Tim Huelskamp

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 24, 2016, I was not present for call votes number 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, and 238 due to a family obligation. If present, I would have voted yes on roll call votes 231, 232, 233, 234, 237, and 238. I would have voted no on roll call votes 235 and 236.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 23, 2016, I was not present for roll call vote numbers 229 and 230 due to a family obligation. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted yes on the Kelsey Smith Act, roll call vote 229. On the Securing Access to Networks in Disasters Act, roll call vote 230, I also would have voted yes.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on May 11, 2016, I was not present for roll call vote number 182 due to a meeting with Senator Pat Roberts. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted yes on roll call vote 182.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues from Texas and across the Nation who, as I have discovered with this bill, have similar problems. In my particular case, it is the city of Salina, Kansas, which is located only 100 miles from the closest hub, and it has long provided valuable air service either to Kansas City or a little bit farther to Denver. Due to circumstances beyond Salina's control, just in January their air carrier stopped providing flights from Salina, and TSA obviously withdrew screening services. However, just a few weeks later--just a few weeks later--the airport and Great Lakes Airlines reached an exciting agreement to restore air service to and from Salina. As we have heard the same story, the airport sent a request to TSA asking them to reinstate screening services--again, this is just a few weeks after they had ended the services--to begin these much-needed flights. Shortly thereafter, without adequate explanation, TSA, of course as we have heard, denied the request. I soon learned from other airports, other communities across America that I wasn't alone. Other airports located predominantly in rural communities, in nearly identical situations, were also being denied screening services. Perhaps most troubling to me--and I heard a lot of troubling testimony here--was that no credible reason was given for declining the screening services, again, just a few weeks after they were still screening flights in Salina, Kansas, saying we can't do it now. I believe our rural communities in Kansas and others across the Nation are tired of being left with the short end of the stick and Washington bureaucrats thinking they can get away with it. In response to these lame excuses, I urge passage of our TSA Fairness Act today. This legislation will reverse the denial by TSA and ensure they stop discriminating against rural communities like Salina, Kansas. The service agreement they have reached with Great Lakes Airlines will support our region's continued economic growth. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access, I understand how important reliable air service is for Salina, Kansas, and our region. It is a simple fix with this bill. I appreciate my colleague from Texas carrying this on the floor. It will ensure TSA continues to fulfill its mission, which is to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce, and again for Salina and other rural communities across Kansas.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate support from the gentleman from Texas, I appreciate support from the Ways and Means Committee, and I certainly appreciate the comments across the aisle of the need for transparency. We are an information vacuum on this issue as Members of Congress and the American people. This simply requires a weekly report so folks outside of the Department of Treasury know what is happening with our Nation's credit line. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment on a very important bill, and I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Texas. I believe the bill is necessary. My amendment, hopefully, will provide some additional information. As we know, Congress has the authority to set the debt limit. The President, through the Secretary of the Treasury, however, has the apparent authority to set the date to which all the cable networks peg their doomsday countdown clocks. We saw this firsthand in 2011 and 2013. Even if receipts, expenditures, or use of extraordinary measures change their internal projections of the exhaustion date, Treasury is not required in any way to provide regular, independently verifiable updates to Congress or the American people. Instead, the elected officials charged with making the ultimate decision on increasing the Nation's maxed-out credit card are expected to simply take Treasury's word for it--sometimes months after an initial estimate. My proposed amendment is very simple. It would require that Treasury provide a weekly reporting of the extraordinary measures and the projected exhaustion date per our Nation's debt limit. It is a matter of transparency. But it is also exactly the information we need as Members of Congress to fulfill our constitutional responsibility on this issue. Consider just how long the use of extraordinary measures lasted in 2015. They were originally utilized on March 15, yet the Treasury set November 3 as the date of exhaustion--over 7 months later. That creates, I believe, a lot of uncertainty, and Treasury continues to control the entire process. Transparency is always a better policy. Mr. Chairman, to further illustrate why this is needed, just last week, a report was issued by the House Financial Services Committee that found that apparently the Department misled Congress regarding their capabilities and plans concerning debt payments back in 2011 and 2013. Without going into too much detail, the findings of the report, I believe, are clear. The Treasury did not report to Congress the specific actions they could take once the debt limit is reached. I urge the House to support my amendment to help ensure the American people and Congress are equipped to make informed judgments on this critical issue of the Federal debt limit. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant).

