Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Beverly F. Lyell upon her recent retirement as the Executive Director of Goodwill Industries of Southeastern Michigan.

Compassion, commitment, and courage are three words which accurately describe Beverly. Over the past several decades, Beverly has been actively serving communities throughout Michigan. In 1975, she began working for Goodwill Industries of Southeastern Michigan as an assistant supervisor in the Ceramics Department. During her tenure at Goodwill, she worked in a number of different capacities before becoming Executive Director. As Executive Director, she has helped Goodwill attain various certifications, coordinate capital campaigns, and develop successful programs aimed at assisting the physically and mentally impaired and at risk members of our community.

In addition to her work with Goodwill Industries, Beverly has also served as a board member of many other organizations. She has received a number of awards over the years that reflect the respect our community has for her work and her character. In addition to raising their own children, she and her husband, Steve, have served as foster parents and have raised service puppies for the disabled. She is also an active member of her church. Beverly has truly left a mark on the community and improved the quality of life for many. Her character, integrity, and ever-optimistic personality have changed lives forever.

Beverly should be commended for her service to the community and I offer her my best wishes for the future.

This past Monday, we gathered together to honor America's fallen soldiers--the men and women who gave their lives sacrificially in exchange for our freedoms. Amid the Memorial Day parades and picnics, we reflected on their courage and their bravery to fight for these freedoms at any cost, including the ultimate cost.

We must never take for granted the privileges we enjoy because of their sacrifice, such as being able to worship where and how we want; that our media can share information without fear of censorship; and that we can freely vote for public officials without fear of punishment. Let us also remember the young men and women spread across the world who continue to fight for that freedom. To them, we also say thank you and pray for a safe and soon return.

But our commitment to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces should not end when they return. Each year, thousands of new veterans return home, many to Michigan's Seventh District, still wearing the physical, mental, and emotional scars from their time in combat. I am fighting in Congress to make sure that veterans receive the highest- quality medical care that they have earned and deserve.

I also want to provide our Nation's heroes with the resources they need to settle back into civilian life, which is why I cosponsored the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act. Specifically, this legislative package, which became law last November, will smooth the transition for veterans from military service back into the job market through job counseling, training, and placement.

Too often, our troops return home, expecting to trade their fatigues and weapons for a suit or a hard hat, only to find out that the employment situation is a battlefield, to say the least, of a different kind. Millions of Americans are without work under the current administration's failed economic policies, with the unemployment numbers being considerably higher for veterans.

To me, there is no greater way to honor our Nation's servicemen and - women than by making sure they can get a job when they return. I've held a number of job fairs back in my district that have been tailored specifically to assisting veterans. At each and every event, experts are on hand to offer advice for how to effectively search for a job, write a resume and impress during an interview. Up to 50 vendors and local businesses, which would be honored to hire our Nation's heroes, attend these events.

Republicans have also put forth a plan for America's job creators built around small businesses, not Big Government. It includes reining in Federal regulations and out-of-control spending, which hold back small businesses; repealing the costly health care law; and tapping into the abundance of natural resources right in our own backyard. We are focused on long-term growth and not a short-term stimulus. Our veterans need jobs now and in the future.

Those who answer the call of duty from their country should not be overlooked when they return home. I remain committed to providing the best care and a strong economy for our Nation's heroes. It is the least we can do for those who have already given so much.

As always, may God bless and protect our troops and their families.

I move to strike the last word.

Before I let a train of thought go, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and I thank him for his amendment. I support it, but I respectfully do not support the Grimm amendment.

I'm from Michigan. Michigan takes no backseat in this country to union labor. It is the returning auto capital of the world. It's a proud union State, and there is a proud, solid union workforce in Michigan. Just this past summer, the State legislature, in majority with the Governor's concurring and signing, signed into law a prohibition against the mandatory requirement of PLAs in government contracts. The State of Michigan, with its 10th Amendment responsibilities, did that.

Now, unlike what took place under the past Bush administration, as the gentleman from Arizona correctly pointed out, the Federal appellate court ruled in favor of doing away with the mandate and leaving neutrality there. That's all the provision of this section 517 does. It simply restores the neutrality. That's all we're asking: that when PLAs make sense and ultimately bring about a better project and an outcome, fine; but when they don't, for whatever reason that is, there should be no mandate, and there ought to be the opportunity within these contracts and within a State like Michigan to make a decision not to go with a PLA if that's the best outcome or result.

