Vicky Hartzler

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Ann. That was great. It really goes back to people like George. The individuals are having their liberties violated, and it is wrong. It is just chilling what he said: Are we going to allow this government to discriminate against citizens of faith? We don't want that to happen. Thank you for your comments. Now we turn to someone who knows personally one of these families who started their business in a garage, followed the American Dream, succeeded, provided jobs, and now that is in jeopardy. I turn to Representative James Lankford from Oklahoma to give us your insights in this moment of history.

Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank Representative Bachmann. Very well said. I thank God for Members here as well who are standing up for religious freedoms. I thought she said it so well: Is toleration going to be a two-way street, or are we going to allow this government to impose its will, its morals on the rest of us? Thank you for sharing. Now I turn to my fellow friend from Missouri, Representative Ann Wagner, and look forward to hearing what she has to say.

Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank Representative Bentivolio. Well said. Foundational principle: religious liberty. I thank you very much for that. Now I turn to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) to share her thoughts on this historic moment.

Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank Representative Latta, and you brought up a great point, of how employees can lose coverage. They have health insurance now, these two families are offering it, but an option they have is to drop coverage completely. How is that helpful to these hardworking Americans who work there? Now I would like to turn to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to share the tale of two garages: the American Dream and the threat to that American Dream. The first garage is down in Oklahoma, and it is owned by David and his wife Barbara. In 1972, David and Barbara borrowed $600, and they began making picture frames in their garage. They had a dream. They said, you know: People might want to buy premade frames. There are pictures all the time that people take, and we could do that. So they enlisted their two sons, Steve and Mart, and they began building those picture frames. And then they opened up a retail location--actually, it was 300 square feet in size--and they started selling those picture frames, and it was very, very successful. And now, their dream has just blossomed into 556 stores in 41 States, and 70 more are scheduled to open this year. They have now what started out in the garage with just David and Barbara and their two sons, they have 16,000 full-time employees. And we all know that store. I am sure many of us have been there. It is called Hobby Lobby. We love it. It has expanded now not just to picture frames, but all kinds of art and decorating supplies. And their headquarters is actually located just down the street from that garage in Oklahoma City. The other garage is over in Pennsylvania, and it is owned by Norman and Elizabeth Hahn. They have three sons: Norman, Anthony, and Kevin. And in 1964, about 40 years ago, they, too, had a dream, and they started in their garage making high-quality doors and wood components for kitchen cabinets. You know, they said: We can do this, so let's do it. So they started working hard and expanding. And from their modest beginnings in just a small garage in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, they have now grown to be one of the industry leaders in wholesale wood products for kitchen cabinets. They have five facilities located in the United States in three States--Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Washington--and what started out with five family members, they now have 950 full-time employees. It is truly an encouraging sign that the American Dream is alive and well. And something else these two garages and these two families--David and Barbara Green as well as Norman and Elizabeth Hahn--have in common is that they care for not only their customers and having a high- quality product, but they also care about their employees. They both have provided a lot of high-quality benefits to their employees, paying them well, and also providing health care for years, as well as other benefits. But I am sad to say both of these businesses and both of these families are in trouble, and these businesses are in jeopardy of having to close--not because of the economy. Like I said, Hobby Lobby is actually planning to open 70 more stores. There is a need. People want their products. It is not because of any other reason other than, sadly, the government. The government is threatening these American businesses, what we need more of. They are providing good jobs and are providing health care. They are in jeopardy of closing because our government and our Representatives, a few years ago, passed the President's health care takeover law. And part of that was a mandate that said, if you provide health insurance for your employees, you have to include abortion- inducing drugs. It doesn't matter that you already had a good policy that your employees like; you have to do that. And if you don't, you are going to be fined not just a little bit, but a lot. I have a poster here I want to show you that shows the injustice of this mandate. You have two numbers here: $36,500; $2,000. Here is the situation for these two families: The ObamaCare law says that if you don't provide health care for your employees, we are going to fine you $2,000 an employee; but if you do provide health insurance for your employees but just don't include the abortion-inducing drugs, then we are going to fine you $36,500. Where is the justice in that? Where is the common sense? I am from Missouri, and we are the Show Me State. Show me how this makes any sense at all. This is the situation that faces the Hahn family and the