Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 504, and as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I rise to offer en bloc No. 5 as part of the consideration of division D of H.R. 3354. The list of amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

From the beginning here, let me just thank the ranking member, Mr. Quigley, for his good work over the last several months as we have worked together as a team to try to come up with a product that everyone would be pleased with, and also Mrs. Lowey, the ranking member, as well.

But I have to give credit to our leadership. They have decided to go big this year. They have had faith in Chairman Frelinghuysen and our committee members just to get the job done. By the end of this week, this House will be the first Republican majority since 2004 to pass all 12 appropriations bills on time.

Now, this bill is certainly true to its name and it is also true to our principles. We make America safe by funding our military and securing our borders. We are making America prosperous by restoring financial freedom so all Americans can earn a living and achieve their own dreams.

Now I will say something obvious, Mr. Chairman. America entrusted our party with the White House and both Houses of Congress in this last election. Take a look at this package. These are policies that we have been elected to pass. This is the U.S. House saying: We hear you, and we are with you, and we are going to get the job done.

So I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and the subcommittee chairs--all have worked hard over the last several months--and their committee staff for going big and getting this package to the floor as we finish it up here this evening.

It is also important to thank my subcommittee and their personal staff as well. I want to thank them for the many hours of work, the weekends, the late nights and the holidays that have

brought us to this moment. I want to thank our clerk, Dena Baron; and Marybeth and Ariana; Brad Allen, who is in our Financial Services Office; and until a few days ago, when a great opportunity took her away from us, Kelly Hitchcock, who has been in our office as well.

And then, of course, my personal office, we have John Donnelly, Jason Murphy, and Sam Mahler, who have worked very diligently, Mr. Chairman, to bring us to this point on this evening.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), who has worked hard on this amendment and has a portion of the amendment he would like to discuss.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), who has been leading the fight against opioid and drug abuse.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) for his

fierce support and defense of our First Amendment rights and religious freedoms. Faith-based and pro-life organizations should be free to serve according to their deeply held beliefs. So the vote on this amendment today is one on which you should be voting ``yes'' for the First Amendment and ``yes'' for religious freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for Ms. Norton, and I appreciate her passion and zeal for the District. She advocates well for them.

I hear my friends across the aisle speak about disregard for local law. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, this is truly not the case.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the seat of government of the United States, which is the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia is neither a State nor a municipality; in fact, it is a District. Therefore, D.C. derives all of its powers not from the sovereignty of statehood but from the delegation that is given to them by Congress.

By the way, the Home Rule Act in 1973 has allowed D.C. to assume more and more responsibility over time.

This bill before you continues to appropriate D.C. funds, as it has for the last 44 years. That is 44 years of Republican majorities and Democratic majorities. This changes nothing from that. It was under various administrations as well.

This bill does not change the special and unique relationship between D.C. and the Federal Government, because the D.C. Budget Autonomy Act did not change that special, unique relationship between the District and the Federal Government whatsoever.

The D.C. Budget Autonomy Act only amended the Home Rule Act as adopted by the D.C. Code. So no State, county, city, or hybrid like the District of Columbia can override the supremacy of the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, as we debate this each and every time, let me assure the body here that the District of Columbia has plenty of autonomy, but when it comes to spending, that is the role of Congress as given to us through the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work here by the gentleman making a great case on why this amendment is harmful to the American people and to the financial prosperity, and so I join them in my opposition, and their opposition as well, to this amendment and urge the House to defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Barr for his work on this. I mean, the language that the author of this amendment is trying to strip is actually language that improves the quality and affordability of housing for millions of Americans. So I appreciate Mr. Barr for trying to save Americans from the limited access to resources out there.

Unfortunately, new regulations by the CFPB have limited access to financing options for manufacturing homes as well as many other things.

And, as a result, many lenders now today are no longer able to offer small balance loans, which are often used for the purchase of affordable housing, such as manufactured housing. We should be supporting and encouraging more access to financing. After all, we are talking about the American Dream, the ownership of your home. Don't take that away.

I thank the gentleman for his work, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I join this team here in opposition to the amendment.

I want us just to think about what we have heard over the last several minutes of debate here of various amendments.

