James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentlelady for hosting this time to be able to talk about some of the serious issues. Madam Speaker, I want to bring to our attention tonight something that we're trying to bring up over and over again. It is a simple injustice and an absolute avoidance of the law. A week ago, this body, Republicans and Democrats together, agreed unanimously to make sure that the United States military, civilians, and all civilian contractors would be exempt in case there was a shutdown. The United States military has taken the brunt of the sequestration, and in bases all over the country and all over the world they have suffered. They have stopped training missions, they slowed down the process, as they've rapidly try to adjust to very fast-moving furloughs and sequestration. But they have. They've done what they've been asked to do. So we make sure as a body, Republicans and Democrats together, that in case we got to a government shutdown, the United States military, all civilians, and the civilian contributes that serve with them would not be affected. We passed it. We sent it to the Senate. The Senate approved it unanimously. The President of the United States signed it. That's a done deal. We are dealing with every other aspect of the shutdown or what really is to be better described as a slowdown of the United States Government, which is serious. But we knew at least the United States military would not be affected by this. They were held entirely exempt. There were three aspects of this law. You can look it up. It's H.R. 3210. Aspect number one: all title X individuals, all active duty military, without exception, would be held exempt from this. Number two: all civilians that support them--all of them--if they're connected in any way as a civilian to supporting our military, they were to be held exempt from this and the government shutdown would not apply to them. Number three: all civilian contractors. It's a 1-page bill with very broad language giving authority to the Secretary of Defense to say whoever you determine in any area supports in any way military, they should not be affected by the government shutdown. It's clear. It's plain language. And then it went to the United States Pentagon; and in the Secretary of Defense's office, they have a group of lawyers. And those lawyers say they're studying the law to see who it applies to and who it doesn't apply to. For this entire week they have studied the law to see who it applies to and who it doesn't apply to, and our members of the United States military and the civilians that serve with them are on furlough this week--against the law. Republicans and Democrats agreed 100 percent in the House and the Senate, and the Pentagon lawyers can't decide how this should work. A first-year law student could read that bill and could tell it applies to all military title X, all civilians that support them in any way, and all contractors. It's not hard language. It is time for the Secretary of Defense to turn to the lawyers in his office and say, Release those folks. The law is clear. Our own Defense Department is violating the law. The President is allowing it. It's time to get on with this. Why are we holding them back? Well, the President stands up and says the Republicans are holding America hostage. The Defense Department really is holding their folks hostage, in clear violation of the law. Let's fix it. This is not something that's hard for us. It's already been passed. Let's get on with it.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I hear from folks all the time--we need to have a reasonable proposal to be able to end this. Well, how about this for a reasonable proposal. There are lot of people that are concerned about the penalties and the effects that are coming down on them in the next year. People have reasonable questions about how this is going to happen. Am I going to sign up right? Am I going to have a problem? So let's do this. Let's take, for the first year, just take the penalties away from individuals; that if you make a mistake on filing of your ObamaCare, or if you have real problems with it, for the first year you won't have to pay those penalties. Just for the first year. And then also, here's something else reasonable: How about Members of Congress and the White House have to live under the same rules that every American does dealing with ObamaCare? Is that a reasonable proposal? Well, that happens to be the proposal that we have on the table right now--that if someone makes a mistake on their filing of ObamaCare, or they don't want to do it this first year, they won't face penalties the first year. Every Member of Congress and all of the White House will have to be in the exchanges, just like every other American that's out there that's required to be in that. We think that's a reasonable proposal. For my colleagues that support ObamaCare, I am amazed they're fighting like crazy to not be in it. At this point, we should meet face-to-face. I was pleased to see the President say he wants to meet, was disappointed to see he wants to meet to say he won't negotiate. Let's meet face-to-face and solve this.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, this administration's been very proud of the work that they have done to reduce fraud in Medicare, that they have done to reduce fraud in durable medical equipment. Just a couple of weeks ago there was a huge bust in Puerto Rico trying to deal with Social Security disability fraud that has happened there for years. But for whatever reason, they have chosen, on this piece of legislation, to look the other way, to actually turn away and say we're going to allow people to self-verify whether they're eligible for the subsidies, when right now people don't even know if they're eligible for the subsidies. If I walked up to 100 people on the street today and asked them the two questions on that--does your employer provide you a qualified health plan--most of them would say: I have no idea. What's a qualified health plan? And then if I said, Do you qualify for the subsidies?, just about every American would say: I don't know. I have no idea. Yet, they're being asked, when no one knows right now, to self-verify that you know one way or the other. They don't have the information. They don't know the information. We don't even know what's going to happen on the exchanges yet. That's not been released yet, and it starts in 3 weeks. So to say to people something that doesn't even exist yet, you've got to be able to say whether you certify for it or not, whether you can say that, yes, I do qualify for, this is absurd. We're just asking the simple question: Shouldn't we stick with the original plan on this if we're going to do this? The law itself said that it had to be certified. Then they created a waiver out of thin air and said, no, this is going to be too complicated; we're going to delay that for a while. Then people say, what's your plan? I can tell you, my State is begging to keep our own plan for Insure Oklahoma. We're having to go back to the Federal Government and request that we can keep the plan we've had for a while taking care of those in poverty. This is absurd. There is a straightforward, simple way to do this that can be done; but, instead, we've created this convoluted mess. Just this morning I've heard people on the other side say that the train has left the station on this. I've heard health care reform, that train is rolling. Well, I can tell you, in the Senate the Democrats are saying, at least some of them are saying, this is a train wreck. And I agree. The train has left the station, and if we don't step out and say this has to stop, then we'll continue to have more and more fraud. We have got to take this on and take it on right now.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. It is absolutely my honor to have the chance to be here as well to be able to speak out on the issue that was critical in the foundation of our own Constitution and of our Nation as a whole, and that is the right to believe. We in America have this unique thing, the right to believe or the right to not have a belief at all; but if you believe, to also have the right to actually live what you believe. It is this unique American freedom that people around the world sometimes stare at with awe because they are bound to have a certain set of beliefs to be in that country, but not so with us in America. You can have a belief, not have a belief; but if you have one, you may live your faith. Coptic Christians in Egypt would love to be able to live their faith and not live in fear right now. The Baha'i in Iran would love to be able to live out their faith and not live in fear right now. The Christians in Syria would love to be able to live out their faith and not live in fear. And the multiple religions that try to practice in countries like China and Vietnam and other places that constantly live in fear because of their own faith would love to have that. But not so in America. Whether you be a Member of Congress, whether you be an individual in the administration, whether you be any person walking down the streets of America, you have the right to be able to live out your faith, and it is essential for us. It's a great value that we share, but it is essential that we also continue to protect. And on days like today, it is ironic that we are discussing again this unique value to say: Can we still live out our faith as Americans? Let me just give you a couple of examples where the challenge has been put to the test recently. It wasn't but a couple of years ago that the Obama administration challenged the Missouri Synod Church on whether that church and Hosanna-Tabor could choose their own minister or whether they would be fought from the outside, that the government could step into the church and say, No, we have to help be a part of selecting who the minister is. That was argued all the way until it got to the Supreme Court, where they lost 9-0, and the Supreme Court reaffirmed again that a church has the right to select their own minister. It is ironic that