Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Mr. Jack Greer.

Jack passed away last week after a long life of personal and business achievement and service to his family and to his community.

So many people in south Alabama knew Jack from shopping for groceries at Greer's grocery store, a business which has been operating in our area for over 100 years. But it was through his civic involvement that Jack truly left his mark. His civic contributions are too many to list.

It was his role as an environmental advocate that he perhaps was most proud of. He was a founding member of Mobile Baykeeper and remained engaged throughout his life in protecting the waters in and around Mobile Bay.

Jack was an active member of Dauphin Way United Methodist Church, and he proudly served his country as second lieutenant in the United States Army.

I knew Mr. Jack. I have known the Greer family my entire life. My deepest condolences to his wife of 70 years, Janice, and his many surviving children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Please know that Mr. Jack lived a life you can all be proud of. He will be, and is, sorely missed.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, a bill that would protect innocent children, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Speaker to immediately schedule this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mel Showers upon his retirement from WKRG in Mobile, Alabama, after a remarkable 50-year career.

Mel holds a special place in the hearts of many in southwest Alabama and the Florida panhandle. So many grew up watching his reporting and grew to trust him over the years.

Mel's career is notable not only because of its length, but also because of the barriers he overcame to become one of the first African American reporters and, later, anchors in the Deep South. A man of lesser perseverance and integrity could not have overcome these obstacles with such grace.

Mel deserves our utmost respect, and we will miss seeing him every evening.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mel. I offer my heartfelt thanks for his many contributions to our community over the years, and I wish him the best of luck in his retirement.

Remembering Billy Middleton

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of the longtime mayor of Loxley, Alabama, Billy Middleton. After a long, hard- fought battle, Mayor Middleton succumbed to cancer last week at 78 years old.

Billy was first elected mayor in 1988, and before his passing, he was serving a remarkable seventh term.

His longevity was no accident. A former marine, Mayor Middleton was a true public servant whose dedication to his community extended far beyond his official duties and endeared him to the people of southwest Alabama. His community is better because he was a part of it.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincerest condolences to his wife, Lilly, and the many family and friends he leaves behind. Billy's memory and service to the close-knit town of Loxley will last long beyond his death.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5. As many of my colleagues have stated, there are a number of very troubling issues with this legislation. In my mind, perhaps none is more troubling than the bill's explicit carveout from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, also known as RFRA.

Under the First Amendment, Americans are blessed with the freedom of religion. This is much more than the freedom of worship. Not only do Americans have the right to worship as they see fit, their faith is not confined to what happens inside their place of worship. They have the right to practice their religion every day as they see fit.

For many years, there was a strong, bipartisan agreement that protecting this right was of the utmost importance. In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious protections enjoyed bipartisan support. Likewise, RFRA was heralded as an historic, bipartisan achievement.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which rolled back longstanding constitutional protections for religious liberty, the Congress came together and restored broad protections for religious freedom under RFRA.

RFRA was introduced by then-Representative Chuck Schumer and Senator Ted Kennedy. It passed unanimously in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate, and it was signed into law by President Clinton.

For nearly two decades, RFRA has been the hallmark of protecting the religious freedom of Americans against the weight of a powerful Federal Government. Contrary to what some of its recent opponents claim, RFRA is not an automatic opt out of any law for people of faith. Instead, RFRA provides a commonsense balancing test between religious belief and government action.

First, an individual challenging the government must show that they have a sincerely held belief that is being substantially burdened by the government--that is, there is a real matter of faith actually being affected by the government's actions. If the individual successfully shows that, they do not automatically win their claim.

The government may then show that it has a compelling interest--that is, a good reason--to interfere with the individual's religious rights and that the interference is the least restrictive means to accomplish the government's goals--that is, the government doesn't have a better alternative.

This test provides fairness for both sides. Unfortunately, today, the House proposes to break this historic protection and say that RFRA will not apply to the Equality Act. It is clear why they have done this.

