Floor Statements

In closing, I just want to make sure that we're clear: Republicans have committed to standing for all victims.

This bill, or amendment, strengthens penalties for sexual assault, improves the Federal stalking statute, provides for enhanced investigation and prosecution of sexual assault, and provides services for victims. Most importantly, our amendment is constitutional, and it will stand up to constitutional muster from the court.

The Senate passed a weakened bill that has a real chance of being overturned by the courts.

I urge support for the House amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 273, a bill that would prevent the President's pay hike for federal workers and Members of Congress.

H.R. 273 is a good bill that deserves our support. In a time of historic budget difficulty, the bill rightly seeks to limit federal spending on the government workforce. The bill also recognizes what the American People know to be true: too many private sector employees remain without work during this protracted period of high unemployment. I will vote in support of H.R. 273 later today.

While this legislation is a step in the right direction, we should go further to prevent excessive spending by also suspending the automatic step increases that federal employees will continue to receive even if H.R. 273 is enacted into law.

I have been disappointed that over the past two years of the President's so-called ``freeze'' on federal pay, federal employees have continued to receive step increases. According to the Office of Personnel Management, these increases have resulted in a median pay increase of approximately $3,164 per federal employee--all during the so-called pay freeze.

These step increases are not based on merit, and there are serious flaws with this system. For example, all employees in the Government Service pay plan who completed their ``waiting period'' received a three percent raise in pay during this period.

Mr. Speaker, do private sector workers receive a three percent salary increase for simply completing a ``waiting period?''

No, of course not.

During this time, salaries in the private sector only increased by $1,404, less than half of what federal salaries gained on average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If the President is going to say he is freezing pay, he must do exactly that--freeze pay. Anything less is a budget gimmick that creates only the illusion of savings.

Last Congress I worked to stop budget loopholes like this in a bill I introduced, the Honest Budget Act. Working with the Senate, I aimed to enact changes that would bring more honesty and transparency to budgeting process. I authored an amendment to H.R. 273 based on the provisions of the Honest Budget Act, but unfortunately this chamber is not able to consider it today under the closed procedural rule for H.R. 273. I intend to continue to pursue the issue later this year.

Since I've been in Congress, we have fought to reduce excessive spending to get our nation's deficits under control. We've enjoyed successes, but we have also seen firsthand the tricks of trade-- gimmicks used to distort the truth and hide new spending. Soon I will be re-introducing the Honest Budget Act in the 113th Congress, and I ask my colleagues to join me in this fight for honesty and accountability in the budget.

A budget is a plan for the future and a financial report to the stockholders of the company--in this case, the American people. I am convinced that we can do better in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the heroic actions of Mr. Charles ``Chuck'' Albert Poland, Jr., a school bus driver from Southeast Alabama who died protecting the lives of the children in his care.

Tuesday, January 29, started out just like another day for Mr. Poland, who had worked as a school bus driver for the Dale County Schools system since 2009. However, that afternoon while completing his route, an armed man entered Mr. Poland's school bus and demanded to take children hostage. Faced with this perilous situation, Mr. Poland rushed the children out the bus emergency exit and to safety. Standing between the gunman and the children, Mr. Poland was shot four times and killed. There is little doubt that Mr. Poland's actions saved lives.

This, of course, began the week-long hostage standoff, which, thankfully, ended with the amazing rescue of the child hostage. But who knows how the situation might have ended had Mr. Poland not bravely stood in the gunman's way.

Mr. Speaker, as a mother of two young children, I am particularly moved by the actions Chuck Poland took to protect the children in his care. It is difficult to even imagine our children being in such danger. How heartening to know that--whether in a classroom or on a school bus--people like Mr. Poland are looking out for students and protecting them.

Those who know Chuck Poland best speak to his quiet, humble spirit. They note that he would likely shy away from the attention. Born in Idaho, Mr. Poland made Southeast Alabama his home in the 1960s. He served in the Army before settling down as a diesel mechanic. When he retired, he took up a part-time job as a bus driver. Ultimately, Mr. Poland was asked to become a full-time bus driver in 2009.

Mr. Poland was a beloved husband to Jan, his wife of over 40 years; a loving father to his son, Aaron, and daughter, Lydia; and doting ``Paw-Paw'' to his three grandsons, Timothy, Ryan, and Blake.

Mr. Poland and his wife shared a favorite Bible verse, which, in this moment seems very fitting. ``For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.''--2 Timothy 1:12

According to his son, Mr. Poland viewed his students as his own children, and he looked after them as though they were his own. Chuck Poland would be proud to watch them grow up; to see the men and women they become.

