Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue, which is near and dear to my heart, as it is to the hearts of thousands upon thousands of families in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to the Norton funding amendment. The gentlewoman and I have worked together on occasion on issues, and I know her devotion to the District of Columbia. But we will just have to respectfully disagree on this issue, because I simply believe that the Scholarships for Opportunities and Results Act represents the continuation of one of the most important programs that I have had the privilege of being a part of here in Washington, D.C.

Now, there is a suggestion that this legislation takes money away from the public schools. But I think, as we have heard in this debate, because of the three-sector approach created by the original authorizing legislation, District public schools and public charter schools have received over one-quarter of $1 billion in additional direct Federal payments since 2004. Both DCPS and the charter schools will continue to receive increased Federal dollars under this legislation.

So the old arguments against giving students and parents more choices because it denies funding to public schools don't even attach here on the facts.

But beyond that, let me say the reason why I felt the need to come to the floor today. The reason why I so respect Speaker John Boehner's leadership on this issue is because of meetings that I have had in my office with oftentimes the teary-eyed parents of children in the District of Columbia.

I will just never forget last year meeting with moms and dads from the District of Columbia, most of them from the minority community, who came to me with tears in their eyes and said, ``I have one child that is in a private school. I was able to take advantage of the D.C. scholarship. But because this administration and the last Congress terminated it, I cannot give that other opportunity to their younger brother or sister.'' And they literally came to me--at that time I was in a leadership position in the Republican majority--and they said, ``Please do something about this.'' And my heart went out to those families.

We had an election, and now we find ourselves in a renewed Republican majority. And the Speaker of the House of Representatives today is a man who probably has a larger heart for kids as a former chairman of the Education Committee than maybe any other former Speaker in the history of this institution.

So we find ourselves at this moment when I can say with no small amount of emotion, I can say to those families,

yes, we are going to put the scholarship back. We are going to say to the rest of your children that they deserve the best choice for their education future as well.

It is a noble moment for this Congress. The Old Book tells us that whatever you do for the least of these, that you do for Him. I think this is one of those moments where we look at families that are struggling under the weight of some of the most beleaguered public schools in America and we are putting our arms around those families and saying, we are going to give you more choices. We are going to let you as parents, regardless of your race or income or status in society, we are going to give you the opportunity to make the same choice for a private school and a public school and a charter school as Americans that have the means to do so can make.

Let me also say I see this debate over educational choice, whether it is in the District of Columbia or in my own beloved Indiana, as all tied up in the debate over education reform that has been manifest throughout this country over the last half century and more. I mean, there was a day almost in my lifetime, just on the periphery of my lifetime, when some stood in the schoolhouse door and said, You may not come in.

But we fixed that as a nation. And now there are some in the massive education establishment in this country who stand in the schoolhouse door and say, You may not come out. You may not have the same choices that other Americans have, simply because of your means and your condition in life.

The Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act levels the playing field.

The SOAR Act opens the schoolhouse door. It reopens the door for opportunities for these families and for their children in the District of Columbia. And I believe it was before a model for the Nation, and it can be so again.

So I encourage my colleagues to join me in respectfully opposing the Norton funding amendment but vigorously supporting H.R. 471. Let's stand with those families. Let's put joy in their hearts. Let's create a boundless future for their children. Let's pass the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act.

Mr. Speaker, with a $14 trillion national debt and a $1.65 trillion deficit this year alone, our Federal Government is facing a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions. With the passage of H.R. 1, House Republicans took an important first step toward turning our national government back in the direction of fiscal discipline, defunding ObamaCare, and even restoring the sanctity of life to the center of the Federal budget. But it was rejected by liberals in the Senate. In fact, last week, the Senate majority leader called the Republican budget cuts mean spirited, reckless, and irresponsible, even defending Federal funding for a cowboy poetry festival. Seriously.

Is it reckless and irresponsible to ask for $61 billion in cuts when the national debt is 230 times that size? The truth is, they just don't get it.

I think it's time to take a stand for taxpayers and for future generations. And I will not vote for the short-term continuing resolution that is coming to the floor of the House today, to make that statement.

Things don't change in Washington until they have to. It's time to pick a fight.

With a $14 trillion national debt, a $1.65 trillion deficit this year alone, yesterday the United States Senate voted to reject the House effort to fund the government for the rest of the year. The Senate majority leader even took to the floor and called our $61 billion in savings ``mean spirited,'' ``reckless,'' and ``irresponsible.'' He even defended Federal funding for the Cowboy Poetry Festival, apparently in his own State.

