Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for your leadership tonight on this most important and timely subject. And to the gentleman from Georgia, I appreciate all of your remarks because I do believe that we have shown through our campaign promises that we were going to put forth legislation that's not just commonsensical, but that all Americans have the ability to digest and understand in a way that gives them the ability to provide feedback to us as Members of Congress as to what makes sense and what they are for and what they're not for.

The 3-day rule that we implemented certainly has provided us with an opportunity to give our constituents time to learn. So we're not finding ourselves in the same situation as they were in the previous Congress with this massive health care law. I'm proud to say that one of our first votes in Congress was to repeal this law in its entirety.

Most of us can agree that this law has very little to do with commonsense health care reform, but that it translates into substantial costs, well over $500 billion that has to be paid by hardworking, tax- paying Americans.

I would think that if this room was filled with colleagues from this side of the aisle and the other, that what we could all nod and agree upon is that we need health care in this country, that it's more accessible and more affordable. We just have different ways of getting there. And over the course of this Congress, all of my colleagues here, we've cast over 27 votes to repeal or defund this current law.

Soon--and maybe sooner than later--the Supreme Court is going to hand down this landmark decision regarding the constitutionality of this very law that we're discussing here tonight. Of course, just like all of your districts, it will affect my home district in Alabama. And regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, I believe that many of the problems that we have with health care in this country will continue to be present, and they have a significant impact on small business in this country. Despite rhetoric, we have a responsibility in this majority to maintain our focus on jobs and the economy because that is what Americans are concerned about.

Today, I asked in anticipation of being here with you tonight, my constituents from the Second District of Alabama, to share with me on Facebook their concerns surrounding ObamaCare. So I just want to quote a few of my constituents:

ObamaCare violates the Constitution and the rights of the

American people.

ObamaCare is not the answer.

A board of laymen should not decide what treatment I can

get. That is between me and my doctor, not some committee

with no medical experience.

One of their largest fears is IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, labeled by critics the ``death panel.''

Under current law, this 15-member board will be empowered to find cost savings in Medicare by rationing health care services to senior citizens. You know what? Like the President's czars, this board will be handpicked by the President and will not be accountable to the American people or any person that they elected to the Congress to represent them.

One Montgomery, Alabama, physician, who provides care to Medicare recipients claims that the cuts in payments to doctors will be devastating to his ability just to stay in business. We've heard testimony about how difficult it will be to then recruit family practitioners and internal medicine doctors into the community. IPAB's recommendations to reduce health care costs will unfairly and disproportionately fall on physicians just like him, since the law prohibits any reductions in payments to hospitals and hospices until 2020.

So many doctors in Alabama are already faced with the painful decision of staying in business or not seeing Medicare patients, all because of ObamaCare. Not because of the decisions that this Republican majority in this House have made. Not only will IPAB have a devastating effect on businesses, it will have a disastrous effect and negative consequences on a patient's access to care.

Another concern of my constituents is the employer mandated health insurance provision. The Obama administration is encouraging employers to retain and expand health care coverage to their employees by 2014. My question is this: How can a business owner retain insurance coverage if it forces him into bankruptcy? This is what all of us here, when we travel throughout our districts during district work week, this is the number one concern of uncertainty provided by this law.

I recently heard from another constituent who owns independent grocery stores throughout Alabama who employs over 500 workers. This means 500 families are making a living from this business. And when he's required by law to provide all of his employees with health insurance, his grocery stores will go bankrupt, causing significant layoffs to his employees. When a kumquat producer from a southern State is threatened to go out of business, this is evidence that we have left no stone unturned when it comes to the loss of jobs.

On a national perspective, the employer mandated health insurance provision could cause the elimination of 1.6 million jobs, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses alone. Who wins in this situation? No one. Every thriving business that is able to sustain the heavy financial burden of this law is not hiring and growing their workforce due to the uncertainty.

As we continue during this 112th Congress, we must remain committed to reforming health care without the threat of new taxes and regulations that burden small businesses and the American people. Congress must be aggressive but responsible and make these reforms as we stay focused on making America strong and prosperous for future generations.

I look forward to working with all of you here tonight. And to the gentlelady from Tennessee, thank you for your leadership. It could not have come at a more important time. We need to continue this discussion.

Again, I cannot emphasize enough that the uncertainty surrounding this law is stifling job creation. And as we are accused day after day of not presenting jobs bills, this is it. This is the number one jobs bill. When we repeal this law, we will lift the heavy hand of government. And we believe--and I know--that the private sector will, with that certainty, once again begin hiring those people who desperately need these jobs all over this country.

