good ways from the water. Beautiful home. This is what the folks who lived there, when they left, looked at last. This is what they came home to. It's not just three houses; it's not 30 houses. It was 30,000 houses that this happened to. So, again, these folks, knowing this was a big part of their lives, had $249,000 worth of insurance. Their insurance company was slightly more generous than the previous two times and offered them $10,000. Now, Mr. Sessions points out that, incorrectly, that maybe government shouldn't be doing this. Well, maybe he doesn't talk to his folks in his State capital often enough because if he had he would know that his State is already doing this. In the aftermath of Katrina, on a State-by-State basis, the insurance industry pulled out, left a vacuum. People had to have some form of wind insurance; and so on a State-by-State basis, the State picked up that obligation.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the gentleman's State of Texas, the Texas wind pool in 2004 had an exposure of $20.8 billion. That has expanded to $58.6 billion. That's not private sector that's going to pay that bill; that's the Texas wind pool. They are on the hook for that. In my home State of Mississippi, it has gone from $1.6 billion to $6.3 billion. I can't speak for every State, but I can tell you that pretty well equals the Mississippi State budget. If there was a catastrophic storm in Mississippi that hit all three coastal counties on one day--and, by the way, that's happened three times in my lifetime--it would break the State of Mississippi. Now, at some point they are going to come up and say, well, they have got reinsurance, okay. Almost all the reinsurance is out of the Bahamas and the Caymans. So let me ask you a simple question: If the Benvenuttis couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, if the Haddens couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, if the other family couldn't get a company out of Illinois to pay their claim, does anyone really think a company from the Bahamas is going to willingly write these checks? Who is kidding whom? On a State-by-State basis, Florida has gone from $2.2 billion to $436 billion; South Carolina, $6 billion to $17 billion; Georgia, the gentleman from Georgia's State, $565 million to $2.1 billion, a 265 percent increase, not private sector, State liability. So why do we want to do this? Because, quite honestly, the purpose of insurance, to people who pay their premium, to live the way they are supposed to, but they want the certainty that if something bad happens to them, they are going to get paid. Secondly, why should the Nation do it? Because, quite frankly, it would break any one of these States. The chances of every coastal county in Mississippi getting hit all in the same day has happened three times in my lifetime. In 2004, Florida had four catastrophic storms, hit almost every square inch of the State. But the chances of the same storm hitting every State on the same day is minuscule. And if it does happen, don't worry about paying claims, it's just going to be called Armageddon. So what we are proposing is a program that, instead of letting the private sector collect the premiums and the Nation pay the bill, would allow people to, as an extension, as an option to their flood insurance, pay for a wind option. That way if they come home to nothing, if they come home to a substantially destroyed house, it doesn't matter if the wind did it, it doesn't matter if the water did it; the fact is they built their house the way they were supposed to, they built it in a place that was safe, they paid their premiums, and they are going to get paid. The last point of course the insurance industry doesn't want to tell you, so I will. In the same year the National Flood Insurance Program lost $18 billion they made $48 billion in profits. Why? Pretty simple. They collected the premiums; you, the taxpayer, paid the bill. You paid the bill for the FEMA trailers because, again, a typical insurance policy says if your house is destroyed, if your house is damaged to where you can't live in it, they will pay to put you up. But when they denied these claims in full, as they did thousands of times, then someone had to do something. President Bush, to his credit, stepped forward and said we're going to make FEMA trailers available. That cost the taxpayers $4.3 billion; $7.2 billion for temporary housing; CDBG grants totaling $15.4 billion. And what was one of the prerequisites to get a CDBG grant? You had to have insurance and you didn't get paid. So who paid that bill? Uncle Sam, you, the taxpayers paid that bill. Lastly, SBA disaster loan, $7.6 billion. So for a total bill of $34.5 billion. It wasn't $18 billion the Nation lost that year, it was over $50 billion. We are trying to change that. We are trying to come up with a program where the premiums pay for the program.