You know, I learned a long time ago out here in Washington that sometimes things don't change in Washington, D.C., until they have to. I think we have to pick a fight. If House Republicans want to win this battle, we need to take a stand for the budget cuts and the policy changes enshrined in H.R. 1--that's $61 billion in savings this year, defunding ObamaCare, and defunding Planned Parenthood of America.

It's time to take a stand for fiscal responsibility and reform. We have to say, This far and no farther. For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we need to make a stand for the American people. And make no mistake about it: If we make this fight, we can win this fight, because the American people are on our side.

Two weeks ago, after 90 hours of debate, House Republicans in this majority passed a long-term funding resolution that found more than $100 billion in savings off the President's budget. It defunded their government takeover of health care. It even denied all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America.

But while House Republicans have done the people's business, at this moment, Mr. Speaker, the Senate has virtually done nothing except find a way to fund the government for another 2 weeks, and the White House just appointed a few negotiators yesterday--just 2 short days before government funding would have run out to begin with.

Look, the patience of the American people is wearing thin, and so is mine.

Our Nation is facing a fiscal crisis of epic proportions--$1.65 trillion in deficits this year, $14 trillion national debt. The time to put our fiscal house in order is now. No more delays. No more kicking the cans.

Let's have the debate. Let's hash it out. Let's defund ObamaCare. Let's defund Planned Parenthood, and let's use this moment to have this fight to make a downpayment on restoring fiscal sanity to Washington,

Madam Chair, this Nation currently faces a $1.65 trillion deficit, $14 trillion national debt. And despite all the talk for the President's so-called fiscal discipline, this administration just proposed a budget that will add $12 trillion to that mountain range of debt facing our children and grandchildren.

Fortunately, under the leadership of Chairman Rogers, House Republicans are keeping our word to the American people. We said, if you gave us a second chance to lead this Congress, we would find at least $100 billion in savings this year, and House Republicans will do that before we adjourn for this week.

But House conservatives believe we can do more. I truly believe that the Jordan amendment--which provides an across-the-board cut of 5.5 percent, more for the legislative branch, doesn't touch our most cherished ally, Israel--is one of those opportunities where you have a chance to underpromise and overperform.

We said to the American people that we would do at least $100 billion. We have added hundreds of millions of dollars to that. Let's do more. Let's do $22 billion more. Let's underpromise, overdeliver, and set this Nation back on a pathway towards fiscal responsibility and reform.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chair, I do rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Camp, from Michigan. And let me say, I think I take a second chair to no one in my respect for the gentleman from Michigan. I respect his passion and his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee and his passion for the ecosystem known as the Great Lakes. I know it's sincere and it's real. And this problem is real.

Anyone who has taken more than a passing glance at the issue of Asian carp recognizes that this is a serious but manageable threat to the Great Lakes region. It is one that deserves the continued attention of this Congress and this administration and the States within the Great Lakes region.

But that being said, I rise in opposition to the Camp amendment for the following reasons:

Principally, because I believe that this amendment would have a devastating effect on Hoosier jobs and the Ports of Indiana.

The Camp amendment would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from operating the navigation locks located in the city of Chicago.

It is the only waterway in the Great Lakes system with access to the Mississippi River Basin.

The separation of the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River will cost thousands of jobs and will cause great harm to many Hoosiers who manufacture and grow our products. According to a study by the Ports of Indiana, commerce through the Chicago locks is responsible for $1.9 billion in economic activity and nearly 18,000 jobs in my home State.

In addition to the economic damage this action will inflict, I would submit respectfully that there is no evidence that actually closing the locks will definitely keep the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife found a year ago that there is no ``combination of lock operation scenarios that experts believe would lower the risk of Asian carp establishing self-sustaining populations in Lake Michigan.''

In fact, according to the Asian Carp Working Group, there are dozens of alternative methods fully to be explored. And Indiana is fully participating in the Federal Government-led effort to stop the Asian carp migration. Electronic barriers have shown promise. We need to continue energetically to work in that area. The gentlewoman from Illinois also outlined different areas.

Let me say, while I urge my colleagues to oppose the Camp amendment, allow me to use this moment to say that we will continue to lock arms with the gentleman from Michigan, with our neighbors in Michigan, our neighbors in Illinois to deal with what is a very, very real threat to the ecosystem, to commerce in the area, and to the enjoyment of the waterways in the area.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I was pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Let me just say that the demonstration projects of the electronic fence began slightly before 2006. The fence and the studies are ongoing.