One of the children might grow up to be a scientist who makes the next big discovery or cures a disease. One might start a major company that employs thousands. One might be a soldier who fights valiantly for our country. One might be a teacher, a nurse or a firefighter who makes a difference in the lives of others. But one thing is for sure--they each have the chance to live a full and happy life because their bus driver, Mr. Poland, was willing to give his life for theirs.

The author Joseph Campbell wrote, ``A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.''

Mr. Speaker, today we recognize a true hero. Chuck Poland gave his life so that others may live and, for that, he will always be remembered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 40th anniversary of the monumental court decision Roe v. Wade.

Since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, 40 years ago today, 54 million abortions have been performed throughout the United States. Over 4,000 babies will be aborted today alone and over the course of 2013, 1.4 million children in the United States will not be granted the gift of life.

Mr. Speaker, I am unapologetically pro-life. I believe that the miracle of human life begins at conception. I believe that every human being has the unalienable right to life and that this right must be protected by law.

As a proud member of the Pro-Life Caucus, I respect the sanctity of human life in all of its stages. Science proves that human beings develop at an astonishingly rapid pace and that the life of a child begins long before he or she is born into this world. At about 22 days after conception, a child's heart begins to circulate his own blood, unique to that of his mother's and his heartbeat can be detected on ultrasound.

Americans have a proud tradition of standing up and fighting for those who can't fight for themselves. As a woman, a wife, a mother of two children, and as the Representative of Alabama's Second Congressional District, I'm committed to fighting for the unborn.

Recently, my home state of Alabama became the fifth state in the Nation to pass a measure banning abortions after 20 weeks, which is the point where unborn children can feel pain. I applaud the Alabama Legislature for taking such a strong stance on abortion and for protecting those who do not have a voice.

As the 113th Congress begins, I will continue to do everything in my power to fight for the unborn, prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions, and protect our democratic system from the encroachment of an all-powerful judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, today is a time to celebrate the miracle of life and mourn those whose lives were unjustly ended. Let us use the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade as an occasion to reaffirm our beliefs and vow to fight for the life of every child.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 773--the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act.

The incredible team at the National Cancer Institute has provided extraordinary research that has been vital to our ability to combat cancer in all its forms.

Still, research for the deadliest cancers--called recalcitrant cancers--remains only a small portion of the Institute's total funding.

Recalcitrant cancers are defined by those that average a less than fifty percent survival rate beyond five years.

It's these cancers, which hide in hard-to-detect places, that can be the most dangerous for victims and most painful for families.

I know this to be true, Mr. Speaker, because my dear friend from childhood, Mrs. Kathryn Elliot Williams, lost a grueling battle with ovarian cancer earlier this year at the young age of 36. Elliot wasn't just my friend. She was a loving wife, a nurturing mother, a daughter, a sister and a true servant of her Lord and her neighbor.

After Elliot passed away I came to this floor to memorialize her life. But I cannot think of a better way to honor her memory than for the Congress to do its part to ensure that more women faced with this terrible disease have hope for the future.

September, Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, is the most appropriate time to remind women young and old of the risks and ensure that research for ovarian cancer and other recalcitrant cancers will remain a priority for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening alongside some of my freshman colleagues.

We want to have a real frank discussion with the American people tonight about a milestone that we hit just last week. This is not a milestone of historic significance that we're proud of, and that is that our national debt has now hit $16 trillion. This brings no pride or cause to celebrate to the American people, nor should it to any Member of this body or our friends in the Senate or in the White House. That is approximately $51,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. It's unacceptable, and it doesn't, quite frankly, have to be this way.

I want to point you to a few of the President's own words that he said when he was campaigning to be the President of the United States:

We can't afford another 4 years of the kind of deficits

we've seen during the last 8. We can't afford to mortgage our

children's future on another mountain of debt.

Where are we today? Today we're at a place that is far worse than 4 years ago. With our debt now at $16 trillion, we've not seen anything significant from this White House in an effort to reduce our debt. Instead, all we hear about is new programs that are going to require more taxpayer dollars and not an effort to rein in this out-of-control spending. I want to talk about that tonight.

Tonight we also want to focus on jobs. This is the number one issue facing the American people right now. We need to get America back to work. And this government, this body right here, we don't create the jobs, but we sure can help create an environment in which job creation is right. We have done a lot here in the House to do that. We've passed over 30 bills. They're sitting in the Senate awaiting action.

We are going to continue to highlight what we've learned, in this hour, over the course of our time back at home.