Mr. Speaker, the strength of a community is derived from leaders who contribute selfless gifts in an effort to benefit others. Service, grace, and support are namely a few of the many gifts and talents one can offer. Those who build on a foundation of service are truly the most valuable and remarkable individuals within our communities.

Kathryn Elliot Williams, my dear childhood friend, was a true servant of her community. All of those who knew Elliot were familiar with her giving nature. From a very young age, Elliot displayed a magnificent sense of eagerness to assist those around her. Described by others as ``an inspiration to all,'' she set forth on a path to enrich others through her talents and gifts. However, a few weeks ago, Elliot lost a courageous battle with ovarian cancer.

She traveled an honorable journey for 36 years. In that time, she touched many lives through teaching, encouraging and serving. Her students, friends, neighbors and members of her church were those who benefited most. Their words describe Elliot the best:

``We honor her as a friend, wife, mother and professional and mostly a leader of Christianity,''

``What a wonderful and brave woman,''

``There are so many amazing and wonderful things she accomplished for others,''

``Elliot never wavered when presented with obstacles,''

``A beautiful, kind person, she was truly an amazing woman,''

``Delightful even in the face of adversity,''

``She was honest, earnest and a true friend.''

Elliot, a leader in her community and her home, stood as an example for all of those she encountered. Her actions resemble a challenge for each one of us to discover our God-given gifts and share them with everyone around us.

Elliot's husband, son and daughter, and her parents will memorialize a loving wife, mother, and daughter who shared her talents with the world. Elliot's community will remember a gentle and compassionate leader dedicated to the goodwill of others.

I honor Elliot for her ability to provide light, hope, and grace to those surrounding her. She was a community servant who rose to the challenge, lent support, and encouraged others. I thank her for her friendship and I know her life has shepherded future leaders to follow her Christ-centered example of service and goodwill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 3541, The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, of which I am a proud co-sponsor. This bill would criminalize the performance of an abortion based solely on the sex of the unborn child.

As you know, on May 31, 2012, the House of Representatives failed to approve H.R. 3541 by a vote of 168-246. I was necessarily absent from Washington on the day of this vote due to the death of a close personal friend. Had I been present, I would have proudly supported the passage of H.R. 3541.

I am unapologetically pro-life and am proud to be a member of the Pro-Life Caucus. I believe that the miracle of human life begins at the very moment of conception. I also believe that every human being, both male and female, has the inherent right to life and that this right must be protected by law.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I will continue to do everything in my power to fight for the unborn, prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions, and to protect our democratic system from the encroachment of an all-powerful judiciary. As a woman, a wife, and a mother of two small children, I will continue to fight for the life of every child-- regardless of their gender.

Mr. Speaker, I take my responsibilities as a member of this chamber seriously, and I regret ever having to miss a vote. I am pleased that my attendance record during the 112th Congress remains above 99 percent.

Thank you so much to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in favor of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and just want to say, even after VAWA's enactment roughly 8 years ago, one in four women still experience domestic violence during their lifetime. Moreover, more than 2 million adults and 15 million children are exposed to such violence annually.

According to the Alabama Coalition against Domestic Violence and the Alabama National Census Summary, in Alabama there are 834 victims served in one day, 187 hotline calls answered in one day, and 76 unmet requests for services. These numbers are astounding, and something must change.

Organizations have reported that they have been unable to provide services for a variety of reasons: the top three being, there's not enough staff, there's not enough specialized services, and there's not enough available beds or hotel vouchers to provide safe havens for victims and their children.

As an original cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, today I stand here supporting the Republican reauthorization. This bill brings greater accountability to the grant administration by ensuring that funding will support and assist victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, and will not be kept in the pockets of Washington bureaucrats.

Individuals, whether women, men or children, should be able to feel safe in

their homes; and when they are not, should be able to have access to services that allow them to be removed from their abuser.

Congress must put Washington politics aside and take action. I fully support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to join me.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is truly an honor tonight to stand with other freshman colleagues to discuss the ever-important number one constitutional responsibility of this Congress, in my opinion, very clearly spelled out: to provide for the common defense. Of course, this week the House will debate H.R. 4310, the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we marked this up in committee last week into the wee hours of the morning and it passed the House Armed Services Committee on May 10 with a bipartisan vote of 56 5. This legislation specifically provides for pay, funding, and authorities for America's men and women in uniform; and it's the key mechanism by which we fulfill our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.

This bill does many things. But I thought what I would do in the beginning of this hour, as I see some of my freshman colleagues joining us tonight, is that I would start by just telling you what happened to me just this morning, as it often does. I, of course, have two very large military installations in Alabama's Second District. So I oftentimes have military men and women in uniform on my planes as I fly back and forth to and from Washington.

