Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on January 18th, 2012 the USO Board of Governors voted to approve the establishment of the USO Center at the Tampa International Airport.

This has been a long process, but thanks to a hardworking team of volunteers, the USO in Tampa is excited about serving the roughly 40,000 active military and their families living in the Tampa Bay area that may use Tampa International Airport as well as the approximately 300,000 that fly in and out of the Tampa International Airport on a yearly basis.

As both a Congressman and a father of three sons in the U.S. Army, I know how important the USO services are to our men and women in uniform. When I visit with the veterans in my district, I hear their stories of watching Bob Hope in the USO Concerts and receiving packages with urgent supplies from the USO on Christmas. Today's USO centers give our active duty heroes a place to relax, if only for a few minutes.

The new facility in the Tampa International Airport will allow members of our local communities the opportunity to recognize the service and sacrifice of this Nation's proud active duty servicemembers and their families.

I am a proud supporter of this outstanding institution and welcome its arrival in the Tampa International Airport.

I want to thank my very good friend from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for the time. As he mentioned, we both sit on the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 540, and the issue we are talking about is whether or not the American people can trust us.

Today, Congress has a job approval rating of--what?--10, 11, 12 percent.

The American people are pretty sick of us, and I don't blame them. Ms. Slaughter has been working on the STOCK Act bill for over 6 years, which is commendable. Yet it's unfortunate that it never came to the Democratic Congress when it had control. That's very unfortunate that she was never able to move it forward. If anything, as we move forward here, I am amazed that 13 percent of folks actually approve of the work we're doing. I can't believe there is even 1 percent.

It was only about a year ago that I was one of those people who was disappointed in this body, but my parents always taught me that, if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. So, sure enough, I ran for Congress, and the people of Florida's Fifth Congressional District put their trust in me to represent them.

One thing I promised the folks back home is that I was never going to use my service in the House of Representatives to enrich myself, which is why I turned down the congressional health benefits. That's why I introduced my bill, H.R. 981, the Congress is Not a Career Act, so that I could turn down the congressional pension that I am legally required to take. That's why I think that trading on any kind of insider knowledge received through the virtue of working in this office is flat out, downright wrong. Anybody who uses his office to get rich and game the markets should go to jail. It's that simple. I've put people in jail for doing things that were illegal.

Madam Speaker, sometimes I wonder if folks right here in this very Chamber forget about what we're talking about. We're talking about the United States Congress. We're talking about the institution that makes up the first branch of government. We're talking about the people's branch. We're talking about the institution where men like Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, JFK, and George H.W. Bush all served at one point or another in their careers.

This is an institution that ought to be held to the highest standards, an institution that I, at least, expect more from, and we're failing--we're failing our constituents; we're failing ourselves; and we're just outright failing.

What we need to do now is take deliberate steps towards making things better. We need to prove to the American people that we hear them and that they're right and that we're going to do better. One major step in the right direction would be in showing our commitment to ethics reform and in ensuring that we aren't using Congress as a way to line our own pockets.

As the Tampa Bay Times wrote in an editorial just this morning, the United States Congress needs to ``finally address the exploitation of public office for individual financial gain.'' H. Res. 540 lets us bring that discussion to the floor of the House of Representatives, which is where it belongs.

I've gotten up here, Madam Speaker, and have spent a lot of time talking about honesty and of doing better, so here is my opportunity to be honest with everyone here and with everybody watching us at home.

If it were up to me, we wouldn't be voting on this bill that we'll be voting on tomorrow. As I see it, the STOCK Act we'll be voting on tomorrow has some problems. Transparency and openness mean that we'll be able to look at all of these problems and really think about if the benefits outweigh the costs. It means that we will be able to have a full and knowledgeable discussion about the STOCK Act on the floor of this House tomorrow.

But I've got to tell you that the process that got us to where we are today and where we're going tomorrow is just wrong. Thirty-eight pages isn't a long bill in congressional speak, but it's 38 pages that never went through the normal legislative process, and it's 38 pages that we didn't get an opportunity to amend. Since I'm being honest, there are better alternatives out there than the STOCK Act, which is what we're going to be voting on tomorrow.

One of those options is my bill, H.R. 3639, the Prevent Insider Trading by Elected Officials Act. My bill is only 1\1/2\ pages long. It's quick; it's easy and to the point, and all elected officials both in the legislative branch and in the executive branch are required to put their stocks, bonds, securities--whatever you have--into a blind trust. It's just that simple. If you don't know what you have, you can't trade it based on insider knowledge. That's what a blind trust is all about. My bill is 1\1/2\ pages, and there is no room for loopholes. Legislation up here is written by attorneys that sometimes only attorneys can understand, and there are loopholes in all of this.

If I had my way, the discussion we'd be having on the floor tomorrow wouldn't be about honest services provisions, IPO sales, or registering searchable mortgages and disclosures and whatnot online, but that's not my call. So we're here today, and at least we've gotten this far. I wish we were doing more.

This is the United States Congress we're talking about. When I was growing up, it was supposed to mean something, and I'm hoping it still does. If it does, then we need to be holding ourselves to the highest of standards. The American people ought to know that they can have faith in the people who are serving them here in Washington.

Do I think this is the very best step? No, I do not. Do I think it's better than the bill the United States Senate sent to us through that rushed process--a bill that has conflicting provisions and at its core doesn't, in fact, address the problem that the American people want fixed? No doubt about it.

I wish the Senate hadn't rushed the STOCK Act. I suspect Harry Reid just really needed a shiny object he could wave and point to, hoping he could distract the American people long enough to forget that it has been over 1,000 days since the United States Senate passed a budget. He has already promised that they wouldn't even have one for this next year. If not for the rush, then we probably wouldn't be forced into acting on this at such breakneck speed.

Do I think that this is a discussion we must have and need to have? Absolutely. That's why I'm going to support this rule.

