Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the House passed H.R. 2397, Fiscal Year 2014 Department of Defense Appropriations Act on July 24, 2013. My amendment, made in order as Amendment #77, was adopted by the House in En Bloc package number one offered by Mr. Young of Florida. I want to be clear about the intent of this amendment. The amendment reduces the Defense-wide Operations and Maintenance account by $11 million and reallocates $10 million split evenly between Army and Air National O&M accounts for National Guard State Partnership Program (SPP) activities. Specifically, this amendment would reduce the lowest priority internal media activities within the Defense Media Activity (DMA) Operations and Maintenance account. The Department should not apply this reduction to DMA overseas media activities. My intent is that the increases in Army and Air National Guard O&M accounts specifically fund the National Guard State Partnership Program.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Ms. Bordallo and Mr. Wilson, for co-sponsoring this amendment. These two members are champions of the National Guard and its security cooperation programs. The Bordallo- Wilson bill, H.R. 641, codified SPP in statue and became Section 1204 of this year's House-passed National Defense Authorization Act.

The State Partnership Program is a vital component of the DOD's security cooperation mission. In contrast, Defense Media Activity includes numerous ``nice to have'' activities such as the Pentagon Channel and all of those glossy brochures that fill our in-boxes during budget season. This very modest funding readjustment signals Congress's commitment to fully leveraging SPP as a security cooperation tool. SPP is particularly important given the budget cuts to active duty deployed forces that will be less able to fulfill these requirements.

SPP is a DOD security cooperation program run by the National Guard that links state and territorial National Guards to military and civilian personnel in 70 partner nations. Almost every state and territory participates in SPP. In my state of Oklahoma, our National Guard has developed a robust relationship with Azerbaijan, a country increasingly important to energy security in Europe and Israel.

Unlike some security cooperation programs, SPP is not a ``talking shop'' where nothing of substance takes place. Typical SPP missions include:

1. Subject matter expert exchanges

2. Demonstration and training of certain capabilities and technologies

3. Senior leader visits; and

4. Mentor and liaison teams in which National Guardsmen actually embed with partner personnel on operations.

In times of budget cuts and sequestration, regional combatant commanders will reduce active duty participation in theater security cooperation activities. SPP can help plug this hole in support of joint COCOM and Chief of Mission objectives. No activities can occur without the joint approval of the COCOM and Chief of Mission. The types of activities eligible for funding are limited to those within the National Guard's core competencies.

By using the National Guard, SPP adds value in ways that, frankly, active duty forces cannot match. SPP brings three unique attributes to the table. First, SPP creates enduring relationships between particular individuals over the course of careers. Some National Guard and foreign military personnel have literally been training with each other for over two decades. As a Navy pilot, I can tell you that trust is indispensable in terms of fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with allied forces. Trust is built through constantly engaging with our allies and friends.

Second, the National Guard's dual-status gives it expertise in certain operations that partner nations must execute regularly. Our National Guardsmen are experts in disaster relief, border security, search and rescue, and civil disorder operations, among other operations. Finally, SPP brings our states and territories into security cooperation and provide conduits for developing non-security relationships such as strengthening economic or educational exchanges.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of the work the Oklahoma National Guard has done working with Azerbaijan. My amendment is a modest step toward properly funding this vital program.

Mr. Speaker, the recent news of the kidnapping of a U.S. Marine Corporal Armando Torres in Mexico is an incredibly tragic story. Corporal Torres was kidnapped on May 14, 2013 while visiting his father's ranch in La Barranca, Tamaulipas, Mexico just across from the U.S. border. The Torres family believes the ranch was the target of drug cartels as transshipment for drugs. I strongly urge those holding Corporal Torres to release him immediately.

As a Navy pilot with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe that Congress must send a message to our government and Mexico's government that we do not turn our backs on our men and women in uniform. I urge the U.S. State Department to prioritize securing the release of Corporal Torres in terms of our foreign policy with Mexico. As a member of Congress, I will do everything in my power to bring attention to Corporal Torres's kidnapping.

Thank you, Dr. Fleming, for your leadership on this.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I support this amendment to prohibit the appointment of atheist chaplains.

My constituents back in Oklahoma are shaking their heads. The secular left is so invested in ripping God from everything that I must stand here with my friend Dr. Fleming in order to prohibit Obama's Department of Defense from establishing an oxymoron--atheist chaplains.