This morning, my husband had come in with me because I had some extra bags and he was helping me. And I could tell that there was a family sitting there, and I suspected that the young man was about to be deployed. The father came over to me and spoke. Now, I'm away from my children, as are all Members of Congress, but they're usually for very short periods of time, and whereas that sacrifice is difficult in a lot of ways, it pales in comparison to the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform who put themselves in harm's way, not to mention their family members, who are also sacrificing their children and their spouses and their loved ones.

This morning, on this plane ride, not unlike many others, it was a stark reminder to me and to my family as my husband stood by and watched this family as they greeted us, as clearly the mom had a little tear in her eye, and it was just such a huge reminder to us of what individuals who have chosen to enter into our military service do for us to fight for the very freedoms that allow for me, Mr. Speaker, to stand in front of you tonight to discuss this ever-important act.

And so to the young man that I met this morning in Montgomery, Alabama's regional airport, to all of our young men and women serving all over this great Nation and this world, thank you from the bottom of my heart for the privilege to serve them as a member of the House Armed Services Committee and as a Member of this Congress. It is a tremendous honor and a privilege, and one that I certainly do not take lightly.

Overall, this bill that we passed out of committee that we will take up this week restores fiscal sanity to our defense budget and keeps faith with America's men and women, as I have already mentioned. It aligns our military posture in this very, very dangerous world and rebuilds the force after a decade of war.

Now, do not be mistaken. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we are currently working, under the law, $487 billion in cuts to the Department of Defense. We have sat as members of the House Armed Services Committee in committee hearing after committee hearing where our joint chiefs and our commanders have sat in front of us and told us that, yes, in fact, we will have a smaller force as a result of these current cuts. I think we can all agree in these fiscal times that there is not an area that is funded by hardworking taxpayer dollars of this Federal Government that doesn't deserve harsh scrutiny when it comes to fiscal cuts. And our military is certainly going to sustain those with these $485 billion in cuts.

But under the Budget Control Act and the joint committee's failure to provide the necessary cuts under that law, the automatic trigger that we here in Congress call sequestration is set to take place at the beginning of January next year. What we have heard in our committee hearings over and over and over again from Secretary Panetta, from General Dempsey, and others, is that our military cannot sustain another half-trillion or more in cuts. Not only would we have a smaller force, but there is a danger of a less capable force, particularly in this time in our Nation's history as we continue to fight the war on terror both here at home and abroad.

I bring all of this up to say that, again, the light in our military is our military families and the men and women who serve this country so honorably. And we, as members of the House Armed Services Committee and as Members of this United States Congress, have a duty to ensure that we are not only acting fiscally responsibly, but we are doing it in a way that ensures that those men and women have everything that they need to accomplish the task and the mission that we send them into.

There are several suggestions that have been made as it results to the $487 billion in cuts as we downsize our force. One of them that came out and has been scrutinized particularly is the C 130 decision. I just want to spend a little time, since I, as a member of the committee, had an amendment before the Armed Services Committee last week to deal with the way that our military looked at these potential cuts, and actually provide us with the information that we need to then in turn provide oversight as members of this committee as to whether or not these are decisions that are going to provide us with the fiscal restraint that we need.

The committee passed this amendment during markup. Representative Conaway from Texas and Representative Palazzo from Mississippi also were on this amendment regarding the Air Force's C 130. I look forward, with the other Members of the Alabama delegation, to have a conversation specifically with Secretary Donley and General Schwartz as it relates to decisions regarding the C 130. Mind you, and I want to be very clear when I say this, this could be the C 130, this could be the Abrams tank, this could be MEADS, this could be any other aspect of our military where we need to be asking these same questions. Certainly this is important to us, the Representatives that signed on to this amendment, because the C 130 is located in our districts, but I want to be clear, because this is not about just protecting the mission at home. This is about making sure that across the board we are asking the right questions to protect the missions, as I've already stated, as well as making decisions that are going to find the savings that we need.

So our amendment very clearly just says, how did you determine which C 130 aircraft will be retired and relocated, and the methodologies underlying such determinations, including what assumptions were made to define and shape these specifics determinations. And the rationale for selecting various C 130 aircraft from regular and reserve components, and the details of the costs incurred, avoided or saved, with respect to these C 130s.

And here's the most important part--and again, this is why I believe this amendment could be applied throughout our military: the GAO has to audit the Secretary's report to make sure that the true cost and benefit of the planned retirement and relocations are realized. This amendment, like so many others in this National Defense Authorization Act, is straightforward. This is a straightforward provision to make sure that the Congress received the necessary information to make our authorizing decisions in an objective manner that will benefit our men and women in uniform and the American taxpayer.