Without RFRA, it is less likely that faith-based charities and organizations will be able to uphold the faith of their organization when it runs counter to evolving norms on human sexuality.

Without RFRA, it is less likely that Christian colleges and universities will be able to teach and uphold a biblical understanding of marriage and human sexuality.

Without RFRA, it is less likely that parents in public schools will be able to opt their children out of mandated education that teaches human sexuality contrary to their family's religious faith.

Unfortunately, the modern Democratic Party has decided that mandating its beliefs on everyone is more important than upholding the rights of people of faith and those who possess contrary beliefs.

Madam Speaker, that is truly radical and deeply troubling. It is unprecedented. It is contrary to the values and foundational freedoms of this country.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. Protecting the rights of some cannot come

at the high cost of stripping away the rights of others, particularly when it comes to protecting religious liberty.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Coach Patrick Fain Dye for his long, successful career representing our state.

As head coach of the Auburn University football team from 1981 to 1992, Coach Dye elevated the program to new heights, compiling a record of 99-39-4 and winning Southeastern Conference championships in 1983, 1987, 1988, and 1989. He received Southeastern Conference Coach of the Year honors in 1983, 1987, and 1998. Coach Dye's 1983 Auburn Tigers team, one of the state's greatest in our proud football history, ended the season ranked No. 1 by the New York Times after winning its final ten games.

Coach Dye also served as Auburn's Athletics Director from 1981 to 1991, a tenure marked by the successful relocation in 1989 of the annual Iron Bowl to Auburn's Jordan-Hare Stadium from Legion Field in Birmingham. That monumental Iron Bowl, the first played in Auburn in decades, was a 28-18 victory for the Tigers. It was appropriate that in 2005 the field at Jordan-Hare Stadium was renamed Pat Dye Field in his honor.

During Coach Dye's head coaching career, which included early stints at East Carolina University and the University of Wyoming, he compiled an overall record of 153-62-5 and a bowl record of 7-2-1. For his accomplishments, he was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 2005.

When interviewing for the head coach position at Auburn, Coach Dye was asked how long it would take him to beat the University of Alabama, where he had previously served as an assistant coach under the legendary Paul ``Bear'' Bryant. His response of ``60 minutes'' was representative of the confidence and grit that endeared him to his players and the Auburn family. His promise came true in his second season, ending a nine-year Alabama win streak.

The Auburn family's love for Coach Dye continues to this day. He was a father figure to so many of his players over the years, and his legacy has continued to grow through the years with his work in the Auburn community and his philanthropic activities. To this day Coach Dye remains close with so many of his players and is a beloved figure in the state of Alabama and beyond.

I thank Coach Dye for his distinguished years of service to Auburn University and the people of Alabama. War Eagle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise questions of grave constitutional significance.

Last week, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee requested the IRS turn over years' worth of President Trump's personal and business tax returns. These are returns that cover business decisions and dealings long before the President came to office.

Similarly, the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform has indicated that his committee will examine allegations regarding how the President valued real estate, among other business decisions, long before the President was elected. He has also indicated he may call members of the President's family to testify about these and other Trump Organization dealings.

These actions are not only blatantly partisan, but they raise serious constitutional concerns.

Our system is one of limited powers and of checks and balances. The Congress is not a law enforcement agency. It is not a court of law. It is a legislative body.

Beside me are the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren, someone whom I would say most on the other side hold in high esteem:

``There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. . . . Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to `punish' those investigated are indefensible.''

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, investigations conducted by this House ``must be related to and be in furtherance of a legitimate task of the Congress.''

The Court has particularly warned that investigations of the private affairs of individuals are off limits without a clear connection to this body's constitutional functions. Rightly so. We are a nation of laws and of liberty.

The President's political opponents tried and failed to make his tax returns and his business dealings an issue in the 2016 Presidential election. The American people settled that issue at the ballot box.

It is absolutely clear that the majority does not seek the President's tax returns, information about his business, or to haul his family before Congress in an effort to pass new laws or for some other legislative purpose.

