Martha Roby

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you. I yield to the gentleman from New York as much time as he would like to consume, but we do have to be done in about 10 minutes.

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

Mrs. ROBY. We face a budget crisis in this country. America is broke. Without bold action, our budget situation will get worse, not better. We also face a severe economic recession. The current national unemployment rate is 9.0 percent, and it has been as high as 10.1 percent back in April of 2009. With so many Americans out of work, the Federal Government should be doing everything in its power to encourage economic growth--not discourage it. Cutting spending is critical to creating a pro-growth environment. Cutting spending is essential to free market job creation. House Republicans are the only group in Washington showing leadership on this issue. We have voted repeatedly to cut spending in the short term, and we have passed a budget that would reduce spending by $6.2 trillion over 10 years. By contrast, it has been more than 750 days since Senate Democrats have even passed a budget. Recently, Senator Reid said: ``There's no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion. It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.'' That is a breathtaking statement for two important reasons: First, the Senate is required by law under the Congressional Budget Act to pass a budget. Second, working families all across America live within their means every single day by following a family budget. It's simple. They don't spend what they don't have. So I ask: Why shouldn't Democrats in the Senate live by the same rule? Now the White House is asking us to raise the debt limit and Secretary Geithner wrote, ``Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary.'' The White House wants a clean increase in the debt limit. That means they want Congress to approve more debt without cutting back on any spending. That is a failed policy. The vote we took tonight is a clear indicator that House Republicans reject that approach. Our message is clear. We will not vote to raise the debt limit without significant reforms to change the culture of spending in Washington. If the White House wants us to consider raising the debt limit, they should be at the table proposing significant reforms that yield trillions, not billions, in savings to the American people. So far, that has not happened. Tomorrow, the President has invited House Republicans to the White House to discuss the debt ceiling. His request for a clean increase in the debt limit was rejected tonight. I hope that tomorrow the President will offer serious proposals to cure Washington's addiction to spending. No lip service. No gimmicks. No smoke and mirrors. The American people don't want more political posturing. Real spending cuts. A true commitment to that is what will spur job creation and get our economy back on track. I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado for as much time as he may consume.

Mrs. ROBY. I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois for such time as he may consume.

Mrs. ROBY. I thank the gentleman. I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas as much time as he may consume.

