Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin first by thanking Chairman Wolf for his patience. Every single year, as he has shepherded this appropriations bill, I have come to this floor and offered an amendment that would include a 1 percent across-the-board spending cut. He has been very gracious and very kind, even though he opposes. And even though I appreciate the good work that the committees have done to reduce spending and to get these levels down, I believe that we can do more--and that we should be doing more.

I think it is admirable that the committee is showing us a 0.8 percent reduction. But if we would pass my amendment, we would save another $400 million. And that is a step that we need to take.

I think it is important to realize that this amendment exempts the $8.5 billion budget that is for the FBI. We think it is important that they get that for their vital mission that they conduct every single day in protecting American citizens at home and abroad and in conducting the activities that do help to keep the homeland and our people safe.

My amendment will not affect the efforts that are combating terrorism, cyber crime, human trafficking or violent gangs. It is a targeted spending cut that will result in a savings to the taxpayers of over $400 million.

Given the $51 billion price tag of this bill, I do not feel that it is asking too much to cut a little bit more.

I think it is important to note also that across-the-board spending cuts have worked at the State level. There is no reason not to utilize them here in Washington.

We have heard from so many of our Governors and our mayors that have trumpeted the use of across-the-board spending cuts. We have heard Chris Christie, a 9 percent across-the-board spending cut; Rick Perry in Texas, a 5 percent savings.

We have Governor Cuomo, who was looking at reducing 10 percent across the board; Schweitzer in Montana, 5 percent across the board.

They work, and there is a reason they do--because it is an equitable cut.

Mr. Chairman, we are $17 trillion in debt. This is something we can do for our children and our grandchildren and begin to responsibly roll back the amount that the Federal Government spends.

At this point in time, we are spending the money that our children have not made for programs that they do not want and will never, ever use. What we need to do is be wise stewards of the taxpayer dollar, now and in the future.

I also think this is an idea that the American people are beginning to support. I noted a recent poll--Washington Post-ABC News poll. This was March 6, 2013. Sixty-one percent of the American public actually supports not a 1 percent or a 2 percent, but a 5 percent across-the- board cut in all Federal spending.

It is time for us to do a little more to save a little more, to make a few more spending reductions, and to think about what the addition of debt--piling on more debt does to our children and our grandchildren and to their futures.

It is, indeed, capping and trading our children's futures to the people that hold our publicly-traded debt.

Mr. Chairman, 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, I do rise in support of my amendment to shut down the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. The amendment would prohibit any funds being made available for operations, renovation, or construction at Thomson Correctional.

Section 529 of our CJS bill prohibits funds to construct, acquire, or modify a facility in the U.S. to house detainees. However, my amendment goes further, by not allowing any funds for operations at Thomson.

In addition, I recognize that CJS also prohibits the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. However, the administration has proven resourceful at finding pots of money to achieve their goals.

Thomson Correctional Center is ground zero in this debate. As long as it remains operational, we run the risk of seeing Guantanamo Bay detainees on American soil.

One of the President's first acts in office was signing Executive Order 13492 on January 22, 2009, to close Guantanamo Bay detention center. The administration has attempted to purchase the facility since 2009 to hold these detainees.

We have the letter from December 15 to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, which was signed by several administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, stating the following:

As the President has made clear, we need to continue to

detain some individuals currently held at the Guantanamo Bay

detention facility. To securely house these detainees,

Federal agencies plan to work with me and other State

officials to acquire the nearly vacant maximum security

facility in Thomson, Illinois.

It later adds:

The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to

house a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo.

Congress passed language in subsequent bills to prevent the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo prisons to the U.S. However, the administration, once again, went behind the intent of Congress and purchased the Thomson facility in 2012 for $165 million, using money from various DOJ accounts. Supposedly, that was to combat prison overcrowding.

Mr. Chairman, today, the prison is still empty.

President Obama also requested $43.7 million in his fiscal year 2014 budget to begin activating Thomson. I think that we all know that this administration intends to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. When it is shut down, those detainees are going to go somewhere.