These investigations are thinly veiled attempts to use the powers of this Chamber to provide ammunition for the 2020 election.

Mr. Speaker, each of us swears a duty to uphold the Constitution. Each of us has a responsibility to ensure that our actions conform within its boundaries and its principles. I urge the majority to remember that obligation and reconsider this course.

The investigatory power of this institution is absolutely critical to our function as a coequal and independent branch of government.

Excesses by the body led to an intervention by the Supreme Court in an over 40-year period when the right of Congress to compel testimony was called into question.

Again, in the 1950s, the court was forced to intervene to stop the excesses of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Let's be clear. These so-called investigations set a dangerous precedent. The majority wants to use Congress to investigate the past personal and business dealings of an elected official and his family. This is yet another attempt to coerce and intimidate people with whom they disagree.

This isn't legitimate. This is a witch hunt, and it threatens to undermine legislative investigations in the future.

So, again, I ask the majority to think very hard about their constitutional obligations and what these partisan attacks against the President will mean for the future of this House. It is your right to oppose the President at the ballot box, not to use the powers of this body to score political points.

There is no legitimate purpose for this Congress to investigate the President or his family before he was elected to office.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I believe all my colleagues can agree that women deserve equal pay for equal work. However, the bill considered today takes the wrong approach to ensure that current equal protections, protections that have been in place since 1963, are reaffirmed and fortified.

This bill offers no new protections for women in the workforce. Instead, it makes it more difficult for employers and employees to have an open and informative discussion about hiring and other employment decisions.

Perhaps worst of all, it is designed in a way that helps increase the bottom line for lawyers. That is right. The only paychecks that this legislation will increase are paychecks for lawyers.

It is unfair to women; it is unfair to the workforce; and it is unfair to businesses.

It may come as a surprise to many people that the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act offers no new protections against pay discrimination.

Let me repeat that. The legislation being debated today offers no new protections against pay discrimination. Instead, it imposes a one-size- fits-all mandate to one of the most varied and complex workforces in the world.

Rather than allowing for informal discussions, the Paycheck Fairness Act strictly limits communications between employers and employees on key hiring decisions. Under this bill, the burden is laid on the backs of employers, and the lack of clarity for employees is simply unworkable.

I don't see how limiting the discussion between employers and employees, particularly on hiring decisions, is going to help anybody; and I certainly don't see how opening the gates to limitless, frivolous lawsuits is going to help anybody.

It should be noted, the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act that the Speaker just alluded to was signed 10 years ago with the promise that it would alleviate pay discrimination in the workplace. Yet, if you look at pay discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they have remained steady each year since 1997, both before and after the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act became law. I am hearing that same kind of overpromising when it comes to H.R. 7.

In an effort to improve the bill and ensure the damages actually go to the women impacted instead of lawyers, I offered an amendment that would cap

attorney's fees for any judgment to 20 percent of the judgment. Sadly, this commonsense amendment was blocked by the Rules Committee.

Why don't my colleagues want to join me in ensuring that money actually gets to victims of pay discrimination instead of simply padding the wallets of lawyers?

It is a real shame this amendment was not made in order. I think we can all agree that the idea of discrimination against someone based on sex is absolutely unacceptable, and it is inconsistent with the values we hold as Americans.

This issue is not partisan. In 1944, Republican Congresswoman Winifred Stanley introduced a precursor to the Equal Pay Act, which, since passing years later, has been the law of the land for the past 55 years.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 specifically made it illegal to pay different wages to employees of the opposite sex for equal work. In addition, title 7 of the Civil Rights Act made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex.

Yet, as I said before, despite these protections on the books, there are bad actors who continue to practice pay discrimination. Based on laws existing for decades, it is unacceptable, and we must hold these bad actors accountable.

Unfortunately, the Paycheck Fairness Act, as written, fails to improve employment protections.

We have a responsibility to the American people to craft strong policies that support women in the workplace, not merely offer weak lip service that, in fact, cripples employers and employees alike.

