Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is a great accomplishment when a school is honored for having a principal of the year or a teacher of the year or even a student of the year. A.C. Steere Elementary School in Shreveport has all three.

Congratulations to Principal Kim Derrick, who was named Caddo Parish Principal of the Year. Her passion for education has been instrumental in making A.C. Steere a great neighborhood school.

The third grade language arts teacher, Glynis Johnston, is the Caddo Parish Teacher of the Year. Each day she brings a positive, motivational, and innovative approach to her classroom.

The fruit of the labor of a great principal and excellent teacher is often seen in the accomplishments of their students, and fifth-grader Tindol Hamm is a fine example. She is a gifted young lady who was named Caddo Parish Student of the Year. Tindol works hard at academics, and she is active in her church and in sports.

Congratulations, A.C. Steere Elementary. I am proud to see you rewarded for your excellence.

Mr. Speaker, jobs, health care, health insurance, and the First Amendment are all on the line this week when the Supreme Court hears about the threats posed by the Obama administration's HHS mandate. The question is simply this: Can the government use the threat of crippling fines to force the owners of a business to violate their own deeply held beliefs?

Two family-owned businesses that already provide good health coverage for their employees believe they should not be forced to pay for drugs and devices that are potentially life ending. But the Obama administration, which has waived or delayed other ObamaCare mandates, has fought for its HHS mandate all of the way to the Supreme Court. If the administration gets its way, the good jobs and the health insurance these businesses have provided may be lost and religious freedom will be assaulted.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of Americans to live and work according to their beliefs, and the Supreme Court must uphold that freedom.

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

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

My amendment today maintains the State of Louisiana's ability to regulate hunting within its borders. In a decision announced March 1, 2012, the Forest Service Regional Forester located way over in Atlanta, Georgia, went over the heads of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission to forever prohibit the use of dogs to hunt deer in Kisatchie National Forest.

Deer hunting has a long and important cultural history within the State of Louisiana. When French settlers first came to Louisiana in the 18th century, thickets and dense timber covered the area. Most of these settlers had companion dogs with them, and the most treasured companions were the deerhounds. The use of dogs helped hunters drive the deer from the woods onto trails, and the plentiful herds provided exciting sport and sound nourishment.

The 600-acre Kisatchie National Forest has provided diverse hunting opportunities for decades, including the use of dogs in hunting a variety of animals. Oddly enough, the Regional Forester does not prohibit the use of dogs for hunting raccoon, squirrel, rabbit, and game birds. The dog deer season in Louisiana has been severely restricted in recent years, down from 15 days to 7 days in 2012, and dog deer hunting in the Kisatchie has been limited to certain ranger districts.

According to communication with the Forest Service, seven Southern States allow hunting in the national forest within their borders. They include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana. However, this is the first time the Forest Service has issued a ban on dog deer hunting or hunting deer with dogs within a specific State.

According to the Forest Service documents, the revenue generated from dog deer hunting, including the care of

animals, contributes approximately 18 to 29 direct jobs and results in roughly $890,000 to $1.4 million of income from hunting tourism and related activities. By the Forest Service's own assessment, it is likely that economic benefits are currently being lost as hunters leave the area to pursue the sport elsewhere. This is having a tangible economic impact on our State, robbing it of even more jobs.

I would like to emphasize that the State of Louisiana, the Kennel Club, and Safari Club International support my amendment, and a similar amendment was accepted by the House with a voice vote last Congress.

I urge support of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the issues brought up here.

First of all, the gentleman said there were multiple complaints. This was studied considerably. There was 1,237 responses to a request in 2009, and by October 6, we found that there were 77 percent, a clear majority of the respondents, who were actually in favor of continuing the practice of dog deer hunting. This was requested again in 2011, and there were over 1,300 respondents, and all but 16 were in favor of dog deer hunting and against the Forest Service proposed ban.

The other thing I would like to address, Mr. Chairman, is this was not a locally made decision. This was made in Atlanta. This is the problem. This has been going on for 300 years in the State of Louisiana. It is a big part of our heritage, and somebody over in Georgia, in Atlanta, representing the Federal Government, made this decision, not locally. There was no decision locally. The State supports this. The local residents support it by a vast majority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to just say that the people of Louisiana want to see this Forest Service ban overturned. This was a decision made outside of our borders. In effect, if you will, even though the people of Louisiana were asked and they gave the correct answer, it was ignored, and the decision was made by someone outside of our borders. This was a decision made by somebody in Atlanta, a Federal employee, interfering with a local issue.