Green family. They are providing their health insurance coverage. They are conscientious. Due to their beliefs, they believe that all life is valuable, and they don't want to be complicit in paying for potentially life- ending drugs. And because of that, our government is going to fine them this amount of money, $36,500 per employee, which, sadly, could put both businesses out of work. We would have tens of thousands of people across this country out of work just because of this government takeover of health care. It is wrong. We have a long-standing tradition in this country of following something in here. It is in the Constitution. It is an amazing little document that our Founders started. But you know the very first amendment to the Constitution establishing our rights is that it lays out the importance of religious liberty. It says: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Our country has always upheld religious freedom and the right to exercise and live according to your beliefs. There are examples everywhere where we have done this before up until this point. Employees have been able to take off on Sundays or religious holidays. That has been respected. Crosses and other religious symbols have been respected. Certain special activity restrictions, like kosher foods, have been honored. Not working certain days, Sabbaths, have been honored. There is even a religious conscientious objector provision, where we have honored people's religious beliefs regarding military service. Always our country has upheld the Constitution first and held that sacred that it is our religious right to live free. You had the Pilgrims come to this country. Why? So they could have religious freedom. It is the foundation our country has been built on. And yet it is being jeopardized, trampled on, and attacked by the Affordable Care Act. Now, tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear the case of these two American families and see if they can be forced by their government to go against their religious moral objections. This is a historic moment. It is one that will have ramifications forever in our country. What do we stand for? What will we allow our government to do and inflict on our lives? My colleagues and I are here tonight to share the concerns we have as we stand up for the people that we represent and for what our Founders started this country on and why we want to stand for future generations, to protect those freedoms that those who have gone before us stood up and fought for us, for our generation. And we hope and pray that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution and will not jeopardize it or trample on it. So I thank my colleagues for coming tonight, and I would like to ask my friend from Ohio, Bob Latta, to share his thoughts on this very important historic moment.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Abner Womack, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri, for receiving the Distinguished Service Award. This is the highest award awarded by the American Farm Bureau. As a farm boy with a knack for numbers, he has used his expertise to build the internationally renowned Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute that provides high-quality analysis for Congress and the USDA. This system of statistical models allows congressional Members and their staff to analyze the effects and tradeoffs of competing policies. Dr. Womack's academic integrity is evidenced in the strong academic, nonpartisan reputation that FAPRI enjoys. However, Dr. Womack's reach far exceeds that of Capitol Hill. I want to commend him for his tireless effort to reach out to farmers across Missouri and around the world. His passion for agriculture and vast knowledge of statistical models, paired with his ability to effectively communicate complex ideas in a commonsense manner, have made him a priceless asset to all he encounters. Again, I want to thank Dr. Womack for his lifelong efforts in supporting American agriculture, and recognize him for this achievement.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Washington to quit wasting money. A good place to start is to eliminate duplicative programs. Why should we pay twice for the same thing? We shouldn't. Nonpartisan inspectors general found that management at Federal agencies wasted $67 billion by failing to implement cost-cutting recommendations. This is unacceptable. We must take action to eliminate duplicative and wasteful government programs such as the duplicative USDA catfish inspection scheme I fought to eliminate. This program has spent $30 million of your money and hasn't inspected a single fish. This is just one example. The people of this Nation deserve no less than a government that is transparent and wisely spends the hard-earned tax dollars of the people. I am proud to support legislation this week that addresses wasteful spending. It is time to rebuild trust with the American people and get government out of the way.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the A-10 and close air support for our warfighters. Hundreds of brave Americans are alive today because of the performance of the A-10 in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree with Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno, who said in an SASC hearing, ``The A-10 is the best close air support platform we have today.'' Even Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh has said the A-10 ``is the best airplane in the world at what it does.'' The Air Force should not retire the A-10 before its replacement reaches full operational capability. Otherwise, it will result in a close air support gap that will put our ground troops at increased risk. There is no greater responsibility than ensuring our men and women in uniform have the support they need to accomplish their missions and return home safely. Premature divestment of the A-10 by the Air Force would create a dangerous close air support capability gap that could unnecessarily endanger American servicemembers in future conflicts.