First, we heard an amendment offered to take away the American Dream so that consumers couldn't buy a home at an affordable cost. Next, we are hearing that the other side of the aisle wants to take away the ability of small loans from individuals and consumers across the country. But even prior to that, they did not want the very agency that is causing this damage to have any oversight by Congress. This is maddening. This is amazing.

I appreciate the good work that has been done by the Financial Services Committee. I am glad we have been able to incorporate a lot of the great work into this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I join these gentlemen in opposition to the amendment because this is about making America prosperous again, and that is what this bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Quigley and our team have worked hard on this bill, and there are a lot of tough decisions, no doubt about that. We have made some tremendously difficult decisions.

I know Mr. Mitchell was sitting here with a mission from his constituency, and that was to produce savings, to find savings and to reduce the debt and the deficit. Mr. Chairman, I applaud his efforts. I know he has sharpened his pencil and he has done a lot of work, and I appreciate him bringing this concept before the House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's thoughts and advocacy for communities and developing them, and certainly our thoughts and prayers go to her and her constituencies that have been impacted through the recent hurricanes, as we do with Florida and the other Southeastern States.

This is just one of those tough decisions that there are only limited resources that we had to work with, so we had to make some tough decisions. In fact, there are many areas in this bill that I wish we could provide additional resources for.

But I am glad that we could take this from what was given to us originally, as zeroed out by the President in his recommendation, and we were able to begin backfilling it for these needed loans for communities to allow for some of the development to occur and small businesses to be able to thrive.

So I know that, working with Ranking Member Quigley, we did what we could, and we both wish we could have done more. And I know, as we move forward through the process, we will continue looking at this.

But, again, let me close by saying that I certainly understand the gentlewoman's thoughts on this, and I know that all of the committee supports her sentiment in this case. But because of the reasons I stated, the limited resources, and the tough decisions we had to make, I have to oppose this amendment and urge everyone to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will close with this. The gentlewoman won't be the first to ever be disappointed in my response, I can assure you that.

But let me just point out for the House here, she is asking for a half-a-million-dollar increase in this fund when, in fact, we increased it by $176 million over the President's request. So I think that is moving far away from where we started, and to a better spot. And while I wish we could provide a little bit more, we can't.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, it is anti-coal policies such as this that result in a market loss for American coal and clean coal technology and cut off, really, quite frankly, an affordable, reliable source of energy that is critical to economic development in struggling regions of the world.

This section 133 does not mandate coal-fired generation for U.S.- funded international development projects. It

just simply ensures that coal can continue to be a part of our country's longstanding energy strategy.

Abandoning support for fossil fuels hurts American jobs, and it slows American innovation.

It is for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as we come to the last amendment on the last bill of this appropriations season, I was hoping we could end it on a positive note. Unfortunately, I have to oppose this amendment. I respect the gentlewoman's thoughts on this. It is a compelling story that she shared with us, and a lot of families have been impacted by identity theft. It is certainly something that concerns me and our entire committee.

We have worked through this. In fact, in May of this year, I held an oversight hearing and questioned top officials about this and their efforts to reduce identity theft. Additionally, the Financial Services bill that we are speaking of here includes targeted funds to combat identity theft as well as additional reporting requirements to monitor the IRS's progress in this area.

In fact, overall identity theft referrals from the Taxpayer Advocate are down. They are down right now. It is not perfect. They are not at zero, but they are moving in the right direction, as are inventory receipts in the IRS Identity Theft Victim Assistance office.

Our committee--myself, along with Mr. Quigley and the entire committee--have had to make a lot of tough funding choices throughout this season. It has not been easy. There are a lot of very worthy programs that we wish we can fund more. Unfortunately, we just can't do all that has been requested by all the Members who have a lot of great and creative ideas to help taxpayers and our constituents.

But in this case with this line item, we didn't cut anything. In fact, it has been flat-funded. It is at the same level that was funded last year, and that comes in a portion of our appropriations budget here that we are talking about. It is being cut, on average, 6-plus percent overall. This one line item, though, remains static, and that should speak a lot to our committee and their work to find ways in which to provide additional resources to combat identity theft.

Mr. Chairman, as we wrap this up, I want to thank you and everyone else for their patience today over the last many weeks. I thank the Committee on Appropriations Chairman Frelinghuysen and all the great work by the House of Representatives as we wrap up this final amendment with my opposition to the amendment. I urge the House to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for his support and his team for bringing us to this point today and this week to do what many thought couldn't be done, and that is, getting all 12 of our appropriation bills done in a timely fashion.