Mr. TAYLOR

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

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to clarify a provision in the existing law. The existing provision was used to deprive thousands of homeowners of the wind coverage they should have had in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It, unfortunately, had the additional effect of sticking the taxpayer, through the National Flood Insurance Program, with billions of dollars that they should not have paid. Under the national Write Your Own program, we hired the private sector to write the policy. No problem there. We pay them a commission of 29 percent to write that policy. It saves us the cost of having additional government employees. The problem comes in in that we also let the private insurance company adjust the claim. So think of it. You are a 29-year-old father of two. You are counting on your Christmas bonus. You work for State Farm, Nationwide or Allstate. A hurricane comes through and your house is gone. Now, you can look at it and say, you know, I see trees falling down. That is an indication of wind. I see tin up in trees. That means the wind blew it up there. But that means that my company is going to have to pay something. Or I could say the flood did it all, which means the taxpayers have to pay it all. You see, under the law, they are called upon to do a fair adjustment of the claim. But buried in a typical wind insurance policy, in the case of a State Farm policy in Mississippi, on page 10 of a 24-page document, there is one paragraph that said, If any two things happen concurrently, then State Farm wasn't going to pay at all. This question was actually raised before the Mississippi State Supreme Court. And the attorney for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Mr. Landau, was asked a question by the chief justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, Justice Pierce, ``I'm giving you--the example is 95 percent of the home is destroyed, the flood comes in and gets the other 5 percent, and you know that. Does your interpretation of the word 'sequence' mean you pay zero?'' The attorney for Nationwide Insurance, Mr. Landau, answered, ``Yes, Your Honor.'' See, that goes beyond just hurting individuals on their payment. Number one, a typical insurance policy says that if your home is destroyed, the insurance company will pay to put you up until it's repaired, but if they deny your claim in full, then they pay nothing. So in the case of Hurricane Katrina, our Nation went out and bought 140,000 trailers at $15,000 per trailer, then paid a friend of the Bush administration another $16,000 per trailer to deliver those trailers just 60 miles, hook them up to a water line and a sewer line. So $31,000 per trailer times 44,000 trailers, and that was just in Mississippi. That's $1.3 billion that the taxpayers paid that the insurance companies, in almost every instance, should have paid. On top of that, there were the homeowners grants; on top of that, there were SBA loans, for a total of $34 billion. I understand the gentlewoman's concern that this program lost $18 billion. The taxpayers lost $34 billion because the insurance companies didn't pay. This amendment would prohibit the language that was buried in that State Farm insurance policy. This amendment would prohibit that language that was buried in that Nationwide policy. It would go back to, if these people want to do business with the Nation under the national Write Your Own program, then they are going to stick to their obligation of doing a fair adjustment of the claim. If the house is 50 percent destroyed by water, flood insurance pays 50 percent. If it's 50 percent by wind, then the wind insurance company has to pay 50 percent. But whatever the ratio is, a fair adjustment of the claim, as it should have been, is already spelled out in the contract with the Nation. But the contract between the insurance companies and the individuals had this language buried in there that is completely contrary to what they told our Nation. And, quite honestly, I would like to see which shill for the insurance companies wants to defend what they have done to individuals in the gulf coast and what they have done to the taxpayers as a whole. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Yesterday, I appeared before the Rules Committee and offered an amendment that would allow people in coastal America to buy wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance, a measure that is identical to what had passed this House less than 3 years ago as a part of the base bill. It is my understanding that that was not made in order. My question to the Rules Committee is since the Speaker says she is for it, since Majority Leader Hoyer says he is for it, since the chairwoman of jurisdiction, Ms. Waters, says she's for it, I've got to admit my amazement that it was not made in order, since it's already passed this House by about 270 votes 3 years ago. So I was hoping if the gentlewoman could enlighten those of us who are in support of that amendment what happened.