Mrs. ROBY. I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mrs. ROBY. Absolutely. You know, everywhere we go we hear about this job-killing legislation that is keeping small business owners, even those that have the ability to create jobs, fearful to do so because they don't know which regulation they are going to be hit from next, what legislation we are going to pass to find out what's in it is coming their way. So I hear it all the time. It is stifling to our economy. We need to create, we need to make sure that we are creating an environment so that the private sector can create the jobs and not rely on the government. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, very respectfully, from the gentleman from Ohio. I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and his staff for agreeing to allow me and others the opportunity to debate this specific amendment. The Air Force recently made a decision to combine two programs that fall under the Air Force Program Executive Office. EIS, currently located at Gunter Annex, Alabama, and ELS, located at Wright-Paterson Air Force Base, would be consolidated at Gunter. Basically, the job of EIS is to design, acquire, install, and maintain operation support systems for the Air Force and the Department of Defense. And the job of the ELS is to empower the warfighter to leverage information as an effective weapon. It makes good common sense for the management of these functions to be consolidated. Additionally, Air Force Materiel Command has approved this decision, and Congress should allow this decision to move forward. My understanding is that no jobs from Wright-Paterson would be transferred, only the management of Air Force Logistics Systems would be removed from Wright-Paterson, where it has been for only 2 years. This management role of acquiring and sustaining enterprise-wide logistics systems would return to Gunter, where it had been located for more than 20 years. However, the Turner amendment would require a cost- benefit analysis of the consolidation that would then need to be approved by the House Armed Services Committee, and this action would be costly and further bind the hands of our military commanders. It is very important to note that the 2005 BRAC Commission Report showed that doing these operations at Gunter is more cost effective than at Wright-Paterson. Therefore, there is no need for another costly, drawn-out study. It is important for us to allow our military commanders to make decisions that help the warfighter by increasing efficiencies when completing their mission. If we adopt this amendment, it will represent congressional interference in a decision that our commanders and the United States Air Force have already made. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to say, again, that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' The Air Force has made it clear that this is the consolidation that they want, that it is efficient for their operations at Gunter Annex. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I quote, ``Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'' Senator Barack Obama, March 16, 2006. Mr. Speaker, cutting spending is critical to creating jobs. Without bold action, our budget situation will get worse, not better. House Republicans are the only group in Washington showing leadership on this issue. We have voted repeatedly to cut spending. And we have passed a budget that would reduce spending by $6.2 trillion over 10 years. By contrast, it's been more than 750 days since Senate Democrats passed a budget. Last week, Senator Reid said, ``There's no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion. It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.'' By law, the Senate is required under the Congressional Budget Act to pass a budget. Now the White House is asking us to raise the debt limit. Secretary Geithner wrote, ``Never in our history has Congress failed to raise the debt limit when necessary.'' But what good is a debt limit that is always increased? The truth is that Democrats spent this money. They made this mess. And now they should help us clean it up. If the White House wants us to consider raising the debt limit, they should be at the table proposing significant reforms that yield trillions, not billions, in savings to the American people. So far, that has not happened.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, last week my home State of Alabama faced the worst natural disaster in the history of the State. My immediate thoughts go out to the families impacted by the storm, as well as my thanks to the men and women on the ground assisting in recovery efforts. As of May 1, the Alabama Emergency Management Agency has confirmed 250 fatalities in Alabama from the April 27 storm. Although the Second Congressional District dodged the full force of the storm, Elmore County sustained significant damage and, tragically, the loss of six lives. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of those who lost loved ones. Since the storm, I have had the opportunity to tour the affected areas in my district and meet with the hardworking men and women working on recovery efforts. Working quickly with Governor Bentley and the Alabama delegation, we requested shortly after the storm for the President to sign a major disaster declaration, which I am grateful that he immediately did. Over the next coming months, I will continue to work with the Governor, the Alabama delegation, and the administration to ensure that critical resources and assistance is getting to those impacted by this horrific disaster. Once again, the citizens of Alabama are in my thoughts and my prayers for them to get through such a difficult time.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor today to stand on the House floor as one of the sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution 36. Since coming to Congress, I have come to the floor several times to talk about my stance on abortion and the need to defund Planned Parenthood, and I am pleased to be a part of the lead on this important issue today. Mr. Speaker, I am unapologetically pro-life and will continue to do what is necessary to protect the lives of the unborn. Every 2 minutes, a life is lost because of an abortion. That adds up to 3,300 lives a day or 1.2 million a year. I believe I have an obligation to do everything I can to fight for the unborn and to prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the piece of legislation in front of us today. It would prevent Federal funds in H.R. 1473 from going to Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides more abortions than any other organization in the United States. About one of every four U.S. abortions is performed at a Planned Parenthood location or one of their affiliates. Data shows that since 1970, Planned Parenthood has performed at least 5.3 million abortions, and that includes over 332,000 abortions in 2009 alone. Planned Parenthood has made plain the centrality of abortion to its mission, mandating that every affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions within the next 2 years. My colleagues opposed to this piece of legislation will claim that the money that Planned Parenthood has been receiving is not used for abortion. I disagree. Money is fungible. By taking away Federal funds from Planned Parenthood, they will have to spend more of their private money on basic services and overhead costs rather than diverting those funds toward abortions. From 2000 to 2009, Planned Parenthood saw an 80 percent increase in taxpayer funding that resulted in a 69 percent increase in the number of abortions and a 61 percent decrease in the number of adoption referrals. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on preventing Planned Parenthood access to Federal funds in fiscal year 2011.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 124, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.) Legislative Program