This is a tradition that goes back 300 years, and I think it is pretty obvious that the people of Louisiana support the continuance of hunting deer with dogs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, next week marks 41 years since the Supreme Court's ROE v. WADE decision. Nearly 57 million children have lost their lives since then. This genocide of unborn Americans must stop. Congress should respect and defend innocent human life.

An increasing majority of Americans do not believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy. Yet, the U.S. stands with the governments of North Korea and China in refusing to restrict abortion, even up to the moment of birth.

This House, on a bipartisan vote last year, voted to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence that an unborn child, being aborted after 20 weeks in the womb, experiences pain. It is past time for our colleagues in the Senate to join us in standing up for the innocent by passing the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to meet Andrew Parks, a hardworking young man from Bossier City, Louisiana, who has been hammered twice by ObamaCare. Earlier this year, his employer did what so many other businesses were forced to do by the ObamaCare employer mandate. They reduced Andrew's hours from a nearly 40-hour work week to 26 hours a week. He suffered a substantial loss in pay.

Then, the other shoe dropped. His employer recently sent him this notice from a national firm that his health insurance would not meet ObamaCare standards and would be discontinued at the end of the year. His ordeal couldn't be much worse.

Andrew has fought through a long-term illness and is a survivor of cancer, yet all he has asked for is the opportunity to work hard, to earn a living, and to keep his health insurance that he could afford. All ObamaCare has done is make those goals much more difficult to reach.

ObamaCare is damaging our economy and harming individuals. It needs to be repealed and repealed now.

I thank the gentlelady from Missouri.

I thank you for your leadership and also, tonight, for having this great time for us to come together to talk about a subject that, I think, is increasingly important.

With great foresight and clarity, the Founding Fathers enshrined religious liberty as our First Amendment right, stating:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This is an important constitutional right that is for every American, including servicemembers who defend those very liberties with their own lives.

The ability to live one's life informed by one's faith is not just a protected constitutional right; it is also essential for the individual well-being of our soldiers. In the uniquely stressful military environment, Congress must ensure that our men and women in uniform can access religious support and practice their faith without risking career reprisals.

Servicemembers increasingly fear even mentioning their faith in the military because of restrictions, uncertain policies surrounding religious expression, and a general climate of hostility towards those with particular religious or moral viewpoints. This is not your father's military. This is not the military you served in. This is a different military when it comes to respecting religious rights and freedoms.

Last year, the House Armed Services Committee adopted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, section 533, that provided protections of sincerely held religious beliefs for servicemembers and chaplains. However, we have yet to see the regulations that should have been issued in accordance with this amendment.

In a March 2013 JAG memorandum, the Air Force clearly showed that it is interpreting section 533 as only protecting the religious beliefs of servicemembers and not the actual expression of those beliefs through actions and free speech. For heaven's sakes, of course the military can't say anything about what you believe because nobody knows what you believe unless you express those beliefs in some way or another.

Just as the First Amendment does not mean just freedom of worship but, rather, the free exercise of religion, servicemembers are not only protected in holding a belief but are free to live their lives in accordance with those beliefs and to give voice to them.

This June, on a bipartisan basis, the House Armed Services Committee adopted my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to

clarify the protections provided for actions and speech that flow from sincerely held religious and moral convictions.

My amendment provides the Department flexibility to ensure the morale and readiness needs of servicemembers are met upon the application of this provision. It clarifies that action and speech, along with the beliefs of a servicemember, are protected by the First Amendment, and it requires that the DOD consult with the faith groups, which already work with the military to endorse military chaplains, when implementing section 533.

While the military context requires good order and discipline to be maintained, ``good order and discipline'' cannot be wielded as a club to stifle the reasonable religious expression of servicemembers.

So what am I really talking about here? Let me give you some examples:

A servicemember received a severe and possibly career-ending reprimand from his commanding officer for respectfully expressing his faith's religious position in a personal religious blog even though the blog included a disclaimer that his views were not official military policy;

An Air Force officer kept a Bible on his desk, along with other personal items, for 18 years. When he transferred to his latest assignment, he was told by his supervisor that he could not keep his Bible in public view, that it may offend someone if one actually saw his Bible;

Walter Reed Hospital briefly prohibited the distribution of religious materials, i.e., Bibles and scripture of any faith, from being given to wounded servicemembers;

Thousands of Army Reserve soldiers received equal opportunity training, labeling evangelical Christians, Catholics, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and others as ``religious extremists'' who are comparable to the KKK and al Qaeda. This training, which was memorialized in writing, further instructed the servicemembers that they may not support such extremist organizations by attending meetings, fund-raising, recruiting, helping lead or organize or distributing literature. In other words, thousands of soldiers were told that they could not go to church, lead Sunday school, tithe, share their faith or give out Bibles;

