Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I stand with my colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus in honor of LBGT Pride Month.

We have had many achievements to celebrate in recent years--the end of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' the extension of many benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, the enactment of marriage equality in several states and here in the District of Columbia.

These achievements have been critical in our effort to create a society in which we fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence that all persons are created equal and the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment that every person has a right to the equal protection of the law.

The foundation of these achievements was not built here in Washington, D.C. Instead, it was the work of activists around this nation, it was the conversations between families at the dinner table, it was the realization of millions of Americans that ``I know a gay person, I know a transgender person,'' and that he or she remains my son, my daughter, my brother, my sister, my friend.

For who among us would accept a society in which our children and our friends are allowed to become victims of legalized discrimination?

Who among us would not allow our brothers and sisters who are in committed relationships to sanctify their love in the form of marriage?

Who among us would exclude our neighbors and our colleagues from full participation in this civil society?

When we celebrate Pride Month, we celebrate these relationships, relationships in which parents come to know who their children really are, in which friends come to know their friends, in which Americans have come to know and accept their fellow Americans regardless of their sexual orientation.

It is these relationships that have provided the foundation for many of the achievements of the LGBT community. Today, we have much to celebrate.

Madam Chair, today, I stand in opposition H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act. I vehemently oppose this bill's $20 billion cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program also known as SNAP. This program currently provides food assistance to forty seven million Americans, who otherwise would not have access to one of our most basic human needs--food.

This bill would result in irreparable harm to families, not just in my home district of Brooklyn New York, but in every part of the United States.

Almost two-thirds of the people enrolled in SNAP are children, senior citizens, or persons with disabilities. These low income Americans would lose their food assistance as a result of these draconian cuts.

In addition to the SNAP cuts, this bill also restricts some categorical eligibility options for States. In New York, more than 300,000 households participant in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Participation in this program usually results in a higher SNAP benefit for the household.

If this state option is restricted, SNAP benefits for these households will decrease by roughly 90 dollars per month. This cruel provision takes the food out of the mouth of children and increases the administrative burden on New York.

The bill under consideration today would create even more difficulties for the families that receive SNAP benefits. I ask my colleagues to vote no on this heinous bill.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably detained at a meeting and missed the first votes of the day.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 254, the motion on ordering the previous question on the rule; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 253, H. Res. 271, the rule providing for further consideration of H.R. 1947, Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1797. This act is both dangerous and unconstitutional and violates the rights of women who are in need of an abortion. It is blatantly unconstitutional and in clear violation of more than 40 years of Supreme Court precedent that protect women's access to abortion prior to viability, that is, prior to 24 not 20 weeks. This precedent was first established in Roe v. Wade and affirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Make no mistake, pregnancy due to violent and unfortunate circumstances such as rape and incest happens to thousands of women every year, not to mention medical complications that imperil the life of the mother. Women impacted by rape and incest must not be further victimized by this misguided legislation.

We must not allow our Nation's right to choose to be infringed upon by a minority of people in this Nation. We cannot let them bully the rest of the country into accepting their world view. That is why I will continue to support a woman's right to choose and stand in opposition to H.R. 1797, and I stand up for women's right to self-determination.

Let me thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'd like to thank my colleague, Mr. Horsford of Nevada, and my colleague and neighbor from Brooklyn, New York, the Honorable Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, for yielding their time and for their tremendous leadership, week in and week out, in providing a view into the Congressional Black Caucus perspective on the issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 5 years since our Nation experienced the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression. However, as our economy continues to recover, unemployment remains stubbornly high, sitting at 7.5 percent nationally, with unemployment at 13.2 percent and 9 percent, respectively, for African Americans and Latino Americans.

As a member of the House Small Business Committee, I know the challenges facing our Nation's minority-owned small businesses and entrepreneurs, from access to capital, a problem for minority-owned and disadvantaged small businesses in the best of economic times, or a lack of access to knowledge and information of the available options to assist them.