But today it is a privilege for me to present the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, and this wouldn't be possible without Ranking Member Quigley's effort and his team, and I appreciate their work as we have been through many months of effort together.

But I believe this is the prosperous part of the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, and I will explain why that is. Because this bill includes many of the reforms that were found in the CHOICE Act, which we passed earlier this spring in the House, which eliminated many of the harmful Dodd-Frank regulations, streamlining outdated agency processes, and reining in those rogue agencies that we have heard so much about, while allowing the economy and the markets to begin working for American families. And we will also restore the financial freedoms that help Americans earn a living and achieve their American Dream, of which we have all been hearing about over these last weeks in August.

But this bill also invests in small businesses. It invests in the small businesses through the SBA by $1 billion, nearly $1 billion of new investment to the Small Business Administration, with significant funding for small business loans and particularly to those veterans of ours who are out there working hard and starting their own businesses.

But this bill also carries the entire Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act, which passed this House earlier this year, as well, on a bipartisan vote.

But IRS funding, again, is kept at a 2009 level, actually a little bit below that, but allowing targeted investments in consumer service and cybersecurity. But this bill maintains our commitment to the IRS oversight that we have been working on so hard over the last couple of years by prohibiting the harmful regulations that we have seen from them that have impacted our 501(c)(4) organizations.

It prohibits them targeting these groups based on their political beliefs or their exercising of their First Amendment rights, but it also allows for many of the other protections for taxpayers that we have been longing to do.

To combat the opioid crisis, we include more than $360 million to aid Federal drug control programs like drug courts and drug free communities.

But it is also important to note that we carry the pro-life provisions that have been a pattern and a custom and a privilege that this House has done for so many years over the past, but we have added to that. We have expanded it by including the Harris amendment that prohibits funding from being provided through multi-State plans that cover abortion, and we also included a provision that repeals the District of Columbia's assisted suicide measure.

Now, this bill comes in at about $20 billion, and that is a big number. But let me point out that is over 6 percent less. That is a 6 percent cut just from last year, so we are making a difference.

Now, when crafting this bill, I took my direction straight from the Members of this House, Republican and Democrat. This is a result of your interests, interests of your constituents included in this in a bipartisan fashion with a bipartisan vote out of committee.

Now, many tough decisions were made.

Mr. Chairman, now, many tough decisions have been made across all these bills, but this one as well, with a strong focus on

financial freedom for all Americans. Now, I believe this bill will make America prosperous again.

So I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen, all the subcommittee chairs, the full committee staff, the minority staff, and ranking members. This whole team has been great to work with, but it is important to thank my subcommittee. They have been through a lot of hard work with me, Mr. Chairman, and they have done a great job working with me and the many hours of hard work and weekends that they put in.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge every Member to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my joy today to be able to introduce the newest voice of the Georgia delegation, Congresswoman Karen Handel.

I have known Karen for many years. She is a self-made woman with a very humble start, but a successful story. She and her husband, Steve, have a track record of service that is above none other. She has fought hard for the things that she believes in, much like us: balanced budgets, better jobs, and defending innocent lives. I know she will bring those same qualities that have made her such a great servant and leader here to Congress today.

Now, if I know anything about Karen, she is going to hit the ground running. So get ready.

I am also glad to be able to join with Congressman Lewis and to share with you that Karen is making history tonight as being the first Republican Congresswoman to serve in either the House or the Senate from the State of Georgia. This is a proud moment for our State.

So, Karen, you are an inspiration. You are an inspiration to all the young women throughout Georgia and throughout the country, including my two daughters.

I am pleased to welcome and to introduce to you Georgia's newest voice, a fighter for the State of Georgia, Congresswoman Karen Handel.

Mr. Speaker, I could not be more excited to be here tonight and to experience what we are experiencing here.

You know, when this President was elected, he made a promise: He was going to drain the swamp, he was going to shake things up, and he was going to make government work again.

I have got to highlight real quickly though, before I talk about appropriations, what really has happened. Here in the last--in this under 5 months, 600,000 new jobs have been created. Unemployment is at the lowest it has been in nearly a decade, at 4.3 percent. He has put a plan forth to help rescue Americans from a healthcare plan that has been failing.