I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this phony bill, and, instead, let's work together in a bipartisan way to actually ensure women continue to thrive in the workforce.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, this amendment adds the language ``a bona fide business- related reason'' to make clear to the courts that the factor other than sex defense in the Equal Pay Act cannot be used as a loophole or excuse for using sex as a factor.

This amendment additionally strikes the remaining provisions of the underlying bill relating to applications of the factor other than sex defense.

These unnecessary provisions require that, even when an employer already shows the factor is other than sex, it must meet additional illogical and insurmountable burdens, effectively paving an unimpeded path to the promise of unlimited punitive and compensatory damages for trial lawyers.

In sum, this amendment strengthens current law and eliminates the new and untested concepts the underlying bill imposes on employers. It would make it impossible for an employer to defend any difference in pay, even when based on any number of legitimate job-related factors.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I was listening to the gentlewoman talk and I don't know that she has read my amendment, because my amendment actually solves the problem that she poses. There are some circuits that have given opinions just exactly as she said. What my amendment does is substitute for those decisions the bona fide business-related reason, which has been decided by a number of circuits. It is very clear. There is nothing amorphous about it. Practitioners in this area, like myself, understand exactly what it means. It actually solves the problem posed by the gentlewoman and makes it a lot better than what is in the underlying bill.

The problem with the underlying bill is that it injects amorphous new things that we don't have any idea what they would mean. What my amendment does is it actually makes it clear and solves the very problem that she stated in her presentation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentlewoman had to say. I was listening very carefully to her. I think she does have it confused, however, because it does inject an additional burden for employers that is not in the law right now and it does provide a ton of unclarity with regard to what they are going to have to do to comply with it. And I think my use of the bona fide business-related reason is going to inject the clarity we need and actually protect plaintiffs more than what is in the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentlewoman. I don't think she understands what that language actually means, how it has actually been interpreted by the courts, and how it may be totally misinterpreted against plaintiffs in these types of lawsuits.

What my amendment does is actually strengthen the hand of parties that have a clear understanding of what they are trying to accomplish there, either the plaintiffs or the defendants. It is an improvement in the bill for plaintiffs and defendants. We should all be for this, not against it. I don't want to go tit for tat with her on everything, but I do think she misunderstands both the amendment and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, once again, I heard what she read into the Record. I already read that. I understand exactly what it says. I think maybe I haven't made myself clear:

The underlying bill injects clarity into the law, which hurts plaintiffs in their cases. This will hurt women in bringing their cases. It will take years to try to get clarity through the court system, if we ever get clarity. That hurts plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

Defendants like to throw up unclarity. So I guess, perhaps, if you wanted to argue from that point of view, let's have a confusing bill. I am going to get clarity into the bill that actually helps women. And it is the irony of this whole proceeding that the bill that is supposed to help women, that they say is going to help women, hurts them. I am trying to help women with my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this language is consistent with how nearly all circuit courts of appeal have interpreted this factor.

``Bona fide business-related reason'' is not an empty phrase. For example, in one case where the employer alleged that the difference in pay was based on the higher paid person's participation in a bona fide skills development program, the court carefully examined the program to determine whether it was legitimate and, in fact, found that it was not.

This amendment helps women. If you want to help women in the workforce, this amendment does it. Their bill doesn't.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 75th Anniversary of the founding of the United Negro College Fund, Inc. (UNCF). In it's 75 years of existence, UNCF has helped thousands of students attend colleges and universities throughout the country; Through their work, they have created leaders and proud members of our communities whose contributions to the United States are immeasurable.

The UNCF was founded in 1944 to help increase the total number of black Americans enrolled in college. UNCF traces its founding to Frederick Douglass Patterson, who wrote an open letter in the Pittsburgh Courier to presidents of other private black colleges in 1934 urging them to ``pool their small monies and make a united appeal to the national conscience.''

Today, UNCF is a strong organization with a profound mission to build a robust and nationally-recognized pipeline of under-represented students who, because of UNCF support, become highly-qualified college graduates. UNCF also seeks to ensure their network of 37-member Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) is a respected model of best practice in moving students to and through college and then into the workforce .