I'm being honest. I wish we'd done it differently, but we're here to work the will of the people, and that's the most important thing right now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon the Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid. He set no budget this year. The American people, I guess, don't deserve a budget. When the Senate, on the 24th of January, surpassed the 1,000th day that they've yet to put a budget forward, Harry Reid said, Guess what, American public? You really don't need one.

Even though this organization, this government, is running at a 40 percent deficit, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, says, Don't worry about it. We don't need a plan, and we don't need a budget, even though small businesses have a budget, county and State officials have a budget, and you and I at home have a budget that we have to depend upon to guide us as we move forward throughout our year.

We just can't wing it any longer, Mr. Reid. The American people demand more of us. The American people actually believe that the Senate should take action on bills that we, in the House, have passed. Now, American job creators, it's about what we are supposed to be doing here, not partisan politics.

Mr. Reid, this body--this body--has had more bipartisan support on bills that we've sent over to the Senate only to see them die, to see no action at all, bills that could create jobs in America--not hypothetical jobs, but real jobs by people that actually create jobs, those in our small businesses that create 70 percent of our new jobs in America. Mr. Reid, the American public demands more of us as an institution to reach across and do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, all I can ask is that this body continue to put pressure upon the Senate, and particularly the Senate majority leader, Mr. Reid, to do the right thing. It doesn't matter if you pass the bills that we send over to you, Mr. Reid. It's about bringing them up on the Senate floor, debate them, and let the American people see where you stand on the issue. And at the end of the day, whether you vote for it or against it, at least the American people have seen you in action.

The other thing the Senate can do is they can always amend any measure that we send over there and send it back to us. It's not to say that we always have the best idea, but I believe that the Senate, our brothers and sisters in the Senate, could have some good ideas. Attach them back, amend our bill, and send it back to us for us to consider and even go to conference if necessary.

All we're asking is the United States Senate to take action on things that we, in the House, have passed, many in a very bipartisan way. If you remember back on January 24, on the 1,000th day, this body here-- this body--voted 410-1 to vote on a resolution calling upon the Senate to pass a budget, that it's of national importance that we actually have a budget and that the Senate be a participant in the discussions, not just sitting on the sidelines expecting us to carry the water.

Mr. Speaker, we stand here today imploring our Members to do the right thing. Let's keep the pressure on the Senate to do the right thing.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the significant achievements that the University of South Florida (USF) has made in the fields of innovation and technology.

In 2010, USF furthered their dedication to these fields by founding the National Academy of Inventors (NAI). Today, the NAI works to recognize inventors, enhance the visibility of university innovation, educate and mentor innovative students, and translate research and inventions of its members that may benefit society.

With this type of commitment to innovation, it is no surprise that a recent report issued by the Intellectual Property Owners Association listed USF, along with 12 other American Universities, among the top 300 organizations to receive patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2010.

I am also proud that as USF continues to be a national leader in the field of innovation, the entire Tampa Bay area will significantly benefit. Researchers and inventors from USF will continue to work together with business and industry leaders in their respective fields to put their ideas and prototypes into action. These interactions will lead to a direct and positive impact on our local communities-- communities desperately in need of high quality jobs and business opportunities.

I've always said that one of America's greatest strengths is the innovation of its citizens. Without innovation, this nation would not be what it is today. Unfortunately, many of these innovators in the past have not received the recognition for their achievements that they rightfully deserve.

That is why it is my honor to recognize and support the achievements of USF for their commitment to innovation and research.

With that, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the achievements of the University of South Florida.

Mr. Speaker, we in the House of Representatives need to start restoring the trust that the American people gave when they elected us to this office. Last night, 100 Members voted to give themselves a pay raise. Is that what we're all about? It's not about us enriching ourselves, because I don't believe that's what our Founding Fathers thought.

When I first came to Congress last year, I found out that I had an option to either take the health insurance plan that the Federal Government offered or to go out on my own and do my own thing. And I took the option, even though it cost myself and my family over $10,000 more. But then we started to look at options with regards to the Federal Employee Retirement System that all Members of Congress are required to be in, and also the Thrift Savings Plan that all Members of Congress are part of, whether they want to be or not--even though it's different for the Senate. The House of Representatives back in the 104th Congress decided that they wanted to take that option away. I think that's wrong. I believe that America is about choices.

I also believe that Congress is not a career. And so when those Members of Congress don't have an option to remove themselves from the Federal Employee Retirement System, as I wanted to, or those Members of Congress that wanted to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan but are told that you, the taxpayers, are going to give us an additional 5 percent of our salary because you like us so much, I asked if I could exempt myself from that. And guess what? We were told we couldn't because those prior to us had made a decision for us now that we couldn't do that, we couldn't do what we think is right for this body.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, it is about doing the right thing. It is about looking back at what our Founding Fathers envisioned for this country. It's about service to this country, not about enriching ourselves on the backs of our fellow countrymen.

On the ``60 Minutes'' program we saw the insider trading issue that has gone across this Congress. It brings to mind that it is about doing the right thing. And unfortunately, there are those among us that really believe that it's about enriching ourselves on the backs of those that we're supposed to serve. There has been a number of bills put forth in regards to stopping insider trading, and so we have put forth a bill to do the same thing. It's very simple. It just requires that Members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President put their holdings into a qualified blind trust, which means no matter what information they may have they can't enrich themselves with it because within 30 days of their taking office, they must put it within a blind trust. It takes away all the issues in regards to how do you enforce some of the issues that were talked about in the STOCK Act.

