Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose would eliminate the funding for the Emerging Markets Program.

For those of you who are not familiar, the Emerging Markets Program assists United States private and public organizations with agriculture marketing in low- to middle-income countries in Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America, Eurasia and the Middle East.

The Emerging Markets Program funding is $10 million per year in this food stamp and farm bill. Over the 5-year life of this legislation, funding is $50 million.

The Emerging Markets Program duplicates and overlaps the Federal Government's much larger Marketing Agricultural Program. By way of example, in 2010, at least 27 of the 82 projects funded by the Emerging Markets Program went to entities that also received funding from the Federal Government's Marketing Agricultural Program.

Emerging Markets Program expenditures are quite informative:

$30,000 was spent on ``Brazil Craft Beer School Seminars for the Brewers Association.''

$468,000 in hard-earned taxpayers' money was spent studying food consumption in China's second-tier cities, the new frontier for U.S. agricultural export opportunities.

$212,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned money was spent concerning, ``Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Sector Development for the United States Department of Agriculture/Foreign Services/Chengdu, China.''

$174,431 was spent on a ``Global Food Safety Forum China Exchange for the GIC Group.''

$35,000 was spent on ``China Beer Distributors Education Program for the Brewers Association.''

$142,356 was spent on a ``Central American Microbiological Standards Program for USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.'' And the list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Chairman, since, first, the Emerging Markets Program overlaps and duplicates America's Marketing Agricultural Program, and since, second, the private sector's ability to do this work without Federal Government intervention or assistance, and since, third, America's out-of-control deficit and debt situation slowly but surely increased America's risk of a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy, and since, finally, America's financial condition forces us to borrow every penny of the $50 million being spent on the Emerging Markets Program, I urge this body to be financially responsible by adopting my amendment to eliminate funding for the Emerging Markets Program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma's response--and he's a good friend of mine--is reflective, unfortunately, of the financial irresponsibility that jeopardizes America's future solvency. Let's keep in mind that we're in a triage situation. We've had four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits. We are looking at blowing through the $17 billion total accumulated debt mark. If we cannot eliminate a program of this magnitude--only $10 million per year--

a program that is duplicative of other Federal Government programs, well, I would submit to this body that that suggests and reflects, in a very strong way, the financial irresponsibility that has put America into the position we are in where we are at risk long term of a debilitating financial insolvency and bankruptcy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Justice Department targets Associated Press, FOX News, and other journalists. For political reasons, the State Department and White House contrive a false story about Americans murdered in Benghazi. Cover-ups ensue. The President promotes rather than fires the principal deceiver. The President promises to punish the Benghazi murderers, yet the only person jailed is a scapegoated filmmaker the White House falsely blamed for inspiring the Benghazi attacks.

Armed Federal SWAT agents raid Gibson Guitar and threaten to put Gibson Guitar out of business. Why? Gibson Guitar imported the same guitar materials they have imported for years; yet Martin & Company, a Gibson Guitar competitor, imports the same guitar materials with impunity. The difference? Gibson Guitar contributes to Republicans like Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, while Martin contributes $35,000 to Democrats.

The IRS targets law-abiding citizens who use names like ``Tea Party'' and ``Patriots'' and dare exercise their freedom of association and speech rights. In one particularly outrageous example, Texan Catherine Engelbrecht is investigated and harassed by the IRS, the FBI, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Why? Engelbrecht founded the King Street Patriots, which hosts weekly discussions on economic freedom, and True the Vote, which trains volunteers to fight voter fraud.

The White House manages the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal that left hundreds of Mexicans and an American Border Patrol agent dead. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius unethically--and perhaps unlawfully--shakes down companies she regulates for donations to support ObamaCare.

President Obama thumbs his nose at America's immigration laws by not only giving millions of illegal aliens a free pass; Obama rewards illegal conduct by giving illegal aliens work permits in direct violation of American law, thereby undermining the ability of Americans to obtain good-paying jobs.

America is in uncharted waters when our own Federal Government aggressively undermines our rights to freedom of speech and association--rights won with American blood on the battlefields of Lexington and Concord, Trenton and Princeton, Saratoga, Cowpens and Kings Mountain, and Yorktown.

Mr. Speaker, America faces a policy debate between privacy and national security. Fifty years ago, our foes were well-known nation- states like Communist China and the Soviet Union. Now, our enemies may be foreign neighbors, foreign tourists, or even foreign students.

Foreign terrorists seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons of mass destruction that can destroy an American city or murder hundreds of thousands of Americans in a single attack.

