Floor Statements

I thank my friend from Virginia and, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an issue of ultimate importance tonight, the First Amendment liberties.

We go back to those brave men whose shoulders we stand upon, and here in the Chamber today, people like Jonathan Witherspoon, who said:

A republic once equally poised, must either preserve its

virtue or lose its liberty.

Congressman Forbes, we are standing for that virtue today. We are standing for that virtue in a country that, sadly, has walked away from accepting it out of hand. And assuming that there will be differences-- there will be theological differences, there will be religious differences--America was known from its inception as a place where we could be free to have those foundational principles.

Benjamin Franklin himself said:

This will be the best security for maintaining our

liberties. A Nation of well-informed men who have been taught

to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot

be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny

begins.

And so I went to some statements that were made in the constitutions of our States--specifically, those States that were our 13 colonies--to look at what our Framers and Founders, those back in the States that said we want a Federal Government, but we want a Federal Government that comes under the control of the States. What did they say about religion and those First Amendment liberties? I picked out three. I picked them out related to the highest offices of our land.

The first was New York. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, was born, raised, and educated in New York. In its constitution, New York State says:

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and

worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever

be allowed in this State to all humankind.

That was New York.

I went then to the State of Delaware, the State of our Vice President. And in that State, the preamble to the constitution starts out by saying:

Through Divine goodness, all people have by nature the

rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to

the dictates of their consciences.

That's Delaware.

And so then ultimately I went to the last State that I looked at. And I went to that because our President comes from Illinois. But that wasn't one of the 13 colonies, my friend from Virginia will inform me. So I went to Massachusetts, where he was educated at Harvard Law School. Article II in that constitution says:

It is the right as well as the duty of all men and society,

publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being,

the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no

subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person,

liberty, or estate, for worshiping God in the manner and

season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.

Mr. Speaker, I would say those are the foundational principles that led to the adoption of our Constitution and, ultimately, the First Amendment. And so a danger comes when we come to areas like prayer, where we have a municipality like Greece, New York, that is fighting in the case Greece v. Galloway for the opportunity to continue their tradition of opening with prayer.

Patrick Henry said:

An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left

us.

An appeal. Isn't that a prayer? An appeal to God?

An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left

to us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a

just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The

battle, sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or

peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and

slavery?

And then he appeals to God again. A prayer:

Forbid it, almighty God. I know not what course others may

take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.

So today we come to a situation in our country where we have people who are saying, basically, the same thing: give me liberty or give me death. Give me the opportunity to pray. Give me the opportunity to worship without Big Government collapsing on me.

Mr. Speaker, there are enemies of our freedoms. And they have somehow caught it right.

Joseph Stalin said:

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is

threefold: its patriotism, its morality, its spiritual life.

If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse

from within.

He's right: we are collapsing, to our detriment and to those who yearn for freedom.

I end with this. A patriot, a President, a believer in prayer, a believer in the First Amendment. President Eisenhower stated in 1954:

Atheism substitutes men for the Supreme Creator and this

leads inevitably to domination and dictatorship.

He went on to say:

We must jealously guard our foundation in faith. For on it

rests the ability of the American individual to live and

thrive in this blessed land and to be able to help other less

fortunate people to achieve freedom and individual

opportunity. These we take for granted, but to others they

are often only a wistful dream. In God we trust, our motto.

Often have we heard the words of this wonderful American

motto. Let us make sure that familiarity has not made them

meaningless for us. We carry the torch of freedom as a sacred

trust for all mankind.

And then President Eisenhower concluded:

We do not believe that God intended the light that He

created to be put out by men.

I thank my friend for allowing me these statements tonight. And may we stand firmly to the point that ultimately our First Amendment liberties--and even more than that--the God-blessed opportunities that come from His truth will be applauded in this land.

Offered By: Mr. Walberg

Amendment No. 22: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 421. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to provide housing assistance benefits for an

individual for whom criminal conviction records made

available pursuant to section 6(q) of the United States

Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(q)), or to subsection

(b) or (c) of section 578 of the Quality Housing and Work

Responsibility Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 13663(b), (c)),

indicate that the individual has been convicted of aggravated

sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States

Code, murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States

Code, or an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United

States Code.

I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, in light of recent events in Benghazi and North Africa, the Pentagon approved the development of the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force for Crisis Response to function under United States African Command. This task force is specifically tailored for crisis response in Africa, and in April deployed to Spain and Italy.

