Floor Statements

I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding to me.

I do support this resolution.

Here in this Chamber--actually, here in America--we often talk about achievements in terms of metrics: the larger, the better. For a private company, it's impressive when it has a large budget, a large workforce, and a large profit and a large presence.

The Federal Government, as an institution, should not talk this way, even though similar assertions would all be true. Washington spends too much, employs too many people, and is too intrusive in the lives of all Americans.

The major difference is that private business makes investments that deliver returns, and failure to do so is the demise of the business. The Federal Government's spending, though, often fails to deliver real results. But the Federal Government does not meet its demise; rather, the all-too-often negative consequences fall on taxpayers and usually result in a new government program or one or dozens more.

But if we were thinking like a businessperson, we would consider the results that have come from past investments before making another.

Two-and-a-half years ago, the previous Congress and this current President implemented a stimulus that ultimately will cost Americans more than $1 trillion. This mega-investment was supposed to create 3.5 million jobs. This investment was supposed to bring an unemployment rate of 6.4 percent last month. But what has actually happened? The President is more than 6 million jobs short and unemployment stood at 9.1 percent last month. That's not even counting the millions of Americans who are underemployed.

The Budget Control Act, which the President signed, was supposed to be about putting an end to Washington's business as usual: spend and borrow, spend and borrow some more. Yet when the President came before us here in this very room a week ago tomorrow, all we heard was a recycled idea: another stimulus, another $450 billion exercise in excessive spending that will underperform and underdeliver.

Spend, spend, spend, raise taxes and borrow more to pay for that spending. Raise those taxes from the very individuals and businesses that can actually create jobs that will get the economy out of this rut and put millions of Americans to work. And along the way, let's demonize job creators. That's what happened in this Chamber.

I believe the Federal Government should function as efficiently and as effectively as a private business; but it, by no means, should be able to brag about a large budget that fails to deliver and which only adds to the red ink each year.

Before adding to the $15 trillion in debt this country already has or sustaining more years of trillion dollar annual deficits, we have no choice, and the American people expect no less, cut current spending and cap future spending obligations and pass a balanced budget amendment.

I support this resolution.

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

Today I rise on behalf of the Republican Study Committee to offer an amendment to bring the Interior appropriations bill in line with the RSC budget.

Mr. Chairman, credit rating agencies around the country are threatening to downgrade our debt, and not because we won't pass a debt ceiling increase but more so because we have not passed a credible plan to pay that debt back. Every child born in America today owes the Federal Government over $46,000, and that bill rises every day.

The times we are in demand that we look at the effectiveness of every Federal dollar we spend, and that is why I offer this amendment today. This amendment makes cuts across the bill, but the biggest cuts come from the EPA. In my opinion, no agency in our Federal Government has done more to negatively impact our economy than the EPA.

In my district in western Kansas, EPA foot-dragging and redtape is delaying the construction of a new power plant. The construction of the plant would create 1,900 construction jobs and 261 permanent jobs, yet they cannot even break ground. Region VII is asking for changes. Environmental groups continue to file lawsuits based on EPA rules, exacting a death-by-litigation strategy against the rural electric cooperative members seeking to build this plant.

According to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 351 proposed solar, wind, wave, biofuel, coal, gas, nuclear and energy transmission projects have been delayed or canceled due to significant impediments, such as regulatory barriers, including inefficient review processes and the attendant lawsuits and threats of legal action.

The study found that these projects would produce 1.9 million new jobs during construction and almost 800,000 jobs on an ongoing basis. These jobs are simply in limbo when our economy sorely needs them. In fact, not a week seems to go by without the EPA issuing a new rule or regulation that increases costs to businesses and consumers. BoilerMACT, water cooling intakes for power plants, interstate air quality, dust and other particulate matter, ozone, and the list goes on and on.

These actions not only drive up costs but they create higher degrees of uncertainty in our fragile economy. And when the EPA isn't hampering our economy at home, they are sending our tax dollars abroad. Nearly $1.3 million was sent to China in grants over the past 2 years. Yes, that's right, these grants were sent to the China Coal Institute, the China University of Petroleum, the China Urban Construction Design and Research Academy, and the China Association of Rural Energy Industry. I guess the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt we owe them is not enough.

The EPA has long given up sound scientific methods to ensure a clean environment for a left-wing agenda that heaps billions in costs on our economy in exchange for nearly immeasurable incremental changes in our water and air quality.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment also zeroes out funding for the NEA and the NEH. Federal spending on the arts and humanities has long been controversial, not only for the nature of some of the grants but also for the fact that I believe the Federal Government should not play such a role in our society and certainly should not at a time when we are facing an impending debt crisis. If we cannot make relatively easy decisions to eliminate this funding, how can the American people expect us to make the harder decisions necessary to balance our Federal budget?