I have my friend here from New York and hopefully others that will be joining us. I know we have many difficult decisions, but I just urge all of my colleagues this week, as we move through the National Defense Authorization Act and all of the amendments that will be debated and voted upon, that we will do so with this young man whom I spoke to this morning who is now deployed to Kuwait for a year, that we will do so with him and so many thousands of others in mind as we move through, making sure that we always do our best because we are supposed to keep faith with our military families and provide all that our men and women need to accomplish the mission.

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

Thank you to my friend from New York. I appreciate you being here tonight and controlling the time for a little while.

As we have a few more minutes, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Thank you to my friend from Virginia.

I just point back to H.R. 5652, which is the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act that we passed in this House. Here we spend so much time while we're here in Washington, when we're back home in our districts, for me when I'm at the grocery store or pumping gas or taking my kids to school, talking about jobs and the economy. We're talking about the things that we here in this Congress have done to create so much uncertainty for you, the small business owner, and the reflection of the lack of jobs because of decisions that are made here.

All you have to do is look at the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act to see that what we need to be focusing on is priority. It's about priority. What is our job as Members of Congress as laid out by the Constitution of the United States? As I've already pointed out, it's to provide for a strong national defense. When we talk about jobs and the economy and then the stripping away of the tools that our men and women in uniform need in order to defend this country--I just want to give you a little snapshot to end on what that picture looks like.

Specifically, 200,000 soldiers and marines would have to separate from service, bringing our force well below pre-9/11 levels. We would have a fleet of fewer than 230 ships. That would be the smallest since 1915. We would have the smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force and a reduction of 20 percent in defense civilian personnel to go to your point.

These industries--aerospace, defense, and industrial base--directly employ more than 1 million people and support more than 2 million middle class jobs across the United States, all in an effort to protect our men and women who are fighting for and defending the freedom and liberty that everyone in this room so enjoys.

I could go on and on. You know that we could talk well past the hour, although we don't have that time.

Very quickly, I will thank my friend from Virginia once again. And is there anything else my friend from Colorado would like to add?

I thank you both.

Again, to all of our veterans and military servicemembers and personnel, we just say thank you.

And I urge my colleagues to support the National Defense Authorization Act this week, as we move through the open process that we have, so that we can continue to give those men and women and their families all that they need to ensure that they are able to accomplish the mission.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act.

I had a nice prepared speech, but in sitting here listening to the debate, I really want to focus in on one specific issue. American students should not be fearful to attend college due to the crushing weight of student loans weighing them down after their graduation.

But as is suggested by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this preventive care fund reduction would deny access to individuals for these health care screenings, I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, just yesterday to have a conversation with Secretary Sebelius directly as it relates to this fund. I asked her specifically: Madam Secretary, will the reduction in the preventive fund cause a child to be denied access to a health screening? And by her own admission, she said, ``Absolutely not.''

As I listen to this debate and I hear the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle, I'm actually dismayed to hear some of the things that are being said that, quite frankly, by the Secretary's own admission just, quite frankly, aren't true.

I stand today in support of this bill.

I want to also point out that by the Secretary's own admission as well, she acknowledged that, in fact, the President of the United States himself, in his own budget, put reductions to this fund.

The Interest Rate Reduction Act will repeal the slush fund. The $5.9 billion will be used to offset the cost of maintaining the 1-year extension as we move towards a meaningful response to our young people.

Congress must put Washington politics aside and take action. And it is time to stop piecing together temporary solutions to the problems that exist in our student aid programs.

I fully support the Interest Rate Reduction Act, and I courage my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the 90th anniversary of Twitchell Technical Products--a thriving business in Southeast Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the 90th anniversary of Twitchell Technical Products--a thriving business in Southeast Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the newly formed bipartisan Congressional Peanut Caucus that I have co-founded with Representative Samford Bishop. The caucus will serve as an informal group of Members of Congress dedicated to all issues related to peanuts and the role they play in on our Nation's agriculture industry.

Representative Bishop and I formed this caucus to promote and support peanut production--a crucial part of the agriculture industry in the Southern States we represent. Representative Bishop has been a strong force in shaping Federal policies to advance the U.S. peanut industry and ensure it remains competitive. I am grateful for the opportunity to work on this initiative with such a strong advocate.

Agriculture remains the number one industry in my State of Alabama, and has been a top priority for me since taking office. The peanut industry--specifically--is an essential and recognizable commodity for Alabama. Seven States account for approximately 99% of all peanuts grown in the U.S. Alabama is among the top few States, along with Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi that produces a major share of our Nation's peanut crop.

