Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the continued achievements of Mr. Elroy Anthony James, a native and product of my hometown of New Orleans, Louisiana. Today, I wish to congratulate Mr. James as he is honored with the title of 97th King of Zulu, an organization that he has proudly served for nearly two decades. He has participated on various committees, including the Zulu Ensemble, Picnic, Souvenir Booklet, Public Relations, Anniversary, Budget and Finance and Lundi Gras Committees. Mr. James has been a leader in Zulu due to a love of the tradition, merriment and ceremony of this historic organization. His newest honor is one that will forever remain among his many high accomplishments.

In addition his role as an active member and leader of the Zulu Social Aid & Pleasure Club since 1992, Mr. James is a life-member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and a member of the Louisiana State Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association and the New Orleans and Baton Rouge Bar Associations. Mr. James' honors and achievements are testaments to his value as a brother, a leader, and as an esteemed professional in the many organizations to which he devotes his time. Mr. James also volunteers with the Leona Tate Foundation for Change Inc., where he provides legal advice to individuals who have made the pursuit for social justice their lives' work.

Mr. James is the youngest child of Ms. Mary L. James of Kentwood, Louisiana. He is an alumnus of Southern University Agricultural and Mechanical College and the Southern University Law Center, where he received his Juris Doctorate and was associate editor of the Southern University Law Review. He is also an alumnus of Georgetown University Law Center, where he earned a Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Taxation with a Certificate in Employee Benefits. I hold Mr. James in the highest regard for his dedication to family, friends, colleagues, and his community. An inspiration to all whose lives he touches, Mr. James represents the best of what New Orleans has to offer. His commitment to the city and the future of the city brings hope and promise to ensuring that New Orleans remains one of the most empowered and unique places in the world.

I wish to congratulate Mr. Elroy James on his coronation on February 17th, 2012 as the 97th King of Zulu.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida.

I rise today in support of the amendment from my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I'd like to just remind the Chair that it was a little less than 2 years ago that the Deepwater Horizon occurred and we lost 11 Americans. We lost the lives of 11 Americans, and over 200 million gallons of oil were spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.

Also, when you look at the damage that occurred, you have to remember that the year of the spill our shrimp supply was down 37 percent, crab was down 39 percent. Every day, when a waitress or a waiter or a bartender went to work, they made less money, business owners were making less money to make ends meet, all because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

So what we want to make sure with this amendment is that those who suffered actually recoup the benefit of it so that they can protect their coast and make sure that they protect their citizens from future hurricanes--not only their citizens, but protect a big investment of this country.

When we talk about our ports, when we talk about the oil and gas industry, I would just remind my colleagues that when Katrina happened, gas prices went up 48 cents around the country. That's because Louisiana was suffering, and we could not produce the oil and gas we normally produce.

So this bill allows us to protect the coast, protect America's energy investment, and also make sure that we can save the lives of Louisiana citizens.

The last thing that I will add is that we should not let the 200 million gallons of oil and the 11 lives that were lost open up an opportunity for a windfall for the American treasury. We should make sure that these funds go exactly where they should go so that we can help the gulf coast, which is so vital to this country's energy independence and the seafood that we all enjoy.

So I would again just say, Mr. Chairman, that I rise in support of the amendment. It's not perfect, it's not the end all, but this is the best way right now to make sure that the sentiment is established that 80 percent of the fines should go to those coastal communities so that they can help their own recovery.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, what this amendment simply does is it allows those Gulf Coast States to invest their oil and gas into their States in terms of coastal restoration.

I would tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Louisiana, since 1950, has contributed over $160 billion to the Federal Treasury; and, in return, Louisiana has received some of the same benefits as other States have received. However, one unique thing that we've received is a tattered coast line.

Louisiana loses almost a football field an hour in terms of our wetland laws. What this amendment would do is allow us to take some of those revenues that we receive and invest that back into restoring our coast.

I will tell you also, Mr. Chairman, that restoring Louisiana's coast is a very monumental task; and the people of Louisiana, the people of all of the gulf coast communities are willing to step up and take not only their own resources but resources they receive from the Federal Government in terms of any revenues or royalties they will receive and put those back into coastal restoration, making sure that we have wetlands.

Because when we talk about the damage that has been done to Louisiana by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, that event cost us 11 Louisiana citizens. Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike cost the gulf coast community the lives of almost 1,600 of its citizens. When we talk about our wetlands, that's our first line of defense in preventing the damage of a hurricane. So, while we are willing to sacrifice our coast and those things so that we can have a stable energy sector in this country, we also recognize that we should invest back in it to make sure the citizens are safe.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just simply close by thanking the gentleman and by saying that what the amendment does is really allow the gulf coast communities to invest in their own futures while continuing to invest in the energy future of America.

Mr. Chair, Louisiana has contributed over $160 Billion to the Federal Government through offshore oil and gas revenues--primarily from oil and gas exploration off of Louisiana's coast. From the 1950s until 2006, Louisiana didn't receive any royalties. We have received funding from the Federal government like other states, but our royalty over those 56 years was a tattered coastline.

Louisiana loses 25 square miles of coastal wetlands every year or 1 football field every hour. Our state has 40 percent of the nation's wetlands, but experiences 80 percent of all wetland loss. Part of the reason is nature, but besides blocking off the natural flow of the Mississippi River, oil and gas canals are big culprits.

The bill before us creates a revenue sharing scheme for east and west coast states but does not allow the states to use these royalties as matching funds for federal programs.