Military chaplains have a duty to faithfully serve all servicemembers and to facilitate the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. As a Navy pilot with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I recognize that war affects all servicemembers--believers and atheists. However, those without faith have plenty of options, from counselors to psychologists, from whom to seek emotional support.

Why does the secular left insist on ruining the integrity of the chaplaincy in order to serve their agenda of institutionalized godlessness?

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Walorski amendment to prohibit transfer or release of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Yemen.

Mr. Chairman, over the weekend, hundreds of convicts, including senior members of al Qaeda, broke out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail. The Abu Ghraib prison break perfectly demonstrates that most countries cannot credibly secure highly dangerous terrorists, including Yemen. Indeed, Yemen has a particularly bad record of prison breaks involving al Qaeda terrorists.

In December 2011, several al Qaeda militants escaped from an Aden prison. In 2006, 23 al Qaeda militants broke out of a Sanaa jail and established the core leadership of al Qaeda in Yemen, a group which has since metastasized into al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Given Yemen's terrible track record, it seems obvious that we should not consider transferring a single detainee to Yemen. Yet President Obama is so ideologically committed to fulfilling his misguided promise of closing Guantanamo Bay that I fear he may try.

Mr. Chairman, recidivism among the transferred Gitmo detainees is a huge problem. According to the Director of National Intelligence, the latest report, 97 of the 603 transferred Gitmo detainees have re- engaged in terrorism. A further 72 are suspected of re-engaging. Nearly one-third of all transferred Gitmo detainees are either confirmed or suspected of getting back in the fight. Clearly, Congress needs to get involved and set acceptable boundaries on the President.

As a Navy pilot with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you that our troops' job is already difficult enough. We don't have to fight the same people twice.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise today to offer an amendment that will provide temporary relief and assurance for communities who otherwise will soon be hit by some of the sharpest increases in water storage prices ever seen. My amendment is simple. It prohibits the Army Corps of Engineers from using any official resources or funds to set new, increased water storage prices for municipal use on any non-hydropower lake that was built by the Corps.

The Corps would only be permitted to set the same rates on local communities that were in place when the lake was completed, a dollar figure that is well documented and not subject to any sort of interpretation by the Corps.

A source of funding for the operation lakes owned by the Corps of Engineers is derived from water storage contracts with municipalities. The formula for pricing of water storage contracts on Corps lakes is defined legislatively as ``current cost.'' This fixed formula creates a prohibitive financial burden on the citizens of municipalities desiring to contract with the Corps and, as a result, the Corps does not receive any income for the operation and maintenance of the lake.

In drought-stricken areas like Bartlesville, Oklahoma, the Corps' current flawed methodology threatens to raise water storage prices on local residents from around 6 cents to nearly a dollar for the same 1,000 gallons of water. It also raises the total fiscal impact of water storage prices on Bartlesville from around $1.6 million a year to more than $24 million a year.

Earlier this year, the Senate adopted by unanimous consent an amendment by Senator Inhofe to their WRDA bill that requires the GAO to complete a study on the Corps' outdated and flawed methodology when it comes to these water storage prices. As the WRDA bill develops in the House and hopefully moves towards conference and enactment, I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on a long-term legislative solution to replace this outdated formula with one that is fair, reasonable, and affordable to all parties.

By adopting this amendment today, we can provide 1 more year of certainty and assurance for communities like Bartlesville by ensuring that they do not see outrageous increases in their water storage prices that they quite simply cannot afford.

The American taxpayer spends billions of dollars every year to fund the operations of the Army Corps of Engineers; but by adopting this amendment, we can ensure that none of those funds are used to enforce a formula that is outdated, unfair, and unjust as we move through the WRDA bill and other avenues towards a long-term solution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, the President decided to raise energy prices on all Americans, which adversely affects the poor the most--and he didn't ask Congress.

The President decided to unilaterally reduce our strategic nuclear deterrent when more countries than ever have nuclear weapons. No treaty. That would require the consent of the Senate.

The President has decided which health insurance plans the people are allowed to have. The President didn't ask Congress--or the people for that matter.

The list goes on.

In America, we are either moving more towards liberty or more towards tyranny. I think we should ask ourselves what tyranny would look like in the United States of America:

An executive branch that picks and chooses which laws it wants to enforce; a judicial branch that would allow it to do so on the grounds that the executive branch did not defend the laws in court; the legislative branch would have very limited power because they turned it all over to the President; and the people would feel like they had no representation.