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

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 2016, I was not present for rollcall vote number 38. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted no on roll call vote 38.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Congressman Smith. It is an honor, as always, to join you this evening on this Special Order. I have told you before and I will tell you again, thank you for your leadership. I believe our efforts, though not fully successful, your efforts have saved many lives in this country. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House voted to stop Federal funding from going to the evil abortion provider Planned Parenthood. It was another commonsense step in the many that our pro-life movement has made in our long, 43-year fight following the barbaric ruling of Roe v. Wade by an unelected, unaccountable U.S. Supreme Court. Tragically, it has been said 57 million innocent babies have lost their lives to abortion since that woeful, woeful decision. I have said it before and I will say it again, I am eternally grateful that the birth mothers of my wife and I's four adopted children chose life. On January 21, one of those children, my daughter Rebecca, will arrive on a bus in Washington, D.C., along with dozens of her classmates from Benedictine College, in Atchison, Kansas, to again participate in the National March for Life the following day. On that day, I will be joining thousand of Kansans in Topeka as we march, pray, speak, and celebrate the gift of our life in our State's capital. I am proud of our efforts, and I hope my colleagues will join me in demonstrating their dedication to the sanctity of all human life, whether it be in the home State or here in our Nation's Capital.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding. For months now, Americans have--in horror--watched gruesome undercover videos detailing Planned Parenthood's barbaric practice of harvesting little baby body parts for profit. In one heartbreaking story, a whistleblower described how Planned Parenthood carved up the face of a baby boy whose heart was still beating and then harvested his intact brain. As a father of four beautiful children by adoption, I listened to this gut-wrenching recollection only to think about millions of destroyed lives that won't be given the chance at life my kids received. It is time to stop funneling millions of taxpayer funds to this abortion giant that prides itself in snuffing out the lives of innocent babies and then profiting off their little victims. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3762.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, earlier this year, many of my colleagues and I stood on this floor condemning abortionist Kermit Gosnell for his barbaric murder of babies born alive during attempted abortions. Instead of providing compassionate care for these precious little babies, Gosnell muffled their cries by snipping the back of their necks with scissors, and we have people on the floor today defending that. No child should be treated with such violence, and no man or woman should be free to perform such heinous acts of murder. As an adoptive parent of four incredible children, I cannot help but think of the countless couples across America who would have given anything to care for these babies. This bill rightly affirms the humanity of all babies born alive, rightly affords them the full protection of the law, and punishes any abortionist who denies these infants their dignity and right to life.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this House, indeed ask the American people: Do you believe your taxpayer dollars should be used to fund racism? Do you think your hard-earned taxpayer dollars should be used to target minority communities? Mr. Speaker, I have adopted children. They don't look like me. They look like average Americans of various ethnic minority backgrounds. Without a doubt, if you look at Planned Parenthood's history, as well as its current practices, they target minority communities for destruction and elimination. That is the history of Margaret Sanger. That is the history of Planned Parenthood. That is the history that is being funded. That is the current day practice of Planned Parenthood, to target minority communities with abortion, with destruction, with elimination. Without a doubt, in my mind, I think in the mind of the American people, it is time to stop funding racism with our tax dollars.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, military life is filled with unspoken hardships, extraordinary demands--physically, mentally, spiritually, and relationally--and constant sacrifice by both our military members and their families. Recognizing this tremendous cost on our soldiers and the need to lighten their burdens, at the request of George Washington, the continental Congress created the military chaplaincy 240 years ago today. In fact, George Washington believed chaplains were so essential he asked for an increase in their pay in order ``to encourage men of Abilities'' to become chaplains. In the anniversary of the Chaplain Corps founding, I want to take this opportunity to honor our military chaplains who courageously serve the ongoing spiritual, religious, and emotional needs of our men and women in uniform. Since 1775 more than 25,000 chaplains have served in every