Martha Roby

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Of course, like so many of my colleagues, I support this measure, but it feels really strange standing here today in defense of living, breathing children, to have to make a case that a baby who survives an abortion and is born into this world should be treated just like a baby born any other way, but, unfortunately, we must. There is currently no law mandating that a baby born alive after a failed abortion receive medical treatment instead of being left to die. That is why we are here, to require, under Federal law nationwide, that a baby born alive after an abortion attempt receives the same care that any other baby would receive. So finally my question, Madam Speaker, to those who would oppose such a measure is this: How is the life of one baby any different or less valuable than the life of another baby? How does anyone justify that? I know that, as Members of Congress, part of our job is to debate with each other about issues facing our Nation. I take that job responsibility very seriously. I just don't believe this particular issue is up for debate. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4712. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, we learned of the Department of Justice's decision to open an investigation in the appalling practice of abortion providers harvesting and trafficking aborted babies' body parts for profit--finally. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues surely remember, in July of 2015, senior Planned Parenthood officials were caught on camera discussing how abortion procedures could systematically be altered in order to preserve certain organs so that they could be sold to researchers. They talked of ``crushing'' here and ``crushing'' there, being careful to preserve little parts of a baby's body because they are valuable on the research market. They talked of menus for organs and how lucrative these arrangements could be. It was sick, callous, and completely inhuman. It also happens to be against the law. Soon thereafter, several of my colleagues and I called for an investigation into these disturbing revelations. But, Mr. Speaker, our demands fell on deaf ears. Attorney General Loretta Lynch turned a blind eye and didn't pursue an investigation. Even after multiple congressional committees referred their own investigations to the authorities at the Department of Justice, nothing was done. At the time, I said it was disappointing, but hardly surprising. We all know how much political weight Planned Parenthood throws around in this town. But, Mr. Speaker, in this country, no one is above the law. That is why I was so pleased to receive word that the Department of Justice, now under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, appears to be following up on the evidence and taking our calls for an investigation seriously. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, who I am proud to say was formerly my chief of staff, requested unredacted documents from the committee's investigation into the suspected harvesting and trafficking of fetal tissue. He said, for now, the documents are for investigative use only, and a formal resolution may be required for further proceedings, such as a grand jury. I appreciate the Department of Justice's attention to this, and I know I am not the only one who will be watching this closely. When the terrible videos first surfaced in 2015, I immediately came to the House floor and stood right here in the well and spoke out about this outrageous activity. Someone later told me I was the first one to speak on the floor, and, Mr. Speaker, I will be the last, if I have to. I said then: ``I promise . . . we are not done talking about this.'' Today, I am glad that has proven to be true.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. Mr. Speaker, our Founders laid out certain rights in our Constitution, not to empower the government, but to empower the people. Certainly among the most fundamental of those rights we have as Americans is to keep and bear arms. H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, simply ensures all law-abiding citizens who meet the requirements to obtain concealed carry permits in their home State can exercise the right to protect themselves in any State, provided that they obey the local concealed carry laws. Mr. Speaker, some opponents of this bill claim that we are somehow making it easier for dangerous unqualified individuals to obtain and carry guns. That is absolutely not true. If a citizen is currently prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm, this bill does nothing to change that. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, others will tell you that we are making it harder for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right. That is not true either. H.R. 38 does nothing to infringe upon anyone's right to keep and bear arms. The bill simply ensures that our current National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is enforced and working properly. Those of us who respect the Second Amendment and dedicate our careers to defending it will always fight to protect this fundamental right from those who would erode it. Mr. Speaker, we also have a responsibility to uphold and enforce our current laws to ensure dangerous people can't obtain weapons. In fact, it is precisely because we want to preserve our Second Amendment right that we must ensure our criminal background check system works properly. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill in order to ensure that those who obtain a concealed carry permit in one State are able to enjoy the freedom in any State and to make sure our current background check system is working the way it was intended to work.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, in the year 1918, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of the year, the armistice ending World War I was signed. Originally known as Armistice Day, Congress passed and President Dwight Eisenhower signed a resolution officially designating November 11 as Veterans Day. Now, every year, Americans pause on this special day to recognize all those, young and old, who have served our country in uniform. While we should honor the service and sacrifice of our veterans every day, this day provides a unique opportunity for us to come together as a nation and pay tribute to the men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedom. This year I will be participating in my hometown of Montgomery's Veterans Day event, and I highly encourage you and your families to attend the festivities in your area. I can promise you that you won't regret it. For me, it is not only an opportunity to express my gratitude to those who have served, but it is also a chance for my children to meet veterans and to better understand the sacrifices that they have made for us. If you can't attend an event in person, I hope you will take time to reach out to friends and relatives who have served and let them know how much you appreciate them. Mr. Speaker, this Veterans Day comes as services for veterans are improving both on a national level and locally in Alabama's Second Congressional District. I have been impressed by the leadership of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. David Shulkin. He has been making the long-troubled department work better for those it serves. Closer to home for me, the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System has improved its service rating and now ranks three out of five stars. This is encouraging news, especially considering that just a few short years ago the Central Alabama VA was one of the Nation's worst. Our VA now has the steady leadership of Dr. Linda Boyle, and there is no question that her guidance has made a difference in making this sustained progress. I am eager to see it continue. We still have significant issues to address at our Central Alabama VA, which is why I will remain actively engaged in working to turn around the system. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to represent a district that is home to one of the Nation's highest concentrations of veterans and retired military personnel. One of the most rewarding parts of this job is being able to advocate for those who have served this Nation in uniform. I take my responsibility to look after veterans very seriously, whether pushing for better policies or fighting to improve access to the VA medical services or going to bat on behalf of someone the bureaucracy has left behind. