Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I want to speak a little bit from the heart.

We've heard a lot of debate going back and forth about how we haven't talked about this and how we haven't debated it, but there have been a number of amendments. As this bill comes to the floor today, what it's about is about fairness; it's about fairness to employees; it's about fairness to those who manage. And what we're seeing is that there is a trend where we're not being fair with bonuses.

You know, I've had my colleagues opposite here talk about the fact that we need to continue to incentivize. But when 75 percent of senior executive employees receive bonuses at an average of $11,000, it's out of control. This little chart shows that the Veterans Administration, 74 percent of those employees received bonuses of over $11,000 apiece. Now, why is this a problem? Because back in my district, the veterans are having to wait over 600 days, Madam Speaker, to get a determination on benefits, and yet we continue to give bonuses. I find that appalling.

The other part of that is we talk about being for small businesses, and small businesses are hurting. So what do we do with the Small Business Administration? Ninety-two percent of those employees are getting over $13,000 a year in bonuses. It's appalling, Madam Speaker. We need to make sure that we bring it back.

We've got Mr. Spock there that was part of the ``Star Trek'' parody that received a bonus of almost $31,000 the same year that he spent over $5 million on a conference. Where is the sanity?

When we really talk about Federal employees, the rank and file, the blue collar Federal employees, are going with pay freezes while we pay out ridiculous bonuses. Madam Speaker, I think it's time that we really turn back the tide.

You know, if the Democrats are going to vote against this particular bill, the headline tomorrow should read that the Democrats have embraced the 1 percenters, because that's what it is. It is 1 percent getting all the bonuses while the rest of the Federal workers are not receiving the benefits that they deserve.

It is time that we bring some sanity to this situation. I strongly urge support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the gentleman from Maryland as he talks about its being about all employees. Indeed, it is, because, if we allow this continued behavior to go on, it will tarnish the good reputation of Federal workers who day in and day out serve this country and the citizens so well.

What we are talking about is giving a tool, a management tool, to let managers manage. We are talking about not giving bonuses to those who are of the very highest--the 1 percent--while the rank and file goes so many times without being recognized or compensated for what it deserves. We are talking about employees who make an average salary of $168,000 a year, and yet we are talking about a privileged few whom we need to make sure we address. So, Mr. Speaker, it is about all

of the employees, and it is about being fair.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one thing.

When we talk about a freeze, when is a freeze not a freeze? Only in Washington, D.C.

Over the last 3 years, 99.4 percent of Federal employees got increases. Out of every 1,000 employees, only six were denied an increase. I think the record needed to be clarified.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

July 30, 2013--rollcall vote 419: on agreeing to the Gallego Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall vote 420: on agreeing to the Young Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall vote 421: on agreeing to the Grayson Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote 422: on agreeing to the McClintock Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote 423: on agreeing to the First Hastings Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall vote 424: on agreeing to the Second Hastings Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall vote 425: on agreeing to the Third Hastings Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 313) to amend title 5, United States Code, to institute spending limits and transparency requirements for Federal conference and travel expenditures, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last year, the public became aware of the now-infamous GSA Las Vegas conference that cost taxpayers some $820,000.

In the wake of that public outcry, the Office of Management and Budget issued a May 2012 memo outlining new policies and procedures for Federal travel and conferences. In the memo, OMB told agency heads to reduce travel spending for fiscal year 2013 to 70 percent of the fiscal 2010 levels. Senior-level review was instituted for all events, with senior-level approval and public reporting for events costing some $100,000 or more, and a general prohibition on events costing half a million or more, unless the agency signed a waiver.

The Oversight Committee learned that in fiscal year 2012 alone, nearly 900 Federal conferences costing in excess of $100,000 were held. The total cost of these events exceeded $340 million.

H.R. 313 codifies OMB's travel and conference guidelines with some important changes. While exempting military travel, the bill eliminates loopholes in the OMB guidance in order to ensure that agencies actually achieve a 70 percent reduction in nonmilitary-related travel.

