Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today. And it's very interesting as we sit here and discuss the balanced approach.

How do you have a balanced approach, Mr. Chairman, if you can't have a balanced budget?

There are two different visions here. You either trust the people in Washington who have given us $16.7 trillion of debt, or you trust the American people.

What the RSC budget does is trust the American people with their money by taking back the big tax increase that was given to us in January, by taking away the big ObamaCare controls that were given to us in 2010, and actually returns that power to the States and to the people, and actually balances the budget in 4 years.

This is real progress. This is a returning to what the American people demand. And what we need to create growth and prosperity in America is to pass these types of budgets.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of the founding of Emporia State University in Emporia, Kansas.

Founded on this very day in 1863, with a mission of providing outstanding educators for the State of

Kansas, Emporia State is much recognized to this day for its outstanding teachers college. One-third of the degrees earned each year at Emporia State are graduate degrees--the highest rate of any university in Kansas.

Today, I join more than 5,900 current students and 75,000 alumni in congratulating Emporia State University on their first 150 years, and I wish them the very best in the next 150 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the first land- grant college in America. Founded on February 16, 1863, Kansas State University has faithfully served the people of Kansas and this great Nation for 150 years.

K-State was one of the first schools to offer a degree in home economics. K-State has helped feed a hungry world through innovative wheat, beef, and sorghum research; and Kansas State University is preparing for the next generation of animal research with the construction of the National Bio and Agri-Defense Facility Research Laboratory.

Let me extend my heartfelt congratulations to Kansas State University for the last 150 years as we look forward to many more successes in the next 150 years.

Thank you. I appreciate the time from such a pro-life leader.

First of all, my wife, Ang, and I are proud adoptive parents of four children. Our heartfelt gratitude goes out to their birth mothers and birth families for choosing life for our four children, and I believe you will be eternally rewarded for your generous choice.

It is reassuring, as was mentioned here, that every year millions of Americans descend on Washington and our State capitals, including Kansas, to stand as surrogate voices for the millions of lives taken by abortion. It's a shame that this event has to happen. But this year, descending on Washington is more than just about abortion; it's about religious liberty.

Those in favor of abortion like to cast this debate about rights and choices rather than rights or wrongs. So if we're to use their terms, where is the outrage at the fact that Americans increasingly have no choice, particularly under the President's health care plan, when it comes to paying for abortion, paying for abortion drugs, and numerous other things they find morally reprehensible? And where's the outrage that religious liberty, the first part of the First Amendment, can come at the expense of this radical agenda?

We in this Congress stand as the people's direct representatives in Washington and must stand as a check to the most pro-abortion President in our history. A President's second term is usually about legacy building, but for the sake of the unborn and for the sake of our religious liberty, I fear for the legacy that he will attempt to craft in the next 4 years.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my amendment seeks to ensure maximum transparency in a process which will see billions of taxpayer dollars distributed through FEMA grants. While I appreciate that a provision was included to require the disclosure of grants over $1 million, I believe we owe it to the taxpayers to do even more. My amendment strikes the $1 million threshold for disclosure, and it requires the details of all grants distributed under FEMA's disaster relief program to be disclosed.

Recently, a town in California was the subject of a FEMA Inspector General investigation. The FEMA IG found that the grantee received $830,000 following a recent flood. The town in question spent all of the allocated grant money and has requested reimbursement for $769,000 more. Among the inappropriate expenditures were a host of purchases that had nothing to do with the equipment damaged by the flood, including new chairs, computers, telephones, lamps, and a microwave. FEMA rejected the claim, fining these and numerous other attempts to claim reimbursement outside of the scope of the flood as well as outside of the terms of the grant.

While I commend FEMA for catching this attempted fraud, the sheer volume of grants that will come as a result of Sandy necessitates maximum transparency at the beginning of the process. My amendment requires just that. Let me give you one other example.

According to a September 2012 Department of Homeland Security IG report, I quote:

Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and other

disasters up to December 31, 2010, FEMA disbursed more than

$8 billion in assistance payments, some of which were later

determined to have been improperly paid to individuals who

were ineligible or who received duplicate payments. The debts

in question arose in part because FEMA relaxed its internal

controls in order to provide the expedited delivery of

assistance grants to displaced disaster survivors.

The relaxed internal controls involved improper payments of as much as $621 million to 167,488 recipients. According to the report, FEMA's efforts to recoup these improper payments resulted in $1.3 million collected thus far, but they spent $7.3 million to collect them--again, costing the taxpayers a net of $6 million. Why repeat a process like this if we can avoid it?