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by extending my sincere gratitude to everyone who has served this country and their families. Our country is great because of the men and women who were willing to sacrifice on our behalf.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying I am heartbroken and shocked by the terror attack in New York this week. This atrocious act of hatred and violence has no place in this country, and we must make it clear that we will not stand for it. I offer my sincere condolences to every single person who has been impacted by this senseless tragedy. My family and I will be in prayer for everyone who has been hurt by this act, whether physically or emotionally. I also want to thank law enforcement officers who responded so quickly, who saved lives and apprehended the suspect. As scary as this incident was, we can all be reassured by the courage and professionalism of our law enforcement, the military, and the intelligence community that work together to keep our country safe. Madam Speaker, it has been a busy 10 months here in the House of Representatives. We have passed more than 360 bills this year alone in a unified effort to deliver on our promises to the American people. Of course, many of those bills are aimed at rolling back the Big Government policies of the Obama era. So I would like to say we are doing a lot to make sure that the Federal Government does less. As a limited government conservative, I am especially glad that we have taken action to return some of Washington's bureaucratic power to the American people. The last 7 years saw the emergence of a regulatory state that never stopped in its mission to grab power and impose its will at the expense of everyday Americans. This town is overrun with Federal agencies and departments where bureaucrats sit around every day concocting rules and regulations that might sound like a good idea but, in reality, end up weighing down businesses, destroying jobs, and limiting freedom. In his 8 years, President Obama added 18,000 pages to the Federal Register, amounting to 6 pages added every day that he held office. This habit costs American households roughly $15,000 per year, each. While President Obama is no longer in office, his regulatory state is alive and well, but not for long. Madam Speaker, the people of Alabama elected me to help put an end to that, and I am proud to report that is exactly what we are doing. The House is changing the game because the American people deserve better than to pay for unnecessary Big Government mandates. We have utilized the Congressional Review Act to strike 15 Federal regulations that were imposed by executive action. What kind of regulations? One extended intrusive, overreaching, and punitive environmental penalties on energy companies, costing tens of thousands of jobs, but not anymore. One attempted to force State and local schools to use Washington's preferred teacher preparation programs, undermining local control--not anymore. One restricted States' ability to enforce existing laws stopping otherwise able-bodied drug abusers from receiving unemployment benefits--not anymore. One attempted to take away the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans without due process by arbitrarily restricting Social Security disability beneficiaries from purchasing firearms--not anymore. Finally, one attempted to force States to steer millions in Title X funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood, even over the State's objections--not anymore, thank God. These rules no longer exist because this Congress, working together with the Trump administration, struck them one by one. In all, 15 bills rolling back these Big Government policies have been passed and signed into law. Madam Speaker, I am proud of the work the House of Representatives has done, and I hope it can give us momentum for tackling more pressing issues like tax reform and infrastructure.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill, S. 585, the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017. This bill strengthens penalties against those who retaliate against whistleblowers, adds protections and opportunities for whistleblowers placed on probation, and ensures Federal employees have a greater knowledge of whistleblower rights and protections. Specifically, this bill forbids a supervisor from taking or threatening to take action against an employee because they refuse to obey an order that would violate a law, rule, or regulation. I want to thank Senator Ron Johnson for his persistence in pushing this legislation even after the former Senator Harry Reid shut it down last Congress. What a poignant and meaningful gesture to name this bill after Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick, a VA employee who took his own life after being subjected to cruel retaliation from VA officials. I hope it puts in perspective the immense emotional burdens that victims of retaliation face. Mr. Speaker, this issue is personal for me. Unfortunately, I have seen exactly what retaliation against whistleblowers looks like, how easy it is to get away with it, and why we have to put a stop to it. Last week marked the 3-year anniversary since the director of the central Alabama VA became the first senior manager in the country fired as a result of the wait-list scandal. That was a major step towards turning around one of the Nation's worst VA systems and restoring trust with the veteran population it serves. Mr. Speaker, I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it would have never happened without brave whistleblowers inside the VA telling me the truth. Two brave individuals in particular, Sheila Meuse and Rich Tremaine, told me the truth about major instances of misconduct and mismanagement when no one else would. Seeing no other way to achieve change, they finally told their story to the media, at great personal risk to their careers. The stories that emerged from these exposures were almost unbelievable: More than 1,000 X-ray cancer screenings were lost and unread for years, even though some showed malignancies. When alerted to the problem, top administrators tried to cover this up. A pulmonologist manipulated more than 1,200 patient records but, even after being caught twice, was still given a satisfactory review. A central Alabama VA employee took a recovering veteran to a crack house and bought him drugs and prostitutes in order to extort his VA payments. Even when caught, this employee was not fired until a year and a half later when we exposed it in the newspaper. Mr. Speaker, this behavior is egregious, and, trust me, there is a lot more where it came from. However, had it not been for the courage of those on the inside to expose this wrongdoing, the world might not have ever known. To me and to the veterans whose lives they might have saved, they are heroes. But that is not how they were treated by VA officials. They were treated as enemies and outcasts, all because they tried to do the right thing. Rich Tremaine actually testified here before the Veterans' Affairs Committee, detailing the systemic way that some VA officials attempted to silence and marginalize him. The effects of him blowing the whistle on wrongdoing follow him to this day, far away from Montgomery, Alabama. Mr. Speaker, my experience working to clean house at the VA taught me a fascinating and frustrating truth about the culture in some parts of the VA. The system routinely goes out of its way to protect those who don't do their jobs or even harm veterans, but then goes after those who try to stop that misbehavior. For years, because of poorly written civil service laws and powerful unions, too many VA employees got the message that misconduct, negligence, and poor performance would be tolerated, but blowing the whistle on that kind of behavior would not be. I have seen it too many times. All too frequently, VA employees caught for doing the wrong thing are reprimanded, shuffled around to different jobs, or allowed to quietly retire, but those who try to do the right thing by our veterans by shining a light on misconduct are persecuted, intimidated, or worse. While I am proud of the work that we have done for the last 3 years to put an end to this unacceptable culture at the VA, there is much work left to be done. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why Federal employees face retaliation for speaking up. It is not because people are just naturally mean or because there is some kind of misunderstanding. The reason whistleblowers face systemic retaliation is because it works. When a brave whistleblower faces intimidation or persecution for their action, every other employee sees it, and they know what will happen to them if they tell the truth. It has a powerful, chilling effect--one we saw firsthand in Montgomery. They retaliate because it works. That is just wrong, and it is time to punish those who do it with harsher penalties. We need to rethink our civil service laws in this country to make sure public servants live up to the honor and responsibility of the public trust, and I believe that this bill is another positive step in that direction. Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to bring it to the floor by supporting this rule.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to share my strong support for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, or Micah's Law. My colleagues who oppose this bill adamantly defend a mother's ability to have a late-term abortion and a doctor's ability to perform it. But, Madam Speaker, I have heard no mention of the third person in the room: the unborn baby. I am astounded that the opposition chooses to focus solely on the two individuals who can speak for themselves, with no mention of the one who cannot. That is exactly what we are here to do today. We are here to speak up for those who can't speak for themselves. We are here to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Our bill seeks to do this by restricting abortions after 20 weeks, or at the 6th month of pregnancy, the point at which research shows the unborn babies can feel pain. Last week, I, too, had the opportunity to meet the little boy this bill was named for: Micah Pickering. As many of you know, he was born at 22 weeks and spent 4 long months in intensive care. Micah survived, and this year he is in kindergarten. You see, children like Micah, who are born prematurely, are treated as patients. Special care is given to reduce their pain and increase their chances for survival, just as it should be. So, Madam Speaker, my question to those who would oppose this bill is this: What is the difference between a baby born at 6 months outside the womb and a baby at 6 months inside the womb? How can one be treated like a miracle they are created to be and the other be treated like medical waste? If a baby like Micah can survive outside the womb given the appropriate care, shouldn't we give other babies like him the same protection and chance to live? I have listened to my colleagues on the other side call this bill extreme. I say to oppose this bill is extreme. If we won't stop abortions at 6 months of pregnancy when a baby feels pain, when will we stop them? We have to draw a line somewhere. To say aborting a little baby who can actually feel the pain of the procedure being forced upon them crosses the line is a gross understatement. Madam Speaker, I am unapologetically pro-life, and I oppose abortion at any stage. I will always fight to grant greater protections for life under the law. As a society, I pray that we will start assigning greater value to life at all stages in this country. Madam Speaker, so often we get caught up in the policies of this issue and we forget that these are babies, for goodness' sake. They feel pain, and we need to protect them. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and join me in supporting this underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and my fellow Judiciary Committee colleagues for prioritizing cracking down on illegal immigration in the committee this year. All the time, I hear from constituents who are frustrated by this country's unwillingness to address our illegal immigration problem. They are also fed up with hearing politicians promise to do something about it, only to offer excuses later. Mr. Speaker, I believe this Congress and this administration have shown, over the last 9 months, that we are willing to do something about illegal immigration, and this legislation is a great example of our commitment to addressing this problem. When it comes to cracking down on illegal immigration, I believe most of us agree that we should start by targeting dangerous criminals who put Americans at risk. H.R. 3697 is a commonsense measure that does just that by amending existing law to combat gang violence by criminal aliens. Many Americans may hear this and wonder: ``What gang violence?'' The most notorious Latin-American gang is known as MS-13, which began in the 1980s, and has grown to an estimated 8,000 members in the United States. They have a violent history of organized crime in the areas of drug trafficking, kidnapping, human smuggling, sex trafficking, murder, assassinations, blackmail, and extortion. To give you an idea of just how violent MS-13 is, the English translation of their motto is: ``Kill, steal, rape, control.'' Mr. Speaker, gangs of criminal aliens are terrorizing American communities, and it is our responsibility to do something about it. H.R. 3697 will amend the law to finally make a person's history of involvement in a criminal gang grounds for inadmissibility into this country--that means involvement in drugs, sex trafficking, kidnapping, murder, or any other awful crime spelled out in the law. This bill would also allow law enforcement agents to automatically detain and deport anyone found to be a criminal alien gang member. Our first priority must be to keep Americans safe. Our laws and policies should reflect our commitment to this responsibility. H.R. 3697 makes it crystal clear that criminal alien gang members are not welcome in this country, and if they should find themselves here, we are dedicated to getting them off the street.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleague Congressman Mike Rogers to honor Mr. Jeff Rosser for his exceptional career in broadcast journalism and his almost 50 years in television news. Mr. Rosser was named Vice President of Raycom Media Group in Montgomery, Alabama in 1999. He will retire this September after serving 18 years in this distinguished role. Mr. Rosser received his Bachelor of Arts in broadcast journalist from Brigham Young University and went on to work at multiple news outlets across the country in cities including Salt Lake City, Dallas, Tulsa, New York, and Boston. He then served as General Manager at WVTM in Birmingham, KDFW in his hometown of Dallas, and stations in Providence, Ft. Smith, Fayetteville and Oklahoma City. Over the years, Mr. Rosser has been recognized as a leader in his field through many honors including serving on the ABC Affiliate Board of Governors, the National Association of Broadcasters Television Board of Directors, and the FOX Affiliate Board of Governors. Mr. Rosser has been an invaluable asset to Raycom Media Group, being credited with helping to achieve numerous shared services agreements in Raycom markets and now overseeing ten Raycom television stations. He is highly respected among his peers and his talents will not be easily replaced. Television news stations provide a great service to the communities that they reach. A Raycom Media Group affiliate, WSFA in Montgomery, provides Central Alabama with up-to-date, relevant news and I am thankful for Mr. Rosser's role in keeping the people of Alabama informed of what matters most to them. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to join Mr. Rosser's colleagues, family, and friends in congratulating him on his retirement and honoring his successful career. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, and I encourage my colleagues to support this rule. As a pro-life conservative, I have long fought to make sure that taxpayers' dollars aren't being used to fund abortions or to fund abortion providers. Whether it is in the Appropriations Committee or here on the House floor, I have repeatedly made the cause for increasing protections for life under the law. Those fights haven't always been easy, and we haven't won every time. But Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the appropriations bill before us does contain important pro-life provisions. First, the bill states: ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to conduct or support research using human fetal tissue if such tissue is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion.'' We all remember the 2015 scandal that revealed how Planned Parenthood officials were systematically altering abortion procedures in order to preserve the organs of babies to sell them to researchers. I said it at that time, and you don't have to be staunchly pro-life like me to be appalled by the thought of harvesting and trafficking aborted babies' body parts for profit. Our bill will prevent these atrocities from removing any incentives abortion providers might have to harvest and sell babies' organs. Instead, the bill directs agencies to find research using modern, more efficient alternatives to human fetal tissue. To be clear, I am a strong supporter of the National Institutes of Health. Their research is critical for development of lifesaving medical breakthroughs. However, I believe we must set a clear line of distinction between what is acceptable and what is not. Second, the bill expressly prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from steering Title X public health funding to abortion providers. Of course, the Hyde amendment has long made it against the law to actually pay for abortions with taxpayer dollars. But the Obama administration had a bad habit of pushing hundreds of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood in forms of grants and reimbursements for other services. This amounts to a pipeline of funding propping up the Nation's largest abortion provider. It is an abuse of taxpayer money, and I am pleased that this bill cuts it off. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my chairman, Tom Cole, for including these important pro-life provisions in our base bill for the first time. It represents real progress for the pro-life movement, and I will continue to fight to see it through the process. Mr. Speaker, I am unapologetically pro-life, and I believe that every human life is precious and our laws and policies should reflect that.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. James D. Krudop, an exceptional Alabamian who has made an enormous contribution to education in the State of Alabama. Dr. Krudop retired from Lurleen B. Wallace Community College in August, after serving there since 1978. Born and raised in Andalusia, Alabama, Dr. Krudop graduated from Andalusia High School and went on to attain a Bachelor of Science Degree from Auburn University, and both a Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy Degree from The University of Alabama. Dr. Krudop has dedicated his entire professional life to the public education system. Since starting at Lurleen B. Wallace Community College in 1978, Dr. Krudop has served as Dean of Student Affairs, Dean of Students/Administration, Dean of Student Development, Dean of the College, Dean of the College/Second-in-Command, President, Vice President and Dean of Administrative and Instructional Services, Vice President and MacArthur Campus Director, Vice President of the Greenville Campus, and Vice President and Director of the Greenville Campus, Interim President. Dr. Krudop is highly distinguished in his field, having received a number of honor recognitions including the Phi Theta Kappa International Michael Bennett Lifetime Achievement Award, and the Phi Theta Kappa Distinguished Administrator Award. Dr. Krudop has also attained membership and held leadership positions in an array of professional organizations including the Alabama Community College Association, the Alabama College System Financial Management Association, the Alabama College System Deans of Students Affairs Association, the All Alabama Team Program Committee, and the Alabama College Personnel Association. Not only has Dr. Krudop shown unwavering dedication to education, but he has faithfully served his community through public service in both the Andalusia and Greenville Area Chambers of Commerce, the L.V. Stabler Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees, the Rotary Clubs of Andalusia and Greenville, the Andalusia Health Services, Inc. Board of Directors, Andalusia First Baptist Church, and Andalusia City Council. The Alabama Community College System Board of Trustees and the Chancellor of the Alabama Community College System have extended their appreciation to Dr. Krudop for his many years of service to public education by naming him Vice President Emeritus of Lurleen B. Wallace Community College. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to acknowledge Dr. Krudop's impact on his community, the students of Alabama, and to honor him as a distinguished leader in his field.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my full support for H.R. 2353, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. For more than 30 years, Federal funding, known as Perkins funding, has helped support career and technical education programs at the State and local level. This legislation reauthorizes that funding and makes needed improvements to ensure Perkins dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. Mr. Speaker, I am a big believer in career tech programs for three simple reasons: They help prepare students for rewarding careers; they ensure American workers have the tools necessary for skilled trades that are foundational to our society; and they boost our economy by providing a quality workforce. When it comes to higher education, we all know that there has been a silent stigma attached to not completing an academic degree at a 4-year university. For years, we were afraid to say that college isn't for everybody, when the truth is, career tech programs can actually lead many Americans to better quality of life. Thankfully, I believe those days are over. Efforts like Mike Rowe's ``Go Build Alabama'' campaign has been tremendously successful in raising awareness and dispelling myths about the jobs that exist in skilled trades. This rising generation is showing signs of being more entrepreneurial, with a willingness to work outside the box. Our programs have greatly improved over the years to offer training for careers our students are actually interested in. Mr. Speaker, my State of Alabama is blessed with a strong network of community colleges offering a wide array of career training. Alabama Community College System has more than 79,000 students enrolled in CTE programs, and over 70 public high schools in Alabama are now offering CTE courses. They are working hand in glove with industry to make sure that the training matches the jobs that will be waiting for students when they complete their courses. I visited one such program recently in Tallassee, a small town in central Alabama. Tallassee High School administrators have worked tirelessly to build a program that serves the growing needs of local students. The city and county are working together to improve facilities and make sure students have access to transportation. Up until now, students in Tallassee have had to take a bus 30 minutes away to Wetumpka, or even an hour away to Montgomery to Trenholm State, to access these career tech courses. Now, thanks to the hard work of Tallassee's leaders and educators, students are beginning to access these programs right in their own hometown. I visited another thriving career-type program a few months ago in Geneva, a small town in Alabama's Wiregrass region. Geneva High School has partnered with the Alabama National Guard, whose local armory serves as a training site for high-demand skills, such as automotive technology, welding, aviation maintenance, and health science. Students from city and county schools can get ahead on their college coursework via dual enrollment with Lurleen B. Wallace Community College or Enterprise State. Geneva and Tallassee are not alone in their commitment to our students. Dothan's Wallace Community College offers training in 16 high-demand career fields. Wallace takes their programs to the next level by combining traditional study with hands-on experience. Their criminal justice program, for example, utilizes a virtual law enforcement training simulator, the only of its kind on an Alabama college campus. These programs serve as a model, not only for the State of Alabama but for the Nation as a whole. Their successes demonstrate the potential career-type programs hold. Mr. Speaker, this bill is so much more than just funding. It makes important improvements to our career tech policy, including: simplifying the application process that community and State leaders have to navigate in order to receive Federal funds; providing more flexibility to administrators so they can adjust to the needs of the students and the industry; improving accountability and transparency to ensure that the programs that we are funding actually deliver results; and, lastly, ensuring a limited Federal role in education, just as we did in the new K-12 law. Mr. Speaker, with the modern workplace changing at a rapid pace, it is imperative that educators and facilities keep up. With this bill, these programs can continue to successfully connect today's students with the careers of tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to take the next step in career and technical education today. The Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act will help equip our students with skills, knowledge, and experience they need to start their careers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation and support our future workforce.