I can tell you that right now, because gulf coast states are receiving a very small amount of money from oil and gas production off their shores, much of the time, the Gulf states use these funds as their required cost share of Corps of Engineers and Department of Interior projects for coastal restoration, hurricane protection, wildlife restoration, and other disaster mitigation projects.

My amendment would give states the option to use oil and gas revenues as their state cost share of federal projects for ``coastal wetlands conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, or infrastructure projects directly impacted by coastal wetland losses.''

I think that coastal states like California, Alaska and Virginia which are embarking on offshore energy production will want the flexibility to spend their revenues on projects that strengthen and protect their coastline. Without this amendment, revenues derived from offshore oil, gas and renewable energy could not be used for these critical projects.

This amendment would help the coastal states help themselves without tapping into the Federal Treasury. We don't want to be dependent on Federal Fund. We want to invest in our own future while we protect America's energy future.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, I have an understanding different from my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts. He is absolutely right when he says the resources are everyone's. The resources are everyone's. But the sacrifices that you make to get those resources come from those Gulf States. We lost 1,836 lives in Katrina. We lost 11 lives in the BP oil spill. We've lost 328 square miles of marsh. And in this bill, we give royalties to all the other States immediately.

What we're asking from Louisiana is that, without a cap, is that in 2023 when we start to give us the 37.5 percent. However, we're willing to cap it at $750 million as opposed to the unlimited amount that all the other States under this bill would do.

And then I think in 2006, Congress recognized that the Gulf Coast States were bearing the brunt of our energy production in this country, the lands that we lose. We produce 90 percent of the Nation's offshore oil and gas. So that's a sacrifice that we make for people in Kansas, people in California to be able to turn on their lights in the afternoon or at nighttime.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Daniel Buckner Price and the steadfast faith and goodwill of the Price family. Daniel was brutally murdered at the age of 28 in San Francisco while trying to protect his high school sweetheart and wife, Sarah Abbott Price, from an attacker.

A native of my hometown of New Orleans, Louisiana, Daniel was a loving husband, brother, son, and friend. During his short life, in addition to being remembered as a devoted family man, we remember Daniel as a talented artist and gifted athlete.

Family, friends, and strangers alike remember Daniel for his infectious spirit and creativity.

An inspiration to all whose lives he touched, Daniel had the ability to find beauty in even the simplest pleasures.

Daniel's parents, Dr. Steve and Mrs. Catherine Price are great parents and loving members of the New Orleans community. Following his tragic death, his family created the Daniel Price Memorial Fund for Aspiring Artists to give talented fine arts graduates of the New Orleans Center for Creative Arts (NOCCA) an opportunity to pursue higher educational studies in the arts. Instead of giving up on the good in people and becoming jaded, they doubled down on their faith and in the future of New Orleans' best product and our future: our children. The scholarship will enable future generations of young, talented artists like Daniel Price to follow their artistic passion while obtaining a college degree. One criterion for the scholarship is that the applicant must also demonstrate an ongoing commitment to the New Orleans artistic community. This will ensure that the beneficiaries of the scholarship continue to contribute to New Orleans' future in the years ahead.

While we continue to grieve the loss of such a precious and innocent life, let us find the strength to be inspired to be kind and generous, and to live our lives with the same vitality and integrity that Daniel Buckner Price lived his life. The Price family represents the best of what New Orleans has to offer. Their dedication to the city and its future brings hope and promise to ensuring that New Orleans remains one of the most beautiful and unique places in the world.

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate incidents of today remind me of that song I learned from Sesame Street which is, One of these kids is doing his own thing. The truth of the matter is we need adults today. If you look at the Republican Senators, they stood up and reached a compromise with the Democrats in the Senate. The House Democrats came along. The President came along. There was only one outlier, and that was our House Republicans.

Over the holidays, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you remind and encourage my House Republican colleagues to go see the wizard, go get a brain so we can talk about the intelligence needed to spur this economy. Go get the courage to stand up to the private interests, the Koch brothers, and the lobbyists so that you can do the right thing for the country. And after all, go get a heart so you can help the 2.2 million people that are unemployed have a merry Christmas, so that you can help the 160 million people who will face a tax hike on January 1 and, more than anything, the 48 million seniors who will have less access to health care.

Mr. Speaker, I will close with one thing, and it's just a bit of advice: be careful because the unemployment benefits you save may be your own.

Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote number 857. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote number 857, adoption of the Conference Report on H.R. 2112--the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food & Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report is not perfect. I am pleased that it would avert a government shut-down and that the Federal Government can continue to provide services to the American people. Additionally, I am pleased that the conference report provides over $2 billion for emergency disaster relief. That being said, there are many items contained in the legislation that are troubling. At a time of severe economic challenge in many parts of the country, this bill reduces investments in infrastructure, community policing and federal housing programs. I am hopeful that my colleagues can craft the next slate of appropriations bills with a fundamental understanding that we are experiencing an economic emergency in many parts of the country. I look forward to working with them on the remaining appropriations bills for the current fiscal year and to continuing to work to put our economy back on the right track.

Mr. Speaker, the Reverend Joseph E. Lowery, an irreplaceable organizer in the American Civil Rights Movement and a leader who marched with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to overturn discrimination in voting rights and other injustices, celebrates his 90th birthday today. It is only right that I honor this man who made my ascension possible.