I have my friend from Colorado standing here. I would just say to you, Mr. Gardner, that I'm sure you can say the same about what you learned over the district work period. From traveling from town to town, from county to county in Alabama's Second District over and over again, I have witnessed that the debt has stifled job creation because all it has done is create more uncertainty.

All of the regulation and red tape that has been passed in the previous Congress that this Congress has been unable to undue because of the lack of action in the Senate and ObamaCare, all of that has contributed to more and more uncertainty. People are hurting.

I've traveled around and looked into the eyes of folks, and they can't take any more. Their businesses are on the line, and that then, in turn, is a reflection of what's going to happen in their households.

If we could spend some time on our young people, because that really paints the picture better than anything.

The graduating class of 2012, when they were getting ready to face the real world in April of this year, the Associated Press reported that half of those college graduates were unemployed. That's half.

Just to show a little bit of a comparison, since President Obama has taken office, the unemployment rate for 20-year-olds to 24-year-olds has increased more than a point from 12.4 percent to 13.9 percent. The median income for those under the age of 35 dropped by 10.5 percent from 2007 to 2010. That's more than any other age group. More of today's 20-somethings to 30-somethings are living with their parents than any of the generations that have gone before them.

So by comparison--and here's what we really highlight--this President's failure and this Congress' failure to get out of the way of job creation. In 1980, 17 percent of adults, 20- to 34-year-olds, had to live with their parents, and today that number is 24 percent. At a time when these young people coming out of college face mountains of student loan debt, they can't find jobs.

Instead of looking and working to find ways to provide opportunities for these young people, President Obama and his policies are setting the stage for these young people to be more dependent on the government. Anyway, that's just to highlight your point exactly that that is the sector of our population that is the promise of tomorrow, and they are unemployed.

You mentioned your colleges in your district. Actually, there are some great colleges in or right nearby in Alabama's Second District: Alabama State University, Faulkner University, Troy University, and Huntingdon College. But let me just highlight real quickly Alabama's 2-year college system where we have incredible workforce development programs, honing skills in young people that can immediately go out into the workforce, and they deserve better than these lofty promises.

Did you know that since President Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009, the manufacturing sector has shed 590,000 jobs, 590,000 jobs?

This was since President Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009.

The number of Americans receiving food stamps as of April 2012 was 46.1 million. I heard today one of our colleagues say one in seven, one out of every seven Americans is receiving some sort of nutritional assistance. That is astounding. That is astounding.

We've painted a picture here that is bleak, and we're telling the American people what they already know because so many of them are too aware of this because they're the ones that are suffering from this administration. I just want to say that we have solutions.

We have solutions where we can change things and the private sector can thrive, but that is going to mean getting the government out of the way. We need the leadership in the Senate to have the political courage to stand up and take up our jobs bills, our energy bills that reduce regulation and does just that, gets the government out of the way.

Absolutely. You know, when you talk to business owners, or at least when I have, you'll hear them say, but there was a time when regulators came into your business to try to make it more effective or a safer environment in which to work, but that time is long gone. Now the regulators are there to find problems and fine you.

I want to give you one example that was astounding to me. A fellow that's in the construction business was explaining to me that he had a friend that's a roofer that had a $700 job, to make a $700 profit on a roofing job. His crew was over there at this home all day long, had the ladder, they were going up and down.

After 5 o'clock, a regulator was driving down the road, pulled over and noticed that he was afraid the ladder didn't come over the eave of the roof just far enough to fit within the regulatory requirements.

He stopped and wrote that fellow up to the tune of $8,000. A $700 job and an $8,000 fine. These guys had been going up and down that ladder all day.

We all agree that not every regulation is bad, but this is an environment that has gotten out of hand; people with too much time on their hands and not coming into businesses in the spirit of helping businesses thrive.

Right. Let's just go back in time for a minute and talk about some of these other repeals.

We have the Boiler MACT provisions, the Cement MACT, net neutrality, the regulating farm jobs. We can go down the list one by one by one and talk about the efforts that we have taken here in the House. With the strength of the numbers here, some of these have been with bipartisan support that we've passed these measures. And yet again and again and again, it's just time after time after time it's sitting in the Senate without any action.

All you have to do is go look at the budget that the House has passed the past 2 years that Chairman Ryan put forth out of committee and came to the full floor. You mentioned the President's budget where there were zero votes--zero votes. We talk about offering solutions to the American people to look that small business owner in the eye and say, ``Yes, I am working for you; yes, I have a solution for you; yes, I have a way to get out of your way,'' which is what we've done, and our budget outlines very, very specifically what these solutions are.