major war and combat engagements our nation has fought, while hundreds have paid the ultimate sacrifice--including the late Father Emil J. Kapaun. Called a ``shepherd in combat boots,'' Father Kapaun was an Army captain and Roman Catholic priest from Pilsen, Kansas who died a prisoner of war in the Korean War. His surviving comrades noted how he selflessly risked his life to rescue wounded soldiers, nursed the sick and wounded, and stood steadfast in his faith and his lifesaving ministerial responsibilities despite horrific persecution. In 2013, I had the honor of witnessing this saintly chaplain be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism posthumously. Additionally, The Diocese of Wichita and the Vatican have begun the formal process that could lead to Father Kapaun's canonization. In 1993, it was announced that Fr. Kapaun would receive the title of ``Servant of God.'' The following account of Father Kaupan's Korean War service is provided by the United States Army: Kapaun moved fearlessly from foxhole to foxhole under direct enemy fire in order to provide comfort and reassurance to the outnumbered Soldiers. He repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire to recover wounded men, dragging them to safety. When he couldn't drag them, he dug shallow trenches to shield them from enemy fire. As Chinese forces closed in, Kapaun rejected several chances to escape, instead volunteering to stay behind and care for the wounded. He was taken as a prisoner of war by Chinese forces on Nov. 2, 1950. After he was captured, Kapaun and other prisoners were marched for several days northward toward prisoner-of-war camps. During the march Kapaun led by example in caring for injured Soldiers, refusing to take a break from carrying the stretchers of the wounded while encouraging others to do their part. Once inside the dismal prison camps, Kapaun risked his life by sneaking around the camp after dark, foraging for food, caring for the sick, and encouraging his fellow Soldiers to sustain their faith and their humanity. On at least one occasion, he was brutally punished for his disobedience, being forced to sit outside in subzero weather without any garments. When the Chinese instituted a mandatory re-education program, Kapaun patiently and politely rejected every theory put forth by the instructors. Later, Kapaun openly flouted his captors by conducting a sunrise service on Easter morning, 1951. When Kapaun began to suffer from the physical toll of his captivity, the Chinese transferred him to a filthy, unheated hospital where he died alone. As he was being carried to the hospital, he asked God's forgiveness for his captors, and made his fellow prisoners promise to keep their faith. Chaplain Kapaun died in captivity on May 23, 1951. As Chaplain Kapaun's compelling leadership and powerful story attests, our chaplains are vital to the wellbeing and morale of our troops--especially in the face of possible injury and death. The chaplaincy has endured for over two hundred years because of the singular and widespread recognition of its unique role in the defense and support of our nation. It is essential to ensure that those brave men and women who live out their promise to protect our sacred freedoms and guard our religious heritage are paid the proper respect. Rest assured, as long as I have a voice in Congress, I will continue to defend and protect the religious freedom of those who served and still serve our nation in the Armed Forces.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of our legislation. Mr. Chairman, we do know in the last year there has been a lot of talk about accountability at the VA. Unfortunately, though, there has not been enough action or change by the VA under this administration. This bill provides much-needed tools to ensure the VA Secretary has the authority and the responsibility to remove corrupt or incompetent employees. As a Member of Congress, I am simply tired of hearing stories about employees placed on indefinite administrative leave or getting early retirement with full benefits for offenses that should get them fired, if we really cared about the veterans. Ultimately, here is the purpose of this bill: ending the culture of nonaccountability at the VA. My bill, the Whistleblower Testimony Travel Act, is also included. It provides much-needed protections for courageous whistleblowers who testify before Congress about the shortfalls of this agency. It might be hard to believe, Mr. Chairman, but, currently, if a VA whistleblower is invited to testify before Congress, they are required to use their personal vacation time and personally cover all their own travel expenses. This bill would ensure that brave employees who report to Congress and the public on what is broken within the VA can do so on official time and be compensated by the VA for their travel costs. Ultimately, this legislation is about protecting our veterans. It is about making sure our veterans are treated with dignity and respect. It is about making certain that our brave veterans have a VA that works for them, not the other way around.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, today, July 27, 2015, I was not present for rollcall votes Nos. 467, 468, or 469 due to weather-related travel delays. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 467, ``no'' on rollcall vote 468, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote 469. personal explanation