Just 54 years ago, in a meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, Rev. Lowery helped form the Southern Christian Leadership Conference alongside Dr. King, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, and New Orleans' own Rev. Dr. Simmie Lee Harvey and Rev. Abraham Lincoln ``A. L.'' Davis--among other civil rights leaders. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, known as the SCLC, was largely known for its non-violent protests. It was Rev. Lowery himself who organized the 1965 Selma to Montgomery March that eventually led to the passage of the historic Voting Rights Act. You'll remember that the Voting Rights Act finally guaranteed Black Americans the right to vote--free from intimidation, poll taxes, and other rules and laws designed to disenfranchise us. Rev. Lowery served as the president of the SCLC from 1977-1997 and revitalized it through his outspoken nature and distinct leadership style.

Rev. Lowery continues to fight social injustice even today at the young age of 90. For his work, he's received numerous awards including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor; the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Phoenix Award; the Martin Luther King Center Peace Award; the NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award; and the Fred L. Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. Rev. Lowery has also received several honorary doctorates from colleges and universities including, Dillard University, Morehouse College, Alabama State University, University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Emory University.

While delivering the benediction at the 2009 presidential inauguration of President Obama, Rev. Lowery reminded us all ``that in the complex arena of human relationships, we should make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; and tolerance, not intolerance.'' It is evident that this principle has been a driving force in every area of Rev. Lowery's life for the last 90 years. His unwavering dedication to equality for all people has made this country a better place for people of all races and ethnicities.

As we celebrate the life of Rev. Lowery today, we must also pause to remember the legacy of another civil rights leader, Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth. Rev. Shuttlesworth died yesterday at the age of 89 after fighting for racial equality alongside Rev. Lowery for more than 50 years. He was an American hero whose fight for civil rights is emblematic of the perseverance, compassion, and faith that make us American. He was a legend during the movement and time has only cemented his place in history as a champion of equality. He was beaten, threatened, and his family was attacked. Nonetheless, he never wavered from his commitment to American civil rights. My achievements have been possible because I stand on his shoulders, Rev. Lowery's shoulders, and those of other freedom fighters. Dr. King once referred to Rev. Shuttlesworth as ``one of the nation's most courageous freedom fighters.'' It is because of this courage that his legacy will live on for many generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing Rev. Joseph Lowery a happy and blessed 90th birthday. As Rev. Lowery once wrote of Dr. King, ``To appropriately celebrate . . . we must honor both the man and the movement. To ennoble the man and ignore the movement is to do injustice to both. We must not let the spirit of the movement be overcome with sentimental ceremonies that omit the sacramental nature of the struggle. Ceremonies end with the benediction while sacraments begin with the benediction. Ceremony is like putting a ring on her finger at the wedding. Sacrament is ringing her life with love and joy ever after.''

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

Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is increase the funding for our Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement by $5 million. And what it would do is it would allow BOEMRE to quicken the pace of permit approval and, in turn, promote the rate of oil and gas investment in the gulf region. To accomplish this, we will reduce the Rangeland Management Fund by $6 million, which still leaves that fund above its fiscal year 2011 funding level.

Let me point out to you why this is the wise thing to do. In response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the resulting oil spill last year, in May, the administration issued a temporary moratorium, halting permits of oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf. The moratorium was lifted in October of last year; but since then, the issuance of permits has been slow. President Obama directed BOEMRE to reorganize itself into two independent groups: one that handles revenue from oil and gas leasing, and the other that regulates the oil and gas industry. This is all a change that most of us believe is necessary and wise.

However, the speed of permitting activity has not returned to pre- Deepwater Horizon levels. There is a significant and growing backlog of drilling plans pending approval. The number of pending deepwater exploration and development plans has increased by more than 250 percent. This is up from a historical average of 18 plans pending to now nearly 65 pending approval.

Also there's a drastic decline in drilling permit approvals. Deepwater exploration and development drilling permit

approvals have also declined by approximately 80 percent, down from an average of nearly 160 per year to a pace of only 30 per year. Shallow water exploration and development drilling permits approvals have also dropped by nearly 50 percent from an average of 390 per year to a pace of fewer than 180 a year.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that there was a recent study that showed that increasing the pace of permitting and, subsequently, the pace and scale of investment in the gulf would create 230,000 domestic jobs in 2012 as well as more than $44 billion in U.S. gross domestic product.

I just want to focus on that number for a second, Mr. Chairman, because as we have been here for the 112th Congress, the American people have been demanding that we use the money we have efficiently so that we can invest in the American people and get a return on our investment. So here we are asking the American people for $5 million and are asking our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who earlier this year proposed legislation that was purported to increase drilling and to lower gas prices. Well, now they have the opportunity to take $5 million, invest it in BOEMRE, and have the opportunity to create 230,000 jobs.

There are 14.1 million people in this country who are actively seeking employment and cannot find it. Here we have a chance to help 230,000 of them in fiscal year 2012 alone, and we have the ability to increase our gross domestic product by $44 million.

Mr. Chairman, I think that's what the American people are demanding. They want us to use our money wisely. That's what this amendment does. And I will just ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this. It's a job creation amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, again I rise to talk about what I consider to be wise investments into the future and the stability of this great country.

For the last 21 years, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has created jobs and served as an important investment tool in our Nation's economy and for wetlands in every single State. NAWCA has been responsible for restoring over 26 million acres of wetlands, equivalent to the size of the State of Ohio. Not only did it restore over 26 million acres, it also creates nearly 7,500 jobs annually and hundreds of millions in worker earnings every year.

If we look at the fiscal year 2011 appropriations with $37.5 million, it is down from $47.6 million for fiscal year 2010. This bill allocates only $20 million for fiscal year '12, a cut of 47 percent from fiscal year '11 levels and 58 percent from fiscal year '10 levels.