These are noble intentions, but when you make it more difficult to enforce, what you do is you give people loopholes to get around it and skirt around the issue. If you put it into a blind trust, it takes away the ability to skirt around the issue.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's not about creating more loopholes. It's about making it simpler to do the right thing here in Congress. When we have the lowest approval rating, I'm shocked. I'm not shocked because we don't deserve it, I'm shocked because we don't want to do anything to improve it. As sheriff, I had a 73 percent approval rating. I come to Congress, and I find out that we're not as respected as we should be. But it's because of our own hand that we're not. It's nobody else's fault. Its not the press' fault. It's not anybody's fault. It's what we do within these Halls. What we do sets the tone for what the American people believe in or what we are supposed to be providing to the American people, and that is a level of trust.

So in two things: A bill that was called Congress is Not a Career Act is sitting out there and also one in regards to blind trusts. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we think about those issues and move forward.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution. This is an important resolution because it brings us back to the greatest cut since the 104th Congress.

You know, in tough times like today where the American people are pinching pennies to get by, shouldn't they have the same expectation of those that serve them in this great House? I believe they should.

You know, when talking to people in my district, they ask and say, what are you doing to get your house in order? By supporting this piece of legislation, this truly talks about cutting the spending in D.C. While it's a small amount comparative to the whole budget, it is the right step in the right direction. It is about doing more with less. The American people are doing that today. So why shouldn't this government do the same thing? I appreciate where the chairman, Mr. Lungren, has brought us in regards to this important piece of legislation. It really moves us in the right direction.

Cuts across the board are tough; and if you notice what this committee did is it didn't cover everybody the same, didn't treat everybody the same. Under Chairman Lungren's leadership, and also the ranking member, they did it, I believe, in a bipartisan way, that didn't take away from the minority in regards to funding as it relates, nor differently than it did from the majority.

So, Madam Speaker, I strongly support this resolution as we move forward to cut the budget of committees in this House, just like the American people have had to cut their budgets in their house.

I would like to thank the chairman, Mr. Ryan, for allowing me to speak and allowing me to close. And I heard this is a sideshow. I don't think the American people see it as that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the passage of a fiscal year 2013 Federal budget is of national importance. You've heard it over and over again that this is the 1,000th day, 1,000 days, Mr. Speaker, since the Senate has not fulfilled its obligation. Think about all the things Americans have done and been able to accomplish in the last 1,000 days, and yet the Senate has failed to achieve this basic responsibility under the Budget Act of 1974.

It's astonishing. I've had two sons graduate from college, two sons go to war and come home again. Another son got married in that time period. And in that time, the citizens of Florida's Fifth Congressional District sent me to Washington to do this job to work for the American people.

That work undoubtedly includes passing a budget, as this House did on April 15 based on the leadership of Chairman Ryan. The Senate, on the other hand, hasn't produced a budget since 2009--I believe it's April of 2009--and didn't even bother to propose a budget this last year. The last time the Senate passed the budget, the CBO predicted that the deficit for 2011 would be $693 billion. In reality, it was twice, almost twice that, $1.3 trillion.

When I'm at home talking with people in my district, they're astounded that the Senate has not passed a budget in almost 3 years. They can't fathom how we can operate without a budget. In truth, Mr. Speaker, you've heard the other side even say that we haven't been operating smoothly. When I first got here, we had to do a CR. That's because we haven't done what we're supposed to do in the Senate and the House. The American people know that, and that's reflected in our approval ratings.

You see, in the real world, Americans routinely set budgets for themselves, their families, and their businesses. I had to set one when I was a sheriff. Unfortunately, the Senate doesn't operate in the real world. Rather, it has become a legislative graveyard, even for bills passed with bipartisan support.

The House, however, has acted. We've passed 27 bipartisan jobs bills that have been lost to the black hole that is the Senate. Some of those bills received an overwhelming majority of support. For instance, H.R. 1070, the Small Company Capital Formation Act, would allow small businesses to capture more capital in the early stages of their formation, and that passed in this House with 421 votes for and one opposed. That's a perfect example of legislation that should be public law, and it isn't because it's died in the Senate.

Now, I understand the Senate may not agree with everything in our bills that we pass, and that's fine. That's how the Founding Fathers envisioned it. But if you have objections, then put forth your own proposals and allow the normal process to work. Do not simply sit on the sidelines and decry every idea that comes out of the House of Representatives--ideas that we put forward.

In my opinion, there couldn't be a better example of putting politics before country than the Senate's refusal to pass a budget. Even those on the other side have said, it's a plan, we have to have a direction. That's what we ask. We don't have to agree on that direction; but at the end of the day, we have to have something to set our appropriators free to work with within the confines.

Rather than show Americans what priorities are, rather than show what they're willing to spend, where they want to cut and how much they want to increase taxes, and whether they believe our colossal debt is even an issue, the Senate has instead insisted on punting this issue entirely. This is not only a disservice to the American people; but, frankly, it's irresponsible. And when you hear them say the Republicans in the Senate are blocking a budget, you can't filibuster a budget in the Senate. The rules do not allow for it. So they could, if they wanted to, do their job and assist the American people in figuring out where they stand on issues of great national importance. Once again, we talked about spending, taxes, and how we move forward.

The Senate Democrats had the supermajority in the Senate, control of the House and the White House and still didn't pass a budget. I don't think it's too much to ask the Senate to produce a budget. I know Americans don't think so either.

I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, just think about this. Three days ago, Saturday, President Obama said: ``It would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle class tax cut for the rest of the year.''

The same day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ``House Democrats will return to Washington to take up this legislation without delay, and we will keep up the fight to extend these provisions for a full year.''

And on Saturday, Minority Whip Hoyer said he was disappointed that the Senate would not agree to a longer-term extension.

Mr. Speaker, what the Senate has done--and we've heard this term so many times before--it's about business as usual. Let's not make a decision we can put off for another 2 months. This House, in a bipartisan way last week, came up with a 1-year extension and a 2-year doc fix extension that will help those individuals provide medical services to our seniors, that gives them a sustainable way to look forward on our docs and a doc fix for 2 years, not 2 months.

