Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, one of the big issues in last year's Presidential campaign was border security. As we mark 100 days of the Trump administration, we should acknowledge how President Trump has restored confidence and morale among our Border Patrol agents. They now know that our President will back them as they work to enforce our Nation's immigration laws.

The agents told me personally about their renewed ability to do their job during my recent trip to inspect the southern border. What was remarkable was that I heard the same thing from every agent, man or women, regardless of ethnic background.

President Trump understands that we have an urgent and solemn responsibility to stop the flood of heroin and other narcotics pouring across our southern border, poisoning our communities.

We must secure our border and end this scourge for the sake of mothers like the one in my district who lost her beloved son to a heroin overdose and asked God to ``damn heroin.'' I look forward to more action in the next 100 days as we continue to work to secure our border.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk lately about President Trump's first 100 days in office.

The first 100 days of an administration offer a chance to watch a new President turn proposed policy changes into reality. In southwestern Pennsylvania, we are seeing President Trump fulfill his pledge to end the war on coal, and we are seeing real change.

For example, the very day that President Trump signed legislation overturning one of former President Obama's anti-coal rules, a coal company in Somerset County announced it would open a brand-new coal mine that will create at least 70 new middle class jobs. It would be great if President Trump can make it out to the mine's grand opening ceremony scheduled for June 8.

I have met with miners as their mines were closed during the previous administration, and I listened to their stories as they worried about their kids and paying their mortgages.

It is a new day, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to more employment opportunities being created as we begin to roll back the job-killing regulations in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, the past several days, I had my first-ever tour of our southwest border. During my visit, I met with Border Patrol agents in New Mexico and Texas, as well as ranchers and business leaders on the border.

Border security was a significant issue in the last election, as Americans are concerned about the flow of illegal narcotics and aliens across the border. Although gaps in security remain, I saw an impressive array of assets, including drones and manned aircraft, walls, cameras, and other materiel.

More impressive, however, are the men and women who work for Customs and Border Protection, who, at no small risk to themselves, work to keep America secure. They are very encouraged lately as they see policy changes coming that will allow them to enforce our laws. Mr. Speaker, these individuals are literally on the front line defending our Nation and communities, and I thank them for their service.

I understand that there are job opportunities with Border Patrol. For those seeking a public service career doing something bigger than themselves, that is something to consider.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Black for her work on this subject.

I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 43, a joint resolution to stop an Obama administration rule that will force States to send taxpayer dollars to abortion providers, including abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

In addition to last year's shocking videos where we heard high- ranking Planned Parenthood officials use jarring language such as doing a less crunchy type of procedure to preserve body parts, we have recently learned in Pennsylvania that Planned Parenthood was using false advertising on its websites.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute recently found that each Planned Parenthood affiliate in Pennsylvania does not provide prenatal services, even though all 27 Planned Parenthood locations in Pennsylvania had listed ``prenatal'' as a service on their website.

After these clinics were called and asked, Do you provide prenatal services, not one had any such services to offer, but they did offer terminations. Planned Parenthood has since removed

the word ``prenatal'' from their booking appointments website.

They should not be receiving one dime of Federal dollars when they are actively attempting to deceive women to get them in the door. Abortion is not health care. Subsidizing the destruction of human life with Federal dollars in the name of family planning is simply unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues to join me in defending the lives of the unborn and support this important joint resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the progress hardworking western Pennsylvanians have made in restoring our hillsides and streams in historic mining communities polluted by waste coal.

Through the use of innovative technology, workers in the coal refuse- to-

energy industry have brought about an incredible transformation of formerly polluted areas, restoring landscapes to their original natural beauty.

It is a success story all around, both environmentally and economically. Unfortunately, one-size-fits-all Washington regulations threaten to stop this success story in its tracks and to destroy the family-sustaining jobs the coal refuse-to-energy industry supports.

That is why, for the third time, I am reintroducing the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, or SENSE Act, in the 115th Congress as H.R. 1119.

My legislation ensures that regulations are tailored to allow a very specific and small subset of power plants to continue their remediation efforts and restore western Pennsylvania's natural beauty, as well as landscapes in historic mining communities across the country.

This legislation passed the House with bipartisan support last year, and I urge my colleagues to support it once again so that the vital and successful work of providing electricity while cleaning up the environment can continue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise here tonight to raise a very serious and consequential issue that is taking place in our Nation's capital. Washington, D.C., our Federal city, the second hometown of every American, is just weeks away from implementing a deadly assisted suicide program.

