Floor Statements

Thank you so much, Representative Burgess, and I should say ``Dr. Burgess'' as well. I thank you for your first-class understanding of how devastating ObamaCare is in the lives of real people, and I thank Dr. Harris, who just gave his remarks as well.

This is an issue that impacts every single American who is watching us right now, Mr. Speaker; and I hope there are people all across the country who have tuned in to hear what's happening on the House floor, because this is really an update of sorts.

It has been 3 years since the President of the United States signed this devastating bill. Let's just remind the American people of what President Obama said that we could take to the bank. Again, this bill was voted on right here in this Chamber. It was about midnight when it happened. It was midnight on a Sunday night, and I think it was on March 21 the night that it was signed. The President told all of the American people, in fact, that we've got to hurry, hurry, hurry and pass this bill because, if we do that, then the average American household will save about $2,500 a year on its health insurance premium.

I'd vote for that. That would be a great thing to do. I want every American to save money on his health insurance; but, Mr. Speaker, just the opposite happened.

People have been having increases in their health insurance premiums of well over $2,500 a year, so the President was off by a factor of about $5,000. That also doesn't take into account the fact that, under President Obama's leadership, the average American household has actually lost almost $5,000 of income.

So if you couple both the loss of income under this President's leadership and the fact that the President, with all due respect, didn't tell the American people the truth about how much they would save on health insurance premiums, that has a devastating impact on American households. Particularly, this is really hurting the senior citizens whom we love and whom we care about. Why? Dr. Harris told us. Dr. Burgess told us: President Obama took over $700 billion out of-- where?--Medicare.

Over $700 billion has come out of Medicare. And where has it been shifted? Into ObamaCare. Who does that hurt? That hurts the people we love, that hurts the senior citizens of this country.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, about who else is devastatingly impacted by ObamaCare. We were all told that we're going to get 30 million new people free health care. Gee, whoop, that sounds great. Let me tell you who's not going to get health care. Let me tell you what ObamaCare has deep in its pages, and nobody read this bill. Why didn't they read it? It isn't because Members of Congress were too lazy to read it, it's because, unfortunately, the Democrats that controlled the House of Representatives, the Democrats that controlled the Senate, didn't even bother to give the Members the bill in enough time to even read the bill. In the Senate, they had maybe a couple of hours. Here in the House, we had very little time to read the bill. Nobody could read the bill. Maybe that's why the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said, famously: We have to pass the bill to know what's in it.

Well, now we know what's in it. And we also know who's going to be hurt. And more than anyone in this bill, it is women who are hurt by ObamaCare. It is children who are hurt by ObamaCare. And even worse, Mr. Speaker, it is the poorest women and the poorest children who are going to be hurt, and I want to tell you how just very briefly, and then I will yield back after that.

We have found out in this bill that if an employer offers health insurance to their employee who, let's say, is the husband in the home, and he offers health insurance to that husband, the employer doesn't have to offer that insurance to the wife and the children.

He can fulfill his obligation to the Federal Government just by offering health insurance to the husband. Today the wife and children are also getting that health insurance. So once he makes that obligation, then the wife and children are on their own. But do you know what the wife and children have to do under the law? They have to buy the very expensive health insurance, not what they want, Mr. Speaker, but what the government tells them they're forced to buy.

How are they going to buy that health insurance? Well, we're told, gee, they can go to a health care exchange. No, they can't. They can't go to a health care exchange because the health care exchange subsidies won't be available to the wife and children because the husband is covered. Isn't that a sneaky deal to pull on American women and on their children.

Now, what about if that wife, let's say, lost her job, as Dr. Burgess said, because now we're seeing people who were working over 30 hours a week pulled down to 29 hours a week. So let's say the woman, the mom, lost her job and she's on unemployment. If you're on unemployment, are you relieved of the burden? This mom, is she relieved of the burden of paying the tax for health insurance? No. So she has to continue to pay a health insurance tax. While she is on unemployment, she can't go to the State-subsidized exchanges and get her health insurance.

