Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, May 13, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker:

Whereas, our communities must place the highest value on preserving the role of prayer in our society and government, so that all Americans can continue to enjoy the benefits that our faith has bestowed upon us; and

Whereas, an appreciation for our history encourages dedication to the values and ideals which have enriched our nation; and

Whereas, in the highest traditions of our country, the Fifth Congressional District of Florida has provided an exceptional example of the power of faith in our society; and

Whereas, on this day, the citizens and leaders of the community are gathered to partake in a non-denominational day of prayer.

Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Fifth Congressional District of Florida, do hereby recognize the district's observance of the 60th National Day of Prayer.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 237 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 237 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3. The rule provides for ample debate on this bill and gives Members of both the minority and the majority the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying

bill. For the past 30 years, we've used a patchwork system of clauses and amendments to protect American tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions. Every year Congress has to attach a series of amendments to appropriation bills specifically stating that funds spent in that legislation may not be used for elective abortions. Every year these amendments pass. These amendments pass, Madam Speaker, because Members of Congress know and recognize the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not want their hard-earned money to be spent for abortions of innocent, unborn lives.

In 2010 the Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe that Federal funds should never be used to pay for abortions or should only be used to save the life of the mother--77 percent, Madam Speaker. This number proves that even people who support a woman's right to choose still believe that tax dollars should not pay for that choice.

Clearly the time has come to move beyond this piecemeal approach and reform the way our Nation addresses this very important and sensitive issue.

H.R. 3 simply codifies and makes permanent the policies that currently rely upon regular, re-approval of Congress. Among the riders made permanent to H.R. 3 are:

the Hyde amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act;

the Helms amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas;

the Smith Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for Federal employees;

the Dornan amendment, which prohibits the use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia;

the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause, which ensures that recipients of Federal funding do not discriminate against doctors, nurses, and hospitals because they do not provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortions.

Madam Speaker, a woman's right to choose can be a divisive issue that splits the American people down the middle. However, we aren't talking about a 50/50 issue; we're talking about 77 percent. It's clearly a majority.

Just like Americans on both sides of the aisle believe that tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for abortions, so do the Members of Congress from both parties. There are 227 bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 3. I'm proud to be one of those cosponsors.

H.R. 3 will ensure that American taxpayers are not forced to fund what many consider the destruction of innocent human life through abortion on demand.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will establish a government- wide statutory prohibition on funding abortion or insurance coverage that includes abortion. This comprehensive approach will reduce the need for numerous separate abortion-funding riders.

It eliminates abortion-related amendments to appropriation bills, bills that the rules of the House remind us aren't even supposed to legislate through amendments. It ensures that all Federal programs are subject to this important safeguard.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, Dr. Gingrey of Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the author of H.R. 3.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I need to correct one thing. The word ``forcible'' is nowhere in the statute or the legislation as we have it on the floor.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that H.R. 3 is about taking away a woman's right to choose. That is simply not true. H.R. 3 is about ensuring that taxpayers aren't on the hook for paying for that choice. My Democratic colleagues would have you believe that we want to raise your taxes and allow the IRS to audit women. Again, that is simply not true. The bill is about one thing: keeping our tax dollars from being spent for elective abortions on demand.

The United States is currently borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend. We are in debt and spending money we don't have. We need to focus on bringing our government back to its core mission. You can't tell me that paying for elective abortions is part of our core mission.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the gentleman from Dallas, Mr. Sessions.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 203 and the underlying legislation, H.R. 910.

When I talk to people in Florida's Fifth District about what we are doing here in the House of Representatives to cut spending, reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, I always stress that we are just one part of the process. The House can only do so much. We still need the Senate and the President to sign off on any legislation we pass before it becomes law. This is one of the most basic building blocks of our government and one we're reminded of as we continue to wait on the Senate to pass a budget for this fiscal year and to prevent a government shutdown.

But the Obama administration has decided to bypass Congress on the issue of greenhouse gas. Can't pass cap-and-tax? Push the greenhouse agenda on the American people another way. So now unelected bureaucrats in the EPA are trying to regulate greenhouse gases.