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I think everyone would agree with me when I say that, in the midst of the tragedy and horror last week, there are also special moments that brought us together and reminded us of what is really important. One was right here in this Chamber, where we heard touching speeches from Paul Ryan and Leader Pelosi; another was at the baseball game when the entire Capitol Hill community gathered in an amazing show of support for our friend, Steve Scalise, our Capitol Police officers and their heroic acts; as well as Matt, Zack, David, and Crystal; and all of those who were involved. That spirit of unity and togetherness is a big part of why we play this softball game. Our relationships as Members of Congress are stronger because of this game. I don't think we can have too many reminders about the importance of unity and friendship. I encourage all Members and staff to come join us tonight and go to bat for this great cause. Unlike the baseball game, Republicans and Democrats don't compete against each other. We team up against one opponent we can all agree on: the press. So, beat cancer, beat the press.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to send to the President's desk legislation bringing unprecedented accountability to the VA and badly needed protections for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has worked with whistleblowers to shed light on negligence, abuse, and even criminal activity within the Central Alabama VA, I can tell you that this reform legislation is long overdue. When it comes to the VA scandal that erupted a few years ago, most Americans probably remember Phoenix, Arizona, and the horrendous activity that happened there. Phoenix became the epitome of a nationwide VA accountability problem, and rightly so. However, in many ways, the Central Alabama VA could also be considered a poster child for the need of reform of the Department of Veterans Affairs from top to bottom. It might not have garnered as many headlines as Phoenix, but the nature and extent of the abuse inside the Central Alabama VA was every bit as bad, if not worse. My staff and I worked with courageous whistleblowers and dedicated journalists to pull back the curtain there. Here are just a handful of examples of what we found: More than 900 X-ray cancer screenings, some showing malignancies, were lost and unread for years. When alerted to the problem, top administrators tried to cover it up. A VA pulmonologist manipulated more than 1,200 patient records, but even after being caught twice, was still give an satisfactory review. Perhaps the most disturbing is a Central Alabama VA employee took a recovering veteran to a crack house and bought him drugs and provided him prostitutes in order to extort his VA payments. And even when caught, this employee was not fired, not until 1\1/2\ years later, when we exposed it in the newspaper. The crack incident stands out in my mind for many reasons. First, it still haunts me to my core just how callous and uncaring a person could be to do such a thing to a veteran patient. Second, it illustrates just how complacent the bureaucracy had become to let that behavior slide. And third, it is chilling to think that we would never have even known about it if not for a brave VA employee who walked into my Montgomery office and handed us a copy of the police report. Thankfully, under the 2014 reform law, the director of the Central Alabama VA was fired in the wake of these exposures. That law took an important step toward speeding up the termination process for top officials. But did you know that he remains the only senior official fired as a result of the VA scandal? Mr. Speaker, we all know that law did not go far enough. For one thing, it did not extend the strict accountability standards to rank- and-file employees. Senior managers aren't the only ones responsible for the failures at the VA. There has been a culture of complacency up and down the chain of command for a very long time, and the complicated process for disciplining or removing problem employees only makes it worse. That law also didn't go far enough to protect whistleblowers. There is no question in my mind that without the courage of those who came forward to tell the truth, very little would have changed at the Central Alabama VA, if anything at all, yet those whistleblowers were the very targets of retaliation from supervisors and other officials. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to take that next step on behalf of our veterans and those who are working to serve them. S. 1094, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, grants the VA Secretary the power to fire, demote, or suspend any VA employee no matter their rank. The bill also increases protections for whistleblowers who put themselves at risk to improve the lives and care for veterans. Let me say that most VA employees care a great deal about veterans and work very hard to provide the best service. It is not fair for the hardworking employees of the VA that a few bad actors get to evade punishment. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. David Shulkin, has said he wants greater authority to remove bad employees as he sees fit. It is time for Congress to give him that authority and to let him know what we expect and that we expect him to use it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing by our veterans, to pass this legislation today and send it to the President's desk.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, since the enactment of Dodd-Frank in 2010, a total of 357 financial institutions have been forced out of business. Four community banks in Alabama are on that list. That amounts to nearly $7.5 billion less in Alabama's economy that could be lent to small businesses and farmers. In all, nearly 20 percent of Alabama's community banks have either closed or been forced to merge under Dodd- Frank. Why is this happening? Because homegrown banks can't keep up with the crazy compliance costs that Dodd-Frank mandates. Here is an example: One credit union in Alabama's Wiregrass region, their compliance department size has tripled. They estimate that these new costs have limited their growth by as much as $60 million. That is not right. Hometown lenders in Alabama didn't cause the financial crisis of 2009, but now they and their customers are paying the price. There is no question we need strong laws to govern our financial markets, but Dodd-Frank is not the answer. We now have a chance to fix this broken law, untangle this regulatory web, and unleash the capital investment that is so crucial to economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support the CHOICE Act.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for making our efforts to combat child exploitation and human trafficking a priority on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I was eager to join the Judiciary Committee was to play a role in combating crimes against children. I am proud to serve on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, where, under the leadership of Chairman Trey Gowdy, we are working to protect innocent children, and make sure that those that would do them harm are brought to justice. Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to talk about crimes against children, particularly those that are sexual in nature. Just speaking the term ``global sex tourism'' is enough to send chills up almost anyone's spine. Because this subject is so ugly and uncomfortable, most Americans probably have no idea the extent to which children around the globe are at risk of exploitation. That is what makes it so important that we do talk about it and address the problem head-on. Earlier this year, I met with experts from the Department of Justice to discuss how loopholes in current law are allowing child predators to evade punishment for their abuse of children in the United States overseas. Certain types of sexual contact with children are not explicitly covered under the criminal definition of ``illicit sexual conduct.'' This allows child predators engaged in global sex tourism to evade punishment for acts that are clearly abusive. Also, current sentencing code does not treat contact offenses against child victims under the age of 12 the same as it does against those victims between the ages of 12 and 18. Mr. Speaker, these loopholes were, of course, never intended. Nonetheless, these technical flaws in the law are making it harder for authorities to put serial child abusers away where they belong. H.R. 1862, the Global Child Protection Act, aims to close these loopholes and better equip law enforcement to protect people and punish abusers. Specifically, this bill would expand the definition of ``illicit sexual conduct'' to include ``sexual contact,'' thus allowing authorities to crack down on global sex tourism and punish these criminals. This bill also seeks to protect the youngest child victims by broadening the sentencing code to ensure that all types of contact offenses against children of all ages are treated with the same level of seriousness. To be clear, the current statute criminalizes the act of traveling abroad to do terrible things to children, but it does not criminalize the people who force children to perform sexual acts on them. This bill very simply closes the loophole when it comes to sex tourism and soliciting sexual acts from a minor, to include not just what someone would do to a child, but what they would force a child to do to them. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our strong partners in the White House and the Department of Justice for their commitment to combating exploitation and abuse here in our country and abroad. Last week I went with the chairman and others to the White House to participate in a bipartisan listening session on human trafficking and exploitation hosted by Ivanka Trump. I appreciate Ivanka for inviting me and my fellow lawmakers to be a part of this very important exchange. I believe that her involvement and leadership on this issue can be instrumental to achieving results. Also, it certainly wasn't lost on me that in his first official act after being sworn in, Attorney General Jeff Sessions presented the President with an executive order strengthening the enforcement of Federal law on international trafficking, including human trafficking. We have dedicated law enforcement professionals working hard every day to protect children and punish abusers, and we need to make sure that they have every tool at their disposal to do their job. Mr. Speaker, it is our enduring responsibility to protect those among us who cannot protect themselves. We have an opportunity to do that today by passing the Global Child Protection Act and getting one step closer to closing these loopholes. Of course, my bill is just part of a slate of Judiciary Committee bills aimed to combat child exploitation and human trafficking. I urge my colleagues to approve all of these bills and to take action toward stopping this growing problem in this country and abroad.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a report on my recent travels to Afghanistan, where our Armed Forces remain engaged at a critical front of the global war on terrorism. I have been a part of several congressional delegations to Afghanistan to survey conditions there, particularly as it concerns the progress being made by Afghan women and girls to attain equal rights. I was honored once again to lead a delegation of my colleagues to the region to conduct oversight of American operations and better inform our efforts here in Congress to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to fund and support our military. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 15 years since American and allied forces invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime and stamp out the terrorist breeding ground it harbored. Many brave Americans have given their lives in the struggle to defeat the al-Qaida terrorist threat and protect our homeland. It is incumbent on us as a nation to honor their sacrifice by never allowing it to be in vain. So much has been given and, because of that, so much has been gained. There is no question in my mind that our country is safer and the world is freer because of the work our military has done and continues to do in Afghanistan. That is an important truth I am reminded of in a powerful way each time I visit Afghanistan, and I am compelled to share it with my colleagues here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I have said for years that the test for our success in Afghanistan going forward is the preservation of the gains made by women and girls. Having observed the treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan over many years now, I can tell you that the progress today is as fragile as ever. There is good news. New laws criminalize violence toward women and offer them unprecedented legal protections. Girls are attending school and going to college. Women are working in government, serving in the military, in the police force, and even running for office. There is an Afghan Women's Chamber of Commerce that specifically works to see that women are incorporated into the nation's economic future. For American women like me who grew up with parents telling me I could achieve anything I wanted to, those kinds of things are commonplace. For Afghan women who grew up in a culture that has subjugated them to second-class citizenship or worse, these activities are nothing short of extraordinary. Centuries of repression are being reversed, and a new generation of women that expects and demands basic rights is taking hold. During our visit, our delegation was honored to meet with the Afghan First Lady, Mrs. Ghani, and many other women leaders. We discussed the opportunities now available to Afghan women that weren't conceivable 50 years ago under the Taliban, and most importantly they explained just how critical these gains are to the overall stability of Afghanistan. While it is certainly encouraging to listen to these remarkable stories of hope and progress, there exists a deep concern among Afghan women about seeing these important gains backslide and their rights erode. In fact, in some areas of the country, this is already happening. The Taliban's resurgence amid the drawdown of coalition forces presents a major threat that we must acknowledge. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow the gains we have made in Afghanistan to fall by the wayside. We know all too well what can happen when radical oppressive ideologies are allowed to fester in hostile nations. Make no mistake: because freedom and fairness for Afghan women is essential to the security of our Nation, it is also crucial to our own. That is why I am pleased that President Trump is reviewing our strategy in Afghanistan, including a reevaluation of troop levels and our rules of engagement. Simply put, if we are going to be in Afghanistan, we need to be willing to do what it takes to succeed. Of course, the Afghan people must take the reins of their country's future, but the United States will play a key role in ensuring a lasting peace. Right now I fear we have tied the hands of our military through reduced force strength and limited rules of engagement. We should never send our military men and women into harm's way without the tools and resources they need to get the job done. Reevaluating our force strength and rules of engagement is the right decision, and I look forward to hearing from President Trump and Secretary Mattis as the NATO summit approaches. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that Congress was able to deliver a comprehensive appropriations bill that properly funds our military. Funding the government by short-term extensions takes away the Pentagon's ability to plan for the future. With everything going on in the world right now, including the situation in Afghanistan, we cannot hinder our commanders with financial uncertainties. One of the reasons I was so eager to serve on defense appropriations was having the opportunity to reverse military cuts that made no sense. For the last several years, we have been in constant tension with the Obama administration, whose sequestration policy threatened to hollow out our military. But not anymore. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who joined me on the delegation.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the House, this week, is taking action to support our law enforcement officers and their families as we mark National Police Week. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to law enforcement officers at all levels: State and local police officers, sheriffs, firefighters, first responders, and our Federal agents. They all put their lives on the line to keep this country and our communities safe. Congress must always ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the proper tools and resources to get the job done, and I am honored to play a role in this important work through my service on the Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, and Science. But, Mr. Speaker, law enforcement officers need more than equipment and funding. They need our support. They need our support because they are under attack. The last few years have seen a disturbing uptick in the instances of police being targeted by violent criminals just because they are wearing a badge. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, at least 64 police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty last year, 21 of which were ambush-style killings. Attacks in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Chicago, and other places were chilling reminders of the dangers these brave individuals face when they go to work. It is time to send a clear, strong message: If you kill a law enforcement officer, you will be brought to justice and punished to the full extent of the law. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act. Under current law, killing a Federal law enforcement officer is an aggravating factor when considering a death sentence for the offender, just as it should be. However, the same deterrent and prosecution is not extended to State and local police officers, firefighters, or first responders. The Thin Blue Line Act would change this by making the murder of local law enforcement an aggravating factor when considering a death sentence. Mr. Speaker, had this provision been in place just 4 years ago, it would have applied to the Boston bombing case when the bombers killed a local campus officer. It would also apply when State and local officers serve on joint law enforcement task forces. States all over the country are taking action to support law enforcement through stronger protection for officers and stricter penalties for criminals, and I believe Congress should do the same.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me say how grateful I am for the leadership of Chairwoman Foxx in the Education and the Workforce Committee. She and her staff have been instrumental in advancing this bill. I also want to thank my friend, my colleague from Alabama, Bradley Byrne, who serves as the chair on the Workforce Protections Subcommittee. He has been a champion for commonsense policies in the workplace, and I appreciate his hard work. Mr. Speaker, today's workforce is more diverse than ever, especially as it concerns working parents. More than 70 percent of mothers today work outside of the home; and that is different from 50 years ago, when that number was less than 30 percent. But while the workforce has changed quite a bit, our policies and laws that govern the workplace have not. As a working mom myself, I understand all too well how challenging it can be to balance career and family. Ask any working parent, and they will tell you just how precious their time is. They will tell you that they just need one more hour in the day to be able to take care of their family and all of those responsibilities that come with it. I always say, Congress can't legislate another hour in the day, but we can update our laws to allow more choice and fairness in how employees use their time. That is why I am proud to bring to the floor H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill does three important things: it removes outdated and unnecessary Federal restrictions on the use of comp time in the private sector; it provides flexibility for working moms and dads who need more time to spend taking care of their family responsibilities; and it demonstrates how commonsense conservative principles can help Americans in their everyday lives. Here is how it works: an hourly wage employee would be able to voluntarily enter into an agreement with their employer to put a portion of their accrued overtime towards paid time off instead of extra cash. An employee could simply use the time-and-a-half overtime that they earned to take a paid hour and a half off of work instead of the extra money if that is what they wanted. Ask yourselves: Should a working dad be forced to use up all of his vacation time in order to get involved in his child's school? Should a military mom, with her husband deployed, have to dip into her sick leave to make sure her kids have the support they need? Should someone with aging parents who require extra care have no option allowing them to devote more time and attention to their loved ones when they need it most? Under the Working Families Flexibility Act, those working moms and dads could have the option of using their accrued overtime toward paid time off, allowing them to take care of these responsibilities without losing the paycheck that they count on. Mr. Speaker, for anyone who works in the public sector, this comp time system probably sounds familiar. That is because, since 1985, government employees have had access to comp time benefits. Why should the rules be different? If it is good enough for the government employees, why is it not good enough for the private sector? H.R. 1180 fixes this disparity by allowing for greater choice and fairness over how workers use their time. I have sponsored this bill for three straight Congresses now, so I am well aware of the criticism from the labor unions and their allies. They try to say this bill is somehow antiunion or antiworker. This is simply untrue. Of course, the truth is, many Big Labor groups will reflexively attack any proposal that would change a single word of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ironically, labor unions themselves can, and often do, negotiate similar agreements for their members already. So I want to just go over a few of these criticisms quickly. Critics of this bill, as has already been stated in this debate, will tell you that it will somehow result in employees working longer hours for less pay. That is not true. The decision to receive comp time is completely voluntary. An employee who prefers to receive cash payment for overtime hours is always free to do so. Workers can withdraw from a comp time agreement whenever they choose. An employee who changes their mind or just can't work out with their employer when to use compensatory time can say, ``You know what? I would rather have the cash payments that I accrued in my overtime,'' and the employer must provide that within 30 days. All existing protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act are maintained, including the 40-hour workweek, and how overtime compensation is accrued. Critics of this bill also say that it will allow employers to control when workers take their comp time. That is also not true. It is up to the employee to decide when to use his or her comp time. It is their time. My time is running out. There are other myths, and I hope during this debate that we will be able to go through what is myth, and what is fact, and I am happy to address that at any time. I want to thank again the chairwoman for her support, for her willingness to move this bill through committee. We have got big issues in this country to deal with right now: health care, funding the government, tax reform. And as we continue to work on those issues--and we will--nothing should stop us from doing what we can right now to help make life a little easier for moms and dads. The Working Families Flexibility Act does that by helping Americans better balance the demands of family and work. After all, this is their time.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman's comments that he just made, it is well worth repeating: this bill actually strengthens protections for workers and increases penalties for abuse. It contains in it strong anticoercion provisions. We have to be factual about what is actually in the bill. This bill prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly, as suggested by the gentleman, trying to intimidate or coerce workers. Employers found to have coerced employees would be liable to those employees for double damages. Of course, in response to the previous statements, all existing enforcement remedies, including action by the U.S. Department of Labor, are available to workers if an employer failed to pay cash wages for overtime hours or unreasonably refuses to allow workers to use their accrued comp time.