Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 72.

Since becoming a Member of Congress, there has been a recurring theme in almost all of my meetings with constituents, the overreaching and burdensome nature of regulatory authority in Federal agencies. In my committee work just this week, I heard about the difficulties and the haphazard nature in which Dodd-Frank is being implemented and the negative impact of regulations in health care, education, and the National Labor Relations Board. It is obvious that the problem is not limited to one agency or industry, but is a growing trend by the administration in their approach to implementing regulations.

I would like to take a moment to talk specifically about the Environmental Protection Agency's boiler MACT ruling. It would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it is estimated that the cost to the paper and pulp industry would be over $5.5 billion in capital and $1.2 billion in annualized costs.

The boiler MACT ruling is only one in a long line of troubling rulemaking decisions by the EPA and other agencies. Farmers have continually been faced with overreaching decisions such as rulings on pesticides, regulations of concentrated animal feeding operations, and nonpoint source pollution, to name a few. Alabama has a strong presence of agriculture, and I look forward to Congress exerting their oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 72. Since becoming a Member of Congress, there has been a reoccurring theme in almost all of my meetings with constituents--the overreaching and burdensome nature of the regulatory authority of Federal agencies. Regardless if the meeting is with farmers, business owners, factory and mill workers, energy producers, doctors and teachers, all of them have been negatively impacted by unbalanced decisions by Federal agencies. All these groups want is fair, reasonable and balanced decisions. In my Committee work this week, I heard in the House Agriculture Committee about the difficulties in the haphazard nature in which Dodd-Frank is being implemented. In the House Committee on Education and Workforce, I heard testimony regarding the negative impact of regulations in health care, education, and the National Labor Relations Board. It is obvious that the problem is not limited to one agency or industry, but a growing trend by the Administration in their approach to implementing regulations.

I like to take a moment and talk specifically about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology for boilers. It is not even clear that the technology the EPA is requiring even currently exists. I have heard from several groups both here in DC and back in the district that the ruling would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs at a cost of tens of billions of dollars in cost in implementing the rule. For example, it could result in the loss of 17,000 jobs in mills and 55,000 jobs in surrounding communities in the pulp and paper industry. It is estimated the cost to the industry would be over $5.5 billion in capital and $1.2 billion in annualized cost. New air regulations could total about $4 billion annually, which is over 4 times the entire industry's profit in 2008. This would eliminate the industry and push jobs overseas leaving us relying on foreign markets for products.

The Boiler MACT ruling is only one in a long line of troubling rule- making decisions by the EPA and other agencies. In my State of Alabama, that has a strong presence of agriculture, farmers have continually been faced with over-reaching decisions such as rulings on pesticides, regulations of concentrated animal feeding operations, ruling on genetically engineered crops, definition of navigable waters and nonpoint source pollution, to name a few. We cannot continue to be faced with regulations that are not consistent, that overly impede on particular industries, discourage innovation and eliminate jobs and businesses.

I look forward to Congress exerting their oversight power and to reign in the Federal agencies. Congress must ensure that we have regulations that are done fairly in a balanced manner to ensure the safety and health of the American people while controlling for overly burdensome cost on our society.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with my colleagues in support of H.R. 2 that will repeal the Health Care Reform Act.

Sadly, this law is less about providing health care for all citizens and more about expanding Federal Government.

It translates into substantial cost, over $500 billion, that must be paid for by hardworking, tax-paying Americans. In economic hard times, it is our responsibility to ensure that this does not occur. If we do not repeal this law, our inaction will serve as nothing less than gross fiscal irresponsibility. This must not happen.

I want to tell you about the owner of the Pizza Hut in Headland, Alabama, who will be forced to close his doors due to the costs associated with this law. Then there is the gentleman who owns pharmacies throughout the Southeast, who told me he has the ability to create two jobs but who cannot do so because he doesn't know what the Federal Government is going to do to him next.

Just like our forefathers answered the call to right wrongs, we too must answer a call. The citizens in our districts have spoken, and in their words, We must repeal this law.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago I took part in a reading of the U.S. Constitution in this Chamber. It was a fitting tribute to the great social contract between the American people and our government.

The Constitution is an exceptional document, and we have all taken an oath to defend it, and defend it we must. Too often, our Constitution is under attack by the liberal activist movement that seeks to achieve through the courts that which they cannot achieve at the ballot box.

On the front line are the unelected judges that disregard the words and meaning of the Constitution in favor of their own political and social views. They decide cases not on the law and the facts but on the outcome that they alone believe to be the best policy. Roe v. Wade is an example of this sort of judicial activism at its worst. Together with other cases, the Roe court created a fundamental right to abortion even though a simple reading of the Constitution reveals no such right. As a result, unimaginable harm has occurred.

In the short time that I have talked tonight, another baby has been aborted. That equals one abortion every 2 minutes, 3,300 abortions a day, or 1.2 million abortions a year.

Mr. Speaker, I am unapologetically pro-life. I believe that the miracle of human life begins at conception. I believe that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, ``knit together'' by God in our mother's womb. I believe that every American is entitled to basic human rights. And I believe that I have an obligation to do everything I can to fight for the unborn, to prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions, and to protect our democratic system from the encroachment of an all-powerful judiciary.

Let us use this 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade as an occasion to reaffirm our beliefs and redirect ourselves to that cause.

``The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.''

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is on an unsustainable path. Over the last 2 years, all we have seen from Washington is more spending, more borrowing, and more debt. The American taxpayer has been burdened with $3 trillion worth of bailouts and buyouts. Never before has the government spent so much while the people received so little. One of the goals of the transition team was to restore fiscal responsibility to Congress. And I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for his leadership on that transition team.

Working families all across America have been forced to tighten their belts during this economic downturn. The Congress should be no different. Our proposal would cut Members' representational allowances by 5 percent. It will save the American taxpayer at least $35 million annually over the next year.

No one is suggesting that this is a silver bullet. In fact, it is far from it. Reducing our soaring debt will require this Congress to deeply commit to the tough choices that will be required to put our Nation back on track. But, in many ways, our budget woes began in this Chamber. And so, too, should they end. This resolution is a symbolic start to this process.