The handwriting is on the wall. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats have clearly stated their intent to bring those detainees to American soil.

I think that it is imperative that we accept this amendment and make certain that there is no money for operational funds for the Thomson facility.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind my colleagues of a couple of things. Number one, going back to the letter dated December 15, 2009, it says in the letter: ``The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to house a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo Bay.''

Now, I have to ask my colleagues: Who do you think is going to be there? This is a prison that is empty. It is empty right now. We know what is going to happen. This is going to be used to receive Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The 9/11 families support this amendment. It is supported by these families. They do not want to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other detainees here

on American soil. They do not want them to have access to our civilian court system. And passing this amendment will save us millions of taxpayer dollars that could end up being used not only to house, not only to give access to the courts, but to pay for lawyers to defend enemies who have taken up arms against our brave men and women in uniform.

It was clear from 2009 what the intent was. It said it in the letter: ``The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to house a limited number of detainees.''

I encourage support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Chairman McKeon for supporting Congressmen Shimkus, Rokita, and me, in support of adding the DOTCOM Act as an amendment to our National Defense Authorization Act.

I support a free market multistakeholder model of Internet governance. In a perfect world, ICANN AND IANA would be free of government control and fully privatized. However, we don't live in a perfect world, and we know full well that China and Russia have a different view of perfection and are willing to aggressively pursue it. Their end goal is to have ICANN and IANA functions migrate to the U.N.'s ITU.

Passage of today's NDAA and inclusion of DOTCOM gives the multistakeholder model a chance to succeed, but it does so with congressional oversight. However, if we begin to sense--even for a minute--that that model isn't working, I will be the first Member to call on this body to taken stronger actions.

Again, I thank the chairman and my colleagues for bringing this about today.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming for her superb work on this issue and for her guidance as this bill moved through the Natural Resources Committee. It is amazing. We had two committees of jurisdiction that oversaw this legislation, House Admin, chaired by Congresswoman Candice Miller, and Natural Resources, with Congressman Doc Hastings.

This legislation came through each of these committees on a unanimous vote--a unanimous vote, something deemed impossible in Washington--but everybody agrees that it is time that we come together and that we have an appropriate, bipartisan approach to addressing the collecting and the enshrining of what women have done in the fight and the cause of freedom.

Now, Madam Speaker, I do want to highlight just a couple of things. There has been so much misinformation distributed about the bill. This is a 10-page bill--I should say nine pages and about three lines. I think that Congresswoman Maloney, who has worked so diligently on this effort, will say, and as she and I discussed this morning, we basically have come forward and agreed on a new approach for all

museums that could possibly want to be considered. That approach is Congress, not a Presidential commission, but Congress having the ability to determine, in a bipartisan way, who serves on the commissions to review these museums and do a feasibility study, which is something those of us in business always do before we embark on any project. It is appropriate that the Federal Government do that, also. This is a fiscally conservative approach to addressing the cost of a museum.

Now, the duties of the commission my colleagues are going to find on page 4, and you will see there are several things that will be covered in this feasibility study: the availability and cost of collections, the impact of the museum on women's regional, history-related museums, potential locations in D.C., whether or not the museum should ever be part of the Smithsonian, the governance and organizational structure, best practices for engaging women in the development and design of the museum, and the cost and construction of operating and maintaining. In other words, they have got to have an endowment. They have to be able to pay their operational costs and their upfront costs--all of it--with private funds--never, ever with one penny of taxpayer money into this project.

Now, after 18 months of work, the commission will report back to Congress, an independent review will be done of their work, and then there will be a determination by Congress on whether or not to proceed with this project. That is the point at which there will be a vote on whether or not to carry forth with a museum.

But I would highlight with my friends this is about chronicling the history that women have participated in, the freedom and opportunity of this country and the fullness of opportunity in this country. We talk so much about how we work with other nations and especially some of these nations that have struggled in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East, and we show what freedom can do for hope and opportunity for women and children.