The D.C. City Council recently passed a so-called Death With Dignity Act, which would allow adults who have been diagnosed with a terminal disease and who have been told they have 6 months or less to live to receive a prescription from their doctor to end their life. Six States, including California, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Montana, and Colorado, have already headed down this dangerous path.

I raise this issue tonight, Mr. Speaker, because our Founders gave Congress the power in the Constitution to ``exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever over such District'' that would become the seat of the Government of the United States.

As a result, this Congress has the opportunity to stop this law. I am grateful that my colleagues are here tonight to join me: Dr. Wenstrup, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Dr. Harris, Dr. Hartzler, Dr. Marshall. They are joining me tonight to speak in defense of patients who deserve protection, especially when dealing with the unimaginable difficulty of a terminal disease.

Like me, they are deeply troubled that in Washington, D.C., an alabaster city that gleams as a beacon for the principles on which we were founded, this policy is about to be put in place, jeopardizing the lives of the most vulnerable among us.

Mr. Speaker, Washington, D.C., is, indeed, a remarkable city. I still remember coming to this special place as a 10-year-old child with my parents, coming down the George Washington Parkway in Virginia, as millions of other tourists have, with excitement to see our national monuments and the Capitol in which I now speak.

We Americans approach this city with awe, as we know how Washington is intertwined with our Nation's history and that this city both guards our Nation's founding documents--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution--and hosts the very government that our Constitution envisioned. Those founding documents frame a Republic grounded in the principles of sovereignty in the people, subject to the protection of God-given inalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is the view of this city more beautiful than from the hills of Arlington Cemetery in Virginia and, specifically, the resting place of our 35th President, John F. Kennedy. One cannot think of President Kennedy without thinking also of his inaugural address, which is a call to action for a new generation of Americans. That call was grounded in the exceptional nature of our land.

``And yet,'' President Kennedy said, ``the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.''

D.C.'s assisted suicide law, Mr. Speaker, threatens the inalienable rights of vulnerable citizens. Not only does the new D.C. statute tear at the tapestry of our Nation's founding, it directly contradicts the Hippocratic oath every physician takes, to do no harm.

I shudder to think of the lives that will be lost because our society tells the weak, the despairing, the suffering, or the hopeless that suicide is the best option for them. Laws similar to the D.C. Death with Dignity Act in the U.S. and Europe have resulted in individuals being pressured to end their lives, and insurance companies covering the reimbursements for suicide treatment but not for other care.

If patients find themselves unable to pay for expensive treatments out-of-pocket, they may find their options severely limited when facing a new diagnosis, facing a disability, or struggling with mental illness. In some cases, death may become the only affordable option.

Proponents of physician-assisted suicide point to real and tragic stories of suffering individuals at the end of their lives. However, according to a report by the National Institutes of Health, pain is not the primary factor motivating patients to seek a lethal dose of medication. More commonly cited motivations include depression, hopelessness, and the loss of control or autonomy. Allowing physicians to prescribe lethal medications to these patients would mean we are abandoning our Nation's most vulnerable citizens and, instead, succumbing to a culture that is worse than the disease.

Instead of death and despair that are the underlying principles of assisted suicide, our laws should reflect a culture that promotes life and hope, even in our suffering, even in our illness, and even in our weakness.

Jeanette Hall of Oregon was diagnosed with cancer in the year 2000. She was a supporter of her State's assisted suicide program, and she even voted for it. She considered taking her own life with the help of her physician when she learned she only had 6 months to live. Thankfully, she had a life-affirming doctor who simply asked her how her son, who was attending the police academy at the time, would feel about it. This made her stop and think.

His question inspired her to opt for radiation and chemotherapy, instead of suicide, and, over a decade later, she is still sharing her testimony. She is extremely happy to still be alive.

I have no doubt that Americans like Jeanette with chronic illnesses, disabilities, or struggling with mental illness will be exploited under this law, and perhaps even encouraged to pursue suicide rather than continue living until natural death. This dangerous trend is already taking shape in the six States that have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Precious lives have already met a premature end.

Mr. Speaker, there is dignity in all human life, and the root meaning of dignity is worth. Nothing--not illness, not weakness, or despair-- can decrease the worth of a human life. I cannot stand idly by and watch our laws corrupt our culture.