The unit is capable of responding to a wide range of military operations and will provide limited defense crisis response in support of embassies, support non-combatant evacuation operations, provide humanitarian assistance, and assist with disaster relief operations, search and rescue, and other missions as directed.

As this force is ramping up, I believe we need to ensure that this valid and important mission is completely and adequately funded.

With the rise of Islamic militant groups in Mali, Nigeria and Somalia, and continued unrest in Egypt, Libya and Algeria, the threat is real and growing.

The committee has added funds for sustainment and follow-up deployments in fiscal year 2014, but there are substantial concerns that the need may be higher. Funding for this force was not requested in the President's budget, but was included in the House-passed NDAA. I'm hopeful that in establishing a funding source and signaling congressional willingness to support this mission, the Marine Corps will be better able to assess their needs and provide us with a more exact funding request.

To work towards a sure state of readiness, I'm offering this budget- neutral amendment to increase this funding by $10 million while reducing funding to the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account by $11 million. During consideration of the NDAA last month, an amendment was adopted by voice vote that would increase authorization for the crisis response force by a similar amount.

To provide an additional military response in case of another Benghazi-type situation, we must ensure that the special purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force, Crisis Response can properly respond to threats to our diplomatic posts in an expeditious manner.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment with Mr. Cohen of Tennessee, Ms. Esty of Connecticut, and Mr. Rigell of Virginia that will go a long ways to ensure American tax dollars in Afghanistan are spent in a wise and realistic fashion.

My amendment would specifically reduce funding of the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund by $79 million to a total of $200 million, the level adopted by this House during last year's Defense appropriations bill. The savings would then be sent to the spending reduction account.

We have already spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan, and Congress has appropriated over $1 billion alone to the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund since it was created in 2011.

As of March 31 of this year, SIGAR, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, reported that only $102.9 million of the $1 billion that Congress has appropriated has actually been dispersed for projects.

Perhaps even more significant, SIGAR has found that the projects which are under way are behind schedule and years away from completion and raise serious concerns about whether some of the projects may run counter to our goals and the COIN strategy, either because they have created expectation gaps among the Afghan people or that they lack local citizen support.

This year, $279 million has been requested for two new infrastructure projects. Now, I know we all look to our commanders in the field for guidance on what they need to finish the job in Afghanistan; but with $400 million in unobligated funds, I ask, Mr. Chairman, why commit to two brand-new projects that we will likely never complete?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I request of the Chairman how much time I have remaining.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to yield at this time 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, as a review, my amendment would reduce funding of the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund by $79 million to a total of $200 million--the level adopted by this House during last year's Defense appropriations bill.

SIGAR has found that the projects which are under way right now are behind schedule and years away from completion and raise serious concerns about whether some of the projects may run counter to our goals and the COIN strategy.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, additionally, as the end of operations in Afghanistan draws near, the Afghan people will need to bear the responsibility of building and maintaining their own infrastructure, to say the least.

The Afghan Government has often not been a reliable partner in these projects. They have often had little role in designating these projects--designing them, carrying them out, power lines, roads, and building projects that ultimately will not be used.

The Department's own budget justification states that because not all fiscal year 2012 and 2013 projects have been awarded, the fiscal year 2014 budget estimate is based on ``limited actual cost data.''

At a time when often difficult choices need to be made, we have a concern that as Congress is being asked to support funding and projects, that they really have limited cost data involved.

I ask for support for this amendment. I believe that the dollars can be used, indeed, to grow an economy for ourselves and ultimately deal with infrastructure projects here in our own country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my chairman.

Mr. Chairman, our children are being held back by an outdated, cumbersome, and overbearing Federal system. It's clearly not working. Statistics show that only 34 percent of our eighth graders are proficient in reading and nearly one in four high school students fails to graduate on time.

For the last 40 years, we have not seen any significant improvement in students' math, English and science scores. These results are especially frightening at a time when we are spending three times more on education than we did in 1970.

Since then, the Federal Government's arm has extended even further into local school districts, leaving teachers and parents restricted by a growing number of rules and costly requirements. In one of the worst examples of this, the Department of Education has chosen to grant States waivers from a failing policy, but only if those States decided to adopt standards deemed necessary by Washington bureaucrats and not by Congress, let alone their educators.

Students and parents need real solutions with freedom and choice, not short-term fixes with more Federal intrusion. We need to get the Federal Government out of the way and instead work with the teachers, parents, superintendents, and State leaders who are already working hard to raise the standards of our schools in Michigan and throughout the Nation.