Our spending is out of control, which in turn, like you already mentioned, just takes it a whole other step that this Congress is not doing their job, and therefore the jobs are not being created by the private sector, period. It all comes down to that.

Absolutely.

It's all businesses.

But the problem with our farming communities is that they are, in a lot of instances, they own a lot of land. So they have wealth when it comes to land ownership, but they may not have the cash. And so when the government comes along to tax the farm upon the death of a parent that wants to pass it down, they've got to sell the farm to pay the tax, and that's where our farmers lose out every time.

And there are numerous other businesses throughout this country where they may be cash poor. They may have some assets but they may be cash poor, and so they end up having to sell it off in order to pay the government for that company's success.

You just add our lack of tax reform, which we so desperately need, and I know that we are committed to that here in the House majority. We do have a plan that we've set out as it relates to those reforms. We know that American businesses are faced with an unbelievably complicated and cumbersome Tax Code, combined, over 30 percent on businesses, not to mention the problems with the estate taxes. It makes the U.S. the second highest corporate tax rate among developed nations in the world. So the U.S. Federal rate is 35 percent. It's nearly 10 percentage points higher than our other competitors. That, on top of all of the other issues that we've highlighted.

I mentioned the manufacturing jobs. I don't know about you, but I get this question all the time: Where have all the manufacturing jobs gone? People always highlight that we just chase these jobs offshore. And it's because we have created this environment in which business owners don't have a choice. If they're going to turn a profit, they have to do what is the benefit for their family to make that hard-earned dollar.

I remember hearing a colleague give an example. He was sitting on an airplane next to a guy that made things. He made things, he produced a product, and he wanted to make them in the United States of America. But when it came down to it, the bottom line--he thought he was going to open his plant right here, but when it came down to it, they hadn't taken into account the corporate tax rate and the difference between that and the next country where they could manufacture his product.

That sealed the deal. They are not manufacturing in the United States because of the environment in which we have.

I was going to say in June for the first time in 44 months, small businesses cited taxes, taxes above poor sales as the single most important problem that they are facing today. Taxes.

Absolutely. Again, by virtue of a comparison, with the President's proposed tax hike, deficits would still total 6.6 trillion over the next 10 years according to his own budget. But by comparison, our budget, the House Republican budget, would reduce deficits compared to his by 3.3 trillion while lowering taxes on small businesses and spurring economic growth. That's the difference.

You know, to use the President's words again, because these are direct quotes, so let's look at a couple of things.

Last April, President Obama said, ``We have to live within our means, we have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt.'' That was the President just last April.

But also I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. This is the President's own words in February of 2009: ``I am pledging to cut the deficit by half by the end of my first term in office.'' And I know we are kind of circling back to how we began this hour tonight, but since the President has taken office, our national debt has increased by $5.3 trillion.

Well, your son can attest to that because he's 10 months old and already owes, his share is, what, $51,000 at 10 months old. You know, we both have young children and this is why we are here. We're here for them because we want this country to be as great for your children and mine and all America's children and grandchildren and generations to come. And quite frankly, it is horrendous that we would leave this situation on their backs.

We keep hearing about balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. How about spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on the backs of my children and my children's children. This is where the future of this country is dependent, and if we don't get serious about this now, why wait? Why are we waiting until November? Why is the leadership in the Senate waiting until after the election to take on problems that are serious now?

As you said before, the clock keeps ticking up. The debt keeps accumulating between now and November. It's not like the 16 trillion is just some arbitrary number. I mean, it's a huge number, but it doesn't stand still. It's going to continue to increase.

As I explained when I am in town halls about the debt ceiling, the debt ceiling is like calling your credit card company and saying to your credit card company, ``I need you to increase my credit limit because I don't have any cash to pay you the interest on what I already owe, on the debt I already owe.'' That's where we are. And that's on the back of Margaret and George and your children and all of those other children and grandchildren of Americans. As you can tell, as a mom it makes me upset, and that's why we're here.

Republicans in the House majority have taken action on a number of things that have already been mentioned tonight: we've repealed the government takeover of health care. Ride down the road in any district in this country and talk to a small business owner about that, and you will find out very quickly that they're either going to be close to being out of business or they're going to go out of business completely if this law is fully enacted.

