Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the debt we are dealing with as a Nation. It is time to stop ignoring the debt problem that we have in America.

The budget we released this morning is focused on solving our fiscal problems, not scoring political points. Key elements: fiscal responsibility; understanding this is not our money; it's owned by the American people; finding common ground with the President's debt commission and bipartisan CBO proposals. We have some areas where we've agreed, and those areas are included.

Shocking as it may seem, conservatives have also included some practical solutions to solve our long-term systemic issues with entitlements and welfare. Our focus was to protect programs that are working, encourage work for every person who's able to work, and set a course for future economic stability.

It's also focused on cutting spending. Raising taxes on Americans to fund more government would be like a family running up a huge credit card bill and then going to their boss at work to tell them they need a raise to pay off their credit card. Their boss would most likely respond, You don't need a raise. You'll just spend more. You need to get your family on a budget and you need to cut your spending to what's absolutely necessary. That's what we must do.

Some in Congress have already called this proposal extreme. Well, I'd have to tell you, I agree. I think this budget is extreme--extremely responsible, extremely forward-thinking, and extremely overdue.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 166, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to challenge this body, and I hope that my message is well received. This Nation was founded on the rules of the Constitution, not the opinions of Republicans and Democrats. Our decisions are judged in the light of the traditions of the past and the precedent that it sets for the future and the future generation.

Mr. Speaker, according to our Constitution, a President cannot pick and choose which parts of the law he prefers. The executive branch does not write the law nor choose the law. It enforces the law. The basic function of every President is to enforce the law. Every executive branch agency has its foundation in a short and clear statement from the Constitution stating this: He--that means the President--shall take care that the law be faithfully executed.

A President can petition for laws to be changed. He can complain about a law. He can encourage passage of new law. But he cannot just ignore the law or write new law. Only the courts can throw out a law, and only Congress can write a law. The President and the Department of Justice cannot unilaterally decide not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

For decades, the Congress has been donating their constitutional powers to the executive branch by giving increased rulemaking authority to the different agencies. Our agencies now write rules that look more like legislation than regulation. We have allowed people to serve in ``Cabinet lite'' level positions without Senate approval. We have exponentially increased the budget for White House staff. And now the President wants to set a new precedent that he alone can determine which

laws he likes and he does not like. With this action, the President has invented a retroactive veto on all previous Presidents and all previous congressional acts.

It is ultimately ironic that the executive branch states that several lower courts have rejected the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, so they are accepting the lower court rulings over a higher court. In the past year, the health care law was ruled unconstitutional, but the Federal Government is pressing forward. The administration was instructed by the courts to lift the drilling moratorium in the gulf, but they stalled.

It is apparent that this administration is bent on placing its political preferences ahead of the courts, ahead of the legislative branch, and the majority of the American people.

Both parties need to understand the precedent that's being set by the President's choosing to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. My Democrat friends should imagine for a moment, what if when a Republican President takes the oath and he instructs HHS and all other agencies not to enforce ObamaCare, though it's the law of the land, because some lower court rejected it? They would be outraged, rightfully so, because currently it is the law of the land. A President cannot just unilaterally throw it aside.

Before this conversation is spun as a partisan issue, let me remind everyone, though, that the Defense of Marriage Act passed the House and the Senate by a wide bipartisan majority and was signed into law by a Democrat President. This is not only a slap in the face to our constitutional system; it is a slap to Republicans and Democrats who expressed the will of their districts and States on an issue that has been settled in law.

The people spoke through Congress, and one person, even a President, cannot undermine the will of the people. At least not in the America that I grew up in.

I do not think we will fully understand the implications of this action if we allow it to stand. We must not act partisan now and regret it later. This is not the way to deal with the gay marriage debate, for the President to just sweep it aside and say, ``I will not enforce the law.''

Many in this Chamber are well aware of my traditional view of marriage and my Biblical world view. I am unashamed of my personal faith in Jesus Christ. I believe that words have meaning, though, and that the meaning of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The Defense of Marriage Act codified that definition in law, representing the belief of a majority of Americans.

This issue is well beyond faith, though, or a social issue or even a political issue. Marriage is now not only the center of a national debate, it's now the center of a constitutional debate.

Weeks ago some members of the press suggested that Republicans would ignore the budget and focus on social issues. I find it ironic now that the President has submitted a budget that will raise the national debt to $26 trillion, by his own numbers, and he has decided to change the national debate from fiscal issues to social issues and gay marriage.

As a Congress, we cannot demand of the executive branch, which is a coequal branch of government. But I believe we must require the executive branch to fulfill its oath of office and constitutional requirement to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

Offered By: Mr. Lankford

Amendment No. 159: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

I do rise in support of H.R. 72.