Mr. TAYLOR. The amendment, again, that has already passed this House as a part of the base bill of an identical bill 3 years ago, I'm having a little trouble understanding how that's not germane. I would urge people to oppose the rule.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I supported the version of the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that my colleagues and I on the House Armed Services Committee passed through Committee on May 19, 2010 by a unanimous vote of 59-0. The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' issue was never debated or considered by the House Armed Services Committee at all this year during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. I associate myself with the remarks of Ranking Member Buck McKeon who stated that ``The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked Congress to respect the process they developed to study the ramifications of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' He further stated that ``we have a duty to honor that request and hear directly from our military personnel--and their families--before making a decision on a sensitive issue that directly affects them.'' I also agree with Chairman Skelton's statement on this issue: ``In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this spring and in a recent letter, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen asked Congress to defer any legislative action regarding `Don't Ask, Don't Tell' until after the Department of Defense completes its comprehensive review later this year. In a statement today, the Pentagon indicated that ideally, Secretary Gates continues to prefer that the Department complete this review before Congress considers legislation. This is a reasonable and responsible request that I respect.'' He went on to say that ``My position on this issue has been clear--I support the current policy and I will oppose any amendment to repeal `Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' I hope my colleagues will avoid jumping the gun and wait for DOD to complete its work on this issue.'' I consider it an insult to our military leaders and service members for Congress to legislate change before the military's comprehensive study is complete. Unfortunately, last night, during floor consideration, the House voted to attach an amendment to National Defense Authorization Act repealing the military's current ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. I voted against this amendment and I can no longer support the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act if the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is included in the final bill. For the first time in my 20 years in Congress, I will be voting against the House approved version of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Chair, I rise for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. TAYLOR. I request unanimous consent to support the wishes of Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR. First let me say that I agree with my chairman and the ranking member on the need to defeat the Murphy amendment. But to Mr. Akin's point, number one, in the past 20 years, the Panamanians, the Filipinos, and even our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico have asked us to leave. If you put your missile defense in Poland or Czechoslovakia, you are one election away from having spent billions of dollars and being asked to leave. If you put your missile defense on ships you can get to within 12 miles of the Iranian coast, you don't have to ask anyone's permission to fire it. It's there. And if you think about it, all of our known enemies have a coastline. That's why it makes sense to put our missile defense on a ship because you put the ship between our Nation and our enemies. I thank the gentleman very, very much for yielding me the minute, and I thank the gentleman for asking a great question.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill as it passed committee, and in particular of the Sea Power and Expeditionary Forces section of the bill. Under the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, the fleet has grown by seven ships since he became chairman to a total of 286. I guess it's in the direction, however slowly, of the 313 ships that CNO wishes to have. It also takes some far-reaching steps, one of which is directing the CNO that in the future, that in order to go to the fleet, he may only retire two ships for every three ships we commission. I think this is very important language. This is the third CNO who has said he wanted 313 ships, but ironically, they keep submitting budgets to Congress that actually shrink their fleet rather than grow it. So I want to thank Chairman Skelton for working with us on that, my colleagues, on directive language that actually keeps some of those great vessels that would go to someone else's fleet in our fleet a bit longer. Specifically the bill takes many steps to continue the work of the world's greatest Navy and the world's greatest Marine Corps. It authorizes the construction of nine battle-force vessels and one auxiliary oceanographic research vessel, along with 214 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps. It authorizes $5.1 billion to construct two Virginia-class submarines--the first time Congress has ever authorized two Virginia-class submarines; $950 million for the first increment of funding of the Marine Corp's amphibious assault vessel LHA-7; $3 billion to fully fund two DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to work off of the Navy's surface fleet and the centerpiece of our Nation's missile defense; $1.5 billion to fully fund two littoral combat ships; $180.7 million to fund one Joint High Speed Vessel for the Navy; $380 million to fully fund the remaining construction costs for the first of the class maritime landing platform vessel for the Marine Corps; $3.3 billion for 30 F-18 Superhornet strike fighters, as well as 12 EA-18 Growler expeditionary electronic-warfare aircraft. That will make a total of 186 of these fine aircraft built on Chairman Skelton's watch. $4.1 billion for 20 Navy and Marine Corps F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; $4.6 billion for 180 Marine Corps rotary-winged aircraft; $359 million for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, including $100 million for the Merchant Marine Academy. The bill strongly supports funding for our Overseas Contingency Operations, authorizing $3.4 billion to build the life saving Mine Resistant Vehicles. This is on top of the $16.4 billion under Chairman Skelton's watch that was allocated in 2007 for a total of 16,000 of these vehicles that have been built as we continue to build 1,000 of them a month to protect our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. For Marine Corps programs, this bill fully authorizes the $3.1 billion for a request for Marine Corps procurement, with an additional $126 million for unfunded requirements that will protect our Marines. Mr. Chairman, I fully support the bill as recommended by the committee.