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year Members of Congress stood on this House floor and condemned the evils of trafficking humans, especially the exploitation of women and children who are treated as commodities to be bought, used, and disposed of. And we then walked the talk, refusing to turn a blind eye to these horrors, and passed sweeping reforms to combat and end this egregious human rights abuse. Now we must urgently act again. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood has exposed itself as a perpetuator of another shocking form of trafficking: the illegal selling and buying of baby body parts and intact organs. That is right. It is not enough that Planned Parenthood kills babies in the womb. No. It has to profit off the death of its victims by first dismembering these unborn children and then selling their organs piece by piece to the highest bidder. Enough is enough. We will investigate this unlawful, barbaric practice and bring an end to these horrifying abuses.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I am not prepared to quote it. I know what the vote was.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to visit tonight about a very radical decision. I appreciate the discussion of my colleagues from Texas and Iowa outlining some of the background. I was born in 1968, and what this Court would have us believe is that 100 years before I was born, somehow secretly written into this constitutional Amendment was language that invalidated laws in every State of the Union at that time. They want us to believe the authors of this constitutional Amendment, the 14th Amendment, violated their own State laws at the time and just didn't know it. That is silly. That is utter nonsense. And only if you lived in Washington, D.C., in some bubble and spent your weekends or your summers vacationing in Western Europe, not in western Kansas where I am from, could you dream up somehow the Constitution dictated that you would overrule, override, undo--this is five unelected black robe attorneys that are going to dictate to 50 million Americans that you are wrong on the definition of marriage. You are wrong. 2,000 years of human history is wrong. The authors of the 14th Amendment were wrong, and 31 States are wrong. Let me go through that. We are talking about dozens and dozens of States that adopted by a vote of the people. Again, let's roll back 2 years ago in the Winter decision. This same Court, the exact same Court, said: Do you know what? It is up to the States to decide. They actually declared themselves wrong 2 years previous to that and set to deny the vote, the right to vote to short-circuit the democratic process. Now recognize, folks have strong opinions. Even the President of the United States--President Obama and I both agree on this point; there are strong opinions on both sides, but what is happening here is the folks that can't win in the State of Kansas, can't win in 30 other States, have decided that they are going to try to find five people, five people to overrule 50 million. Let me give you an example. My home State of Kansas, when we passed our Kansas marriage amendment, which I was proud to be the author of, 417,675 men and women voted to declare that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Five lawyers across the street said, You are all wrong--every one of them. You go to the State of California, in 2008, 7,001,084 Californians were declared to be wrong by five people across the street, five people who have already fled town. They have left town. They won't even stay here; they don't even show up in public. They go behind closed doors, make up their mind, come out, and rule. This is exactly what our Founders were afraid of with judicial tyranny of folks trying to dictate, to mandate, take their personal biases, and mandate them on California, mandate them--let me pick a State at random--the State of Maine, 300,848 folks in Maine. How about in Alaska? 152,965 people that these 5 people said were wrong. Total across the entire Nation, there were 51,483,777 people that this court, these 5 people, not the entire court, 5 people decided you 51,483,777 people, you are wrong. Those five were wrong 2 years ago--or at least one of them was wrong. They changed their mind 2 years ago. If you look at the Holy Father's latest encyclical that has been much discussed, it talks about the rule of law and how if you start violating laws that becomes a pattern--and here, we have a pattern of this Court deciding to ignore the clear Constitution and decide to impose their biases. As I understand, the dissent was frightening. This is not only imposing their biases against traditional marriage; these five people don't like marriage as 51 million Americans understand that. In the dissent, it talked about not only that, they have opened the door to plural unions; and it is coming. They referenced a Court case. This is where this Court is headed, and it is totally out of step, not only with 51 million Americans, but with their own Court decision 2 years ago, but also with the whole idea of our Constitution, that somehow it is living and breathing and then five people. I mean, this is the same margin by which we have had atrocious decisions throughout history of this country. You go not far from this--and my colleague from Iowa knows this--you go not far from