The President told us he was going to fundamentally transform America, and I think that is exactly what he is doing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

In a report commissioned by the Department of Justice, Dr. Anand, a fetal pain expert, wrote:

It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability

to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, and the pain

perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that

perceived by term newborns or older children.

The reality of Dr. Anand's statement is seen in the fact that surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children before performing neonatal surgery. The truth is that at 20 weeks these unborn children feel every bit of pain inflicted on them in the name of ``choice'' and in the name of ``convenience.''

Mr. Speaker, what we do with this knowledge says a lot about us. If we turn a blind eye to the agony and suffering of our most vulnerable, can we say that we are still a Nation that pursues life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If we willingly embrace cruelty in the name of ``choice,'' then can we say with integrity that we continue to secure the blessings of liberty not only for ourselves but for our posterity?

The good news is that, for those who have been affected by the pain of abortion, there is one who chose, who made a real choice, to endure pain on behalf of all of us, and by His stripes we are healed.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, let us remember that even though we may not be able to hear their cries we are not absolved from the guilt of ignoring their pain.

I appreciate that. It is an honor to be here, and thank you for inviting me to participate in this.

I have been certainly accused of maybe being critical of the President from time to time, as many of us Republicans are sometimes, but I'd like to share a few points where we agree, the President and I. I've got a number of quotes here, and I think these quotes cross party lines and certainly indicate how important fathers are in the lives of their children.

Here is a quote from our President, Barack Obama:

We need fathers to realize that responsibility doesn't end

at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a

man is not the ability to have a child; it's the courage to

raise one.

Here is another quote from our President:

I wish I had a father who was around and involved.

That's a profound statement, and certainly it shows a great deal of courage by our President to say that.

I remember when I was a young child in the Cub Scouts, the Pinewood Derby came around every year. My father, my brother, and I would spend a great deal of time weighing our little Pinewood Derby car to make sure that it weighed precisely 5 ounces. We would spend all night graphiting the wheels because we wanted our little Pinewood Derby car to be the absolute fastest car that we could possibly make it. Whether we won or lost, it didn't matter. We were going to make this little car as fast as we could possibly make it.

I also remember not too long ago my 7-year-old, who was 6, wanted to participate in the Pinewood Derby in the Cub Scouts himself. And because of my relationship that I had with my father and the time that we spent involved in that project, it was a desire of my heart to be involved in his Pinewood Derby to the same extent. And I'm proud to say that when I was a child, we won the Pinewood Derby; and I'm proud to say that as Walker's dad, together we won the Pinewood Derby when he was 6 years old. These are the things that I think are critically important in the life of a child.

Some other quotes from our President: Obama has said that his hardest but the most rewarding job is being a father. I think that is absolutely true, as well.

I want to quote some statistics here:

Currently there are 24 million children in America living in a home without their biological father.

The World Family Map report by Child Trends found that even when controlling for income, children who live with both parents have better educational outcomes than children living with one or no parents. Fathers play an important role in teaching children life lessons and preparing them to succeed in school and in life.

Some other quotes:

According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, a father's involvement in education of his children is associated with a higher probability of A's for their children.

Interestingly, I remember when I was in fourth grade, there was a competition called Math Olympiads. My dad

was a mathematician, and he came from a family of mathematicians. And my dad would spend hours with me working on these math problems that were really college-level math problems. We would go over and over these problems again and again. I remember in fourth grade, when it came time to do Math Olympiads, there were just five problems, and if you could get one or two of them right, it was really tremendous for a fourth grader. I remember at the end of the first Math Olympiad, I had four out of five correct. And it wasn't because I was smart, and it wasn't because I was brilliant. It had nothing to do with that at all-- in fact, quite the contrary. But what it had to do with was the fact that I had a dad who was so engaged, so involved, and so interested in making sure not that I would get an A in the class--quite frankly, that was really not relevant to him. What he cared about was whether I learned the material.

I remember taking tests in sixth grade. I would do the math problems entirely different than how the teacher taught and the teacher would count it wrong. My dad would go to the school and he would say, you know, he may have done it differently than you taught him, but he did it the way we taught at home because he's preparing for higher math in a different year.

Having a dad involved in your education that way is something that was tremendously important to me as I was growing up. And certainly, now that I am a father myself and I have a child in first, now soon to be second grade--and of course other children on the way that are entering kindergarten and a 1-year old at home, these are areas where it's important for me.