I am thankful to be joined by several of my colleagues who refuse to let this dark policy move forward unchecked. With that, I would like to yield to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup). Dr. Wenstrup is a physician. He has served our country in the Army Reserves having deployed to Iraq to treat our wounded servicemembers. Dr. Wenstrup, is the prime sponsor of H.J. Res. 27, which will overturn this misguided legislation.

Dr. Wenstrup, I thank you for introducing this legislation and for having the courage to live the life you have lived in serving our Armed Forces overseas.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice) who co- chairs our Values Action Team.

I thank Representative Hice.

Mr. Speaker, this law, the point about what is going to go on the death certificate, we have had a debate lately in our country about alternative facts, and here we have a law that says you can't say on the death certificate what the cause of death was. It's going to be poison. It's going to be some administered drug that is not supposed to be used as it was intended, as it was authorized by the FDA to be used, but for a whole other purpose--to end the life of somebody. I think that is a very serious concern. I think, again, this is at war with truth and at war with logic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler). Vicky co-chairs our values action team with Mr. Hice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hartzler for coming to the floor tonight and speaking on this bill. It is interesting that legalizing assisted suicide can lead to an increase in suicide. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars in our country on suicide prevention. It would seem that laws such as the one that the District of Columbia has passed really go against that fundamental public policy that we have in this country of saying no to suicide.

With that, it is a real privilege for me to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris). Andy Harris is another physician whom I serve with who has served in our Nation's military.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Harris for taking a long, hard look at what is going to happen here in the District of Columbia if we do not bring H.J. Res. 27 to the floor to block this misguided legislation.

Dr. Harris talked about compassion. Certainly, we all have family members, we all have friends who have had very difficult illnesses, and we have been at bedsides when people have passed.

It is good to know that we have palliative care that is available to help people in pain, to make sure that they are getting everything they can without having a doctor violate his or her Hippocratic oath to do no harm.

I really thank Dr. Harris for his words and for reminding us how he was called to the healing arts. He has got family members engaged in the healing arts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), another Representative that we are joined by this evening, a newer member from the Big One, I think it is called, also having served in the Army Reserve. He did not do his physician's work in the Army Reserve, because I don't know what the rules are with women servicemembers and giving birth, but certainly we have women servicemembers giving birth. I don't think they are overseas, although they may be in Germany and other places. I don't think they are going to be in a war zone.

Certainly, he has got plenty of experience. He has delivered over 5,000 babies. He certainly has seen his share of difficult cases with patients. It is good to have him here this evening to talk about this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is simple: this Congress has a responsibility. The Founders made us, this Congress--the House and the Senate--the stewards of this city, this beautiful Federal alabaster city. The Founders vested in us the exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia.

H.J. Res. 27, which will block the so-called D.C. Death With Dignity Act, is a bill that goes to the character of this Congress, to the character of the District, to the character of this country.

Will this Congress allow this law to go into effect?

For the vulnerable, I hope not. For the physicians who are supposed to heal, I hope not.

Earlier in my remarks, I talked about how beautiful it is to look at this city from Arlington and to recollect our 35th President and the inspiring words he spoke on January 20, 1961. He ended that address with these words: ``With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.''

Mr. Speaker, let's lead the land we love. Let this House move ahead with H.J. Res. 27 and prevent this legislation, the D.C. Death With Dignity Act, from staining our Nation's capital.

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

Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, I took a mile- long, 30-minute ride with coal miners into a 3\1/2\-foot-high coal mine in the mountains of Pennsylvania. I was reminded that day about the incredible work ethic of the folks in western Pennsylvania, the same work ethic that literally built this country in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.

The regulation we vote on today is one of the last rules that the Obama administration pushed out. This regulation has a single purpose: the demise of the coal industry and the thousands of middle class jobs that depend on it. This regulation is the culmination of former President Obama's ideological war on American energy that provides minimal benefit but tremendous cost.

I care about the miners and the workers I met with whose middle class jobs are at risk. I care about utility customers whose electric bills will go up because this regulation will take valuable American energy offline. I care about the communities that are hurt when these coal mines close.

This country continues to make tremendous progress on cleaning up the environment, progress that will continue without this job-killing regulation. If you care about the workers, if you care about these communities, you will vote ``yes'' on this CRA and block this job killer.

Mr. Speaker, we are all painfully aware that Washington's financial control law, Dodd-Frank, is full of provisions that have nothing to do with protecting consumers or preventing another financial crisis.