I understand that we must--that we must work increasingly and unceasingly to ensure that, even as the media focuses on the booming stock market, that our Nation's real job creators are not forgotten, not marginalized and overlooked. Their success is vital, not only for a more robust recovery, but it is to fully addressing our Nation's national employment crisis.

Ironically enough, Mr. Speaker, this week is the 50th commemoration of National Small Business Week. It appears, though, that the Republican-led House is totally tone deaf to the millions of Americans still unable to find gainful employment, that not one of the bills before the House this week supports job creation, real job creation, nor do they rescind the harmful effects of the sequester, which, by almost every measure, has been clearly detrimental to our Nation's economy and is tantamount, it is tantamount to negligence.

In my capacity as a member of the Small Business Committee, I've worked with my colleagues to promote all small businesses, especially minority, women, and veteran-owned small businesses in my district and across the Nation as they try to navigate these self-imposed and manufactured uncertain economic times.

I am a strong supporter of the SCORE Program, which provides technical assistance necessary for small businesses in underserved communities to just get off the ground. I also work with the SBA and the SBA's Office of Advocacy to ensure that all the firms that qualify for SBA contracting and capital access programs are provided an equal opportunity for participation.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and privilege of representing Brooklyn's Ninth Congressional District. My constituency includes an extremely large small business community with commerce corridors lined from block to block with small mom-and-pop businesses and storefronts.

This unique community provides the foundation of not only the economic but the unique social fabric of Brooklyn. We must build on this foundation in Brooklyn, New York, and across our great Nation.

Every day that the House majority focuses the people's time on issues that divide us is another day that our small businesses are treated as a subordinate concern. It is another day that our Nation's job-seekers spend time searching in vain, looking for the proverbial ``needle in the haystack,'' and another day that our Nation will have to wait for the engine that powers our economy to be firing on all cylinders.

Mr. Speaker, as our Nation celebrates National Small Business Week, I look forward to a genuine debate that addresses the totality of our Nation's small business communities, and not cherry-picking the low- hanging fruit.

I'd like to thank the Congressional Black Caucus, which, like myself, treats every week as Small Business Week, for focusing on this crucially important issue and for having me this evening.

In closing, I just want to share with you that, as we go through the immigration debate, we acknowledge that oftentimes in the Black community much of our entrepreneurial spirit is found in those entrepreneurs who have come to the United States and find a niche market where they can provide goods, services, and products to people from their homes of origin and, by extension, to the rest of the Nation.

I had the distinct honor and privilege of meeting a gentleman who immigrated to the United States from the island nation of Jamaica. One of the great delicacies, and they've actually become nationally renowned, it's called the beef patty. This gentleman's name is none other than Lowell Hawthorne, and he started with a small storefront in the Bronx, New York, and has now grown that storefront into a franchise opportunity that has made him, his family, and all those who have engaged very wealthy individuals, created job opportunities for hundreds of people and has provided one of the most delicious delicacies that one can ever taste.

Lowell Hawthorne is truly an entrepreneur who has availed himself of small business support from the SBA and has been able to grow his business. This is a success story that can be modeled and patterned after. We need to make sure that those entrepreneurs who have ideas that are innovative and that are creative get the support they need to continue to build this great country of ours.

I'd like to thank my colleague for anchoring this CBC Special Order.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to support the Polis Amendment to defund the 287(g) program, a program that promotes racial profiling and injustice.

The 287(g) program allows local law enforcement to act as immigration officials, which has led to rampant abuses throughout the country, most notably in Arizona, where the practices under 287(g) led to an unprecedented civil rights investigation by the Department of Justice.

As the Representative of the 9th Congressional District of New York, I have worked diligently to decrease the amount of racial profiling in New York City. I have worked to reduce the number of stop and frisks for the past year and eliminate the racial and ethnic intolerance that has plagued New York City and other cities around the country.