There is a generational trend. When a child has that impact from their father, certainly it's an impact on them that they want to have on their own children. So that's why it is so important for fathers to be involved in the lives of their children. That's my personal experience.

Children with involved fathers are more likely to do well in school. They have a better sense of well-being, they have fewer behavioral problems. When fathers are actively involved in the upbringing of their children, their children demonstrate greater self control and a greater ability to take initiative.

Along with Father's Day, this June will also bring an important announcement--the Supreme Court's much-anticipated rulings on both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8. These cases have put the national spotlight on this issue in a new way and provide an opportunity for Americans to discuss the question: What is marriage?

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be a father and a mother to children, and the institution of marriage is intended for life. This is very important when it comes to the rearing of children.

A few more statistics. In 2012, about one-third of all children lived in families without their biological father present. According to some estimates, as many as 50 percent of children who are currently under age 18 will spend or have spent a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their biological father.

Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent families, with both biological parents, to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes.

In 2011, the poverty rate for children living in homes without a father was 48 percent, compared with 11 percent for children living with married-couple families. Single-parent families are more likely to be poor than two-parent families, especially if the lone parent is the mother. That's why it's so important for fathers, and that's why I commend the President when he talks about the importance of fathers.

Here's a final quote from our President:

As fathers, we need to be involved in our children's lives

not just when it's convenient or easy, and not just when

they're doing well, but when it's difficult and thankless,

and they're struggling. That is when they need us most.

With that, I thank the gentlelady from Missouri.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank my friend from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) for offering amendment No. 236. He is a champion for religious freedom.

As a Navy pilot with Iraq and Afghanistan combat tours, I am concerned that senior Air Force officials have taken advice from an anti-Christian zealot when drafting guidance on culture and standards.

The president of the badly misnamed Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Mr. Mikey Weinstein, has described Christians as human monsters and monstrously savage, responsible for racism, bigotry, and prejudice. He even called the presence of committed Christians in the military a national security threat comparable to al Qaeda.

Mr. Chairman, we're not asking to approve the military's calendar appointments, but given this situation, Congress needs to know when the military meets with anti-Christian fanatics on issues regarding religious liberty.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Turner amendment.

The President, as everybody remembers, told then-Russian President Medvedev that we would have more flexibility to cut a secret deal--of course, he didn't use the word ``secret,'' but I think we all understand that's what it was--on missile defense after the 2012 elections.

We also know that the National Security Adviser, Tom Donilon, conveyed a letter from the President to Russian President Putin that reportedly proposed a missile defense agreement that would avoid congressional review and consent. Given this administration's lack of transparency, I have no confidence in the President's abilities to negotiate on missile defense or on nuclear weapons.

Mr. Chairman, missile defenses protect our Nation. They protect our deployed forces and our allies from attack. Our nuclear deterrent is a stabilizing force that promotes restraint and assures our allies of security.

Given our economic and military superiority currently, we have military dominance when compared to Russia. I personally don't trust this President to negotiate it away. And I think it's important that we, as Members of Congress, should have oversight here.

I would just like to make a couple of points.

Number one, these troops are not for NATO. These troops are for the European Command. These troops are for the United States of America. I'm a Navy pilot myself. I've been a part of units that deploy, that rotate. What I can say is that, when units rotate, the training that we get with our allies is less robust and is just not as good as if you have a permanent presence where you can integrate with our NATO allies. It's true that we are integrated with our NATO allies, but it is also true that these troops are for European Command.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendments, No. 116 and No. 158, in the en bloc package.

My first amendment requires the Department of Defense to annually assess military and security developments involving the Russian Federation.

To be quite frank, the Obama administration's so-called ``reset policy'' with Russia is in shambles. Moscow has been intransigent on Iran, continues to supply Syria with weapons, occupies Georgia, has repeatedly threatened our NATO allies with nuclear strikes, and continually seeks to undermine the political independence of former Soviet satellite states.

Vladimir Putin announced plans to spend about $750 billion to modernize the Russian military. The Putin build-up envisions modernized and robust nuclear, space and cyber forces. By the way, Madam Chairman, not too long ago Putin called the Soviet Union's collapse ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe for the century.''

Russian military modernization concerns us and our allies and our friends, particularly those in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. It is imperative that Congress understand the implications of Russia's military buildup for our bilateral relationship and regional stability.