Our country's reliance on domestic agricultural production is rising with continuous population growth. Peanuts are the 12th most valuable cash crop grown in the United States with a farm value of over one billion dollars. The World Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development are both looking at peanuts and peanut producers as vital components in fighting global malnutrition. In addition, the spectrum of new and emerging research related to peanuts and health is broadening quickly. The application of this research may lead to a better understanding of ways to reduce the risk of certain diseases, including Type Two diabetes and some cancers. Therefore, we must ensure that our farmers across the Nation have the resources necessary to maintain successful peanut crops from year to year.

Congressional Caucuses are an important way to increase awareness of principal issues and identify legislative priorities. As Representatives, it is our responsibility to bring the voices of farmers from all over the country to the forefront of the discussion and to ensure that all of their interests are fairly represented. Members of the Peanut Caucus will have the ability to collectively advocate in Congress for peanut farmers and producers of this important crop.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues and I begin to prepare for the next Farm Bill, we believe it must contain provisions that are beneficial to American farmers, while also maintaining fiscal restraint. With that in mind, it is my hope that this Caucus will serve as a working group for members from our Nation's peanut States and will help streamline communication between Congressional offices. I urge any interested colleague to join us on the Peanut Caucus, and I look forward to working with Chairman Lucas and the House Agriculture Committee on the next Farm Bill as we consider legislative issues that affect our Nation's peanut farmers.

Madam Chair, I rise today to highlight the passage of H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act (H.R. 2117). The House of Representatives approved this legislation on February 28, 2012.

I am a proud cosponsor and a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, which debated and reported this bill out of Committee with a bipartisan vote last summer.

If enacted, this legislation would remove costly and burdensome regulations from colleges and universities across the country. In a time of federal government expansion, H.R. 2117 would help curtail the Department of Education's overreach into the rules and regulations governing institutions of higher learning. The bill contains two provisions that would repeal recent Department of Education mandates. These provisions relate to the federal definition of a credit hour and to the way states authorize and license institutions of higher education.

Historically, each institution of higher learning maintained the ability to determine what constitutes a credit hour subject to the oversight of accrediting agencies that would determine the specific number of credit hours to assign each course. Over time the federal government became more involved in the process. I strongly believe that the federal government should not impose a one-size-fits-all approach to determine standard credit hours for all colleges and universities. This decision should be made at the state and institutional levels.

Burdensome federal regulation of institutions of higher learning slow innovative learning and increase costs for students. Federal government regulations should not control a states' decision whether to grant a college or university permission to operate within that state.

Madam Chair, I have heard from numerous institutions across Alabama regarding these challenges. Please allow me to submit a letter into the Congressional Record from the president of Spring Hill College, which is located in my home state of Alabama, for support of H.R. 2117. This letter explains how the Department's intrusive regulations are hampering growth of Spring Hill College. The letter also notes that the high cost associated with federal regulations stifle educational opportunities when those costs must be transferred to students. The federal government must not impede the work of our colleges and universities. When this happens, students are the ones most negatively affected.

Removing federal standards and granting states and institutions more flexibility is the key for expanding learning for all students. By allowing institutions to determine the educational needs of its students and by releasing states from these new mandates, we can move our system forward. I look forward to continued bipartisan support of the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act, and I encourage our friends in the Senate to give H.R. 2117 serious consideration in the coming months.

Hon. Martha Roby,

House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Cannon House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Roby: As I know you are aware, the House

of Representatives has now scheduled H.R. 2117 to be

discussed on the house floor this week. As president of one

of the 28 Jesuit colleges and universities in the United

States, I urge you to lend your support to this important

legislation.

H.R. 2117 addresses regulatory overreach by rescinding

regulations on credit hour and state authorization, imposed

by the Department of Education that became effective July 1,

2011. I, along with my fellow Jesuit college presidents,

believe these regulations are intrusive and inappropriate.

Determining credit hour requirements has been and should be

determined by the institution of higher education that awards

credit for fulfilling academic work. National higher

education accrediting agencies through long established peer

review processes oversee how colleges and universities award

college credit, and that is the way it should be. Spring Hill

College, for example, is an accredited member of the Southern

Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS.)

The current federal regulatory definition interferes with

the integrity of awarding college credits with a one size

fits all approach. This approach hinders course creativity

and academic autonomy.

This regulation also impacts institutions that provide

distance education courses by mandating unnecessary filings

in states that result in more costs of time and money for

many institutions. As I'm sure you recall, testimony given by

several college presidents to the House Subcommittee on

Postsecondary and Workforce Training pointed out that

``unnecessary federal regulations will impose additional

regulatory burdens on colleges and universities, which could

lead to higher costs being passed down to low-income and

disadvantaged students. H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic

Freedom in Higher Education Act, ensures that colleges and

universities are able to focus their energy and resources on

educating students. Congress and the Administration should

focus on increasing educational opportunities for students

and streamlining federal regulations that inhibit innovation

in higher education,'' according to the subcommittee's

summary. Therefore, I ask for your support of H.R. 2117.