Mr. TAYLOR. I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Akin for all of his help on this and all of the Seapower Subcommittee, and in particular I want to commend our great staff: Ms. Jenness Simler, Captain Will Ebbs, Heath Bope, Jesse Tolleson, and Liz Drummond. Actions Speak Louder Than Words Since 2007, the House Armed Services Committee under Chairman Ike Skelton has continued to grow our nation's air, land and sea forces to address the threats facing the United States from both foreign nations and terrorist organizations. Chairman Skelton's predecessor, Duncan Hunter, deserves credit for leading House Armed Service Committee member's efforts to provide up-armored Humvees, Improvised Explosive Device (IEDs) Jammers, and other initiatives to counter the IED threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the game changing improvement in the IED effort was the rapid development and fielding of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) that occurred under the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, The actions of the Democratic majority speak much louder than words when it comes to our national defense. The Mississippi National Guard's 155th Heavy Brigade Combat Team returned home to Mississippi in March 2010 after completing their second tour of duty in Iraq. During their deployment they encountered more than 80 attacks from IEDs without suffering any fatalities or serious injuries compared to their 2005 deployment where they suffered 28 fatalities from lED attacks. During their most recent deployment, their unit was equipped with MRAPs. Prior to 2007, the demand for MRAP's was ignored for four straight years by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The Republican majority in Congress did not prod Secretary Rumsfeld to build these vehicles at the rate our forward deployed commanders were requesting. In 2004 military officials in Iraq began requesting MRAPs from the Pentagon to counter the enemy's most successful means of attack--the IED. At the time, 60% of U.S. fatalities in Iraq were the direct result of IED attacks. Secretary Rumsfeld and top leaders at the Pentagon originally ignored these requests from the forward deployed commanders to make fielding MRAPs a priority. By the end of 2006 the Department of Defense's (DoD) established requirement for MRAPs for the Iraq war effort was an absurdly low amount--4000 vehicles. Before MRAPs were available in Iraq or Afghanistan, military patrols were conducted in up-armored Humvees. The enemy quickly discovered this vehicles vulnerability to under-bottom explosions. Since Secretary Rumsfeld had refused to provide MRAPs despite the requests coming from the theater of combat, the result of continuing to use up-armored Humvees was unnecessary American injuries and deaths. The MRAP is designed with a ``V'' shaped bottom that provides an effective defense against bottom exploding IEDs by forcing the impact of the explosion away from the bottom of the vehicle, unlike the Humvees. When I became Chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee in January 2007, under the new Democratic majority, the very first hearing I chaired focused on the need to rapidly get MRAPs to our troops in Iraq. I worked with Chairman Skelton and my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to provide an additional $16.4 billion in 2007 for procurement, building and transporting 15,374 MRAPs to Iraq. This effort continues today, and we currently have approximately 16,000 MRAPs in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also continue to work with DOD on providing vehicles that provide the same type of protection as the MRAP but are more suitable for the hazardous terrain and conditions in Afghanistan. There are approximately 2300 of these vehicles in operational units in Afghanistan, with 6,800 working their way through the pipeline to get to the theater of combat. We continue to produce about 1000 of these life saving vehicles a month. For years the House Armed Services Committee has voiced concerns over the concurrent and high-risk development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which in turn, has caused a several years delay in its operational fielding. Because of this issue, coupled with the planned F/A-18 production line drawdown, our Naval Air Forces face a significant strike- fighter shortfall peaking at over 250 aircraft in 2017. Realizing this significant issue over the last two years, the committee has added 17 F/A-18s to the Department's request to help mitigate the shortfall. The Committee, under Chairman Skelton's leadership, also included candid language within the FY11 NDAA report stating that ``barring a complete reversal'' of the F-35 program failures, the Committee expects the Navy to ``continue production of F/A-18s to prevent our naval airpower from losing significance in our nation's arsenal,'' I have made the commitment to my colleagues on the Committee and to Chairman Skelton to get our shipbuilding back on track. The United States Navy's goal is to maintain a 313 ship fleet capable of transporting troops around the world, providing support for military operations, along with a global U.S. presence. The Navy's fleet is currently at 286 ships, Starting in 2003, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, shifted our defense needs primarily to the Army, the National Guard and our Reserves. During this time, the Navy's shipbuilding program went stagnant, lacked direction, and had no plan in place to reach