Let me say, on behalf of other Hoosiers in that delegation, we're not patient to wait 5 years for action. We will continue to work with the gentleman from Michigan to work, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of immediate action and continue to call on this administration. The economic impacts are devastating. The impact on the ecosystem broadly would be equally devastating, and so we join the gentleman from Michigan in calling for urgent action by this Congress and this administration.

I just respectfully offer that both with regard to its economic impact and with regard to its questionable effectiveness, that dealing with this from the standpoint of the locks and this continuing resolution is not the best approach. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Camp amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong. But I rise tonight because I also believe it's morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund organizations that provide and promote abortion--like Planned Parenthood of America. The American people deserve to know that Planned Parenthood is not only the largest abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood is also the largest recipient of taxpayer funding under title X.

According to their latest annual report, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in taxpayer money while boasting of having performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions during the same period.

The amendment that I bring to the floor tonight would deny any and all funding to Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates for the rest of the fiscal year. But let me be clear. This amendment would not cut funding for health services. It would simply block those funds already in the bill from subsidizing America's largest abortion provider.

Now I am aware that title X family planning funds are eliminated in this bill. But eliminating title X funding has never been my goal. I support the important work of title X clinics across the country. The reality is that Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars from Federal funding sources other than title X, and our effort tonight is specifically to focus on denying any and all Federal funding to the largest abortion provider in America.

The reasons for doing so are many. The case for defunding Planned Parenthood has made headlines for years. In 2002, Planned Parenthood was found civilly liable in Arizona for failure to report statutory rape. Since that time, Planned Parenthood affiliates have been found violating reporting laws in Indiana and California, and found to have violated statutory reporting laws in places like Ohio. Recently in California, Washington, New Jersey and New York, Planned Parenthood clinics have been accused of fraudulent accounting over billing practices. And, of course, last week as the Nation watched in horror, new undercover videos were released that showed Planned Parenthood employees in multiple States apparently willing to aid human sex traffickers by coaching them on how to falsify documents to secure secret abortions for underage prostitutes. As the father of two teenage daughters, there are not words strong enough to portray my contempt for this pattern of fraud and abuse against young women by Planned Parenthood, and that's what brings us here today.

Now I know that some consider this amendment to be something of a war on Planned Parenthood. But this is not about Planned Parenthood's right to be in the abortion business. Sadly, abortion on demand is legal in America. This is about who pays for it. Nobody is saying that Planned Parenthood can't be the leading advocate of abortion on demand in America, but why do I have to pay for it? Nobody is saying that Planned Parenthood can't continue to be the largest abortion provider in America. But why do tens of millions of pro-life American taxpayers have to pay for it?

Let me be clear as I come to the floor.

I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of history, when we move past the broken hearts and the broken lives of the past 38 years. But as this debate rages on, I call on my colleagues in both parties:

Let's at least respect what has been the historic and overwhelming consensus of the American people: that we ought not use their taxpayer dollars to provide or promote abortion at home and abroad. Let's end taxpayer support for abortion providers, specifically Planned Parenthood, once and for all.

I urge my colleagues to take a stand for taxpayers and to take a stand for life, to take a stand against a pattern of corruption, and to take a stand for young women in crisis pregnancies, who deserve access to unbiased and compassionate health care services.

Let's end the taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood. The Pence amendment's purpose is to do simply that and, in so doing, to stand with the American people, to stand with the American taxpayer, and to stand without apology for the sanctity of human life.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time and for his leadership on this and so many issues.

After years of runaway Federal spending by both political parties, last year House Republicans took the pledge. We said to the American people, give us another chance to lead this Congress, and the first thing we'll do is we'll reduce domestic spending to pre-bail out, pre- stimulus levels, saving the American people at least $100 billion. And today, simply put, this new majority will keep our word with the American people. And in Washington, D.C., that's saying a lot.

Now we'll consider H.R. 1, which will save at least $100 billion in this fiscal year. It is, in fact, the single largest rescission package in the history of this Congress. With a $14 trillion national debt and a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, cutting $100 billion will not solve our fiscal crisis, but it's a good start, and it's a promise kept. And here in Washington, D.C., that's really saying something.

Now, to save our Nation from an avalanche of debt facing future generations, we must just do a couple of basic things. First, we've got to stop what we've been doing, piling a mountain range of debt on our children and grandchildren. We've got to turn around and we've got to begin to head in the other direction. We have to face our present fiscal crisis squarely and with courage. And today, this new Republican majority will do just that. We'll begin the process of turning our ship of state back toward that horizon of fiscal responsibility and fiscal solvency and sustainability for generations to come.