Wouldn't it be great if we had a museum that told that story? Like the story of the suffragists--Seneca Falls--that convention which--by the way it was Republican and conservative women and the Quakers who called together the Seneca Falls convention to start looking at the issue of suffrage. You probably are also interested to know Frederick Douglass was the one gentleman invited to speak at that convention on suffrage, then, of course, the suffragists who led the fight, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Anne Dallas Dudley--strong Republican women. It is time for that story to be told.

The ratification of the 19th Amendment with women receiving the right to vote took place in Nashville, Tennessee, my State, at our State capitol, where I have had the opportunity, and the Speaker has also had the opportunity, to serve.

We know that it is important to tell that story of what women have done in the cause of freedom. That is why we have come together to agree on the structure, to work to put a commission in place that will do the necessary due diligence, that will put the safeguards in place, and will guarantee that in perpetuity--forever--there will not be Federal taxpayer money that is spent on this.

Madam Speaker, working to highlight what women have accomplished is a worthy goal, and it is something that in a bipartisan manner we should be able to come together and to agree on. This is a goal, and Washington, D.C., is an appropriate place that we can recognize this history, we can chronicle this history, and for future generations, our children, our grandchildren, and for other nations as they come to see us, they can see how women find victory through freedom, opportunity, and the doors that open and what it allows them to experience in their lives.

I thank the chairman from Wyoming for yielding the time.

Madam Chairman, I seek the opportunity to have a colloquy with Chairman Cole. I thank them for their work, the chairman and his staff, the work they have put into the legislation they are bringing before us this morning.

As a member of the Congressional Yellow Pages Caucus, I strongly believe that if an activity is available from a private company that can be found in the Yellow Pages, it should either not be a responsibility carried out by the Federal Government or, at the very least, performed by a private firm under contract with the Federal Government.

It is in that spirit that Congress needs to begin the process of leveling the playing field between the Government Printing Office, the GPO, and private industry. Nowhere is the overreach of the GPO and its statutory authority, found in title 44 of the United States Code, more egregious than in the area of secure Federal credentials.

Consider this: title 44 was codified in 1968. Secure credentials, produced by the private sector, first appeared about 30 years later and then became pervasive after 9/11.

I can't imagine that policymakers in the sixties could have ever envisioned title 44 expanding beyond the printing of copies of the Federal Register or the Declaration of Independence to cover credentials, let alone secure credentials, as the kind of printed products the GPO has traditionally produced.

The GPO's statutory monopoly on this issue has been challenged by numerous reports by the GAO and groups such as the National Performance Review.

Secure credentials are a world apart from the products that GPO has traditionally produced and should not be subject to title 44.

I hope that we can take steps to define a clear role for the GPO, create competition, and ensure that the private secure credentials industry and companies like MorphoTrust in Tennessee can perform these functions that the GPO has no business in carrying out.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the passage of this reaffirmation of the Taiwan Relations Act and to the longstanding relationship between the United States and Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act,

TRA, helped codify our pledge to the people of Taiwan and serves as a reminder that the continued support and strengthening of U.S.-Taiwan relations aids our mutual interests and shared values.

Over the last few decades, Taiwan has emerged as a global leader in innovative technology and the heart of Asia's IT and Knowledge Economy sectors. Through the implementation of sound free-market policies and promotion of democratic ideals, we have seen a small agrarian economy transform itself into a growing global leader in the technology sector. Taiwan is now the world's second largest producer of ICT goods, and companies like Acer and HTC are now household names.

Our mutually beneficial cooperation and exchange with Taiwan has helped dozens of American companies meet their ever-growing demand for equipment and expertise. The partnerships between American and Taiwanese innovators and job creators ensured a virtuous cycle of economic development in Taiwan and lower costs for American consumers.

The U.S. should welcome Taiwanese participation in efforts to advance regional economic integration, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership. Taiwan is one of the region's most dynamic economies and its entry into the TPP will substantially expand the market encompassed by the agreement. Additionally, Taiwan's recent experience transitioning from a developing, domestically focused economy to a globally integrated economy will be invaluable as TPP partners make difficult choices and reforms to comply with higher standards set by

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and the opportunity to stand and discuss the budget that we have before us.

