Floor Statements

I, too, want to rise today in recognition of this 39th year since this decision has come down from the Supreme Court, and it is something that has affected my family, my life. I think we have all known somebody who has had an abortion, whether she felt forced into it or whether she made that choice. Every single one of them, I know, has regretted that.

This issue of life became very personal for my wife and me as we had to move forward through troubled pregnancies and after losing quite a few pregnancies, struggling with that whole notion of ``what is life?'' and of ``what does that mean to have that life growing in you?'' We firmly came down on the side of this being a gift from God, that creation that happens. That's something that we want to protect.

I can tell you that the hardworking taxpayers don't expect their dollars to go towards procedures such as this and that it's something that this House has continued to fight for. I hold this issue very dear, and my wife, who now serves on the board of a crisis pregnancy center back in west Michigan, also holds that very near and dear. I will continue to fight for that sanctity of life and for that dignity of life at the beginning as well as at the end as long as we're here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time to come and report back to this body and to the people of the Second District about my very quick but very informative weekend trip to Afghanistan where I was able to be cautiously encouraged by the progress that the Afghan National Army is making there. Mainly, my goal was to go and say ``thank you'' to the men and women of all the different branches and to let them know that they will not be forgotten by me, by my constituents or by the rest of us here in this body.

I especially want to say ``thank you'' to our international partners--the Brits, the Aussies, the Germans, the Dutch, the Romanians--who are there with us along with many others who are pushing this effort forward. I also want to say ``thank you'' to the Embassy staff for their fine work and to the men and women of the Air National Guard, who are there sacrificing, especially those men and women from the 82nd Airborne, who hosted us in Kandahar. I also thank the marines at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I now proudly carry this challenge coin given to me by a new friend, a sergeant major from Michigan. I carry this in my pocket every day, and I want them to know that they will not be forgotten.

Thank you, Chairman Camp, I appreciate that.

I'm a little confused myself. I saw one of our Senate colleagues from New York on television this morning talking about how we needed to pass this 2-month extension, and he would be the first one on an airplane back to Washington, DC., so that we could negotiate a yearlong deal. I'm confused. Why don't we just do that right now. That's what the American people expect. The American people expect us to get this deal done right now and to provide them some certainty for an entire year versus 2 months.

Now, this Monday morning I had a breakfast with my joint Chambers of Commerce in Holland and Zeeland, and we had almost 500 people there. And when I asked the question, who here thinks this 2-month extension is a good idea? Not a single hand went up. I said, okay, maybe I need to ask this a little differently. Who here thinks that this is a dumb idea to do a 2-month extension? Virtually every single hand in that breakfast went up.

The American people are looking for long-term solutions. Employers are looking for long-term solutions. It's called quarterly reports. I'm a small business owner. Oftentimes people have to file quarterly reports. We're not even doing them the service of giving them a full quarter to change their paperwork; we're doing 2 out of 3 months. Now, you want to talk about a burden on small business, I can tell you it is.

It's time for this House to go to work, which we have done. It's time for our Senate colleagues to do the exact same thing. Because guess what? My three employees--Irv, Dirk, and Larry--they're all at work today. Why isn't that good enough for the Senate?

There are two things that fundamentally need to be included in this. First and furthermore is 12 months of certainty. Let's get through that debate of how we are going to offset the costs and how we are going to make sure that this works for the employee, the employer, those with a job and those without a job.

We also need to make sure that we don't lose sight of the Keystone pipeline in here; an immediate 20,000 jobs that can be provided here in the United States, 20,000 jobs that could come to this country and help alleviate the need for these systems, the need for unemployment insurance. And it's the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore my colleagues in the Senate and to the President, it's time to stand with the American worker. We're talking about adding 20,000 jobs as we approved the Keystone pipeline coming from Alberta, Canada, down to the gulf shore. But Canada's already a leading source of our oil. They actually give us more oil and produce more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Michigan is actually an excellent example of what happens with that partnership. Enbridge, which is actually a competitor to TransCanada right now, is already looking at increasing its capacity and expanding its pipeline; Marathon Refineries, looking at expanding its capacity to be able to handle these Canadian crudes.

