Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 589 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is taking action to protect the most vulnerable children in our nation's capital. H.R. 3803, the ``District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,'' would limit the District's extreme policy of allowing abortion for any reason, at any time, up until the moment of birth. Based on substantial research showing that a child has the capacity to feel pain starting at 20 weeks of development, we cannot in good conscience allow the District's policy of permitting late-term abortions to stand. Although Congress has repeatedly prohibited the use of taxpayer money for abortions in the capital, the District currently has one of the most far-reaching abortion policies in the nation, permitting abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

H.R. 3803 would ban abortions of pain-capable unborn children except to save the life of the mother. Under the Constitution, Congress and the President have ultimate responsibility for the governance of the capital, as Article I, Section 8, states that ``Congress shall . . . exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District.'' As a member of Congress who believes in the sanctity of human life, I am a strong supporter and co-sponsor of this important legislation. I deeply regret that I must miss the vote on final passage, and would have proudly voted yes.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to stop the President from increasing Washington's borrowing authority once again. How many times do we have to say ``Enough is enough'' before President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress get the message?

Do we have to be in a debt crisis like Europe's before we make the necessary spending cuts? Does our country's credit rating have to be downgraded further? Do we have to be pushed into a corner with no other option but to eliminate programs altogether before we do what's right for America's economic well-being? The answer is clearly ``no.'' We can act now to avoid more painful decisions down the road. America's freedom, security, and prosperity depend on our courage and what we do now to restore fiscal discipline.

America can't afford to let this President continue to borrow and spend on our nation's credit card to advance his failed liberal policies. We need to adopt this resolution. And we need to enact the Penny Plan--legislation I introduced to cut spending by just one penny out of every federal dollar spent and to balance our nation's budget.

Madam Speaker, if families and businesses throughout the United States have to make the tough decisions and cut their budgets so their families and businesses won't be buried in debt, why can't the government do the same for the American people? After all, tax dollars don't belong to the government--they belong to the people who work hard to pay their bills and make their payrolls. We, as elected officials, must be responsible stewards of the people's money. We have been entrusted by those who have put us here.

If we allow Washington to continue its reckless spending habits, we will continue to lose the people's trust--and justifiably so. This is the ``People's House.'' If we don't stand for the American people, who do we stand for? Deficit spending must stop. Enough is enough. Let's restore the America we know and love by getting--and keeping--our fiscal house in order.

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by every effort to restrain federal spending, and I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of people back home who are watching this debate unfold, and more importantly, are watching the Congress and the administration. And, you know, I think a lot of people at home are scratching their head. They're saying we the people are outraged at this administration and this Congress. And they should be.

The White House and their liberal allies in Congress and the media go on a nonstop bashing of a group of Americans who are productive and hardworking. Class warfare is as despicable as any other type of stereotyping, and putting citizen against citizen for political gain is outrageous and it's wrong.

Listen to this. The people are told that a tax cut is a tax increase or a tax increase isn't really a tax increase because there are savings that can be made elsewhere. That doesn't even make sense. Only in Washington can someone say we have to pay for a tax cut. Think about that. What we're saying is, what Washington is saying is, we have to pay for a tax cut. Well, whose money is it? Government doesn't make money. It's the people's money. Yet somehow up here in Washington we keep saying we have to pay for a tax increase. It's that hardworking family that has earned that money. It is not Washington's money.

And people, frankly, I think are disgusted with the notion that somehow the paradigm in Washington is we have to pay for a tax cut. It's their money. Something is very wrong here, and this body is part of the problem.

Let's put out the facts; facts, not spin. Government money doesn't exist. That's a fact. It's the people's money.

Here's another fact. If there are projects that can be cut, they should be cut. They shouldn't be traded like futures in the stock market. If we believe that we ought to extend the payroll tax cut extension, let's extend it. Let's stop playing games about moving money around from one program to another or keeping a bucket of projects or programs that we can save to cut at a time to bargain for something else.

It's time that we get serious, and the American people are saying they've had enough. They've had enough of what they're seeing here in Washington.

Let me say this one more time. Pitting American against American is un-American and outrageous and deserves the condemnation of each and every one of us in this Congress. This is not the America we know and love. We the people deserve better.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution of disapproval because Washington will continue to have a deficit spending problem until we say enough is enough and we put a stop to it. The gentleman across the aisle would like to say this is going backwards. Every time I hear someone on the left speak, it ends up costing us more money. We need to stop the insanity here in Washington. We need to stop this overspending. It seems like the only proposals that are coming our way are more spending and more taxes, so I strongly support this resolution.