The paperwork is already being done on disaster relief grant applications. They're already being recorded on a computer somewhere in FEMA, so there are already disclosure procedures in place that can quickly and appropriately bring forward this information. According to the CBO, this amendment will have no budgetary impact. It simply does not create an undue burden to make the list public in a timely fashion.

I ask my colleagues to join me in injecting 100 percent transparency and accountability at the beginning of the process in order to help root out waste and fraud.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment XXIII:

Section 1:

``The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the 12th article of amendment.''

Section 2:

``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

I appreciate the opportunity. Just like my colleagues, I've spent a little time in the real world. Some call it a recess; for many of us it was time to go back home. I admit in this job, I'll admit that I would much rather not be here and be at home. But what I heard at home is many of the same things that my colleagues are saying tonight: Washington, can you get your act together? In this Chamber, we passed many, many things that would hopefully improve the economy, but one thing that

seems to be on the mind of my colleagues is pretty clear.

Times have changed. I know some of my colleagues have been here a while, and they think that perhaps in the White House it's the same old, same old. But when we hit the $16 trillion mark for debt, that raised another red flag about what's going on in Washington.

I am a Republican. My colleagues tonight here are Republicans as well. We're not going to say it's a Democrat problem; we're not going to say it's a Republican problem. At the end of the day it is a Washington problem: it's the fact that we can't get our act together here in Washington. We can vote in here to free up job creators. We can vote in here to roll back regulations. But at the end of the day, we have $16 trillion of debt.

Like my colleagues, I have young children. I have four young kids. Each one of them, they've done nothing wrong yet--they do a few things wrong, I catch them every day at that--but through no fault of their own, they've got $15,000 they're going to owe on some spending that's already happened before my freshman colleagues and I arrived at this place--$15,000, and it is growing every day.

Under this President, trillion-dollar deficits have become the new norm. The last year of the previous administration, $452 billion of deficits in 1 year, I think the President, then Senator, was bemoaning the fact of what a dastardly amount that was, and here we have doubled and tripled that amount, and each year for the last 4 years added over $5 trillion of debt. You know, that adds up.

My constituents always keep saying, well, I can't quite understand what's a million, a billion, a trillion. It's pretty hard to explain to them--they don't understand a billion. But for the last 3\1/2\ years, this President, this town--Washington--has added $3.5 billion of borrowing every single day, 3\1/2\ years for $3.5 billion. That's unsustainable, and they want us to solve this problem.

But again, when folks like us gathered here see and hear the concerns of Americans that we have a spending problem--it's not a revenue problem. If it was a revenue problem, we simply would let off the gas pedal a little bit on regulations and we would take care of that. Everybody knows that. Every job creator comes to me and says, Tim, I'd like to invest more. I was visiting with a businessman who owns a packaging company--American Packaging in Hutchinson, Kansas. He said, Tim, I employ 43 employees--and by the way, he did build it--I employ 43 folks. When my father-in-law bought this business in 1987, there were five people employed here. And you know what, Tim, here's what I'd like to do: I'd like to hire two more people. Here in Washington, two more people doesn't add up to anything, but for two families in Hutchinson, Kansas, it would mean the difference between paying college tuition for their kids, whether or not they are able to update their used car, or whether they would be able to make the mortgage or down payment on their house, or whether they might even go on a vacation. That's the difference here.

Today, we have 23 million Americans--just like the two in Hutchinson--that don't have a job or are looking for more work. And Tony at American Packaging says this, he says: Just give me some certainty. Tell me what the rules are going to be, whether it's the tax uncertainty that happens at the end of the year--I'm sure it's been described here. If nothing changes, if Washington doesn't get its act together, if the President doesn't step up to the plate and help us, we're going to have the single largest tax increase in American history--and I dare say in the world's history--happen at the end of the year if we don't get help from the administration, if the Senate Democrats are not willing to provide certainty on taxes.

In addition, we have the regulatory uncertainty that's been discussed. We'll have the health care uncertainty. The provisions of ObamaCare are rolling in. Small businesses like Tony's do not know, what do we have to cover? I don't want to hire two more people because I might be fined if I can't provide for them. It's that type of uncertainty that says, you know what? I can invest, I'd like to make some money--and the businesses are there not just to create jobs; they're actually there to make a profit for the owners and to perform a service for the public. They're not here to work for Washington. But that's actually what does happen if you let the free market and free enterprise system work.