Here is the important point, Mr. Chairman: The law requires that each Federal dollar put into the program be matched by $1 in non-Federal funds. Because the competition for these dollars is so great, on average, each Federal dollar is matched 3 to 1.

Mr. Chairman, over and over again I keep saying that the American people are looking for us to spend money in this great country, where we get a return on our investment. Now we have another program where, for every dollar we spend on this program, the American people get $3. That's what we should be doing in this time of great economic hardship.

I am asking my colleagues on the other side to look at where we're spending money in this bill and put money where we're going to get a good return on our investment, we're going to create jobs, and at the same time we're going to preserve and restore our wetlands.

That, Mr. Chairman, I think, is the responsible thing to do, the wise thing to do, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to support it.

I would now yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just say that this is another one of my small attempts to make an awful bill just a little bit better, and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank President Obama and the administration for recognizing how important Louisiana wetlands are not only to Louisiana citizens but also to the country. President Obama put $35.8 million into his budget for coastal restoration projects in Louisiana.

Madam Speaker, I also rise today to implore the Republican leadership to right the wrong in zeroing out the money that the President put in for our coastal restoration. The Federal Government has made over $150 billion through offshore oil and gas revenues, primarily from oil and gas exploration off the coast of Louisiana. Louisiana has lost 25 square miles of coastal wetlands every year, or one football field every hour.

More than 80 percent of the Nation's offshore oil and gas is produced off Louisiana's coast, and 25 percent of the Nation's foreign and domestic oil comes ashore on Louisiana roads and waterways. The coastal zone also contains the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, which handles 13 percent of the Nation's daily oil imports.

Madam Speaker, I would just implore the Republican leadership to do the right thing and restore the money for Louisiana's wetlands.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of my colleague from across the aisle, in fact, my colleague from across town and our great State of Louisiana.

Not only is this amendment on time; it's on target, in terms of job creation and job retention in our great country.

The current cargo activity at the Port of New Orleans alone generates $2.8 billion in Federal taxes. The future and livelihood of farmers and manufacturers in 30 States that depend on the Mississippi River to get their goods to market, that's 60 percent of all U.S. grain exports in this country flows through the Port of New Orleans.

Our industrial heartland desperately needs the Mississippi River. The steel, rubber, copper, aluminum, and lumber that they need to use in manufacturing comes up the mouth of the Mississippi.

So although it's two colleagues from the great State of Louisiana, we are not here specifically talking about one thing that's important to Louisiana. This is important to 30 States in this country. It's important to the entire country.

According to customs, $85 billion to $104 billion a year is attributed to trade through the Mississippi River. So when you talk about how we keep this country going, how do we grow this country, it's through making wise investments.

And right now, in these tough times, the American people want us to use every dollar that we have very wisely; and I will say that according to the Port of New Orleans, every dollar that this country spends on dredging the Mississippi River, we get a 35-1 return. So the $6.8 million that my colleague from New Orleans and the metropolitan area is talking about diverting creates $238 million in this country.

I would say what's happening in this country is that we should look at return on investment. We should look at how we spend money wisely to create more income, create more jobs, and make this a better country. That's what this amendment does.

And for all of my colleagues in those 30 States that depend upon the Mississippi River, I would just say think about your farmers, think about all of your industrial employees because they need these goods to come up the river so that they can continue to compete. I will just tell that you if you look at a Panamax vessel, the 5 feet of draft--of the difference it would make if we don't dredge the Mississippi River would cost us $3.2 million per voyage.

That makes us noncompetitive in the world. So they can get their grain from the United States or they can go to Brazil to get their grain. And I would just suggest, Mr. Chairman, if they start going to Brazil to get their grain, then they will never come back to the great country that we live in. So we have to use our money wisely.

I think this is a very prudent use of $6.8 million and that the American people, if they knew they could spend $6.8 million to generate $238 million, everybody would support it, and that would be the reason why I would ask my colleagues to support it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me and presiding over these affairs tonight.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much.

Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to come down to the floor of the House and start something that I think is very significant. Mr. Speaker, I can't directly can't talk to the American people. I have to address you. But if I could talk to the American people, I would remind them that a couple of weeks ago, when I came down here, I was inviting them to participate in what I am now calling ``The People's House'' so that ordinary people can have a say in what we do and make sure that their opinions are heard. So again, I would invite anyone and everyone to join me in this conversation to make sure that everyday people have a voice and have a way to contact me. So, again, you can reach me at [email protected] or you can find me on Facebook or you can find me on Twitter.

What I want to remind everyone of is the fact that it is very clear that many of us know a lot of things, but the most important thing we need to know is that we don't know it all. That is why I am soliciting, Mr. Speaker, the help of the American people, so they can give us their ideas.

When I started this the last time, I was asking them to send me their ideas on ways to cut spending and ways to save money. I also was asking for ideas on how to raise some revenue, how to make this country the great country that it used to be.

Well, the good thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we had people who took me up on this idea and to say that they thought that this was a good idea and they wanted to participate. They wanted to make sure that people heard their voice. They sent me a number of ideas, and we are going to talk about some of those ideas and those comments today.

So my goal here is to again have and initiate a conversation with the American people, because this is truly ``The People's House.'' The United States House of Representatives, you cannot be appointed to it. You have to be

elected. And the history behind it is because we are the closest to the American people. So now, in this day of new technology and all of the outlets and social media that we have in order to strike up conversations in different ways, we should do that. This is not the day when the only thing we have is the United States Postal Service or slower means of communication.

Today, we can communicate in seconds if not nanoseconds. So I want to make sure that we use all of this new medium in order to expand this conversation to everyone who is concerned. These are some of the people who responded last week and some of the people whose ideas we will talk about. Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to get such a large response, and these are some of the people I wanted to point out.