Mr. Speaker, global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with Sun output and ocean cycles.

During the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D.--long before cars, power plants, or the Industrial Revolution--temperatures were warmer than today. During the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1900 A.D., temperatures were cooler. Neither of these periods were caused by any human activity.

Even climate change alarmists admit that the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years.

But here's what we absolutely know. We know that Oklahoma will have tornadoes when the cold jet stream meets the warm gulf air. And we also know that this President spends 30 times as much money on global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning.

For this gross misallocation, the people of Oklahoma are ready to accept the President's apology, and I intend to submit legislation to fix this.

Mr. Speaker, the President's Justice Department sold weapons to narcoterrorists south of our border who killed one of our finest.

The President's State Department lied about Benghazi with false information provided by the White House.

The President's Attorney General authorized spying on a Fox News journalist and his family for reporting on a North Korean nuclear test.

The President's Justice Department confiscated phone records of the Associated Press because they reported on a thwarted terrorist attack.

The President's Treasury Department uses the IRS to target political opposition.

The President's Health and Human Services Secretary pressures the insurance companies she is supposed to regulate to promote ObamaCare, which is the same law she uses to force citizens to pay for abortion- inducing drugs against their religious liberties.

Mr. Speaker, the President's dishonesty, incompetence, vengefulness, and lack of moral compass lead many to suggest that he is not fit to lead. The only problem is that his Vice President is equally unfit and even more embarrassing.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of Representatives that on May 21, 2013, I was unable to participate in three recorded votes due to my participation, along with the entire Oklahoma delegation, in a tour of tornado affected areas in and around Moore, Oklahoma.

I wish to submit for the record a summary of these bills, as well as statement on how I would have voted on each had I been present. I would also like to note that these are the only votes I have missed so far as a Member of Congress.

H.R. 1412, the Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013, passed the House by a vote of 416-0. Had I been present, I would have voted for H.R. 1412. The bill incentivizes private sector companies to participate in Veterans Administration (VA) on-the-job-training (OJT) training programs by reducing the level of employer contributions. It also requires the VA to enter into OJT agreements with other federal departments and agencies, which will encourage the federal government to hire veterans by fully leveraging available authorities. Finally, H.R. 1412 offsets any additional costs by extending for one month the VA's authority to pay reduced pensions to veterans using Medicaid- approved nursing facilities. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 1412 would reduce direct spending about $14 million from FY14-FY18 and produce an ``insignificant effect on discretionary spending.''

H.R. 1344, the Helping Heroes Fly Act, passed the House by a vote of 413-0. Had I been present, I would have voted for this bill. H.R. 1344 directs the Department of Defense to develop processes to expedite airport screening for severely injured and disabled service members and veterans.

H.R. 324, to grant the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the First Special Service Force, in recognition of its superior service during World War II, passed the House by a vote of 415-0. I co- sponsored this bill and I would have voted for it had I been present. The bill authorizes two Congressional Gold Medals for the First Special Service Force, a joint Canadian-U.S. special operations unit that served with distinction during WWII. The First Special Service Force was the precursor unit for both the U.S. and Canadian Special Operations forces.

I rise today as an Eagle Scout and one who has a stake in the future of our scouting programs.

Some of us in America still believe in the concept of sexual morality, that sex is intended for one man and one woman within the institution of marriage. Organizations that hold this philosophy and promote it among our youth should be commended--or at least, you would think, tolerated.

Unfortunately, the intolerant left bullies and browbeats private organizations like the Boy Scouts into accepting their philosophy. Notice, they didn't start their own organization; they went after the Boy Scouts of America.

The left's agenda is not about tolerance and it's not about diversity of thought. It's about promoting a world view of relativism, where there is no right and wrong, then using the full force of the government to silence opposition and reshape organizations like the Boy Scouts into instruments for social change.

To my friends on the left, this is not tolerance.

But here's the good news about true tolerance: the most tolerant One of all has the ability to redeem us all.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Oklahomans who even as we speak this evening are laboring to find and rescue all those affected by this afternoon's severe tornadoes in Moore and other areas in the great State of Oklahoma. At this time, we don't know the full extent of the damage and the potential human toll, but we are inspired. We're inspired by those who are sparing no effort to assist their neighbors and even many people they don't know.

Disasters like the Moore tornado bring out the best in the people of Oklahoma. I pray for each victim of these storms, for all of the emergency first responders and the ordinary citizens who are stepping forward to help in any way they can. We are grateful for everyone working to secure the affected area and to account for every man, woman, and child.