we are dealing with a great business that employs thousands upon thousands of people around the country, called Hobby Lobby, that the founders of that company are Christians, they live out their faith--they practiced their faith from when they were a craft/ framing shop in the garage of the family, and they continue to practice that business the exact same way now--to say: Can they live out their faith? They are currently facing a set of fines right now where the administration has stepped in to say, if you provide health care insurance that we choose, you're fine; if you don't provide any insurance at all, I'm going to fine you $2,000; but if you provide insurance that doesn't meet the administration's religious belief, you will be fined, as a company, $36,500 per employee. Let me run that past you again. In a country where you are free to live out your faith, if this particular company chooses not to provide insurance that violates their faith and it doesn't follow up with the administration's policy, they will be fined $36,500 per employee per year. And so they changed their insurance to meet the faith of the administration. It's not right. We are a place where we cannot only have a belief in a label, but also choose to live out that label. That's important for us as a Nation. Two things that I wanted to be able to encourage us as well. One is that students, on September 25--just a few days from now--will stand at flag poles around this Nation. They will gather early in the morning before other kids even get up and stand at a flag pole for an annual celebration called ``See You at the Pole,'' where students will gather to pray. It's not a demonstration; it's not a declaration. It is just students doing publicly what they do privately every single day, and that's pray for our Nation. They can do that because of our freedom. Today, I remember three Oklahomans that 2 years ago lost their life in Afghanistan. They are heroes. They were individuals that were protecting the freedom of people they had never met and protecting our Nation. Jane Horton, one of the widows, not long after her husband, Chris, was killed in Afghanistan, dropped by my office and got a chance to visit with me. We talked for a long time, and she handed me a tie that her husband had. I chose to wear it today, 2 years after he was killed, so that we would not forget those who stand for our freedom and that we will not forget what they have done for us and our Nation.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, last week in my hometown, thousands of families experienced their first week of a 3-month cut in pay. These hardworking families aren't unaware of our Nation's fiscal problems. We all see that our Nation is rapidly approaching $17 trillion in debt. But a few years ago, Washington denied that this path would lead us the way of Europe and we would not experience pay and benefit cuts to solve our problems like Europe has. Well, here we are. Families are living on much less today as a direct consequence of government overspending for so many years and the mandate to get our economy back in balance. In the past 3 years, Federal spending has been reduced, taxes have gone up, and the economy has actually experienced some rebound; but we're still overspending almost $700 billion a year, just this 1 year. That's down from $1.5 trillion in overspending 4 years ago, but it's still $700 billion in new debt that our Nation will take on this year. We have to deal with the economic realities that we currently face because the spreadsheet where we see the negative numbers, those numbers represent families and people that face the negative consequences of our inactivity. The GAO has identified multiple areas of government redundancy that waste money and where we fail to get the job done, but we seem to just nibble at the edges of fixing what is obviously in front of us. Social Security disability is now 2 years away from insolvency, but no one seems to notice that if we don't fix disability insurance and get the people off disability that are using it just as unemployment, the most vulnerable in our society, the truly disabled, will face benefit cuts along with those folks that are just gaming the system. The defense acquisition processes increase costs dramatically. Here's how it works. You get a prime contractor who pays a subprime, who pays a subprime, who pays a subprime. By the way, all of those are all the way through the path, and the last person has actually been someone who has done that job for years and years, and everyone knows it. Everyone knows the game, and everyone knows that in every part of that system there's a markup. The taxpayer is the one who loses on it. Let's fix that, because this affects families and lives. Multiple defense procurement programs in the past several years have failed to produce a final product at all and have again cost taxpayers billions. Usually, our Federal civilian workforce can tell management exactly where we're wasting money, but sometimes no one's listening to them. Those opportunities to save go untouched, costing more money in the long run and increasing our debt. Debt has a price for all Americans, but especially for the people working for our Nation. So what does government debt look like today? For thousands in my district facing furloughs, families are cutting back on food, home repair, gas in the car, and every other expense. A family I spoke with this past weekend will not have a summer vacation because of the furlough. That may not seem like a big deal to some people, but that's a lost significant family moment that they will never get back. Another family with two kids in college is currently trying to determine which kid won't go back to school this fall. In some families, both parents are furloughed, making the problem twice as large. A single mom that experiences the furlough has a huge decision. This fall and just a month away, they're going to have to buy school supplies and clothes. It's a serious problem. They're not a person just sitting at home living off Federal welfare, bemoaning the meager size of their check. They're members of our Federal family who work and give their lives to serve the warfighter. As you would expect in our community, the community is stepping up. Tinker Federal Credit Union is working with families on their loan repayments, churches are providing school supplies, the Regional Food Bank is giving additional food and is working to step up their provision. Many people, my family included, are giving financially to take care of people in need in this moment. Oklahomans are tough and we're caring, but I'm incredibly frustrated that it's come to this. Regardless of your thoughts on the number of Federal workers on the payroll, surely we can agree that the families currently employed should be protected as much as possible. These families have carried the stress of this pay cut for a year now. For months they have wondered when and if it would come, and now it's here. I've written numerous letters to the Department of Defense, asking them to exhaust every option in sequester before they reduce worker time and pay. To their credit, they've replied to all of my correspondence in writing within days, something other agencies in this executive branch could certainly learn from. I've personally spoken face-to-face with Secretary Panetta, with now- Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, and Comptroller Hale to find out about other opportunities to save money, like the unobligated balances in the defense budget. I asked for their reconsideration of operations that function on working capital funds. If you're not familiar with that, some departments pay other departments to do their work. Those departments should not be directly affected. The cuts have already happened in the other department. We're cutting twice when we hit on the working capital fund locations. I asked Secretary Hagel to give more authority to individual installations to make local decisions on spending reductions rather than mandating cuts from the Pentagon. Congress has already worked with the DOD to reprogram funds and to give maximum flexibility to the Pentagon to protect workers, just like we did with FAA and Homeland Security. I'm grateful, I am, that the Pentagon has found a way to reduce furloughs from 24 days to 14 days and now to a maximum of 11. But I want to find a way that we can end these furloughs all together for our civilian workers as soon as possible. Three months with a 20 percent cut is tough. In my last conversation with Senator Hagel, I was pleased to hear that he's still working on these ways. I urge him to continue to cut waste, not worker pay. It's time that we get this issue resolved.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chair, this is all about the local election of a school board, a school board that is elected that is distinct for that district. The parents go to school with the same kids. They're all interconnected, they know each other, and they're making decisions because we don't have a national school board. We should have local school boards. Why do we do that? Because we want local decisions made on whether they're going to have uniforms, what they're going to serve at lunch, how they're going to interact, what their class schedule is going to be, what their curriculum is going to be. Those are local decisions that should be made because those parents know their kids extremely well and love their kids more than anyone. In central Oklahoma, I can assure you, our parents love their kids and know their kids better than someone 1,300 miles away in Washington, D.C. So the simple decision should be made that I have personally contacted the superintendents in my district who ask for one simple thing: allow us to make decisions locally. We want to know that the decisions we make are going to stick and we won't spend all of our time and all of our money hiring compliance people to connect with the Federal Government to know what monies go where and what silos go where. And I hear over and over again, Race to the Top didn't give us greater flexibility. It actually said, You have flexibility in the silo that we give you. They want just real flexibility. I would encourage the passage of this amendment.