I had a video where Tony spoke. And I must say what shamed me the most was the response from our local newspaper--that was actually, I believe, fronting for this administration. Because Tony talked about the fact that he and his father-in-law built this business, and the newspaper said: No, you didn't build that business; the Government played a key role in making that happen. You know, the government wasn't there with his father-in-law when he hired employee six, employee seven, employee eight. They weren't there. They didn't take the risk. Now we have this whole town wants to take credit, including this President, every time someone hires a new person. But they don't take credit or they don't take fault for the fact that millions of Americans have quit looking for work in the Obama economy.

And it won't be perfect under any President. It never is. Washington can't dictate how an economy ebbs and flows. What I trust in, though, is the American people and American businessmen like Tony that say, hey, I would like to invest, Tim; just give me the certainty to do so and hire two more folks. It doesn't mean anything, again, in Washington, but it means something in the real world. So I appreciate my colleagues being here.

One of the things that the newspaper did mention--actually, it was a taxpayer-funded college professor--he said, you know, I just want to let you know that the free enterprise system is a charade. Of course, I guess if you work for a public university free enterprise might be a charade. But this is the type of thought that invades many in the White House. It certainly invades where this gentleman teaches. But the fact is free enterprise is not a charade. What it is about is individuals taking a risk, making decisions free from me, free from you, Cory, free from Martha's demands, free to make and take those risks. That's how the economy will continue to grow. That's how we will build the best economy in the world. And that's the economy that's being threatened with $16 trillion in debt.

Again, this is not our problem, it's not their problem; it's America's problem to solve this. I think we're making progress in the House, and we're going to continue to move forward.

So that's a little bit of what I've heard in my district about their concerns about where we're going to head and where we need to head. I have had town hall after town hall--about 140 town halls. And usually at every town hall somebody comes up to me and says, Tim, I'm doing pretty well--and my district actually is doing fairly well, despite a massive drought which impacts Colorado as well.

And we could talk about water all night, but we probably better not. We're friends right now--just kidding.

But they come up to me and say, Tim, you know, I think I'm going to do fine. I'm ready for retirement. A guy, 62, about, told me this the last time, but I'm worried about what kind of America I hand on to my children and grandchildren. And this current state of affairs, this $16 trillion, he says, I'm ready to do what it takes. I'm ready to keep working a little bit longer, do a little more, make a little more sacrifices, a little more investments, because I want a better country than I was given, because my parents gave me a better country than they had and my grandparents did the same.

That's the type of promise. That's why I get optimistic. That's why I like to go home, because that's what you guys hear at home as well as I do. They're optimistic. They're hopeful about the future, despite what's going on here in Washington, D.C.

Fifty-five percent death tax. I mean, that's the one that hits the heart of my small businessmen and -women. And they're trying to hand on their business to their children or their grandchildren or someone else they choose, and government's going to come in and grab up to 55 percent of that estate, and that impacts farmers and ranchers in particular, and many other small businesses.

The very heart of economic recoveries in this country have always been driven by small business. It isn't the folks that hire a thousand people at a time. It's the ones that take--add one person, or take a part-time person to full time. And that's what I'm hearing at home, and they're frustrated. But they're ready to roll up their sleeves and go to work, and they expect Congress and Washington to do the same.

Oh, tremendous days are ahead of us. They say, hey, just stop doing a little of what you're doing. I'll even admit it. Some of them even say, you know what, what's there right now, as much as I don't like it, if you could just keep it the same. Two years. Give us a breather. Give us a moratorium. We'd like to roll them back, but give us a moratorium, some certainty on taxes, on regulations, on health care, and, Tim, we'll take care of your revenue problems. We'll do it for you.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in honoring and celebrating the more than 20 years of service and work of the Priests for Life ministry. Under the leadership of Father Frank Pavone, Priests for Life has grown from a no-staff operation to one of more than 60 people. The have proclaimed the pro-life message at more than 12,000 events across the country, and have worked inter-demoninationally and ecumenically to advance the pro-life cause. Religious and secular leaders alike praise the efforts of Priests for Life. They are second- to-none in their advocacy and their support for the pro-life mission.

But, in his humility, Father Frank would not want us spending this hour talking about him. He would want us talking about why his organization preaches the gospel of love and of life.

Abortion, plain and simple, is the taking of an innocent human life. It may be deemed a `right' by judges, but a wrong it still is. What does it say about our society that for some people, it is a child at 20 weeks; for others it is property, subject to mutilation at the hands of a so-called medical professional. If it is a child to some, it should be a child to all. There is no gray area, no two ways about it. The scientific fact is without question--life begins at conception.