We know that this inflow of Canadian oil is a positive thing. Zero taxpayer dollars are going to be used for this, and it will be put thousands of our American workers back to work at a crucial time.

The oil will be extracted. The question is: Where is it going to go? Is it going to be shipped to the United States and create U.S. jobs, or is it going to Asia to help fund the engine to compete against us?

It's time to stand with the American worker, Mr. President.

I rise today with a twinge of sadness in my heart as I pay tribute to Frederik Meijer, a friend to the entire west Michigan community and one of America's most entrepreneurial spirits, who passed away this week just shy of his 92nd birthday.

Fred was born in Greenville, Michigan, in 1919, and was known as the ``father of the super store.'' His innovation and entrepreneurship will live on in his Meijer grocery stores, with over 200 stores in five different States. Mr. Meijer will be remembered in west Michigan for his philanthropy, his friendship, and care of the community he lived in and its residents. He and his wife, Lena, gave back and invested millions in west Michigan, and created what would become one of the State's top attractions, the Frederik Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park.

Despite growing one of the most successful businesses in the country and revolutionizing the retail model, Mr. Meijer remained a typical west Michigan down-to-earth person who once remarked, ``Money is only a tool'' and ``Money doesn't buy happiness.'' He truly knew what was important and kept that in the forefront: friends, family, a strong relationship with his neighbors and community. The thing he loved to do the most was to hand out ``Purple Cow'' cards--free ice cream cards to kids in his stores. That will be remembered by my family as well.

Again, I rise to pay tribute to him, his family, and the innovation and entrepreneurial legacy he leaves behind.

Mr. Meijer, you will be missed but you will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, today we recognize Dutch American Heritage Day, a day that honors the strong friendship between our two countries and the many contributions of Americans of Dutch descent.

It was the Netherlands who first officially recognized the flag of the newly formed United States of America on this day in 1776, and later, The Hague would become the first American Embassy in the world.

Today, the United States and the Netherlands share a very robust economic relationship. The Netherlands is the third-largest investor in the U.S. Between exports and this investment, our partnership helps to generate over 700,000 jobs in the U.S. In 2010, the Netherlands ranked seventh among all the trading partners the U.S. exports goods to.

The Netherlands has been a strong ally as well. Dutch troops fought beside Americans in occupied territory during World War II and in conflicts since, as well as serving together in peacekeeping missions across the world.

The contributions of many great Dutch-Americans have helped shape U.S. history, including three presidents, Martin Van Buren, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, as well as numerous cultural figures, including Thomas Edison, Humphrey Bogart, Walter Cronkite, and, more recently, General David Petraeus.

While a destination for many immigrant settlers, the Dutch have left an influential mark on the Second District of Michigan, both economically and culturally. From cities and villages with Dutch namesakes like Borculo, Drenthe, Holland, and Zeeland, to traditions like the Tulip Festival and Sinterklaas parade, Dutch settlers have shared their heritage proudly with their neighbors.

Today we celebrate not only a common heritage, but also a friendship that has helped shape America since its birth.

We are thankful for the contribution of Dutch-Americans not only in West Michigan, but throughout the United States, and look forward to a strong partnership for years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the American people to let their voice be heard. Our crushing national debt and our

out-of-control spending is something that has been made aware of for so many, but it is time to do something about it.

As part of the House Republican plan for America's job creators, we have a stated goal: to pay down America's unsustainable debt burden and start living within our means.

Madam Speaker, when I served in the Michigan Legislature, we had to live under that same requirement of a balanced budget according to the Michigan Constitution. It made for some very, very difficult decisions.

But you know what, Madam Speaker? The American people are not only ready, they are asking for this reasonable step to be made for us to insert this balanced budget amendment into the United States Constitution as well. They need to do it in their own lives. It's time government do it as well with theirs.

Living within our means is a requirement in their lives. It is a requirement for a vast majority of the State governments. It's time that the Federal Government do that as well.