As America seeks the proper balance between our privacy rights and national security, one thing stands out: Americans must be able to trust our Federal Government to do the right thing with the privacy information Americans give up. If we cannot trust the Federal Government to use our private privacy information solely for antiterrorism purposes, then the balance shifts. We will not give up our privacy information, thereby increasing the risk of a successful weapon of mass destruction terrorist attack on an American city.

More and more, our own Federal Government disregards the rule of law that is essential to avoid the strife and bloodshed of anarchy. More and more, the Federal Government targets American citizens who differ politically with the White House.

While the IRS, Gibson Guitar, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and numerous other scandals are troublesome, the bigger picture is that this White House, this administration, has breached the public's trust. The bigger scandal is that this White House, this administration, by their breach of trust, has undermined America's national security and thereby risked American lives.

Mr. Speaker, the White House can still do the right thing, but the right thing is not coverups. The right thing is not rewarding and promoting political cronies and lawbreakers. The right thing is, with full and open candor, telling the American people the truth about these scandals. The right thing is very publicly and aggressively firing offending Federal employees. The right thing is very publicly prosecuting lawbreakers. Then and only then will the trust of the American people in the Federal Government be restored. Then and only then can America fight the war on terror with certainty that we will win.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate amnesty bill gives amnesty to illegal aliens regardless of public safety and the danger to American citizens. For example, the Department of Homeland Security must waive misdemeanor criminal convictions when determining amnesty eligibility. That means crimes like assault, vehicular homicide, possession of drug manufacturing equipment, DUI, and sex offenses. Even gangsters get amnesty.

Chris Crane, President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, says:

The idea that we're going to give known gang members the

opportunity to renounce their affiliation--and believe them--

and then give them legal status in our country is outrageous.

Letting illegal alien criminals stay in America is outrageous, yet amnesty for criminals is exactly what the President and Senate Gang of 8 advocate.

Mr. Speaker, this amnesty bill is so bad it should be renamed the ``Loopholes for Criminals Act.''

Madam Speaker, I rise to proudly vote to repeal ObamaCare, the most dysfunctional law to ever pass United States Congress.

Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional? For the vast majority of Americans, ObamaCare guarantees worse health care at higher costs.

Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional? ObamaCare imposes 21 new taxes on America; thereby, according to the Congressional Budget Office, costing 800,000 Americans to lose their jobs.

In my home State of Alabama, just one of those tax increases imposes roughly $200 million a year in higher tax burdens on Blue Cross/Blue Shield, costs that will translate into higher premiums for Alabama citizens.

Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional? Those 21 tax increases come nowhere close to paying for the increases in ObamaCare costs, thereby either denying health care to American citizens or forcing even higher taxes on already stressed family incomes.

Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional?

It gives Americans worse health care.

Doctors and patients will largely be shut out of costly lifesaving health care decisions. Instead, Independent Payment Advisory Board bureaucrats will decide whether ObamaCare will pay for the treatments that save your life or risk ending it.

Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional?

It suppresses the research and development necessary for the discovery of the next generation of lifesaving diagnostic tools and medical cures.

Why is ObamaCare dysfunctional?

It drastically drives up health insurance premiums for Americans who work for a living.

Madam Speaker, while my friends across the aisle bemoan today's vote to protect Americans from a dysfunctional ObamaCare, I rejoice that Republicans in the House of Representatives say that when American lives are at stake, we will never give up, and we will never, never surrender.

Mr. Speaker, the President and Senate Gang of Eight amnesty bill is not only bad for America, it is a disaster for American workers who are pitted against millions of illegal aliens in the competition for scarce jobs.

On April 24, 2013, Dr. Frank Morris, former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and now leader for the African American Leadership Foundation, stated, ``The Senate Gang of Eight's immigration bill is not only impractical, but immoral. Increasing immigration levels through amnesty and new visa programs, particularly at the low-skilled level, will flood the labor market with millions more people, leading to higher unemployment, more poverty, and a lower standard of living for many in the Black community.''

Dr. Morris is right. Amnesty undermines millions of African-American workers' incomes and job searches by flooding the American market with cheap labor.

In an April 23 news release, the African American Leadership Foundation stated, ``Blacks have an unemployment rate nearly twice that of the national average. The Senate's immigration plan to drastically increase the immigrant workforce will continue to keep that number high.''