The Student Success Act's emphasis on increased State and local control by people closest to our kids will help put more students on a course for a successful future.

As a parent and grandparent, I encourage my colleagues to support the Student Success Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, this must come as a shock to the administration and Democrat Senate leadership who have recently described ObamaCare as ``wonderful for our country.'' But not to us in the House and the American people. Today, employers are cutting jobs, hours, and wages because they won't be able to comply with the law. Individuals are seeing premiums climb, and families are losing health insurance they like.

An administrative train wreck has become so likely that on July 2, the President announced a year delay for the employer mandate in his own law. This evokes a question for the President: if businesses are being given relief, shouldn't the same relief be given to the American people?

I rise in support of today's legislation to delay both the employer and individual mandate. It's only fair that all taxpayers, whether businesses or families, receive relief from these hurtful mandates.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to revive our economy, create jobs, and put the American people first so they can make their own health care decisions. And by the way, wouldn't it be great if personal responsibility, creativity, and liberty reigned again in America.

Mr. Speaker, the President's decision last week to delay ObamaCare's employer mandate underscored how this law is far too complicated and expensive. Worse yet, it fails Michigan families and businesses.

While this will certainly help our job creators in the short term, without a delay or, better yet, a repeal of the individual mandate, the administration deliberately chose to leave the American people out in the cold. This delay creates even more confusion for Michigan families who are wondering if they will lose their current coverage, be forced into choosing different providers, or be burdened with new high costs.

It becomes clearer and clearer that, without repeal, this law will continue to destroy jobs and slow down our economy. Instead, we need to return to patient-centered care and not the government-knows-best health care system.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House to revive our economy, create jobs, and put people first so they can make their own health care decisions.

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

My amendment prohibits the use of funds to be used to carry out section 801 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which creates a national media campaign to promote alternative green energies. The 2007 energy law directs the Department of Energy to run a national media campaign to promote alternative energies, encourage energy efficiency, and discourage the use of fossil fuels, authorizing $5 million a year.

Promoting green-energy technology is really not the role of the Federal Government apart from an all-of-the-above energy plan, and it certainly is not part of the core mission of the Department of Energy. The American people don't need more government bureaucrats to tell them what energy sources they should use. The government needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the energy market and certainly shouldn't be funding advertising campaigns on behalf of private green-energy firms, which is normally a losing proposition to the taxpayer.

This amendment is more than fair. It was included in the last Congress' attempt at this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it and to defund this taxpayer media campaign.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after spending the past week meeting constituents across my district, I come to

the floor to remind my colleagues that the American people are incensed over the unwarranted targeting and mistreatment by the IRS.

Without the administration's help, the House has done its due diligence to get to the bottom of this issue, but it seems as though a new scandal comes to light every day. Most recently, we learned about the purchase of wine, romance novels, and even illicit material on IRS credit cards. Add lavish conferences, improper contracting practices, singling out of adoptive families, and, of course, the systematic targeting of conservative and religious groups, it is apparent that the IRS is an agency out of control.

Mr. Speaker, the Fourth of July causes our entire Nation to pause and reflect on the vision of liberty our Founders valued when they declared our independence. Liberty is jeopardized when Federal agencies abuse the trust granted by the people. It must end, and the administration and the IRS must show Congress and the American people that it will never happen again.

Offered By: Mr. Walberg

Amendment No. 32: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Chairman, if it weren't for the lateness of the hour, I would be tempted to ask if any of my colleagues have had constituents call or write their offices to ask whether Congress has lost its marbles. I won't do that.

But I would point out the fact that the underlying bill we are considering tonight contains a provision to create a checkoff program, like many others, but this is a checkoff program for natural stone on behalf of the marble and granite industry.

To those of my friends who are supporters of the checkoff program-- and again, there are many checkoff programs--I would simply ask for you to take a close look at my amendment.

Proponents of this checkoff have argued that stone is a natural product, and yes, it is. But is it just like the other products covered in the checkoff program in the agriculture arena?

To anyone unfamiliar, here's a sampling of the some of the other checkoff programs currently run by the USDA: dairy, eggs, beef, blueberries, pork, sorghum, watermelons, et cetera.

The common denominator between the some 20 checkoff programs run by the USDA is that they are all agricultural commodities. They all grow. They all can be raised. The statutory authority for this program defines precisely what an acceptable agricultural commodity is, and rock, no matter how natural it is, is not one of them.

Mr. Chairman, farmers in my district do not grow rocks. In fact, they don't like it when frost heaves and pushes new rocks up in their fields, as in my farm field.