I find it so interesting that our constituents are watching this. They are paying attention because they are concerned, and with good reason.

As one of my constituents said in a town hall meeting: I have got to tell you, I have got too much month left at the end of my money, and I am tired of it. I am tired of what this economy has been doing to my opportunities--wage stagnation, increases in health care costs.

The American people are over it, and they are ready to see the Federal Government start to live within its means. Think about it like this. This is the week when millions of Americans are sitting around the kitchen table looking at their income tax form, filling it out, trying to make certain that they do it right.

Let me ask you a question: Is it fair, is it right, for the men and women, the taxpayers, hardworking taxpayers in this country, is it right and fair to require them to send money to Washington, money that they don't have, money that causes them to struggle to meet their bills and to live within their means--they are struggling every month, and they have to send money to Washington to a government that refuses to live within its means.

This is what we are talking about, and this is why a budget that actually makes $5.1 trillion worth of spending cuts is important. It is why it is important that we have a budget that says there is a pathway to economic growth. It is because it is what the American people want to see happen.

I think our constituents find it very interesting that our colleagues across the aisle came to the Budget Committee room. What did they want to do? Plus it up, spend more--$1.5 trillion in taxes. More, let's take more from the taxpayer, let's grow the size of the government, let's make it bigger, let's make it more bloated.

That is their solution to how to deal with what we have here in Washington as a spending crisis. We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem, we have a priority problem, and we see this play out regularly.

Mr. Chairman, it is why it is important for us to have a budget that balances in 10 years. I have to tell you, as a mom and a grandmom, I look a lot at what is happening to our children and our grandchildren.

You can call it draconian, you can call it all of these names, you can call all of us Neanderthals. But let me tell you what this is: this is a budget that is for our children because it is for reduced regulation, reduced taxation, reducing litigation, it is for innovation and job creation. That is what this budget is for. It is for fairness, because if we don't get this under control it will be my 5-year-old and my 4-year-old grandchildren that are facing draconian taxes, draconian rates, draconian cuts in order to be able to stand and live here in America.

So as we look at this, yes, we put the focus on right-sizing government, flexibility for the States, accountability to the American taxpayer, accountability to the children who are going to inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor this morning and talk just a little bit about free speech and how we exercise that free speech in this country.

I think it is no secret that the Twitterverse and the Internet has been abuzz with a little bit of concern about what the President is planning to do about the Internet and control and governance of the Internet.

I think we all agree that the Internet has had a revolutionary impact on not only this Nation but on the world. You can take a look at what has happened with jobs, with innovation, with economic freedom, and, indeed, with social change.

You see it pronounced because the Internet allows people to participate from the bottom up, receiving information about what their governments are doing, about opportunities that are out there. They have the opportunity to get online and do a little bit of research.

So, with this open ecosystem and this decentralized nature of information, it is benefiting freedom. It is benefiting free people and free markets. We want to see that continue.

Now, like many of my colleagues, I do support a free market, multistakeholders model of Internet governance. And in a perfect world, ICANN, which is the organization with governance of domain names and of the Internet, and IANA would be fully privatized and free from any government influence or control.

However, realistically, we know that China and Russia have a very different view of what would be perfection. Their end goal is to have ICANN and IANA functions migrate to the U.N.'s ITU, which is the International Telecommunications Union. That solution is one that I do not support and one that I would never stand in favor of. I stand in opposition to it.

If the U.S. Department of Commerce is going to relinquish control of its contractual authority over the IANA contract and move control of DNS into a global, multistakeholder community, the timing and the architecture would just have to be absolutely perfect.

This is an area where you have only got one shot of getting it right, only one shot, and we have to make certain that it is a shot that is focused fully on freedom.

If this administration wants to prove to Congress and the international community that they are serious about this process, then they must immediately move to bring an end to the net neutrality movement that is alive and well at our Federal Communications Commission.