Dr. Morris emphasized that illegal aliens have huge advantages over American job seekers. ``Immigrants are the preferred employees because they are more vulnerable, you can cut them out of overtime, you can cut them out of safety measures, you can cut them out of anything and they have no recourse.''

Charles Butler, also of the African American Leadership Foundation, added that the amnesty bill would ``provide green cards and residency benefits to illegal aliens when many Americans are hurting the most. What makes sense is for America's jobs to be reserved for people who are legally entitled to compete for them.''

In 2007, T. Willard Fair, president of the Urban League of Greater Miami emphasized that, ``Amnesty for illegal workers is not just a slap in the face to Black Americans. It's an economic disaster.

``I see illegal immigration and the adverse impact that it has on the political empowerment of African Americans and the impact it has on the job market.''

How bad does illegal immigration hurt American workers?

Harvard Professor George Borjas found in a study released in April 2013, and I quote, ``Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.''

Who is hurt the most by illegal aliens? American workers who lose $99 to $118 billion in badly-needed income.

Who is helped the most by illegal aliens? Employers who pad their profits to the tune of $107 to $128 billion when they hire illegal aliens over Americans. Dr. Borjas adds that ``immigration has its largest negative impact on the wage of native workers who lack a high school diploma, a group that makes up a modest . . . share of the workforce. These workers are among the poorest Americans.''

Who do American workers compete against for jobs? Per a 2010 Pew Hispanic Center study, 7.8 million illegal aliens hold jobs in America. That's 7.8 million job opportunities that would be opening up for American workers if the President would enforce Federal immigration laws.

The way to help our blue-collar and low-wage workers is not to flood the market with illegal aliens. The way to help America's blue-collar and low-wage workers is by denying American jobs to illegal aliens, thus forcing blue-collar wages up and helping workers and their families pursue the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, we must return American jobs to American citizens. The White House and Congress should be fighting for American jobs for American citizens, not jobs for illegal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot, in good conscience, ratify illegal conduct with my vote, and I hope other elected officials in Washington will represent Americans seeking jobs, not foreigners illegally on American soil.

America struggles under President Obama's economic policies:

Nearly 12 million Americans are out of work. Last month, almost 280,000 Americans were forced into part-time jobs because their hours were reduced or they couldn't find a full-time job;

The average workweek and weekly take-home pay for Americans dropped;

The best measure for employment, the Labor Participation Rate, is at 63.3 percent, the worst since the economic malaise of President Jimmy Carter.

With the Obama economy doing so poorly, why implement a law we know will kill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, some 800,000 American jobs?

ObamaCare undermines the ability of American companies to hire workers. It stymies economic growth, and it's only going to get worse. Even top Democrats admit as much. One of the law's authors, Senator Max Baucus, called it a ``train wreck.''

Madam Speaker, we must stop the train before the wreck. It's time to repeal ObamaCare before it does even more damage to the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, today I applaud the Alabama Legislature's Scottsboro Boys Act, which granted posthumous pardons to eight African American young men wrongfully accused in Alabama in 1931. The Scottsboro Boys case profoundly impacted America's civil rights movement and American law.

In two different landmark decisions, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires legal counsel for criminal defendants and held that arbitrarily excluding African Americans from jury pools was unconstitutional.

It is never too late to call wrong by its name. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote in his ``Letter from Birmingham Jail'':

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

I pray that the families of Olen Montgomery, Haywood Patterson, Ozie Powell, Willie Roberson, Charlie Weems, Eugene Williams, and Andy and Roy Wright may take comfort in Alabama's full acknowledgement of the innocence of these wrongfully accused young men.

Madam Speaker, while America has the world's most generous immigration policy, we simply lack the resources to accept all the world's immigrants into America. The President and Senate Gang of Eight push an amnesty bill that, per The Heritage Foundation, costs American taxpayers a 50-year net tax loss of $6.3 trillion. That's a net tax loss of $126 billion per year--enough to eliminate sequestration.

In April 2013, a Pew Center poll revealed that 20 percent of all Mexicans--that's 22 million Mexicans--say they want to illegally immigrate to America if they can get away with it.

America cannot afford to open these massive floodgates anymore than we can afford an amnesty plan that rewards illegal conduct while adding $6.3 trillion to America's already dangerous and exploding national debt--a debt, I might add, that is already doing significant damage to America's economy and national security.

Mr. Speaker, what would President Ronald Reagan do about illegal immigration?