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, gentleman. Thank you for your leadership on this. You have been at the forefront of this, and this is so, so important. I love what you said about the EPA is basing this on wishful thinking and not sound science. I think most of us would appreciate if there was some science behind regulations. That seems to be common sense, but they clearly have gone beyond that, and it is hurting, as you say, people. It is hurting the bottom line. It is hurting when you pay your bills every month, and your electric bill is just going through the roof unnecessarily because of these onerous regulations. So thank you, gentleman. Now, I would like to turn to my friend and colleague from Utah, Representative Chris Stewart, to share his thoughts on this important topic. Thank you, Chris.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, today, back in Missouri, this frigid cold snap is really making life miserable for everyone. We have below-zero temperatures and wind chills and a lot of snow. In fact, a lot of children are home from school today, and it is on snowy days like this back in Missouri and across much of America that we really appreciate the ability to go to our thermostats and to turn up the temperature and be able to sit by a nice fire to keep warm. What we don't need is the government interfering in that. Safe, affordable and reliable energy is vital for all of us as Americans, and it is being threatened by the Environmental Protection Agency. They are increasing burdens and making our regulations more difficult and costly for hardworking taxpayers. While I support commonsense regulations designed to protect my constituents and the environment, many of the EPA regulations have gone too far, threatening to raise electricity rates during these cold winter months and hurting markets designed to provide rural homes with proper heating systems. County officials, farmers and city administrators, as well as moms and dads all across Missouri who have to pay the electric bill every month, are constantly coming up to me with stories of the burdens that the EPA regulations have placed on their families, their businesses and their communities. It is time for this to stop. It is time for the EPA to begin working with my constituents, with local officials and with State governments to bring commonsense, consensus-driven changes to the regulations instead of the typical, heavy-handed Washington bureaucracy. Many of these regulations are stifling small businesses and local communities, leading to slow economic growth, stagnant jobs and less opportunities for the next generations of Americans. So, today, my colleagues and I would like to outline some of the most egregious EPA regulations and offer commonsense solutions to fix, replace or eliminate previous EPA actions that are hurting the average American. For example, the EPA's recently proposed rule on source performance standards for new power plants has raised serious concerns among ratepayers, utilities and small businesses in my district. My main concern with these proposed regulations remains focused on Missouri's need to provide affordable and reliable electricity. However, in a State like Missouri that derives over 80 percent of our power from coal, the EPA has proposed a rule that would create a de facto ban on building any new coal-fired power plants by requiring the use of something called carbon capture and storage technology. This technology has not even been proven commercially viable anywhere, and the small pilot projects used as a basis of the EPA's analysis have been highly subsidized by the government and are not commercially available. Congressional intent in the Clean Air Act is clear. The EPA is required to complete a cost-benefit analysis and base their regulations on the best commercially available technology. It is clear that these standards have not been met. The good news is that there is a bipartisan solution for this regulation. Congressman Whitfield and Senator Manchin have introduced the Electricity Security and Affordability Act. They designed the bill to require that any greenhouse gas standard set by the EPA for new coal-fired plants are achievable by commercial power plants operating in the real world, including highly efficient plants that utilize the most modern, state-of-the-art standards that can be met by all States in a way that is not economically damaging to local ratepayers and small businesses. All we ask is that the EPA work with us to find commonsense solutions for real world problems. Another example of needless regulation is the EPA's proposed rule on future production of wood-burning stoves like the one in this picture right here. My constituents are concerned that this regulation could provide another de facto ban of the production and sale of 80 percent of America's current wood-burning stoves, which are the world's oldest heating system. The EPA's stringent, one-size-fits-all policy goes against the will of the people, and it requires the same stringent standards in a cottage in the woods that it applies to a high-rise building in downtown New York. For the first 10 years of my marriage, my husband and I heated our home with a wood-burning stove like this. I am concerned for the many constituents who have used these stoves for years to heat their home, that they will have to turn in their old furnaces for scrap and make costly upgrades if they choose to remodel. So, again, I implore the EPA to apply a little common sense to these onerous regulations and not finalize this burdensome rule. These are just two examples of the many concerns of the EPA overreach that I hear on a regular basis. I pause now to invite my colleagues to share experiences and issues that their constituents face dealing with this agency. So I would like to start with my dear friend from Colorado, Doug Lamborn. Representative Lamborn, what would you like to share?