I opposed the debt deal because we can no longer wait to make deep spending cuts and balance our Federal budget. We need to act now. Today we have an opportunity to prevent some of the debt deal from going into effect and disallow the government from borrowing another $500 billion--borrowing another half trillion dollars.

Recently, we heard the President keep saying on his new proposal: Pass this bill now. Pass this bill now. Pass this bill today. I'm saying and the American people are saying: Stop the spending now. Stop the spending today. Stop putting this burden on our children and grandchildren. Yet the President wants to continue to go out there and sell a jobs plan that is more of the same, and he wants to pay for it mysteriously, shockingly, by raising taxes that will do nothing but kill jobs. So his own proposal that he wants the Congress to take up, in effect, will destroy jobs.

Somehow we have to convince the people here in Washington and the President that it's not the government that creates jobs. It's the individual. It's the entrepreneurs, the people willing to take risks. But they are not willing to take risks in an economy where the President continues to try to push more regulation and more laws and more taxes. It just doesn't make sense, and the American people are fed up. They've had it. Enough is enough. We've spent way too much money.

During the August district work period, over 500 people showed up to my town hall meeting in Fort Myers, Florida. And do you know what I heard over and over again? ``Hold the line on government spending.'' ``Stay strong.'' ``Reduce government.''

And this one I love: ``It's not your money; it's my money.'' See, only in Washington do the people in this room look at it as their money. They look at your money as their money. It's not. It's the people's who have earned it.

Now a comment was made by a constituent of mine, Edward Benet, which I think speaks directly to this issue. He said: ``We have to reduce the size and scope of government. I'm unemployed, but just because I don't have a job doesn't mean my neighbor should have to pay for me.'' And then he continued on: ``The best way for government to help is to step aside, get out of the way, and let individuals and businesses do what they do best.''

He and his family are willing to sacrifice to preserve the economic freedom for Americans. We must cut spending now. That's why I introduced the 1 Percent Spending Reduction Act, commonly known as the Mack Penny Plan. With this plan, we can balance the budget in 8 years by capping spending at 18 percent of GDP in the 7th year and cutting 1 penny out of every Federal dollar for 6 years. One penny. Everybody at home, every business, every individual has had to take more than 1 penny out of their home budget or 1 penny out of their business budget over the last 4 to 6 years. And for the Federal Government to instead be talking about spending more money every year, we need to cut spending. We need to balance our budget. My plan will balance the budget in 8 years.

And for those people who might want to say we're not for just across- the-board cuts, great. What we've said is Congress decides where the 1 percent comes from. But if the Congress fails, then we're going to require an across-the-board cut. So we can either work together, or one way or another we'll get the 1 percent across the board.

The deficit spending has to stop. Like I said before, enough is enough. I support this resolution, and I would encourage all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 18, 2011, I was unavoidably delayed and unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 601 and 602. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on No. 601 and ``yes'' on No. 602.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 6, 2011, I was unavoidably delayed and unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 495 through 501. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 495, ``yes'' on No. 496, ``no'' on No. 497, ``no'' on No. 498, ``no'' on No. 499, ``yes'' on No. 500, and ``yes'' on No. 501.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is a mere clarification of the Sunken Military Craft Act. The fundamental objective of the Sunken Military Craft Act was to protect sunken United States military vessels, aircraft and spacecraft. This technical correction will make clear that the term ``sunken military craft'' will only include vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries or other vessels on military, noncommercial service at the time they were sunk.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The amendment is clearly to clarify that we are actually talking about military craft as it is a military craft. In other words, if it's involved in commercial activity, then it wouldn't be regarded as military craft. So it's really to make the distinction, which is why the act was put in place the first time, that it's not for commercial craft--it may at one time have been--but it is for actual military craft when they are sunk.

I want to thank the gentleman for expressing his reservations.

I would tell the gentleman and this body that I think it's clear that the understanding of this act is to protect military craft that has sunk; but when that military craft is no longer involved in the military but now is used for commercial activities, then it's no longer a military craft.

So the purpose of this amendment is to clarify this distinction.

With that, Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I think the intent here is just to clarify what is military versus commercial. I hope that I can get the support of the Members.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Mack

Amendment No. 456: Page 281, line 21, strike

``$145,000,000'' and insert ``$0''.

Offered By: Mr. Mack

Amendment No. 450: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Mack

Amendment No. 451: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Mack

Amendment No. 452: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Mack

Amendment No. 453: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following new section:

Sec. 4002. None of the funds made available by this Act

may be used for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.

Offered By: Mr. Mack

Amendment No. 454: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Mack

Amendment No. 455: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: