Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this legislation and commend Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop on their work and the subcommittee on this bill.

Earlier this week, we remembered Memorial Day and many of us around the Nation gave words in recognition of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom. It is altogether fitting and proper that we would do that, but our words need to be backed up with actions. This bill provides the action that backs up our words.

In hearings before the subcommittee, we heard from Marine Corps Sergeant Major Michael Barrett; and in his testimony, his phrase echoed in my mind. He said keeping the faith goes both ways.

Well, our Constitution makes it clear that the obligation of our Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. This bill keeps the faith for those men and women who are providing for that common defense. We make sure that our military has the resources and the facilities needed to train, to house, to educate their families, to equip our servicemembers. But it also makes sure that we have the resources to provide health care and benefits to those veterans who have served. And to make it quite clear, we're not giving those veterans anything. They have earned every bit of it. They honored their commitment. It's important that the Nation honor our commitment back to them.

And while this bill keeps the faith with our military, it also keeps the faith with the taxpayers. We're doing our part to curb spending by funding those Departments at a more responsible and effective-use level. It provides an increase in funding for veterans health care; but by cutting military construction, we provide level funding, and that's a responsible thing to do.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, this measure is not about undermining the Americans with Disabilities Act. This measure is not about denying access. If it were, I would be part of leading the charge to defend that access in the Americans with Disabilities Act. The reason for that is because when I was in college, I lost my eyesight. When I graduated from college, I was blind. I'd been denied a job because of my blindness. I would defend every person's right to access, and I would defend the Americans with Disabilities Act. But this proposal is about finding a reasonable solution to a problem rather than imposing a one- size-fits-all dictate from the bureaucracy of Washington.

There seems to be a serious disconnect between the people that are writing the regulations and those that have to comply with them. Portable lifts accomplish the same access, and they are much easier to install and can be installed at a lower cost. These fixed lifts are much more costly to install, and the net effect is that hotels and municipalities will simply close their swimming pool rather than comply with this new regulation. Many hotels have already begun to comply by ordering portable lifts and making those available, but that money and effort will be wasted because the Department of Justice has decided that only fixed lifts will meet the regulation.

The problem here is that the bureaucrats who don't have to live with the consequences of the rules they write

really don't care how much it costs the small business owners. They just want to tell other people what to do, no matter what the real world consequences are.

Our goal is not to deny access. Our goal is to find a reasonable way for businesses to comply with this new regulation in a fair and reasonable manner and in a cost-effective manner that will ensure access to every American.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important week for the future of our Republic. In this Capitol, we are debating and voting on budgets, laying out our visions for how we should handle the spending, taxing, and debt issues facing America in the coming years. Across the street at the Supreme Court, they're debating what, if any, limits can be placed on the Federal Government's power to regulate under the Commerce Clause of our Constitution.

But, really, we're talking about the same thing: Do we still live under a Federal Government of limited and enumerated powers? Do we believe that the source of our government begins in ``We the people''? Do we believe in liberty? Do we trust people to make their own decisions about their own lives without reliance on, or subservience to, an all-knowing and all-powerful central government in Washington? Are there limits on what Washington can demand of the citizens that it's supposed to be serving? Republicans believe that the answer to these questions is a resounding ``yes.''

The budget put forth by Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee shows that it is possible for this Congress to offer solutions to the challenges of the modern world that are rooted in limited government, individual freedom, and the Constitution. It is our responsibility to govern and to offer the people an alternative to the do-nothing attitude of the Senate Democrat leadership or the business-as-usual, tax-spend-and-borrow budget offered by the President.

The arguments being made by the plaintiffs against the individual mandate are that the Constitution is not

dead, that at least one party in Washington and a majority of the country still believe that the Constitution means what it says, and that there are limits on the power of Congress and of the executive branch.

I'm energized and hopeful for the future of this great Republic as I see these events unfold this week, and I'm reminded of the observation of President Reagan:

I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not

free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and

effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of

physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership in this area. I thank you for yielding.

I find it fascinating as I listen to the debate that even while discussion is going on on the budget, we're hearing accusations that say Republicans want to end Medicare. In reality, 2 years ago when the national health care bill passed, that ended Medicare as we know it. That cut half a trillion dollars out of Medicare spending. That put in place this unelected group of bureaucrats that will make health care decisions for seniors.