When the framers of the Constitution started writing, they began article I, section 1, with a simple and clear statement: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' After a great debate, the priority concern was the possibility that some other entity other than Congress would attempt to exercise legislative powers or compel their will on American citizens.

If laws could be made by someone who has no accountability, they could create any rule based on their own preferences and force unchecked spending on the will of their fellow citizens without accountability. This is an unfunded regulatory mandate.

It is my concern that in the race to regulate, we have moved from regulating American business to running State and local governments and have made them, in effect, Federal Government extension employees charged with regulating all aspects of public and private business. Every stage of business is now regulated, from how to interview an applicant to how to fire an employee.

Government paperwork abounds. Every company needs compliance officers and attorneys just to make sure they are running their business based on the preferences of someone from some agency they have never even heard of. That is not real job creation. American companies want to produce products and services, not hire de facto government employees. We need real job growth.

It is time for Congress to assume its responsibility. If there is a grievous regulation, it shouldn't be EPA's fault, HHS's fault or even the executive branch's fault. It is ours.

Let me give you some examples of these unfunded mandates in my own home State of Oklahoma. The City of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, is currently drowning under a new EPA requirement to filter the storm water. That is correct, filtering the rainwater.

The City of Bethany, Oklahoma, spent over a quarter of a million dollars in 1987 to put in two water wells, only to be required a few years later to take them out by EPA because of their wastewater. Then EPA changed their wastewater requirements in 2006 and cost the City of Bethany over $9 million. The street signs in Bethany must also change to a new type of reflective material to meet new DOT regulations, costing the city who knows how much.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation has to go through millions of dollars of hoops to tear down an old bridge to replace it with a new bridge in the exact same spot. They have to navigate the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and many more, while people drive over an old, deteriorating bridge.

I will tell you, I will be the first to promote wheelchair ramps on sidewalks, but Federal interpretation of ADA to construct accessible curb ramps at intersections and other locations has been invoked where no connecting sidewalks even exist. In Oklahoma City, where I live, such a wholesale directive results in curb ramps that terminate in adjacent vacant lots, to a ditch, embankments, and sometimes straight into a light pole. The desire to do the right thing sometimes leaves no room for exercising common sense.

We are regulating common sense out of Federal, State and local governments, and we are costing State and local taxpayers millions in unfunded mandates.

Sometimes our regulations don't cost money but they do cost trust in the relationship between citizens and their Federal Government.

Last Christmas, a community bank in Oklahoma was told by a Federal regulator that their employees had to take off the buttons that said ``Merry Christmas, God is with us,'' and remove the scripture verse announcement on their board because it might cause someone to feel discriminated against that walked into the bank. This is a privately owned business in America.

Every person in that community has lost trust with the commonsense leadership of the Federal Government because we have allowed unchecked regulation. The assumption that Federal agencies are the only people who care about clean water, clean air, fair business practice, et cetera, is arrogant and misinformed. I don't know anyone who loves the air, water and land in Oklahoma more than Oklahomans, and I am confident that is true for other States as well.

We must take a serious look at unfunded mandates and regulations. We need to hear the cry of our cities, counties and States where they say please stop the flood of regulations. They want two things: predictability and clearly defined limited scope.

This is a bipartisan issue. We have common agreement with the other members of my subcommittee, and we will immediately take this up next Tuesday in our first subcommittee hearing.

Thank you for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, the repeated diatribe from Members on the other side of the aisle that somehow they are the only individuals in this Chamber who care about the health of American families demonstrates again the deep-seated partisanship that we must work to defeat.

We all want great health care in America. We hear the American people loud and clear. They don't like ObamaCare, but they do want something to be done.

We must have real national tort reform to reduce the costs of defensive medicine.

We must encourage medical innovation to deal with the FDA approval process that covers any new discovery in paperwork, costing $1 billion a drug just to get it through the FDA process.

We must open up more options for insurance carriers, allowing someone who is frustrated with the service or the cost or quality of his carrier to fire them and to get a new insurance provider.

We must reject price fixing as a cost-cutting solution.

We must allow every American to choose their own doctors, even pay their doctors directly if they choose to do that.

We must give senior Americans more choices in physicians who accept Medicare patients.

We must provide States with greater flexibility; and we must deal with portability, high risk, and preexisting conditions.

Republicans have friends and family who are dealing with the same medical issues that Democrats deal with. Suffering, disease, and pain have no respect for political affiliation. We just believe that, if you are sick and hurting, you should contact your doctor, not Washington, DC, to see what to do next.