here, you go down, I think it is a floor down, where you had a decision by the same U.S. Supreme Court, just a few different folks, decided certain people didn't have rights and made a decision, an atrocious decision. They were wrong. I think the Court is wrong today. Again, the idea that somehow they know better is the elitism that I think is driving folks crazy, and it is not just on this issue. My colleague from Iowa has pointed out, again and again, it is concerns about immigration, it is concerns about education, it is concerns about spending, about overregulation where you have folks inside a bubble in Washington, D.C., they read every week. Every day, I guess, they read the New York Times and think they are doing a great job; they read The Washington Post, but they don't read and listen to real Americans. Again, they travel and vacation in western Europe. Many times, we see them using Court decisions in the arguments that have no basis not only in our jurisprudence, but in our history and are using that which is outside--I have never served in the U.S. Senate; I probably never will, and I have no desire to do that, but I have got to wonder, when each of these five that decided to overrule 51 million, did anybody ask them: Do you think you are smarter than the rest of America? Did anybody ask them? Actually, when they did ask them, they said: We can't tell you how we are going to rule. There is no doubt that at least four, perhaps five, of these judges, these attorneys, these lawyers made up their mind before they got the case and said: This is the decision. Here is what we want to reach. Here is the outcome. Let's make something up so we can at least claim there is an argument. There is no logical argument; there is no legal argument. All there is, is the utter power, the claim that we get to dictate what the rest of America will accept. As a pro-life American as well, we have to go 42 years ago. A court tried to do the same thing. And at that time, in '73, and I am guessing January 24, 1973, I was a little tyke. Thank goodness I was born before the Roe v. Wade generation. I saw some of those folks run around today, claiming they were part of that generation. Part of that generation, one-third of those are gone. At that time, the Court said they were going to impose abortion on all of America through all 9 months. Do you know what, they walked away and said: We got it all done. What they found out is the American people are resilient. When they see outrageous decisions like this, it might take them weeks, it might take them months, it might take them a year, it might take them decades, but they will be pushing back. They will be pushing back and demanding that, when you put your thumb into the eye of 51 million Americans, you put your thumb in the eye of 2,000 years of history, you put your thumb in the eye of millions of millions of children that deserve a dad and a mom, a married dad and a mom, and say: Do you know what, you don't count; you don't count. That is what this Court is saying. We spend billions of dollars every year trying to replace a mom and a dad. Here we are today because of five people across the street--again, five people deciding for the rest of us. This was not interpretation of the Constitution; this was just utter legal nonsense. There are two ways to respond to this. One is a Federal marriage amendment. I have introduced that a couple sessions in a row. That is the way you amend the Constitution. The way the left amends the Constitution is they get five votes. Folks have been worried about a constitutional convention; and I always joke that, well, they have one every time they issue a ruling. This one was a constitutional convention, utter legal fiction and nonsense. They know it; they all know this. They are probably drinking cocktails tonight, laughing about our comments on the floor saying: Well, yeah, everybody knows that. So we are just under some fiction. We are trying to figure out, okay, here is the decision we want; here is how we get there. A Federal marriage amendment is one option, but that is difficult. A second one that we have to worry about--and it was noted in the oral arguments, it was noted in the opinion of the majority and the minority, because of this decision, mark my words, mark the words of the dissenters--is they will use this decision to attack religious liberties of Americans who still believe, 51 million and plenty of others, that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are not going to stop. Ten years ago, they said they would stop at civil unions. That was all they wanted; then, well, maybe want something else. Now, it is not only do they want marriage, the next one will be to say, if you disagree with me, you not only have to bake a cake, you have to participate in other ceremonies in other ways. It goes on and on. That is why I have introduced, along with others, the First Amendment Defense Act, which I call upon those who believe in marriage, and even if you don't believe in marriage but believe in the supremacy of the American people rather than five attorneys, we bring that to the floor and defend the rights and liberties of Americans and the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps millions of churches that say, Do you know what, we don't agree with that, and we will not have the Federal Government imposing their way--these five people. Now, I am just