And I hear this afternoon suggestions that say, well, it may not even go in effect for 10 years; let's wait and see. Well, we have a saying in Mississippi: Do you know when is the best time to kill a snake? That's the first time you see it. This IPAB is a snake, and the best time to kill it is today. The club and the vehicle by which we'll kill it is this bill, and that's why I'm going to vote for it, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California, for your leadership in this area.

Religious freedom in America is under attack, not from some outside source, but from within. And if we've learned anything from history, we should have learned that great civilizations are at a greater risk of destroying themselves from within than they ever are in danger from any outside peril.

Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our society. In 1789, when James Madison and the rest of the Framers of our Constitution were crafting that great document, their genius created the concepts of separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government. However, when that document was presented to the States, the people said that with all of its genius, that document was inadequate. While it outlined a framework for government, it failed to guarantee individual rights.

So in order to establish the Government of the United States of America as we know it today, our ancestors insisted that our Nation adopt the Bill of Rights--10 amendments to the Constitution that would guarantee rights to every individual. That Bill of Rights begins:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Yet the Obama administration has displayed a disturbing contempt for the religious liberty guaranteed in that Bill of Rights. The message coming out of them seems to be: it's okay to have religious beliefs as long as you confine that practice to your church. They just don't get it. They don't seem to grasp the fact that our faith is part of who we are. We don't check it in and check it out when we walk into our places of worship. We take it with us everywhere we go.

Now, defenders of this health mandate are attempting to play a clever political game. They're attempting to frame this as a narrow debate between women's rights and the Catholic Church. The truth is, this is about an outrageous idea that the State can force citizens of this Nation to violate their religious beliefs by some degree or regulation, and that some bureaucrat at Health and Human Services can violate constitutional rights.

All Americans--its individuals, not just religious institutions-- should be free to purchase and provide health insurance that does not violate their religious beliefs. This principle is so basic that it's tragic that we even have to introduce legislation to reaffirm it. But it's the position of the Obama administration that has put us in the position we're in today. That's why I'm a proud cosponsor of the Rights of Conscience Act, and I urge its swift passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today begins the observation of National Marriage Week. It is a week that begins today, February 7, and will go through Valentine's Day, February 14, next week. Around the Nation, in fact, indeed around the world, there are those organizations and individuals who will be conducting events around National Marriage Week.

So I think it's all too fitting and proper that we take this hour on the floor of the House of Representatives to recognize the importance of marriage and the importance of homes. Tonight, we will be having a series of speeches that will reflect the importance of marriage and the home, and we will also recognize National Marriage Week.

Mr. Speaker, for the first of those speeches, I would like to recognize my friend, my colleague from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

Thank you, Mr. Harper.

Now I would like to call on my friend Mr. Lamborn, the gentleman from Colorado.

Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.

Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to participate in National Marriage Week, along with my bride of 30 years, Tori. In fact, it was February 13, 1980, that she and I went out for the first time. And on that night I found a friend, a friend that would be a life partner. A couple of years later we were married.

Now the purpose of National Marriage Week, as has been articulated here on the House floor tonight, is to recognize the benefits and the stability that strong marriages bring to society. Now, it's purpose is not to belittle those who have never been married. Neither is it's purpose to make those

who may have previously been married feel like their value to America is somehow not important. I recognize tonight there are thousands of single parents struggling. They're struggling every day to make ends meet. They're trying to balance two tough full-time jobs--jobs being the sole breadwinner and provider to a family, and the full-time job of being a parent. But it's also important that we not forget to recognize the importance of strong marriages in our society.

The home is the fundamental unit of society. The home is the system whereby values are transmitted from one generation to the next. Studies have shown that children raised in intact, married homes are more likely to attend college. They're physically and emotionally healthier. They're less likely to be physically or sexually abused. They're less likely to use drugs or alcohol. They're less likely to be involved in a teenage pregnancy. The home was the first institution established on Earth. In fact, it's older than the institutions of religion, of government, of education. The home is the only institution we have on Earth that is exactly the same as it was before sin entered the Earth.

And today, we stand on the foundations of the homes created by our ancestors. And a strong America in the next century begins with strong homes today. Strong homes begin with strong marriages. I have known this to be true in my own life. While their story is not unique, in fact it's a story that is replicated throughout America.