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point the gentleman to page 4 of the bill, in section 4, beginning on line 21: ``An employer that provides compensatory time under Paragraph 1 to employees shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of . . . '' And then it goes through ``requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.'' If you turn to page 7 of the bill, under section 3, remedies, subsection F, it directly addresses the damages.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in addition: You are saying that it is the same remedies under the current law. But you have to remember, the cash-out provisions are also a strengthening of employees' rights under this bill; that at any time that the employee wishes to cash out, within 30 days, the employer must honor that and provide the accrued overtime and cash wages.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman, and again, I appreciate her leadership for moving this bill through committee and for getting it ready through the Rules Committee so that we can be here on the floor tomorrow. Again, I appreciate her leadership on this and many, many other issues that she does on a daily basis to fight for Americans, in this case, Americans that are subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act that would benefit from this amendment in the private sector. I want to go back. I have two more myths that I would like to address. Here is the myth: the Working Families Flexibility Act will allow employers to force workers to take comp time instead of cash payments for overtime. The fact is that the Working Families Flexibility Act prohibits worker coercion. The decision to use compensatory time is completely voluntary. An employee who prefers to receive cash payments for overtime hours worked is always free to do that. It explicitly prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly intimidating, threatening, or coercing; or attempting to intimidate, threaten, or coerce an employee into taking or not taking compensatory time. An employer who violates these anticoercion provisions will be liable to the affected employee for double damages which includes both the amount of the comp time and an equal amount in cash wages. In addition to new provisions prohibiting coercion, H.R. 1180 ensures all existing enforcement remedies, including action by the Department of Labor, and are available to workers if an employer fails to pay cash wages for the overtime hours worked. Myth: this bill is unnecessary because current law already allows for workplace flexibility. The fact is that the Working Families Flexibility Act empowers workers with more options. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, private sector employees may only use paid time off during the same paid period in which it is accrued. Paid time off cannot be saved by the employee for future use outside of that pay period. The law currently allows public sector employees to accrue comp time to be used at their discretion so long as reasonable notice is given and the leave does not unduly disrupt the workplace. My amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Working Families Flexibility Act, H.R. 1180, provides private sector employees with comp time benefits similar to what is already available in the public sector. Here is how it works: an hourly wage employee would be able to voluntarily enter into an agreement with their employer to put all of some of their accrued overtime towards paid time off instead of cash wages. A working dad could use the time-and-a-half overtime he has earned to take a paid hour and a half off of work. No employee, again, could ever be forced to take the paid time off, just like no business would be forced to offer this benefit. Upon introducing this bill 4 years ago, I heard from a very special lady named Karen DeLoach. She worked as a bookkeeper in an accounting firm of my hometown, Montgomery, Alabama. Like most in her line of work, Karen would put in many hours during the busy season and build up a lot of overtime. Karen once approached her boss and said: Well, can I accrue my overtime to use as paid leave rather than taking the cash payments? Because, see, Karen gave her time to serve on a mission trip in Nicaragua every summer, and she wanted to do so and go on her church's mission trip without interrupting her regular paycheck. Montgomery, Alabama, is the State capital, and Karen had heard her State employee friends talk about how they swapped their overtime pay for comp time in their jobs. She never imagined that a similar arrangement at the private business at which she worked would be against the law, but that is what her boss informed her. He wanted to give it to her, but he couldn't under the law. To his credit, he wanted to offer it to her, but he wasn't about to break the law. Karen's story isn't unique. As I have already referenced, just think of all the parents in this country with young kids or caring for elderly parents or a military family with one or both of the parents deployed or about to deploy. They need time to get ready to take care of their responsibilities. So the Working Families Flexibility Act is not going to end or solve the debt crisis or fix ObamaCare or simplify the Tax Code. I am proud of our ongoing efforts here in Congress to repeal and replace ObamaCare, to put forth a tax policy that is fair, flatter, and simpler, and to continue to cut out wasteful spending. This bill doesn't solve those problems. But the fact that we can't solve those problems overnight shouldn't stop us here in the House of Representatives from doing what we can do right now to help make life a little easier for working moms and dads. That is what the Working Families Flexibility Act does, helping Americans better balance the demands of family and work. I want to thank all those Members who have come here to the floor tonight to speak on this bill. As a working mom myself, I certainly understand all too well how challenging it can be to balance our responsibilities. Again, I have sponsored this bill this Congress, of course, and the past two before that. I have heard criticism from labor unions and their allies saying that this bill is somehow antiunion or antiworker. This is just simply untrue. Of course, many in Big Labor will reflexively attack any proposal that would change a single word of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ironically here, labor unions, see, they oppose this, but they themselves can and often do negotiate similar agreements for their members already. That seems a bit unfair. So it is okay for those who are members of unions to negotiate similar compensatory time arrangements, it is okay for those who work in the public sector under the law to utilize compensatory time, but it is just not good enough for the hourly wage employee in the private sector. That is more than unfair. The legislation is completely voluntary for both the employer and the employee. It does not affect the 40-hour workweek or change the way overtime is calculated. It strengthens provisions for workers and increases penalties for abuse. It contains strong anticoercion provisions that would prohibit an employer from directly or indirectly trying to intimidate or coerce workers into taking comp time. Workers have the option under the Working Families Flexibility Act to cash out at any time. If for some reason this agreement, this voluntary agreement, just isn't working out, an employee can always take the cash, no questions asked. And, finally, for workers represented by a labor union, any comp time arrangement would have to be negotiated under this bill as part of the collective bargaining agreement, just as they already do. Mr. Speaker, as I finish tonight, I just want to say again, as a mom, a working mom, a family where both parents work outside of the home, I certainly understand for some of us the time, our time, the time that has been accrued by an hourly wage employee, is more important than the cash wages. That may not be true for everybody. That remains in that the employee can determine what he or she wants to do with their time. Again, I am grateful for the many people who have worked so hard on this bill over the years. I am grateful for the opportunity to represent Alabama's Second District and to represent so many hardworking American families here tonight in this hour. I look forward to the debate tomorrow here on the floor on this bill. I would urge all of my colleagues to please vote in favor of H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.