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentlelady for hosting this time. There's a lot of things I've talked about in the well of this House. I've talked about budget. I've talked about a growing economy, about jobs. I've talked about transportation. I've talked about the relationship of the individual citizen and their government and how that relationship works--or sometimes it doesn't work lately. But this is a time just to be able to pause for a moment and not talk about necessarily some new government law or some new regulation, but to celebrate, for just a moment, dads, with Father's Day this past weekend, and to be able to hesitate again and to be able to say thanks to my own dad, but to also talk about the fact that it is the love of our life for men to be able to enjoy their children, just like it is for ladies to be able to enjoy their children, as well, as a mom. There is something very unique--and I believe firmly that every child needs a mom and needs a dad. They come at parenting from two different directions and they, together, make such a dramatic difference in the life of a child, to have a mom and to have a dad. It's interesting to me that the last verse in the Old Testament, in that verse from Malachi 4:6 in that minor prophet book, it ends that Old Testament by saying the role of the prophet will be to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers and to turn the hearts of their fathers to the children, to be able to see that restoration. In that time period, there was a collapse for a moment in the families, and they suffered as a nation and saw that. We see that today in our own families. Fifteen million children live life without a father--15 million. In 1960, there were only 11 percent of the homes that didn't have a father. Today, it's over one-third of the homes that don't have a father. As we watch all the consequences that occur with that in our own economy, in our own family, and in our own culture, it's just the separation that happens. We see a greater emphasis right now with trying to figure out what to do in schools as parents seem to be disconnected from their children and teachers struggle in the community, and things have changed in our schools with an absence of fathers. As we've seen the families collapse, we've seen an increase in poverty. Some colleagues were here earlier speaking about hunger in America, which is rampant and is a huge issue for us as a nation. They mentioned that in the 1970s we had a very low hunger rate in America. It's interesting for us to come here now and talk about fathers and how that has changed, and from that point in 1970 when we had a very low hunger rate in America, we look at the difference now with a very high hunger rate in America and also a very low presence of fathers in the lives of their children. We've seen something different happen in families as fathers disconnect from their children and they no longer see a role to be able to be a provider and they've required government to go be the provider for children when it was never designed to be that way. And that's not where it is best. Children have a higher risk of poverty. Children have a lower graduation rate from high school and have a lower entry rate into college. There is not a safe environment for children when there's an absence of a dad and a mom. It's different for them as they grow up and as they process through things without the stability that can come to a child with the presence of a mom and of a dad. So what do we do about it is the challenge. Well, quite frankly, there are issues in our marriage laws right now as a nation that we have where there are penalties to be married in our tax law. There are penalties even in our disability benefits as we try and reach in and help families as they're disabled, but yet if they're married, it's a lower rate. So we look at that, and we ask the question: Why would we punish a family for being married because one of the individuals there is disabled? That doesn't make sense for us. So we need to look at our policies that we have and be able to encourage rather than discourage marriage. Because we know when that happens--it's the reason that the Federal Government is involved at all in the marriage relationship is because we know what happens in the lives of children when a man and a woman are committed to each other for life. That commitment, the reason the government is connected to that is because of what happens in the lives of children and how it benefits people in the days ahead. So we need to look at the marriage penalty that's occurring in our tax law and our disability rules and such. But, quite frankly, most of the issues that deal with fatherhood and from the absence of fathers won't happen because of a change in Federal law. It will happen when families turn and mentor young couples and they get personally involved in the lives of young families. Some individuals have never seen a functioning man and a woman married and committed to each other for life. They've never seen that in their community, and they haven't experienced that in their own family. It's so important for older couples to mentor young couples and to pass on the wisdom that they have gained. It is, quite frankly, very important at the marriage altar for two individuals to truly commit to each other for life. That brings stability not only to those two individuals, but it also brings stability to the children where they grow up in a home where there's some emotional security and safety and not the constant fear of separation and of loss of either the mom or the dad. So for individuals to be committed to each other for life makes a big difference in that. So what can happen? I talked about the Federal policies, but it's really individuals, individuals mentoring other individuals, and it's two individuals when they approach the marriage altar knowing that we're going to commit to each other and we're going to work through the problems that we have because that's what's best for our Nation, and that's what's best for the children that are coming up to provide them that stable home where they can grow up. Do we always get it perfect? No. But we know economically and we know emotionally that the strongest homes and what's best for our children is for a mom and a dad. And I want to honor dads that do commit to walk through the hard, difficult days and to say to them, Keep going. Don't give up, dads. And as you face through hard times, your children need you. The single most difficult part of my job is getting on an airplane on Monday mornings and flying away from my two daughters and my wife. No other moment of my week is harder than that one, because I know the importance of being a dad to my daughters, and they need me. I encourage dads today to live out the commitment that you have made to your wife and the commitment that you've made to your children.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. In the past week, Texas and Oklahoma have experienced a storm. We lost 6 in Lake Granbury, Texas; 2 in Shawnee, Oklahoma, on Sunday; and 24 in Moore, Oklahoma, including 10 children and 14 adults. We have been overwhelmed with the number of people that have come to us to say, ``We're praying for you.'' I would like to make a request that this body take a moment to pause and pray and experience a moment of silence in honor of those that have been lost and the recovery efforts ahead.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. In Philadelphia, an abortion clinic murder trial is about to go to the jury next week for the death of four children and one adult. The one adult was killed by an overdose of drugs that she was given during the abortion procedure. The four children represent many children that were delivered completely, and then their spinal cord was cut while they were outside the womb. The defense has said those children would have died anyway. They were small. The drugs they had been given would have killed them already in the surgical destruction that happened during the actual abortion procedure. So those children don't matter. They shouldn't count as a murder. They wouldn't have lived anyway. I'm going to ask two questions. One is: What is the difference of 3 feet between delivering a child and snapping their spinal cord or killing them in the womb? And the second is: Why would we do this to children in the first place? I'd love for you to meet Olivia. She goes to high school with my daughter. She was born in 1996 at 1 pound, 2 ounces, just over 20 weeks at delivery, the very same as these children that were killed that day and many days in that Philadelphia abortion clinic. We have got to stand for life. We cannot be a Nation that does this to our children.