It's time for your voice to be heard. And, frankly, Madam Speaker, it's time for the American people to hold accountable those who will not listen.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I rise today in support of my amendment, along with the co-leads, Chairman Tom Petri from Wisconsin and Congressman Dan Benishek of Michigan.

Today we're talking about a particular ship, the SS Badger located in Ludington, Michigan. It travels between Ludington and Manitowoc, Wisconsin. This particular ship has been operating on the Great Lakes for over 50 years, most recently coming back into service in 1991, using all private dollars to make that happen.

Its uniqueness is recognized by the designation of the National Register of Historic Places and by both the States of Wisconsin and Michigan. Its propulsion system is recognized as a mechanical engineering landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

The Badger is currently operating under special rules developed by the EPA in 2008. These rules are set to expire at the end of 2012. Without certainty provided by this amendment, the Badger could very easily, frankly, be forced off the Great Lakes at the end of 2012.

With an annual economic impact of roughly $35 million between two small port cities both in Wisconsin and Michigan, keeping the Badger operational is absolutely vital to our communities. I urge all of my colleagues today to join us in recognizing the historic significance of these Great Lake steamships by supporting the Huizenga-Petri-Benishek amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At this time I yield to my colleague, Chairman Tom Petri from Wisconsin.

At this time, Mr. Chair, I yield to my fellow Congressman from Michigan, Representative Dan Benishek.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of

I appreciate the leadership of my friend from Pennsylvania, who has been stalwart on this issue.

Really, what we're seeing, folks, is a sleight of hand. They want to talk about jobs, and they want to talk about Big Oil because they don't want to talk about the preciousness of life and how this procedure takes the life of an innocent. It has been labeled an ``extreme'' bill when, actually, this is a reasonable step that codifies what this President says is his own position.

I have a brother-in-law who is a doctor down in Cincinnati. A little earlier today, I called him to talk to him about what he went through in his training and what he had to deal with as to this particular issue.

When I described to him what we were trying to do about allowing him and any other med student and any other person who is going through that to conscientiously object from putting forward a procedure that they don't agree with, he said, Of course, that makes sense.

When I started talking to him about some of the rhetoric and about some of the demagoguery that's surrounding this, he sarcastically said, Boy, that doesn't sound political, does it?

That's exactly what it is.

The American people who are watching this right now need to understand that this is about life and protecting that life and making sure that our health care providers have the ability to say ``no'' to a procedure that they don't want to do.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2681, and I just want to talk a little bit about the real-world effects that have been alluded to.

I have firsthand knowledge. My family's company, now owned by my cousins, but a company started by my father and my uncle has been in the Redi Mix concrete business for over 40 years. I own a sand and gravel company back in Michigan.

I just want to point out that this is actually not an attack on clean air, as some of my colleagues on the other side have said. This stops an attack on the American worker. Let's talk about some of those real- world effects.

We will be buying more cement from outside the United States, as has been pointed out, and it is much dirtier produced over there. What are the challenges that we have been seeing in this industry over the last few years?

We know that a soft economy means less construction. Other challenges that we have been dealing with: increased fuel costs, increased health care costs under ObamaCare and other requirements, increased unemployment insurance requirements, increased labor regulations, now even greater costs with little or no benefit directly coming to us.

I don't quite understand what my colleagues on the other side think is going to happen when we are talking about building roads. Do they want to drive on wooden roads? Do they want to live in mud brick hovels and shiver in the cold?

I mean, we have got to have concrete and cement as the backbone of the recovery here that we are going to be having. We will simply be forced to buy that cement from outside the United

States, and I don't understand why this administration insists on attacking the engine of our recovery.

This stops an attack on the American worker and job creators, and I support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we're talking about common sense. Unfortunately, I don't think we're hearing much of that coming out of the other side because they're talking out of both sides of their mouth here. How in the world does a 20 percent reduction in the number of cement plants in the United States, out of the 100 that we have, how

does that 20 percent loss, or estimation of 18 to 20 cement plants, equal more jobs? I'm a little lost. I know I'm a freshman here, but I'm lost as to how, when we're shutting down businesses, that equals more jobs.