Among the gases the EPA is trying to regulate is methane. According to EPA, 28 percent of the global methane emissions they classify as coming from human-related activities actually come from livestock. I don't think it's a coincidence that the EPA's move to regulate methane, including cow flatulence, comes on the heels of a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that states: ``Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.''

Now, I am pretty sure if you asked the ranchers of Florida's Fifth District, as much as they would like to regulate cows from passing gas for plenty of reasons, some smellier than others, we just don't have that capacity. Nevertheless, EPA wants to follow the U.N.'s lead and regulate methane. And the cost of that will inevitably fall upon the backs of America's families.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 910 is a good and important bill.

Similarly, the rule provided by H. Res. 203 gives us time for a full, comprehensive debate on the issue, and I encourage my colleagues to support them both.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 33 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 6, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 174 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 174 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 1076. The rule provides for ample debate on this bill and gives Members of both the minority and the majority an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 1076 prohibits direct funding to NPR--National Public Radio. In fiscal year 2010, NPR received over $5 million in direct Federal funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Moreover, hundreds of public radio stations received direct radio grants in the amount of $67 million. Radio stations can use these grants for whatever they want. It's unrestricted. Often, stations use these funds to pay dues to NPR and pay fees for NPR programing. According to NPR's Web site, they are ``an independent, self-supporting media organization.'' However, they also admit their revenue ``comes primarily from fees paid by their member stations.'' In fact, membership dues and station programing fees account for 36 percent of NPR funding.

In H.R. 1, we started the process of letting NPR operate on its own, without taxpayer involvement, by defunding it for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. However, H.R. 1 only addressed appropriated funds for the rest of the current fiscal year. The bill we have before us today addresses the authorized use of funds not just for the rest of fiscal year 2011, but going forward.

Under this bill, NPR will continue to provide its programming. They just can't use taxpayer dollars to subsidize it. Moreover, our goal on H.R. 1076 is that there won't be a need for this funding going forward. This is something the Appropriations Committee can factor into their funding decisions for fiscal year 2012 and the future. Let me stress again, this bill does not fully defund NPR.

What this bill does do is start weaning NPR off of Federal dollars. Local radio stations are still allowed to pay membership dues, and they can still buy NPR programs. They just can't use your and my hard-earned tax dollars to pay for them.

Instead, the grants that these local stations get will be used for local needs. They can create more original programming about issues happening in their areas that are important to their communities. They can pay for their staffs and even hire more local producers and hosts for their new programs.

The Federal Government's addiction to spending has driven us to our current $14 trillion debt. We need to refocus on what our core mission is. We should not be using tax dollars that American citizens worked hard to earn for something that could be paid for privately.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

My inquiry is to the gentlewoman from New York, do you have any more speakers?

I do not.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to your attention that the public watching this today on C-SPAN does not receive a single Federal dollar in regards to the operation of C-SPAN.

We're not closing down local radio stations. We're actually giving them the ability to liberate themselves from Federal dollars.

My good friends on the other side of the aisle continue to refuse to prioritize about what's important for America. They continue on a path of just spend, because all programs are inherently good.

While you've heard a lot of us like NPR in regard to certain programming, there's others that we do not. Mr. Speaker, I was reminded the other day of a quote by Thomas Jefferson:

``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.''

With that in mind, I can't in good conscience support continuing to fund NPR with tax dollars.

A large number of Americans fundamentally disagree with the content and mission of NPR. Moreover, this is a program that can be privately funded. NPR's own officials said they don't need Federal dollars to continue.

We are not trying to harm NPR. We are actually trying to liberate them from Federal tax dollars. We need to get back to the core mission of the Federal Government. As much as any of us here, including myself, may enjoy programs like ``Car Talk'' and ``Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me,'' you can't tell me that that is a core mission of the Federal Government. Our good friends in the same sentence talked about war, national defense, and NPR. They don't equate. The Constitution is clear about our requirement to protect the American people.