The bill also mandates transparency by requiring agencies to post online, on a quarterly basis, detailed, itemized reports of all conference spending. And it requires that materials presented at the conference by a Federal employee be made available online.

Last year, the House approved unanimously substantially similar legislation that was also reported from the Oversight Committee. I would like to thank Mr. Farenthold for his leadership on this bill, and Mr. Pocan for

working with us at the committee markup to help make important improvements to this bill.

I urge all Members to support this good government and commonsense legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Florida (Mr. Ross).

I want to thank the ranking member for his support of this legislation, and I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 313, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2579) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for investigative leave requirements with respect to Senior Executive Service employees, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

From Jeff Neely at the GSA to Lois Lerner at the IRS, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has uncovered numerous examples of high-ranking government employees engaging in behavior contrary to the principles of public service.

In the private sector, these behaviors would be grounds for serious disciplinary action or termination. In some cases, these employees could face civil or criminal penalties--but not in the Federal bureaucracy. Only in Washington would these employees not be terminated but, instead, be placed on administrative leave with pay.

H.R. 2579 helps ensure Senior Executive Service employees are held accountable for their actions while maintaining existing due process rights. This legislation was unanimously approved by the Oversight Committee last week, and a similar version of this bill was passed by the House by a vote of 402-2 last Congress.

I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) for his work on this bill, and I urge all Members to support its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, facts are a stubborn thing, and what we are hearing today are a number of assertions that truly are not the facts.

Let me read from the bill, because the opposing arguments would be that we can fire them for any particular reason, but that's not what the bill says. The bill says we may remove an employee for serious neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds--which, I might add, was the case in point that we were just talking about--or malfeasance. And the head of the agency has to know that it was knowingly done.

This gives just another tool in the toolbox. It doesn't do away with due process. It doesn't do away with a number of the facts that we already have today, but it adds another tool.

What it really does is allow our managers to manage. What a novel concept. We're going to actually allow and trust Federal employees to manage the people under them.

We have been in hearing after hearing that says, Well, why didn't you do something about it? Why did you not address this? And they said, Well, our hands are tied. We didn't have the tools to do it.

This bill, as Mr. Kelly has so eloquently put it, gives them the tool to do exactly that. It doesn't do away with due process.

We've accepted amendments, three different amendments that protect the rights of employees--they are embedded in this bill--and yet we still find that my colleagues opposite want to say that they're not in support of this.

I just find it just appalling that we can continue to allow employees to stay on the taxpayers' dollars when we know that there has been malfeasance, misappropriation of funds, and the neglect of duty.

With that, I encourage all my colleagues to support this particular piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1541) to establish limitations, during any sequestration period, on the total amount in awards or other discretionary monetary payments which may be paid to any Federal employee, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my bill, H.R. 1541, brings common sense to the policies governing Federal employee bonuses while still providing agencies flexibility to recognize outstanding performance.

In fiscal year 2011, 75 percent of Senior Executive Service employees throughout the Federal Government received bonuses at an average of nearly $11,000 per person. The government's decision to furlough hundreds of regular, often blue-collar, Federal workers while senior employees cash in is unacceptable.

Americans are rapidly losing trust in government as the list of abuses by Federal agencies grows, but bureaucrats continue collecting large bonuses at the expense of hardworking taxpayers.

The IRS is a prime example. Between the years of 2006 to 2012, IRS Director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, was paid a combined total of $110,035 in bonuses.

Faris Fink, the senior IRS official best known for his starring role as Mr. Spock in a ``Star Trek'' parody at the IRS conference received some $149,506 in bonuses between 2007 and 2012.

The Federal Aviation Administration is another example. It threatened 90-minute delays for airline passengers in the weeks leading up to sequestration. However, the FAA handed out more than $12 million in bonuses during fiscal year 2012 despite knowing that sequestration was likely to occur.

These bonuses exemplify Washington's spending problem. A national debt of $17 trillion and an unemployment rate at 7.5 percent should not add up to millions of dollars in bonus payouts.