one. We got 435 in this body, 100 in the other body, and the Court just said: Do you know what, that doesn't matter. That is the definition of tyranny, and from tyranny, good things do not come. Our Founders understood that. When you consolidate power--and as my colleague said: What difference does Congress make anymore? The decision the day before suggested they get to rewrite the law, and the marriage decision was they get to rewrite the Constitution. This is a fundamental decision on the history of our country, the history of our Constitution, where the future goes, and the history for and the future for our children. I appreciate my colleague from Iowa, his efforts for many years. I will not apologize on behalf of 417,675 Kansans who voted for marriage. If those five Justices are asking them to apologize, they will not. They will continue to defend God's lawful marriage, and they will do that proudly and will continue to defend the State, and our U.S. Congress should do the same. I appreciate my colleague from Iowa's leadership. These are one of these things that it is not easy. Congressman, I appreciate your leadership on this and not giving up for the right thing.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. The essence is marriage is reserved between one man and one woman. It is a very simple definition, a very historical definition, and it was adopted by 417,675. Do you know what was interesting? I never once told the State of Kansas that, if five people wanted it, that was the rule of law in Kansas--no. We had to go through an open process, have the debate, have the campaign, get it through the legislature. We tried 2 years in a row; it didn't happen. Finally, in 2005, it got on the ballot. It went up. Everybody had their up and down American experiment of democracy and decided. I will tell you at the time--and Steve understands this, my Congressman--that people said: We don't need to do that. The Court would never overrule that. There is nowhere that is in the Constitution. It is very clear; marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the thing, marriage predates government. No matter what these five unelected lawyers appointed for life--with full benefits, I might add, and health care--outside of ObamaCare, that is another issue--no matter what they say, they are not changing what a marriage is.

Mr. HUELSKAMP. That is absolutely true. I mean, where can they end up? Again, when it becomes an issue of bias, and our colleague from Texas talked about that, two justices that clearly demonstrated bias in the State of Kansas, that would be a basis for not ruling on the case and perhaps not even being on a court. I mean, those are illegal. I am not an attorney, but we recognize that would be highly unethical in the State of Kansas, but apparently, that is the way you get things done nationally, to impose your will. One thing that, again, I mention in passing that we can't forget is what this does for our children, what this does for our children by attempting to fundamentally destroy and redefine marriage. I have been asked: Well, how does it affect your marriage? When you make marriage anything, you devalue what really is marriage. The last thing we need to be doing in this society is devaluing families, devaluing marriage, and attacking the basis of our society. Our Founders understood that. I don't know what these Justices, what their history was growing up, what led them to change their mind and impose that on the rest of America; but that is why our Founders said: Here is the Constitution. You can interpret it, but you shall go no further.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor this commonsense amendment as we work to stop the Federal Government from enforcing the ill-advised listing of the lesser prairie chicken. As a fifth-generation farmer and possibly the only Member on the floor who has actually seen the real-life bird on a family farm that we are talking about, I am strongly opposed to this listing. As was mentioned, this listing occurred during a massive, historical multiyear drought in my home area in my region and State, which obviously limits habitat growth and reduces the numbers of prairie chickens. The best solution is for it to rain; and that, it has. Thank you, Lord, though I fully expect the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take credit for the resulting increase in the lesser prairie chicken population. For the last 4 years, I have heard from farmers, ranchers, homebuilders, energy producers, and other small businesses concerned about what this listing would do to our rural economy. Our farmers and ranchers are in a state of uncertainty as to whether certain farming and conservation practices, like we have in my own farm, will result in fines or perhaps even jail time. Many energy producers have stopped drilling new wells for fear of risking the consequences of the listing. Unless Congress does something and does it soon, this threat to our rural economy will probably continue forever. In 40 years of the Endangered Species Act, more than 1,350 species have been listed as endangered, but only 24 have been delisted, and that is just 1.7 percent--not very successful, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to share these concerns with you, and I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, support our farmers and ranchers, and support common sense.