I can also assure you that Spring Hill College continues to

implement and seek further ways to hold down college costs

while staying true to our mission to form leaders engaged in

learning, faith, justice and service for life.

Thank you for all you do for our Alabama and for your

support of Spring Hill College and our important mission. We

look forward to welcoming you to our campus when your

schedule permits.

May God Bless you.

Sincerely,

Richard P. Salmi, S.J.,

President, Spring Hill College.

Thank you for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, today I'm so proud to join with Terri Sewell, another Alabama freshman Member, to offer House Resolution 562, an initiative that will preserve a collection of accounts from Members involved in the historic and annual marches from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

The oral histories preserved through this resolution will memorialize the symbolic events that changed the direction of the civil rights movement. What took place during three historic marches in Alabama over a 3-week period in 1965 proved to be a powerful transformation in American history. The courageous actions of so many moved our country out of an era of misguided actions.

Participants marched towards a unified goal to provide equal voting rights for all Americans. The first march, on March 7, 1965, remains, without a doubt, one of the worst demonstrations of racial violence. Participants peacefully marching were met by a brutal and aggressive police force.

This violence was captured by the news and broadcast to family rooms all over this Nation. It quickly delivered a message to a racially divided country of unforeseen consequences caused by segregation.

Such shameless violent actions unleashed on nonviolent marchers revealed the immediate need for equal rights for citizens. Without a doubt, the days that racial voting laws were enforced for our country were among the darkest and least honorable for this Nation.

Even today, our country is still repairing from the wrongs inflicted decades ago by racial segregation. If it were not for the unwavering courage of those marching for civil freedoms, our country would be very different than the way we know it today. Their brave actions will be forever memorialized by the Selma To Montgomery Voting Rights Trail.

Our younger generations today did not witness firsthand the historic demonstrations that forged a unified Nation, myself included. Therefore, it is so important to record the testimonies in order to reveal the scope and the relevance of these civil rights events.

I am proud to introduce this resolution with Representative Sewell to preserve the history of our democracy.

The resolution instructs the Office of the Historian to compile testimonies from current and former Members of Congress who have participated in historic or commemorative civil rights movement actions. It will tell every generation a detailed timeline of these historic moments in the civil rights movement.

Those marching for equality were among the many patriots that envisioned a better America, one free from racial discrimination.

The marches proved not only to be successful in granting equal voting rights, but an illustrative account of citizens attaining freedom from harsh discrimination. Though such intolerable actions can never be reversed, there is still dignity knowing that the participants of these marches permanently changed the course of American history.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bicameral resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to join with Terri Sewell, another Alabama Freshman Member, to offer House Resolution 562, an initiative that will preserve a collection of accounts from Members involved in the historic and annual marches from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. It is a great honor to today stand on the House floor with my colleague, Representative John Lewis, who himself played such an important role in the Selma march.

The oral histories preserved through this resolution will memorialize the symbolic events that changed the direction of the Civil Rights Movement.

What took place during three historic marches in Alabama over a three-week period in 1965 proved to be a powerful transformation in American history. The courageous actions of so many moved our country out of an era of misguided actions.

Participants marched towards a unified goal--to provide equal voting rights for all Americans. The first march on March 7, 1965, remains, without a doubt, one of the worst demonstrations of racial violence. Participants peacefully marching were met by a brutal and aggressive police force. This violence was captured by the news and broadcast to family rooms all over the nation. It quickly delivered a message to a racially divided country of the unforeseen consequences caused by segregation.

Such shameless violent actions unleashed on nonviolent marchers revealed the immediate need for equal rights for citizens. Without a doubt, the days that racial voting laws were enforced by our country were among the darkest and least honorable for this nation. Even today, our country is still repairing from the wrongs inflicted decades ago from racial segregation.

If it were not for the unwavering courage of those marching for civil freedoms, our country would be very different then the way we know it today. Their brave actions will be forever memorialized by the Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights Trail.

Our younger generations today did not witness first-hand the historic demonstrations that forged a unified nation. Therefore, it is important to record the testimonies in order to reveal the scope and relevance of these civil rights events.

I am proud to introduce this resolution with Representative Sewell to preserve the history of our democracy. The resolution instructs the Office of the Historian to compile testimonies from current and former Members of Congress who have participated in historic or commemorative Civil Rights Movement actions. It will tell every generation a detailed timeline of these historic moments in the American Civil Rights Movement.