The largest increase in defense spending in nearly 10 years has already been passed and signed into law and is part of your display there.

He has presented a budget to this Congress that balances in 10 years, rebuilds our military, reforms our Tax Code, and empowers the taxpayers, while not empowering government.

And he has also put the American people and the American workers and American businesses first by pulling us out of that Paris accord. He has been shaking things up and draining the swamp.

So what is next? For us, it is, we have got to reform this appropriations process.

Let me read you some statistics here. The current process that we operate under to fund the greatest Nation on the globe has only worked four times in the last 40 years. The last time we passed all 12 appropriations bills that were enacted by the start of the new fiscal year was in 1996 is the last time.

And, in fact, a more stunning statistic: Since 2009, not one appropriations bill has passed this House, passed the Senate, and been signed into law by the President before its time was due. That is zero for 96.

So I have just got a simple idea, a simple concept. Let's just change what is not working. Let's change the process. Let's design a process that actually works for the American people and funds the government in a very responsible, fiscally responsible way that begins streamlining government; that is eliminating agencies; that is empowering the American people; and, ultimately, showing a responsible House of Representatives and a Republican vision forward.

And it is real simple. Let's run it through the committee. Let's do 12 bills, all through their different subcommittees. Let's combine them in full committee, and let's bring them to the House floor for everybody to have an opportunity to vote on, to amend, to engage in the debate.

I believe, if we do this, we are going to save time. We are going to have more time for tax reform. We are going to have more time for infrastructure investment. We are going to have more time for finishing out the healthcare bill. But it is going to be transparent. Everyone can see it. It is going to be effective. We are going to get it done.

At the end of the day, we are going to be able to rebuild our military to where we know it needs to be. We are going to be able to secure our border. We are going to protect the innocent unborn. We are going to reform Wall Street. We are going to invest in roads and infrastructure. We are going to streamline or eliminate a lot of agencies, and we are going to do all that while cutting spending. But that is only if we are willing to make government work again.

Mr. Speaker, in 1964 Steve Penley was born into a family of musicians in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The family soon moved to Athens, Georgia and then Macon, Georgia where Penley attended First Presbyterian Day School. Following high school, he studied at The School of Visual Arts in New York and at The University of Georgia.

After college, Penley was working odd jobs while painting when his talent was recognized by an attorney and art enthusiast, Robert Steed. Penley quickly gained recognition for his bold brush strokes, vivid colors and historical icon paintings.

Penley is now one of America's most celebrated artists with works exhibited across the globe. He has created multiple projects for Fox News, major companies such as Coca-Cola, AirTran/Southwest, Kaiser Permanente, as well as several U.S. Presidents and foreign heads of state. His work can even be found in the U.S. Capitol, where it's displayed on loan for visitors from across the country to enjoy.

Penley's paintings represent the very best of America and serve as a reminder of the leaders and institutions that make our country great.

In addition to his paintings, Penley has authored and illustrated several books, including books written by legendary University of Georgia football Coach Vince Dooley. He has also donated countless paintings to charities and organizations in his community and state, as well as across the nation. He is particularly honored to be involved with numerous organizations that benefit our active-duty servicemembers and our veterans.

Despite all of his professional accomplishments, Penley is proudest of his role as a father of three very talented artists and musicians: Lyall, Abbey and Parker.

Steve Penley is a legendary artist and a great American

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a few quotes. First:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend

deportations through executive order, that's just not the

case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has

passed.

Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to

enforce and implement those laws.

The problem is that I'm the President of the United States,

I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to

execute laws that are passed.

I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the

laws in Congress.

I am President. I am not king. I can't do these things just

by myself.

I'm not a king. You know, my job as the head of the

executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.

I'm bound by the Constitution; I'm bound by separation of

powers. There are some things we can't do.

Congress has the power of the purse, for example.

These are the words and the statements of the President of the United States. And words matter. But, even after the President said all of this in a politically motivated action last November, he pursued a course that could allow up to 5 million undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States illegally and without consequence.

Like my constituents, I am outraged. President Obama defied the will expressed by the American people last November and blatantly contradicted his own statements about the limits of the executive branch.