I urge my colleagues in both political parties, join us in this important first step. Join us in this important promise kept. Work with us, and we will work with you to put our Nation on a pathway toward fiscal solvency and, ultimately, lay a foundation for real economic growth for generations to come.

I rise in support of H.R. 514 to extend the three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Nearly ten years removed from the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is all too clear that America is still a nation at war and these expiring provisions are still valuable tools in the Global War on Terror.

I was here at the Capitol on that day. I saw the evil of our enemies written in the smoke rising above the Pentagon. We are reminded even today that their desire to inflict such violence on our homeland and that of our allies is real.

Just last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified that the ``threat continues to evolve'' and went on to say that the risk of attack ``may be at its most heightened state'' since that fateful day in 2001.

Because we are still a nation at war, I support the extension until December 8, 2011 of the three provisions, set to expire on February 28, 2011.

The first, Section 206, authorizes the use of roving wiretaps by law enforcement after approval from the FISA court. This allows for terrorists or spies who throw away their cell phones and change locations frequently to be tracked before they can execute an attack. Roving wiretaps have been routinely used for decades by domestic law enforcement in criminal cases. Quite simply, the USA PATRIOT Act gives our national security and intelligence communities the same tools provided to local law enforcement and it is an essential tool to fight terrorism in the modem world.

Section 215 authorizes the FBI to ask FISA courts to issue an order that allows the FBI to investigate business records related to international terrorism and clandestine intelligence activities. With this provision at their disposal, the FBI will have a greater opportunity to obtain foreign intelligence information. Now some will argue that this provision will allow the federal government to spy on the business records, internet activities and library accounts of ordinary, law-abiding citizens. That is not the case.

To use Section 215, national security agents need approval from the FISA court. The government must demonstrate to the court that the business records sought are ``not concerning a United States person,'' but in connection with international terrorism. The oversight requirements of this provision are very stringent. Every six months, the Attorney General must report to Congress on the number of times a Section 215 order has been sought, granted, modified or denied.

The third provision, found in section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Protection Act, commonly known as the ``Lone Wolf'' provision, allows law enforcement to track those non-U.S. citizens who seek to inflict terror under their own initiative, without affiliation to common terrorist groups.

Mr. Speaker, only weeks ago, Members of this body took the oath of office and swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies. We have the responsibility to uphold that pledge, and in doing so, I believe we must equip law enforcement and intelligence officials with the tools necessary to protect Americans from terrorist attack.

There is no doubt about America's determination to protect itself and this legislation will ensure that our intelligence community--those who work tirelessly every day to protect us--have the tools they need to prevent the horrors of September 11th from being brought to our soil again.

We must also safeguard the precious civil rights and liberties that make our lives free and fulfilling. The PATRIOT Act includes strong protections for the civil liberties of Americans and continues extensive measures for oversight and review of the Department of Justice and our intelligence agencies. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I fully understand the need to strike a proper balance between security and the rights of the American people, and I believe that in extending these provisions, we will do just that.

I am confident this Congress will continue its oversight duties so that we can ensure that every tool available to the intelligence community is coupled with safeguards that ensure the civil liberties of the American people.

Our solemn duty is to protect Americans from terrorists and safeguard their civil liberties, and we will fulfill that duty by passing this bill to extend, through December 8th of this year, these crucial provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

I urge passage.

Offered By: Mr. Pence

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Marriage Week, which occurs annually during the week of February 7th. National Marriage Week was established to help couples strengthen their commitment to each other by hosting special events, marriage classes, and home support groups. While it is important for couples to focus on their marriage every day, National Marriage Week is an excellent opportunity for Americans to rededicate themselves to their spouse and to their family.

Marriage was ordained by God and instituted among men. It is the glue that binds the American family, and the safest harbor in which to raise children. Studies indicate that men and women who have a strong marriage tend to live longer, have better health, and experience more personal joy. Strong marriages also create the safest harbor for children to flourish and experience the complete spiritual, moral, emotional, educational, and financial benefits of both parents.

I have been a long-time advocate of traditional marriage, and have been proud to support numerous pieces of legislation to protect this sacred institution. The family structure is the cornerstone of our society, and I can think of no better time to emphasize its importance than National Marriage Week. I encourage all Americans to use this opportunity to renew their commitment and devotion to their spouse, and to personally take the steps they can to preserve this important institution.

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 1911, America's fortieth president was born in a small midwestern town. A century later, we remember Ronald Wilson Reagan as a great man and a great leader who personified and advanced the highest ideals of the American people at home and abroad. He may have started his life with a humble beginning in America's heartland, but at a time when America longed for leadership, he answered the call to service.