When you hear from other individuals in the real world, those that have to implement a policy that was designed by those in the Senate for 2 months, think about it. When you have to report that tax to the Federal Government, it's quarterly, not 2 months. How are they supposed to do that? How do you reconcile that difference? Once again, the Senate refused to take action that the House did. Everybody talks about what the Senate has done. The House passed a bipartisan bill and moved it forward in regards to a 1-year extension on unemployment benefits, 1-year extension in regards to the payroll tax, and a 2-year doc fix. That's what the House did.

Now all we're asking is that we go to regular order, just like they have done for hundreds of years when the two bodies can't agree. When the two bodies can't agree, they go to conference, where conferees from both sides sit down and hash it out and come up with a resolution to bring back to both bodies. That's what you're supposed to do. That's what our Founding Fathers envisioned; not backroom deals, not things cut in the dead of night. It's not about us voting--and thank God that our Speaker saw the light in regards to not voting in the dead of night. He believes in regular order. He believes that we should move forward as a body and go to conference with our Senate brothers and sisters to decide the course that we need to make.

I can't believe, I can't believe that there aren't folks in the Senate that couldn't get this done with our Members in this House and get it done in 2 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I wholeheartedly support the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind all Americans that we still have troops in harm's way. As the Iraqi war comes to a close and we prepare to draw down in Afghanistan, we cannot forget those who serve us, the men and women. We cannot forget those that are still being held captive in those foreign lands. And these are our volunteers. These are young men and women that went to the fight and volunteered to go there willingly because America calls.

Several weeks ago, I sent a letter to the President, asking him for his continued commitment for those that we have left behind, those that have been held against their will in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I never got a response. I never received a response.

And recently, if you read the British tabloids, one of the British papers talked about PFC Bowe Bergdahl who

escaped from his Taliban captors in Afghanistan and was on the run for 3 days. Unfortunately, he was recaptured. It shows you that we have those that are still in harm's way as we pull out from Iraq and start to withdraw from Afghanistan.

But we can never forget--we should never forget--the sacrifice that these young men and women have given to this country. They truly are the 1 percent that need to be talked about because they have volunteered at great risk to themselves and to their families.

I have three sons that are currently serving in the United States Army. And I know what it's like to have a son go to war. On numerous occasions now, my sons have been called. And one still is in Iraq today. So we can never forget about the sacrifice not only of the men and women in our armed services but how about their families and loved ones that they leave behind.

The warrior ethos says, We never leave a man behind. And I call upon the President and I call upon this great body to make that same statement, that we will never leave a man behind, that we will do everything within our power to make sure that we get these kids back home. And I call them kids because I have three sons, and I still call them kids, even when they're 30 years old. It is about doing the right thing.

So today we're putting forth a resolution, this resolution, asking for the House to exert its will, to talk about our unending commitment to those that have given up their freedoms to protect us.

In this season of Christmas, we need to think about the families that are out there whose loved one is being held captive, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. We cannot forget them. We should not forget them. And this great country should stand up for those that have stood up for us. We should express our outrage and our feeling that we will never leave a man behind on the battlefield, ever.

Madam Speaker, I just want to implore this body to stand up and vote for this resolution, talking about the sense of this Congress and supporting those men and women who have given so much and have asked for so little.

God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 479 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, H. Res. 479. H. Res. 479 provides for a structured rule so that the House may consider H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act.

The rule gives the House the opportunity to debate a wide array of important, germane amendments offered by Members from both sides of the aisle. Better known as the REINS Act, the underlying legislation is a pivotal bill that would change the very way Washington does business.

The REINS Act takes a step back and looks at our current regulatory process, where Congress passes broad, general laws and then lets the executive branch interpret and regulate them however they see fit. H.R. 10 brings us back to the vision that our Founding Fathers had for this Nation and for the institution of Congress. It would ensure that our three branches are coequals, the way they were designed to be. H.R. 10 would hold Congress accountable for setting America's regulatory policies. It makes Congress do the work that our Founders intended this institution, the first branch, to do: to regulate.

Mr. Speaker, I know that regulations have been a buzz word up here in Congress recently, and I think it has become so popular, so frequently discussed because people within the Washington Beltway are finally starting to wake up to the fact that those in my home State of Florida have been telling me since before I ever came here: that regulations matter. The government can't really do much to actually create jobs or to physically put people back to work. We might wish it were so, but we don't have the magic job formulas on either side of the aisle that we can use to suddenly create millions of jobs for the nearly 9 percent of Americans who are currently out of work. What we can do is create an environment where real job creators--small businesses and private companies--can gain access to capital and operate with as much regulatory certainty as possible.

Unfortunately, it's hard to create such an environment when the executive branch is constantly churning out one major regulation after another. According to the Congressional Research Service, during his first 2 years in office, Federal agencies under the leadership of the Obama administration published over 175 major rules. These regulations impose tens of billions of dollars annually on our economy and on consumers. This is on top of the continuing burden of redtape that we are already up against, which the Small Business Administration estimates to cost $1.75 trillion--$1.75 trillion--yearly.

The Federal Register is sort of like the daily newspaper of the Federal Government. It holds all Federal agency regulations, proposed rules and public notices, Executive orders, proclamations, and other Presidential documents.

According to the National Archives' Web site, you should read the Federal Register if, among other things, your business is regulated by the Federal Government; if you're an attorney; if your organization attends public hearings; if you apply for grants; if you're concerned with government actions that affect the environment, health care, financial services, exports, education, and other major policy issues. Reading this recommendation, it sounds to me like they're saying if you're an active and informed member of the American public, you need to know what's in the Federal Register.

What they don't mention is that the complete Federal Register is 72,820 pages long. That's over 145 reams of paper that contain regulations. To help put it in perspective, that's 725 pounds of paper. And for my Floridian friends, that's about three Josh Freemans, the quarterback for the Tampa Bay Bucs.