What does it say about our society that our Commander-in-Chief views an unplanned pregnancy as a ``punishment''? President Obama said that if one his daughters became unexpectedly pregnant, he would not want them to be punished with his unborn grandchild.

Priests for Life is known internationally for its work. In fact, Mother Teresa of Calcutta encouraged all priests and deacons to join the organization. And, she invited Fr. Frank to travel to India to preach the pro-life message. We know that message is needed there now more than ever. As reported by The Economist and ABC News, gendercide is alive and well. 50,000 unborn girls are aborted every single month in India simply because they are girls, not boys.

While Priests for Life is preaching abroad the right to life for all--boys and girls alike--they are preaching here at home the right to life for all--boys and girls of all races and ethnicities. Close to home for me is their ministry to the African-American community, led by Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. You see, my wife and I are the proud parents of four adopted children. And, two of our children came to us through crisis pregnancy ministry--the exact type of ministry Priests for Life promotes.

We pray and wait for the day that a ministry like Priests for Life will not be necessary--a day when no woman is encouraged to end the life of her unborn child. While those of us vested with the responsibility have the ability to pass laws that promote a culture of life, our work is incomplete without the efforts of groups like Priests for Life that provide the support women and families need in order to live the culture of life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Kansas State Firefighters Association as they celebrate their 125th anniversary this year. This organization was founded in the wonderful Kansas community of Minneapolis on August 13, 1887, and it continues to thrive over a century later.

This group came together to accomplish a very important mission, to assist local fire departments in establishing and maintaining safety, professionalism and preparedness. With that mission in mind, the Association has worked tirelessly to assist local departments any way they can to make sure they are ready

to save lives in their communities. As a farmer in Fowler, Kansas, I understand the importance of having an educated and well-prepared local fire department.

For the past 125 years the Association has worked to accomplish this goal, and I hope they continue to do so for another century and beyond. Words cannot express how grateful I am to these men and women who tirelessly work to ensure our fire departments have the educational resources they need to protect their local communities.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

As we know, to much of the world, America stands for liberty, for freedom. The Capitol and the White House are recognizable symbols of how Americans have fought and died for the truth: That governments exist to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty. But just blocks from here, steps away from the White House, abortionists infringe on the rights of society's most vulnerable--the unborn.

While of course we would like to see an end to all abortions, to an end of the taking of all unborn life, today's legislation focuses on protecting the unborn at a time when it is a scientific fact that they are able to feel pain--excruciating pain.

It is cruel, inhumane, and contradictory to this Nation's leadership as the defender and protector of individual liberties to inflict pain knowingly on anyone, let alone a defenseless, unborn child. I ask my colleagues to recognize this fact by supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the family farms of Kansas and all of America.

The proposed Department of Labor rule, restricting children from working on family farms, presented a direct threat not only to the continuity of our Nation's ag tradition, but to a way of life in rural America. Though the bureaucrats have put it off for now, such a reprieve may only be temporary.

The family farm is one of the best places for a child to learn and develop a strong work ethic. I know this as a former farm kid myself, now a fifth-generation farmer who hopes that my children will be the sixth.

With our aging crisis facing agriculture, the last thing we need is for Washington bureaucrats who know next to nothing about the family farm--or rural America, for that matter--to regulate it into oblivion. Parents, not bureaucrats, know what's best for their children. Moms and dads should be trusted to raise their kids as they see fit.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Thank you, Congressman Graves. I appreciate your leadership. Sometimes we wish there had been someone like you on the Court today.

Actually, before we forget, as for one of the five votes that upheld ObamaCare, in any other court of law, that Justice would have recused herself. The decision might have only been 4-4. Justice Kagan should not have been in on this decision. In any other court, she would have been recused. If a lawyer had refused to recuse himself as a judge, he would have been violating ethical rules. Every attorney in this country knows that, including the Chief Justice, and they said nothing.

Do you know what? I'm not here to talk specifically about that. You talked about taxes. Our other Congressman friend did as well.

In this bill, there are 21 tax increases by the definition of the Court, but I want to talk about two in particular because I believe, when we look back on the American system of a once limited government, this day, June 28, 2012, will stand as the definitive date in the advance of government tyranny. In today's ruling, a slim majority of the Court turned the Constitution on its head and ruled that the Federal Government, in effect, can force upon the American people anything it darned well pleases so long as it's called a ``tax.''