We had Sheila Baker who responded; Robert Becker from New Orleans, who also responded; Mary Anne Lawrence Cazaubon responded several times through several different media outlets, and had some very interesting things to say, as well as Micah Hill, Barbara Olinger from Folsom, and Freddy Vazquez, Jr. Then, through Facebook, we had Adam Haney, Anthony Sadler from Tennessee, Phil Schlittler, and Deloris Wilson, all of whom participated and gave me some of their thoughts about what they thought should be going on.

I want to make sure that at least the people back in the Second Congressional District of Louisiana understand that they are more than welcome to participate in this conversation but that this conversation is open to the American people. There is no monopoly on good ideas. Although I respect and value the opinions of the people from Louisiana in the Second Congressional District, we want to hear from everybody. So let's just start talking about some of the ideas. I will tell you before I start that I may or may not agree with all of the ideas, and some of my colleagues from the Republican side or the Democratic side may or may not agree.

The one thing I think both sides will agree on is that this is America and that this is what makes America the great place that it is. This is the place where we can provide kids with a free quality public education, which will prepare them for the future. This is the place where we strive to get the sick the health care that they need even if they can't afford it. This is the great country where we take care of our seniors and our disabled with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is the country where we care for our fellow man and strive to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless. Tonight, I am sharing recommendations on how we as Americans get back to that great place of humanity, of sacrifice and of prosperity.

Now, Micah Hill's comments were very, very interesting. Micah's frustration was the fact that Congress should address underachievement in our grade schools. He wanted us to address that underachievement by holding parents accountable for their children's performance. I'll give you an excerpt from his letter.

Micah's response was: Children who are not doing well in their studies are children who are constantly in trouble. Their parents should be investigated. The students' homes should be investigated to see if the parents are abusing substances or anything else. If young students, like those in grade school and freshmen in high school, are having problems, then the parents should be investigated. That will help educate our children who are not getting their educational needs met because of their home fronts. Find out the child's educational strengths, and find out what is lacking in the home.

Now, Micah, that is a very creative idea, and I think that that conversation has started numerous times back in my State legislature. It is a conversation that we should be having at the Federal level because, when we talk about our children's success, when we talk about their education, the one thing that everyone agrees on is the fact that parental responsibility and parental involvement is the single biggest indicator of that child's success. So, as government, if we can help to do anything to make sure that that home life is safe and secure and that that child can succeed, then we absolutely should do it, and I look forward to continuing that conversation with you.

I will now touch for a second on Mary Anne Lawrence Cazaubon, who, by the way, is 72, and is a retired teacher. Before her teaching career, she worked more than the required quarters in order to draw Social Security. Between the two lives that she lived and the two jobs that she worked, she now lives on less than $1,150 per month. If there were a flat tax of only 10 percent, it would cost her, roughly, $115 per month. She says, even though she would have to spend every dime of her check every month, she would just have to do that. She also mentions, some months, she has to go without food, but she always makes sure that she gets her medicine for her heart and her osteoporosis.

That's the type of sacrifice, that's the type of predicament a lot of our families are in.

Ms. Mary Anne went further as she talked about tax and fiscal issues, and she was very clear to write this, a statement that I absolutely agree with: Congressman, I hope you appreciate the fact that many of your constituents do support limited government and fiscal sanity. Our country is in real danger of economic collapse. Please don't just toe the party line and reject solutions to this crucial issue. Our Nation's fate depends on it.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think Ms. Mary Anne is absolutely right. I think that everyone in the country is calling for limited government and fiscal sanity. Also, I think that we have to recognize at the same time that as we cut and make very prudent decisions to restore our fiscal sanity that we have to invest in this next generation, that we have to invest in the future, that we have to invest in those things that spur our entrepreneurial spirit and our innovation, and in those things that are going to continue to make sure that we are the leader in every industry and in every category that we used to be the leader in.

After Ms. Mary Anne talked about the limited government and fiscal sanity, she also volunteered that she would like to see an indexed income tax without any exceptions for individuals or families and no incentives or exemptions to any industry or company, large or small. Here is the recommendation that Ms. Mary Anne came up with:

She would recommend a 0 percent tax for anyone with an income of less than $20,000, 5 percent for anyone with income from $20,000 to $40,000, 10 percent for any of those from $40,000 to $60,000, 15 percent for those from $60,000 to $80,000, 20 percent for those from $80,000 to $100,000, 25 percent for those from $100,000 to $150,000, 30 percent for those from $150,000 to $200,000, and 35 percent for all incomes over $200,000.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is very interesting because we're talking about a 72-year-old lady who survives on $1,150 per month, and she has taken the time not only to watch C-SPAN but to join in the conversation with me and the people's House to say that she understands that people who make more should pay a little bit more.

On that note, I'll go to Sheila Baker, whose quote, I think, is directly applicable to what Ms. Mary Anne was saying. Ms. Baker says: I pay my taxes responsibly with the understanding that I must pay more than those who earn an income less than mine.

Ms. Baker is clearly saying that she makes a little bit, and she understands that she pays more than the person who does not make what she makes and who is not as fortunate as she is; but her next sentence is the most important one. She says she also expects and demands that those who earn more than she should do the same and that those who make more than Ms. Baker should also pay their fair share, hence the concept of a fair shared burden of taxes.

So I want to thank Ms. Baker, one, for acknowledging that she is doing better than other people and that she has to pay a little bit more, and I want to thank her for participating in the people's House and in expressing her concerns and her opinions about where she thinks we should be as a country.