Following the President's decision to impose a 2-year pay freeze at the end of 2010, the administration issued a memo limiting the amount available to pay bonuses for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. This past February, the administration issued a memo limiting bonuses to those legally required, and in June, you, the administration, suspended rank awards for senior leaders.

This bill builds on the administration's initiatives, limiting the amount and number of bonuses paid to Federal workers in periods of sequestration. It is time for the government to stop furloughing workers who depend on paychecks from week to week while awarding hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses to senior employees.

I urge all Members to support the Common Sense in Compensation Act.

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

I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address a few of the items that have been brought up because we seem to talk about these in abstract ways, but the truth of the matter is is that bonuses have gotten way out of hand. You know, when we start to give out bonuses as a way to bypass the payment structure that we have established for the Federal Government employees, that is not what it was intended to do.

You know, the ranking member earlier, Mr. Speaker, mentioned a survey, which was the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. He used that data as evidence of, really, about performance pay, but I'd like to quote from that same study, that same survey.

A recent survey found that only 22 percent of Federal employees believe that performance and pay are linked. And I would like to point out that this bill certainly would cover that.

We are not saying do away with all bonuses; quite the contrary. We believe that people need to be incentivized. We believe in merit pay. We believe in bonuses for those that work. But I can say this, that when you start paying out bonuses to 75 percent of all senior executive employees, the people back home don't understand. Maybe the people in Massachusetts understand, but I can tell you the people in North Carolina don't understand.

We've got some 7,000 Senior Executive Service employees that make an average of $168,500 every year. So when you go back home and you say, Well, they're making $168,000 a year, and on top of that we're going to pay them a $30,000 bonus, those people don't understand. Whether they work for the Federal Government or whether they are in the private sector, they don't understand.

I've got single moms, Mr. Speaker, that said, You know what? I'd be glad to go to work just for the bonus pay that you're paying some of those Federal workers.

We go on a lot and we start talking about it, but it's interesting, because many times my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle want to go ahead and talk about what is fair. Well, this is not fair, Mr. Speaker, when we start to look at that. The rich, indeed, are getting richer at the expense of the hardworking American taxpayers, and that is not what we should be doing.

I also want to go on a little bit further, because when we start to look at these bonuses, it is the Federal employees in my district that have a problem with it as well. I have two of them, Paula and Martha. I won't give their last names, but Paula and Martha. I was there talking to them, and they said, You know, we are sacrificing under this pay freeze. We're having to give up. Why in the world are you awarding such bonuses to these people when we're having to suffer?

Now, I know the gentleman from Massachusetts has a real heart for Federal employees, as do I. I look here and there are a number of people that I would call my friends. There are a number of people that are watching this perhaps even on TV right now that are Federal employees that I enjoy being with. This is not about them. This is about being fair. What it is is, when we start to pick the winners and

losers with bonuses and bypass the payment structure that we have, you know, it's not right, Mr. Speaker, and we have to adjust that.

I would be glad to work in a bipartisan way. If we're having a hard time retaining scientists and doctors, I would be glad to work in a bipartisan way with my friend opposite here to come up with a structure that works on pay and merit pay to that and address it, but why do we allow the bonuses that we have today to bypass the very fundamental reason that we have it set up?

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the comments that the gentleman opposite made.

When he said not a word has been mentioned about bonuses for contractors, I would remind the gentleman that in the NDAA we addressed this very subject. So that was addressed, which I'm sure the gentleman was here for that particular vote; but as we've looked at this, we have addressed that particular thing. I will go ahead and talk about a couple of other things, though.

We talk about this pay freeze and how we're asking so many people to suffer. I'm not talking about the normal pay that we would give employees. I'm talking about the excessive bonuses that have failed to be an incentive anymore.

When you give a bonus to 75 percent of the employees, it ceases to be an incentive; in fact, quite the opposite. All you have to do is make sure that you are not in the bottom quartile. It says all I have to do is perform better than only a few people to get my bonus. So if I'm just better than the worst 25 percent, I get a bonus. That's not an incentive. That's why we're looking at 33 percent. It rewards those people who rise to the top, the cream of the crop, and we need to do that.