What's her option, Mr. Speaker? She has to take her aftertax income, which is much reduced because she first has to pay taxes on that income, and then she has to go out and buy health insurance without any government subsidy in the market. Well, isn't this interesting. Government tells her what policy she has to get.

The cheapest policy, under the bronze plan, under these subsidies, is $20,000 a year. So where, tell me, Mr. Speaker, and I should ask the President of the United States, who came up with this brilliant idea, where, Mr. Speaker, where are poor women supposed to go to buy health insurance they can afford? Not in the ObamaCare regime. Where is she supposed to go with her very sick child who's lost his health insurance from the employer, that his daddy provided for him because his daddy had a job, his daddy had health insurance. That young child had health insurance. That child was very sick with a disease, and he could count on insurance because his daddy had a job. His daddy provided health insurance. But now under ObamaCare, that employer may no longer give that health insurance.

So I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, this is devastating for moms across America, for children across America, for senior citizens across America. I wish it wasn't so. I wish we were standing here with a better story. The fact is, we tried.

Dr. Harris is on this floor. We now have been joined by Dr. Roe from Tennessee. We have three doctors here in this Chamber. He tried to provide better health care for the people in Tennessee and the people in America. Dr. Burgess has tried all over this country to say there's a better way. We can get more women and children covered. We can make sure more seniors are covered. We can do this thing. Preexisting conditions, we can solve it. But no, that wasn't good enough for our President. It wasn't good enough.

You see, what he demanded and insisted upon was that the government have 100 percent control over health care. One hundred percent control? The American people lose control? What did they get? They get health care, health insurance, I should say, that's more expense than anything they've ever paid for before, and they get less for it. Well, what a deal, Mr. Speaker. What a deal. The American people, especially vulnerable women, vulnerable children, vulnerable senior citizens, now get to pay more and they get less.

That's why we're here, because we're saying let's repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. Let's not do that. Let's love people. Let's care about people. Let's repeal it now while we can, and instead, do what Dr. Burgess has been trying to do for years, what Dr. Roe has been trying to do for years, what Dr. Harris has been trying to do for years: get the highest possible quality health care to the greatest number of American citizens at the lowest possible price, especially to vulnerable women and vulnerable children and vulnerable senior citizens.

As people of faith--I'm a born again believer in Jesus Christ, and I believe that as part of my duty as a believer in Christ and what He has done for me, that we should do for the least of those who are in our midst. That's my personal belief and my personal conviction, and that's why I want our government to create the space so that we can help people. Because I guarantee you one thing, Mr. Speaker: this doesn't help people. But the good thing is, Dr. Burgess, we can. And that's why I want to thank you for your leadership in the Health Care Caucus. I want to thank Dr. Harris for his leadership in the Health Care Caucus, and I want to thank Dr. Roe for his leadership in the Health Care Caucus, and all of the other doctors and all of the other Members who were busy waving a big red flag before ObamaCare passed, because don't anyone ever forget: this was not a bipartisan effort. This was President Obama. This was the Democrat-led Senate and the Democrat-led House. This was one party that gave us this terrible bill.

Now let it be both parties that come together to help women, help children, and help senior citizens. And God bless you for what you're doing. Thank you so much, Dr. Burgess.

And if I recall, you wrote a book called ``House Calls'' just exactly on that topic by Dr. Burgess.

Dr. Burgess, thank you so much.

I just wanted to add this point to the whole debate that we're having today,

that the unintended consequence of all of this is that we've now created a class system in America for health care. We can't overstate this enough. Before, we just had health care in America, and you tried to find the best doctor and you tried to find the best possible care. But now what ObamaCare creates is this: it's a class-based health care system where we segment patients into three different classes.

Here's one. Here's the one that no American wants to be in. It's the Medicaid ghetto. That's where the lowest possible care, where very few doctors will be available to offer this kind of care, the Medicaid ghetto. Then there's going to be the socialized medicine in the exchanges. Then, finally, there's going to be concierge care for those who are going to be at the top of the heap.

So it won't be the same type of medicine that's available for everyone. We will have different class systems in health care. And guess who's going to get hurt the most? You're exactly right--senior citizens, women, and children. I want to explain just briefly how that will be.