Telling Congress and the international community that they are serious about relinquishing control over the IANA contract while simultaneously having the FCC work to promote net neutrality is disingenuous.

While we know Russia has got a land grab going on, we also see the U.N. and the ITU trying to carry forth this space grab.

A lot of our colleagues come to us, Mr. Speaker, and they say, so what are we going to do about this?

I want to highlight two different pieces of legislation with you; first, H.R. 4342. This is the Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act, DOTCOM Act. Congressmen Shimkus and Rokita have joined me in this effort.

What we would do is to make certain that there is a prohibition against the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications Information Administration--we call it NTIA here--from turning over its domain name system oversight responsibilities pending a GAO report to Congress.

Let's put this report in front of the action. Let's have a great discussion about what taking that action of relinquishing oversight would mean to each and every person that is assembled in this great room.

How is it going to affect our constituents?

How is it going to affect American innovation?

Let's have those discussions now. Let's not make a mistake.

I also highlight H.R. 4070, a piece of legislation I have authored, the Internet Freedom Act, to bar the FCC and their actions on net neutrality.

Madam Speaker, I am so appreciative of the opportunity for us to be able to come to the floor and have this discussion today. I think our constituents are just shocked with what they see happening because of the President's health care law. They can't believe it.

They had heard the rhetoric from the minority leader that it was going to create 4 million jobs. What they have found out is that it is costing them their jobs. It is costing them wage increases. It is costing them certainty in the job market.

I have to tell you, it really is a war on jobs. It is a war on women, and we are seeing that because women--63 percent of those affected by the adverse impact of the President's health care law are women.

Let me give you one example of this. I was in the grocery store recently. I passed a lady with two children in her grocery cart, and we chatted, nodded at each other.

The next time around, the next aisle, she said: Are you Marsha Blackburn? I said: Yes, I am. She asked: Can I tell you my story? I said: Absolutely.

This is her story: She worked in the office park where this grocery store was located. Her husband is self-employed. The family's benefit structure, insurance, was through her job, an employer with just over 50 people.

Her hours as an office manager and assistant were cut to 29 hours a week. Her time was cut. Every week impacts her, impacts her husband. In one day, she lost her insurance, she lost her wage increases, and she was forced to healthcare.gov.

Also, what she had to do--she is a survivor. She said: I went to the mall, and I went to a retailer and got a part-time job. She said: Thank goodness I have great in-laws. They are going to help watch the children.

Here is what is so sad: She now is working two jobs, and she is losing time to be with those children as they are playing soccer and baseball, as they are doing Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, as they are trying to get to church to sing in the choir.

She has had to rely on her in-laws to handle those, so that she can work a second job to pay for a program that she doesn't want and pay her taxes to a government that refuses to live within its means. I support the SAW Act.

Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of issues here in Washington, and I find it so interesting when people come to our offices and ask: What is going on today?

As you will hear, whether it is talking about foreign affairs, the job issues, the budget, the issues that are of such concern to our constituents, there is always something that is on the front burner, and today is one of those days. The Supreme Court will hear yet another legal challenge to one of the many unconstitutional aspects of ObamaCare, and that is the HHS contraception mandate. Of course, this isn't the first time that the Affordable Care Act, the President's health care law, has been pulled into the Supreme Court, and it is probably not going to be the last, but today the hearing is on the contraception mandate.

No American should have to choose between feeding their family and abiding by their faith. I have to tell you, that is what we see happening right now. It is precisely what this coercive contraception mandate is doing to millions of hardworking people of faith, like the Hahns and the Greens, who simply want to run a business and practice their faith. These family businesses want to take care of their employees and provide them with quality health care coverage. All they ask is to not be forced to pay for the life-ending contraceptives that violate their religious convictions.

Now, ObamaCare's unreasonable mandate has placed them in a bind: violate the tenets of their faith or be fined, fined by the Federal Government, fined by ObamaCare, fined $100 per employee per day. That is what the fine works out to be. Unbelievably, it would be cheaper to strip their employees of health care coverage altogether and pay a single $2,000 fine per employee per year. That is what you find in the 20,000 pages of regulation, in the 2,700 pages of the President's health care law.