Next week, there's a couple in Tupelo, Mississippi, who will celebrate their 55th wedding anniversary. They married as children in 1957. She was 17. He was an old man of 19. If their compatibility had been put into one of the matchmaking computer programs that's available today and all of their data had been input, those computers I'm convinced would have spit out a three-word message: Are you kidding?

He had lived all of his 19 years of life on a small and poor farm in Pontotoc County, Mississippi. He had rarely traveled from the place of his birth. On the other hand, she was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She lived there until her family was transferred to Mississippi as she was to begin the 11th grade. The summer after she graduated from high school, they met. She canceled her plans to attend college because she had met what would be her life partner. While their backgrounds had very little in common, their families shared two very important values: a strong faith in God and a commitment to the family unit.

Their first night together, they got down on their knees and they committed their marriage to God, and they committed themselves to each other. Over the ensuing 55 years, they've shared many good days: the birth or adoption of seven children; her graduation from college, an event that had been delayed by almost two decades; his becoming very successful in the life insurance business, including becoming the president of one of the State's largest and most successful life insurance companies; the birth of 14 grandchildren; seeing all seven of their children given the opportunity to attain a college education.

But just like in so many families, every day has not been a bright one. Trying to raise children while building a sales territory, there were a lot of times when there was not a lot of money left at the end of a long month.

They've held hospitalized children, some hospitalized with routine childhood illnesses, others with life-threatening conditions, and they've had long nights in the hospital not knowing if that child would make it to see the morning.

They've had to console a grieving daughter as she was consoling a son, a grieving daughter who was far too young to be a widow. They leaned on each other as he was terminated from the company that he'd built. He was the casualty of a corporate merger.

Through the good days as well as the bad, the commitment they made to God, the commitment they made to each other, has endured. While the word ``retirement'' is not in their vocabulary, they are beginning their eighth decade on Earth, and they are beginning it each day with each other.

Their seven children are scattered from Knoxville to San Antonio, and each are contributing members of their communities. One of them lives in Mississippi, but works part-time in Washington, D.C., and tonight he's proud to stand on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and on behalf of their children, their grandchildren, and their great grandchildren, say thank you. Thank you for your commitment to each other, because your commitment to each other, your commitment to your family will not be measured by years, but rather, it will be measured by generations.

This story is not unique. In fact, it's representative of the millions of stories told by millions of families that have made America great. But as we stand here tonight, we need to be mindful that because of the value that strong marriages bring to society, the policies of government should support strong marriages and not oppose them.

All too often, whether it's in tax policy, housing policy, or the policy of Federal benefits, the policies of government are stacked against families. If we truly believe that families are the foundation of a strong America, we need to make the policies of government support and enhance those families.

Mr. Speaker, let me now recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Thank you, Mr. Gohmert.

As we wrap up this hour, recognizing the importance of National Marriage Week, I want to conclude, recognizing, first of all, my own life's partner.

February 13 will mark the day, a little over three decades ago, that I thought I was going out to eat dinner for a blind date. What I was doing was being introduced to a friend, a lifelong friend. As we talked that night, we found out that the things we shared we wanted to share with one another.

And I've learned so much from my now bride of 30 years, Tori, but I think one of the things that I've learned from her that applies to National Marriage Week, I've heard her say, time and time again, love's not a feeling, it's an action. You can't help how you feel about something. You can help how you act.

There's another young family that I'm reminded of as we celebrate National Marriage Week, a young couple that, a little under 6 years ago, I sat at a church, watched their families smile with excitement, watched them exchange promises to one another. And here, in their early years of marriage, they've had words introduced to their vocabulary that they didn't think would be part of their everyday conversation, words like ``biopsy,'' ``radiation.''

As I talked to that young bride over the Christmas holidays, I told her, I said, you didn't sign up for this, did you? She looked at me and smiled and she said, yes, sir, I did. But I committed for better or for worse, in sickness and in health. I did sign up for this. No, I wouldn't choose it, but I'm here, and I'm committed.

So, Mr. Speaker, as we conclude our recognition of National Marriage Week, I'm reminded of the observation of old, the observation that God saw it was not good for man to live alone, so God put us in families. I thank God for those families.

I hope and I pray that the policies of this government will continue to support marriages and families so that we can have a strong America.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Carter, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have to confess, when Judge Carter started talking about Texans loving their pickup trucks and the EPA coming to take our pickup trucks away, that got my attention. Because the judge would know that while Texans love their pickup trucks, the only reason that you love them more is because there's more Texans than there are Mississippians. I love my truck as well, and I don't want anybody to come get it.