Those marching for equality were among the first patriots to envision a better America--one free from racial discrimination. The marches proved not only to be successful in granting equal voting rights, but an illustrative account of citizens attaining freedom from harsh discrimination.

Though such intolerable actions can never be reversed, there is still dignity knowing that the participants of these marches permanently changed the course of American history. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bicameral resolution.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 43, 44, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes,'' on both.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve a genuine and predictable government that shoots straight. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.'' How can the people hold their representative accountable when Congress and their President distort the basic facts?

Many of my colleagues and I are dismayed by the dysfunction in the process. We've seen firsthand the insider tricks and schemes used to distort the budget and hide new spending. We've learned that these loopholes are deeply

engrained in the rules of Congress, and that both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of exploiting them.

The American people have a right to expect accountability, honesty, and transparency from their government. But every year, Washington relies on a series of budget gimmicks and accounting tricks to conceal or enable deficit spending. With our nation's gross debt over $15 trillion--as large as our entire economy--Washington must drop the budget games and commit to honest budget practices.

We--as the freshman class--were sent to DC to do things differently and to assist on honest and transparent government.

That's why earlier this week, I, along with 28 of my colleagues, introduced the Honest Budget Act of 2012--an important step to change the way Washington works and instill integrity to the budget process.

This legislation is designed to root out the budget gimmicks most commonly used by politicians to hide the truth, confuse the public, and run up the national debt.

Last year, Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama introduced in the Senate similar legislation to strengthen the Senate's rules against budget trickery. Numerous conservative groups have endorsed Sessions' bill, including the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens Against Government Waste.

The House legislation expands this bill with similar rules in the House of Representatives to addresses nine specific budget gimmicks that, since 2005, have cost taxpayers more than $350 billion and have consistently added to the burgeoning national debt. For example, the legislation makes it more difficult to pass appropriation bills without first approving a budget. No longer will the Senate be allowed to operate without a budget as it has for more than 1000 days. It tightens rules about using ``emergency designations'' and ``disaster designations'' to justify off-budget spending. It reveals both the real cost and the real commitment on what the federal government is spending. The bill prevents Congress from relying on phony rescissions, or claiming savings unless the savings are real and genuine. Money that was never going to be spent cannot later be claimed as ``savings''. That's common sense.

A budget is a plan for the nation's future and an annual financial report to the stockholders of the company--in this case, the American people. We deserve the truth. Mr. Speaker, given what I have witnessed over the last year, the only way to guarantee the truth is to specifically root out and end the gimmicks that so often obscure it.

We are all keenly aware that the number one issue facing America today is jobs. We must continue to do all that we can here in Washington to create an environment that fosters job growth, and we will continue to do that. But we cannot overlook the fact that Washington spends money it does not have. Certainly, this reckless spending spree has contributed greatly towards our downward economy.

The American people deserve a budget system that is accountable, predictable, and real. Regardless of party, Congress and the Administration have not always been up-front with their numbers. It is important that we instill integrity back to our budget. The President is expected to present Congress with his budget for Fiscal Year 2013. We have a responsibility to our constituents to ensure that the final budget is accurate and any savings included are real savings.

In many respects, the Honest Budget Act of 2012 embodies the spirit of transparency and accountability that unites my freshman class. The bill is a rallying point for those who truly want to put an end to the tricks, gimmicks and empty promises, and for all who believe that the American people deserve a government that they can trust. I look forward to work with my colleagues to see this become reality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment over President Obama's decision to block the Keystone XL Pipeline by rejecting an application to build and operate the oil pipeline across the U.S. and Canada border.

This is a major decision, and I think every American should be aware of the consequences. The Keystone Pipeline represents an opportunity to both increase supply of much-needed natural resources in our country and create tens-of-thousands of American jobs. Because the project crosses the U.S. border, a permit is required from President Obama's State Department.

Without that permit, we will not see the potential benefits--in terms of stabilized energy supplies or new jobs--that would result from the Pipeline.

The Keystone Pipeline project would have the capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels of crude oil per day and would include more than 1,700 miles of pipeline. Estimates from TransCanada, the company that applied to construct the pipeline, projects more than 100,000 jobs could be created over the life of the project, including an estimated 20,000 immediate American jobs in construction and manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, our energy policy is vitally important to our national security and our economic security. Oil accounts for 37 percent of U.S. energy demand, with 71 percent directed to fuels used in transportation. That is equally true of the mother who drives her children to school as it is of the business owner who operates a fleet of delivery vehicles. When the price of gasoline increases, Americans are hurt--and the price of gasoline increased 81 cents per gallon in 2011 alone.