Let's surprise America. Let's work together, and let's get something done. Let's show them that, even with a divided House and Senate, we can reject the gravitational pull of politics, that we can put aside our differences, and that we can work together for the good of those who are most vulnerable.

I thank my colleague from New Jersey for hosting this time in the House Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of one of the most basic functions of any government. Three thousand years ago, a mom taught her son, the king, how to be a wise ruler. We have her words written down in Proverbs 31, where she told him, ``Speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.''

Two hundred thirty-five years ago, our founders wrote a despot king, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''

This truth that all people have the right to life is so obvious, so clear that they called it ``self-evident.'' But in America, millions of people cannot pursue happiness and they cannot appreciate liberty because their first God-given right was denied--life.

In recent days, discussion from the left has turned to reducing the numbers of abortions. I applaud this line of thinking because it admits one thing--abortion is wrong. It destroys a life and it devastates a future of a mom.

I ask: Why should abortion be reduced if it is just another medical procedure to remove some unwanted tissue from a woman? If it is just tissue, what does it matter? No one is saying that we need to reduce the number of skin moles being removed or reduce the number of warts that are removed, that that is unconscionable. Why? Because we know that a wart is unwanted tissue. But a fetus, that is a baby.

We can use any euphemism, like ``fetus'' or ``dividing tissue'' or ``embryo,'' or just simply ``inconvenience,'' but no one comes to the family and says: How is the embryo? No one says to a pregnant woman or hears a pregnant woman say: Excuse me, I just felt the fetus kick. No one comes to a baby shower and says: Here is a gift for your inconvenience.

Say what you want, split hairs all you want, we know that is a baby.

Decades ago, we could not look into the womb and see the development of the child. People were told the child in the womb was just like a chicken embryo. But now, with 3-D ultrasound, we can look into the darkness of the womb and see a child kicking her feet, sucking her thumb. We can count her fingers and toes and watch their tiny heartbeat.

At 20 weeks, we can look at the child inside and even say boy or girl. Why? Because it's a child, not just an embryo. The difference between an adult and a child in the womb is just time. They are a person who must be given their most basic of all human rights--life.

I strongly support defining life at conception. I strongly support adoptions. I strongly support crisis pregnancy centers and Hope Pregnancy Centers, which are doing such a great job all around the country and all around my district in Oklahoma. It is time to cut off Federal funding for abortion.

Why is it in America that taxpayers who are mortified at the thought of abortion are required to also give their tax money to fund abortions around the world?

When a constituent comes to me and asks, Why are my taxes so high? I have to tell him, Partially because your government is spending some of your hard-earned money on abortion funding around the globe.

Why is it in this Chamber today we can debate for hours if an infant should be guaranteed health care coverage, but yet some of the same individuals who demand insurance protection for that child would find no issue in killing that infant only moments earlier when it was in the womb?

Earlier today, a clinic in Philadelphia was raided, where a physician was arrested for fully delivering infants 6, 7, 8 months into the pregnancy and for stabbing with scissors those children after they had been delivered--today.

This is the United States of America. This issue is not about oppressing women or denying choice. It is about protecting children and honoring the self-evident truth that everyone is endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including and especially life.

Almost four decades ago, individuals in this Chamber laid the foundation for a court ruling that has stripped the womb of its glory and its majesty. For decades since, legislators in this Chamber have protected bald eagle eggs, migrating insects, snail darters, and rare flowers, but we refuse to protect children.

May God have mercy on our Nation, and may we awaken one day to the horror of what abortion policies have done to our Nation. We would rather protect our fundraising, our leadership and our convenience than protect the unborn child. This is not a difficult choice. It is a clear choice--and we should choose life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2.

A few months ago, I visited with a small business owner in Oklahoma who has five employees but whose health care costs for 2011 will go up by 50 percent. When he asked about that, the reason he was given was: the cost of implementing the new health care law. Another business owner told me he would not hire new employees until he could figure out what the cost of health care is going to be, so he will just stop hiring.

While some in this Chamber talk about universal coverage and cost controls, many people in my district are frustrated with this so-called ``solution.'' Every person should control his own health care option and opportunities. Every young student should have the motivation to go into medical research and the practice of medicine. As our population ages, every doctor should have greater incentives to take on Medicare patients.

We need to deal with the root causes of health care costs and not just move the costs to the States and put in price controls on doctors and hospitals. Shared pain is not what America was looking for. America was looking for solutions. The new health care law will create long- term budget issues in the days to come. From a budget perspective, you can cook the numbers all you want, but this bill will dramatically increase our Federal debt again.

We need answers, not bigger problems. This is the United States of America. I believe we can do better than this. It is time to repeal this law and start the hard work of solving the cost issues of health care delivery.

With that, sir, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2.

``Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.''