The next person I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is Freddy Vazquez, Jr. He has concerns about our spending; he

has concerns about foreign aid; and he has concerns about the war that we are fighting. And he writes, ``We spend billions on helping others, and that's fine when we have the means. Libya, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, they take our money, then they stab us in the back. America can and will go bankrupt. Our government is acting like a teenager who just received a credit card.'' He then goes on to quote 2pac, where 2pac said, ``They got the money for war, but they can't feed the poor.'' And he closes with, ``That's not right--that's not America.''

And I would just say that the frustration that Mr. Vazquez is expressing here is a frustration that we're hearing all across the country, the fact that we're fighting so many wars on foreign soil, the fact that our humanity goes far out immediately. People are wondering, does humanity start at home? Do we have obligations to take care of on the home front before we go across the globe doing the same? Mr. Speaker, I would just chime in here and add my personal opinion that we're America, we can do both; we can provide here at home, and we can continue to be the world leader, spreading democracy around this world to make sure that the world is just as great as the free country that we live in.

Now, what is it going to take to do that? It's going to take a shared sacrifice. In the last People's House we talked about, American people, give what you can give--if you're a high school student, mentor an elementary kid; if you're a college student, help out at a senior citizens home; if you're a millionaire, then contribute to a charity. What makes America great is the fact that we are willing to give what we have to give. So I would just implore everyone, Mr. Speaker, to give what it is you have the ability to give because that's what made this country what it is today and allowed us to achieve what we were able to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, I would also add that Anthony Sadler wrote in to say that he believes we should buy more products from local businesses, especially minority businesses. Anthony, I just want you to know that down here today I don't have our minority whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, but I will tell you that you and Steny Hoyer are a match made in heaven. Steny and our Democratic Caucus are pushing what we call ``Make It in America.'' And if Steny was down here today, he would go on and on and really get excited about the fact that we will make it in America. That's what we do--we make it in everything we do.

Another part of that Make It in America, we need to make more products in America. That's what we do--we manufacture things, we build things, we have the best innovation, but we need to make sure that we have a focus, a commitment, and an investment in the American people so that they can make it here in America. So that goes right with what you're saying, Mr. Sadler. Because as Steny will push that we make it in America, you're pushing that we buy American products, and those two things go hand in hand. So Mr. Sadler, I just want to thank you for chiming in. And I'm sure that my minority whip, Steny Hoyer, is somewhere right now very appreciative of the fact that you also recognize the importance of making it in America.

Now we have Ms. Deloris Wilson and Phil Schlittler, who posted on my Facebook. And both of them didn't post very long messages, they both posted the same thing at different times, and they simply said that they agree with the President's rationale not to release the pictures of Osama bin Laden's body. And I just want to say to Ms. Wilson and to Phil that I agree with both of you. I think the President made the right decision. But it's very comforting to know that we have citizens like you all that are at home, paying attention, and simply are not voicing an opinion to get attention, but simply a heartfelt belief. And it just so happens that I agree with your opinion. But even when we don't agree, I want to hear from you. I want to make sure that we keep this conversation going.

Now, the next person is Adam Haney, who I did not know before the first time I did the People's House, but he was watching and this is what he wrote, ``Saw you on C-SPAN, good job. Those maniacal Republicans want to kill my hopes for class mobility. Save the safety nets Republicans used to get into Congress for those of us who want to benefit from those same programs that they did.'' And I would just add, Adam, that there are a bunch of programs out there, and those programs are what make this country great. And I don't have to talk about the obvious--Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare--we can talk about Head Start, that gives our toddlers the ability to start school and give them a head start on their future.

As a country, we invest in things. We should look at what return do we get on our dollar. When we invest in early childhood education, we get a 9-1 return. For every dollar that we invest in that child, we get $9 back. Those are the types of programs that Adam is referring to when he said that the majority would prefer to cut all of those programs now that they have received it and they've been the beneficiary of it.

Also, we can go back to free and reduced lunch in our public schools. We can talk about public school education, period, the fact that many of us that are lucky enough and honored enough to be Members of the United States Congress in this 112th Congress came from public schools with public school teachers funded by the American people. We should hold that very high, the privilege that we were able to do that, but at the same time we should recognize that that was a sacrifice by generations before us to make sure that it was fully funded. We had the quality teachers that we needed so that we could be prepared, so that we could prosper and that we could be successful. It would be a sin and shameful for us not to invest that same energy, same money, same commitment into our next generation, and I'm afraid that that's the route that we're taking. So Adam, I just want to say I agree with you wholeheartedly.

The second to last one is Robert Becker from New Orleans who wrote me with an idea about Social Security and retirement security. He said, ``We should increase the amount that is deducted from paychecks to pay into the trust fund and increase the amount employers contribute to the fund. It is in America's best interest not to have a great portion of elderly Americans living on the edge of poverty.'' Not only is it in America's interest, Robert, I will tell you it's the right thing to do. And at some point we have to remember that while we're here on Earth, it's for a purpose, and that's to make the world a better place. And what you're advocating for absolutely is the right thing to do. It makes this country the special country that it is.

And our last person is Barbara Olinger from Folsom. She is from Louisiana, not in my district, but she wrote, urging Congress to act on Social Security and related issues. Specifically, she was requesting that we as Congress reconsider the Social Security Fairness Act of 2009, which would repeal rules related to the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision. She says this reduces her income during tough times. She wrote, ``Saddest of all is I am a retired social studies teacher, American history, civics. I am so distraught. We only ask for what is right and just. If I had not ever paid a dime, I would not be asking for a dime.'' Well, Ms. Barbara, you're absolutely right; you paid into it, you should get it, you shouldn't be penalized. I'm not too big, too arrogant to say sometimes government gets it wrong, and government has it dead wrong on this issue, and it's something that we should address. So I want to thank those people for writing in.