Within these 73,000 pages of regulations are regulations that result in 120 million hours of paperwork burdens for United States businesses every year. The 2011 Federal Register, the rules that are contained within, cost American employers $93 billion in compliance costs, which equals about 1.8 million jobs.

Think about everything that job creators could do instead of spending hundreds of millions of hours filling out paperwork for the Federal Government, all of the jobs that could be created if they weren't spending money complying with regulations that Congress hasn't even put on them, but regulatory agencies have.

H.R. 10 really does ``rein'' in these burdens. Instead of letting the White House decide what the regulations should be, only allowing Congress to disapprove an executive's action, H.R. 10 flips the current system on its head.

The REINS Act says if the executive branch wants to impose a major rule, a rule that's going to cost $100 million or more, then Congress, this body, needs to approve that rule before it has the force of law.

In 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service, executive agencies published over 100 major rules. These basically are rules that went into effect simply because the President said it was so. The REINS Act says: no more.

Now, once the executive branch issues a rule, Congress needs to approve it, otherwise it never takes effect. It's stunning that something so simple, that Congress should make the laws, can be so contentious.

I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say if Congress just wrote better, more precise laws, the Executive wouldn't need to regulate through these rules. The problem is that sometimes the executive branch agencies have shown they're using their regulatory powers to circumvent the legislative process.

For example, after it was clear the Senate wasn't going to pass cap- and-trade, which really ought to be called cap-and-tax, the EPA just went ahead and started regulating greenhouse gases through the rulemaking process, cutting Congress out of the process altogether. This year's most expensive rule, the greenhouse gas/CAFE standards, is estimated to cost $141 billion. That's greater than the entire GDP growth for the United States in the first quarter of 2011.

We're not all constitutional scholars. I'm certainly not. But if one thing is clear, Congress is the one who makes the laws. It's not that Congress makes the laws unless they don't make the laws the President wants them to make. The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act brings us back to the basic foundation of our government. It says that not only does Congress provide the legislative intent, but it also provides the legislative oversight as the rule comes back if it's a major rule that's going to cost over

$100 million to our businesses and citizens of this country.

That's what we're designed to do, to make tough decisions. That's why I'm so proud to cosponsor this bill. It's why I'm proud to sponsor this rule, and it's why I'm proud to vote for both the rule and the underlying legislation.

With that, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my fellow Rules member, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Yes. I have one further speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am ready to close.

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

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal stated that the REINS Act-- this act that we are talking about--``would revolutionize government in practice and help restore the representative democracy the Founders envisioned.'' Profound words. While discussing regulatory reform, Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a contributor to Forbes magazine said that ``reaffirming Congress' accountability to voters for agencies' most costly rules is a basic principle of good government.'' And Jonathan H. Adler, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said in a congressional hearing earlier this year that the REINS Act ``offers a promising mechanism for disciplining Federal regulatory agencies and enhancing congressional accountability for Federal regulation.''

The REINS Act brings accountability back to the regulatory process. I would agree that some regulations are necessary. We all want clean air and clean water. There's no doubt that we need that. We need a safe and healthy environment. We need safe food if we want to protect ourselves and our families. But regulations at what cost?

Through the rulemaking process, the EPA has put a new burdensome standard on water quality in Florida alone. With the numeric nutrient rule the EPA wants to take over the State's

water system. And because they are Washington bureaucrats trying to create a D.C. solution for a Florida problem, the requirements they have set on the State of Florida are scientifically impossible to reach given our State's natural phosphorous levels in our waters. Compliance will require an investment of billions of dollars that will be passed on--to whom? The Florida taxpayers, of course, effectively resulting in a new tax levied on all Floridians. Another analysis estimates that the EPA rulemaking will impose statewide costs ranging from $3.1 billion to $8.4 billion per year for the next 30 years.

To put that in perspective, Florida's total budget is only $64 billion annually. The REINS Act is what people in Florida need and what people in the country need if we're going to keep executive agency rulemaking in check.

We've heard about a number of issues on this House floor. We've heard about issues as they relate to unemployment and to the payroll tax holiday. These issues, though, aren't what are in front of us today. It's really about the REINS Act. It's really about getting government off the backs of people. It's about making Congress accountable for the actions of the agencies that have their authority granted through Congress. It's not the other way around.

Regulatory agencies don't enact laws for Congress. Congress enacts laws. Congress enacts and gives the authority to those who regulate, but Congress can't walk away from its authority to oversee the rules, particularly the major rules, that are promulgated by these agencies-- that are costing us jobs, that are costing us billions of dollars every year.

You've heard about it from all of my colleagues who spoke on this side of the aisle. I don't know when Congress lost its way-- Representative Bishop talked about it years and years ago--but Congress did lose its way. It's so much easier to just pass a law and say, You know what? Let the regulatory folks figure out how this is going to shake out at the end.

That's not what we were elected to do. We were elected not only to pass laws but to make sure that the regulations that are proposed by those agencies that have the authority from this Congress are responsible to the people. We need to be responsible to the people who elected us, not the other way around--not responsible to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

It's what I hear from all the businesses in my district. It's what I hear from the people I represent. They want government to get out of the way, not to end all regulations like you hear some of my friends across the aisle say. That's not what we're talking about. We are, though, talking about a congressional review before it actually comes to pass so that we stand up as a body and say, You know what? This is just not good for America.

The Keystone pipeline is a perfect example of a jobs bill. They keep talking about the lack of jobs bills. Had the Keystone pipeline come to fruition, which the President has pushed off until 2013, there would have been 25,000 immediate jobs to create and construct that pipeline, and there would have been 100,000 new jobs within the areas of Texas and Louisiana as it relates to the processing of that oil.