Let's not forget that, when our Founding Fathers put everything on the line, risking life, limb, and property to make us an independent Nation, they did so in order to ensure that no man was taxed without representation. They also asserted that every man and woman has inalienable rights that are not to be violated by the government. They enshrined these concepts in the Declaration of Independence and, ultimately, in our Constitution.

Today, in my opinion, the Supreme Court offered a perverse interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Just across the street from here, they said that, even though you have a right to do something, the decision to exercise that right will incur a tax. The decision to exercise that right, said the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, will incur a tax.

Can you imagine the limitless possibilities for Washington? Why not extend this interpretation to other parts of the Constitution? For example, why not tax the exercise of your First Amendment rights?

Sure, you've got First Amendment rights. Send your Member of Congress a letter, but pay a fine to the government. That makes sense under this ruling. Sell a newspaper or publish a blog. Don't forget to tell the IRS and the new 16,500 agents they want to hire to enforce it. What about a right to a fair and speedy trial? That's guaranteed, but you know, that's yours to have but for a fee.

That's the lack of logic. For average Americans who love their Constitution, these are guaranteed. They're not allowed to be imposed if you pay the fine or the fee.

One thing in particular I want to talk about, Congressman Graves, is that, in addition to this health insurance mandate tax, the President's health care law creates what is clearly a religion tax. A religion tax? Yes, you heard me right, and it's even if you morally or ethically disagree with something being promoted.

Right now, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and former Governor of Kansas, look at her record. Most Americans would completely disagree with her moral views, but if you disagree with her mandates of the President's health care plan, it doesn't matter. You will still have to pay for it. If you dare to follow your conscience and, maybe, actually practice your faith or no faith whatsoever and refuse to participate, you will be fined. Why? You will be taxed because of what you believe and your desire to live it out. You will be forced to give your hard- earned money to the IRS in Washington, D.C., because of what you believe. That, my friends, is a religion tax. It's a faith tax. It's a direct attack on our freedom of religion.

Now, today the Court didn't rule on that. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of lawsuits coming on about the HHS mandate coming out of ObamaCare. This is the start: a tax on religion.

I have an employer who sent me an email. He said, Well, Tim, everybody is talking about the individual mandate. What about the employer mandate? I don't want to cover abortions for my employees. I refuse to participate.

He will be fined $3,000 at a minimum for every single employee. Why? Because of what he believes.

That's why we started this country--for freedom to believe as we ought, not as the government or as the king or as

the Chief Justice would have us believe. But they didn't address this directly in this decision; they'll be coming. This is a shocking attack, I believe, on the first supreme right in the First Amendment, which is the right to believe in and follow the God one chooses.

The Supreme Court may not have dealt ObamaCare the death it deserved, but it's incumbent upon each and every one of us here in Congress and each and every American. I would have loved to have witnessed a home run, knock it out of the park and say it's clearly unconstitutional. Again, if Justice Kagan had been ethical, it would have been a 4-4 decision. They didn't worry about that. Ethics doesn't matter. It's just the end. It's kind of the Progressive Caucus approach. The end justifies the means, but not in America.

I ask all Americans to realize this decision is not about health care. It's about liberty. When we have created and designed a method by which future Congresses, future Presidents, can get around any limit in the Constitution--the Constitution is a limit on my power, on every power of every Member in this Chamber and every Member across the way and every President of the United States. That's what the Constitution does. It doesn't empower us. It takes away our power.

This Court today has said, if you call it a tax, if you use those three words--even though the Chief Justice says ``labels don't matter.'' He said labels don't matter, and then he turns around and says the word ``tax'' does matter. If you do that, it makes it suddenly constitutional--anything you do, including attacking the very faith that is held by the Chief Justice himself. It says, You cannot hold that faith, Mr. Chief Justice, unless you're willing to be fined by your own government.

That is a travesty of justice in this country.

What this means is we cannot overturn this with this President in the White House. This has taken an issue, and people are ready to work on it and say, You know what? This is going to be the issue for November 6. This is the choice. Do you want the government to mandate and control everything in your lives, as long as they use that magic word? They love to use the ``tax'' word. If you allow them to do that, you allow them to be in every part of your life, which is an absolute contradiction to what this country was founded upon.

I appreciate the leadership of many in this room. I am just a freshman. I was not here when this debate started last time, as some of these colleagues who have been fighting all along. But I tell you, if the folks in the First District of Kansas are any indication of what Americans are saying all over, this is the time. They're going to dust off that Constitution. They're going to read it and say, My goodness. I don't want to lose this. It's too precious.