We have stopped massive tax increases here in this House that one independent analysis said could destroy more than 700,000 jobs--you highlighted that earlier. We have replaced these indiscriminate spending cuts from sequestration with commonsense solutions by calling on, again, our friends in the Senate whose budget reconciliation--it's hard to do that if you don't have a budget--but through budget reconciliation, through commonsense cuts instead of just across the board, and rein in this wasteful government spending. And with the 30- plus bills that you and I have highlighted some portion thereof in this discussion tonight that are sitting collecting dust in the Senate, all 30 of these jobs are job-creating, energy-producing bills that are sitting in the Senate collecting dust.

Well, and you will see, again, further action from leadership here in the House on that, calling on the President to outline exactly what this is going to look like. And like you said, he hasn't. It's just one more on the list of uncertainties for job creators.

I see our colleague and our friend, the gentleman from Kansas, has joined us. Certainly feel free to jump in here.

The only thing that we all can agree on is that the only thing that is certain is that uncertainty; and to hear the consistency in all of our experiences back home, it's astounding to me why we cannot--why the President and the leadership in the Senate cannot see this, because if they're really listening to the same Americans that you and I are listening to, they would hear the same message that we've brought to the floor tonight.

Mr. Speaker, the choice for the President and the Senate is very, very clear. It's either political paralysis that leads to certain economic catastrophe, or bipartisan leadership that puts us on a path towards prosperity.

And I would just ask that they keep in mind a few people. Remember who this economy has hit the hardest. You've heard stories tonight in this hour of those business owners that have said just that.

Remember the moms at the grocery store that are trying to put food on the table for their family or gas in the car to get to their one or maybe two jobs.

Remember the young people, the recent graduates that we've talked about that can't find a job; and half of them in the class of 2012 are unemployed and they are drowning in debt.

All of these groups, all of these groups, they deserve leadership out of Washington, not lip service.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, September 11, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major General Anthony G. Crutchfield, Commanding General of the United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence, upon completion of his tour of duty at Fort Rucker.

Since August 2010, when Major General Crutchfield took command of the United States Army Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker, he has demonstrated a deep personal commitment not only to his troops, but also to their families and the surrounding community.

Major General Crutchfield's mastery of the area of Army aviation is well known, and his vision for the future of his branch has had a direct positive impact in the Army. But, equally important, Major General Crutchfield's well-known dedication to his soldiers is, perhaps, his most honorable attribute. Further, his devotion to the success of his soldier's training, performance, and morale illustrates his proven leadership among those who dutifully serve.

When Major General Crutchfield took command of Fort Rucker, there was an untenable backlog of would be pilots waiting to begin training. As one of his first directives, he challenged his staff to find a solution to this vexing problem. Despite counsel from many that this was an unreasonable task, the backlog has been eliminated. Such actions exemplify his ``can do'' attitude. The entire Army Aviation community has benefited as a result.

Always thinking about military families, Major Crutchfield would not accept that, despite the growing population on base, Fort Rucker was not scheduled to receive a new commissary until 2016. Through his efforts, Fort Rucker and its families will enjoy the benefits of a new commissary in 2013. However, this pales in comparison to his other efforts in support of military families. As an example, Major General Crutchfield would often participate in story time with children of deployed family members. To think that a man of this magnitude would make time in his busy schedule to spend with the children of deployed soldiers, on more than one occasion, speaks volumes about his genuine concern for his military families. It also says a great deal about his character as a man.

Major General Crutchfield has also built solid relationships with the Fort Rucker civilian community throughout his command. He took time to meet members of the community, and worked hard to get to know them personally. Most recently, after undergoing a coaching change at Enterprise High School, Major General Crutchfield spent some time with the football team and offered a motivational speech to those young adults. Such actions are typical of his efforts to bond with the community and will have a lasting effect on those student athletes for years to come.

Major General Crutchfield's tour as Commander of the United States Army Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker is a textbook example of our great military leaders. From his dedication to his troops and their families to his unwavering support of the local community, his leadership and commitment to excellence contributed significantly to our nation's defense.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am pleased to recognize the significant impact Major General Crutchfield has had on Fort Rucker and the surrounding community. My congressional staff, my husband Riley, and I each offer Major General Crutchfield and his wife Kim our most heartfelt gratitude for their service to our Nation and wish them fair winds and following seas as they move on to their new duty station at Camp H.M. Smith in Hawaii.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3803, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, of which I'm a proud cosponsor.

In sitting here listening to debate, I want to get a few things straight. First of all, I am a woman, and I have not declared war on myself. Second of all, this is not a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. This is a direct challenge to cruelty to unborn children. Currently, the policy in D.C. legally allows abortion for any reason until the moment of birth.