After eight years of his presidency, the communism of Soviet Russia was collapsing, the American military was rebuilt, the nation's economy restored and its moral fabric renewed. As he said himself, President Reagan left America ``more prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years earlier.''

Many will remember him as the Great Communicator. But as the President said many times, he was not a great communicator; he communicated great things. He communicated the traditional American values anchored by his profound Christian faith.

His ideas were simple, straightforward and distinctly American. President Reagan believed that freedom depended on limited government. He fiercely advanced the principles of less government, less taxes, a strong defense and a commitment to traditional moral values.

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, President Reagan changed the course of my life. I had the honor of meeting him in the summer of 1988 as a candidate for Congress. Determined to say something of great meaning to him, I looked the President in the eye and thanked him for all he had done to inspire my generation to believe in American again. He responded with characteristic humility by saying that ``the American people decided it was time to right the ship, and I was just the captain they put on the bridge when they did it.''

In the midst of his extraordinary gifts, Ronald Reagan was a deeply humble man who believed in God and the American people with an unshakable faith. He also was able to find inspiration in his beloved Rancho del Cielo. When I had the opportunity to visit the ranch, I immediately understood why President Reagan found solace in its beauty. He spent many a day working at the ranch, and it is not difficult to believe that he contemplated many important decisions while clearing brush, fixing fences and breaking new trails in his jeep. The Young America's Foundation has since taken responsibility of the ranch, and I commend them for preserving this significant part of Ronald Reagan's legacy.

In his Farewell Address to the nation, President Reagan spoke poignantly of the distance that high office can place between the servant and the served.

He said, ``One of the things about the presidency is that you're always somewhat apart. You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass--the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn't return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, one hundred years after his birth and two decades after he left public service, the American people are still connected to President Ronald Reagan's American ideals and values, which endure to this day.

Mr. Speaker, it comes as a surprise to most Americans to learn that the largest abortion provider in America is also the largest recipient of Federal funding under Title X. It is heartbreaking news this morning the Planned Parenthood of America has now been the subject of one more undercover video showing someone posing as a pimp being facilitated by employees at Planned Parenthood in how to secure secret abortions, STD testing, and contraception for child prostitutes.

You know, as a father of two teenage daughters, I see the video that came out this morning, I see the video that came out last week, and it is an outrage to me that employees of Planned Parenthood clinics across the country are facilitating the abuse of minor girls in this country. It should be a scandal to every American.

The time has come to deny all Federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America. I have authored the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which would deny Title X funds to Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider, and Congress must act and act now to move this important legislation. Pro-life Americans, and all Americans, should not be forced to subsidize America's largest abortion provider or to continue to provide Federal taxpayer dollars to Title X clinics that engage in this abhorrent behavior.

Mr. Speaker, tonight the President of the United States will appear in this Chamber, as nearly every President has for more than 150 years, and report on the State of the Union, and we will receive him with the respect that is due his Office.

We are told in press reports that the President will focus on the future, on winning the future; but as the President said last Friday, ``The past 2 years were about pulling our economy back from the brink''--and we expect to hear the same thing today.

But frankly, as most Americans know, during the last 2 years, this administration and the former majority in Congress met our present crisis with an avalanche of borrowing and spending and bailouts and taxes and takeovers and mandates. Far from pulling our economy back, the weight of debt and taxes and regulation have stifled our economic recovery.

Mr. President, we will not win the future with the failed economic policies of the past. As you come into this hallowed Chamber tonight, we urge you, Mr. President, for not just a new speech. Give the American people a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk these days around here about where Members of Congress are going to sit during the State of the Union Address. Well, I've been in Congress for 10 years, and I learned a long time ago that it doesn't really matter where you sit; it matters where you stand.

Today, House Republicans are going to stand with the American people and are going to vote to repeal the government takeover of health care--lock, stock, and barrel.

Now, I know the other side and some liberals in the media don't like us using that term ``government takeover of health care,'' but let me break it down for you:

When you mandate that every American purchase health insurance, whether they want it or need it or not; when you mandate that every business provide health insurance or send people to a government-run exchange; when you pay for it with hundreds of billions of dollars and higher taxes and mandates; and when you throw in public funding of abortion against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people, that is the government takeover of health care. And the American people know it.

I urge all of my colleagues in both political parties to join us today as we keep our promise to the American people, as we scrap this health care reform bill of last year and start over with health care reform that will lower the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government.