H.R. 1076 is a return to the normal procedure of the House. Authorizing committees provide us with bills that set out the priorities for the House and the Appropriations Committee funds based on authorizations.

With H.R. 1076, we let the Appropriations Committee know that National Public Radio doesn't need Federal tax dollars anymore. Local stations can create their own programs. They can reorganize their financing so that grant money they might use for membership and programming fees can go elsewhere, and they can do private fund-raising they need for the dues and programming from NPR.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Corporal Jonathan W. Taylor, of Homosassa, Florida who died on February 22, 2011 while conducting combat operations in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan.

Growing up, Corporal Taylor always knew that he wanted to one day become a Marine. As a student at Lecanto High School, he was an active member of the JROTC Program and participated in the Yankeetown U.S. Navy Sea Cadet corps.

In October 2007, Corporal Taylor was deployed on his first combat tour of duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Following that tour, he was also deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom three separate times. While his unit was not deployed during his second to last tour, Corporal Taylor bravely volunteered to go back to Afghanistan to continue the fight with his fellow Marines.

Corporal Taylor was laid to rest today with full military honors at Arlington Cemetery. Now beside his fellow brothers in uniform, his parents say they are proud to see him off on what they like to call his fifth and final tour of duty on behalf of this great country.

As a nation, we owe our fallen heroes and their families a debt that can never truly be repaid. Corporal Taylor courageously made the ultimate sacrifice for his fellow Marines and for our country. I am humbled to have the opportunity to honor a true American hero today.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life of Corporal Jonathan W. Taylor.

Four years to the day of his graduation from boot camp, Corporal Taylor died on February 22, 2011. At the age of 23, he bravely gave his life while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

Growing up, Corporal Taylor always knew that he wanted to be a United States Marine. As a student at Lecanto High School, he was a member of the JROTC program. He was an active member of the Sea Cadet Program out of Yankeetown.

In October 2007, Corporal Taylor was deployed on his first combat tour in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Following that tour, he was deployed to support Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan three separate times. While his unit was not deployed during his second-to-last tour, Corporal Taylor bravely volunteered to go back to Afghanistan to continue the fight with his Marines.

Corporal Taylor was laid to rest today with honors in Arlington National Cemetery. Over his career, his awards included the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan, and the Purple Heart.

Now beside his fellow brothers in uniform, his parents, Mark and Debbie, have said they are proud to have seen their son off on his last and final deployment, his final tour of duty.

Corporal Taylor courageously made the ultimate sacrifice for his Marines and his fellow Americans. As a country, as a Nation, we owe our fallen heroes and their families a debt that can never be repaid. It is our duty to always remember that these sacrifices were made on behalf of all Americans, and that our brave young men and women in uniform are clear examples of what makes this Nation so great.

Today, I am humbled to have the opportunity to introduce this House to a true American hero. Corporal Jonathan W. Taylor, God bless you, and God bless your service to this Nation.

I appreciate my good friend from Georgia yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 167 and the underlying resolution, House Joint Resolution 48. This resolution provides us with a rule so that we can consider a bill that continues to fund the Federal Government for the next 3 weeks. I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for the hard work they have done and their ability to compromise. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can follow their example.

Although I support this continuing resolution, and I hope my colleagues will support it as well, I don't want to keep coming back to this issue every 2 or 3 weeks. Funding the government a few weeks at a time is unacceptable.

Although my fellow freshmen and I have been here for over 2 months now, we're still cleaning up the mess that was left behind by the previous Congress. As I see it, they've kept kicking the can down the road, refusing to make hard decisions as relates to spending. Now it's up to us to say enough's enough, Mr. Speaker, with the out-of-control spending.

The House has been at the table for 2 months. We're offering solutions. The Senate and President have been sitting on the sidelines offering none.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 129 and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4.

Last year's health care law was rammed through without the opportunity for the American public to let their voices be heard. At the time, then-Speaker Pelosi said Congress had to pass the bill to know what is in it. Now we know. Even Democrats are realizing how many problems there are in this bill.