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you so much, gentleman. Thank you for your leadership on that. That is a great bill, and we really need more of that to push back on these onerous regulations by the EPA, like you pointed out, that cost the taxpayers $1.8 trillion a year overall just to comply with paperwork. That is wrong. Now I would like to turn to my friend from Florida, Representative Ted Yoho, to share his thoughts.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you very, very much. I don't think anyone could say it any better than that. I appreciate as well your comments about coal because in my district, I have the only working coal mine in Missouri. In Missouri, 85 percent of our energy comes from coal. It is an extremist agenda that would raise the price of energy unnecessarily, especially on the hardest hit Americans whose hours are being cut back because of other policies from this country coming forth, and whose paychecks are shrinking. Why would you artificially raise the cost of their electric bills due to regulations that aren't even scientifically based and shut off a major source of energy in this country that is affordable, reliable, safe, and clean--and that is coal. Thank you very much for sharing that. Now I would like to go to my friend from Oklahoma, James Lankford, to hear his thoughts about EPA and how it is hurting Americans and how we can provide better solutions.

Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank the gentleman very much, and I want to follow up on exactly your same story. I hear the same from my farmers in Missouri. And this picture on this poster, I hope everyone can see, because I want to show what Representative Holding was just talking about. The Clean Water Act gave the EPA authority to regulate navigable waters, and those are the pictures here. They would be something that you would consider navigable waters, and they worked with the Corps of Engineers to develop regulations. The pictures on the right are what I consider nonnavigable, and I think most people with common sense would. They are farm ponds, puddles, and ditches. This is what the EPA is trying to expand its reach to regulating. As Representative Holding said, this is going to impact every farmer and every property owner, and it is a violation of property rights. The government should not have any control or say over how people manage their ponds, or if there is a puddle in the field, they shouldn't have to ask permission to be able to plant a crop there. And yet that is what you have, one of the things that EPA is doing. Thank you for bringing that up. And I wanted everybody to see how ridiculous this is and what an overreach of government it is. Thank you for showing that picture. Now, I turn to Andy Barr from Kentucky. He knows a little bit about coal and some of the other impacts of the EPA. Please share your thoughts on the topic.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, excellent points there. I think you are right; we need to make regulations that make sense. What the EPA is doing does not make sense. It does feed into the distrust of government bureaucracy by the American people, and well-deserved when they have some of the regulations coming out that they have been proposing that are harming Americans. That is why we are here tonight, to raise these concerns and to fight against them. I am so glad today to get to pass the baton to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Holding).

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you for your leadership on this. That issue is just so important to farmers all across this country and to rural communities, which could certainly use that $3.3 billion. Now I would like to turn to my friend from Oklahoma, Markwayne Mullin, to share his thoughts on the EPA.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you. That is why we are here fighting tonight. I would like to turn it over now to my friend from Arkansas, which is just a little south of me, to Representative Rick Crawford.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Your comments were very, very helpful to what we are doing tonight, which is making people aware of how these EPA regulations hurt real people. I think your example of the 2-year fight and the $200,000 fine just for a low area in your yard that fills with water is just too much.