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you for those words of encouragement, because that is what we're all about. As simple as this is, everyone would look at this Tax Code, the few notes that I brought with me to be able to reference where we really are on tax policy now, and see how large this has really become. When we look at our tax policy, we say, How did it become this? It became this because we've added one new rule after another after another as it's gone through. Just since 2001, there have been 3,250 changes to the Tax Code. That's more than one per day. And they continue to rack up. And every business and every American has to try to rush to keep up with all this Tax Code, which leads to the problem of, How do I know that I actually filled it out correctly and completed all this? For many people, there is that sense that I didn't get a chance to write anything off as deductions but there are other people that know how to get out of this. In this constant fight to say how do we fix this, first, we have to get to some basic definitions. One is, What does it mean to reform the Tax Code? Reforming the Tax Code seems to be a simple thing. That means we're going to fix it to make it simpler; we're going to make it more fair; we're going to make it more straightforward. There are some that try to define reforming the Tax Code as a new way to be able to raise taxes on other people, to be able to take away this deduction or that loophole and find ways to keep this same convoluted, crony system of Tax Code, but we're going to find some way through it to be able to raise taxes on different groups of people. And so we accomplish more revenue by raising taxes rather than by fixing the system. Again, I go back to we have the highest amount of revenue ever in the history of the Nation. This is not a tax revenue problem of how much is coming in. We have a serious spending problem. But we do have a Tax Code problem, as well, that forces businesses to overspend for tax preparation when they should be taking care of customers and clients and their employees. We can do better than all of this. We can do better, and we should. Again, there's this sense that within the Tax Code that, if we just create a couple more things, that we can fix the Tax Code, or maybe if we just raise rates on people, that will get in more revenue. Let me tell you a quick story. My daughters at their school several years ago had a project between the fifth graders and the first graders. As they studied through American history, the fifth graders and the first graders both got to the American Revolution at the same time; obviously, at different levels of interest and different depth on the topic. But as they studied through the American Revolution, the fifth graders, at some point, would take the role of the British and the first graders would be the patriots, the Americans, the revolutionaries. Actually, the week before, I got a note, as a parent, saying, You need to send 100 pennies with your first graders for next week's class. And all it was was just a note saying every first grader needs 100 pennies to come. And so I sent my first grader off to school that next week with 100 pennies in her little sack. She didn't know why. They began studying the American Revolution, and midway through the day, the fifth grade class barges into class and says, There is now a tax on sharpening your pencil, and they would impose a one penny tax on sharpening your pencil. If you go to lunch, you also have to pay another penny to leave the classroom if you go to lunch. There's a one penny tax to get a piece of Kleenex as well. They just declared it, and they would come in. Several times throughout the course of the day, they would just pop in and start collecting their tax from people. Well, on Tuesday, they came in and they doubled their tax. It's now 2 cents to sharpen your pencil, it's 2 cents to get a Kleenex, and its 2 cents to head to lunch. And so on Wednesday, it comes again and they add new things again to it. So by Wednesday night, do you know what my first grader did? My first grader, Wednesday night, came home and said, Dad, I need to take 10 sharpened pencils with me tomorrow to school. I said, Why do you need 10 sharpened pencils? She said, Because the tax is so high on sharpening pencils, I'm going to take sharpened pencils with me to school so I won't have to pay the tax to sharpen my pencil at school. I laughed and I said, My first grader knows how to avoid taxes. My first grader knows how to do this. Some perception that, if we just raise rates on people, a lot more tax money is going to come in is foolish, based on a basic value of, when we know it's unfair, we'll find a way to get out from under it. If we had a simple, fair, clean, straightforward tax system, we would not fight with this, and we would actually receive in the revenue that we should receive in as a Nation. A nation does not need tax revenue. We need to be efficient, we need to be fair, and we need to be straightforward. We can do this, and we should do this. I'd like to take just a brief moment to be able to recognize another one of my colleagues from North Carolina. This colleague has a different topic than tax reform, but it's really important this week because a mutual person that we have great respect for that he knows personally, as well, is due of honor in this week of all weeks. So with that, I'd like to recognize my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry). honoring george beverly shea

Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentleman. He is a man worthy of honor and worthy of spending the moment to be able to stop and discuss. Back on tax policy--which seems a mundane topic now compared to George Beverly Shea and all that he has done for our Nation and the world--did you know that under our current system if you own a guard dog to protect your business or if you hold a business convention in Bermuda or pay for your child's clarinet lessons so that it will help with their overbite, you can deduct those expenses from our income tax? There is something morally and culturally wrong with a government that enables its citizens to deduct their gambling losses but punishes the same person by taxing the interest that they have on savings in the bank. Why would we as a Nation deduct gambling losses and tax interest savings from the bank? Shouldn't we encourage saving and maybe discourage, or at least be neutral, for gambling losses? That's the nature of this code. There's a section even in this code that specifically outlines that if you're a drug trafficker or drug dealer, you can't deduct your expenses from drug trafficking. That's what our code has become. We've got to find a way to be able to simplify the code and to make it a fair, straightforward code that deals with the issues and takes away the absurdity that's in our code. Let me give you another example. We have a tax system dealing with internal taxes. In our internal tax system, we actually tell people that if you're a business that's an American-owned business and you do business with other parts of the world, you will pay that tax rate to that country, which is fair, but that when you bring your money back to the United States, you'll also have to pay the difference in our tax rate. We're the only country that does that. So we literally tell our businesses, do business all over the world, function all over the world, make money all over the world, but when you make money over there, we'd encourage you to leave that money over there and not bring it back home. Because if they bring it back home, they're actually punished for returning money back to the United States. Now, what does that mean to American competition and how we actually function in our business world? What that means is if you're a German company doing business in the U.K., let's say, you pay your taxes in the U.K. and then you return your money back to headquarters. But if you're an American business doing business in the U.K., you pay the business tax in the U.K., and then you don't return your money back to America, you just reinvest in your U.K. branch. Because why would you lose all that money coming back to the United States with it? This simple fix would bring back $1 trillion in private American capital from around the world back into the United States. Now, in 2009, this Congress passed an almost trillion-dollar stimulus bill where they took money from each other as Americans and tried to redistribute it to say it would fix the economy. Actually, what it did was it skyrocketed our debt, and we will be paying for it for generations. And it did not resolve our fiscal situation. What would it mean, instead of just taking money from Americans and redistributing it around and pretending we did something, what would it mean instead to allow private capital to move from all over the world from American-owned businesses to be able to come back home? It would be significant to us. It's one of those commonsense things that when I talk to people, they all nod their head and say, why don't we do that? I say, because of this, because it's so difficult to get through our Tax Code and to fix the things that are obvious. I've even had some people say to me, well, if those American companies bring their stuff back home, they'll just buy stocks or reinvest in their building, they'll just spend it however they want to. We should tell them how to spend it. I just smile and say, it's their money; let them spend it how they choose to spend it but allow them to be able to bring it home. In fact, we should encourage American-based companies to bring American money back home when they make it rather than reinvesting all over the world. It's a commonsense thing. It's a commonsense thing to say when you do business: no matter what type of business that you're in, don't discriminate. If they have normal business expenses, allow those normal business expenses to be written off and tax on the profit. It's a commonsense thing. But instead, our code makes it so convoluted. One business gets taxed different than another business and another business. No one can define what just basic simple business expensing is because the code is all so cluttered. Then you see in some proposals--like the President's proposal when he put out his budget, when he said that normal business expensing should be taken away from any company that does oil or gas or coal, and instead we should give special preferences to those that do wind and solar and hydro and other things. In fact, they had the audacity to make the statement in the Treasury Green Book, they made the statement that the President wants a neutral Tax Code on energy. I had to laugh. I said, one group of companies that actually has just normal business expensing--if they have a cost for a well, they're able to deduct it like every other business does for their basic operation--gets punished in this code, and other companies get triple benefits from it. That's not neutral; that's preferences. That's back to crony capitalism. Now, I've got to tell you, I'm all for all types of energy; I really am. I'm all for it. In my great State of Oklahoma we have geothermal; we have oil; we have gas; we use coal; we have wind. We've got all kinds of energy, and we use it all extremely well. It's a great solution for us. But