I'm also curious about how in the world we can call this a Maximum Achievable Control Technology when people in the industry and people outside the industry say it's not achievable. We might as well call it the ``maximum dreamed-up control technology.'' We've got to introduce some common sense to this.

Now, we can solve all of our pollution issues coming out of cement plants by shutting every single one of them down. We can shut every single one of those 100 plants down here in the United States. I do not think that India is going to shut theirs down. I don't think China is going to be shutting theirs down. I know Indonesia is not going to be shutting theirs down. I'm betting our friends and neighbors in Canada aren't going to be shutting theirs down.

So we can shut down every single cement plant. That's not going to solve our problems, though, because we have to keep going further. We've got to shut down every power plant. We've got to stop driving every car, every bus, every train. We might as well ban campfires, grilled foods--and cancel Christmas while we're at it. There has got to be some common sense involved here.

Ontario tried this a few years ago when they were going to shut down all of their coal-fired power plants. Their goal: get rid of them all. The outcome: not a single one--zero--was shut down because they know that it wasn't possible. And we're seeing here a proposed regulation that is five times more stringent than what our friends in the European Union are talking about, and in Canada: five times more stringent. How is that going to make the United States more competitive, and how is that going to retain jobs here?

Mr. Chairman, we have got to make sure that, instead of using the ``maximum dreamed-up control technology,'' we actually use the Maximum Achievable Control Technology. And that is what we have today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor Juke Van Oss's 60 years of broadcasting on WHTC 1450 in Holland, Michigan. On Aug. 9, Juke celebrated 60 years of service to the station and his community.

Juke's work in radio began during World War II in the Philippines and Korea. No doubt, his service transmitting codes and protecting radio equipment helped coordinate American troops against the great foes of National Socialism and Fascism. For any American, this service should be more than sufficient to earn the gratitude of others, but Juke further endeared himself to the people of West Michigan with his work during peacetime.

After the war, Juke attained his amateur license and became a radio engineer for WHTC at the age of 27. Juke recognized that radio is a medium like no other. Nothing else commands such great respect for the spoken word, and Juke soon learned to inspire that respect in listeners throughout the community. One morning, the scheduled announcer failed to arrive on time so Juke took a seat at the microphone. An instant favorite of listeners, Van Oss began hosting his own morning show, and for the past 45 years he has hosted ``Talk of the Town.'' Juke became a local celebrity in the Holland area as thousands of families invited him into their homes, and men and women enjoyed his company during their daily commutes. Juke used radio to knit together and tighten a community. He helped make national issues local, and local people neighborly.

Mr. Van Oss is not only a radio personality, but a community servant. He served as a member of the Saugatuck Schools Board of Education and Village Council, including three years as Mayor, as well as President of the Chamber of Commerce and a seat on the Region 8 Criminal Justice Planning Council. I fervently wish for every community in our Nation their own Juke. Mr. Speaker, please let it be known that on this Sept. 16, 2011, that the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledges the achievements of Mr. Van Oss and wishes him the best in his future years in broadcasting.

I appreciate my colleague from California for yielding.

Earlier, we heard from a colleague from Florida, on the other side of the aisle, who was talking about the Constitution and about the intent of it. Ladies and gentlemen, this is about controlling our spending and accountability with the American people. It might not be in this bill, and it might not be in other bills, but eventually, we have to realize we need to put institutional brakes on our spending because we cannot control our spending in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American with a legacy of being a passionate advocate for the issues that she believed in.

Former First Lady Betty Ford passed away earlier this week at the age of 93. She was known as a beacon of warmth and kindness. She was also a tough lady. She's being buried today next to her husband, Jerry Ford, in Grand Rapids at the Presidential museum.

My entire family and I had opportunities to meet her over the years, and I have to say, it's truly an honor now to represent part of the district that Jerry Ford had so long served in this very House.

We are all deeply saddened by her passing. Mrs. Ford cared deeply about others, as evidenced in her work helping people through their addiction and recovery from chemical dependency through the Betty Ford Clinic, and her work to raise awareness of breast cancer and many other issues, all at a time when those things really were not discussed much in public.