You see, 56 percent of the people that are unhealthy today in America are in households that make less than 133 percent of the poverty level. So if you're sick, you're in a lower-income household, and without employer coverage--and employers, as was stated before by Dr. Gingrey, about 7 million people are going to be thrown off their very good coverage they have now. Over half of our unhealthy citizens will be stuck in Medicaid, and that doesn't provide adequate access. I can tell you from my State of Minnesota, people who are on that scale have to go from rural Minnesota, maybe travel a couple hundred miles to the Twin Cities--which they can't--to find anyone who will offer them the care they need.

Here's the other thing: About 2.5 times as many women than men get their coverage through their husband's coverage. For all of these people who are going to lose their employer-sponsored health coverage, it's more likely to have 2\1/2\ times more women. If they're unemployed and out of the labor force, they're in trouble; they're up a creek without a paddle. Because the problem here is going to be that women and children are in jeopardy of not having an option. Even if they make 400 percent more than the poverty line--which really sounds like a lot of money--you're not going to have the availability of getting on the health care exchange. You may not even get in the Medicaid ghetto. So, in other words, you have to pay the tax--which they call a fee--you have to pay the big tax as a woman and as a mother of these children, but you're not getting any health insurance for it.

It is a bad deal, and that's why I thank you, Dr. Burgess, for what you've done.

That's right. So, Mr. Speaker, it's the worst of all worlds. Your husband is having to pay for this very expensive insurance for himself, and the employer may be having a match on that, but you're out in the cold, your kids are out in the cold, and you're paying a tax on top of it to add insult to injury. Women are going to suffer, children are going to suffer, and seniors are going to suffer.

Mr. Speaker, there are going to be people who die because of this. In this body, let it be said today that we don't want to see anyone die or anyone hurt or anyone denied. That's exactly what this bill is going to do, which is why we have to repeal it.

The day after this bill was passed, I introduced a bill to repeal, and every single one of the Republicans in this House has voted to repeal ObamaCare. Now, hopefully, we're going to have another vote again soon because we love people, we care about people, and we want them to have the health care they need.

I thank the gentleman from California. I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his bill as well.

I, too, was shocked when I saw that the President of the United States, out of nowhere, at no request from any Member of Congress, had issued a unilateral executive order, which means he decided to take the law into his own hands and, in effect, become his own Congress and decide unilaterally, at the height of the fiscal cliff debate, that he would throw a new wrench into that argument, and it would be this:

When there is massive uncertainty, unfinished business, he would decide that he would unilaterally give a pay increase to the United States Congress exactly when the public is uncertain and doesn't know what is going to happen. Will their taxes go up? Will they no longer be the recipient of a spending program?

And so now Congress is going to get a spending increase?

This was a cynical planned move, Mr. Speaker, on the part of our President. He brought great drama to this effort, unnecessary drama. Because, you see, this House of Representatives already did this job to avert the fiscal cliff. We did this work. It was completed last August. We said that no one's taxes need to go up, and we were able to offset any spending cuts. The work was done. The problem is the Senate never took up the completed work of the House, and the President of the United States spent the last half of this year continually castigating the House of Representatives for not having this work done when we did our work.

And so out of nowhere, again, not at the request of Congress, the President decided to make a very unlovely party to this conversation-- the Congress--even less palatable by putting upon us the idea that we wanted to raise our own salary when we had nothing whatsoever to do with that. That's why over the weekend I directed my staff that we would put forth a bill to take away this unilateral increase in salary for Congress at the President's hand. We put our bill together. Mr. Fitzpatrick put his bill together. We both introduced bills yesterday.

And I'm very happy to be a part of this bill, as every Member of Congress is happy to be for this bill, because, after all, this had nothing to do with the conversations. This was a cynical effort on the part of the President--and I believe nothing more cynical than the fact that the current agreement with the fiscal cliff was agreed to, we're told, somewhere around 11:30 last night. The bill was voted on at 2:00 in the morning. Again, this is New Year's Eve. I don't know how many Senators between midnight and 2 a.m. in the morning had a chance to thoroughly read this agreement that's 157 pages long.