the Navy's stated goal of a 313 ship fleet. This all changed starting in 2007. The Armed Services Committee began addressing the Navy's acquisition reform process, the cost overruns as a result of Secretary Rumsfeld's outsourcing of shipbuilding to contractors and lead system integrators. We have provided the Navy real goals to meet each year in order to build the Navy back to a 313 ship fleet. This reformation includes a proposed authorization of 10 ships in this year's National Defense Authorization Act. We have worked to bring the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) back under control. These ships had been previously authorized, but the program spun wildly out of control. It got to the point where the contractors wanted $600 million for a ship they originally said could be built for $220 million in fiscal year 2005. This cost increase prevented the Navy from building the amount of LCS' originally approved by Congress which seriously affected the Navy's ability of reaching its goal of a 313 ship fleet. Chairman Skelton and the Democratic majority also prevented another costly over run from occurring by capping the DDG 1000 program at three ships at approximately $3 billion per ship. This program was running billions of dollars over budget. By capping this program at three ships, we allowed the Navy to shift funds into a much more successful shipbuilding program--the DDG 51 program. This maximizes the Navy's budget by providing them with a ship that has a proven track record for success and providing the funds to a proven shipbuilding program that has already produced 58 ships for the United States Navy, The Navy has also received authorization for 15 ships not including the additional 10 ships in the proposed FY 2011 NDAA, to be built from fiscal years 2009 through 2011, Since 2007, the Navy's fleet has grown by 7 ships to 286 ships. Prior to this, the Navy's fleet was the smallest it has been since the 19th century at 279 ships. The progress made by the Navy's shipbuilding program is the direct result of a clear and consistent plan and new leadership at the Department of the Navy. It is by no means a coincidence that the fleet has grown and continues to grow under Chairman Skelton's leadership during this Democratically controlled Congress. While men and women in the United States military continue to be put in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan we must continue providing them the real support necessary to allow them to successfully carry out their mission. It is clear that the House Armed Services Committee under Chairman Skelton, has provided much more than mere words or rhetoric and has acted loudly to ensure that the Department of Defense and our men and women fighting overseas constantly have what they need to succeed in protecting and defending the United States of America. Gene Taylor, Member of Congress.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Roland Kell on his retirement with thirty-eight years of service within the oil industry and to his ongoing support of the State of Mississippi. He began his career at Gulf Oil's Milford Haven Refinery in 1972 filling various roles including technical services, planning and economics and operations supervision, transferring in the late 1970s to Gulf Oil's U.S. operation. Roland was then assigned to Pembroke Cracking Company, a partnership between Texaco Limited and Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Limited, where he supervised various commissioning activities. This assignment was followed by an appointment as Manager, Operations, Pembroke Cracking Company, prior to joining Texaco as General Manager, Pembroke Cracking Company. Roland Kell was appointed to his current position, General Manager, Chevron's Pascagoula Refinery, in July 2002. Before coming to Pascagoula, Roland served as the Vice-President of ChevronTexaco's Europe and West Africa manufacturing, supply and trading business. From 1997-2001 he was General Manager of ChevronTexaco's Pembroke Refinery in Wales. Following the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Chevron under Roland's leadership was recognized as one of the driving forces that formed partnerships with the local communities and State to help ensure successful recovery paths. While under his direction, Chevron's Pascagoula Refinery has secured approval and commenced construction of various major expansions that have employed thousands from across the States of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. In Jackson County, Roland serves on the board of directors of the Jackson County Economic Development Foundation. He is a member of the Gulf Coast Business Council and the Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College District Workforce Council. On the State level, he serves on the State Workforce Investment Board. He also serves on the Industrial Advisory Board for the University of South Alabama College of Engineering. Roland graduated from Leeds University, UK, in 1972 with an Honours Degree in Chemical Engineering and is a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institute of Chemical Engineers. A native of Great Britain, Roland currently resides in Pascagoula. He has two grown children and enjoys travelling and meeting people of different cultures. I congratulate Roland on his retirement and thank him for his diligent service to the energy industry, particularly in the great State of Mississippi. May he have many joyous days to pursue his personal hobbies and interests!