By cutting the funding for a program that relies on racial profiling like 287(g), we are sending a clear message that we will not tolerate bigotry. Programs like 287(g) have created mistrust between Latino and other immigrant communities throughout the country and local law enforcement. Ending the 287(g) program will move our country in the right direction to repair the trust that has been lost and is a step forward in fixing our broken immigration system and restoring the rule of law.

We must continue to work to build a supportive environment for immigrant and minority communities in every part of our civil society.

Madam Chair, I rise today disappointed in last week's adoption of the Steve King Amendment to H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014. This amendment would bar implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, DACA, for DREAMers, prevent them from acquiring work permits, and eliminate the exercise of discretion to protect victims of trafficking and crime victims.

Prosecutorial discretion and deferred action are done on a case-by- case basis and do not provide relief or legal status en masse. Instead, these practices ensure fair and just outcomes, and prompt law enforcement officials to closely consider compelling circumstances such as disability, age, or military service.

This blatant attempt to undermine the Presidents' action to address certain aspects of our broken immigration system and to restrict certain benefits of deferred action shocks the conscience. There are thousands of young Americans without legal status who want to attend school, find jobs, and start families--to participate in the American Dream.

The promise of deferred action and work authorization was affirmed by millions of Americans in November 2012. If we break this promise, we will have failed in our duty to a nation of immigrants from every part of world.

As the only New York City Member of Congress on the House Homeland Security Committee, I understand the need to fund programs that keep us safe against the threat of both physical and cyber attacks. However, to hold DACA recipients hostage for politics is unconscionable. I represent one of the largest immigrant districts in the country, with many who are currently benefitting from DACA; I could not and did not support the King Amendment, nor did I vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district and missed the votes on Monday, June 3, 2013.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 184, H.R. 1206--Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2013 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 185, S. 622--Animal Drug and Animal Generic Drug User Fee Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Today, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1911, Smarter Solutions for Students Act, the so- called Republican solution to address the impending student loan interest rate raise.

Despite their rhetoric, the Republicans do not want the American economy more competitive. If they did, they would not have introduced this bill. Under the current law, student loan interest rates are fixed. However, H.R. 1911 would change that and student loan interest rates will become variable rates based on the Treasury interest rate plus additional percentage points. This is truly a bait and switch. Students could start their college careers with a 5 percent student interest rate, but by the time they reach their senior year, have a 7.7 to 8.5 percent student loan rate.

Education has traditionally been and still remains a path out of poverty and into the middle class. And it is middle class that has historically been the backbone of America society. Instead of doing the right thing by permanently lowering student loan interest rates, the Republicans have once again decided to do things the wrong way. The Republicans just don't get it.

Oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 45--To Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care- related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. This legislation would completely repeal the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in 2010 and was declared constitutionally sound by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. The Affordable Care Act extends healthcare coverage to all Americans regardless of their gender, health condition or ability to pay.

It is a disgrace that this country, which is the wealthiest country in the world, denies universal healthcare coverage to its citizens. Repealing the Affordable Care Act will allow this disgrace to continue.

The Affordable Care Act is a good law. Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans now have access to a wide variety of free preventive services; insurers can no longer drop women from coverage when they become pregnant; Medicare is stronger due to some of the cost savings and other provisions in the act; Seniors are paying less for prescription drugs; Americans no longer face lifetime limits on care; and families are receiving rebates from insurance companies, when they unfairly inflate their costs.

In fact, thousands of people in my district, the 9th Congressional District of Brooklyn, New York, are already benefiting from the Affordable Care Act. An analysis done in March of 2012 showed that the health care reform law had already:

Provided 390 small businesses in my district with tax credits to help maintain or expand health care coverage for their employees;

Provided 5,100 young adults in my district with access to health insurance coverage under their parents' insurance plan;

Provided Medicare preventive services, at no costs to the patient, for 46,000 seniors in the district;

And, provided $2.5 million in public health grants for community health centers, hospitals, doctors, and other healthcare providers in the district to improve the community's health.