My amendment is more than fair, Mr. Chairman, and is necessary for maintaining the integrity of the farm bill and not for expanding--for which our chairman earlier this evening expressed concern--more farm bill programs in assorted prior amendments. There are no laws preventing this industry from imposing a voluntary tax on their membership. If they are really insistent on having a government-run checkoff, they could have pursued a program under a more appropriate agency like the Department of Commerce or the Department of the Interior.

I would hope my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, would agree that rocks have no place in a farm bill, and would join me in removing this provision from the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would suggest that it's not voluntary for all of those in an industry, and I am certain that not all of them in the industry are asking for this checkoff.

Again, I understand there may not be the best infrastructure like the agriculture at the USDA programs for a checkoff like this. But again, I would ask the sponsor of this proposal: When have we grown rocks? Do we seed rocks?

When we look at the agriculture commodity as a term described and defined, it says that the agriculture commodity means agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products, livestock and the products of livestock, the products of poultry and bee raising, the products of forestry. I could go on, but it nowhere says ``rocks.'' To expand the program in a farm bill issue and in dealing with something we can't grow, I think, establishes the wrong precedent.

I ask for support for the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the respect, and I understand that. I appreciate the fact that the USDA has a good record of dealing with checkoffs. I'm not necessarily opposed to all checkoffs, but they ought to fit. Growing rocks--marble, granite--just does not fit in an agricultural program. I think that's apparent. So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment in order to keep the integrity of the farm bill in growing agriculture.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, propane and oil heat function as checkoff programs under the Department of Commerce and under the Department of Energy. The statutory authority for the USDA checkoff also does not include rock. So I respectfully request that my colleagues in this body support this amendment, which keeps free those things that don't grow and are not part of agriculture out of a farm bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an iconic company in my district, La-Z-Boy Incorporated, and to congratulate them as they begin construction on their new world headquarters next week.

Based in Monroe, MI, La-Z-Boy has been crafting comfortable, quality furniture since 1927. The vision of two cousins, Edward M. Knabusch and Edwin J. Shoemaker, La-Z-Boy started with the success of their innovative reclining wooden slat chair From their humble beginnings in Edward's father's garage they quickly evolved their company with new products like the first upholstered reclining chair. The company grew and they built their own factory on Telegraph Road to meet demand, where they've been a part of the community for the last 85 years.

With the exception of a break during World War II to make tank seats and crash pads as part of the war effort, the employees of La-Z-Boy have never stopped producing a myriad of products that are well-known across the globe. With an accredited test lab on site, every product coming off the line meets the high standards of the La-Z-Boy brand. Just imagine how many sports fans those recliners have comforted or the countless babies they've rocked to sleep.

On June 20th, La-Z-Boy will hold a groundbreaking ceremony for their new world headquarters, as the company enters its next phase. The environmentally friendly building will be able to support 500 employees who will no doubt continue making quality furniture for every room in the home. I offer my best wishes to my constituents and friends at La- Z-Boy and encourage them to keep making this world a more comfortable place.

Mr. Speaker, the Motor Capital of Michigan currently has the second-highest gas prices in the country at over $4 per gallon. Sadly, this reality is just another painful and needed reminder for the Senate and the President to work with the House in passing an all-of- the-above approach that expands American energy production, creates jobs, boosts manufacturing, makes energy more affordable, and allows America to be America.

The U.S. is a treasure trove of natural resources. New practices allow producers to easily extract natural gas, coal, and oil from the ground while doing it cheaper, safer, and with less disruption to the landscape.

Energy production also creates jobs. The Keystone XL pipeline project alone would create tens of thousands of jobs. The State Department declares it environmentally safe. Labor unions agree it will create jobs. Last month, the House passed H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, to clear the remaining barriers to construction of the project. But the administration refuses to move forward. Why? America deserves better.

The President and the Senate must join our efforts to help hardworking taxpayers and create jobs, create an economy, and allow America to be America.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska. I thank you for your leadership, and I thank you for the opportunity to stand with principled legislators. We are not talking about parties here. We are talking about people who understand rights and responsibilities.

The First Amendment to our Constitution says so clearly that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Tonight, we are talking about rights of conscience. Our First Amendment liberty affirms that for us. It affirms us for greater principles than just political or even governmental.

In approximately the year my father was born, 1903, Abraham Kuyper, a theologian--and I take great comfort in the fact that theologians sometimes aspire to political life in coming from the pastorate myself and pastoring for over a decade--this theologian who became the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, said:

When principles that run against your deepest convictions

begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace

has become sin. You must at the price of dearest peace lay

your convictions bare before friend and enemy with all the

fire of your faith.