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, today I recognize and pay tribute to Sergeant Jennifer Evitts, United States Marine Corps, on the occasion of her transfer from the liaison office. I, and many other members of this chamber, have had the pleasure of working with her over the past three years that she has served as part of Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps Office of Legislative Affairs and as the Congressional Liaison Non-Commissioned Officer of the U.S.M.C. Liaison Office in the U.S. House of Representatives. Sergeant Evitts distinguished herself through exceptional meritorious service while serving as the Non-Commissioned Officer of Legislative Affairs. Every day she served in direct support of not only the Marine Corps Office of Legislative Affairs but in direct support of every member of Congress, every Marine and every American. Her keen abilities in organization, interpersonal relationships, and communication were extremely critical to the successful accomplishment of the Marine Corps Office of Legislative Affairs' mission. Her achievements and ability to get the job done have been understated but always effective and noteworthy. While serving in the Liaison office, Sergeant Evitts was able to develop and execute legislative strategy for the United States Marine Corps that was instrumental in creating a fiscal and policy landscape conducive to training and equipping the Nation's most elite fighting force, ensuring their success on the battlefield. She routinely turned broad guidance into action which energized the Office of Legislative Affairs and members of Congress alike. Her actions allowed the Marine Corps to engage members of Congress and their staffs, directly facilitating the increased emphasis on improving Congressional relationships--a cornerstone of CMC's strategic vision. The Marine Corps House of Representatives Liaison Office that Sergeant Evitts leaves behind is functional and responsive, highly integrated, and favors a proactive legislative strategy. While leading the House Liaison Office through the extraordinary challenges associated with Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the ongoing Global War on Terror, she concurrently ensured that a myriad of daily Congressional communications, taskings and events were executed flawlessly. During Sgt. Evitt's four years as the Non- Commissioned Officer, she accomplished the full spectrum of the Marine Corps' legislative mission. She exemplified the candor and knowledge that we have come to expect from the Marine Corps and she played a key role in maintaining superb relationships between the Marine Corps and the House of Representatives. Throughout her tour, Sgt. Evitts effectively responded to several thousand congressional inquires, many of which gained national level attention. During her time on Capitol Hill, Sgt. Evitts successfully planned, coordinated and escorted over 50 international and domestic Congressional and Staff Delegations. Her detailed coordination with foreign government officials, U.S. State Department, and senior military officials ensured that each delegation was conducted professionally. Her attention to detail and anticipation of requirements allowed Representatives to focus on fact-finding and gleaning new insights that informed critical decisions to support the people of the United States. Due to her professionalism, dedication and keen knowledge, Sgt. Evitts became the most sought after military escort for delegations conducting Congressional travel. The time she has spent supporting Members of the House has been truly noteworthy. She has made lasting contributions to the House of Representatives.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, on November 7, 2009 and I will continue to oppose this legislation in the House. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-215. During House consideration, I voted for the Stupak amendment, which prohibits federal funds from paying for abortions or from subsidizing health insurance plans that would cover abortions. The House passed the Stupak amendment by a vote of 240-194. Taxpayers cannot afford a new federal health insurance program. The government already provides Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs to provide medical care for senior citizens, people with disabilities, and others who have substantial medical needs. Our nation also has an obligation to provide medical coverage for veterans, active-duty military and their dependents, National Guard and Reserve personnel, and military retirees. With the national debt in excess of $12 trillion and projected to grow far into the future, I believe that Congress should focus on fulfilling the promises that have already been made rather than make new promises that we cannot afford. There are several ways to make health care more efficient without increasing costs and without creating a whole new government program. I strongly support efforts to allow the government to use their purchasing power to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers when buying prescription drugs for beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare Part D Program. Negotiating prices with insurance companies would help to ensure that taxpayers are paying the best available price and that tax dollars are spent wisely without reducing coverage or affecting the individuals enrolled in Medicare Part D. In 2008, the government spent about $49 billion on Medicare Part D drugs. If the government could save even 10% by negotiating directly with drug companies, taxpayers would save nearly $4.9 billion. The government should purchase generic drugs instead of more expensive alternatives, unless the prescribing physician says that a name brand drug is medically necessary. On average, generic drugs cost 1/10th of the cost of their name brand equivalent. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1583, legislation to repeal the insurance industry's antitrust exemption. The health care bill that passed the House included a repeal of antitrust laws only for the health care industry. While this is important, I firmly believe that repealing antitrust laws from the entire insurance industry would force insurers to compete with one another in a competitive market on the basis of price, service, and value. I strongly supported the bill that passed in the House which repealed the exemption of antitrust laws for the health care insurance industry. I am also in favor of proposals that would allow individuals to continue to be covered under their parents' insurance plan until they reach the age of 27. I would like to remind you that I do not support creating a whole new health care program, but I do support smaller reforms to make the current system more effective for taxpayers and consumers. Again, I voted against the health care bill that passed the House, and I will oppose this bill.