That is not what these family businesses want to do. They really want to do the right thing and take care of the hardworking men and women who are in their employment.

If these family businesses are forced to close or drop health care for their employees, it will be the employees and their families who are made to suffer.

This mandate is just another flawed part of a terribly flawed law, and Americans are growing tired of having to cope with it. Fifty-nine percent of the country opposes the contraception mandate because they know what the Greens and the Hahns know. This is a country founded on religious liberty, and that freedom of conscience is a cherished American tradition. The American people know that and they value that; they value that liberty and they value that tradition.

The Obama administration has already doled out special exemptions to 100 million health care plans from this mandate, and for every reason under the sun except religious liberty. In fact, the HHS mandate only explicitly contains a religious exemption for churches and their affiliates. The Obama administration even expects hospitals and religious nonprofits to abide by the mandate without complaint, as if the very founding principles of these organizations aren't outright violated by paying for life-ending contraceptives.

Unless it is a religious institution, the Obama administration seems to think no organization, not even a charity, is allowed to exercise the right of conscience, unless it is granted a special waiver from the administration, of course. The administration: What the government gives, the government can delay, and the government can take away. That is their plan.

It is my hope the Court will act to uphold the protections inherent in the First Amendment, respect America's long-held tradition to right of conscience, and let these families operate their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs and tenets.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to stand on the floor of the House and join my female colleagues from both sides of the aisle as we work together to make the dream a reality, which is the dream of a women's history museum, to celebrate the cause of wonderful women who have participated in the push and preservation of freedom here in the United States. It will, indeed, be a wonderful day when we see this as a reality.

As Mrs. Maloney mentioned, we are moving forward legislation that would allow for the establishment of a commission to study where to place a museum. By the way, I think everyone will find it so interesting, which is that the women of this great Nation have said that we don't want any Federal money at all involved in this project. We are going to privately raise every single penny that is necessary for the location, for the physical facilities, for the exhibits, for the maintenance and upkeep and endowment. This is a project by the women of this Nation for the women of future generations to celebrate the accomplishments that women have made to the Nation.

Indeed, let's think about what has transpired in each and every State, and I hope, over the next few weeks, we have the option, as we celebrate Women's History Month, to talk about what women have accomplished in our country and what our States have contributed.

In Tennessee, we talk a good bit about what transpired when women got the right to vote. We had had all of the process through the fight with suffrage, and it came down to the point of ratification of the amendment to give women the right to vote and to make certain that we had the 36 States to ratify the 19th Amendment. It had been through 35 States, and on August 18 of 1920, it went to the Tennessee Legislature.

Guess what?

It was voted to a tie. There was a State rep, Harry Burn, and he was the one who broke the tie. As we often hear, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Indeed, this is a story that is a great example of that because Harry Burn changed his vote and gave women the right to vote. Harry Burn did it because Harry got a letter from his mother. Here is the letter:

Dear Son, hurrah and vote for suffrage. Don't keep them in

doubt. I noticed some of the speeches against. They were

bitter. I have been watching to see how you stood, but have

not noticed anything yet. Don't forget to be a good boy, and

help Mrs. Catt put the ``rat'' in ratification.

Sincerely, your mother.

Harry Burn changed his vote, and Tennessee became the ``perfect 36''--the State that gave women the right to vote.

So, because of that, we are able to stand today in Women's History Month and push for a museum to celebrate the accomplishments of people like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the suffragettes and so many other women whom we will have the opportunity to learn about and talk about.

I think it is so significant that, again, those two States joined in pushing forward H.R. 863.

I want to commend Chairman Candice Miller and the Admin Committee for the hearing they have already held on the legislation and to

take the opportunity to announce that Chairman Hastings and the Natural Resources Committee will hold their hearing on March 25. So it is another step as our States and women from our States move forward on moving this to becoming a reality--something women have wanted in this country since they got the right to vote.