Mr. Speaker, Erin and Blake Hamby, a couple from my home State of Alabama, were pregnant with their second daughter when Erin had complications at 22 weeks. And at only 25 weeks and 2 days, their little baby, Faith, was born on January 8, weighing only 1 pound, 14 ounces, but every bit the same baby as my own children, Margaret and George, who were born full term.

Faith spent 2\1/2\ months in the NICU, and both she and her parents struggled daily, but that tiny baby--that tiny baby--is now 6\1/2\ months old and thriving.

In the District of Columbia, Faith could have been aborted not only at the point at which she was born, but also any day up to the day of her birth. H.R. 3803 prohibits abortions in D.C. after 20 weeks' gestation, a time frame based on scientific evidence that the unborn child can experience pain by at least at this stage of development.

In June of 2011, Alabama became the fifth State to pass a similar measure by banning physicians from performing abortions after 20 weeks.

I applaud my home State of Alabama in its admirable fight to protect human life, such as Faith's when she arrived earlier than expected into this world. I am proud to vote in support of H.R. 3803 tonight, and I encourage my colleagues to join me.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the other Members that are here tonight to talk about the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act that we will be voting on here in the House this week.

Earlier this month, President Obama commented in a speech:

If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody

else made that happen.

President Obama has even talked about how excessive regulation hurts job creation saying that:

Sometimes rules have gotten out of balance placing

unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled

innovation, and it's had a chilling effect on the growth of

jobs.

This is straight from this President's and this administration's mouth. Even as recently as February of 2012, The Economist put out this, ``The Over-regulated America.'' This is not a secret that we are talking about here tonight. This is something that is clearly well established. And if any Member of Congress has taken, as I know many have, the time to travel throughout their districts, as we all do, to meet with business owners, small businesses, medium-sized businesses or even large businesses, they will tell you that they are not creating jobs because they are overregulated. And I have used example after example on this very floor where I have met with the private sector, with these businesses, and they've said we had to reinvest all of our capital into just making sure that we are dotting the I and crossing the T, when all of that capital could be reinvested in creating jobs.

So what we have on this floor this week is a series of bills. I know Mr. Quayle from Arizona is here to talk about his incorporation in this bill, but there are seven different ideas incorporated into this one bill that is going to ease regulations in this country on businesses in different ways. I think tonight, as the gentleman from Colorado has already suggested, we can have a real frank discussion, because this is about being honest with the American people.

I get asked the question, as I'm sure all of you do, what are you doing? What is Congress doing? Well, this is what we're doing. And why our friends in the Senate, for the life of me, I do not understand, nor do the people I represent in southeast Alabama understand, why Mr. Reid and those in the Senate will not take up these very bills that will remove the heavy hand of government and unleash the private sector's ability to create jobs in this country. I look forward to continuing this conversation, and thanks for letting me be here.

Just to jump in real quick, have you heard from your employers back in the district where you go and you do these site visits and they immediately tell you not just how overregulated they are but how excited the regulators are to come into their business and write them up for things they have never done before? In the past, these regulators have been ambitious to help job creators to correct situations that may be unsafe or a dangerous situation for the employees. But, now, instead of providing employers an opportunity, there are fines after fines after fines that are just putting more of a burden on these very people that want to take their capital and invest in job creation. I hear it everywhere I go.

I would love to add to the out-of-whack statement because I have a few examples here.

I don't know if you have agriculture in your districts, but the farmer that is having to deal with duplicative permitting processes or concerns over the Federal Government making them regulate dust on their farm. As one of our

colleagues said, last time she checked, if you drive a pickup truck down a dirt road, it's going to generate dust. But we're regulating that. That's what the Federal Government is regulating.

Not to mention ObamaCare or the pulp and paper industry--which we have a lot of in my district--concerned about the Boiler MACT regulations that are so costly, the gas station owners that are worried about EPA requiring that their gasoline have certain percentages of ethanol mixed into their fuel or they have to pay a penalty, or the chicken hatchery farmer--now, this is a good one that happened last week.

We had a chicken hatchery farmer that called our office just last week about a new regulation that will require keeping his eggs at a certain temperature to go to processing to make dried eggs to avoid salmonella. Well, here's the kicker. And this is just to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the overregulation.

On the surface, this makes sense because we want to protect America's health. But this same regulation, this very same regulation, is letting the grade egg farmers that do have potential salmonella in their facilities send their possible contaminated eggs to the same processing plants. Processing eggs for dried eggs and other products kills the salmonella that would potentially be in this product. The FDA is allowing possible exposed eggs into the system.