The SEC rule in question today is no exception. This politically motivated rule, tucked into a provision under the miscellaneous provisions of Dodd-Frank, fails to advance the core mission of the SEC, which is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.

Ensuring that payments by oil, gas, and other mineral companies are transparent and accountable is a worthwhile public policy goal, but it is outside the securities laws' core mission of investor protection.

Not only should this rule and its enforcement fall outside the purview of the SEC, but the rule itself is fundamentally flawed.

Like so many rules and regulations emanating from Dodd-Frank that harm our economy, it is more complex and costly than is required by statute, which calls into question the extent to which it meets the SEC's economic analysis requirement.

The SEC itself estimates the cost for compliance at between $239 million to $700 million initially and from $96 million to $591 million annually after that.

I am also concerned that this rule could force companies to withdraw from certain countries. Among other things, some foreign countries have laws to prohibit the sort of disclosures called for in this rule.

Since the rule provides no exemptions, American firms may be forced to abandon business ventures that provide jobs and opportunities for Americans.

I understand that some opponents of our effort have tried to label the SEC's policy as an anticorruption rule. It is important to keep in mind that nothing in today's resolution to repeal the rule undermines the ability of the SEC or the Department of Justice to fight corruption. Even without this rule, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act remains in force and any corrupt activities by Americans will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The rule under consideration today, however, is unnecessary, poorly written, outside the core responsibilities of the agency, and it would impose significant costs on publicly listed companies with no discernible benefit.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 7.

For decades, Congress has annually passed the Hyde amendment, which has prevented any government program from funding or subsidizing elective abortion. The Hyde amendment has saved over 2 million unborn children since 1976, including 100,000 lives in Pennsylvania.

For decades, this annual restriction on taxpayer funding of abortion has been referred to as the Hyde amendment because it was the late Congressman Henry Hyde from Illinois who sought to protect as many unborn children as he could during his service in Congress. Recollecting his own work, Congressman Hyde offered this poignant reflection:

``When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God--and a terror will rip through your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world--and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, `Spare him because he loved us'. . . . ''

Henry Hyde is not forgotten, and this work goes on.

Despite former-President Obama's promise that no abortion would be covered by his healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act authorized and appropriated funds for healthcare plans with abortion coverage. This must stop.

We must remember, abortion is not health care, and in no way should the government fund or subsidize the violent destruction of unborn children.

It is the overwhelming opinion of Americans, including those who identify as pro-choice, that taxpayer dollars should not be used for abortion. This legislation is absolutely essential to apply the principles of the Hyde amendment consistently across the Federal Government.

As hundreds of thousands march this Friday on the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a decision Justice White referred to as an exercise in raw judicial power, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey, for more than three decades, has raised these issues in this very Chamber, speaking for those who are defenseless and voiceless. He speaks because he speaks truth and is motivated by his conscience to discuss these truths.

Every year since 1973, we have had a March for Life here in Washington. This year, we have the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is one of the gravest examples of judicial activism in our Nation's history. Seven black-robed Justices decided that the lives of unborn children are not protected under the Constitution in what Justice White referred to as an exercise in raw judicial power. In the last 44 years, 60 million children have died in abortion.

The March for Life draws thousands of people, young and old, Democrat and Republican, from across the Nation year after year from near and far, on buses, on planes, in cars, on trains, in snow, in rain, in sunshine, and overcast skies. Why? Why do they continue to come?

They come because they are motivated by the transcendent truth that was captured in our Declaration of Independence that everyone is endowed by a Creator with an inalienable right to life--a right that no one can take away.

Everyone in this Chamber has that right. Everybody listening to this Special Order debate has that right. You have it today, you had it yesterday, you had it before you were born. No one has the right to take that right away.

The right does not depend on your ability to see, your ability to hear, your ability to walk, your ability to talk. That right exists because you are human. It is as simple as that. No one can take away that right.

Those coming to the March for Life this year are coming to share that witness, but they have also been witnessing back home the countless acts of service they do for women in crisis pregnancies and to continue with the help that they provide.

It is a good thing for them to come to Washington. I look forward to welcoming my constituents from western Pennsylvania, and I encourage them to come and stand and continue to witness until one day we recognize the right to life for everyone in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation.

Civilian control of the military is a very important principle that has served our country well. Current law provides that there should be a 7-year gap between military service and serving as the Secretary of Defense. This is a general rule, but we know there are always exceptions to the rule. That is what this legislation makes today, clearing the path for a retired general who has been back in the civilian world for more than 3\1/2\ years.