We are so delighted that Mrs. Lummis is here to join with us. I have to tell you she was quite a trailblazer in her State before coming to Congress, as she served as her State's treasurer.

Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.

I want to talk for just a moment about some of the women from Tennessee who have made such a significant contribution.

Now, each of us standing on the floor tonight have stood in this Chamber and have fought for children.

Dr. Mildred Stahlman--Millie Stahlman--is from Nashville and is part of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center team. She is a pioneering professor in pediatrics and pathology at Vanderbilt.

Anyone who has ever been in a neonatology unit has seen some of the pioneering work of Dr. Stahlman because she was the first to ever look at, study, and develop methods for monitoring lung disease in premature babies.

With over 1,300 preemies born every single day, if you were to go into a hospital neonatology unit, you would see some of the knowledge, the experience, the insight, and the discovery that has been brought about by Dr. Stahlman in helping these young babies to live.

I would also like to mention Beth Harwell. Beth is our speaker of the house in Tennessee. She is the first female speaker of the house ever in our State's history.

Beth started her career in public service when she was elected to the general assembly in 1988; and then, in 2011, she was unanimously elected to serve as speaker of the Tennessee House.

She is a diligent worker. She is very devoted to public service, and she represents our State so well.

Chief justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Connie Clark, who is one of my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, we are so excited about our talking, we didn't realize that the time had to be split, but so be it. We women stand and abide by the rules of the House, and so we will accept the acknowledgment of the change of time.

I will return to directing our attention to Chief Justice Connie Clark in Tennessee. What is so important about her career is that she was first appointed to the State court by a Democrat Governor, again served under a Democrat Governor, and then chief justice under a Republican Governor.

Justice Clark is such an incredible inspiration to women in our State. She has proven herself, has really been devoted to the judiciary and the law field, and is so active in our community, a tremendous role model.

If we step outside of the venue of politics and law, Amy Grant, who is a singer, songwriter, a native of Nashville, has had such a successful music career. Amy Grant became the first artist in Christian music to ever have a platinum record, and she went on to become a crossover sensation in the music world.

Amy Grant has pioneered the Christian music genre, and she has also blazed quite a trail in the music industry.

When we look at the world of sports, another Tennesseean, from Clarksville, Tennessee, which is in my district, Wilma Rudolph, many of you will recognize her name. She was a Tennessee State University track star.

On September 7, 1960, in Rome, she became the first American woman to win not one or two, but three gold medals in the Olympics. She was a track-and-field champion and was regarded as a civil rights and women's rights pioneer and is warmly remembered and treasured in our State.

Pat Summitt, who was the head coach of the Lady Vols at the University of Tennessee and is now the head coach emeritus, she was at the helm of the Lady Vols for 38 seasons. She is the all-time winningest coach in NCAA history--the all-time winningest coach in all of NCAA history. That is men and women's teams.

She is forthright, well-respected, ethical, and a winner in every sense of the word.

Sandra Cochran, who is the president and CEO of Cracker Barrel, Incorporated, she became the president and CEO on September 12 of 2011, following her service as Cracker Barrel's president and chief operating officer. Cracker Barrel is headquartered in Lebanon, Tennessee.

Ms. Cochran was previously CEO at the Nation's third largest book retailer, Books-A-Million. She is serving our community and that country well.

Ms. Cochran is a chemical engineering graduate from Vanderbilt University and a masters of business administration from Pacific Lutheran University.

After graduating from Vanderbilt, she entered the United States Army, where she ultimately served as a captain in the 9th Infantry Division.

There are so many other influential women that come from our State, and we are delighted to know that we will have the opportunity to recognize them and their contributions and the contributions of all women who have contributed to the cause of freedom in that Nation.

I yield to the gentlelady from New York.

I thank the gentlelady from New York.

I want to yield to the gentlelady from Wyoming for some other comments on our conversation this evening.