the issue is not what do we do on what type of energy, it's where do we put preferences. The code doesn't need to become even more convoluted by saying, well, the administration has certain preferences on energy, and so it's going to make it more expensive for some types, and then we're going to give special crony benefits to others. That's not the way that we need to function. We need a code that is straightforward and clean and intentional, that we have a certain amount of money that needs to be raised to have basic operation of the Federal Government, and not raise more than that--and definitely not create a system that is even more complicated than what we have, when we have all of this giant code. Instead, we should make it more simple. So what do we need to do? Let's set some basic guidelines. Can we create a code that is fair and straightforward? Yes. So let's get started on that. And let's start with the basics. Let's not take this code and edit. Let's take a blank sheet of paper and say, how much does the Federal Government have to raise to efficiently operate? What is the best Tax Code to start that process and begin our reform not by tweaking this, but by fixing it? I know for certain if I went to any American and said, what is the best way to do Tax Code, no one would point to this. No one would point to our current Tax Code and say that's the best way to do it. We all get that. So let's start from there and say let's start by fixing it. The second thing is let's make our Tax Code as neutral as we possibly can. What can we do to make it simple, neutral, straightforward, so that whether you're an American that makes $20,000 a year or whether you're an American that makes $2 million a year, you feel like it's fair to you, there's not some sense of somebody else gets more benefits than I do out of this Code. It's a simple, straightforward Code. So, we're going to make it neutral, we're going to make it simple, and we're going to try to make it as efficient as we possibly can. And I know the words ``efficient'' and ``Federal Government'' don't go together very often, but when we start a Code, we should start it as simple as we possibly can. The last time there was a major reform of the Tax Code was in the 1980s, and it was to simplify the Code. Since that time, it has grown more and more and more complex again. I have every belief that if we go through the long process of simplifying our Code, which dramatically needs reform, if we will simplify our Code again, in the days ahead, future Congresses will make it more complicated again. That's the nature of government. I understand that. I'm just saying it's past time to do the simplification again. We need to have significant reform, and not reform that's defined as: How do we stick it to a certain group to make sure they pay more? Reform that's actually reform, that fixes our broken system and walks Americans through a process where they can pay taxes, as we all love to do, but can at least pay taxes in a way that they believe is fair and neutral and consistent from year to year. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, this is a conversation about something that's very pertinent to all Americans right now, and that is their taxes. Obviously, this is tax week, which was punctuated by an incredibly difficult day in Boston. But this is also tax freedom day that's happening April 18. It's a recognition that if Americans worked their entire year they could get to this point. For many areas of the country, this would be the day they're finally paying into their own family, rather than paying into the Federal Government or the State and local Treasury. Now, that differs from area to area, but this shows, again, the significance of what it really means to get to a point like this where we have to look again at our Tax Code. Today is the day just to be able to pause and say: Where are we with our Tax Code, and where are we with our budget? Let me just highlight a couple of things. Then I have several colleagues that I want to get a chance to yield the floor to to get a chance to continue this conversation. There's a lot of conversation about our budget, rightfully so. We're over $1 trillion overspending this year, the same as we did the year before, the year before, and the year before. Now, for the fifth year in a row something has happened that's never happened ever in American history. We've overspent the budget by $1 trillion. Let me set aside something else, though, for people to be able to look at, and that is, this year, in the Federal Treasury, we will receive the highest amount of tax revenue ever in the history of the United States Treasury. Make sure no one misses that. We'll receive more revenue this year than we ever have in the history of the United States Government. Yet, we're still overspending $1 trillion. We have serious budget issues, but they're not tax revenue as far as how much is coming in issues; it's overspending. But our issue with taxes is not the issue of the tax rate not necessarily having enough. It's the issue of how we do it. It's such a convoluted mess to be able to go through our thousands and thousands of pages of Tax Code. We need to stop and be able to evaluate this: Is this really the right way to do it? The purpose of tax action is to tax the smallest amount possible to run an efficient government. Is that really what we're doing in our Tax Code right now? Is it a simple system that people can actually do? If so, why do people spend billions of dollars across America, and millions of hours, trying to fill out tax forms, and to be able to get it in on time in a way that's so complicated that when you turn it in, no one thinks that they actually turned it in correctly. No one. So the challenge of this is, how can we get to real tax reform to be able to solve many of the tax issues, to be able to benefit our Nation and what happens in the days ahead, and especially for our businesses that need so much help and would like to have the relief of the burden that they have to go through all this convoluted tax policy. Let me introduce one of my dear friends. This is Tom Reed from New York. He's a member of the Ways and Means Committee. They live and breathe and function with the Tax Code, and he is one of the leaders of trying to walk through the process of reforming this code.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, in a historic red brick building in Philadelphia, a man and his staff performed thousands of abortions under horrid conditions, which has led to a murder trial which is currently under way for seven children and one adult. Some children were torn apart with surgical instruments in the womb. Some mothers were given abortion-inducing drugs and were seated on a toilet until they delivered their baby into that toilet. Other women had their labor induced; and when they delivered, an assistant flipped the baby over and used the scissors to cut their spinal cord. The horrific murder of innocent children was repeated over and over again in the clinic; but amazingly enough, only the children fully out of the womb are considered murder victims. Can someone explain to me how the children of the same age, size, and development, who were still in the womb when they were torn to pieces by surgical instruments, are not victims of murder, but those who were delivered and then their spinal cord was cut three feet from their mother are victims of murder? I will never understand the strained logic that says if a child is killed where you cannot see them in the womb, it's choice; but if you kill that child in the daylight, it's murder.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to give support to what is happening for the Path to Prosperity. It is a responsible budget. And I also rise to encourage my colleagues. It is a good thing for us to come down and get a chance to talk about budgets and where we are headed. It is a good thing to propose multiple options to be able to have this kind of dialogue about where we are headed as a Nation. This is what is happening in the Senate this week as well. For the first time in 4 years, the Senate has an ongoing dialogue about budgets and about the future. While almost $6 trillion of debt has been added to our children, we have not done a budget between the House and the Senate in almost 4 years now. It is time to be able to do that. I encourage my Senate colleagues as well, and congratulate them for also taking this up. I do look forward to one day seeing the President's budget. I did see today in the news that the President has released his final four bracket for the NCAA men's basketball bracket, but we have yet to actually see his budget. At some point, we hope to be able to see our national priority be on budgets, not on NCAA brackets, in the days ahead. The budget that we are proposing focuses on families that need certainty. The way that you budget and you plan for the future and the way to set aside finances for the future is some kind of certainty in what is happening. We don't have that right now as a Nation. For most families that actually live month to month, they don't have a large amount of resources to set aside for future investment. If a ticking debt bomb is coming for them, they expect the people in Washington to actually pay attention to that so that the little bit of money they can set aside for retirement doesn't blow up in some giant debt crisis in the days ahead. This is a moment to deal with our debt. The budget that we are proposing is a responsible budget that takes 10 years to slowly start to bring us back into balance. Only in Washington is a drastic draconian cut actually reducing the increase. What the Ryan budget does, what we are proposing, is a 1.6 percent decrease on the increase. Right now, the Federal budget is scheduled to increase by 5 percent over the next 10 years. We will actually just increase the budget 3.4 percent. I would say that is fairly modest. That is a way to be able to deal with what is happening in the Nation, and it is also a way to deal with what is happening to come in the days ahead. We are not promoting additional stimulus spending as the budget that is being proposed now is. A giant proposal for additional spending did not help us several years ago. What was promised right now is that we would be at 5\1/2\ percent unemployment rather than still hovering near 8 percent unemployment, as we have for so long now. Jobs do not come from additional Federal spending long term. If you want real jobs, it has to be in the private sector. That is the only thing that can be sustained; otherwise, you are dependent year after year after year with additional taxes and additional spending. We need to have the private sector be engaged in this. The way to do that is to encourage the private sector with some level of stability.