Mr. Speaker, let me share verbatim with you parts of a 2006 editorial by Ronald Reagan's Attorney General, Edwin Meese, that is instructive:

What would Ronald Reagan do? I can't tell you how many

times I have been asked that question, on virtually every

issue imaginable.

Immigration is one area where Reagan's principles can guide

us, and the lessons are instructive.

President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at

our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration

laws would be greatly strengthened, in particular through

sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If

jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting

off that option was crucial.

He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status

of immigrants, even if they had entered illegally, who were

law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in

the United States.

Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had

resided in America continuously for 5 years would be granted

temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to

permanent residency after another 18 months and, after

another 5 years, to citizenship. It wasn't automatic. They

had to pay application fees, learn to speak English,

understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register

for military Selective Service. Those with convictions for a

felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty

did not solve the problem. There was extensive document

fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far

exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political

will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief

slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and

continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today's large

population of illegal aliens.

So here we are, having much the same debate and being

offered much the same deal.

What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not

repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own

administration. He knew that secure borders are vital and

would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would

seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration

laws. He would employ new tools like biometric technology for

identification and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor

the border that make enforcement and verification less

onerous and more effective.

One idea President Reagan had at the time that we might

also try improving on is to create a pilot program that would

allow genuinely temporary workers to come to the United

States, a reasonable program consistent with security and

open to the needs and dynamics of our market economy.

And what about those already here? Today it seems to me

that the fair policy, one that will not encourage further

illegal immigration, is to give those here illegally the

opportunity to correct their status by returning to their

country of origin and getting in line with everyone else.

This, along with serious enforcement and control of the

illegal inflow at the border, a combination of incentives and

disincentives, will significantly reduce over time our

population of illegal immigrants.

Lastly, we should remember Reagan's commitment to the idea

that America must remain open and welcoming to those yearning

for freedom. As a Nation based on ideas, Ronald Reagan

believed that there was something unique about America and

that anyone, from anywhere, could become an American. That

means that while we seek to meet the challenge of illegal

immigration, we must keep open the door of opportunity by

preserving and enhancing our heritage of legal immigration,

assuring that those who choose to come here permanently

become Americans. In the end, it was his principled policy--

and it should be ours--to ``humanely regain control of our

borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most

sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.''

According to Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, President Ronald Reagan would learn from history and not repeat the 1986 amnesty mistake that created today's illegal alien problem, the very same amnesty that today's President and so many Senators and Congressmen demand.

President Reagan would insist that those who are here illegally must repent and atone for their illegal conduct by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, America's most cherished right is American citizenship. Foreigners whose first action on American soil is illegal conduct are not deserving of that cherished right.

Madam Speaker, in 2011, I voted against the Budget Control Act and President Obama's sequester because I believed and feared they posed a grave threat to

national security. That fear has come true. As I stand here today, north Alabamians face job furloughs in the thousands because Washington would rather spend money on frivolous programs than protect national security.

Madam Speaker, I have voted against sequester at every opportunity. I sent a letter to the White House calling on the President to face and avoid the horrendous consequences of his sequester. I've escorted members of the House Armed Services Committee around Redstone Arsenal to help them better understand how our civilian defense workers are critical to America's security, and I have repeatedly cosponsored legislation to end the sequester.

For nearly 2 years I have been fighting sequester and the hollowing out of our Armed Forces. It's time for the President and the Senate to do the same.

Madam Speaker, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta states sequestration ``would be a disaster in terms of the Defense Department. As far as our budget is concerned, as far as our ability to respond to the threats that are out there, it has a big impact.''

Over time, sequestration's disproportionate cuts to national defense will reduce our military to its smallest number of uniformed personnel since before World War II, its smallest number of operational naval vessels since World War I, and its smallest number of operational aircraft in the history of the United States Air Force.

But national security is not the only sequestration risk. In my home district in north Alabama, President Obama has ordered that roughly 14,000 highly skilled and irreplaceable Department of Defense civilian employees suffer 20 percent furloughs and 20 percent salary cuts.

Redstone Arsenal's engineers, scientists, and other civilian defense staff are critical to national security in a time of international instability. Their knowledge and skill sets are unique, virtually irreplaceable, and may be lost to national security forever if these workers are forced to find work elsewhere.

The damage I've just described to north Alabama's economy is before President Obama starts hammering defense and NASA contractors and many other Tennessee Valley Federal employees who provide worthwhile services to their country.

Nationwide, the economic impact is absolutely staggering. Sequestration risks 1.5 to 2 million job losses, with a resulting 1 percent worsening of America's unemployment rate. It is unwise to subject America's fragile economy to job losses of this magnitude.