Another series of equal opportunity training sessions held for Army active components at Camp Shelby in Alabama and again at Fort Hood in Texas listed a prominent ministry, the American Family Association, as an extremist group alongside the KKK. I am pleased that Secretary McHugh, upon being made aware of these particular types of egregious training materials, canceled all future equal opportunity training until the DOD gets its act together;

There is the case of Sergeant Monk, a fine young man whom I met personally, who was relieved of his position after objecting to his commander's plans to punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to gay marriage. When asked about his own support of traditional marriage, Sergeant Monk was told that he was in violation of Air Force policy. Yes, because he supported traditional marriage, he was in violation of Air Force policy, and after 19 years--almost 20 years, almost reaching retirement--he was fired;

In performing his official duties, an Air Force chaplain, Lieutenant Colonel Reyes, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, wrote a column on the ``Chaplain's Corner'' Web site, titled ``No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II.'' The column traces the history of the famous phrase used by President Eisenhower, and connects it to the idea that the military is unique in that servicemembers must confront the grim reality of death.

He writes:

Everyone expresses some form of faith every day whether it

is religious or secular. Some express faith by believing,

when they get up in the morning, they will arrive at work in

one piece . . . What is the root or object of your faith? Is

it something you can count on in times of plenty or loss?

peace or chaos? joy or sorrow? success or failure? What is

``faith'' to you?

Finally, the column did not speak negatively of people of no faith or of people of non-faith, though the commander removed the column from the ``Chaplain's Corner'' Web page. The commander later reposted the column after media attention and congressional inquiries.

I would just like to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeing an assault on religious liberty, not just on religion--not just on Christianity--but on religious liberty in a way this Nation has never seen before. Bear in mind, why did our forefathers--why did our ancestors--come to this Nation? They came for different reasons-- economic freedom, freedom of speech and other things--but primarily for religious freedom.

That is the one freedom that appears to be slipping away in the most important venue that we have, and that is in the military, because who pays a heavier price for that freedom than our uniformed members who stand in the gap, who protect us each and every day in our own freedoms?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Congressman Wilson. I also thank my good friend, Doug Collins, for bringing this measure up today.

Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment rights of our military do not sunset with the lack of appropriations or even a shutdown. The free exercise of religion is codified in the Constitution of the United States and celebrated by every American, including those of us who have worn, do, or will wear the uniform.

Military chaplains faithfully serve a unique role in the military, bridging the gap between faith and freedom and ensuring that people of all beliefs are able to celebrate mass or participate in a worship service according to the dictates of their faith.

Despite this protective right, the Department of Defense has decided to effectively close the doors of many churches and chapels this weekend by not allowing military chaplains to perform their religious duties on military installations because the Federal Government has not passed the relevant appropriations bill for FY 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that the freedom of religion does not follow the Federal Government's fiscal policy. The freedom of religion is a 24/7 constitutional right that should garner unconditional support from this administration and our military leaders.

I stand strong with the brave men and women serving in our Nation's military and urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare, on its first day, is emblematic of what we can expect from ObamaCare in the future, already proving to be a logistical as well as an economic disaster.

Businesses are cutting back on full-time employees. Some people are losing their jobs. Many are losing their hours as well. For businesses with less than 50 employees, ObamaCare has become a massive disincentive for growth.

The cost of health insurance premiums are skyrocketing. One report says people in Louisiana who don't get Federal subsidies will see dramatically higher rates for average coverage. In fact, they will now be paying more for health insurance than the cost in most other States.

The implementation of ObamaCare is proving to be the train wreck that even Democrats have come to expect. And that is leaving our economy on edge, with job creators wondering how they will make it through more taxes, more mandates and regulations.

ObamaCare is a devastating threat to our economy, and it needs to be stopped now.

Mr. Speaker, ``hate'' is a strong word that's usually meant to provoke a negative response, which is why it's so troubling when a decades-old, multibillion-dollar activist organization uses its power to smear other organizations with the label ``hate group.'' But that's exactly what the Southern Poverty Law Center does.

On its Web site, you'll find a hate map pinpointing groups like the American Family Association and the Family Research Council. The Southern Poverty Law Center does not agree with AFA or FRC on traditional marriage. And that's appropriate; that's their choice; that's their right. But rather than supporting the First Amendment rights of those groups to express their deeply held moral beliefs, SPLC brands them right alongside organizations that promote race-based violence.