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to be able to pay honor to a man who deserves honor. March 1 would have been Ralph Waldo Ellison's--we know him as Ralph Ellison--100th birthday. Ralph Ellison is a proud son of Oklahoma City. He's a graduate of Douglas High School in Oklahoma City. He hopped trains to Tuskegee to go to Tuskegee College on a music scholarship. He's a musician, he's a sculptor, and he's the writer of the famous work, ``Invisible Man.'' It was the defining work of African American literature in the 1950s, and still continues today as being one of the defining works to be able to point our culture to not ignore racial injustice, social injustice, and economic injustice that still occurs in our Nation today. His work ethic, his passion for education, and his passion for justice is a great example to all Americans. I rise to be able to honor a great Oklahoma citizen, Ralph Ellison, and begin a one-year celebration of his 100th birthday.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Speaker, I do want to stand in support of the House proposal today on protecting women across this Nation. This is something that protects all women. I know there's been some interesting accusations that we're trying to exclude people. This is for all women in all places. As a dad of two daughters, I get this. I understand this. My two daughters were on this House floor not very many weeks ago getting a chance to visit and to be here and to be a part of this process and to meet some of the great ladies on both sides of the aisle, but to also get a chance to interact with people and to see how laws are made. And I want them to know, in the days ahead, laws here that are done are for every person and that we stand for every family. This is a family issue. This is a women's issue. This is also a State legal issue. It's a community issue, and it's also a national issue that is right that we deal with today. I want to encourage organizations in Oklahoma City like the YWCA that have a simple theme of eliminating racism, empowering women; and they work every single day to be able to help women that are in situations that they have got to escape out of. I also want to stand up for the 39 tribes in Oklahoma. I've met with some of the tribal leaders. The House version does three simple things on it. For my constituents, I want them to know that if there's domestic violence that occurs--and the House version assures this--if they live in Indian country, if they work in Indian country, if they're married or dating someone from Indian country, this law clearly protects them in that. All of section 900 I would encourage people to read and go through the details of how we stand beside the tribes and those that are in and around Indian country. There needs to be prosecution, there needs to be protection. But most of all, we need to stand beside every single family and every single woman in this Nation to do what is right.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to be able to stand in front of this House today. Let me talk about families that all across America right now are struggling with their own finances. They're sitting at a dinner table this evening, because they have run out of paycheck before they have run out of month, and they're struggling through just the basics of how they're going to do life, because they're in debt and they're struggling through day to day. They will make decisions to be able to put their house in order and to be able to resolve where they're headed as a family, because they don't want to be a family that's going to live heavily in debt. Because once you're in debt as a family, everything is about money. Every day there's a new battle about money; every day there's a new battle about spending and who's going to spend and what bill are we going to pay and how are we going to handle day-to-day life. The hard part is that's where we are as a Nation right now. The House and the Senate and the President, we continue to argue through things about money. And every week it seems like we're fighting a new fight about money. Because, guess what, we're $16.5 trillion in debt. For 5 years in a row, we've overspent the budget by $1 trillion a year, and there's no end in sight. We've come to a day that we have to resolve how do we get out of this hole, how do we fix this. Let me give a quick history of how we actually got here. In 2011, the House and the Senate and the White House all agreed if we're going to have a large debt plan to get us out--at that point a debt ceiling request of $2.4 trillion--we had to have with that extension of the debt ceiling also a plan of how to reduce spending by that same amount or more so that we didn't just infinitely continue to increase debt. So the plan was made to cut $1.2 trillion over 10 years. And then there would be a second tranche of $1.2 trillion again to reduce spending. We couldn't come to an agreement on that. So Jack Lew, who was the President's chief of staff, came to Harry Reid and said, here's our suggestion, do a sequestration. Harry Reid rejected it initially. Then Jack Lew came back to him and said, what if we do half of it in defense spending? So an automatic across-the-board cut, if we can't find a way to reduce spending in other ways, we'll just do an across-the-board cut with half of it in defense and the other half of it from other parts of the budget. Harry Reid agreed with Jack Lew, the President's chief of staff, and the President's plan then went to the Senate and came to the House where begrudgingly we all agreed, because none of us wanted to see this. I don't believe that the White House wanted to see sequestration as well. But this plan that was put in place that the House, the Senate, and the White House all agreed to was to find some way to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion in long-term spending. The first option was the select committee, the supercommittee, as it was called. It obviously failed in its task. Shortly after that, the House of Representatives said that the select committee has failed in its task, we cannot have sequestration. And so in May of last year, the House of Representatives passed a replacement plan for sequestration so that we would not get to this point. As Americans constantly talk about Congress waiting 'til the last minute, almost 300 days ago the House of Representatives passed a plan to avoid sequestration and to do cuts and waited for the Senate to respond so that we did not have a moment like this. The Senate never answered us back. So in December of last year, the House again passed a plan to say here's how we can replace sequestration. And, again, the Senate has never responded to that. We're at a point now, hours away from sequestration beginning, at a point none of us wanted to be here, facing the reality that if the Senate never responds to us, we're at a point that we will step into across-the-board cuts. When that occurs, half of those cuts being in defense and a very severe cut after there was already $100 billion cut from defense 4 years ago, then $500 billion cut from defense 2 years ago, now another $500 billion cut in defense. Defense is carrying a very disproportionate number of cuts in this administration. We've got to find a way to be able to stabilize all of our programs and to do smarter reductions of spending without having this huge hit. We've got to learn how to be able to plan ahead, both in the House and the Senate. Why must this be done in the first place? That's the challenge. We have individuals that look at programs that are some of their favorite programs and say they're going to face an 8 percent reduction in that program this year. And there's going to be a spending cap so they don't have infinite growth over the next 10. And they look at it and say, why does it have to be that way? Well, I can tell you why. Because we are facing a debt crisis that is not just something for the next generation. It's now. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its report on the status of America and where we're headed on current law and what happens now. In that report, it detailed that right now we pay $224 billion a year just in interest. CBO 2 weeks ago released a report and said on the current path we will pay in interest $857 billion a year just 10 years from now. So where we have said in the past, for our children they're going to have a crushing debt, it is now this generation, because debt continues to accelerate; $857 billion, ladies and gentlemen, is larger than what we paid for the entire war in Afghanistan. We will pay that each year just in interest payments just 10 years from now if we don't get a handle on this. That's larger than all defense for a single year, that's larger than all Medicare, that's larger than all Social Security. $857 billion in interest alone is by definition unsustainable for us as a Nation. We cannot afford to do that. We have to deal with our spending. So how do we get on top of that? Well, the President's proposal is, let's just raise taxes on a few people. Well, guess what, the President got his tax increase in January. As of all the reports that are coming back in now, 2013 will bring in the largest amount of revenue in the history of the country to the Treasury. We will have no year in our history we will bring in more revenue than 2013, and yet the President's proposal is we need to raise taxes again to cover that. Well, one of the tax increases that he recommends is to just raise taxes on the energy companies. Just find energy companies and raise taxes on that. His proposal raised another $4 billion a year from energy companies. Well, there are a couple of problems with that. One is, that's a great way to raise gas prices again, as this administration has done so many times in some of the regulatory schemes that have happened to watch gas prices continue to trickle up. It is one more shot to do that. And the second part of that is, it's $4 billion. We have over $1 trillion in deficit spending. That does not solve the problem. We are overspending a trillion dollars a year, and we are spending more than a trillion dollars more than what we did just 5 years ago. It is obvious with the highest amount of revenue in the history of our country coming in, we're spending more than a trillion dollars more than we did just 5 years ago, this is a spending-driven crisis.