The last time I looked, Canada was a friend, but we buy oil from countries that hate us. Do you know what Canada said?--that China is ready to step in and help them out. Is that really what we want, or do we want to bring jobs to America?

With all that has been said, we're to the point at which we need to talk about regulations, and that's what this bill does. It allows seven amendments that are germane to come to the floor--two Republican and five Democratic amendments.

With that, I am happy to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 466 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House Resolution 466. The rule provides for consideration of what may be the very single most significant piece of legislation that I've had the opportunity to vote on since coming to this body over 10 months ago.

This rule is what allows the House of Representatives to move forward and vote on H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

My resolution that we're considering here today suspends the rules and allows the House to vote on H.J. Res. 2. I'm sure that some of my colleagues may be concerned we're moving to consider the balanced budget amendment under suspension of the rules for fear it would somehow limit debate.

I agree with them. Amending the United States Constitution is not to be taken lightly. This is why the rule provides for 5 hours of debate on this vital issue, because, you see, Mr. Speaker, what we're doing here today is something that should be discussed, something that must be discussed.

We're fundamentally challenging the way Washington works. And you know what? It's about time. It's about time we had real conversation about how our Nation spends its money. It's about time that we made the Federal Government budget the way I did when I was a sheriff of a county in Florida.

It's about time that we balance the Federal checkbook the way American families do every day. It's about time. That's what I think and, more importantly, that's what the majority of the American people think.

The mere fact that we're here today is a failure of leadership. For decades, Washington politicians have kicked the can down the road, choosing deficit spending over fiscal responsibility, choosing frivolous pork projects, wasteful programs, and easy answers over making tough decisions and cutting back. Republicans did it when they were in power, and Democrats did it when they were in power too. Nobody is blameless in getting us to where we are today.

But the days of finger-pointing are over. We don't have the luxury of time to look back and play the blame game. We need to move forward and find a solution to get us out of the hole that we're already in. A balanced budget amendment is a vital part of doing just that.

Yesterday, the United States surpassed $15 trillion in debt. Let me say that again: we're now $15 trillion in debt. While recognizing this sad landmark, I can't help but think about the fact that this didn't have to be the way it is.

In 1997, the House of Representatives passed a balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass this amendment by one vote. One vote, Mr. Speaker, one vote that would separate us from a road towards fiscal responsibility to where we are today. So here we go again, 14 years later, having the same debate.

I can't stand here today without thinking about my three sons. With a debt of $15 trillion, each of my boys owes over $48,000 in national debt. It means the children and grandchildren of each and every person in this room owes $48,000 to the Federal Government, $48,000 that they didn't spend, that they didn't ask for, and that they now are saddled with by a government of excesses.

Only one Senator stood between where we are now and $15 trillion in debt and where we could have been. So today I stand up in support of this rule and support H.J. Res. 2. I stand up for my kids, my future grandkids, and for all Americans who are saddled with that $48,000 in debt from the day that they're born.

I stand up for giving Congress a second chance, a chance to get it right this time. Unfortunately, I understand the Democratic leadership is whipping against this.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how else to say this. This simply baffles me. Thanks to the whipping efforts of the Democratic leadership, there are Members in the House who voted for the balanced budget amendment in 1997 who now say they're going to oppose it. In fact, two members of the Democrats' three-person leadership team voted for the 1997 amendment.

I've only been here in D.C., like I said, for a little over 10 months, but of all of the inexplicable things I've seen since coming to Congress, this just stumps me more than just about anything else I've seen here. What could these Members have been seeing between 1997 and today that makes them say, Yeah, you know what? Spending is right on target. Let's just stick with the status quo. It's dumbfounding.

It's often said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and over again and expect a different outcome. I don't understand how anybody can argue that we can continue to spend the way we do and expect to free ourselves from this monstrous, burdensome debt. We need to break the cycle. We've got to hold Congress' feet to the fire now and into the future. A balanced budget amendment

is the change away from the status quo and back to sanity.

I don't think I can say it better than Congressman DeFazio said in his letter to his Democratic colleagues when he wrote that Democrats who walk away from sincere bipartisan effort will have let the American electorate down. If any of us walk away from this effort, we will have let all Americans down.

We've been working without a budget, this greatest Nation, for over 900 days now. Continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases are not the answer. Supercommittees and sequestration is not the answer. Enough's enough.

Today we have a clear choice: whether you want to change the status quo or you don't; either you believe that the government must operate responsibly on a balanced budget or you don't; either you want to rescue our Nation, ourselves, our children, and our children's children from crippling debt or you don't.

I would like to close with the words of Ronald Reagan, who once said this: ``The congressional budget process is neither reliable nor credible. In short, it needs to be fixed. We desperately need the power of a constitutional amendment to help us balance our budget.''

Now, that is presidential leadership.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the august Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a Rules Committee member.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that everybody that may be watching this at home understands we are talking about a balanced budget amendment.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Florida for a lively debate. The issue, though, that has sort of gotten muddled is about a balanced budget amendment, not about anything else that you've heard about on the floor. It is about a balanced budget amendment.

But just to remind everybody, when we talk about jobs, we've passed over 21 jobs bills that are currently sitting idle in the Senate. So I don't know what else you can do, except it gets kind of frustrating that we send great pieces of legislation over to the Senate and nothing happens.

We've heard a lot of debate here about a balanced budget amendment, pros and cons. You're going to hear 5 hours of debate in the very near future about the pros and cons of a balanced budget amendment.

This Congress has done things that are amazing. We used emergency funding to fund the census. Now, I know the census probably snuck up on everybody around here, but I don't understand why you had to use emergency funding to do that.

You know, we talk about the Clinton years. We talk about budget surpluses and how quickly they disappeared. But remember one thing: Part of the Clinton surpluses also hollowed out our force, which required us to put our servicemen and -women at risk for way too long. Some of them weren't allowed to retire through stop-loss, and others had to serve 15 months in combat positions because we had hollowed out our force.