I have always believed that healthcare is a fundamental right, not a privilege. And this is why I vehemently oppose H.R. 45--To Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is wrong, and it is a step backwards for our country.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my opposition to the proposed $20 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as the SNAP program. This program currently provides food assistance to 47 million Americans who otherwise would not have access to one of the most basic human necessities--food.

Two million low-income Americans--most of whom are working families with children, senior citizens, and people with disabilities--will lose their food assistance as a result of these cuts. Of that number, 200,000 children would also lose access to their free school meals because their eligibility for these meals is tied to their receipt of

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406, The Working Families Flexibility Act. This bill is a sham! It does not offer working families flexibility, nor does it protect employee rights. But what it does is strip employees of their rights by eliminating the Federal Labor Standards Act statute guaranteeing overtime pay for time worked over 40 hours per week.

It shifts control of overtime from a monetarily incentivized program for the employee to an employer-controlled one incentivized by cheaper labor and less need to hire more workers. This bill also contains no avenue for employees to file grievances if requests for time off are denied or not responded to.

Under H.R. 1406, after the employee makes a request to use compensatory time, the employer's only responsibility is to permit the employee ``to use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.'' There is no responsibility on the part of the employer to respond in a timely manner or accommodate an employee request.

H.R. 1406 turns back years of hard won victories for American workers and their families by undermining the Federal Labor Standards Act and giving the employer virtually complete control over when the overtime is used.

The AFL-CIO, the Communication Workers of America, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and numerous other organizations oppose this bill. However, imagine my surprise when I received an e- mail from the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce also urging me to oppose this bill!

As a rule, Chambers of Commerce usually support ``pro-employer'' bills. However, in this case, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce wrote, ``all employers want as low a payroll expenditure as possible but there is a reason to be concerned that employers incentivized by H.R. 1406 would reward those employees who agree to ``comp time'' in lieu of overtime payments. Employers incentivized by a reduced payroll might well give ``comp time'' employees the preferred shifts, the needed hours, and the promotions. There is no protection in H.R. 1406 against this kind of employer behavior.''

Make no mistake about it--H.R. 1406 hurts American workers and their families. This bill is just another Republican attempt to destroy the American worker. So I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1406.

Madam Speaker, today we find ourselves debating a bill that could result in the United States of America defaulting on our debts. It seems that the Republican majority of the 113th Congress has decided to continue the practice of governing from one manufactured crisis to another.

H.R. 807, the Pay China First Act, is a part of this majority's campaign of playing politics with our national economy at a time when the number one priority of this Congress should be putting Americans back to work.

Madam Speaker, we raise our nation's debt ceiling to pay the bills that our nation has already accrued. The Republican majority's insistence on using the debt ceiling in their crusade against a short- term deficit crisis that doesn't exist, has already harmed our nation's recovery.

This bill, which the Republican majority knows full well has no chance in the Senate, is nothing more than political posturing at its worst. It is nothing more, Madam Speaker, than an attempt by the Republican majority to wash their hands of the calamitous effects their economic policies are having on the American people who want nothing more than their Congress to stop playing politics and get about the work they were elected to do.

Instead, the Republican majority has continued their crusade of irresponsible spending and tax cuts which disproportionally affect those who need it the most.

The number one priority of the 113th Congress should be putting Americans back to work and supporting policies that promote growth.

Madam Speaker, the people of Brooklyn's 9th Congressional district, whom I have the honor of representing in this body, are tired of the 113th Congress undermining the recovery our nation needs. This bill is not worthy of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I submit an article in today's New York Times that, using analysis from leading public and private-sector economists, lays out the harm that the majority's focus on irresponsible spending cuts is having on our struggling economy.

[From the New York Times, May 8, 2013]

Economists See Deficit Emphasis as Impeding Recovery

(By Jackie Calmes and Jonathan Weisman)

Washington--The nation's unemployment rate would probably

be nearly a point lower, roughly 6.5 percent, and economic

growth almost two points higher this year if Washington had

not cut spending and raised taxes as it has since 2011,

according to private-sector and government economists.