Last week, a man was sentenced to 25 years in jail after he found the Family Research Council headquarters on SPLC's hate map and went there with a gun, hoping to kill as many FRC employees as possible.

Words do have consequences. It's time the Southern Poverty Law Center stop using whatever influence it has left to incite hatred towards people of faith.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my thanks to the Louisiana Society Daughters of the American Revolution for their efforts to promote Constitution Week, September 17-23. The women of the Louisiana Society Daughters of the American Revolution have dedicated themselves to promoting a better understanding of the Constitution since 1895, and I commend them for their continued contributions.

The Constitution of the United States of America sets us apart from every government that had come before. We are a nation of laws, not men. Our Constitution has survived the test of time in embodying and protecting that fundamental principle. Further, the Constitution guarantees our freedom of speech, religion, our right to bear arms and protects us from the government itself. Our Founding Fathers well understood the need to limit the power of any one branch of government through checks and balances.

We owe the Daughters of the American Revolution a debt of gratitude for their efforts to promote the study of and reflection upon this critical document, as only an informed public can protect its own rights.

When I was sworn in as a Member of Congress, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The principles found in our Constitution have propelled our country to be a ``shining city on a hill.'' I believe our nation's greatness can be renewed by returning to our founding ideals.

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday marked the first annual National Day of Remembrance, a day to solemnly mark the sorrowful loss of life caused by abortion.

Last spring, the murder conviction of abortionist Kermit Gosnell forced our Nation to take a long, hard look into the brutal realities of abortion and the unborn lives that are killed by abortion every day. With Gosnell behind us, it may be tempting for some to look away again and ignore the truth: abortion is the taking of a human life.

I want to acknowledge and thank the pro-life groups and leaders who began the National Day of Remembrance.

It is a double tragedy when an unborn child is killed in abortion, and research has shown us the complications and emotional scars that can linger with the child's mother, compounding that tragedy. That's why we grieve and long for an end to abortion, and it's why pro-lifers must continue to make every effort to educate people about abortion.

Madam Speaker, the constitutional right to religious liberty is, with increasing frequency, being denied to the men and women in our military who swore to support and defend the Constitution when they enlisted.

Within the past month, we have seen a new case of an Air Force veteran who says he was relieved of duty by his commander because he would not champion same-sex marriages. This senior master sergeant with 19 years of service to his country has now been entangled in the military justice system, not for anything he has done or said, but for refusing a commander's order to make a statement that would violate his deeply held religious beliefs.

What's happening in this case violates current statutes, not to mention the First Amendment. That's why it's so crucial that Congress protect military religious freedom and its expression. My amendment to do that was passed in this House, and we need the Senate to act and the President to stop his threat to veto.

I would like to thank my good friend from Virginia for having this Special Order this evening and the leadership that the gentleman has provided in this area with the Prayer Caucus and so many other things, both on Armed Services and outside of Armed Services, in that realm.

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly inspired and moved this evening with the speeches that I've heard talking about religious liberty and all of the things that we are struggling with right now with religious liberty.

Religious freedom is at the center of who we are as Americans. With foresight and clarity, the Founding Fathers enshrined religious freedom as a First Amendment right. Quote: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof''--the First Amendment.

Despite these undisputed facts, time and again we have witnessed a whittling away of this freedom. The passage of the President's signature legislation, ObamaCare, ushered in a new wave of government oppression for businesses, religious organizations, faith-based schools, charities, and hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned this evening that with ObamaCare and with many other things that we're seeing on the religious front, on the military front, that Washington and this administration is actually substituting its religious beliefs for our own; a very dangerous precedent.

What have we talked about? ObamaCare. You know, we discuss ObamaCare and all the problems, the cost and the rationing board and all of these things, but what's left out of that discussion are some very, very important points.

ObamaCare's HHS mandate requires that all insurance plans cover various items and services that are in direct conflict with deeply held religious beliefs or moral convictions. Three groups are singled out for this:

Number one is health care providers themselves, who in many cases will be forced to participate in certain techniques, certain types of treatment that are against their deeply held religious beliefs, such as abortion, such as getting abortion pills--what we call abortifacients-- sterilization procedures, and such as that.

Another important group is religious institutions. The Catholic Church has, for many decades--really, centuries--gone about the work of the Lord to provide health care to individuals but will be required, under the HHS mandates, to actually provide certain procedures, such as sterilization and birth control pills, that are against their deeply held beliefs. Regardless of whether you agree with that or not is beside the point. According to the First Amendment, the church and its institutions should be allowed to do what is right by their own personal religious beliefs.