Patrick Henry once said the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government. Today we start building upon those restraints. A balanced budget amendment is more of an instrument to check bloated government, a government that wants to be everything to everyone.

Today we're borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend. We're writing checks that we can't cash, hoping future generations will be able to figure out how to get out of this mess on their own. This spending is just unsustainable.

I wasn't happy with the Budget Control Act, but I voted for it simply so we could vote today on a rule to allow us to vote on a balanced budget later this week so we can fundamentally change where we're going.

After 10 months in Congress, I'm convinced that there are not enough people in Washington with the determination, the dedication, nor the fortitude to make the tough decisions for the good of this country. The Constitution has saved us in the past, and it can save us in the future. A balanced budget amendment would give Americans a reason to believe that more efficiently and effectively than any other proposal I've heard of.

One of the things I hear consistently back home is that you all have made decisions in Congress that have put us so far into debt. Our unborn children are facing a debt of $48,000 for every child who's born this year. How can we stand up and look at people and say this Congress can fix it on its own? How can we look people in the eye and say, You know what. Just give us another chance; we've done so well over the last 30 years.

I don't believe that the American people believe that we can do that, and I think that's why they're asking for fundamental changes. I think it's why they're asking us to step forward and do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, not kick the can down the road anymore.

I have the utmost respect for our chairman and for my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), but I adamantly disagree. I think that we've had a change in government because there's a necessary need for a change in government. I think that you can't continue to do the status quo, because if we do, we're just going to wind up $15 trillion in debt today, $20 trillion in debt 2 years from now. When does it end, Mr. Speaker?

So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly bipartisan legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 466 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

639) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify

that countervailing duties may be imposed to address

subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of

any foreign country. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this

resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 463, a rule which provides for the consideration of an important piece of legislation, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

I am proud to sponsor this rule, which provides for a structured amendment process that will allow Members to have a thorough debate on a wide variety of relevant and germane amendments to H.R. 822. We have allowed 10 amendments to this bill--two Republican amendments and eight Democratic amendments. Even on a contentious bill, a bill where it would be easy to shut down the process, we not only are allowing amendments, but of those that we will be debating on the floor, the vast majority are Democratic amendments.

We did this not because it was the easy thing to do; we did it because it was the right thing to do. It brought transparency to the debate, and it is in keeping with the promises that the Republican Party made to the American people for a freer, more open process.

Madam Speaker, until coming to this body 10 months ago, I had spent my entire career as a cop, the last 10 years as sheriff of Hernando County, Florida. During my 38 years in law enforcement, I found that disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime. If anything, all it does is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from violent criminals. Although I know this just from my anecdotal experience, research backs up the claim.

For example, statistics indicate that citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. In my home State of Florida, only 0.01 percent of nearly 1.2 million permits have been revoked because of firearm crimes committed by permit holders. Additionally, evidence indicates that crime declines in States with right-to-carry laws. Since Florida became a right-to-carry State in 1987, Florida's total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32 percent and 58 percent, respectively.

Because of this evidence, as well as my firsthand experience, I am a proud defender of our Second Amendment right: ensuring ``the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' My history as a law enforcement officer is also why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

H.R. 822 is a good, bipartisan bill, which enhances the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. Today, if I drive from my home State of Florida into Georgia, Georgia recognizes that my Florida driver's license is still valid even once I cross the State line. H.R. 822 would require States to recognize each other's legally issued concealed carry permits in the same

way. This legislation would take a comprehensive approach to helping law-abiding citizens navigate the patchwork of State concealed carry laws.

H.R. 822 does not--let me repeat--does not create a national concealed carry permit system nor does it establish any nationalized standard for a carry permit. H.R. 822 respects the States' abilities to create their own gun usage laws as well as their own permitting processes.

I am sure that we will hear arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that H.R. 822 somehow makes it easier for people to get a gun. Let me assure you that, again, this is not the case. This legislation does not mandate that anyone suddenly be given a gun nor does it relax any of a State's current permitting laws.

During my nearly 40 years as a cop, I learned you just can't talk about guns. When you're talking about gun crime, you need to look at two distinct classes of guns: there are legal guns, and there are illegal guns. I can tell you, as a cop, you don't worry about the legal guns, the guns that people bought from an authorized source, that they registered with the proper authorities, that they took the necessary classes to learn how to use responsibly, and that they got their legal concealed carry permit. In my experience, you worry about the illegal guns, guns that somebody purposefully bought off the radar, either because they aren't legally allowed to own a gun or because they're going to use them for illegal purposes.

H.R. 822 doesn't get into that difference. What it does is ensures that legal gun owners don't accidentally break a law simply because they brought their fully permitted gun into another State. This legislation gives peace of mind to Americans traveling across State lines with a legally registered, concealed firearm, knowing that they can practice their constitutional right to bear arms.

Again, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 822 and support its passage.

With that, I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle talks about a jobs bill. We're not talking about it right now. But if you look at this card, we have over 20 jobs bills that have passed out of this body that are sitting in the Senate today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In 2007 a Colorado man named Matthew Murray allegedly wrote online, ``All I want to do is kill and injure as many Christians as I can.'' Murray then went on to a shooting rampage, first killing two young students at a missionary training center outside of Denver. And then at a gathering of 7,000 people in and around the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with a rifle and a backpack full of ammunition, Murray entered the church and opened fire, killing two sisters. Murray was ultimately stopped and killed by a church member and a volunteer security guard, Jeanne Assam, who has a concealed-carry permit and once worked in law enforcement. Assam shot Murray several times, leading him to kill himself.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman talks about States' rights. We agree, there are States that do not have concealed-carry permits. So it is within the States' rights to decide how they are going to regulate that particular issue in regards to weapons in their State.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

Madam Speaker, I advise my colleague from Massachusetts that I have one remaining speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Madam Speaker, I am always amazed at what goes on in these Chambers. We hear from the other side of the aisle about talking about jobs, even though this House has passed 20--20, count them--jobs bills. If you don't believe it, read it.