After two years in which President Obama and Republicans in

Congress have fought to a draw over their clashing approaches

to job creation and budget deficits, the consensus about the

result is clear: Immediate deficit reduction is a drag on

full economic recovery.

Hardly a day goes by when either government analysts or the

macroeconomists and financial forecasters who advise

investors and businesses do not report on the latest signs of

economic growth--in housing, consumer spending, business

investment. And then they add that things would be better but

for the fiscal policy out of Washington. Tax increases and

especially spending cuts, these critics say, take money from

an economy that still needs some stimulus now, and is getting

it only through the expansionary monetary policy of the

Federal Reserve.

``Fiscal tightening is hurting,'' Ian Shepherdson, chief

economist of Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors, wrote to

clients recently. The investment bank Jefferies wrote of

``ongoing fiscal mismanagement'' in its midyear report on

Tuesday, and noted that while the recovery and expansion

would be four years old next month, reduced government

spending ``has detracted from growth in five of past seven

quarters.''

That period roughly coincides with the time that Mr. Obama

and Congressional Republicans have shared governance since

Republicans took control of the House in 2011, promising an

immediate $100 billion in spending cuts. Republicans did not

get that much then, but the series of budget compromises with

the president since--while not so great as they wanted--will

soon reduce annual discretionary spending for domestic and

military programs to the lowest level in half a century.

As for revenues, Mr. Obama forced Republicans to acquiesce

in January to higher taxes from wealthy Americans. But worse,

in the macroeconomists' view, both parties agreed not to

extend a two-year-old cut in Americans' payroll taxes for

Social Security, reducing their spending money.

In all this time, the president has fought unsuccessfully

to combine deficit reduction, including spending cuts and tax

increases, with spending increases and targeted tax cuts for

job-creation initiatives in areas like infrastructure,

manufacturing, research and education. That is a formula

closer to what the economists propose. But Republicans have

insisted on spending cuts alone and smaller government as the

key to economic growth.

The results, Mr. Obama has taken to saying, despite his

complicity, are ``self-inflicted wounds.''

``The only way the problem does get fixed is if both

parties sit down and they say, `How are we going to make sure

that we're reducing our deficit sensibly?' '' he said last

week at a news conference. ``How are we making sure that

we're investing in things like rebuilding our airports and

our roads and our bridges, and investing in early childhood

education, basic research--all the things that are going to

help us grow?''

Mr. Obama added, ``I cannot force Republicans to embrace

those common-sense solutions.''

Speaker John A. Boehner stood by the Republicans' policies

during a session Tuesday with reporters. ``After four years

of mediocre job creation, it's obvious that we don't need

more tax hikes and more government spending,'' he said. ``We

need smarter policies to make America more competitive and

expand opportunities for everyone in our country.''

``We're the ones pushing this town to do the right thing

when it comes to the economy and jobs,'' Mr. Boehner added.

The Federal Open Market Committee, which sets policy for

the central bank, noted signs of improvement in the private

sector last week in a statement. ``But fiscal policy is

restraining economic growth,'' it added, echoing public

comments that Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, has made for

months. In April, the International Monetary Fund said the

United States would achieve further growth ``in the face of a

very strong, indeed overly strong, fiscal consolidation.''

Thursday will capture as plainly as any day lately the

differing approaches of Mr. Obama and Republicans toward the

economy and government's role.

Mr. Obama plans to travel to Austin, Tex., to visit

technology students, workers and entrepreneurs and promote

his ideas to support efforts like theirs--the kind of

initiatives that Republicans have blocked.

House Republicans expect to pass a measure that would allow

the Treasury to ``prioritize'' debt payments if Congress and

Mr. Obama cannot agree this year to increase the nation's

debt ceiling so the Treasury can keep borrowing money to pay

all creditors. Under the bill, as tax receipts came in, the

first priority would be paying creditors--like China,

Democratic opponents argue--and second would be Social

Security checks. But the measure would likely die in the

Democratic-controlled Senate.