The third group is private businesses. You have already heard about Hobby Lobby and many others who, because of the HHS mandate, will have to provide coverage through insurance for certain things, which may include abortions, and yet that's against their own deeply held religious beliefs--and suffering fines of tens of thousands of dollars per episode and per day for having done so. That is not right under the First Amendment.

There are 67 cases and over 200 plaintiffs that have filed suit against the administration to protect the First Amendment right to religious freedom. They are working their way through the courts.

Tyndale House, a Christian publishing company, well known for their production of the Bible, as well as family-owned and operated business Fresh Unlimited, Inc., a fresh produce processing and packing company in Ohio, and Beckwith Electric, a Florida-based electric company, are among the 37 for-profit companies seeking relief from the HHS mandate.

Hospitals, charities, Catholic dioceses, and religious colleges, including Louisiana College in my own State, are at various stages of defending their first freedom against the administration's constitutional HHS mandate.

Instead of supporting publishers, grocers, electricians, doctors, nurses, teachers, and professors, ObamaCare strips away the ability for these individuals to live their lives in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs.

This administration has relentlessly lambasted the religious freedom of hardworking Americans, threatening ruinous fines for noncompliance. And again, companies such as Hobby Lobby,

a well-known arts and crafts store that started out just as one single store, faced crippling fines for their religious beliefs.

Congressman Fortenberry, Congresswoman Black, and myself have put together a compendium of conscience protections through legislation. We've attempted many times to get this up for a vote and passed through the House and through the Senate that would block many of these HHS mandates that come down from ObamaCare. So far we have not gotten the support from the other side of the aisle to get this done, but we will continue until this is completed.

Then, finally, military religious freedom. We know that the military oftentimes is a microcosm of what happens in the demographics across America. And today, religious freedom is under tremendous pressure. We have situations where military members can no longer put a Bible out on their desk, that somehow that's offending someone and that's breaking a statute or a law.

You heard the recent case of Master Sergeant Monk, who, because he wouldn't champion something that was against his religious beliefs-- closely held and taught by his own church--is now facing potential court-martial for speaking out against that. The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, of what's happening, and it's very recent.

This is not your father's military. This is not really the military you were in even 5 years ago. This is a new military in which religious freedom is being pushed away and substituting Washington's morality, Washington's faith--this administration's faith--instead.

So with that, I do want to thank my colleagues who are here tonight talking about the important things. What could be more important than religious freedoms? I think many would say that's the foundation, the basic foundation upon which this Nation was created and why many people have immigrated over the centuries here and many people even today continue to immigrate to the United States because of its religious freedom.

Let's hold this dear. Let's not let go of the First Amendment, the ability to not only believe what you choose to believe in religion, but also to speak out and express as well, even to take action. All of these are fundamental and very important.

So with that, I thank you again, Mr. Forbes, for the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama says he now has serious ideas about taxes and job creation. I'd like to take him seriously, but the truth is that the President has spent the last 4\1/2\ years hammering the Nation's businesses with taxes, regulations, and ObamaCare. His business mandate has already forced many small businesses to convert full-time jobs to part-time jobs.

And let's remember the jobs that have already dissipated due to the medical device companies that are reducing employees to pay a new ObamaCare excise tax. One company has already terminated more than 1,000 workers.

As for taxes, the President's fiscal cliff deal pushes taxes up to as much as 45 percent for many small business

owners and investors. That simply diminishes their incentive to move forward with expansions that would create jobs.

So Mr. President, if you'd really like this economy to get going, let's start by repealing ObamaCare and cutting taxes.

Mr. Speaker, an American can be tried in a U.S. court and sent to an American prison for violating an obscure foreign law. Yes, you heard that right. That has already happened under a little- known provision in the Lacey Act.

The Lacey Act became the law in 1900 as a good protection against poachers, but it's been expanded since. Now, if you unknowingly import a product that violates a regulation from an exporting country, you can end up in a U.S. Federal courtroom and sent to a Federal prison.

One seafood importer spent 6 years in jail for importing lobsters that violated a regulation in Honduras. A few lobster tails were too small, and they were shipped in plastic instead of cardboard. Even the Honduran Government said these rules were obsolete.

Then Gibson Guitar had to pay $350,000 to settle Federal charges that the company bought wood from Madagascar that was a sixth of an inch too thick.

It's time to end unreasonable and unconstitutional prosecutions of Americans on American soil for obscure foreign laws. The Lacey Act violates the rule of law and it needs to be changed.