Now, let's be clear, lest others confuse this issue today. This is not a debate about immigration. That will come later. But this is about the rule of law. This is about the constitutional separation of powers. This is about the respect we owe the American people.

In this appropriations bill, we are exercising the power of the purse and we are taking a strong, narrow approach that will, first and foremost, provide security to our homeland and, secondly, deny any funds whatsoever from being used to carry out the President's unwise and, in my opinion, unconstitutional actions.

Now, I have to say, the President was right about a couple of things. He is not an emperor, and he is surely not a king. House Republicans are united in making sure that he doesn't get away with acting like one either. And yet before the debate even begins, last night the President has already issued threats. He is threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security because this bill prevents him from implementing his own ideology.

But make no mistake: a veto threat is a threat to our national security; a veto threat is an open invitation to our enemies. In the wake of the horrific terrorist attack this week in France, is the President really willing to compromise the safety of 320 million Americans to appease his base and score political points? God help us if that is the case.

Today, it is up to us in the House. Let us vote to defend the constitutional role of this legislature, let us vote to stop the President's blatant overreach, and let us vote to secure our homeland.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the city of Aragon. Lying in the Coosa Valley of Northwest Georgia, in Polk County, Aragon was founded in 1899 as a mill site. The city of Aragon is a small, but hard working group of families who are proud of their heritage.

Whether it was named for the Hotel Aragon located on Peachtree Street in Atlanta, Georgia, where some of the Mill owners stayed when visiting the area, or whether it was named for the mineral aragonite that was mined nearby, the city of Aragon has been home to many dedicated men and women for over 115 years, even as the town has changed.

In recent years, even in the aftermath of the mill's destruction by fire in 2002, the people of Aragon have committed to remaining a city. It is with this commitment that they commemorate July 23, 2014, as the 100th anniversary of their city charter being adopted, and then approved by Georgia's 60th Governor, John Slaton.

One hundred years later, Aragon's future shines brightly. This is not a city resting on its laurels after tragedy, but a city ready to meet tomorrow's challenges head on, remaining true to its motto ``A Proud Past With A Promising Future''.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 339 and 340, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Linda Lunsford, a lifelong resident of Murray County, Georgia.

Ms. Lunsford has been a dedicated teacher to the students of Murray County, helping to enrich the lives of the young people both inside and outside of her classroom.

It was in 1968 that Ms. Lunsford returned to Murray County High School as an English teacher. Over those next 30 years, and for many years after her retirement in 1998, she devoted herself to teaching young Georgians, helping them value their education and succeed in life.

During her teaching career, she served as a drama sponsor, scholars bowl sponsor, yearbook advisor, cheerleading sponsor, newspaper advisor, and much, much more.

Ms. Lunsford has made such an impact on her community that Murray County is declaring October 5, 2013, the first Linda Lunsford Day.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 14th Congressional District of Georgia, I join in celebrating October 5 as Linda Lunsford Day and thank her for her many contributions to our community in Georgia.

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

Mr. Chairman, I bring amendment No. 7 to the consideration of the House here as we debate this very important issue.

When I think about the issue that's before us--I know there are a lot of good Members on both sides of it, for and against, and there's going to be a lot great debate about whether or not this bill should move forward in any fashion or another.

There's one particular portion that I really wanted to discuss today, and it deals with the incentives and the benefits that go to corn producers for the production of corn that goes to ethanol. To me, I don't believe that is something that should be provided to these producers whatsoever, these incentives or benefits.

In fact, when the bill was originally crafted many years ago back in 1933, I have to ask: Did the original architects of the farm bill ever imagine that what they were creating at that time would go to benefit the producers of corn that would go to fuel and not food?

So my amendment is rather simple. It just eliminates the opportunity for any producer to benefit from producing corn that would go to fuel. Instead, it focuses back on what the original intent of the legislation was, and that was to exclusively be for food production or feed production.

So as we debate this bill, folks are going to be on all different sides of all these amendments. I think it's really important to get back to the original intent. If you're going to support the bill, get back to the original intent of what was intended back in 1933 and the years since then.