The EPA, California regulators, and the Obama White House have combined forces to show how far the left will go. They'll use any means at their disposal to ram through its liberal agenda. I'm convinced that this administration is driven by a radical environmental agenda, and that this environmental agenda will use the threat of allowing California to impose its own set of regulations as a way to strong-arm auto manufacturers into going along with the new and unnecessary fuel economy standards. As has already been described here tonight, Mr. Speaker, this action would drive up the cost of a vehicle by an average of $3,200.

Now, my concern is that young family in Mississippi that's trying to make it on their own, that needs to go out and purchase a new vehicle. For that young family, $3,200 is a lot of money. My concern is the senior citizen that needs to go out and purchase a new vehicle, and they're trying to make ends meet on a limited income. For that senior citizen, $3,200 is a lot of money.

Also, my concern is for those manufacturing workers in Mississippi that are making vehicles tonight. And when the cost of those vehicles goes up by $3,200, common sense says there's going to be less demand. And we've got automobile manufacturers and their suppliers that are a vital part of Mississippi's economy.

Now, Congress has granted sole authority to regulate fuel economy to the Department of Transportation. And all this proposal is is a backdoor attempt to implement cap-and-trade. But there's even a larger issue here. The

larger issue is about a President and the ideology he represents being obsessed with expanding Washington's control over every facet of our life. They've dictated what kind of light bulbs we use. Now they're trying to say what kind of vehicles we drive, what kind of health insurance we purchase, whether you can be forced to provide medical services that even violate your religious beliefs. Their attitude is that regulators know more about what families need than individuals.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to stand up. It's time to say no more. When they're coming for my pickup truck, the answer is ``no.''

I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding and also for his leadership on budget issues.

Mr. Speaker, 1,000 days without a budget and then 2 days ago we received news that the President is going to miss his deadline for submitting a budget to Congress. Rather than urging Senate Democrats to pass a budget and work with us to solve our Nation's fiscal problems, President Obama has joined them in failing to do their job.

America deserves better than this. Families and businesses set budgets every day. How much money do we have? What can we afford? What do we have to go without? In Washington, we have an obligation to ask and to answer those same questions. As I learned operating a small business, failing to plan is planning to fail.

Now, 17 years ago when I lost my job in a corporate merger, my wife and I sat down around the kitchen table, made a pot of coffee and got out a sheet of notebook paper, drew a line down the middle and on the left side we wrote this is how much we have, on the right side how we were going to spend it. That's a budget. Americans are sitting around their kitchen tables every night, and they have every reason to expect their government in Washington to do the same thing.

In the House, we passed a serious budget last year, and we're committed to do so again this year. It's time for the President and the Democrats in the Senate to do the same.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for your leadership. Thank you for yielding.

Our Nation's Founders expressed in our Declaration of Independence that all individuals are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are the right to life. Yet, since January 22, 1973, over 50 million Americans have been denied that very basic right to life. Their unborn voices call from silent graves, asking America to change our ways.

There's another group who suffers in silence: our mothers, our wives, our daughters, and our sisters. Those who

have been exploited as victims of a multibillion dollar industry that profits on their grief.

On this, the 39th anniversary of that decision, we rededicate our decision to stand for life. The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable of its citizens. For far too many unborn children, our Nation has abandoned that protection.

Now, there are those who say that since the Supreme Court has declared it, it must be right. This is the same Supreme Court that looked at Mr. Dred Scott and said, ``Mr. Scott, in the eyes of the law, you're not a man, but chattel.'' The legal equivalent of a cow. The Supreme Court was wrong in 1857, and it was wrong in 1973.

We will answer to a higher law, a law higher than we debate in this hallowed Chamber, a law higher than is discussed across the street in the Supreme Court. And that law says:

For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's

womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and

wonderfully made. My frame was not hidden from You, when I

was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of

the Earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in

Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me

when as yet there was not one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I echo the prophet of old:

This day I call on heaven and earth as witnesses against

you, that I have set before you life and death, blessings and

curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children might

live.

This night we choose life.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise in support of the House-passed provisions, specifically the provisions relating to unemployment insurance reform.