You see, this is not how we should run our government. This is drama, unnecessary drama. And President Obama bears the responsibility for his failure to lead and his intentional effort, it appears, to mislead the American public with this cynical bill. That's why we are here this morning, to clarify the President's action. This was not at our behest, and we are rejecting this measure today to increase Congress's salary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the service and the memory of Officer Tommy Decker of Cold Spring, Minnesota.

On November 29, Officer Tommy Decker was tragically killed in the line of duty, and he was only 31 years old. Officer Decker served with distinction. In 6 years at the Cold Spring Police Department, he received no less than six commendations and letters of appreciation. He touched so many lives in his distinguished career. The overwhelming outpouring of community love and support at the funeral, where there were over 3,000 police cars, was an amazing sight to behold, and I was privileged to be there.

In honor of Officer Decker's service, I'm proud to join with all of Minnesota's colleagues to introduce legislation to rename his hometown post office the Officer Tommy Decker Memorial Post Office. We hope to complete that soon.

And though he is no longer with us, Officer Decker's example of unparalleled courage and compassion lives on, and I pray that his four young children will grow up to know just how much their father meant to the people of Minnesota and what a remarkable hero and an example he was to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Officer Thomas Decker of the Cold Springs Police Department. On November 29, Officer Decker was killed in the line of duty while trying to help a man believed to be suicidal.

Officer Decker was a Minnesota boy through and through, growing up on a dairy farm near Cold Spring. After attending Rocori High School, he went on to serve as a police officer for 10 years, serving in the communities of Isle, Watkins, Kimball, and the Cold spring/Richmond Police Department. He bravely served the citizens of central Minnesota and those who knew him called him a hero who loved his family. He leaves behind a wife, four young children, parents, siblings and a community who loved him.

Officer Decker's death tears at the heartstrings of a small town who knows all too well the sting of heartbreaking tragedy. This community lost another son to senseless bloodshed. It is hard to grasp why such violence occurs, but it is important that friends and neighbors stick together in these trying times. My thoughts and prayers are with the Decker family as they deal with this painful loss, especially five- year-old Devon, six-year-old Justin, seven-year-old Jade and eight- year-old Kelly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this body join with me in mourning the loss of this brave and noble policeofficer who represented not only Minnesota, but a force which protects citizens across thisgreat country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Gene Gruber of Richmond, Minnesota, upon being awarded his 5th, and his family's 15th, USA National Plowing Title on August 6, 2012.

Mr. Gruber's victory means that he will represent the USA at the 60th World Plowing Contest in Olds, Alberta, Canada, on July 19-20, 2013. Going against 31 other countries, he will compete for the 5th time internationally, and in his last international competition in New Zealand (2010) he finished 9th. Mr. Gruber's skill and ability with the plow are only matched by his generosity, as he has not hesitated to teach other plowmen across the United States the knowledge necessary to be a plowing champion.

As farmers across the nation work to put food on the tables of all Americans, we can respect the dedication and industriousness that they show as they labor to grow and plow their crops every year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to join with me in recognizing Mr. Gene Gruber upon this award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Knaus Sausage House on their 100th anniversary this year. It is my honor to join with the Kimball community in celebrating the dedication and services that this company has provided and continues to provide.

Three generations have been involved with this business and the fourth generation is already involved. Over the last 100 years, the Knaus Sausage House has grown to include groceries, a deli, and a bakery. The family's outstanding efforts in providing great service and great products are what make this a growing, viable business as they keep up with changing times. Many farmers and hunters depend on the market to do custom processing and cut meat for them. The Knaus Sausage House services are a valuable asset to the community and their long- term dedication does not go unnoticed.

It is small businesses including Knaus Sausage House that help communities flourish in America today. Mr. Speaker, please join with me in congratulating Knaus Sausage House on their 100th anniversary.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act, which will set in motion a long overdue exchange of federal lands in Northeast Minnesota that will create jobs and unlock millions of dollars each year for our state's schools.