That's a powerful statement. It's a statement that, I'm sure, Mr. Kuyper would have said to his brethren in the Netherlands is not coming simply from my religious convictions but, rather, is coming from my conviction for freedom and the right given us by the Creator God. So he fought. Sadly, as we know the course in the Netherlands, they've gone away from the freedom of life, and we know the impact upon the unborn. We know the impact upon the infirm. We know the impact upon the elderly. We know the impact upon the frail, upon the disabled in the Netherlands. Their lives are cast off. Their lives are not as secure.

So here tonight, Mr. Speaker, we stand for rights of conscience that go way beyond just issues of medicine and issues of government. It goes to the core of life and to the sanctity of it and to the humanity of each and every individual.

We have talked about some people and about their convictions of things like life, abortifacient, contraceptives, and people who are compassionate to businesses and compassionate in using their businesses for the good of people, like the Greens already referred to with Hobby Lobby, who allegedly have given over $500 million to charities and who give to their employees and benefit them and see that as an outflow of their religious life as well;

Or we go over to St. Louis, where Chris and Paul Griesedieck, who run a 105-year-old business that they've carried on from their father and grandfather, with 150 employees who have taken stands for their religious beliefs, as well, and have very clearly stated that they will not abandon their beliefs in order to stay in business. The impact is upon all of their people;

Or we look at an 85-year-old gentleman by the name of Charles Sharpe, also from northeast Missouri, who has made millions in the insurance business, but who took that and founded Heartland Ministries in 1992, providing rehabilitation services to men and women who are battling drug and alcohol addiction, and employing 170 employees. Yet if this HHS mandate comes down on them, those employees will lose their jobs because of millions of dollars in fines.

I can go to businesses in my district like Eden Foods, which has challenged the insurance rule on religious grounds; or a garden center in Oakland County, Michigan doing the same--employing many, many employees and providing benefits--and is now being challenged with this HHS mandate. I could go on and on.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for us who understand what America is about to stand firmly with our convictions and to uphold liberties that go way beyond ourselves. Our Framers and Founders understood that. John Witherspoon said that a Republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.

We are losing our liberty.

John Adams--and I close with this--the second President of the United States said that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States are great people, and this government is a great government; but when the attack comes on what makes America America--its liberty and its freedom and its moral and traditional value heritage that is now being impinged upon to the point of violating rights of conscience--we must stand and stand firmly.

So I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for pulling us together so as to speak out clearly tonight; and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that those who are listening and watching tonight on C-SPAN will speak out very strongly to their communities and their families, calling us back to decency, order, conviction--and a conscience that even God can honor.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to serve in the House, where we're continuing to work on the American peoples' priorities: encouraging job creation, growing our economy, and stopping policies that hurt American families.

Already this year, we voted to create tens of thousands of jobs and move toward North American energy independence by passage of Keystone pipeline legislation.

We've also voted to save jobs from policies that hurt our economic growth by passing a budget that will balance in 10 years and repealing the President's health care law that is already costing jobs.

In addition, we've worked to expand opportunities for all Americans by passing legislation that allows for a better trained workforce in removing barriers to help balance the needs of family time and work.

Our focus is on solutions--not blame and excuses--to help encourage a healthy and prosperous economy, to create jobs, and to expand opportunities for all Americans.

Pastor Frank Hampton, Jr., has been praying over his congregation at the Church of God in Jackson, Michigan, since 1967. Today, it's an honor to have him praying over the U.S. House of Representatives.

Back in Michigan, Pastor Hampton has lived, worked, and served the Jackson community for over 45 years and is a well-respected man of God. Local business owners, elected officials, and pastors from around the country seek his counsel on matters of faith and life itself. I'm grateful for the opportunity to learn from his wisdom and to call him my friend.

I first met Pastor Hampton in 2003 and admire him for his sincere faith and heart of service. His impact has been long and consistent, whether in his church, community, the family barbershop, or his ministry to prisoners in the court system. Pastor Hampton's influence has extended beyond the State of Michigan, speaking at venues in Panama, the Cayman Islands, Honduras, Haiti, and Jamaica.

I sincerely appreciate Pastor Hampton's presence today and his thoughtful prayer. My hope is that Pastor Hampton will continue to have many opportunities to share his faith and uphold this great country in prayer.

May God bless you and all the work you do.