For emphasis, and despite White House, Senate leadership, and House leadership efforts to the contrary, I voted against sequestration and the Budget Control Act of 2011, quite frankly, because the risk to America was simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, my vote was in the minority.

In 2012, and despite President Obama's veto threats, the House twice passed legislation to fix sequestration. In response, the Senate not only refused to vote on the House's sequestration solutions, the Senate irresponsibly refused to propose solutions of its own. Hence, despite the Senate enjoying more than a year and a half to do its job, Senate inaction and delay have given America yet another short-term crisis.

So here we are. America faces three major crises: Sequestration, a continuing resolution to fund the government, and yet another debt ceiling crisis.

While I agree with the House leadership's view that, since the Senate has done nothing to solve this problem, it is appropriate for the Senate to act first on sequestration this time, I am troubled the House is scheduled to work only 24 days in March and April, combined. Conversely, there are 19 workdays in which the House is not in session. Stated differently, the House will only work 56 percent of workdays and be on recess from Washington 44 percent of the time.

The American people work on workdays. Congress should do no less. Actions speak louder than words. Under the circumstances America faces, a part-time Congress is simply unacceptable.

As sequestration unfolds, as national security, Federal Government functions, and the American economy slowly but surely deteriorate, the American people will intensify pressure on Harry Reid's Senate to finally do its job.

Americans are suffering. National defense is suffering. The suffering of Americans is not in recess during this crisis. Congress should not be in recess either.

We signed up to do a job, and that job is not done. The House must provide leadership and prove we are serious about doing the people's business, and Washington is where the people's business is done.

Given the magnitude of the risks and damage done by sequestration to America on a daily basis, I respectfully request that the House remain in session and do our jobs on each and every

workday until sequestration is resolved.

The House has passed numerous sequestration solutions. It is long past time for the Senate to wake from its slumber, respond to the clarion call of the American people, and pass a sequestration solution.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Julian Davidson passed away on January 31, 2013.

I have personally known Julian Davidson and his wife, Dorothy, for only a few years. But I know enough about Julian Davidson, what he did, and how he lived to know that he was an American patriot who will be sorely missed by his family, the Tennessee Valley, America, and me.

Julian Davidson was born in the small town of Oakman in Walker County, Alabama, on September 2, 1927. He was a proud son of Oakman and Walker County; however, his destiny lay elsewhere.

At the age of 17, Julian Davidson hitchhiked to Montgomery, Alabama, and without permission and despite being underage, enlisted in the Navy during World War II. He served with distinction on gunships loading heavy ammunition into gun turrets. Julian Davidson's naval service gave him an enduring respect and admiration for America's warfighters who serve in harm's way.

After the Navy, Julian Davidson attended classes during the day and worked at a pool hall at night to obtain an electrical engineering degree from Auburn University. After graduation, Julian Davidson joined the Tennessee Valley Authority where he rose to senior design engineer.

In 1961, Julian Davidson began work for the United States Ballistic Missile Defense Organization as an aerospace research engineer, thus beginning his life's passion in a career in missile defense that spanned half a century.

Julian Davidson once briefed Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concerning using the Nike Zeus missile system for a possible anti- satellite role. Army leadership didn't believe McNamara would do it, so they sent in Julian Davidson, then a junior member of the briefing team to make the presentation. Julian related that ``for some reason, McNamara was very interested and asked how long it would take and how much it would cost.'' I answered 15 months and $15 million. He didn't flinch. He said, Do it. We went through about six decision milestones in that 15-minute briefing.

In time, Julian Davidson became Director of the Advanced Ballistic Missile Defense Agency and one of the youngest people to achieve the rank of senior executive service with the Federal Government.

In 1979, Julian met Dorothy Smith. In 1981, they married in Fairfax, Virginia. Julian loved and admired Dorothy for her intelligence and spark. Julian Davidson used to say that Dorothy ``is the glue that holds everything together.'' He wrote in a speech:

I'd like to thank my wife, Dorothy, who in addition to

running her company, takes care of family matters, allowing

me to do the things that interest me the most, missile

development and testing.

Julian Davidson was quick witted when he added:

I want you to know the rumor is not true that Dorothy does

all the maintenance jobs around the home because I refuse to.

I would be happy to do these tasks, except she will not allow

me to borrow her tools.