When Minnesota became a state in 1858, the federal government granted each township two plots of land to be developed, leased, or sold exclusively for the benefit of Minnesota schools. Under the Minnesota Constitution and Minnesota Law, these lands must generate revenue for schools. However, when the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness was created in 1978, 86,000 acres of school trust lands were locked within the boundaries, where logging, mining, and other lucrative activities are prohibited. For over 30 years, these lands have been stripped of their revenue-raising potential and Minnesota students have been missing out on a vital revenue source for needed school improvement projects.

Thankfully, this year, a bipartisan coalition at the Minnesota State Capital, including Democratic Governor Mark Dayton, stood up to special interests and apathy to recoup the important school funding source that was sealed off with the creation of the Boundary Waters. They enacted legislation at the state level to allow an exchange of the school trust lands contained within the Boundary Waters for federal lands outside the Boundary Waters. Such an exchange would not eliminate a single acre of BWCAW land, but it would enable the creation of well-paying jobs for Minnesotans on the newly acquired lands.

H.R. 5544 will finalize the federal side of this broadly supported exchange, which will greatly benefit Minnesota students, job seekers, and families across the state. I applaud Congressman Cravaack for introducing this necessary legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we mark the 20th anniversary of Priests for Life, and I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague, Jean Schmidt, of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to Mr. Walberg of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, the leading voice for the pro-life cause and for the unborn across the United States.

I thank you, Mr. Smith, for your important pro-life voice, and thank you for the years of steadfastness on this issue. And we do thank Father Pavone and also Priests for Life.

Now I would like to yield to a wonderful Member from Nebraska, Mr. Jeff Fortenberry, an important pro-life voice here in the United States Congress.

I thank you, Mr. Fortenberry, a father of five. And I'm a mother of five, and so I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I will give just a few remarks on Priests for Life and on their 20th anniversary. Tonight is a very important night because, as we know, it has been 40 years since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision removed legal protection for those who are unborn, the youngest members of our society, those who still remain in the womb of their mother.

And since that time, numerous groups have risen up to restore that protection to the unborn and to educate the public about the issue that we all know as abortion, and to provide compassionate service, both to those who need alternatives to abortion and those who need healing after abortion.

I stand here today with my colleagues in the United States Congress to honor one extremely important institution known as Priests for Life as they celebrate 20 years of advocacy and service to the unborn. As many people across America know, Priests for Life is led by Father Frank Pavone. He is one of the strongest voices for the unborn throughout the world, as well as for children in America, and he stands strong because as we know, contrary to what its name might suggest, Priests for Life isn't just for priests, and it's not just for Catholics.

The work of Priests for Life has enabled Americans of every walk of life, every ethnicity, every faith background, every political affiliation, to awaken their consciences about the life issue, to speak up for the unborn. And here's just a few of the outreach efforts, Mr. Speaker, that Priests for Life have been involved in.

Every year, Priests for Life holds nearly 1,000 retreats across America for men and women who have lost a child to abortion. Priests for Life also runs the very important Silent No More awareness campaign to mobilize men and women who have lost a child to abortion but who have gone on to experience healing through God and who now want to share their testimony.

One of the full-time members of Priests for Life is a very important voice in the United States, Dr. Alveda King. I was just with her this last weekend. Americans know her as the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Alveda heads up the effort to reach the black community with the truth of abortion and how it disproportionately impacts unborn black children in the United States.

Priests for Life also sponsors a nonpartisan voter registration drive, focused on saving innocent human life and helping to heal the hurt of men and women as they are post-abortive. Through churches, they distribute voter guides. They train clergy on what they can do within the limits of the law to foster political responsibility.

Now, it is very difficult to find any national initiative to the pro- life movement that either Father Frank Pavone or Priests for Life are somehow not deeply involved in. For example, in February of this year, 2012, Priests for Life launched a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services mandate, which we have heard much about this evening, that requires job creators to offer health insurance coverage for morally objectionable practices.

This mandate is an enormous affront to our First Amendment religious liberty rights in the United States and it needs to be stopped, because never before has this government, Mr. Speaker, required a job creator to provide insurance that includes contraception, abortion-causing pills and sterilization. No organization, no American, Mr. Speaker, should have to violate their religious beliefs because of this President's health care dictates. I am a mom to 28 kids, five natural born children, 23 foster children. I believe with every fiber in my being that every child matters and that we should have a right to life for every American, because every life is precious, every life is sacred, and every life is made in the image and likeness of a holy God. Every life matters.