I also want to mention that we were talking about all these pay freezes. Where is a pay freeze not a pay freeze? Only in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, 99.4 percent of Federal employees got an increase in salary during this pay freeze. That's the only ones we denied were 6 out of every 1,000 employees. So the gentleman opposite making comments that they've sacrificed, indeed, they have, but it's not as if they have not gotten pay increases.

What do I tell my constituents back home who are dealing with double- digit unemployment? They would love just to have a job. Many of them would take a job at 10 to 15 to 20 percent less than what they were making if they could just go to work. Yet here we are talking about people who continue to get raises as if they are suffering. You know, we've got to make sure that we're clear on the subject and we need to make sure that we're fair.

I keep coming back to the word ``fair,'' because when we are not fair with the government responsibility that we have, the American people lose trust in their government; and it is time that we hold it accountable, give tools to those managers that reward good behavior and good performance, but yet not continue to dole it out at the expense of every American taxpayer.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his candor and his passion with which he rises and debates it.

I do want to point out, though, that what we are talking about here are apples and oranges. When you start to look at contractors and the benefits of those contracts, those are really issues that we must address, and I'm willing to work with him on a bipartisan basis, but let's not take our eye off the ball.

Why would we allow Sarah Hall Ingram, who is going to be administering over the Affordable Care Act, a bonus of $35,000? Why would we award a bonus of almost $31,000 to a gentleman that played Mr. Spock? It's indefensible to me. I can't imagine why my colleague opposite would want to defend that and why he wouldn't want to have tools to let managers manage the process.

I'm going to close with this point: Daniel Pink writes in a book called ``Drive'' that really it's about motivational theory; it's about the fact that bonus impact is minimal. I think we see that even here because of the surprising truth about what motivates us. It says:

The carrot and the stick approach to motivating employees

through bonuses and benefits is statistically ineffective.

What they would rather have is a mastery of their position,

they would rather have autonomy, they

would rather have a sense of purpose that the job that they

are doing is very meaningful.

So, in essence, what it says is that if we get rid of the bureaucracy, our Federal employees will be more motivated to do a good job knowing that they are fulfilling a purpose. Yet we continue to throw bonuses at them over and over again, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a hard time going back home, as a number of my colleagues would go back home, and defending these excessive bonuses.

I would urge all of the folks here, all of my colleagues, to join with me in supporting this critical bill, the Common Sense in Compensation Act, H.R. 1541, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1660) to require the establishment of Federal customer service standards and to improve the service provided by Federal agencies, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Americans depend on Federal agencies for certain vital services. Failure by Federal agencies and employees to process in a timely manner requests for help or information can result in frustration and financial hardship.

Poor customer service should not be tolerated at the IRS any more than it is at the private sector companies that must continually earn the right to serve its clients.

H.R. 1660 helps ensure our government is more responsive to the public by establishing customer service standards and performance expectations for each agency. It will enable citizens to provide direct feedback concerning specific agency employees--including at the IRS-- and have that feedback considered in employee evaluations that impact the awarding of bonuses.

H.R. 1660 puts taxpayers first by holding Federal workers accountable for their interactions with the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his foresight in bringing forth this bill. I certainly appreciate the fact that we need to be providing better customer service to those who call in and talk to employees on a regular basis. I commend the gentleman from Texas for that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have had some vigorous debate. Really what this is about is the American people back home. It is about doing the responsible thing for them to see that government actually works and that we are willing to stand up with the people back home to do what is best and right and return government back to ``we the people.''

It has been great to hear some of the arguments from my colleagues opposite. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, the passion with which he has argued these points; and I look forward to working with him in a bipartisan way on some of these issues that he has highlighted.

I urge all the Members to join me in support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the town of Spruce Pine for reaching their 100th anniversary. Nestled between the majestic peaks of Mt. Mitchell and Roan Mountain, the flourishing Appalachian town of Spruce Pine boasts all the natural beauty of the North Carolina Blue Ridge Mountains.