Again, this provision in the bill does not prohibit PLAs. It is neutrality. Studies have found that PLA mandates increase the cost of construction between 12 percent and 18 percent compared to non-PLA projects subject to prevailing wage laws. That's a decisionmaking process. That's a point that ought to be considered. It doesn't do away with PLAs, but it says it ought to be considered in the cost. Shouldn't taxpayers have that consideration? Shouldn't quality have that consideration?

PLA mandates typically restrict jobs to construction workers referred from union hiring halls, effectively shutting out in Michigan and other places 86 percent of the Nation's construction workforce. I don't think that's right. However, if it's necessary to have the union workforce with a PLA agreement and it will work better and be more efficient-- contrary to these studies--if that's the case, then this provision in the act does not do anything except allow neutrality.

Mr. Chairman, that's what we're asking for, to continue what this Congress put in place by a vote last week in saying we believe that PLAs are good sometimes, may not be as good other times, and there ought to be neutrality and an opportunity for decisionmaking on the local level, at the State level, at the contract-construction level that meets the best of abilities. Federal agencies should not mandate that contractors enter into project labor agreements as a condition of winning Federal contracts.

Again, we're looking at nearly $16 trillion in debt. And when our construction industry still suffers--and I can tell you that's the case in Michigan in my district--from a 14\1/2\ percent unemployment rate, we in Congress should not be tying the hands of taxpayers and construction workers by making requirements--with the thumb of the President of the United States on the scale--that really disregard the will and the opportunity of States like Michigan to make their own decisions here.

I thank the Chair for this opportunity, and I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this amendment, an amendment that I think speaks to a rationality in our contracting, and especially when we think of what we're talking about here in the defense world.

It's one thing to have PLAs that virtually make unfair competition for 86 percent of all of our construction contractors, because 86 percent, nationwide, don't have PLA agreements, they're nonunion, and yet have skilled workers doing the jobs they are expected.

For defense contracting to have a mandate that there must be a PLA agreement in place oftentimes will put our defense industry in the position of accepting a product that is more expensive and potentially of a lesser quality in the process.

This is not a mandate. This says choice can be made either way. And I think it needs to be made very clear that's all we're saying. It is neutral. It is not, as was described by others, that this would take PLAs out of the mix.

I stand in strong support for this, and I ask that this amendment be applied to ultimately make a stronger defense capability for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the recent passage and signing into law of a helmet choice law in my home State of Michigan.

Last month, Governor Rick Snyder signed into law Senate Bill 291, which modernizes Michigan's outdated mandatory helmet law and allows adult choice for motorcycle riders like myself. The new law allows riders to exercise their personal liberty in choosing whether to wear a helmet or not, while at the same time including smart safeguards to ensure riders are equipped with the proper skills and protections to safely travel on Michigan roads.

Michigan now joins the 30 other States with helmet choice laws, and this law will undoubtedly encourage cross-country riders to visit our beautiful State and support our strong tourism industry.

While riders are certainly free to choose whether they will ride with a helmet or not, driver awareness cannot be optional. Too many riders are injured or killed each year due to reckless driving and the only way to ensure the safety of motorcycle riders and car drivers is increased awareness on the roadways. Along with increased motorcycle rider education, it is my hope that the debate over this commonsense law will encourage all drivers to pay closer attention behind the wheel.

Again, I am grateful to Governor Snyder and the Michigan legislature on advancing personal liberty in Michigan through the passage of Senate Bill 291, and I look forward to taking my Harley out soon.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, just a bit of a history lesson. We hear a lot of demagoguery going on right now from the highest office of the land about the unwillingness of Republicans to help our college students receive the education that they need by having the loans that they deserve.