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. And it would drive up the cost of gasoline yet again for all Americans. It doesn't solve the problem; it continues to exacerbate the problem. Our issue is we're facing a difficult moment. But this is not a moment that is manufactured by some sequestration event. This is a moment that has been created by overspending year after year after year. And now the acceleration of debt and deficit and interest payments each year is climbing so quickly that if we don't get on top of it soon, we will not be able to get on top of it in the days ahead. This is not just a manufactured, short-term crisis. This is a serious economic crisis for the United States. And if it is a serious crisis for us, it is a serious crisis worldwide. We have the responsibility as the largest economy on the planet to be responsible with our finances and to get our economy back on track so that the entire world's economy can begin to get back on track.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentleman. Back home last week, I had a gentleman who came up to me who said, ``I make $80,000 a year between my wife and me. That has always been enough until now. With the economy's slowing down and prices continuing to increase, it's not enough. What is going on?'' The simple statement that I can make to him is that the economy continues to slow down because the Federal Government continues to borrow more and more money for its own debt, taking that money out of the private sector's hands, which would typically increase the economy, increase jobs, increase economic activity; but instead, right now, it's all coming towards the Federal Government as we require more and more money, thus slowing the economy down more and more. The unemployment rate under this President has been higher longer than any of the last 11 Presidents combined. There is something unique that I can say to the college student coming out of college who can't find a job: This is not a typical American economy. What's going on? We're borrowing too much money. We're slowing down the economy. It's not stimulating. It's hurting what's going on. This simple bill just says this: as is already required by law for the House, the Senate, and the President to all put a budget out, this also says let's put a budget out because of the dire times that we are in. It says, at some point in the next 10 years, let's bring it to balance. When the President sent his folks over last year to the Budget Committee in order to present the President's budget, I asked specifically, Does this budget balance at any point--10 years? 25 years? 75 years? Is there a point of balance? The response was, No. We are just asking for things to balance sometime. Tell us when there is a proposed balance out there. Have a plan. Right now, we have no plan to plan, and that needs to change. The Senate hasn't had a budget for the last 4 years at all. The President presents a budget that never balances. After the fiscal cliff issues and after all of the things that have happened, our tax revenues estimated by the CBO will go up 25 percent next year. It is estimated that our revenues next year will be the highest revenues in the history of the United States, yet the President still comes back and says he needs more revenue. We need to find areas to cut. We need a plan. We need to get into balance.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. It is my pleasure to be here. Thank you. The National Prayer Breakfast coming up this week is a great reminder to us as a Nation just to be able to slow down, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans, to be able to come together and do what we always do: to pray. It's what we've done from the very beginning. We are a people of prayer. I enjoy getting a chance to tell people at home in Oklahoma about how Members of Congress get together to be able to pray in the Prayer Caucus time. We gather privately just to be able to sit down and pray. The House and the Senate both open every day in prayer. Sitting on the platform of the inauguration just a few weeks ago, President Obama asked two different individuals to pray during that ceremony time. It should put to rest forever the debate whether we have prayer in public places when you see it in the House, in the Senate, in the executive branch, prayers repeated over and over again, and have from the very beginning. We have our national optimism because we believe that this world and this Nation, they were created with a purpose, and that the Creator cares for His creation. From our founding documents, we believe that all people are created equal and are given certain rights from God, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We're different as America because we believe that our rights come from God, not from men, and our core values come from something greater than ourselves. For many Americans, prayer is just a normal part of their day. It's like breathing in and out for them. As they go through the course of the day, they pray. That's no different for our many elected leaders, as well. We don't walk away from God because we're elected. We challenge our fellow Americans to do the same. We need His wisdom. We need His love. And it is in the moment when we are most arrogant and think that we meet our own needs that we forget to pray. But it's in the moment when we are needy as a Nation, as we are right now, we remember to pray. At 8 years old, I remember extremely well sitting in church up in the balcony of our big church and realizing for the first time in my life there is a God and I don't know him. I spent the rest of that day thinking and processing through what it means to know God. As an 8- year-old boy, I laid in bed that night and I prayed to Jesus for the first time in my life that I would be forgiven of my sin, and I began a relationship with this God who made me. It was my first prayer, but it's definitely not been my last. As a Nation, we understand how it begins, as well. If you walk out in the rotunda here in the Capitol, you'll see a huge painting hanging in the rotunda that's called the ``Embarkation of the Pilgrims.'' It was a painting done and hung in the rotunda in 1843, and it's supposed to depict the beginning of America. You know what the painting is of? The painting is of a group of Pilgrims gathered on the deck of a ship praying. It is the painting that is the beginning of America. Last week at a town hall meeting in Konawa, Oklahoma, as they're gathered around to deal with a very difficult water issue in their town, do you know how they started their city council meeting? With a prayer. It's quite frankly the same way that I ended my day last night before I headed to Washington, D.C., kneeling beside my daughter's bed to pray. It's what we do as Americans. It's quite frankly when we're at our best. And it's a good thing for us as a Nation to slow down and remember, it's good to pray. God bless our Nation this week as we do exactly that as a nation in this National Day of Prayer: to pray.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. `` . . . provided, that the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. ``This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.'' Amendment XIX: ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. ``Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Well, in a few days, we're going to have to resolve the fiscal cliff--ironically enough, something that the House of Representatives passed last May. In April, we set out a tax plan. In May, we set out a sequestration plan, passed it through the House, sent it to the Senate who said, We will see you during the lame duck time period. We are in the lame duck now, and this has to be resolved. We have to solve the problem. But quite frankly, the first thing we need to do is to be able to define what the problem even is. It seems that one group is talking about how the real problem is the fiscal cliff, and the other group is talking about how the real problem is the debt and the deficit. Well, what is the problem? The issue is, we have $16.3 trillion in debt as a Nation, $1 trillion or more in overspending each year for the last 4 years. Let me set the example of what this really means: in 2007, our tax revenue--how much we are bringing into the Treasury--was almost exactly what it is in 2012. From 2007 to 2012, the revenue is almost identical. The difference is, our spending has gone up $1 trillion a year from 2007 to 2012, so now that's $1 trillion total over the course of that time that's slowly built up. But each year, we've been over $1 trillion in spending. While our revenue has stayed consistent, basically, from 2007 to 2012, that dramatic spending increase has happened. We seem to identify that as the real problem. We're overspending. And until you deal with that issue, you cannot raise taxes enough to be able to keep up with $1 trillion of accelerated spending. So what is the cliff? And I have to tell you, I have so many people from my district and other places that catch me, pull me aside quietly and say, We hear about the fiscal cliff. We're not even 100 percent sure of