Obama Send Jobs to Brazil while Unemployment Soars

America has clearly been in an economic downturn for a while now. We obviously need more jobs at home, and we have spent TRILLIONS bailing out our own industries at home. So why would we send jobs building planes for our military to Brazil?

During a recent visit to Brazil in March, President Obama expressed his desire to become a “major customer” of Brazilian oil, and still remains opposed to drilling here, in America, to supply American needs. He categorically denies permits to Americans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, but will give foreign permits to Brazil to drill. Is our own soil not good enough to drill on? Is gas not expensive enough? Where will the madness end?

Additionally, Obama seems to forget that our unemployment rate is hovering at about 10%. That’s right, folks, 1 in 10 Americans doesn’t have a job. So of course, it makes perfect sense for our President, who is supposed to be stimulating our economy, to send our jobs overseas. Is every American job expendable? Why is Obama sending our jobs overseas, to foreign nations?

We are now in a ‘green energy contract’ with Brazil, known as Memorandum of Understanding to Advance the Cooperation on Biofuels (MoU). They also expanded this to include aviation fuels, which is also another tie to Brazil, which can be problematic because of the issues regarding our aviation defense contracts, outlined below.

The U.S. Air Force is considering bids for aircraft to serve as counterinsurgency fighters and trainers for foreign partners. The plane in question is the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6, a light attack plane used widely by the American Military, VS the Embraer Super Tucano. Both planes are comparable, in cost and performance. It’s important that we look at the risk associated with a relationship of a country like Brazil that if awarded this contact, could possibly start supplying to Iraq and Afghanistan.

To put this whole matter in laymen’s terms, it basically comes down to a national security issue. If we buy planes from Embraer, we're putting the military in a situation where the government of Brazil can literally ground part of our air force by cutting off the parts if they so choose. That's especially relevant given that Brazil is not supporting us in Libya. They called for cease-fire just hours after Obama left the country. If Embraer were to get the contract, the government Brazil could more than tut-tut us, they could actually cut off parts we'd need for an American military aircraft in order to pressure us to accede to their will.

Then there's the jobs issue. Giving Hawker Beechcraft the contract would create 1400 jobs in America, while giving Embraer the contract would create 50 jobs in America and the rest in Brazil. I believe in free trade and not a protectionist, so I don't think that's a decisive factor. However, when we're talking about two comparatively priced planes that are going to be used for military purposes that should make us reluctant to get the plane outside of the US anyway, I don't think those jobs are completely irrelevant.

There’s also a secondary issue. The Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 would allow for roughly 95% of both the male and female potential pilot population with weights as low as 103 pounds and as high as 245 pounds to safely fly the aircraft. The old standards to which the Brazilian aircraft complies will prohibit 18% of military males and 81% of military females from safely ejecting from the aircraft in an emergency. This is both a national safety and security issue. Our military is voluntarily serving and protecting us is at risk. We are voluntarily placing jobs in a country with a track record of anti-American sentiment. We are entrusting these people with our defense.

Please take this issue to your proper representatives and let’s keep jobs in AMERICA!

"An all-of-the-above energy plan"

The editorial below from our 5th District Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, appeared in the July 17 edition of the Seattle Times.

Rep. McMorris Rodgers, the Ranking Republican on the House Water and Power Subcommittee, co-sponsored the Americans for Energy Act and was the first signer of the Declaration of American Energy Independence.

We are lucky to have Cathy representing us. She is fighting for lower gas prices along with the other House Republicans on Capitol Hill who have refused to go home until the Democrats vote on offshore oil drilling.

If you're like many people, the high price at the pump is keeping you close to home this summer. And even if you can afford to fill up, the high price of fuel means you're paying more for groceries and other goods. The high energy prices are affecting everyone. It is the No. 1 issue I hear about from you — and I understand your frustrations.

Since the January 2007 beginning of the 110th Congress, the president has signed 244 bills into law. Guess how many of those were naming post offices and public buildings? Nearly 40 percent. Twenty of them resulted in a nearly $340 billion tax increase on the American public!

With gas much more than $4 a gallon, you'd think Congress would put everything else on the back burner and focus on what's really important to the American people: the high cost of energy. It's simple. We need to lower the cost of gas. It's critical to our economy and it's critical to our national security.

Since coming to Congress, I've had the opportunity to vote for American energy 24 times. I am pleased to tell you, every time I voted yes.

I am also one of the original sponsors of the Americans for American Energy Act. The act is a comprehensive energy proposal aimed at reducing energy costs through increased energy production, conservation and innovation.

We need to move away from foreign oil and produce more of our energy here at home — including expanding the role of our hydroelectric dams. We also need to look for ways to conserve the energy we waste every day. It's time we start meeting America's energy needs with American resources, and this plan does that.

It's clear we need an all-of-the-above approach, like the Americans for American Energy Act, to meet our nation's current and future energy needs. On electricity production alone, just to keep up with new demand, by 2030 we'd have to build 747 new coal plants, or 52 new nuclear power plants, or 2,000 new hydroelectric generators.

The need to increase domestic oil and gas production is no different. In the 1950s, America was one of the leading exporters of oil. Today, we import nearly two-thirds of it because we've put our own resources off-limits. It's off-limits to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or off the coasts of Florida or California. We have the largest supply of coal in the world, but it's Germany that is planning to build 27 coal-fired electrical plants by 2020.

Today, environmental regulation and process hinders most domestic energy production. One example, the National Environmental Policy Act, better known as NEPA, started as a single-paragraph statute in 1969 — essentially one paragraph on one page and was turned into 25 pages of regulations and has resulted in more than 1,500 court cases.

When I chaired the task force to update and reform NEPA, I learned that the average time frame for obtaining a permit to produce natural gas has tripled. I learned the NEPA process has caused some producers to wait more than 10 years for approval to market clean natural gas. This fall, I look forward to introducing NEPA-reform legislation to improve the process and recognize we can move forward in an environmentally friendly way.

In Congress, I am working to offer real solutions, such as encouraging more investment in innovative energy technologies, supporting clean and safe access to petroleum resources off our nation's shores and on public lands, and promoting investment in renewable sources of energy. We must unleash American ingenuity.

Whether it is oil sands, wind, the development of clean liquid fuels from coal, biodiesel, hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear power or solar energy, all of these sources of energy decrease our dependency on foreign oil. They also create new markets, stimulate the work force and help contribute to American energy.

But none of it will happen overnight. It is time we start taking action to meet our growing energy needs with American energy — and "no" is not an answer.

No Oil, No Drilling, No Debate

Republicans should take notice of what scares Nancy Pelosi.

WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.

Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? "What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy," she said yesterday when asked that very question. "What we're saying is, 'Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.' . . . It is the economic life of America's families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we're saying is, 'What can we do that is constructive?' "