Going back to 2006, as part of the Democrats' Six for '06 campaign agenda, the Democrats promised to cut student loan interest in half. When they took the majority--and I sat on the House Education and Labor Committee at the time--they gained control of Congress, all of a sudden they realized it was too costly to do what they planned to do. So they put in place, against our opposition, saying that the private sector still could foster opportunities for student loans and make it fluctuate and flow in a variable rate with the market, ultimately reducing the overall cost of interest over the course of time for our students. They chose not to do that. They put in place the plan that we have right now, a Democrat plan that said, in fact, we will go to 6.8 percent in July of 2012 after dropping it back because they knew they couldn't afford it. They did it in a short-term process. And ultimately, it has come to fruition now that we are at a cost problem and we are at a problem for students to gain education support. It is their plan that we're dealing with. It is their mess that we're asked to fix at this point in time.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act incrementally reduced to the 3.4 percent that we have now, ultimately putting a cliff in place of what we're looking at. As the expiration date crept closer, Democrats did nothing in the 111th Congress, despite knowing that this would take place, and now we have a problem.

Mr. Speaker, this morning we see a picture of students in graduation garb. On top of one of the mortarboards it says: ``Hire me.'' That's the issue we're talking about: an economy that doesn't offer jobs. And so what we ought to be looking at here is growing an economy, not an ObamaCare fix that is ending up costing these loan programs.

I thank the gentlelady.

We ought to be looking at ways for growing an economy that gives the opportunity for students to know that they will have a job, that they can pay off loans at whatever rate it will be. There is a much better way than doing what has been done. We ought to be growing an economy for job providers, as opposed to what the Senate sent over to us, their solution: to whack at more job providers and make it more difficult to provide stable and secure jobs for college graduates looking for simply the opportunity to be hired.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago President Obama promised Congress that the American people would have 6 percent unemployment in exchange for trillions of taxpayer dollars to pump into the economy. Today we know that the stimulus program was mismanaged, ill-conceived, and failed to create the jobs promised by the President. For 38 straight months and counting, the unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent.

The American people realize something that my Democrat friends don't seem to understand: that government cannot create jobs and shouldn't be in the business of handing out jobs. In 2010, the American people sent me and many of my colleagues to Washington to cut government spending and offer real solutions to job creation. We have been aggressively fighting to achieve that challenge.

Our country needs commonsense, pro-growth policies that will help small business regain their confidence. When business owners have faith that the government will not raise their taxes, impose new, unnecessary regulations, and pick winners and losers in the marketplace, they'll invest more. When they invest more, the company grows, and the opportunity for American jobs grows with it.

Just last week, we saw a very clear picture of the different visions for job creation held by folks in Washington. My friends in the Senate voted on but thankfully failed to pass the Buffett rule. The act would impose a tax hike on one class of Americans and would pay for approximately 11 hours of government functioning. Talk about a cynical ruse serving only to divide our country for political purposes.

But while my Democrat colleagues in the Senate are working to raise taxes on Americans and America's job creators, the House is trying to lower them. Last week we passed a small business tax cut, which will give businesses with fewer than 500 employees a 20 percent tax reduction off their active business income and encourage the creation of more jobs for our citizens.

Data shows that 7 out of every 10 jobs in this country are created by companies with fewer than 500 employees. My Republican colleagues and I truly believe that small businesses are the backbone of our country's economy and their success is vital to our economic recovery. We continue to act proactively and, as reflected in the 27 job-creating measures passed by the House this Congress alone, to ensure job providers are able to create, innovate, and lead.

We hope our friends in the Senate and White House will decide to join us as we say ``yes'' to American jobs for American people.

Madam Speaker, this Friday, March 23, marks the second anniversary of President Obama's health care law after 2 years. It's clear the law has already left more victims in its path than people it was meant to help. And unfortunately, along with the 20 million employees who will probably lose employer-sponsored health care, it may be our seniors who take the hardest hit.

Millions of seniors and disabled Americans rely on Medicare, yet the

program is in danger. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with the baby boomer generation about to retire, if nothing is done to the program, the program will be bankrupt in 10 years.

Instead of making Medicare stronger through transparent and responsible reform, the President has decided to cut more than $500 billion from the program, money which will then be used to fund his new health care law.

If taking nearly half a trillion dollars from the already crippled program weren't bad enough, the President has handpicked a special panel to slash away at the program even more. He knows our country is facing a budget shortfall. Instead of implementing responsible and transparent reforms, the President wants to take away benefits from Medicare recipients to fund his agenda for new entitlements.

The panel, known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a group of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who will essentially be given power to ration care and even deny seniors lifesaving treatments. Its members are not required to hold public hearings or disclose their meetings. Their salaries will be paid directly out of trust funds used to pay Medicare beneficiaries' health care claims.