I support this exception because we live in exceptional times. Over the past 15 years, we have seen millions of American servicemembers deployed overseas. Thousands are still deployed. They have served well and served with courage. Many of them, and their families, have paid a particularly heavy price. More than 6,000 did not come home. Tens of thousands sustained life-changing injuries. Thousands have injuries we cannot see. Many families broke under the pressure of repeated deployments.

Retired General James Mattis, now a civilian, has been there. He has been with these soldiers. He has been with these families. I appreciate the perspective General Mattis will bring to the Defense Department and President-elect's national security team. He understands more than most in a very personal way the gravity of putting our servicemembers in harm's way. He understands the moral obligation we have to ensure that those who are sent into harm's way are properly equipped. As important, he will be able to convey to his national security counterparts the impact decisions made in Washington have on the war fighter.

General Mattis is the right person at the right time. I encourage my colleagues to support this waiver and vote for this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act.

Many speaking today in support of this legislation are right to point out the crushing impact that Washington's overregulation has had on our economy. We know all too well how overregulation has driven up the cost of health care, financial services, and energy; and it is long past time for reform.

I would like to highlight a provision of this legislation that I offered 3 years ago that requires agencies to identify when new rules will have a negative impact on jobs and wages.

Too often, regulators and agency heads are well aware of the negative impact a regulation will have on Americans' jobs and wages even before it is imposed, but they impose it anyway. Specifically, my provision defines when rules have a negative impact on jobs and wages and requires agency heads approving such a rule to submit a statement that they approve the rule knowing its negative impact.

When people in this far-off Capitol take away the jobs and livelihood of working families, as they have done with miners and power plant workers and laborers in my district, they need to own up to it. The Regulatory Accountability Act will help us to provide American workers with substantial relief from what is often Washington overreach, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the late Nat Hentoff, a man who constantly defied expectations. He died this weekend on January 7.

Nat defined himself as a ``Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian, left- wing pro-lifer.'' A writer for the Village Voice and brilliant jazz critic, he joined forces with constituents across political, ideological, and religious spectrums if he believed he shared common ground with them.

He was not afraid to alienate his fellow liberals by agreeing with pro-life heretics, as he once jokingly called them, nor was he afraid to speak to crowds of Christian pro-lifers, even when many of them said being atheist and pro-life were mutually exclusive.

Rather than worry about their judgment, he cared too much about fairness and equality to remain silent. He was more concerned with expressing what he believed to be true: that the unborn have great potential and that, with their own unique genetic code, they are human persons with as much a right to life as any of us.

I commend Nat Hentoff for his courage and intellectual integrity. It is not easy in our culture to swim upstream. It takes a certain spirit, grit, and determination. These are characteristics Nat Hentoff possessed in abundance.

May he rest in peace and may his family be consoled.

``. . . to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

``To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations; . . .''

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 26, the REINS Act. This bill is the beginning of making America great again. That is because it puts Americans back in charge of the laws being imposed upon them.

How does the legislation do that?

Under our Constitution, we have three branches. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law. The judicial branch is supposed to resolve disputes arising under the law. The legislature--this House and the Senate, the branch directly elected by the people--is supposed to make the law.

Over the last decades, we have seen more and more of the lawmaking in this country migrate to the unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. Those bureaucrats churn out regulation after regulation that have the full force and effect of law. The problem with this setup is that the people of this country are supposed to consent to laws being imposed upon them. They do that through their elected representatives in Congress. In short, this legislation goes to the heart of what self- rule is all about.

Let me be clear: this legislation does not end regulation. It is the beginning of accountability for regulation. If there is a good regulation that a Member believes makes sense and does not unduly burden jobs and wages, that Member may vote to approve the regulation. If the people that Member represents disagree, they get to hold him or her accountable at the ballot box.

My colleagues across the aisle should not fear taking responsibility for the laws and regulations coming out of Washington, D.C. Over the last 7 years, Washington regulations have hurt many working families. We have seen coal miners and power plant workers lose good jobs. We have seen small, Main Street community banks and credit unions forced into mergers. We have seen farmers worried about puddles on their farms. We have seen people lose their health insurance and their doctors, and we have seen the Little Sisters of the Poor have their religious freedom threatened--all without the consent of the people.

It is time for the people, Mr. Chairman, to put the American people back in charge and not the unelected bureaucrats. Let's take the power away from Washington. Let's restore self-rule. Let's pass this bill.