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Commander Shanti Sethi, United States Navy, who provided invaluable service to this House on national security issues for the last two years as a liaison officer assigned to the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs and who will soon be on the front lines of our Nation's defense as the commanding officer of a United States Navy destroyer. Commander Sethi is a native of Reno, Nevada but was raised in Connecticut, New York, Oregon, and California. Her step-father is Hall of Fame drag racer Conrad ``Connie'' Kalitta and she spent many of her formative years at the track honing her mechanical skills. She graduated from Norwich University in 1993 with a degree in International Affairs and commissioned through the NROTC program. She holds a Masters Degree in International Policy and Practice from The George Washington University. At sea, Commander Sethi served on USS Butte (AE 27) from March 1994 to June of 1996 as Communications Officer and Electrical Officer, making a Mediterranean and Arabian Gulf deployment in support of Operations Deny Flight, Sharp Guard, and Southern Watch. From August of 1996 through October of 1998, she served as the commissioning Navigator onboard USS Hopper (DDG 70). During this tour she supported a Panama Canal transit, accelerated test and trials, and a Middle East Force deployment in support of Operation Southern Watch commencing within one year of the ship's commissioning. She served as the Weapons Officer and Combat Systems Officer on USS Higgins (DDG 76) from March of 2001 until May of 2003. Onboard USS Higgins, she completed an Arabian Gulf deployment for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom including missile defense tracking and cruise missile operations. She subsequently participated in the first test of crew exchange on destroyers serving as Combat Systems officer on USS Benfold (DDG 65) until her transfer in November of 2003. Commander Sethi was selected for early sea command and assumed command of MHC crew BOLD in April 2006 while embarked in USS Blackhawk (MHC 58). During her command she was responsible for training Greek naval officers in the operation of MHC vessels prior to foreign military exchange. She subsequently assumed command of MHC crew Detector embarked on USS Kingfisher (MHC 56) where her ship provided valuable services to pre-deployment workups for Navy carrier strike groups. Her shore assignments include serving as the Executive Assistant to the Commandant of Midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy, Resource Officer for Shipboard Protection Systems and Shipboard Radar Systems on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations where she was instrumental in the rapid fielding of systems to protect warships from small boat and unconventional attacks, and her current assignment as the surface warfare liaison officer assigned to the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs. In her current assignment Commander Sethi's responsibilities included primary liaison for surface combatant construction, surface ship combat and weapons systems, ballistic missile defense, and a myriad of other logistical and operational issues affecting the surface fleet. CDR Sethi provided invaluable support to me, the Committee on Armed Services, and the various Members and personal staff of the subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. She displayed a unique ability to explain complex military requirements against the backdrop of uncertain future threats. In this she served this committee well and reflected great credit upon herself and the United States Navy. Madam Speaker, I have the great honor to inform the House that Commander Sethi has been selected to assume command of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Decatur (DDG 73). When she does so, she will be only the 15th female officer to command a capital ship of the line. For myself and the other Members of the subcommittee we wish Commander Sethi fair winds, following seas, and Godspeed as she leads her crew in the protection of our nation.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 856) recognizing the Commissioning of the USS New York LPD 21.

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to support House Resolution 856, recognizing the commissioning of the USS New York. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for his work in bringing this resolution to the floor. The attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, will live on in American memory as one of the darkest days in our Nation's history. We can never forget the images of the members of the New York City Fire Department and Police Department, as well as other first responders, who demonstrated unsurpassed courage and bravery as they worked day and night to retrieve and rescue victims from Ground Zero. In the days shortly after September 11, Governor George Pataki asked the Navy to name a ship involved in counterterrorism after the State of New York to honor the sacrifice and strength of the people lost that fateful day. On November 7, 2009, the fifth San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship will be commissioned as the USS New York LPD 21. The ship's bow is comprised of 7\1/2\ tons of steel forged from the World Trade Center wreckage. F. Curtis Jones, a native son of New York, will serve as Commander. The USS New York will be able to deploy 700 marines and equipment to execute amphibious assault capability anywhere in the world on a moment's notice. This ability is critical to our ongoing efforts to suppress terrorist organizations, as well as protect and defend the United States of America. Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the captain and commissioning crew of the USS New York as their ship joins the United States Navy by supporting H. Res. 856. As a Mississippian, I want to commend the Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama shipbuilders who built this fine vessel. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague, the original sponsor of this measure, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, again, I would like to thank the gentleman--one of the many gentle men and women from the State of New York--for introducing this resolution, and I encourage every Member to vote for it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.