Worse yet, doctors and patients can not challenge the IPAB's decision in court. Without a three-fifths majority in both Chambers, Congress has no power to change decisions. While this select group rakes in the perks, it will be the seniors left holding the short end of the stick.

The health care law--and IPAB in particular--will threaten their access to quality care. Medicare is already known for its low reimbursement rates. Physicians receive about 20 percent less from Medicare than private health plans, forcing many to stop accepting patients just to stay in business. Seniors will be left with fewer options, and they may even be told they can no longer see their own doctors.

That's why, when I talk to seniors in my district, they are scared of this law. They're worried about being left with fewer options; they are worried about not being able to see their own doctors; and they are worried about the government cutting even more from the program. It's not just in my district where this concern is prevalent. According to a recent nationwide poll, 60 percent of our Nation's seniors have an unfavorable view of the law.

Access to quality care for seniors should be a top priority and will remain so with me. I believe health care decisions should be made by patients, families, and their doctors, and not by bureaucrats in Washington, who are burdening seniors and future generations with less choice, fewer services, and more debt.

House Republicans remain committed to strengthening and reforming Medicare to protect today's seniors and to make sure the program is still there for the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, what did you have for breakfast today?

We all know that a great breakfast can lead to a great day.

That's why it is so important that our children receive a healthy, nutritious breakfast to prepare them for a productive school day.

It is hard to believe that today, one in five children live in a home where food is not always available and don't have access to this important meal.

This week is National Breakfast Week--a time for Americans to join together to give more children the opportunity to start their day with the nourishment they need to reach their potential.

To celebrate National Breakfast Week, I am participating in the ``Share Your Breakfast'' campaign--an initiative by Kellogg's and Action for Healthy Kids to help ensure more children have access to breakfast.

The ``Share Your Breakfast'' campaign seeks to provide one million breakfasts to kids by increasing participation in school breakfast programs across the country.

Now in its second year, the program has assisted nearly 100 schools in 26 states--including 7 in my congressional district--and is setting its sights much higher for the future.

I salute the ``Share Your Breakfast'' campaign as one of the many initiatives now underway to address the issue of childhood hunger in America.

Through the power of breakfast, we can make a difference in the lives of children in need.

Mr. Speaker, we've all had to dig a little deeper in our pocketbooks when visiting the gas station lately. Gas has now reached $4 a gallon in my district. Combined with the stubbornly high unemployment rate in Michigan, I know my constituents are hurting. However, the pain at the pump has sparked more conversations than ever about domestic energy development. Even the harshest of critics are starting to realize that American oil, American gas, and American coal are viable solutions to our energy crisis, with countless numbers of benefits.

The time is ripe for our country to embark on a new chapter in energy production, American energy, an overhaul of this, if you will. Right now we're faced with an abundance of expansion possibilities all there for the taking. New developments in science and technology make this possible. You've probably heard of at least a few terms like ``fracking,'' ``3D mapping,'' and ``horizontal drilling.'' These new practices allow producers to easily extract natural gas, coal, and oil from the ground, all while doing it cheaper, safer, and with less disruption to the landscape above. So why has this administration, contrary to their rhetoric, chosen to obstruct progress, energy independence, and security for our Nation?

House Republicans remain committed to addressing this abundance of energy production and development. That's why we're trying to open up new areas for exploration and development. American energy production is good for the economy because it creates American jobs; it's good for the deficit because of new American royalties; and it's good for our manufacturing because it brings American energy costs down.

If President Obama had chosen to acknowledge this reality 3 years ago, we'd already be seeing more American jobs and cheaper energy. Instead, he has chosen to do little, sometimes even standing in the way of potential growth by letting Big Government be the arbiter of job creation. For proof, just look at the Solyndra fiasco, the rejected Keystone pipeline project, or mounting job-killing EPA regulations.

The private sector, not government, is and will always remain the real job creator for our country. If producers are given more liberty to pursue these techniques, it could put America in a position to become one of the largest energy producers in the world. And why not? We're America. And that would mean more money, more jobs, greater security, and you can bet, lower energy prices.

With Michigan's unemployment rate consistently higher than the national average, I remain committed to thoroughly reviewing the implications of burdensome regulations that have the potential to overwhelm my State's and country's job creators.