Mr. Chairman, the amendment also ends funding for National Heritage Area grants. This provision was included as a result of the YouCut program where the American people could vote on a government program to cut, and this is the one they selected. Federal funding for heritage areas was supposed to be seed capital to get them up and running for the States, localities, and private sector who requested them. Many of the grants have exceeded their original 10-year limitation. Even the President recommended a 50 percent cut in his budget for them, which was included in the bill; but in this time of much needed Federal spending restraint, it is time to cut them altogether.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to pass this amendment and help put us on a track to balance our budget in the next decade.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $70,000,000)''.

Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $4,880,000)''.

Page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $85,000,000)''.

Page 9, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $11,804,000)''.

Page 10, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $15,047,000)''.

Page 10, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $4,000,000)''.

Page 10, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $120,000)''.

Page 14, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.

Page 15, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $32,000,000)''.

Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $75,000,000)''.

Page 39, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $47,000,000)''.

Page 65, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $150,000,000)''.

Page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $900,000,000)''.

Page 66, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.

Page 68, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $771,000,000)''.

Page 76, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $78,000,000)''.

Page 78, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $12,500,000)''.

Page 88, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $432,000,000)''.

Page 96, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.

Page 103, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.

Page 105, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $135,000,000)''.

Page 105, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $135,000,000)''.

Page 105, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.

Page 105, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 105, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.

Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $3,000,231,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 35: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 6xx. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to provide grants to the People's Republic of China.

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 36: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

funding limitation related to the heritage partnership program

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 37: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 6xx. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to provide assistance to the Government of the

People's Republic of China.

A day like today does not come often, Madam Speaker. In only a handful of instances in our Nation's history has our Constitution been amended. There can not be a better or more urgent time for this House and the Senate and the United States of America to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

In a matter of only 2 years, non-defense discretionary spending has increased 84 percent and annual deficits have exceeded a trillion dollars for 3 straight years. And our debt has grown by nearly $4 trillion since President Obama took office.

Let us think about cut, cap, and balance in a larger context. Let's think about who is really impacted by the out-of-control spending this legislation seeks to end.

In my home County of Meade County, Kansas, population 4,575, there was one birth announcement this week. On his birthday, that child received an IOU for nearly $46,000 to the Federal Government, and that's before this President adds more to the country's debt burden.

Any request to increase the country's debt must be accompanied by a clear plan that will reduce the amount of money that a child born in Meade County, Kansas, owes to the politicians in Washington, D.C.

Let's cut spending now, cap spending in the future, and pass a balanced budget amendment and make history for all America's children. It is the right thing to do.

A few hours ago, the President issued a veto threat to Cut, Cap, and Balance. While, of course, this was expected, it is still disappointing. It is disappointing because this legislation answers his demand that we on this side of the aisle offer a plan. It is also disappointing because he doesn't have a plan himself.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the last few years often called the Republicans the ``party of no,'' but this President who ran on ``hope'' has become President Nope. The President doesn't know what he's for, but he certainly knows what he's against.

His opposition to Cut, Cap, and Balance includes opposition to a balanced budget amendment. He said it's not

necessary, and that lawmakers should simply do their jobs. It's ironic that a President who is so insistent on tying the hands of the private sector with onerous regulations would oppose tying the hands of politicians when it comes to spending and borrowing.

Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, the EPA--they all restrict what Americans can and cannot do. The President wants no such restrictions on either Congress or himself. No, the only restriction-free zone he wants is Washington, D.C.

Cut, Cap, and Balance recognizes that Washington's solutions have to be long-term and permanent. Quick fixes are what got us into the position we find ourselves in; they are not what will get us out of it.

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the citizens of Scott City, Kansas. In June 2011, the National Civic League recognized Scott City as an ``All-American City.'' Only ten communities across the country received this honor.

Scott City presented to a panel of judges three projects involving community collaboration. First, community members shared information about how the town has been holding potluck dinners and fiestas to bridge gaps that exist among different cultures. These events have facilitated greater dialogue and understanding among the various populations of Scott City.

Second, community members presented information about how town volunteers and First Baptist Church transformed a vacant storefront and warehouse into a community youth center. Known as ``Area 96,'' this site provides a safe and welcoming place for young people to spend their free time, as well as a site for other community groups to utilize.

Third, Scott City residents shared how they have used the renovation and expansion of the Scott County Library as an opportunity to transform the role of the Library in the community from just a building to a community information center. Not only have they increased youth services and youth-driven programs, but they have also expanded their services and offerings for English language learners.

The achievements of Scott City, Kansas demonstrate that the efforts of communities and individuals provide the true backbone of America. I congratulate Scott City for this remarkable and well-deserved honor.

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I am very interested in learning what continues to happen every day in our other States, particularly our State to the south.

Being from the State of Kansas, I would like to talk a little bit about the coal industry. You might say, Kansas and the coal industry, what does that have to do with Kansas?

I am a farmer by trade, and we produce a lot of corn and wheat and soybeans and many other things. But in order to produce those, we need a lot of electricity. A number of decades ago we built a coal-fired electrical power plant in western Kansas. It generates electricity that covers six to seven States. About 5 or 6 or 7 years ago, we said we need more electricity. Our economy continues to grow, and we need more electricity. We began the process in western Kansas to expand our electrical production. We need more electricity.

If the economy is going to grow--and I'm sorry to say, now the economy is not growing very quickly under this administration, and let me tell you why. It is called overregulation. It is called litigation. It is called the attempt by this administration and others outside that are working together with this administration to stop the generation of more electricity, more energy of various types. We need more energy. We need more American energy, and we can produce that. We are trying to do that right now in western Kansas. We are trying to produce more jobs.

This administration and folks close to this administration--and this is hard to believe--they have said that you want 1,900 construction jobs. You want to create 1,900 jobs in western Kansas to grow your ability to produce American electricity. You know what the answer is from this administration? You know what the answer is from environmental groups? You know what the answer is? They said: No, we don't want your jobs. We don't want 1,900 jobs in western Kansas.

We have rural communities all across western Kansas, and they depend on this power. Actually, if they don't have more electricity, we will begin to see brownouts in less than a decade in a rural area.

We are trying to grow our production of energy, of coal-fired electrical power, and this administration says: No, we're going to sue you. And the EPA says: No, we're going to stop you with new regulations. Various outside groups are throwing lawsuits. It is death by litigation. And that is not only stopping our power plants. They are stopping power plants all across the country.

Now, it is hard to understand. I talk to my constituents and they say: Why can't we have more electricity? Who is opposed to this? Who is opposed to jobs? Somebody in Washington is opposed to jobs. There are regulators all over this country, particularly in our Nation's capital, who say: No, I would rather you pay for $5 gasoline. No, I would rather you have higher electricity rates.

If we don't generate more electricity in my State, in western Kansas, they anticipate a 40 to 50 percent increase in electricity rates. But by the time that would happen, 4 or 5 years from now, they'll say: Why didn't you do something about it? That is why I am here tonight. We have to do something about it now.

Our competitors across the way in China, I believe they have figured it out. They recognize that you need more energy in whatever form. We need more energy. We need to produce more electricity. We need to produce more diesel fuel and more gasoline. We need an all-of-the-above strategy. But when you have an administration and a culture in Washington that is dedicated to eliminating access to energy, when you have an Energy Secretary that suggests that Americans need to pay $5 a gallon on gasoline, our Energy Secretary suggests that we need to pay $5 a gallon on our gasoline, what is going on?

We need to pay more? No, we need to pay less. And the way we do that is not having a brand-new policy, a new program in Washington. No, we need to let American entrepreneurs continue to do what they have been doing for years, and that is producing a needed product called energy. And we can produce it in many ways in Kansas and all throughout the Midwest and all throughout the Nation. But when you have this narrow agenda of those in Washington that have dedicated their lives to make certain that our electrical prices go up, our energy prices in all forms go up, that is going to cost us more unless we can turn on the entrepreneurs.

Actually, there was a report from our U.S. Chamber of Commerce--and there are folks in this town who get upset when you talk about people who create jobs because it is actually the private sector that creates jobs. It estimates there are 351 stalled energy projects across America, and the one in western Kansas, Sunflower Electric Cooperative, is just one of those, but there are 350 others. They estimate that if those stalled energy projects would move forward that they would create 2 million jobs in the short term just in construction, but in the long term, they would create affordable energy to allow us to compete across the world. Frankly, as our energy prices increase, our ability to compete and export and to compete with China and many other countries is incredibly diminished.

So we need--we must--and are responsible here in this Chamber for freeing up entrepreneurs. We are responsible for forcing the U.S. Senate to come to the table and actually do what they talked about doing.

I don't think there is a Member of Congress in the House or Senate who went home and said, Do you know what I like? I like high energy prices.

Nobody said that. No.

They went home, and said, We're doing everything we can.

They're not doing everything they can. The U.S. Senate is not doing a single thing to help this along, and the administration is doing everything it can to make sure our energy prices go up.