One such example is the 1099 reporting requirement. This requirement forces businesses to report nearly all expenses exceeding $600 to the IRS. This results in a new, onerous burden on small businesses. The requirement means 10 to 20 times more paperwork for small businesses. The U.S. Small Business Administration estimates the 1099 tax compliance will cost small businesses $800 per employee annually.

Small businesses are the economic backbone, and the 1099 requirement is breaking their back. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will tell you H.R. 4 is a Republican tax increase on middle America. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The offset we are using here today prevents individuals from receiving health care subsidies that they aren't entitled to. We are preventing people from defrauding the Federal Government. We aren't taking money away from people; we are protecting taxpayer dollars by ensuring they're being used the way they're meant to be used.

Moreover, the subsidies we're talking about today don't even take place until 2014, which gives taxpayers ample time to know the facts. The 1099 requirement is affecting small businesses today. Anybody who calls this rule an attack on the middle class isn't telling you the truth, Mr. Speaker.

We are here today because the Republican majority is committed to jobs and protecting and creating jobs for the American people.

The Democrat-passed 1099 reporting requirement is a job killer. We want to make sure that small businesses can use their hard- earned profits to expand their businesses, open new storefronts, and bring on new employees, not spend their time reporting to the IRS.

If we're going to create jobs, we need to create an environment where small businesses can succeed. H.R. 4 is an important step in fostering that environment. With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and support H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying resolution, H. Res. 72.

What's happening right now is that Congress passes a law, but then doesn't get any say in the policy.

Well intentioned laws like the Clear Air Act and the Clean Water Act are emboldening the executive branch to advance policies through rulemaking that they know would never make it out of Congress.

During Fiscal Year 2010, the Obama Administration adopted 43 new major regulations. These regulations put over $26.5 billion in new burdens on Americans. Ten rules adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency alone cost $23.2 billion.

Today, I want to bring attention to one example of agency rulemaking: the EPA's numeric nutrient water quality standards rulemaking.

I want clean air and water. It's what Florida's about. The numeric nutrient criteria proposed is an EPA takeover of the state's water quality. Given the organic makeup of Florida and the natural phosphorus levels in our state, the ratios set by the EPA may be scientifically impossible to reach.

Compliance will require an investment of billions of dollars that will be passed on to Florida taxpayers, effectively resulting in a new tax levied on all Floridians. Another analysis estimates that the EPA rulemaking will impose statewide costs ranging from $3.1 to $8.4 billion per year for the next 30 years. To put that in perspective, Florida's total budget is $64 billion. Florida Dept. of Agriculture study shows that Florida's agriculture community alone will lose 14,545 jobs and of lose $1.148 billion annually.

During the State of the Union, President Obama promised to fix federal regulations that put an unfair burden on business and hinder growth and development.

I can't think of a better example of such a regulation than the numeric nutrient criteria.

The Federal Government creates an average of 4,000 final regulations each year.

H. Res. 72 is an important step in reining back these regulations.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting both this rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Chairman, we were there last night in the Rules Committee for 12 hours hearing testimony from a number of individuals on the Democratic side and also on the Republican side.

But let me talk to you about this. Over the past year, I've met with thousands of people from throughout Florida's Fifth Congressional District, whether they be small business owners, veterans, or Medicare recipients. They asked me to promise, promise to repeal ObamaCare. It's clear that the American people know more than our Democratic leadership in regards to what Americans want.

ObamaCare eliminates millions of American jobs, cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from Medicare, raises taxes by almost $500 billion over 10 years for 6 years' worth of coverage.

Everybody knows that the health care system is broken and that reform is needed. However, the unconstitutional, job-killing mandates of ObamaCare are not the answer.

House Resolution 9 is an important step in Congress working with the American public to find real, meaningful solutions to our Nation's health care needs. This is the people's House, and we should be listening to the people.

House Resolution 9 will allow us to foster economic growth, job creation, lower health care premiums and protect Medicare, and reform the medical malpractice system that is bankrupting America. For all these reasons, I'm grateful to my colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, for introducing House Resolution 9; and I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of that resolution.