A current effort by the Department of Labor is a new standard being considered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration called the Injury and Illness Prevention Program, or I2P2. The standard will require all employers to implement safety and health programs to ``find and fix'' all hazards in their workplace, even those not otherwise regulated.

This regulation could potentially impact every employer covered by OSHA unless OSHA exempts small employers or those with less hazardous workplaces. Many employers who voluntarily issued safety and health programs have improved their workplaces' safety culture, but there are serious problems about this standard that OSHA has not addressed.

The moment this regulation gets issued, safety and health programs will go from being a good idea to a legal requirement, which means employers will have to meet OSHA's standards rather than what works best for them and their employees and what is indicated as best in best practices.

OSHA will have the authority to come in and second-guess an employer about how well they have implemented their program. Not surprisingly then, job creators see the I2P2 regulation as just another OSHA enforcement tool rather than something that will help them enhance their safety practices.

But they're not the only ones.

A recent RAND study found that California's I2P2 regulation, which has been in place since 1991, has not prevented workplace fatalities and barely made a dent in total injury prevention. Many job creators are worried that OSHA will double dip on citations, issuing one citation for a hazard and another citation because the safety and health program failed to detect and correct the hazard. Talk about double jeopardy.

Finally, another problem is whether employers will be required to find and fix ergonomics hazards. The Clinton administration issued an ergonomic regulation in 2000 that was shot down, thankfully, by Congress.

OSHA will soon hold a small business panel to ask job creators across the country their opinion and insight on I2P2. I hope the Obama administration, against its pattern, listens to the concerns of these business owners instead of imposing a costly regulation that we have proof will not improve worker safety. Imposing a new and costly safety and health program standard will only serve to increase OSHA enforcement with no visible improvement to worker safety and safe health.

As Ronald Reagan once said:

It is not my intention to do away with government. It is,

rather, to make it work for us, not over us; to stand by our

side, not ride on our back.

It's my hope we remain committed to this principle and ensure that regulations ensure both productivity and job creation and true health and safety of our workforce.

I appreciate the opportunity from the gentleman from California to stand with my colleagues tonight to speak on an important issue.

It was an amazing experience for me this morning to be part of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and to have a hearing where we had numerous members of religious organizations, including leaders in the Catholic, the Jewish, and the Protestant faiths, in front of us, men who were appealing for rights that should be taken for granted in this country, the rights of religious freedom.

It brought back to me the thoughts that I experienced just a year ago almost this very day when I was in Israel and had the opportunity to hear from the Prime Minister of Israel as he spoke with glowing admiration for America. He talked about the religious liberty that was unlike any other place in the world in Israel today for all faiths, all religions, based upon, as he said, the experience, the value, and the documents of America and its foundings.

And so, today, to hear our religious leaders speaking for their religious liberty was unreal. Those documents that the Prime Minister of Israel referred to going back to the Declaration of Independence, where it says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are

created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

Happiness.

Liberty.

And our First Amendment has been quoted numerous times tonight. The beginning of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of

religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

These truly sacred documents, documents that we live by, at least we should, documents that we can carry and quote from, are under serious attack today. These documents of liberty, liberty, not just for organizations but for individuals, not just for churches, but for parishioners who have businesses, who are body shop owners, who are lawyers, who are doctors and have employees that they want to care for.

We have today a Justice of the Supreme Court who recommends to a country looking for a constitution to write, not America's Constitution, but constitutions of other countries. Unbelievable.

And attorneys, labor attorneys pooh-poohing the opposition to attacks on our own Constitution as constitutional niceties. This is not America that we understand.

And now the attack on the constitutional right of religious conscience, the foundational liberty upon which this great land was birthed, our churches and our individuals.

We would do well to listen, Mr. Speaker, to the warnings of our Framers and Founders.

And with this I close: Jonathan Witherspoon, a minister who signed the Declaration of Independence said:

A republic once equally poised must either preserve its

virtue or lose its liberty.

John Adams followed by saying:

Liberty lost once is liberty lost forever.

We would do well also to take the heed of enemy voices who desire the destruction of America and its liberty, lest we unwittingly follow and fall into their advice, advice such as this that was said:

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is

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

If we undermine these three areas, America will collapse from

within.

Joseph Stalin.

May God grant us, Mr. Speaker, wisdom so that our President, this Congress, and all of America will never let these words be a prophecy fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago during a district work period, I had the privilege to catch up with many of my constituents back in Michigan's Seventh District.