So why should a hatchery farmer, who only sells to this type of processing when they have extra eggs be forced to put it all in a sort of refrigeration process that has nothing to do with the prevention that the regulation says that it's trying to prevent? And the answer is overregulation. This is just another example. I like eggs. I fixed some scrambled eggs this morning for breakfast. This affects me. It affects all of us in our lives, in our homes, in the grocery store.

When I buy milk for my kids, I see the costs increasing because of these very regulations. Whether it's the EPA and the ethanol in the gas or these actual very specific regulations that have to do specifically with the product being sold, we all are affected by this. It's costing jobs, and it's costing the American taxpayer to have to spend dollars that are unnecessary.

I would even add to that and say that I've had business owners in my district who have lodged complaints about what we talked about before, this punitive regulation, but they don't want you to go to bat for them because they're afraid it's only going to end up costing them more and that then their businesses will become targets of this Federal Government.

Now, what kind of United States of America is that when we have businesses that are afraid to complain to their Representatives in Congress about exactly what you're talking about? ``Hi, I'm here. I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'' Then you complain about it, and you get targeted as a business.

If you talk to the Greatest Generation, you know that is not what this country was built on.

To quickly add to that, in the Dodd-Frank Act, there are 36 rules implemented, and it will grow to the 400 required under that act. That goes to your point exactly.

Didn't you have the opportunity to question a witness on your committee and ask very specifically as it relates to energy? If I watched the hearing correctly, you were unable to ever get really until the final admittance that, in fact, they do not take economic impact into consideration when instituting these regulations.

What do they take into account?

Without the input of the private sector that is actually impacted by the very regulations.

Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

Just real quickly if I may. We've now stated on more than one occasion some quotes from the President and this administration going back to the fact that if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Then, as the gentleman from Colorado just read again, the President said that these rules have gotten out of balance. Mr. Griffin in his op ed he wrote in support of his amendment. I'm just going to make sure we give the gentleman from Arkansas some credit since he's not standing here with us. He also points out at the end of this opinion piece that the President admitted in his State of the Union address, ``There's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly.''

And I just want to read that again. ``There's no question''--this is the President, this President, President Obama--``There's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, and too costly.'' Yet every single time in my short tenure in this House of Representatives that we have brought a bill to the floor to deregulate, to do away with unnecessary regulations so that the private sector can grow, we are blocked in the Senate, and the President is not there to support us.

Mr. Speaker, once again, President Obama displays his lack of leadership and refuses to take charge in order to avoid the forthcoming devastating ramifications associated with sequester. That's why I enthusiastically agreed to cosponsor H.R. 5872, the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012.

For months, the House Armed Services Committee has repeatedly asked DOD and OMB for specifics of how sequestration would be implemented and its impact. In response, we have received nothing.

Once H.R. 5872 is implemented, the President will be forced to forgo his laissez-faire approach to crisis resolution and will be required to report to Congress the details of the administration's plans to implement the budget sequestration cuts. He will be forced to include an estimate of the sequestration percentages and amounts necessary to achieve the reduction for both defense and non-defense categories.

Of course, the impact on our military personnel and their families cannot be overstated. Frankly, it's inexcusable that these men and women who sacrifice so much for our Nation should suffer through these uncertainties while Senate Democrats and the White House refuse to offer a specific proposal to fix the sequester. As such, I urge Senator Reid to take this bill up immediately.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Of course, on March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the largest health care overall in the history of the United States. Sadly, it is less about providing quality health care for all citizens and more about expanding the scope of Federal Government.

The law failed to address the number one health care concern that families and employers have, and that's cost. As I've been sitting here and have listened to the debate, under the individual mandate, each individual absolutely will be penalized or taxed--we'll call it a tax because the Supreme Court did--if in America--this free country--that person chooses to remain uninsured or to purchase health care that is not government-approved, and this is regardless of one's income.

Despite the Supreme Courts's ruling, a significant number of Americans continue to oppose ObamaCare, and they are encouraging Congress to take immediate action. Americans and their doctors, not Federal bureaucrats and politicians, are in the best position to determine which health care options best meet their individual needs. Regardless of the Court's decision, many problems within the law remain present, many of which have a significant impact on small businesses. The American people do not want a one-size-fits-all health care system that imposes numerous mandates, regulations, and tax hikes on employers and employees. This will be devastating not just to my home State of Alabama but also to the Nation.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve our health care system by implementing market-based reforms that actually lower costs, increase access, and maintain a high quality of care for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to listen to the voices of the American people and to support H.R. 6079.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the recent United States Supreme Court ruling on June 28, 2012 that upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

The Court's opinion is lengthy and complicated and will require careful evaluation and review. However, we know that the Court affirmed the view that President Obama's law represents a significant tax on the American people, and that it is through the federal government's power to levy taxes that the Court upheld the law as constitutional.