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the work of my colleague from North Carolina. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago today, America was awakened to the horrors of the abortion industry as abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murdering three innocent, newborn infants in his filthy abortion complex, and one of his former employees reported nearly 100 other living babies who were also murdered. Gosnell cut the spines of crying 5-month-old babies who survived his first attempts to kill them, and our human dignity makes it impossible to ignore that image. He further brutalized the mothers--killing two of them by drug overdose; with filthy, unsanitary instruments; and by perforating their wombs and bowels. It is no less painful for babies to have their spines snipped before birth than by Gosnell after birth. By 5 months, if not before, babies can feel pain--intense pain. It is simply barbaric to allow Gosnell or anyone else to rip these babies apart, limb by limb, whether they are in or out of their mothers' wombs. That is why we must take a stand today to protect the defenseless unborn and pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the Dodge City Cooperative. The cooperative, now doing business as Pride Ag Resources, is completing 100 years serving Dodge City and the southwest Kansas area. As a fifth-generation farmer and one of just a handful of farmers currently serving in Congress, I understand the important role cooperatives play in our agricultural economy. Rural America has long depended on this unique business structure to move our products to the marketplace. With the founding of one elevator in Dodge City in 1915, the hope, vision and needs of farmers for the past 100 years brought into existence fourteen additional elevators, four fertilizer locations, two feed mills, six car care centers, four Ace Hardware stores, plus another store soon. Dodge City Cooperative currently employs 200 employees with an annual payroll of over $9.2 million dollars. The hard work and services offered have filled a critical need in supplying area farmers, ranchers and the people of our communities with grain, feed, supplies and goods. Thank you to Dodge City Cooperative and to all of the farmer-owned cooperatives in the ``Big First'' district who help strengthen our rural communities and make Kansas one of the top agricultural-producing states in the entire country.

Mr. HUELSKAMP

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about a brave lady named Ellie, whom I met a few years ago in Kansas. This is her story. One Tuesday morning, back in 1973, she opened up her local newspaper to read about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that shocked her, outraged her, and saddened her. She questioned how a small group of unelected judges could reach such a tragic and illegitimate decision in the name of constitutional rights. That case was the fateful Roe v. Wade decision that mandated abortion on demand throughout all 50 States for all 9 months of pregnancy. In response to the Court's ruling, Ellie rushed out to the nearest abortion clinic. Expecting other outraged Kansans to already be there, Ellie found herself alone. No one else was there. It seemed that the Supreme Court, in far-off Washington, had imposed its radical decision on Ellie and an entire Nation without anyone noticing, few caring, and no one responding about the lives of the unborn. As history does report, that seemingly deafening silence didn't stay that way. Soon, Ellie was joined by others, many others. Contrary to the expectations of the elite lawyers on the Supreme Court, their decision did not short-circuit or end the debate over abortion; rather, over the following years, it ignited the debate. While the Court still stubbornly clings to the ruling, science has exposed its folly. Legal scholars recognize its defects. Most importantly, public opinion, from the young to the old, has passed them by. Today, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose an overwhelming percentage of all abortions. Today, the Supreme Court may be tempted to repeat that same mistake. They may be emboldened to impose again a so-called 50-State solution on the entire Nation. By radically attempting to redefine marriage for Ellie and the entire country by invalidating centuries of marriage laws and by silencing the more than 50 million Americans--that is 50 million Americans--who have voted to protect marriage as between one man and one woman, this court would, once again, be repeating their arrogant mistake of misreading both the American public and our American Constitution. Unlike 1973, I believe that Americans are already beginning to engage on this issue. This time, Ellie will not be alone. If this Supreme Court attempts to shred again another foundational aspect of our society, there will be a strong, quick, and ferocious response, for a small group of lawyers should not impose their redefinition of marriage on every single American State, every single American citizen, every single American family, and every single American church and synagogue. Therefore, I implore this Court to learn from the Roe v. Wade mistake, do its job, read and obey the Constitution, and correctly affirm that Ellie and the citizens of every one of our united States are free to affirm or restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman.