Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, we clearly have a choice here in Washington: We can maintain the same old status quo, which favors more spending, more taxes, and more Washington control, or the real American choice, making good on promises made to voters last year by cutting spending and creating jobs. The choice is ours; the opportunity is now.

The Path to Prosperity offers a long, overdue fix to Medicaid. There are many problems with the program, and the costs are out of control, hemorrhaging the budgets of State after State and our Federal Government. Clearly, the answer is not more money; instead, the solution is spending money more wisely and more efficiently.

Governors from all across America have expressed their desires for more flexibility with Medicaid, and this budget offers exactly that. In converting Federal spending on Medicaid to block grants, folks closest to the American people--Governors, legislators and local officials, not some bureaucrat sitting in Washington--will make decisions best for their citizens and design programs that work best for their States and for their people. They will have the freedom to adapt Medicaid to their own State's unique needs and priorities.

Also, because this budget defunds ObamaCare, we are preventing the Federal Government from imposing another mandate on the States. ObamaCare forces States to expand Medicaid eligibility but leaves it up to them how they will pay for it. By supporting this budget, we put a stop to this intrusion of the Federal Government and make Medicaid better for those who truly need it.

This Path to Prosperity will increase the Medicaid budget and provide much needed regulatory reform for the 50 States of this great Union. Only those committed to the status quo--including many of our colleagues across the aisle--can make the ridiculous claim that somehow spending more taxpayer money and pushing more Washington red tape is somehow a solution. By lifting the heavy hand of Washington from Medicaid, we make this program more effective and more efficient for the States to manage these programs and provide compassionate care for the Americans who truly deserve assistance.

Madam Chairman, as a freshman I guess I am a little confused here on the floor of the House listening to this debate about the budget. And I guess I am a little confused which party was in charge of this Chamber for the last 4 years as we ran up trillions and trillions and trillions of deficits. The concern wasn't about deficits. The concern was about spending and how much more could we do, and how much more could we throw into the economy. We look at the results today: Unemployment levels that we haven't seen for a long time, Madam Chairman.

I guess as we debate and discuss this budget, of course we might be a little bit rusty. It's my understanding it's been a couple years since we even allowed a budget debate on the floor. I welcome that debate. But one thing that was mentioned, read the Path to Prosperity. I agree. I agree with my colleagues, please read the bill. Please do. And here is what you will find.

A Path to Prosperity we believe runs not through Washington, not through this floor, certainly not through the other Chamber, but the Path to Prosperity in this country runs through the hard work of entrepreneurs, a flatter, fairer tax system, closed tax loopholes, regulatory reform, work rather than welfare.

The result is this, Madam Chairman. We expect a million new jobs potentially might be created if we get Washington out of the way, as we see in the Path to Prosperity.

Madam Chairman, ideas have consequences. And we believe, this plan believes in one thing, in the power of the American people, not Washington elites. This plan, this budget is about liberty and freedom, Madam Chairman. I hope and pray 2011 will be remembered not for what we do here, but for whether or not the end result of our actions will help us restore the American Dream in this country.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise in support of this amendment.

The American people have spoken. They demand that Washington stop its out-of-control spending now, not sometime in the future. And despite what the administration tells you, every last dime in this bill will be borrowed. Every last dime of the $1 trillion will be borrowed. The cost of this bill, this bill alone, will exceed $500 for every single household in America, just for this bill.

We have to stop the spending now. We cannot afford it. The massive debt burden on our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren cannot be afforded.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about the importance of protecting America's workers.

My home State of Kansas is one of 22 right-to-work States in which a worker cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment. This ensures worker freedom, and Card Check poses a direct threat to this freedom.

The last Congress knew that Card Check went against the will of the American people, but the current administration still seems intent on pushing it upon American workers.

To circumvent necessary congressional approval is to attack our representative form of government. If enacted through backdoor administrative paths and without congressional approval, Card Check would eliminate the use of a secret ballot for union elections.

Mr. Chairman, we have to preserve the use of a secret ballot. It is a fundamental institution of democracy. If the private ballot is eliminated, it opens up a window of opportunity for labor unions to strong-arm workers who are in the unions. Just this week in Wisconsin, we have seen the tactics unions are willing to use when they don't get their way; and we know the administration is encouraging this type of behavior across the country.

After speaking with colleagues, I feel another vehicle would be better for this issue, but I could not pass up the opportunity to address this matter on the floor. So I will withdraw this amendment today, and will look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming days to preserve the rights of American workers.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment very similar to one I was going to offer as well. This amendment, as we know, would strike the climate change czar, the global warming czar, also known as the cement czar, as well.

Mr. Chairman, all kidding aside, my question I would have is: What is the President afraid of? This is not an issue of what is covered here. The issue is that the President has overstepped his constitutional authority in naming these czars and disregards the separation of powers and refuses to resubmit these names for confirmation. And it's, of course, my opinion, one of many examples of executive excess from this administration. Czars are unaccountable, unelected, and they're given considerable authority, which undermines the rule of law.

Again, why is the President afraid of submitting these names for consideration? I would argue, probably because they might not be confirmed. More than 30 czars have been appointed by the President. Not all of those are directed at in this amendment, but this amendment seeks to defund approximately nine of these czars, including the czars to oversee global warming policy as well as the closure of Gitmo.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that just yesterday the administration indicated that if they did catch Osama Bin Laden, they would send him to Gitmo. At the same time, they have a czar that continues to close Gitmo.

Certainly, the President has the authority to appoint staff as necessary. But, at the same time, his advisers are not there to make laws, Mr. Chairman. That is our job. That is the job of the Senate. This is an issue of whether the legislative branch is going to write the laws, Mr. Chairman.

Supporters of this type of style of government suggest in the past other Presidents have appointed czars. And, Mr. Chairman, czars might not have started with the Obama administration, but they should end with this budget.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Pence amendment for a number of reasons.

As was indicated, I do come from the State of Kansas; and in listening to the debate this evening, it is rather interesting to find very little support for actually the institution of Planned Parenthood and for a full discussion of what they have been involved in.

Two days ago in the State of Kansas, another hearing was conducted. Charges are moving forward--107 criminal charges against Planned Parenthood. It is very interesting. It is an entity under criminal indictment for covering up more than 100 crimes: failures to report; helping to cover up incest, rape. The list goes on and on. It has happened in multiple States, a young lady by the name of Lila Rose has indicated.

If you don't believe me, take a look at the tapes, Madam Chair. Take a look at the tapes of how Planned Parenthood is helping sexual predators continue their activities.

I would also like to point out one thing that we cannot forget. I must admit I am certainly disappointed that our Supreme Court claims that there is somehow a right to abortion. We do know there is no right to the Public Treasury; there is no right to the taxpayer dollar; there is no right to demand that Americans front this organization with their taxpayer money.

That is the question of this amendment, Madam Chair.

There is another question to face here, and we need to be very clear. My wife and I have four adopted children, and they're watching tonight. They're adopted children, and they come from a group of children the history of Planned Parenthood has targeted: minorities. My children are adopted. They're the very type of children this organization targets, and there is evidence it still continues today. Undercover work has shown again and again how this organization locates in minority neighborhoods.

Madam Chair, it is not only fiscally irresponsible to send our taxpayer dollars to this type of entity and organization; I think it is morally reprehensible that we would send $300 million of our hard- earned money to an entity that targets minorities, that helps sexual predators, that continues to cover up rape and incest and sex slavery. There is no excuse for that.

Everyone in this body should be standing on their feet and recognizing that, no matter your position on the issue of abortion, we should all agree: Our taxpayer dollars are undeserving of the efforts of Planned Parenthood. The history is clear. The present is clear. It is time to defund this entity. They are unworthy of our dollars.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 257: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 258: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 255: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Huelskamp

Amendment No. 256: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I would like to thank Chairman Lucas for the time to speak on an issue that is near to my heart.

Madam Speaker, I came to Washington, hoping to bring some common sense to a city sorely lacking it. We have too many regulations being written by too many bureaucrats who have no idea what the real world is like. And let me give you one real-world example.

Regulators at the EPA think that dust poses a serious health and pollution threat and have proposed significant reductions in the amount of dust that can be in the air. It's dry and it's windy in western Kansas, where I come from. So when we drive on the dirt roads common to rural America, we turn up dust in the air. To keep this from happening, the EPA recommends spraying dirt on the dry roads twice a day. Obviously they have never been to Kansas before. Kansans are hardworking people; and we don't have time to do this and, frankly, Madam Speaker, nor do we have the water to spray on these roads.

I welcome the opportunity this resolution provides for us to bring these regulators in and give them a picture of what life is like in the real world outside of Washington. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of House Resolution 72.

Mr. Speaker, since the misleadingly-named ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'' was signed into law last year, Americans have uncovered more reasons to oppose it. For all the talk of ``reform'' that accompanied its passage, the law will actually entrench the worst aspects of our broken system, driving out-of-control costs even higher and taking health care out of the patient's hands and giving control to the government.

Contrary to what they were told, taxpayers have learned that the true cost of the law is closer to $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years, and will add more than $700 billion to the deficit. Accounting gimmicks that included scoring the bill using 10 years of revenue but only 6 years of new spending and double-counting of Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare cuts made it seem like this program would land the country in the black, but will only result in more red ink.

As a result of this law, employers across America have discovered that onerous reporting requirements will force them to file 1099 forms for every vendor with which they do $600 worth of business. An accountant in my district just told me that he will have to expand his staff by 25 percent to accommodate all of his extra paperwork. This is not the type of job creation America envisioned.

Furthermore, when employer costs of insuring employees goes up, Americans will lose their private insurance plans, and will be forced to go on to government plans. This will also add to the deficit. Additionally, businesses and labor unions alike have realized that Obamacare is a bad deal, and at least 222 have sought waivers from having to comply with the law. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has approved special privilege exemptions for dozens of labor unions and the half a million union members they cover. And even more troubling is that Secretary Sebelius has been tardy in responding to a FOIA inquiry regarding the secretive details of these waiver requests.

And, last but of course not least, patients will soon come to discover that this law may not only be dangerous to their pocketbooks, but to their health.

Mandates, dictates, controls, tax hikes, and subsidies will flat-line any genuine effort to reform the country's health care system. The exploding cost of health care is bankrupting the country, yet the government's open-ended commitment to subsidizing health care is the very reason costs are skyrocketing.

Fortunately, instead of waivers for a select few, we have a universal remedy: repeal the law for all. I urge my colleagues to heed the calls voters made last year during the debate and at the ballot boxes, and vote to undo this job-killing legislation.

Thank you, Congressman. I would like to recognize the longtime efforts of Congressman Chris Smith in defending life. I have watched from afar for many years, and it's a real treasure for the opportunity to speak here tonight and join his efforts and, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other Americans, one of the greatest, greatest tragedies in the history of our Nation has been the direct death and the direct murder of more than 50 million Americans since 1973. Far too often, too many women, too many families turn to abortion as the only option when they discover they are unexpectedly pregnant.

Situations exist that make the thought of being responsible, perhaps for another life, overwhelming to say the least.

But abortion is not the only option available to these women and to their families. My wife and I have had the joy and privilege of adopting four children, and two of those children are from the country of Haiti and two of the others were already Americans. Incidentally, my oldest, when she was young, she didn't believe that babies arrived via stork, they arrived on airplanes, because our second two children were picked up at the airport.

But that reminds me of another story, a 5-year-old. She said, ``Daddy, can't we tell them to do adoption, not abortion?'' Yes, we can, and that's the message I would like to make sure we share tonight because supporting adoption is often the neglected, the unreported side of the pro-life coin.

If we are going to encourage women and families not to abort their babies we need to offer alternatives. And all across this country, there are thousands and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of men and women that are adopting children, that are offering their services, particularly through local crisis pregnancy centers, and offering opportunities for the children and for women and for their families.

And I know, literally, there are millions of Americans today that are waiting for a child, that are awaiting a child, and I would even more strongly encourage other Americans to consider adoption.

Let me speak directly to those that might be considering abortion: There are alternatives. There are opportunities. There are caring Americans that would love, would love to participate in adoption and would love to provide assistance.

I am also a proud cosponsor of No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion. The leading abortion provider in the country, and these, Mr. Speaker, are really stark statistics, in the last year available, Planned Parenthood of America, in 2008, they performed, they committed, they slaughtered more than 324,000 little girls and little boys across this country, 324,008 abortions. They only participated in 2,405 adoptions; 324,000 abortions, less than 2,500 adoptions. There are other opportunities, there are other options. Adoption is the option.

I would ask that we consider to defund an industry that is not concerned with the women, not concerned with the families.

But let's turn our attention towards those across America that have given their hearts and homes and opened them up to our youngest members of society.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of this law, employers across America have discovered that onerous reporting requirements will force them to file 1099 forms for every vendor with which they do $600 worth of business. This past weekend, I visited with an accountant in my district who indicated he would have to expand his staff by 25 percent to accommodate all the extra redtape and paperwork.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the type of job creation American envisioned.

Additionally, businesses and labor unions alike have realized that ObamaCare is a bad deal, and at least 222 have sought waivers from having to comply with the law. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has approved special privilege exemptions for dozens of labor unions and the half a million union members they cover. Even more troubling is that Secretary Sebelius has been tardy in responding to a FOIA inquiry regarding the secretive details of these waiver requests.

Fortunately, rather than selective waivers for the politically connected, we have a universal remedy--repeal the law.

I urge my colleagues to heed the calls voters made last year during the debate and at the ballot box.