And now I just want to turn for a second to something that is absolutely the climax of foolishness. See, I have a shipyard in my district called Avondale Shipyard. It used to be Northrop Grumman, then Northrop Grumman spun it off, got a $1.5 billion credit for the asset, and they spun it off to a new company that they made, Huntington Ingalls Shipyard. Well, Huntington Ingalls, in just the first quarter this year, made $45 million, but they decided that they're going to close that shipyard in my district. Now that's almost 5,000 direct workers that work for Huntington Ingalls, 6,000 indirect jobs. Well, it's every American company's right to decide when they want to close a business. They can decide it's just not profitable. They can decide that the heat in Louisiana and the humidity

and the mosquitos are too much for them, that they can quit, that they're going to shut their plant down. That is their right and that's what we fight for in this country, to give people the right to do what they want to do. It doesn't mean I have to like it. But government should not be a coconspirator in that company's quitting on the American people.

So what I have here today, I have all of these petitions--and they're not signed by the workers. It would have been far too easy to come in here with a big box of 5,000 signatures from people who depend on Huntington Ingalls for a paycheck. This is from businesses in the community that are saying that it's just not right for Huntington Ingalls to just abandon the community.

Here's the part that rises to the level of the climax of foolishness. Now that Huntington Ingalls has decided to close, they have applied for the Federal Government to reimburse them the cost of closing. So the Federal Government is contemplating giving Huntington Ingalls $310 million to pay for their cost of ramping down and laying off almost 5,000 people. To me, that just doesn't make good sense. We can take that $310 million, we can put it in an economic development fund for any other business that wants to come along and create thousands of jobs. We can put it in education for those 5,000 employees so that they can be competitive in another occupation. We can take that $310 million and pay down the debt. We can take that $310 million and do a number of things, but I would submit to you that we don't take that $310 million and reward a company for closing.

I offered that amendment on a bill just a few days ago, and some of my Republican colleagues supported the idea that we should not reward a company for quitting on 5,000 employees, and my Democratic colleagues overwhelmingly supported the same amendment. I would just tell you that in these tough economic times it is unconscionable to reward a company for quitting.

For those people who voted against that amendment, I would hate to have to go back to Montana, Minnesota--somewhere--and say not only did I have an opportunity to take $310 million and give it to paying down the debt or doing something productive with it, or even doing something in my district, I decided to give $310 million to a company that is going to make $180 million this year. And why are we giving them $310 million? Because they're closing. They're still going to own the property; they're still going to have the asset; they won't have the employees.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just wanted to quickly touch on one thing, and that is, on the last district workweek, I had the opportunity to go to the Second Harvest Food Bank of Greater New Orleans. They are leading the fight in eradicating hunger. Last year, they served 262,800 people, including 82,000 children and 40,000 seniors. I just want everyone to know that the problem of hunger, homelessness, and all of those things in our community is real. So as we cut, we need to remember to invest.

Again, I look forward to continuing this conversation on the next People's House. And you can email us at [email protected].

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, June 3, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, what this amendment would do is, under the provisions of the Stafford Act, the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, there are approximately 160,000 American citizens across this country who, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ike, and Gustav, received disaster benefits through an error by our Federal Emergency Management Agency.

What the government is attempting to do now, almost 5\1/2\, 6 years later, is to go back and recoup those funds which were not gained by any American citizen through fraud or theft or deceit. It was a valid application on their part on which our FEMA agency made a mistake.

Madam Chair, just in these economic times we ought not, as government, go back and penalize citizens 6 years after government made an error that gave them disaster relief funds in the aftermath of the worst natural disaster that we faced in this country's history.

So what this amendment does is it simply says that the government should not do it and that we will not go back and try to recoup from the 160,000 American citizens that are spread out through Texas, through Louisiana, through Alabama and through Mississippi those funds. That is simply all it does, and I would ask that we support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on the same side of the aisle, I rise today to do two things. One is to thank the American people, thank Congress, and thank two Presidents for the assistance that they gave to the gulf coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and even after the BP oil spill.

But at the same time, I rise because just in the last 2 months, President Obama has issued 27 disaster and emergency declarations across 18 States. And the fact that this Congress and the last Congress was able to help the citizens of the gulf coast gave great comfort to Americans to know that this government would not let them fend for themselves when a natural disaster hits.

However, under the policies of this Congress, we have decided that any disaster assistance would require a pay-for. That would leave a large number of our American taxpaying citizens out to fend for themselves when they simply cannot do it.

So when we look at the tornadoes and we look at the flooding that has occurred in the last 2 months--and we are talking about States like Minnesota, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana--I think it should be the policy of this body that we are going to be wherever our citizens need us.

If you look at the fund which FEMA uses to pay for disaster response recovery and mitigation projects, it is facing a $1 billion shortfall this fiscal year. If you look at the entire hole, the hole is much bigger. You are talking at least a $3 billion hole for the fiscal year 2012. That does not even include estimates of the incidents and the disasters that I talked about earlier, the mini-tornadoes and the massive flooding that we have incurred in the last 2 months. That is worrisome, but let's take it a step forward.