Spruce Pine's story began at the turn of the century when a single house was erected near the Carolina, Clinchfield, and Ohio Railroad Depot. Situated between river and mountainside, the town grew quickly, became chartered in 1913, quadrupled in population, and soon became the commercial center of the Toe River Valley.

Growth continued as mining emerged in the economic anchor of the Spruce Pine community. Best known for its incredibly rich mineral deposits, Spruce Pine boasts the most concentrated feldspar deposits on earth. This geological wonder is responsible for 60 percent of the total United States feldspar, which is used in ceramics, paints, electrical wiring devices, tile, fiberglass insulation, and glass containers.

In a way, most everyone east of the Mississippi has been impacted by goods originated from Spruce Pine. In addition, Spruce Pine is home to the entire world supply of the pure quartz used in manufacturing fused quartz apparatuses. This fused quartz is used to manufacture the semiconductors found in every computer. To own a computer is to have a connection to Spruce Pine.

Spruce Pine is also home to a proud farming population and one of the world's largest art communities. The Toe River Arts Council, which has worked in Spruce Pine for the last 37 years, ensures a legacy of handmade mountain artwork that will continue for many future generations.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that I recognize the town of Spruce Pine and congratulate a truly exceptional 100 years. Its contributions to our culture and industry have been remarkable. I couldn't be more proud to represent such an exemplary town, such warm people, and such a beautiful part of North Carolina.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. It prohibits the use of funds for the payment of salaries to Presidential recess appointees until they're formally confirmed by the Senate.

In 1863, a law was passed that barred unconfirmed recess appointees from being paid. This law stayed on the books until 1940. However, over time, a number of broad exceptions were made that gradually eliminated the original intent of the law and rendered the prohibition useless.

This amendment reapplies the original intent of the law to further reassert the Senate's authority in the confirmation process and prevent taxpayers from having to pay the salaries of unconfirmed Presidential appointees.

Our Founders envisioned a Nation of checks and balances to ensure no branch of government has too much power. The United States Senate is in charge of confirming executive appointees for a reason--to ensure Presidential appointees are in the best interest of the American people.

For too long, both Republicans and Democrats have ceded Congress' authority to the executive branch. This amendment is a positive step, which will ensure the administration is accountable to Congress.

Mr. Chairman, due to the lateness of the hour, I urge support and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Lee Goldman of Flat Rock, North Carolina, on having three of his columns featured on the Supreme Court's SCOTUSblog within the past month.

For three separate articles on controversial legal issues to gain the attention of the highest court of the land is a tremendous achievement that deserves to be commended.

Mr. Goldman has shared his writing talents with the 11th District of North Carolina for years. From 2009-2012, Mr. Goldman wrote an op-ed column on national politics for the Asheville Citizen-Times in Asheville, NC. Now, as he did in 2008, he writes his column for the Hendersonville Times-News in Hendersonville, NC.

Mr. Goldman devoted a large part of his life to serving in the federal government from 1964-2001. He worked as Staff Director of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research and also as an Associate Director at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Goldman was a member of the Senior Executive Service, Director of Federal Liaison for the Association of American Medical Colleges and a Senior Policy Advisor for the National Alliance Against Mental Illness.

Mr. Speaker, as a Representative for the 11th District of North Carolina, I commend Mr. Goldman for his talents and thank him for his contributions to our district and nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple and straightforward amendment. It prohibits the use of funds for the payment of salaries to Presidential recess appointees until they are formally confirmed by the Senate.

In 1863, a law was passed that barred unconfirmed recess appointees from being paid. That law stayed on the books until 1940. However, over time, a number of broad exceptions were made that gradually eliminated the original intent of that law and rendered the prohibition useless. This amendment reapplies the original intent of that law to further reassert the Senate's authority in the confirmation process and prevent taxpayers from having to pay salaries of unconfirmed Presidential appointees.

Recent decades have seen a constant erosion of congressional powers in deference to the executive. The Senate is required to confirm Presidential appointments for a reason. It is a check on the executive powers. This amendment is an opportunity to reempower that check by disincentivizing recess appointments except in cases where they are truly needed.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote 308: on ordering the previous question to H. Res. 288-- I would have voted ``aye.''