I'd like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for allowing me to speak on this issue on behalf of my constituents. I can say very clearly that I support H.R. 45, ObamaCare repeal, and I can tell you why.

Under ObamaCare, we're looking at a minimum of about $500 billion in new taxes. We're talking about taxes on pharmaceuticals and taxes on medical devices. We're also talking about taxes on payroll, things that have nothing to do with medicine; taxes on the sale of real estate; taxes on other capital gains. There will be 21 new taxes, and $500 billion is the conservative estimate. Some people say it's going to be $1.1 trillion in new tax revenue.

Guess what? It's not enough. There's also going to be $500 billion in new borrowing over the first 10 years of ObamaCare. And it's still not enough. So we're going to rob $716 billion from Medicare at a time when seniors are finding it hard to find providers who are willing to accept Medicare as it is. This is hugely problematic for the people in my district.

Let's talk about the employers. Employers are seeking ways to reduce their staffs below 50 people. They're laying people off. No kidding. I talked to an employer just a few weeks ago in my district. He's got 57 employees. He's now trying to get down to 49. He's also trying to figure out ways to make his staff part-time. He's trying to get his staff under 29 hours so he has less than 50 full-time equivalents, as they refer to them now. This is going to be a disaster for the employment prospects of the people in my district.

Let's talk about how this is administered. It's going to be administered by the IRS. So everyone has to have the health insurance that perfectly conforms to what the President wants them to have. It used to be that there was a time when my wife and I had insurance, where we had a high deductible and a low premium. We had a little bit of savings. We wanted to save money on our premium, and so we were willing to accept the high deductible. We were willing to accept a little bit of risk upon ourselves to save money. That's not available anymore under ObamaCare. All that will be enforced by the IRS.

So if you have that high-deductible, low-premium policy, or if you have a policy that they call a ``Cadillac plan,'' you're going to be penalized. These penalties have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be taxes, but let's be clear that they are penalties for not conforming to what the President wants you to have in insurance.

That penalty, if you don't have the right health insurance, is going to be 2\1/2\ percent of your income, eventually. So if you make $50,000 a year, your penalty is $1,250, assessed by the IRS when you do your taxes. Or you could pay the premium. If you want the comprehensive health care that ObamaCare requires you to have, that premium is likely to be around $7,000, or you can pay the penalty of $1,250. What are most people going to pay? They're going to pay the penalty. Why? Because under ObamaCare, they can't exempt you for a preexisting condition. So you can pay the penalty, and then when you get sick you can go to the doctor and get the health insurance you need and then get healthy; and then when you're healthy, you can drop your health insurance again.

This creates an adverse selection. This is a big problem. If you want to see health insurance premiums skyrocket, let's only insure the people who are sick; and that's exactly what this bill does.

Let's talk for a second about the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare. I'm very proud of the State of Oklahoma for not expanding Medicaid under ObamaCare. This is a teaser rate. This is a time when the Federal Government comes in and they say, We're going to fully expand your Medicaid expansion up to 138 percent of the poverty line for the first 3 years, then we're going to pull the rug out from under you.

The State of Oklahoma is going to be faced with challenges. What are we going to cut? Maybe we'll cut education, maybe we'll cut the Department of Transportation in the State of Oklahoma, or maybe we'll raise taxes. This is just another way for the Federal Government to addict States to a program that ultimately they're going to pull the rug out from under the program and the State of Oklahoma is going to be forced to carry this load. I'm very proud of Governor Mary Fallin for not expanding Medicaid under ObamaCare.

I'd like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for allowing me to express my views. I fully support H.R. 45, the repeal of ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 684, the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Imagine if a State had the authority to reach beyond its borders into another State and compel a business in the other State to collect and remit taxes.

Imagine a business being forced to collect and remit taxes for over 9,600 different local tax jurisdictions, and being open to audit by 50 different States, yet only having representation in one of those tax jurisdictions.

This law would overturn a foundational American principle of no taxation without representation.

Imagine the same business losing market share to offshore businesses that cannot be compelled by Congress to collect taxes for local jurisdictions in the U.S. Now, imagine that business either closing its doors or leaving the country in order to compete.

The unintended consequences of the Marketplace Fairness Act have not been considered. I understand why some people support it, but this bill is not the right solution.