We're leading the world, and now is the time to take back our government, take back our Constitution, and take back power out of Washington, D.C.

I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Georgia.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as a farmer and rancher myself, I am very concerned by this amendment. One might be led to believe that with the adoption of this amendment, somehow important research would continue. Actually the opposite is true, Mr. Chairman.

We have billions and billions of dollars in this country that are based on our livestock industries, and unless this Congress and this President continue forward with a plan to build a BSL level 4 security research facility, we will not do the necessary research to protect critical industries, livestock industries in particular, in this Nation. Let me identify two diseases, the Hendra virus and the Nipah virus, that research is not occurring on right now. The Hendra virus' first outbreak was in Australia in 1994. It killed 13 horses. But more importantly, it killed a number of humans. It's a zoonotic disease, and the research is not occurring now.

Secondly, how about the Nipah virus? First identified in Malaysia in 1999, the outbreak resulted in the killing of more than 1 million hogs and 257 cases in humans, killing 105 of them.

Without this type of research, Mr. Chairman, these are the kinds of viruses we have no protection for. Folks might say, well, don't worry, if we would have this type of virus in America, we can outsource the research to friendly countries, Australia and Canada, that will do the research for us.

But, Mr. Chairman, I'm not willing to rely on outsourcing the protection of very important industries. And these are just accidental outbreaks. There are numerous other viruses, numerous other diseases that are in the hands, I believe--and research will show--in the hands potentially of enemies of our country. And we need to oppose this amendment and protect our key vital food and agriculture industries from accidental, as well as potential bioterrorist, attacks.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and defend our critical industries.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 302, the Grimm Amendment to H.R. 5854, I inadvertently voted yes when I intended to vote no. I believe every worker should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they would like to join a union. Project Labor Agreements violate workers' rights and inhibit business growth. No one should ever face compulsory membership in any group. Given our current fiscal situation, the last thing Congress should be doing is imposing more burdensome regulations on businesses and workers. I am proud that Kansas is a Right-to-Work state, and I am committed to promoting workers' rights at the federal level.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to my colleague from Georgia.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late; but as I think many of us believe, our Nation is not a Nation of men; it's a Nation of laws. When a Congress passes and a President of any party signs a bill into law, Mr. Chairman, it is the law of the land. And if a new President or a new Attorney General does not like an existing law when they come into office, it's not his or her prerogative to decide whether or not to enforce that particular law.

It is his or her constitutional obligation to defend it. But somehow, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say this fact is lost on the current administration. In a very clear and flagrant violation of its responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder, and with the blessing of the President, have decided not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which has been the law of the land since Joe Biden voted for it in 1996 and it was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Tonight, I'm offering an amendment to prevent the Department of Justice from spending taxpayer money to undermine the Defense of Marriage Act and stop the Department of Justice from ultimately undermining the rule of law.

As many of us know, just last night the 30th State actually passed an amendment to amend its Constitution to protect traditional marriage. That would be the State of North Carolina. In my opinion, it likely becomes an easy target for the administration. My amendment would also prevent the Department of Justice from interfering in North Carolina, or any other State, over its marriage amendments and marriage laws.

We have 30 States that have marriage amendments: Alaska, Nevada, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon Colorado, Tennessee, Arizona, California, Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Texas, my favorite State, Kansas, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, and Virginia.

The population of each of these States passed the marriage amendment to define marriage as they saw fit, and this amendment would protect those definitions from any contribution by this Department.

The Department of Justice and the President of the United States do not have to agree with the law, Mr. Chairman, but they certainly have to enforce it and respect it.

Even though I believe it would be in their political best interest to do so, 30 States have constitutional amendments, again, defining marriage between one man and one woman. We have current officials of this administration that have expressed their political preferences against traditional marriage, against the Defense of Marriage Act, and against various marriage amendments. But whatever the platform contains, whatever their personal preferences are, unless those laws are changed, unless those amendments are repealed by the people of these States, they stand to remain the law of their States and they remain the law of the land.

It's clear, in my opinion, the administration is turning the Justice Department into a legal mouthpiece for its campaign rather than its purpose: to enforce the law. Most concerning is the fact that in turning the Justice Department into an instrument for legislating political favors rather than enforcing the rule of law, this becomes the Department of Politics, in my opinion--not the Department of Justice.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, support the folks of 30 States, the citizens who have made decisions, and also the citizens of 50 States that have passed their marriage laws. These are protected under the Defense of Marriage Act under contravention by those of us in Washington.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.