Mr. Speaker, the Court's legal analysis is dubious and cause for concern given the dangerous precedent it sets. Can the government now require Americans to purchase government-approved goods and services or else face the threat of a tax? What we do know, however, is that the Court put restraint on the power of Congress to mandate the purchase of goods and services under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The Court ruled on the legal issues, not the wisdom of the policy. The American people have already weighed in and overwhelmingly rejected this law. As a whole, the law, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts will cost $1.6 trillion and will result in as many as 20 million Americans losing their existing health care coverage, remains deeply unpopular with the public. This is a stark contrast to the President Obama's repeated promise that, ``if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.''

The President's law has also proven to be ineffective at reducing the cost of health care, as it is suffocating small businesses with overbearing regulations and hampering job creation in a time of economic uncertainty. Recent estimates indicate that the law will actually cost 800,000 American jobs, not create 400,000 jobs as Nancy Pelosi claimed in 2010.

By law, beginning in 2014, employers with more than 50 employees will be required to offer health insurance coverage or face financial penalties. In addition, an employer plan must cover a specific set of services determined by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and meet actuarial standards laid out in the law. As a result, employers will be forced to choose whether to meet the new insurance requirements, pay noncompliance penalties to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or reduce workers' hours so they do not qualify as full- time. I have heard from several small business owners in my home state of Alabama, and across the United States, that will have financial struggles no matter which decision they chose. How can a business owner provide health insurance to his employees if his business is bankrupt?

We can all agree that the Court's preservation of PPACA's employer health insurance mandate is costly, to both employers and to their employees. Rising costs will force employers to consider dropping health coverage

altogether. Recent polls state that 30 percent of employers will ``definitely'' or ``probably'' stop offering health insurance after 2014. In the wake of the Court's ruling, employers will have three options in coming years: maintain coverage and absorb cost increases, maintain coverage and pass on as many costs as possible to workers, or drop coverage and pay a penalty. Despite the court's ruling, I remain committed to working toward the repeal of this harmful law.

The House of Representatives will vote yet again to repeal the law in early July and immediately begin deliberate work to replace the law with free market reforms that truly improve access to quality and affordable care. Americans and their doctors, not federal bureaucrats and politicians, are in the best position to determine which health care options best meet their individual needs.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 and part of the day on Thursday, May 31, 2012, I was absent from Washington D.C. due to the funeral of a close friend of the family that I was attending.

If I had been present, I would have voted as the following on May 30, 2012:

Rollcall 294 on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended H.R. 5651, the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendment, I would have voted Aye.

Rollcall 295 on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended H.R. 4201, the Servicemember Family Protection Act, I would have voted Aye.

Rollcall 296 on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended H.R. 915, the Jamie Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act, I would have voted Aye.

If I had been present, I would have voted as the following on May 31, 2012:

Rollcall 297 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 667, I would have voted Aye.

Rollcall 298 on agreeing to H. Res. 667, I would have voted Aye.

Rollcall 299 on motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended H.R. 3541 Prenatal Non-discrimination Act of 2012, I would have voted Aye.

Rollcall 300, on motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 5743, I would have voted Nay.

Rollcall 301, on passage of H.R. 5743, I would have vote Aye.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.

Oil accounts for 37 percent of U.S. energy demand, with 71 percent directed to fuels that are used in transportation. Our energy policy is vitally important to our national and economic security. It's especially as important to the mother who drives her children to school as it is the business owner who operates a fleet of delivery vehicles. When the price of gasoline increases, Americans hurt.

Last year, the price of gasoline increased 81 cents per gallon. That is why I do support an all-of-the-above approach to energy. This includes opening up new areas for American energy exploration, transitioning to renewable and alternative energy, and using more clean and reliable nuclear.

The President in his last State of the Union stated the same belief, but this administration has done nothing to back up that statement. The executive branch is using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for political purposes by imposing overburdensome regulations on refineries and placing obstacles to increasing permitting and leasing on Federal lands for gas and oil production.

During this administration, we have seen a drastic decrease of oil production on federally owned lands at a time with high gas prices. From 2010 to 2011, there has been a 14 percent decrease. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act will enable job creators in the energy industry and increase domestic energy production here at home.

The legislation that is before us today will turn the tide on this administration's actions, or lack thereof, and allow our Nation to move forward on our Nation's energy production, thereby increasing jobs and bringing us closer to energy independence.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.