How true it is that we have to take the time to pause and paint that vision for future generations so that they do know the trails that have been blazed and the roadblocks that have been removed to make their way easier so that they are able to excel, to achieve, to have, and to do. Isn't that what we would desire for them to be able to do, to dream big dreams and make those dreams come true and to have role models and examples who may have been through those same struggles and found a way to make it work?

I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.

I thank the gentlelady for sharing those stories and her insight and what she has experienced in her career and seeking to remove those barriers to overcome obstacles and to make the way smoother for future generations.

Indeed, as Congresswoman Maloney and I move forward on H.R. 863, we do, as the gentlewoman from Ohio said, invite and are hopeful that every Member of this body will join us in supporting this legislation and that they will pay attention to the hearing on March 25, and we commend Chairman Hastings and the House leadership for moving this bill forward, for making it a priority and saying, let's have the hearing, let's move the bill forward to markup, let's support women who are

willing to give of their time, their talent and efforts, raise all the money for the museum, for the exhibits, for the upkeep, for the endowment, and to make what has been a dream for decades, make it a reality in this great Nation.

I thank my colleagues for joining us tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the importance of rural health care providers.

Once again, we see President Obama standing on ideological grounds rather than actually taking the time to understand who provides medical care to seniors and how they do it. At the same time he is giving stump speeches and trying to convince us that ObamaCare is working, he is taking $422 billion out of Medicare.

Now, part of these cuts come from critical access hospitals, and I am referring to the cuts that he is making to Medicare in his fiscal year 2015 budget. It is similar to what he did each of the past 2 years. He targets the critical access hospitals. In order to pay for ObamaCare, he is proposing to cut Medicare payments to the providers who are providing such an important service--our rural health care providers.

These patients have an extremely difficult time with access to medical care. They are poorer and are less likely to have employer- provided insurance or prescription drug coverage.

Critical access hospitals are the safety net for many Americans. They provide exceptional care. I see it in my district every day. I commend the rural providers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee for their leadership and shared goal of promoting legislation that incentivizes stakeholders to manufacture and implement energy efficient technologies throughout our economy. Congress should always be looking for creative ways to incentivize our great American innovators like A.O. Smith to manufacture energy efficient technologies that consumers clearly want. So I commend you on your dedication to this effort and look forward to supporting H.R. 2126.

Sometimes we don't have to look too hard for ways to unleash American innovation and promote energy efficiency. Sometimes, we just have to use common sense and get the Federal Government out of the way.

One concrete way Congress can force the government to get out of the way of our job creators would be to require the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to recognize independent test results for air conditioning, furnace, boiler, heat pump and water heater products that are already subject to the rigors of an independent voluntary industry compliance program (or ``VICP'').

Through the VICP, manufacturers of these highly efficient products contract with an independent, third-party laboratory to ensure their products comply with federal efficiency and conservation standards. Manufacturers spend millions to participate and run the VICP, and the program has been a resounding success for years.

But the federal government won't accept VICP data for compliance purposes. Instead, the DOE and EPA (which manages the Energy Star program) force manufacturers that participate in the VICP to subject their products to two additional rounds of tests to satisfy agency standards. But to make matters worse, the DOE and EPA tests aren't any different than the VICP tests. Each test takes place at the same laboratories responsible for the VICP tests, with the same technicians on the same products.

The end result: manufacturers of highly efficient air conditioning, furnace, boiler, heat pump and water heater products pay for three rounds of tests to effectuate the same result: making federal regulators happy.

That, my colleagues, smacks of inefficient government bureaucracy that serves no purpose other than redirecting operational capital to satisfy the whims of the Obama Administration. We can and should do a better job of incentivizing manufacturers to innovate and invest in job creation--not to waste precious operational capital on complying with nonsensical bureaucratic mandates.

I intend to eliminate this regulatory roadblock through legislation very similar to an amendment introduced last September by Senators Sessions and Pryor during debate for S. 1392. That amendment, in the words of Senator Sessions, would have ``require[d] the Energy Department, when conducting routine testing to verify product ratings, to rely on data submitted through voluntary, independent certification programs'' that satisfy a robust test of independence and transparency.