Business owners graciously invited me into their facilities eager to talk about the economic climate as well as what can be done to promote growth. These conversations continued in coffeehouses and town halls across the district where citizens packed into rooms eager to exchange their ideas, triumphs, and concerns with me.

But whether I was being given a tour by the owner of a manufacturing plant or having a cup of coffee with an engineer, a similar theme kept cropping up: People are worried about excessive, Big Government regulations, in particular how they impose unreasonable costs on businesses, create uncertainty and, in turn, affect job growth.

This time, many of my constituents expressed outrage over a new youth agricultural labor rule program. The Department of Labor proposed regulations to restrict the types of activities young people can participate in. While the rule includes an exemption of children on nonincorporated farms owned by their parents, it could prevent kids from working on incorporated farms owned by their parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, and close neighbors.

Even on such extended family farms, children under the age of 16 may be banned from working with animals or in specified farm situations while those under the age of 18 would be prohibited from any job ``involving farm product raw materials.'' That could come to mean any job involving grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges, and livestock auctions. If carried any further, the rule may end up barring kids from selling animals at their local 4-H fairs. This is nanny statism to the absurd.

My kids were all in 4-H, and some of the best memories we have together are these events. It was always a positive experience for my sons and daughter as well as every other child I know who got involved. Besides the life lessons learned--responsibility, hard work, and self- sufficiency--children often use the money from the sale of their animals for their college funds. This rule would not only hurt their ability to find a job now but also hurt their future.

In addition to participating in 4-H fairs, my kids also worked on farms where they were asked to drive tractors and run other farm machinery, all under the age of 16. The worst mishaps one of my kids ever had was running over a neighbor's mailbox with his duallies. But even through that experience, he learned responsibility. He not only had to pay for a new one out of his own pocket, but to replace it himself.

Farmers depend upon young people to take on these extra jobs so they can focus on the bigger picture. Parents depend upon their children to work on the family farm, not only to help out but instill a love of farming at a young age to keep their family farm going.

Lastly, young people, themselves, depend on these jobs as a source of income and a way to pay for college. There are often fewer job opportunities in rural areas, and if we impose more rules about what jobs young people can take, what have we gained?

I'll always stand behind regulations that genuinely protect the workers, especially when those workers are children. But when government bureaucrats are regulating in what capacity a young person can work on a farm, then it's clear they've overstepped their boundaries. It's time to fix the flawed and broken regulatory system that allows such rules to slip through the cracks.

Mr. Speaker, related, it's also the time to push back on Big Government's attack on our freedom to choose and our constitutional liberties. The recent assault on our religious rights of conscience and the separation of powers by this administration must be defeated. Kids on the farm and in the city deserve the rich future that our Constitution and Americans' exceptionalism can provide. This will then be a Nation that God can truly continue to bless.

I thank the gentleman for his courage in standing on this issue of life. It's an important issue. And tonight, we will have the privilege of hearing from lawyers and doctors and business people who all hold the same position, the position held with the framers and founders of this great country when they began in writing the greatest document man has ever written, I believe, the Declaration of Independence, that said many things, but this tonight comes in very important to us when they said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are

created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable rights, among them, the right to life, liberty,

and the pursuit of happiness.

They understood in their wise minds as they deliberated together and as they contemplated doing something that had not been done in this world before, they sought their Creator for wisdom, and they understood truths that were unique and special and truths that were blessed ultimately by their Creator.

And so tonight, I don't want to speak to you from a medical perspective or from a legal perspective, but I want to speak from a perspective that really we give credence to when we look above the Speaker's rostrum and we see our motto for this great Nation: In God we trust. What does he think about what went on today? What does he think of what went on 39 years ago?

Well, the Psalmist said in the word of God that was left for us to understand and our framers and founders read, meditated upon, deliberated over, and came up with something great for this life and this country, they read words such as this. The Psalmist in Psalm 127 said:

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, the fruit of the

womb is a reward.

The prophet Jeremiah heard from God himself who said to Jeremiah:

Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you

were born I set you apart.

Unique. Not a product of conception, a product of God's planning and gift.

And then in that beautiful Psalm, Psalm 139:

For You formed my inward parts; you wove me in my mother's

womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and

wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows

it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was

made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the

earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your

book were all written The days that were ordained for me,

when as yet there was not one of them.