As co-Chair of the Bipartisan HBCU Caucus, I am proud to represent the many HBCUs in Alabama and advocate for the betterment of all HBCUs across the country. I have appreciated working with UNCF to accomplish this mission.

Since its founding, UNCF has raised more than $4.8 billion in scholarship aid for students. Each year, UNCF awards scholarships and internships to more than 10,000 students at 1,100 colleges and universities nationwide. Overall, more than 445,000 students have earned college degrees due to the support provided by UNCF.

It is impossible to measure the legacy and contributions of UNCF. Madam Speaker, please join me in commemorating the constant investments by UNCF in our low-income, first generation college students and HBCUs, and all of the immeasurable good they have done for our students and our nation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Let's be very clear on this: H.R. 8 will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on firearms. What H.R. 8 will do is violate the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.

Under this bill, almost every time a lawful gun owner wants to transfer or sell a gun, he or she will have to go through a government- sanctioned intermediary. Under this bill, no longer could I let my cousin or my neighbor borrow my gun. If this bill becomes law, overnight, millions of law-abiding gun owners could suddenly be subject to Federal prosecution. Of course, we all know that criminals are going to do what they already do: make illegal transfers of firearms.

We have heard a lot about how this is going to be the most open Congress in history. Well, Mr. Chair, I filed an amendment that would strip out the text of H.R. 8 and replace it with a nationwide concealed carry reciprocity. Mr. Chair, the Democratic leadership blocked a vote on my amendment. What are they so afraid of? I guess they think they can shield their Members from votes to protect the Second Amendment and benefit our Nation's law-abiding gun owners.

Mr. Chair, I have news for the majority. Gun owners of America are watching this debate. They know what H.R. 8 is all about, and they know that this is just a sham to chip away at the Second Amendment and our Constitution.

I will oppose this bill and any bill that goes against the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' and fighting against this assault on the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a pillar of the Southwest Alabama community, William J. ``Happy'' Fulford III, on his retirement as Executive Director for Government Relations at the University of South Alabama (USA). After more than 35 years of leadership, Happy leaves a legacy of devotion to his alma mater, as well as lasting and impactful relationships throughout Alabama and the nation. There is no way to measure the number of students, faculty, leaders, and members of our community that Happy impacted over his career.

Happy has been devoted to the success and advancement of USA since his days as a student. He graduated from USA in 1972 with a bachelor's degree, and he later earned a master's degree in Graduate Education Leadership in 1991.

Happy is also remembered for his service to our country, as he served in the United States Army Reserve from 1972 to 2002. During his time in the Army Reserve, he served in Operation Desert Storm and retired as a Colonel, having commanded at the company, battalion, and group levels.

During his service in the Army Reserve and shortly after his undergraduate education, Happy served as the president of the USA National Alumni Association, connecting members of the USA community throughout the nation through his inspired leadership style and outstanding personality. Happy continually forged new paths for USA, serving as the University's first Director of Alumni Affairs in 1981, its first Development Director in 1986, and its first Executive Director of Governmental Relations in 1998.

Happy's list of achievements, experience, and contributions will never be fully appreciated. Few people in this life give as much and ask as little recognition as Happy Fulford. A founding member of the Higher Education Partnership, a member of the Business Council of Alabama, American Legion, Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, and many other organizations, it is clear that his outstanding service knows no bounds.

As his well-deserved nickname suggests, Happy is known for his easy- going, sincere, and positive outlook on life, while also remaining extraordinarily dedicated to the students, faculty, and staff at USA.

As he enters the next chapter of his life, I wish Happy, his wife Sherri, and his entire family all the best as they get to enjoy more time with each other. I know that in this new chapter, Happy will continue to serve the University of South Alabama in every way he can through his tireless efforts to make the students of Southwest Alabama prepared for tomorrow and making our community a brighter, better, and ``happier'' place to be.

Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing the decades of service of William J. ``Happy'' Fulford. It is difficult to express our gratitude in mere words, but on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember the life of an Alabama hero, Officer Sean Tuder, of the Mobile Police Department. Officer Tuder was tragically killed on January 20 while conducting an investigation.

Officer Tuder joined the Mobile Police Department in 2016. He was named Officer of the Month for his exceptional work in improving public safety. As another sign of his commitment to service, Sean was a member of the Alabama National Guard.

Mr. Speaker, Officer Tuder was the second Alabama police officer killed in the line of duty this month.

Police officers are the peacekeepers of society. They go to work every day in an effort to keep our families in our community safe. Sean's story reminds us that we should never take their sacrifices for granted.

To Sean's wife, Krissy, and his entire family, know that you are in our prayers and will continue to be in our prayers in the months and years ahead.

We will never allow Sean's legacy of servant leadership and sacrifice to be forgotten. May the words written in Matthew's Gospel comfort all of us:

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the

sons of God.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my support to this rule.

When did protecting the American people--knowing who is entering our country and having a secure border--become some kind of radical or partisan idea?

I am stunned to see the length to which some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will go simply to oppose enhanced border security, including a border wall. In fact, it seems they are willing to shut down the Federal Government instead of supporting President Trump's urgent request for $5 billion to fund the border wall.

What is especially strange is that some of my colleagues on the other side have already supported a wall in the past. Some have even voted in support of a border wall. What has changed?

I think the answer is very simple. I think some of my colleagues are so committed to appeasing the so-called resistance that they find themselves opposing a very basic and commonsense idea like border security just because they want to earn points from the most extreme part of their political base.

This is really not a complicated issue. This is about the safety and security of the American people. This is about keeping terrorists out of our country. This is about keeping illegal drugs out of our country. This is about keeping criminals out of our country. This shouldn't be hard.

Why am I so passionate about this? Because this is a critical issue. When I talk to the people I represent back in Alabama, they are passionate about it. This is one of the top issues I hear about at events and townhalls throughout Alabama. In fact, the phones in my office have been ringing all day with people urging us to stand strong, secure our borders, and build the wall.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a fight worth fighting. I think pushing to ensure the safety of the American people is worthy, and it is absolutely a critical fight. So I urge my colleagues to stop playing to the resistance. Come back toward a commonsense idea like securing our border. Pass this amendment. Pass this funding bill, and ensure the safety of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of longtime Brewton, Alabama, resident and my cousin, G.S. ``Scotty'' Byrne Jr., who passed away on November 18 at the age of 92.

Scotty was a veteran of World War II having served in the 351st Infantry Division under General Mark Clark and later went on to serve as sheriff of Escambia County for 24 years.

In college at the University of Southern Mississippi, Scotty was a premier two-sport athlete excelling in both baseball and golf. He was the first athlete to be inducted into the USM Sports Hall of Fame for two sports. Throughout his life, he was one of the most able golfers in our part of the State.

During his tenure as sheriff, he was a vocal supporter of the Alabama Sheriff's Boys Ranch, providing resources for children in need throughout our State. Without a doubt, Scotty was one of the most memorable citizens in Escambia County's long history.

So on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to share our condolences with Scotty's family. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate Bob Grip on his retirement after 33 years at FOX10 News in Mobile, Alabama, and an even more impressive 48 years in journalism.

Bob has been a mainstay in television in southwest Alabama and the Florida Panhandle for over three decades. Through his work at the anchor desk, Bob helped create a more informed community.

Just as impressive is Bob's contribution away from the TV station. He has dedicated countless hours to numerous service organizations and programs, including teaching journalism classes and hosting high school academic competitions.

One of my fondest memories with Bob was when he tagged along for a day of my townhall meetings in rural Alabama. At each stop, Bob was the highlight. In fact, there is no doubt that more people were excited to see Bob than their Congressman. It was a testament to just how loved and respected Bob Grip is by so many people in southwest Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call Bob a friend, and I wish him and his wife, Marie, all of the best in their retirement.