That's so frustrating to me because we do have an easy answer. Let's let American entrepreneurs, American energy companies--basically small businesses--move forward. In my district, we are heavily dependent on agriculture, but the second largest industry is the oil and gas industry, and we must continue to encourage them to move forward.

I appreciate the opportunity to visit about this tonight. It's something I am very passionate about because the people in this House who are working for it cannot be blamed for high energy prices in the future, because we are doing what we can do today. Thank you for the opportunity.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise this evening to ensure that America's military bases are not used to advance a narrow social agenda.

Earlier this year, the Navy chief of chaplains announced that military chaplains who desire to perform same-sex marriages would be allowed to do so following the repeal of the policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The directive said that chaplains could perform same-sex ceremonies in such States where such marriages and unions are legal. Apparently, the Navy has recently backed away from such instruction, but tepidly and weakly, and in a way that leaves the door open to the reinstatement of this policy.

This amendment I offer will prohibit the enforcement of the directive of allowing chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on Navy bases regardless of whatever a State's law is on gay marriage.

In thinking about what has made our military successful, two things come to my mind: conformity and uniformity. Men and women who join our military are to conform to the military's standards, not the other way around. Regardless of where a ship is docked or where a plane is parked, our servicemembers know what to anticipate and how to behave. Rules and expectations are the same everywhere, but with a policy that is flexible and changes based on the State, the military doesn't embrace its one-size-fits-all mentality that has made it so accomplished, disciplined and orderly. As the Navy and other military branches prepare for the repeal of this 1993 law, hours upon hours of sensitivity training have been presented to men and women in uniform. Such instruction has included warning that the failure to embrace alternative lifestyles could result in penalties for servicemembers.

What will happen to chaplains who decline to officiate over same-sex ceremonies? The directive states that chaplains ``may'' perform same- sex civil marriage ceremonies. I fear that chaplains who refuse to perform these ceremonies may find themselves under attack and their careers threatened.

Madam Chair, we must ensure the religious liberty of all military members, particularly that of chaplains. In my family, I've had a military chaplain who has served for more than approximately 4 decades, so this is particularly important to me, personally.

Regardless of how someone feels about the repeal of the policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I think we can all agree that instructing military chaplains that they can perform same-sex marriages goes above and beyond the instruction to repeal that particular law. In fact, this directive is not only an overreach of the repeal but is also a direct assault on the Defense of Marriage Act. It should be noted these two laws passed with bipartisan support and were signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell was supposed to be about allowing people in the military to serve openly, not about promoting same-sex marriage in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment in order to promote and ensure conformity and uniformity in the military culture, not the other way around; to promote the religious liberty of military chaplains; and to promote consistency with Federal laws on marriage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes, if the gentleman would restate his question.

Madam Chair, that is an excellent question.

We tried to obtain a copy of that from the Department of Defense today and they refused to provide a copy. What I do have is an online three-page summary of the manual.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 77: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, on May 26th, I missed rollcall vote numbered 376 because I was travelling to Kansas for a family funeral.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Clearly, there is one clear issue before us in H.R. 3, and it is whether or not Americans shall be required to fund the taking of innocent human life.

It has been indicated that this is controversial, and it certainly is; but without a doubt the American people demand they not be required to subsidize abortion.

The second issue here, Madam Speaker, is the question that over and over we've heard from my colleagues that they would like to see abortion rare. That is what this bill does. With the subsidization of abortion, it expands. This bill will limit the payments and restrict and prohibit the use of Federal taxpayer dollars for the funding of abortion. That's what this bill does.

Madam Speaker, again it is very clear, and, contrary to the claims of the opponents of this bill, it is very simple. Americans should not be required to pay for abortions. H.R. 3 accomplishes this objective. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the RSC budget because we cannot wait, as the other side seems to indicate, to get our fiscal house in order. And the RSC budget will put us on that path even faster.

Mr. Chairman, the American people are tired of their tax dollars going to Washington, D.C., with nothing in return but empty promises and Federal strings. They are tired of adding to the National debt with none of the promised jobs.

People across my State of Kansas, indeed all across the country, want their power back from Washington. Our Founding Fathers got this concept of federalism right, and it's time we return government power from Washington bureaucrats and politicians back to the American people.

Block grants of Federal Medicaid dollars to the States will do just that by allowing States and those closest to the people to use their ingenuity and creativity to make Medicaid dollars work more effectively.

If we really care about the people, Mr. Chairman, there are currently 455 Medicaid waivers, and I ask that we allow the flexibility in the Medicaid system through a block grant system that returns the powers of federalism back to the States. And the RSC budget will do just that, Mr. Chairman. It's the right thing to do. It's the right time now to balance our budget in this way.