Rollcall vote 309: on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 288--I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the centennial of Newland, the highest county seat in the Eastern United States, nestled along the border of Western North Carolina.

In 1911, Newland was named after North Carolina Lieutenant Governor William C. Newland, and simultaneously became the county seat for Avery County.

By March 1913, small businesses were growing and the town began to quickly develop commercially and residentially.

The town of Newland continues to be an important representative of the small-town family values and mountain culture so important to all of us in the western part of the state.

Mr. Speaker, the town of Newland is a beacon for American small business and the free enterprise system. America is a country that rewards earned success, and Newland is an example of that inspiration.

Therefore, I rise today as a Representative for the 11th District of North Carolina to congratulate the town of Newland for its overall steadfastness and perseverance displayed by its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate The Margaret R. Pardee Hospital for reaching their 60th Anniversary.

Pardee Hospital has shown outstanding and ongoing contributions and service to the health and well-being of the citizens of Henderson County since 1953.

This is a tremendous milestone for our community hospital. Pardee has served area residents with an outstanding health care facility that is recognized by the nation and throughout North Carolina. Pardee is the second largest employer in Henderson County and is the only hospital in the Carolinas to earn the ISO 9001-2008 certification for quality.

Mr. Speaker, as a Representative for the 11th District of North Carolina, I am grateful for the steadfast commitment to healing and saving the lives of our citizens in Western North Carolina.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, and I, too, would echo just the fact that we're friends. And I appreciate your leadership on this and the heart that it represents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in strong opposition to the Obama administration's attack on our fundamental religious freedoms that we have, our First Amendment rights that must be protected.

This HHS mandate that has been mentioned many times tonight is an unprecedented government overreach that forces charities and businesses to buy plans for their employees and provide coverage in areas that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

We've already heard about Hobby Lobby and the fact that they're facing fines of some $1.3 million a day just for believing and upholding those values that they hold dear. And I'd love to say that I wish that it was just with ObamaCare that we're having this attack, but it's not.

Throughout our Nation, we're seeing our religious liberties being attacked in a number of areas. In New York, the school board has been working there for two decades to block Bronx Household of Faith from meeting in a public building for their worship services on Sundays.

In Montana, we see that Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church faced election law charges just for a volunteer passing out petitions to place a marriage amendment on a Montana ballot.

In Louisiana, we saw a Federal contractor order Calvary Baton Rouge Church to stop feeding people who were left homeless during Hurricane Katrina's aftermath just because the group offered voluntary prayer service and Bible studies.

These are painful examples, Mr. Speaker. But one that comes home to me--and I'll share this and close with this--in my home district, a 6- year-old writing a poem about her grandfather who served our country honorably put in there that he prayed to God for peace and he prayed to God for strength, and yet they wanted to strike the word ``God'' from that poem.

We have created a culture that, quite frankly, we cannot continue to support. We must stand up and stand against it. So tonight I join with so many of our colleagues, and those who are watching, I hope that you will understand the true point to which we've come that we must stand up and fight.

In the rotunda of this very building is a painting of the Mayflower where they had a particular person there, William Brewster, who had a Bible open. The foundation of our country was really about religious freedoms, and we have it there as a reminder of that. To me, that's got a special meaning because William Brewster, holding that Bible there for those freedoms that we must hold dear, is my 11th great grandfather. I'm a direct descendent of that. So today I am here joining with him and my colleagues to say that we must stand and we must fight back and make sure that we protect this freedom and not yield.

With that, I thank my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Obama administration's attacks on our fundamental First Amendment right to religious freedom.

The HHS mandate is an unprecedented government overreach that forces charities and businesses to buy plans for their employees that provide coverage of items or services that violate their deeply-held religious convictions.

Individuals, non-profits, and businesses that fail to comply will face massive fines.