I'm extremely proud to be a part of the pro-life movement that is truly a voice for the voiceless and to have been affiliated with Priests for Life and Father Frank Pavone. As we take note of the 20th anniversary of one of the leading pro-life organizations in our Nation, I wish to thank this evening Priests for Life for everything they continue to do to protect and defend the sanctity of every human life.

I would now like to yield to one of the strongest pro-life voices in the State of Texas, well-known and beloved to Americans all across this Nation, Representative Louie Gohmert.

I thank our friend from Texas.

I just want to say, we've had so many Members of Congress that wanted to be down here on the floor this evening and there was only so much time.

I would like to thank also Congresswoman Black of Tennessee, Congressman Huelskamp of Kansas, Congressman Lankford of Oklahoma, Congresswoman Blackburn of Tennessee. Also, I want to thank Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona. We had many in addition to the Members that we have heard from this evening: Congressman Fortenberry of Nebraska, Congressman Walberg of Michigan, and Congresswoman Schmidt of Ohio, in addition to Congressman Smith of New Jersey. I want to thank them, Congressman Gohmert of Texas, and so many other pro-life Members of Congress. This is an important night. We thank Priests for Life for 20 years of standing firm for the cause of the unborn. We will get there yet. Thank you, Father Frank.

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 10 p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, August 2, 2012, at 9 a.m.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

If there's anything that we have learned, Mr. Speaker, over the last several years as we've debated the President's health care plan, it is that it's been a mirage, and it has been built on a series of one broken promise after another.

The President told us that we would be saving $2,500 a year per household if we passed his health care bill. But the sad reality is that Americans' health insurance premiums have increased by almost that amount, which means the President was off by a stunning $5,000 per household. And Americans are pulling their pockets inside out saying, Mr. President, I don't have the money to pay $5,000 more per year on my health insurance policy. Of course they don't. Because this has proved to be the crown jewel of socialism. That's what government health care is.

Senior citizens realized early on they had the most to lose by the President's health insurance policy because what they found from this bill, which has been commonly called ObamaCare, is that $575 billion will be stolen away from them out of Medicare. And not only will they have $575 billion less in Medicare; they're also looking at having to spend--senior citizens--out of their pocket $200 billion more in increased taxes for Medicare. That's a big loss for America's senior citizens.

But it doesn't stop there, Mr. Speaker. Millions of Americans across the United States are now going to find out that the promise the President made that if you like your health insurance, you can keep it, that's a sham, too. Not only will you not keep it; millions of Americans are looking at being thrown off their current health care policy that they have from their employer.

Millions--millions--of Americans will no longer even have the option of their employer's health insurance plan. How do I know that? I talked to a job provider today, 400 employees. He told me he can no longer afford to provide health insurance because of all the new increased costs. He isn't the only one.

I talked to another employer today, Mr. Speaker, a woman. She had 250 employees. Now she's down to 90. She told me, if we can't repeal this bill, she'll have to actually let them go and they'll be down to 50. We have to repeal this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a Representative of the great State of Minnesota, I stand here in support of my colleague Representative Erik Paulsen's bill to eliminate and repeal the medical device tax on the new ObamaCare legislation.

Our State of Minnesota is home to over 400 medical device manufacturers. We have over 35,000 people that are employed in this important industry that benefits all of the United States, 35,000 people. That about fills the Twins' Target Field. That's a lot of people who potentially could lose jobs in our home State.

I refuse to see a single job lost in Minnesota or in any of our States in our great country due to the legislation known as ObamaCare. Without repealing the medical device tax, jobs will be lost and also the costs of health care will go up.

I urge my colleagues to get behind Erik Paulsen's important piece of legislation. I know I will.

Mr. Speaker, during the evening of Wednesday, 30 May 2012, I missed House votes due to an illness in my family. If I had been present, here is how I would have voted:

H.R. 5651--Food and Drug Administration Reform Act of 2012, as amended, ``yea.''