In God we trust. He designed us. He designed a purpose for all life, Mr. Speaker. We as humans run amuck of His plan, His wisdom, if we decide what is good, what is right, what is acceptable as opposed to saying: God, thank You for the gift.

I'm a father of three gifts; I'm a grandfather of four, one in heaven that I look forward to seeing again some day after he fought and lived for 8 days on this Earth. I'm a grandfather of two others who are on the ground who I enjoy to the fullest, and a grandfather of one who is in the womb at this very time growing into what God intends him to be. And in a little over a month, I look forward to meeting and greeting that new creation, gift of God, formed uniquely in the womb.

We can think of medical practices and terms, and those are good. We can have arguments from law and Constitution, and those are good and decent. But I take the words of God, the Creator himself, and find great sustenance in my belief that life is the greatest gift that God has given. And the Savior that He gave who was born of a woman in a womb, not aborted, said:

I am come that you might have life, and life abundantly.

We would do well in this great country to say ``Amen'' to that issue and to support life in all its forms.

Mr. Speaker, when the 112th Congress was sworn in on January 5, 2011, I, along with many of my fellow Republicans, voted to change the status quo.

Instead of escalating spending, we have made and pushed for significant spending cuts. Instead of forcing a trillion dollar government takeover of health care on the American people, we voted to repeal it in the House. Instead of imposing costly and burdensome regulations on an already struggling business economy, we passed legislation to reverse overly burdensome regulations so businesses can get back to hiring again.

These are the vows we made to our constituents when we took office a year ago. And despite hitting numerous snags in the do-nothing Senate and with leadership lacking in the White House, we delivered on the promises.

In the past year, the House has passed 27 job-creating measures as part of our plan for American job creators. We have remained committed to removing the onerous taxes and regulations that are crippling small business and our families and are the cause for so much distrust of Washington. We have begun an honest conversation about which programs are in alignment with our constitutional principles and which programs are wasteful and inefficient.

We have the responsibility to make the Federal Government live within its means, just like hardworking families across the country. This means we have to cut spending, stop raising taxes, and eliminate wasteful spending from our outdated, overreaching government programs.

When we took office last January, we vowed to reduce discretionary spending to 2008 levels, and we delivered. The House passed a bill to reduce spending by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years. We also voted to cut over 100 programs across government and save billions of dollars in the process. In May, the House also overwhelmingly voted against giving President Obama a blank check to increase the debt limit without spending reductions or reforms.

We have relentlessly fought for policies that will encourage job creation and free our families from the burdensome economic problems of government regulation. We acted to undo duplicative permitting requirements for farmers by passing the Reduced Regulatory Burdens Act. We pushed back against the President's attempts to implement a cap-and- trade policy--an energy reduction policy, really--through the regulatory process by passing the Energy Tax Prevention Act. And we confronted the EPA's costly and burdensome agenda by passing three regulatory reform bills that safeguard our environment while keeping Americans at work.

On November 16, we defeated the 3 percent withholding rule by passing H.R. 674. This misguided tax rule would have required government agencies at all levels to withhold 3 percent of their payments to businesses for goods and services. Any small business that contracts with the government would have their profit margins wiped out if such a rule were allowed to take effect.

We passed the REINS Act, to bring accountability to the executive branch by requiring that government bureaucrats receive permission from Congress, the elected representatives of the people, before the implementation of any major regulation.

Just 2 weeks after beginning our work in Congress, the House voted to repeal the overreaching, costly, and harmful government takeover of health care that President Obama forced upon the American people. H.R. 2 was one of my first votes after being sworn in. The bill cut new spending by $1.4 trillion over 10 years and repealed the President's health care takeover, and I was proud to vote to repeal this job- killing law which will do nothing to bring stability and certainty to American families.

Throughout the first session of the 112th Congress, House Republicans have remained committed to changing the way the government does business. We've delivered on our promises to pass legislation that reins in spending and encourages job creation. Going forward, I'm hopeful that our friends in the Senate and the leadership in the White House will finally be ready to join us in passing legislation that the American people want and not let dozens of job-producing bills sit idle in the Senate.

This year, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House as we look beyond the next election and focus on improving people's lives and creating a brighter economic future with the freedom God really intended for all of us.