We're already seeing this happen with Hobby Lobby, facing fines of up to $1.3 million

a day because of refusing on religious grounds to include abortion coverage in employee healthcare packages.

Organizations that do not comply with the mandate will face fines of up to $2,000 per employee per day. Those who can't pay may have to make the incredibly difficult decision to drop insurance coverage for their employees. This administration has made it more costly to defend and protect our religious freedoms than it is to provide healthcare.

Americans should never be penalized like this simply for following their conscience.

Violations of religious liberty aren't just limited to Obamacare, however.

Throughout our nation, we are seeing an increase in attacks on our religious liberty:

In New York, the school board has been trying for nearly two decades to block Bronx Household of Faith from meeting in a public school building for worship services on Sundays.

 In Montana, Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church faced election law charges after a volunteer passed out petitions to place a marriage amendment on the Montana ballot.

 In Louisiana, a federal contractor ordered Calvary Baton Rouge Church to stop feeding people left homeless by Hurricane Katrina because the group offered a voluntary prayer service and Bible study.

 And the list continues.

These violations of religious freedom are becoming more frequent because our government is sanctioning this type of discrimination against people of faith.

Religious liberty does not simply mean allowing people to attend a worship service. It protects the fundamental right to--live all aspects of our lives in a way that is consistent with our religious beliefs.

Religious freedom, often referred to as our ``first freedom,'' is one of the bedrocks that make America such a tremendous nation. Our Founding Fathers knew a country could not flourish without defending this fundamental truth.

Thomas Jefferson emphasized the value of freedom of conscience when he stated that ``no provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.''

Throughout our history, Americans have been able to freely choose and live out their faith, abiding by conscience in their day-to-day lives.

Yet, through the mandate, this administration is now telling Christian business owners to check their faith at the door and comply.

And which agency will be tasked with ensuring that businesses comply with the mandate? None other than the IRS, which has already admitted to targeting organizations for their beliefs.

In the 11th District of North Carolina, my constituents continue to voice their concerns to me about these dangerous infringements on religious liberty. They want to ensure that our fundamental freedoms are protected, not trampled on by our government.

Our heritage, from the Mayflower until today, has been rooted in protecting our religious freedoms. [William Brewster]

This administration's decision to disregard our fundamental right to religious liberty cannot be ignored.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment which will ensure the Department of Homeland Security is being accountable to Congress--and more importantly, the American people.

Earlier this year, it was reported that DHS solicited bids for some 1.1 billion rounds of ammunition. This was more than 10 times the amount that the Department purchased in fiscal year 2012.

Given this large purchase, the American people and Members of Congress rightfully had concerns and questions. The Appropriations Committee has recognized these concerns by including language in this bill to address the ammunitions purchased by requiring DHS to report the cost and the need to Congress. This initial report is required to be submitted at the time of the President's budget.

I commend the Appropriations Committee for their work in this area, and my amendment would complement their efforts and prohibit any new purchases of ammunition until the required report is submitted to Congress. It does not prevent existing contracts for procurement from being carried out. This is a responsible amendment which ensures that Congress and the American people are aware of the necessity and the cost of ammunition prior to entering into new contracts for procurement.

On April 15, 2013, DHS had an inventory of almost 250,000 rounds of ammunition. In fiscal year 2012, DHS purchased 103,178,200 rounds. This is less than half the inventory that they have on hand. As of February 22, 2013, there were 62,618 employees at DHS trained and certified in firearms. Given our current inventory, each individual has nearly 4,000 rounds before our inventory would be exhausted.

With these facts in mind, it is important that we are responsible in entering into contracts for ammunition purchases. My amendment will ensure that this is the case.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the chairman for yielding and I appreciate his comments.

This amendment would not stop the current bids that are out there, the current process that we have in place. It would just stop additional processes. We are looking at some 6 months before this report would be due, and the inventory, Mr. Chairman, that we have in place currently is more than enough to handle the target requirements, the requirements that we have currently for those. We've had hearings already, and a number of committees have addressed that, and the background that we have and the inventory that we have is more than enough to handle this while we wait for this report.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.