Mrs. HARTZLER. We have turned sadly into a regulation Nation, and it is wrong, but some of us--and the ones here tonight speaking--are not going to sit by and allow this and stand idly by. We are fighting against it, and that is why we are here. I totally agree with my colleague that it is wrong to just tell people: well, this is going to be hard, but you are going to have to pay more on your electric bill basically because of this new regulation because we care more for a minnow than we do about people. That is wrong. It is time to change things. I appreciate my friend from Ohio, Representative Robert Latta, being here tonight and welcome your comments on this issue.

Mrs. HARTZLER. I am glad you are here tonight. I am glad you are here representing the common person in this country who is fighting these regulations every day, who has had real-world experience dealing with the EPA, like many of us have. You are exactly right. It is stifling jobs and hurting people, whether it is the families back in Missouri who are dealing with the big 10-inch snow that we got yesterday, and they are wanting to heat their home with a wood-burning stove or turn up the thermostat and worry about their electricity bills at the end of the month, or whether it is the farmer out there who is trying to raise chickens and provide poultry and meat for this country, and then they have the government trying to regulate their feathers. Last year, the EPA tried to regulate farm dust. Now they are trying to expand the definition of navigable waters to regulating farm ponds and ditches and little depressions in the fields, and asking for permission from Americans to be able to farm their land. There are other regulations we haven't even talked about tonight dealing with permitting and being able to spray crop protection products on their cops. Farmers get this every day. So do manufacturers. So do businesses, and so does anyone who has to pay an electric bill every month, with the President's war on coal. So that is why here in the House we are standing strong against the EPA. We are exposing what they are doing and how it is hurting Americans and why it is important for the Senate to move on our bills to rein in the EPA, to bring common sense back to Washington, and to return this government of the people, by the people, to start working for the people once again. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for his leadership on this, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for sponsoring this bill. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, I think we can all agree on this: it is wrong to spend hard-earned tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet that is the policy of this administration through ObamaCare and what today's bill reverses. This commonsense provision ensures tax dollars are used wisely and government policy does not violate Americans' basic rights. H.R. 7 brings a stop to government-subsidized abortion created through ObamaCare, creates transparency by ensuring citizens have the information they need regarding their insurance policy and whether it pays for abortion or not, and, ultimately, lessens the number of lives ended through abortion. This legislation is important for the future of our country and forces our government to no longer be complicit in taking the lives of millions of innocent babies. We now live in a country that is trending pro-life, and a CNN poll shows that 61 percent of respondents oppose public funding for abortion. Forcing Americans to pay for services that they find morally unconscionable is wrong. The pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute demonstrates that when tax dollars are used, abortions increase by 25 percent. Conversely, by ensuring tax dollars are not used for abortions, we can not only save hard-earned tax dollars, but we can save lives, and that is a policy we can all live with. I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 7.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the brave airmen of the 442d Fighter Wing of Whiteman Air Force Base. Specifically, I want to commend the A-10 pilots who courageously protected Sergeant Mauricio Alejandro Arias and 16 of his fellow soldiers as they came under fire while serving in Afghanistan. I sincerely applaud Colonel James Mackey (now Brigadier General Mackey) and Lieutenant Colonel Tony Roe for their actions of June 5, 2008, as they provided close air support for 17 soldiers of the 201st Engineer Battalion of the Kentucky National Guard. The soldiers were pinned down for a lengthy time by enemy heavy-arms fire and running low on ammunition when these pilots intervened and suppressed the enemy threat. Sergeant Arias credits these pilots for saving his and the lives of 16 fellow soldiers that day and I stand with him in recognizing the heroic acts of these two pilots. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in applauding the bravery and commitment to service that General Mackey, Lieutenant Colonel Roe and the airmen of the 442d Fighter Wing exemplify. In doing so, they ask for no recognition, yet they protect our way of life while risking their own and are very deserving of such recognition.