Let's assume, or even not assume, but there is a possibility that we would see another event similar to the flooding, similar to a hurricane. Hurricane season started June 1, and I think that it is absolutely irresponsible for us to tell the American people, it is disingenuous, it is wrong, it is sinful to say we are not going to help you if we don't cut the budget somewhere else. We have not done that in the past, and I don't think we should do it now.

The great thing for me today, I get to stand up here as a person whose district benefited tremendously from the fact that we have water diversions on the Mississippi. And in order to save Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, we opened those diversions which flooded small towns and small farmers, and that happened up and down the Mississippi River.

So I stand here today as a beneficiary of other people's flooding and other people's destruction that they suffered. And I stand here today as someone who has not suffered a lot saying that the government was there for me when Katrina and Rita hit, and the government should be there for the people of Mississippi, Minnesota, Georgia, Missouri, Texas, Louisiana, and everywhere that the tornadoes hit.

So this amendment simply does what I think is the fair thing to do, a consistent thing to do, and something that's deeply rooted in our American history, and that is to help people that can't help themselves.

And I would just simply ask both sides of the aisle to join together in unity and let the people of this country know that if a tornado knocks down your house through no fault of your own, we're going to be there to help you. No matter if other administrations have squandered and spent money that has left us in a deficit, we will still be there to help you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my colleagues to support an amendment and restore fiscal common sense back to government.

This amendment would save the U.S. taxpayers up to $310 million, which would be paid to a private company in Avondale, Louisiana for what? For closing. And before we get too far into policy and other things, I want to actually read the language of the amendment so that the American people can understand exactly what we're doing, Mr. Chairman.

The amendment simply says that the Secretary of Defense may not make any payments pursuant to section 2325 of title 10, United States Code, to a contractor related to the restructuring or closure of a shipyard manufacturing complex located in Avondale, Louisiana.

Now, many people may say, well, what am I attempting to stop? Let me just take a minute and say what's going on here. We have a business in Avondale, Louisiana that employs almost 5,000 shipbuilders. They were spun off this year. Northrop Grumman received $1.4 billion for this company. By the way, Northrop Grumman made $530 million this quarter. So the new company, Huntington Ingalls, is closing the shipyard. And because they're closing the shipyard, the U.S. Government--the taxpayers of this country--will pay them up to $310 million for closing.

That's insanity, Mr. Chairman. And as I met with those employees last week, they said, Congressman, we don't know if you can stop it, but the offensive part, the part that makes this very hard for us, is the fact that our tax dollars are being used to pay our employer who is giving us all pink slips.

So I would just implore my colleagues to save the Federal Government $310 million in a time when we're cutting Medicare, in a time when we're cutting our children's future, cutting their education, and we're not feeding the hungry. So this is an attempt to save $310 million.

And I would also add to all of my colleagues who have great ideas and are looking for a pay-for, I am volunteering $310 million out of my district so that we can put back into the Federal Government so that we can pay down the debt and do other things. But we do not need this $310 million going to a private company who made $45 million just this quarter for closing.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to clear up some things.

I don't want this shipyard to close, but I want to be crystal clear about this. The Huntington Eagles just christened a ship a couple of weeks ago; and while they christened the ship with all of their employees there, they took the time to announce to their employees that we are closing. The 3,000 employees that are here, you will no longer be here. We are shutting down. We're closing. It's not personal. It's business.

As much as I don't like it, this is a private business that has decided that they are going to close. What I don't want to do is take those taxpayer dollars and reward them for closing in the process.

So when you talk about they can retool or do something in the future, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to pretend or mislead the American people. They have yet to bid on a shipbuilding contract since they have acquired the yard. They have no intentions to build ships there in the future.

As we talk about what they could do with the yard and this may force a closure, they have decided that they are going to close. They made $45 million in the first quarter of this year. They announced that they're not going to bid on ships, they're not going to do anything. They're not going to stay open. Why would we give them $310 million of taxpayer dollars and then pretend that we're fiscally responsible? It's not fiscally responsible.

The good thing for me is I don't have to go back to my district, whether it's Virginia or Missouri, and explain to my constituents why I'm fighting to give a company in Louisiana $310 million while I'm cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all of these other things.

I just wanted to clear up the fact that it's not an assumption that they're going to close. They already have informed their employees that we're closing. Hey, it's been a good ride. Thirty-five hundred employees. See you later. Six thousand indirect jobs. We wish we could stay, but we've made another decision.

It is a private company's right to decide when they want to close. And I disagree with their decision, but I respect that this is America and they have a right to do that. But I have a right to be upset and to try to block Federal dollars going to them, and that's $310 million going to a company for quitting. That's not the American way, Mr. Chairman.

And I would just ask my colleagues to support the amendment and not give $310 million to a company who just made $45 million in 3 months that's quitting on the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I came down here to do a public service announcement. On behalf of all Americans, I want the Republican majority to know that the elections are over. You've won the majority for now, so now start governing and stop campaigning. If you can't handle the responsibility of governing, get out of the way and let's move towards progress.

This week we're considering two bills that Republicans claim would bring down the price of gas immediately. Let's just pretend that is a fact, that that is true, although we know it is not.

If it's true, then why would you bring a bill to the floor that expedites drilling permits, which I could agree with, but you add in a provision to strip the American people's right to challenge drilling permits that are not environmentally sound?

Let's look at the next bill, Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act. That isn't the name of a bill. That's the name of a campaign speech. That's the name of political rhetoric.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is now time to have the responsibility of governing and take it seriously so that the American people are not paying $5 a gallon for gas.

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask that you remind the Republicans that the campaign is over and it is time to govern.

This public service announcement is brought to you by Americans For a Functional Congress.