But let me just remind the House of why this is so important. Estimates tell us that more than one-third of all our corn in the United States is used for feed livestock; another 13 percent is exported, mostly for feed livestock; but another 40 percent of all corn produced in this Nation is for ethanol. And of all of that, nearly half of all corn in our Nation that is produced, those producers receive those same benefits that those that were intending to create corn for food and feed would benefit from, as well.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is rather simple. I would urge the House's consideration of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the chairman. I thank you for your good work on this. I know we've all had a lot of discussions, and I'll take you for your word that we can continue this conversation, because I think it's a very important topic.

With your intent that I know to be true, that we can continue this, I would be willing to withdraw the amendment and continue the debate at a further time.

Mr. Chairman, my intention would be to withdraw the amendment. But let me just close with this and say that, as we debate the various policies within this bill, it is very important to note that there are areas such as this in which I hear the other side talk about the importance of food being provided for our citizens all across the country. I don't disagree with them at all. I think that's very important.

So, therefore, why would we, as a House, stand to incentivize those who are producing nearly half of the corn that could be going to the food supply of our great Nation, but incentivize half the corn, almost, in our Nation rather for fuel instead of food?

I look forward to continuing this debate, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and withdraw my amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to say it is time to pull ObamaCare out root by root. We all know that it increases premiums and squeezes the family budget. We know that it does not let you keep the plan that you have today. We all know that ObamaCare is crushing jobs and forcing many parents who have full-time jobs today into tomorrow's part-time jobs.

And now we have some new information as we prepare to vote. The chief enforcers of this law, the IRS, have been outed as partisan political operatives. They've harassed, bullied, and suppressed the political opponents of the Obama administration. And now they want to be in charge of our health care? Give me a break. I don't think so.

Members, this is your chance. This is your chance to weigh in on the IRS scandal. A vote to repeal is a vote to stop the IRS, but voting to keep ObamaCare is a vote to empower the IRS as the health care police of the United States. The choice is easy. Vote to take power away from the IRS, not to give them more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the IRS for targeting Americans because of their political beliefs. What is clear is that the IRS has violated the public trust in a serious and disturbing way. It's sickening to learn that the IRS not only targeted Tea Party conservative groups but also groups that criticized the government or even taught the United States Constitution.

The United States is a beacon of hope and freedom for the oppressed all across the world, but the coordinated suppression of President Obama's political opponents undermines who we are and what we stand for.

Mr. Speaker, who gave the orders to target Americans who disagree with this administration? Who gave the orders? The American people deserve to know, and our Republic depends on us finding out that answer.

I represent a lot of Georgians who are sick and tired of the IRS targeting them. It is time for this House, the people's House, to instead now target the IRS. We must find the full truth and we cannot stop until we have full accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a great American, a dedicated small business owner in the North Georgia town of Ellijay. Who is often spotted with a yellow suit, an American flag tie, and tophat.

He is a true advocate for low taxes and less government, and is always sure to voice his opinions about candidates for political office.

Col. Poole and his lovely wife Edna founded Poole's Bar-B-Q . . . known in some circles as the ``TAJ-MA-HOG''. . . which rests in the shadow of the ``Pig-Hill-of-Fame'' adorned with plywood cutout hogs with patron's names painted on them.

In order to qualify for a pig on the hill, he has stated that all you need is, ``an honest face, good intentions, and five dollars.''

Next Monday, April 29, this fine patriot will turn 83 years old--so today I wanted to take a minute to say--``Oscar, from all the way in Washington, DC--I want to wish you a very happy birthday!''

Mr. Speaker, we're here today to head off at the pass President Obama's and the administration's attempt to gut the welfare reform work requirements. Americans don't want something for nothing. Americans want to work. Why? Because it's the American way.

But this issue is bigger than welfare. It's a skirmish in a war over America's future, the direction we're going in.

Now, under this President's watch just here in the last, what, 3\1/2\ years, the number of able-bodied adults receiving food stamps has doubled. The Federal debt is up by $5 trillion, spending on welfare up 41 percent. More debt and greater dependency. It's the wrong vision for America.

Now, what's happened here in the last several years--I guess the last 3 years--is opportunity has diminished.

There's a clear choice right now, Mr. Speaker. It's a choice between two futures. We can continue down this path of debt and dependency, or we can choose a different path, and that's one of opportunity and prosperity. So I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill forward because the choice before America is very clear, and we choose opportunity and prosperity for every American.