That is why I support our ``all of the above'' approach to energy, which includes opening up new areas for American energy exploration, transitioning to renewable and alternative energy, and using more clean and reliable nuclear power.

In his State of the Union address, the President stated that ``this country needs an all-out, all of the above strategy that develops every available source of American energy--a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.'' In my opinion, his decision on the Keystone Pipeline is inconsistent with that statement.

I believe the Keystone Pipeline project has the potential to strengthen America's economy, reduce our dependence on oil from potentially hostile regions of the world, and create jobs. I voted in favor of the North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938), legislation directing the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Keystone Pipeline permit by November 1, 2011.

Additionally, Congress passed H.R. 3765, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78) that was enacted into law on December 23, 2011. This Act, signed by the President, required the State Department to grant a permit within 60 days unless the President determined that the pipeline would not serve the national interest. I also voted in favor of this legislation.

Unfortunately, President Obama announced on January 17, 2011 that the administration will block the pipeline by denying the application permit. It has been more than three years since the application to build the Keystone XL pipeline was originally filed. The President had an opportunity to help create American jobs and reduce America's reliance on unstable foreign sources of oil, and he rejected it. The State Department announced that it did not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to determine if the project would serve the national interest. In truth, this project has been studied for many years. I ask, how does reducing reliance on Middle East oil while creating thousands of jobs not serve the national interest?

The door is now open for Canadian oil to go to China. Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, announced his ``profound disappointment with the news.'' The Prime Minister expressed that he had hoped the project would continue, given the significant contribution it would make to the United States and Canada. While the Chinese government has ensured its future supply of oil and other energy resources, the United States has rejected a new source of energy that was laid at our doorstep. Mr. Speaker, I ask, how does the fact that China will receive this energy supply not serve our national interest?

Mr. Speaker, I consider President Obama's decision a grave mistake and on behalf of the American people who want secure oil and new manufacturing jobs, I hope that Congress will continue to push him to reconsider this error in judgment.

Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve a genuine and predictable government that shoots straight. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.'' How can the people hold their Representative accountable when Congress and the President distort the basic facts?

Many of my colleagues and I are dismayed by the dysfunction in the process. We have seen firsthand the insider tricks and schemes to distort the budget and hide new spending. We've learned that these loopholes are deeply ingrained in the rules of Congress--they are institutionalized--and both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of exploiting them.

The American people have a right to expect accountability, honesty, and transparency from their government. But every year Washington relies on a series of budget gimmicks and accounting tricks to conceal or enable deficit spending. With our Nation's debt nearing $16 trillion, Washington must drop the budget games and commit to honest budget practices.

Many of us believe we were sent here to Washington to do things differently and to insist on an honest and transparent government.

That's why I, earlier this week, along with 28 of my colleagues, introduced the Honest Budget Act of 2012, an important step to change the way Washington works and instill integrity into the budget process. This legislation is designed to root out the budget gimmicks most commonly used by politicians to hide the truth, confuse the public, and run up the national debt.

Last year, Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama introduced in the Senate similar legislation to strengthen the Senate's rules against budget trickery. Numerous conservative groups have endorsed Sessions' bill, including the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens Against Government Waste.

This legislation introduced in the House expands the Senate bill with similar rules for the House of Representatives to address nine specific budget gimmicks that, since 2005, have cost taxpayers more than $350 billion and have consistently added to our deficit and our debt.

For example, the legislation makes it more difficult to pass appropriation bills without first approving a budget. What a novel idea. The legislation also tightens rules regarding emergency designations and disaster designations to justify off-budget spending. It reveals both real costs and the real commitment on what the Federal Government is spending.

The bill also prevents Congress from relying on phony rescissions, or claiming savings that are not savings unless they are real and genuine. That's common sense. Common sense dictates that you cannot account as savings money that was never going to be spent in the first place.

A budget is a plan for this Nation's future. Americans deserve the truth. Mr. Speaker, given what I have witnessed over the last year, the only way to guarantee truth is to specifically root out and end the gimmicks.

We're all keenly aware that the number 1 issue facing America today is jobs. We must continue to do all that we can here in Washington to create an environment that fosters job growth, and we will continue to do that. But we cannot overlook the fact that Washington spends money it does not have. Certainly, this reckless spending spree has contributed greatly towards our downward economy.

The Honest Budget Act does not fix all of our problems, but it is a step in the right direction. In many respects, the Honest Budget Act of 2012 embodies the spirit of transparency and accountability that unites many in my freshman class. The bill is a rallying point for those who truly want to put an end to tricks, gimmicks, and empty promises, and for all who believe that the American people deserve a government that they can trust.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this proposed legislation become law.