We talk about issues about ``In God We Trust.'' I think it is something that we should affirm here in America, about our belief in God.

I believe that the Second Amendment is not a special interest group. I believe the Second Amendment needs to be protected at all costs. You've heard some in this House that would take away our right to even carry or possess a firearm.

Madam Speaker, in 40 years in law enforcement, it wasn't just guns that killed people; it was every object imaginable, from fists to feet to pipes to kitchen knives and baseball bats.

Madam Speaker, this is about the ability for those that have a legitimate carry permit to go across the State line and not be subject to arrest, someone who makes an honest mistake by going across the State line that doesn't have a reciprocity agreement with their current State and they have a carry permit.

Madam Speaker, this is more about what's right with America in regards to upholding our Second Amendment, our constitutional right. And so those that are in favor of doing away with all types of guns, I guess, it smacks that they disagree with our Founding Fathers and our Second Amendment right.

Madam Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. H.R. 822 protects the rights of legal gun owners throughout the United States.

I've heard this debate this afternoon about the dangers of gun crime. I completely agree. Guns are dangerous tools that need to be treated with respect. Guns can be used by people to kill other people. However, what I saw in those 40 years as a cop is we need to talk about these in broader terms. What we really need to do is talk about the difference between legal and illegal guns.

Most people who use a gun to kill a human being are not just using a gun they obtained legally, that they are licensed legally, that they got a legal concealed-carry permit for. When you look at the numbers of CCW permit holders that have actually violated the law, at least in the State of Florida, it's .001 percent.

There are people that are criminals, and they're criminals simply for having a firearm. Even in the State of Florida, a felon can't possess a firearm. The discussion of what to do with these folks and how to keep them from illegally possessing a firearm is another debate at another time.

Today we're talking about one thing. We're talking about legal gun owners to legally travel from one State to another that have a concealed weapons permit. I support that effort, and that's why I'm a proud cosponsor--and stand here today--of H.R. 822 and as the sponsor of this rule, H. Res. 463.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly--I underline ``strongly''--bipartisan legislation.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, born September 13, 1921, in Chicago, Illinois, Byron Day Tate, Jr., spent his early years working alongside his brother as a brass and iron molder. On November 14, 1942, Byron answered the call to service and enlisted in the United States Army. While in the service, he saw action with the 1st Army across the European Theater under the command of General Omar Bradley. He joined the D-day invasion force in July of 1944 and saw combat in the Battle of the Bulge.

After returning to Chicago as a decorated and proud Army veteran, he married the love of his life, Mildred, and like so many of our brave World War II heroes, he went on to become part of the greatest generation the world has ever seen.

On October 20, 2011, my uncle Byron Day Tate, Jr., passed away at his home in Macon, Georgia. With his passing, however, I'm reminded that without the hard work and selfless sacrifice and attitude of our World War II veterans, this Nation truly would not be what it is today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great son of Trinity, Florida, Corporal Justin Gaertner of the United States Marine Corps First Combat Engineer Battalion. I have had the honor of getting to know Justin over the past year, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to share his story.

After being deployed to Afghanistan, Justin took on one of the most dangerous jobs there is in the Marine Corps. He was the lead sweeper, clearing roads of IEDs in advance of U.S. vehicles.

On November 26, 2010, Justin's unit was traveling with an eight-truck convoy. One of the trucks struck an IED. Following the explosion, one of Justin's good friends, Corporal Gabriel Martinez, lost both of his legs in a second IED attack while he rushed to aid that downed vehicle. Justin desperately wanted to help his friend, but his responsibility was to continue the mission, to continue to sweep for IEDs to ensure the safety of the rest of the convoy. It was during the sweep that a third IED was remotely detonated as Justin had just entered that area. The explosion propelled Justin into the air and took both of his legs and severely injured one of his arms. Justin paid a terrible price that day while helping to protect fellow marines.

When I first met Justin at Walter Reed Army Hospital in January of this year, he was more concerned about his brother marines that were still in country than he was about his own safety. He wanted to return to that company of marines to help ensure the safety of his fellow marines that were still left in Afghanistan. That's what heroes do. He's since made an incredible recovery while at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, but that was with the help of dedicated medical staff, the support of his mother and his family and of fellow marines. Justin is getting stronger every day.

When I first met Justin in January of this year, he told me one of his future goals was to compete in a marathon. Today I'm proud to announce that this past weekend, less than 1 year since he was wounded in combat, Justin completed the 2011 Marine Corps Marathon in the hand crank division in 2 hours, 50 minutes, and 39 seconds. Justin and his family have been an inspiration to me and make us all proud to be Americans because of their sacrifice on the battlefield.

On behalf of a grateful Nation, I want to take this opportunity to again thank Justin for his bravery and his sacrifice on behalf of his Nation. And I want to thank all the troops that have been in harm's way, that have volunteered to protect this great Nation at great risk to themselves.

Shades of Green

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a Member of Congress who represents one of the largest veterans communities in the United States, I recognize the significant responsibility that Congress has to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits that they so honorably have earned. These true American heroes answered the call of duty and put their lives on the line to protect our country, our freedoms, and our way of life.

It's important to remember that these proud Americans also spent their lives working hard, playing by the rules, and saving for a stable retirement. That is why today I am happy to rise in support of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011. This legislation will provide our proud veterans with their first cost-of- living adjustment since 2009.

Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation owe our veterans a debt that can never fully be repaid. However, as Members of Congress, we can ensure that we keep our promise to our veterans by supporting this important legislation.