We passed a full year, we extended the benefits, but we added commonsense reform, things like strengthening enforcement of waste, fraud, and abuse in unemployment benefits, strengthening work search and education requirements, and allowing States to test for drugs for those that are receiving benefits. It's very simple: If men and women that are working have to pass a drug test in order to draw their paycheck, those receiving unemployment benefits ought to have to pass the same drug test.

So I call on Harry Reid to bring the Senate back to work so that we can reach a full year's agreement that includes these reforms to our unemployment insurance.

Mississippi experienced a great loss this week with the death of Governor Bill Waller. He served as our Governor from 1972 to 1976, and he provided steady leadership during tumultuous times in our State. He believed that Mississippi should be a place of liberty and justice for all.

Under his leadership, we had the largest pay raise for teachers in our State's history up to that point and the most significant investment in infrastructure and highways up to that point, all while leaving our State with the largest surplus in its history up to that point.

Mississippi is a better place because of Governor Waller's leadership; and this week, we mourn his passing.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

As a member of this historic freshman class, we came here committed to cutting government spending because we know that cutting government spending is tied directly to increasing job opportunities in this Nation.

This bill does something that has not happened since World War II. For the second year in a row, we are now on the path to cutting government spending, not by the definition traditionally used by Washington, which is cutting the rate of growth, but by the definition of the people of America: actually cutting spending.

We also came here to change the way Washington does business. President Reagan observed that government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on Earth.

This conference report terminates a total of 20 programs from the Federal budget. Now, I wish it would have cut more spending, but when I look at the opportunity to cut 20 programs from our Federal budget-- something that rarely happens in this town--I gladly support this conference report.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your work.

Thank you to the ranking member and the minority for working with us to eliminate those 20 programs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I came to this body, I chaired the appropriations committee in the Mississippi Senate. I worked with my counterpart in the other chamber, a Democrat, Chairman Johnny Stringer. We crafted three balanced budgets because Chairman Stringer and I shared a commitment to a principle that you can't spend more money than you take in.

One thing I learned is that there are always more needs and more requests than there are available resources, and that fact causes you to have to make some difficult decisions. We made those difficult decisions in the Mississippi State house. In fact, there are 49 States that require that around the Nation. Municipal, county governments are making those difficult decisions. More importantly, families are making those decisions sitting around the kitchen table, and small businesses are making those decisions tonight. And if they're willing to live within their means, they have every reason to expect their government in Washington to do the same thing.

This balanced budget amendment has been a dream of leaders in this body since Thomas Jefferson. Sixteen years ago we had bipartisan support and came within one vote of getting it adopted. I welcome the support of those Democrats that are stepping up and giving bipartisan support to this measure. We must have a balanced budget amendment to rein in spending so that we can create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment is one of the cornerstones of our liberty. That's why this morning I rise in support of H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.

In Mississippi, approximately 45,000 people have concealed carry permits.

Now, those individuals in Mississippi that have a driver's license issued by our State can drive into Alabama or Tennessee or, for that matter, they can drive into Montana or Maine and their driver's license is recognized as being valid.

H.R. 822 applies that same principle to people with their concealed carry permits. This legislation does not require or authorize action by any Federal agency. New rules or regulations won't be needed to implement H.R. 822. It doesn't override any State or local law. A concealed carry permit holder would still be required to comply with the laws of the State he or she is in.

I support the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act because it expands freedom for law-abiding gun owners, while respecting each State's right to set its own laws.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor one of the members of the Greatest Generation, Mr. Paul Eason. Mr. Paul came home after World War II and became a success in his community by any measure of the word: a manufacturing leader, three terms on our city council, chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Citizen of the Year.

But his most significant contribution was giving his time and energy as scoutmaster for three generations of boys in Tupelo, Mississippi. He was the scoutmaster for Boy Scout Troop 12 for over 59 years.

When he began, his scouts thought it would be interesting to see if they could go for a year without missing a monthly campout. And Troop 12 recently completed its 729th consecutive monthly campout, not missing a month since Harry Truman was president.

They thought they were learning how to tie knots and pitch tents; Mr. Paul was teaching them the meaning of the scout oath: ``On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country.''

America needs more young men that understand the meaning of duty, excellence, and honor.

As a father of two of Troop 12's eagle scouts, Mr. Paul, I want to say thank you for the contribution you've made to your community, your State, and to your Nation. And on this, your 90th birthday, may God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.