what it is. Well, it's really the combination of three things: The first of them is, the ObamaCare taxes begin January 1 of next year. Those taxes will hit the middle class and the upper brackets. Those taxes, when they kick in, will raise the rates on people making $200,000 or more and will also remove deductions from the middle class, things like the flexible spending accounts. For those that have high medical bills, their taxes will now go up. For people that have high medical bills and are able to offset some of the taxes they pay because they pay more than 7.5 percent of their own income in medical bills, they will now have their taxes go up. So people like diabetics, heart patients, stroke patients, people with special needs children, their taxes all go up January 1, as well as people making $200,000 or more, their tax rates will also go up on January 1. That's the first part of the fiscal cliff. The second part of it is the spending decrease that this Congress and the President agreed to last summer. We have dramatically increased spending; we have to reduce that spending. That spending decrease that was agreed to had a deadline by the end of this year. If it didn't, there would be across-the-board cuts. The House passed all of our spending decreases in May. The Senate has yet to pass any. So with that, we're stuck with across-the-board cuts that kick in early January. The third part of that is the expiration of the tax rates for all Americans. In 2001, in 2003, and then extended during the lame duck of 2010, every American's tax rates were extended out to expire the 31st of December. Every tax rate from the lowest to the highest is set to go up. Now some people see that the problem is that we're not taxing enough, and so that solves the problem--to just go off the fiscal cliff, and everyone will be taxed more. Some people see that we don't take enough from one group and give to another group, so we can solve that. Some people have even said, Let's go back to the Clinton tax rates; with the Clinton tax rates, we had a booming economy, and we were creating more jobs. Well, to that, I would say, well, if increasing taxes increases economic activity, why don't we go to a 95 percent tax rate, and then we'll really have a booming economy. The reason that no one proposes that is because no one really believes that. That is why the accelerated tax rate that is being recommended by the White House is also being proposed with a stimulus plan, another spending plan to offset the damage that's going to be done with the tax increases. Here is the example that I can talk about with this: when people talk about, just raise taxes on the upper 2 percent, well, let me give you an example of what's being proposed by the President. Capital gains will go from 15 percent to 23.8 percent next year. Dividends would go from 15 percent to 43.4 percent. Now I have a lot of people that will say to me, just raise it on the upper brackets. But when I tell them, can I tell you what that means-- their taxes go from 15 percent to 43.4 percent--I have yet to have anyone stop me and say, Oh, that sounds fair. It doesn't. It just sounds so much easier to say, raise it on someone else, not on us. We have to solve the problem. Just raising taxes doesn't solve the problem. We're spending $1 trillion more than what we did 5 years ago with a tax revenue the same. If we do not focus on spending, we will never solve the problem.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Well, this is an interesting conversation when you deal with how this all came about. In January of 2009, the Sierra Club and several other organizations sued the EPA to expand their authority, to expand what was the law. The EPA ruled out of court in a settlement with them, and what was taken to a judge is a consent decree to expand what was the policy, what was the law. So several questions have to be answered here. One is: Does the executive branch have the authority to be able to change a law through an agreement with the Sierra Club or any other organization? Number 2 is: What is this all about? If you're dealing with visibility issues, you're dealing not with health issues specifically stated in the air quality--and all that happened with regional haze was this is not about health; this is about visibility. In my State, there's one of the national parks that will change 2 deciviews with the Federal implementation plan rather than the State implementation plan. That will cost ratepayers in Oklahoma millions and millions of dollars for something that cannot be seen by the human eye. This is about jobs, and this is about who makes the decision. I do not like the assumption that only people in Washington, D.C., care about the people of Oklahoma. The people of Oklahoma care about the health and safety of the people of Oklahoma. I would vote ``yes'' for this amendment.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Speaker, let's review. We have $16 trillion in debt, and it's climbing every single day. We have no budget from the Senate for the last 3 years. The President's budget got exactly zero votes in the House and in the Senate. And the Federal Government has dramatically increased spending, which has led to this spending-driven crisis. Let me show you what I mean by that. Five years ago, in 2007, the Federal Treasury received in $2.5 trillion in revenue, the same amount that's estimated to come in this year in revenue, $2.5 trillion 5 years ago, $2.5 trillion now. Five years ago, total spent by the Federal Government, $2.7 trillion, now $3.7 trillion. That almost looks like a $1 trillion difference in spending, which equals the same amount as our deficit. It's amazing to me. When we process through this, the problem is crystal clear. It's just the solution that seems to evade us in this process. Now, some would say, tell you what we need to do. We've increased spending $1 trillion, let's just increase taxes as well and that will solve the issue. I would say, why are we spending money we don't have? Last summer, we agreed that we would cut some spending and put a group of people together in a room and let them work out a plan to find $1 trillion in cuts. The back-up, the emergency back-up plan was that we would cut across the board if a solution wasn't found, 10 percent for security, 8 percent for everything else. Now, no one wants across-the-board cuts that are that huge. A 1 percent cut in agencies would be no big deal. I can't imagine any agency couldn't handle 1 percent. Two percent, no big deal. Maybe even 3 percent. But you start to climb up, and it really begins to cut into some agencies that are actually very efficient. Other agencies, you could do a 50 percent cut and it would be fine. The problem is an across-the-board cut becomes a very big issue for us. Treating every line item the same is a mistake. Every part is not the same in our budget. Let me give you an example. At my house, on a Saturday afternoon, I'll open up a Dr. Pepper can at my house and my very cute, red-headed 12-year-old daughter will walk up and say, Daddy, can we split that? I will almost always smile at her and say, sure, I'll take the liquid, you take the can and we'll split it even. To which she says to me, that's not really fair. But it again comes back to the same point: not all parts are the same. If we do across-the-board cuts in every area, that is not the best way to do it. Now, I guarantee you, you allow this House to go item by item through this budget, we will find $100 billion in cuts next year. I guarantee you. But doing across-the-board cuts into FBI, it cuts into our defense, it cuts into Border Patrol, it cuts into the basics and the heart of what we're doing; and we cannot do that. The House passed a very specific plan for dealing with this last May. It is complete for us. Now it's time for the Senate to actually do their job, and it's time for the President to send that over to us.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. There has been a tremendous amount of rhetoric and hyperbole in the conversation today--all this energy about how we are trying to raise taxes on different groups. Let's clear this up. This is about keeping the rates the same for another year for all Americans. Really, this debate is not about tax rates. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to identify as the problem is that some people in America have too much money and that the solution to fix this problem is for people to go down the street and find someone with a bigger house and take some of their stuff and bring it to the other house. Then the problems in America would be solved. Things would be fair. The issue is not whether we should tax one group more and then distribute that to another group. That doesn't create more jobs, and that doesn't create more stability. That doesn't pull us out of a recession. That only makes one group feel better that they took money from another group and gave it to another. There are really two philosophies that are at work here. We want to make this debate about taxes, but it's really a philosophical issue. One group says that the purpose of taxation is to take from one group and redistribute to another one to make America fair. The other group, that of the Republicans, says the purpose of taxation is to collect as little as possible in order to efficiently run the government so that individuals are able to keep their money. We became the most powerful, prosperous nation on Earth because Americans were able to keep what they earned, were able to invest it into other things and were able to grow it. Here is the real proposal: one, keep tax rates the same for another year; two, fix the broken Code. There are 70,000 pages--3.8 million words--in this Tax Code. It needs to be fixed. It's miserably complicated. No Americans feel confident that when they file their taxes they got it all right. We've got to fix this Code and be able to simplify it dramatically. It's going to take time to do that. So let's extend rates for another year, and then let's spend next year fixing the Code. Let's get this right for all Americans, not just for some.