Above all, she led the Ford team as she supported her husband's service to a Nation with admirable love and mutual respect, at times literally being his voice, like she did that evening that he made his concession speech in 1976.

Well, this spring, at the dedication ceremony of the statue of President Ford here in the Rotunda lying just beyond, we were reminded of his calm, steady leadership, and his ability to reach out to others. They were always a team. And it was as much a tribute to her as it was to President Ford.

Again, we continue to pray for the Ford children, Susan, Jack, Mike, and Steve, and the entire Ford family as we pay tribute to their mother and the legacy that she leaves behind.

Rest well, Mrs. Ford, rest well.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and come before this body to talk about something that I think is a key question that the American people have. We are dealing with a lot of weighty issues these days--Afghanistan, Libya, the debt ceiling, the Tax Code and tax reform--but I believe the key question that we have before us is and the key question that the American people have for us is:

When and how will America get back to work?

Mr. Speaker, it's far more than just creating a bill and labeling it ``job creation bill'' or a whole package of those or a stimulus package of government spending that, frankly, hasn't worked and even admitted to and joked about by the President recently when he said those shovel- ready jobs and those shovel-ready projects maybe weren't so shovel- ready.

No, they weren't.

But it's far more than just creating a bill and labeling it ``job creation.'' It's about creating an atmosphere for private sector growth.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the private sector creates prosperity, not the government sector. The government sector can give a job, but the private sector creates wealth and creates prosperity, and it's not just in our Tax Code and how that's being applied; it's also in the regulatory atmosphere that we present to those job creators.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this House is trying to inject some reasonableness into a system that has gone awry. Whether it's the EPA creating out of whole cloth regulations that we have not dictated should happen or whether it's the National Labor Relations Board coming up with hurdle after hurdle for these job creators, this administration has continually overstepped the bounds of reasonableness, and it's our job, Mr. Speaker, to rein that in. You would think with 429,000 new jobless claims last week--let me repeat that--with 429,000 new jobless claims we would try to more aggressively create a better climate and change that atmosphere. I can tell you we're trying to do that here in the House. We just need some partners across the other side of the Capitol and in the administration as well.

Recently, the House Republicans had an opportunity to meet with the President at the White House. My good friend and chairman of the Small Business and Job Creators Caucus, of which I'm a member, my friend from Wisconsin, Reid Ribble, got up and indicated to the President that we need to do three things for success.

One, we need to have consumer confidence. That means, whether they're the people up in the balcony or those who are watching on TV right now, with the money that they have in their pockets, they feel confident enough that they're going to have a little extra, that they can go out and spend some money on an appliance or on a car, which is very important for those of us from Michigan, or maybe on a vacation. We need to have some consumer confidence, and they don't have that right now.

The other thing is we need to have credit available to those small business creators, those job creators, who are out there, who are cash- flowing, who are continuing to make those tough decisions to stay in the black, but they're now finding out that they can't access credit because of the unreasonable regulations that the Dodd-Frank banking bill has put in front of them.

Lastly and thirdly and maybe most importantly, we need certainty. We need a stability that has not been there for a number of years now. We need stability in our Tax Code. We need stability in our regulations. People basically need to know what the rules of the game are so that they can make long-term business decisions to again create those jobs. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's one of the reasons why I support the House's plan for American job creators, and I encourage you to go to my Web site ``Huizenga.house.gov'' to see more about that.

Again, it's not just about a bill that's labeled ``job creation.'' It's about an attitude that we need to have. In this package, we know that we need to remove redtape and the excessive regulations that are out there. We know that we need to expand American domestic energy production. That's a ``must do'' for us. We need to fix and streamline our Tax Code. We need to expand new markets abroad for the goods that our manufacturers make.

But again, Mr. Speaker, it's not just a bill. It's an attitude. We need to have an attitude of, ``Yes, we will work with you to help create those jobs,'' not, ``No, it doesn't matter what your question is. The answer is `no.' We are not going to help.''

That, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, has been the dominant attitude of this administration and of this government, and it's time that we change that.