In the 1990s, Julian and Dorothy Davidson settled in Huntsville, Alabama, a community Julian loved very much. Julian started Davidson Technologies in 1996 with just two employees.

Julian Davidson emerged as a leading figure in the Tennessee Valley and believed that if everyone worked for the betterment of the community, regardless of personal gain, everyone benefited. Julian sought to leave our community and country better than he found it, and he did that.

Julian Davidson is a former chairman of the Air Force Studies Board of

the National Research Council, member of the Defense Sciences Board, and vice chairman of the Technology Assessment Committee of the United Space Command for the National Research Council.

Julian Davidson twice received the Army Exceptional Civilian Service Award. He has received the Air Force Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the MDA Pioneer Award, and the Medaris Award. He is a member of the United States Army Strategic Defense Employees Hall of Fame, the Alabama Technology Hall of Fame, and the Auburn Alumni Engineering Council.

Julian Davidson's impact on America is enormous. He is known by many as the ``father of missile defense in America.''

Julian Davidson is survived by his wife, Dorothy; his four children, Diana Lyn, Janice Faye, Randall Eugene, and Robert Lee; his two grandchildren, Wendy Faith Holderfield and William Blair Peyton; and three great grandchildren, Teagan Holderfield, Shelby Holderfield, and Michaela Holderfield.

America and the Davidson family have lost a great man and a true patriot, and we are all better for having known Dr. Julian Davidson.

Mr. Speaker, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen testified before the House Armed Services Committee that America ``is maintaining nearly historic fiscal deficits and national debt. Indeed, I believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. If we as a country do not address our fiscal imbalances in the near term, our national power will erode, and the costs to our ability to maintain and sustain influence could be great.''

Admiral Mullen is right: debt caused sequestration. Debt and sequestration will slash our uniformed personnel to their lowest levels since before World War II; will reduce our Navy to the smallest number of operational vessels since World War I; and will cut our Air Force to the smallest number of operational aircraft in its history. In sum, debt is putting America's national security at risk.

Last week, on January 17, the Comptroller General of the United States delivered to President Obama a Government Accountability Office report on America's financial health. I have reviewed many government audits and financial statements during my three decades in public office. I have never seen warnings as stark as those given by the GAO to President Obama. Some lowlights of the GAO report are striking and deserve emphasis.

In fiscal year 2012, the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reported about $85 billion in net valuation losses. The Federal Government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's liabilities exceeded its assets by about $34 billion. The Postal Service ``finished the year with

a reported net loss of almost $16 billion.'' The Federal Housing Administration reported that its liabilities exceeded its assets by about $15 billion.

Mr. Speaker, America is on a path to insolvency and bankruptcy, an event that will debilitate our country. America has incurred four consecutive, unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits and is in the midst of a fifth consecutive trillion-dollar deficit. America's national debt exceeds $16 trillion. Interest on our debt is well in excess of $200 billion per year. To put our debt service burden in perspective, that is more than four times what the Federal Government spends on all highway and transportation infrastructure projects in America each year. Unless Washington becomes financially responsible, future debt service will escalate and even more money will be spent on debt service rather than on programs that serve Americans.

America's Comptroller General issued a stern warning to President Obama:

The comprehensive, long-term fiscal projections show that,

absent policy changes, the Federal Government continues to

face an unsustainable path. Over the long term, the

structural imbalance between spending and revenue will lead

to the continued growth of debt held by the public as a share

of GDP. This means the current structure of the Federal

budget is unsustainable.

America's current path and Federal budget are unsustainable. Absent changes, Federal Government insolvency and bankruptcy are certain to result and cause an economic disaster unrivaled in America's history. This week, the House of Representatives faces a vote to increase America's debt ceiling. Pending legislation raises the debt ceiling by roughly $300 to $400 billion. What protection from the risk of insolvency and bankruptcy does America get in return?

Are there any spending cuts? No.

Are there policies that spur economic growth and result in revenue increases? No.

Does this proposal help fix in any way the trillion-dollar deficits that threaten America with financial ruin? No.

Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for me. I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless significant efforts are made to fix the underlying problem of deficits and accumulated debt that force debt ceiling votes and risk America's future. I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless, first, Congress passes a substantive balanced-budget constitutional amendment that solves the debt problem for future generations or, second, we implement sizable spending cuts that help get our financial affairs in order.

I take this stance full well knowing the adverse economic effects of a failure to raise the debt ceiling but also knowing, Mr. Speaker, that those effects pale in comparison to an insolvency and bankruptcy of the America I love.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.