The ``prioritization'' proposal first arose in 2011 from

among the most conservative House Republicans, those who were

driving hardest against the White House on raising the debt

ceiling and expressing unconcern about default, but it has

now become mainstream in the House ranks.

Economists and financial analysts generally dismiss the

idea as unworkable if not dangerous, and count on Democrats

to block it. Gregory Daco, a senior principal economist at

IHS Global Insight, said the Republicans' proposal was the

kind that caused his clients to ignore the fiscal policy out

of Washington, and rely instead on the Fed to buttress the

recovery.

``Whenever I talk to our customers or clients, they sort of

brush off everything that's related to fiscal policy,'' Mr.

Daco said. ``The view is, 'Oh, it doesn't matter.' That's

what I hear a lot.''

``What we try to convey is that it does matter,'' he said.

``It is important in terms of growth. It's also important in

terms of confidence.''

He noted that the economy was much stronger than Europe's

largely because the United States initially opted for

stimulus measures and allowed deficits to increase when the

recession and financial crisis hit five years ago. European

governments pursued austerity policies to cut their debts,

further stalling economic activity and in turn inflating

deficits.

The more recent austerity policies here are helping to

bring annual deficits down, as a new report of the

Congressional Budget Office shows, after four years of

trillion-dollar shortfalls. Yet many analysts would prefer

that the measures had been timed for when the economy is

strong and unemployment below 7 percent.

``While I agree that the U.S. must get its fiscal house in

order,'' Jerry Webman, chief

economist at OppenheimerFunds, wrote, ``I join the likes of

the I.M.F. in cautioning that too much austerity, too soon,

is likely counterproductive.''

Thank you, very much, Congressman Horsford, and I thank you for your leadership along with Congressman Jeffries in leading the Special Order hour for the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to raise awareness about health disparities that continue to affect racial and ethnic minorities in the United States of America. Despite medical advances that save many lives in our country, there has been very limited progress in ending the racial and ethnic disparities in health. In a 1985 report, the United States Department of Health and Human Services called health disparities in this country ``an affront both to our ideals and to the ongoing genius of American medicine.'' Now, decades later, health disparities still exist between black and white and rich and poor.

A primary reason for these disparities is, quite frankly, the lack of health insurance that has been a problem for all these many years. For instance, African Americans make up 13 percent of the entire population but account for more than half of all people who are uninsured. Blacks also have disproportionately lower access to primary care and face more obstacles in seeking treatment.

Across our Nation, health disparities continue to persist and widen in communities historically marginalized as a result of poverty and other social, economic and environmental barriers. These communities are experiencing a high burden of life-threatening diseases and poor health outcomes.

Population-based approaches such as recent efforts to reduce childhood obesity rates, while showing evidence of success, have been primarily focused on white children in affluent communities. For example, in a report released in 2012 by the CDC, New York showed an overall decline of as much as 10 percent in obesity rates for kindergartners. However, for poor black children, the decline was only 1.9 percent, and for Hispanic children it was 3.4 percent.

In my district in Brooklyn, New York, I represent a very large number of immigrants. Close to 40 percent of the residents are first- and second-generation Americans. Culturally significant and linguistically tailored education is required to address health disparities. This education is one of the building blocks upon which improvements in early detection and screening in these communities have been built.

Health disparities are a serious matter. According to the National Urban League's State of Urban Health report, in 2009, health disparities cost the United States economy $82.2 billion. I firmly believe in prevention and addressing health disparities, and that it will go a long way in bringing these costs down. It is important that we fully engage in a full implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This will lead us to closing these disparities, this health disparity gap.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and, quite frankly, all Members of goodwill to find solid solutions to addressing health disparities in communities of color across this Nation.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district and missed the votes on Tuesday, April 23, 2013.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 118, H.R. 1067--To make revisions in title 36, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current and make technical corrections and improvements, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 119, H.R. 1068--To enact title 54, United States Code, ``National Park Service and Related Programs'', and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 120, Journal Vote.