H.R. 4201--The Servicemember Family Protection Act, ``yea.''

H.R. 915--Jaime Zapata Border Security Task Force, ``yea.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, during the evening of Tuesday, May 8, and during the

day of Wednesday, May 9, I missed House votes in order to attend the college graduation of my daughter, Elisa. Up to this point, I was proud to boast a 100 percent voting record in the Second Session of the 112th Congress. However, if I had been present for these votes, here is how I would have voted:

Davis (IL) amendment rollcall No. 213 vote no; Grimm amendment rollcall No. 214 vote no; Huizenga amendment rollcall No. 215 vote yes; Johnson (GA) amendment rollcall No. 216 vote no; Flake amendment rollcall No. 217 vote yes; Westmoreland amendment rollcall No. 218 vote yes; Scott (GA) amendment rollcall No. 219 vote yes; Black amendment rollcall No. 220 vote yes; Blackburn amendment rollcall No. 221 vote yes; Broun amendment rollcall No. 222 vote yes; Southerland amendment rollcall No. 223 vote yes; H.R. 2072 rollcall No. 224 vote no; H.R. 4133 rollcall No. 225 vote yes; Chaffetz amendment rollcall No. 226 vote yes; Tierney amendment rollcall No. 227 vote no; Blackburn amendment rollcall No. 228 vote yes; Duncan (SC) amendment rollcall No. 229 vote yes; Garrett amendment rollcall No. 230 vote yes; Schweikert amendment rollcall No. 231 vote yes; Webster amendment rollcall No. 232 vote yes; Flores amendment rollcall No. 233 vote yes; Flores amendment rollcall No. 234 vote yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 75th anniversary of the Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative in Rockford, Minnesota. Today, March 29, 2012, the annual membership meeting will take place in celebration of their fruitful beginning on March 29, 1937.

Wright-Hennepin Electric was formed at the height of the Great Depression to meet the electrical needs of rural central Minnesota. Today, they provide service for more than 46,000 homes and businesses and continue to provide groundbreaking services to their customers in Wright and the western Hennepin counties.

Wright-Hennepin Electric is an industry leader in helping home and business owners save money, reduce energy consumption, and determine when alternative energy resources might be a good fit for their needs. Additionally, Wright-Hennepin Electric has expanded into security monitoring for 50,000 homes in 32 states and three Canadian provinces. Innovative business expansions like this help keep this magnificent company a step ahead of the rest.

Also importantly, Wright-Hennepin Electric is an active member of the community. Annually, high school students may apply to receive college scholarships from them. Each year one lucky student also receives a trip to our Nation's capital. It is possible that many of our congressional Members have met with some of these students participating in the Electric Cooperative Youth Tour program which makes this opportunity possible.

Many local charities and non-profits are also supported by Wright- Hennepin Electric as recipients of thousands of dollars of donations. Lastly, Wright-Hennepin Electric has been recognized by chambers, local governments, and businesses as a responsible corporate citizen and valued member of the communities they serve.

Congratulations on this 75th milestone, members and staff of Wright- Hennepin Electric Cooperative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great public servant on his retirement. Jim Schug of Stillwater, Minnesota, has served more than 25 years in Washington County Government and spent 17 years as the County Administrator.

Jim leaves a legacy of dedicated service to his employees and county residents. He faithfully worked as the Chief Administrator to the five member County Board to keep county services running in light of growing demands and dwindling resources. The same County Board, named January 26 as ``Jim R. Schug Day'' as a way to honor and remember his contributions. Of course, Jim would have never asked for this honor, but accepted it with grace and humility.

Jim's work with county employees was focused and dedicated. He earned a reputation as a kind man with a personal touch. Personally, I consider Jim a steadfast public servant who will remain a fixture in the community. Even though he hails from the western suburbs, he will always have a home in Washington County.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to recognize Jim Schug's 25 years of service to Washington County and congratulate him upon his retirement. Jim has set a new standard in county services and administration; we can all look forward to the bright future he has entrusted to the Board and staff of Washington County.