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. ROBY. I rise in support of the amendment. I oppose funding to Planned Parenthood. We should not be giving Federal funds to groups like Planned Parenthood that used the money for abortions. Planned Parenthood has recently made plain the centrality of abortion to its mission, mandating that every affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions within the next 2 years. Additionally, it is beyond shocking that Planned Parenthood employees were recently found on video aiding and abetting in the alleged sex trafficking of minors. This is not the first time that Planned Parenthood has shown such shocking behavior. It happened in my home State of Alabama back in 2009. A Planned Parenthood counselor was caught on hidden camera telling an alleged 14-year-old statutory rape victim that the clinic does sometimes bend the rules a bit rather than report sexual abuse to State authorities. Two years later, we are still seeing this outrageous behavior by Planned Parenthood employees. It is time to stop funding such an organization with taxpayer dollars. Planned Parenthood ignores statutory rape law reporting, pushes abortion procedures, and opposes any effort to elevate the legal status of a fetus at any stage of development. It is not a proud day that citizens learned that these activities have been continually funded by the Federal Government. It is even a worse day when we are told that our government has funded Planned Parenthood with more than $363 million in government grants and contracts. The continual action by Planned Parenthood and its employees is demeaning for women and a black eye for our society. Planned Parenthood in Kansas claims to be a trusted source of health care and education for thousands of women, men and children; yet it was charged with 107 criminal counts, including failure to report sexual abuse and falsifying documents in order to perform illegal late-term abortions. Planned Parenthood in California has privately admitted to overcharging the State and Federal Government by at least $180 million for birth control pills despite internal and external warnings that its billing practices were improper. Planned Parenthood in Indiana has been accused of endangering the safety and well-being of minor girls by intentionally circumventing State parental involvement laws and breaking State laws by refusing to report statutory rape. Funding must be stopped. Planned Parenthood must not be granted any more taxpayer dollars to push their agenda to take away the rights of the unborn. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pence amendment and stop the funding of Planned Parenthood. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. I oppose increased funding for title X. We should not allocate Federal funds to groups like Planned Parenthood that use the money for abortion. Planned Parenthood has recently made plain the centrality of abortion to its mission, mandating that every affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions within the next 2 years. Additionally, it is beyond shocking that Planned Parenthood employees were recently found on video aiding and abetting in the alleged sex trafficking of minors. This is not the first time that Planned Parenthood has shown such shocking behavior. It happened in my home State of Alabama back in 2009. A Planned Parenthood counselor was caught on hidden camera telling an alleged 14-year-old statutory rape victim that the clinic ``does sometime bend the rules a little bit'' rather than report sexual abuse to State authorities. Two years later, we are still seeing this outrageous behavior by Planned Parenthood employees. It is time to stop funding such an organization with taxpayer dollars. Planned Parenthood ignores statutory rape law reporting, pushes abortion procedures, and opposes any effort to elevate the legal status of a fetus at any stage of development. It is not a proud day that citizens learn that these activities have been continually funded by the Federal Government. It is an even worse day when we are told that our government has funded Planned Parenthood with more than $363 million in government grants and contracts. Since fiscal year 1998, title X has seen increased funding for 10 of the 12 years. From fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2010, title X funding has increased by over 56 percent. In appropriations for fiscal year 2010, title X saw a 3.3 percent increase in funding, which was a $10 million increase over 2009 funding. This is unacceptable spending at a time that we must cut Federal spending. The continual action by Planned Parenthood and its employees is demeaning for women and a black eye on our society. Funding must be stopped. We should not spend any more taxpayer dollars to push Planned Parenthood's agenda to take away the rights of the unborn. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment to add money to title X. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. ROBY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 72. Since becoming a Member of Congress, there has been a recurring theme in almost all of my meetings with constituents, the overreaching and burdensome nature of regulatory authority in Federal agencies. In my committee work just this week, I heard about the difficulties and the haphazard nature in which Dodd-Frank is being implemented and the negative impact of regulations in health care, education, and the National Labor Relations Board. It is obvious that the problem is not limited to one agency or industry, but is a growing trend by the administration in their approach to implementing regulations. I would like to take a moment to talk specifically about the Environmental Protection Agency's boiler MACT ruling. It would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it is estimated that the cost to the paper and pulp industry would be over $5.5 billion in capital and $1.2 billion in annualized costs. The boiler MACT ruling is only one in a long line of troubling rulemaking decisions by the EPA and other agencies. Farmers have continually been faced with overreaching decisions such as rulings on pesticides, regulations of concentrated animal feeding operations, and nonpoint source pollution, to name a few. Alabama has a strong presence of agriculture, and I look forward to Congress exerting their oversight.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 72. Since becoming a Member of Congress, there has been a reoccurring theme in almost all of my meetings with constituents--the overreaching and burdensome nature of the regulatory authority of Federal agencies. Regardless if the meeting is with farmers, business owners, factory and mill workers, energy producers, doctors and teachers, all of them have been negatively impacted by unbalanced decisions by Federal agencies. All these groups want is fair, reasonable and balanced decisions. In my Committee work this week, I heard in the House Agriculture Committee about the difficulties in the haphazard nature in which Dodd-Frank is being implemented. In the House Committee on Education and Workforce, I heard testimony regarding the negative impact of regulations in health care, education, and the National Labor Relations Board. It is obvious that the problem is not limited to one agency or industry, but a growing trend by the Administration in their approach to implementing regulations. I like to take a moment and talk specifically about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology for boilers. It is not even clear that the technology the EPA is requiring even currently exists. I have heard from several groups both here in DC and back in the district that the ruling would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs at a cost of tens of billions of dollars in cost in implementing the rule. For example, it could result in the loss of 17,000 jobs in mills and 55,000 jobs in surrounding communities in the pulp and paper industry. It is estimated the cost to the industry would be over $5.5 billion in capital and $1.2 billion in annualized cost. New air regulations could total about $4 billion annually, which is over 4 times the entire industry's profit in 2008. This would eliminate the industry and push jobs overseas leaving us relying on foreign markets for products. The Boiler MACT ruling is only one in a long line of troubling rule- making decisions by the EPA and other agencies. In my State of Alabama, that has a strong presence of agriculture, farmers have continually been faced with over-reaching decisions such as rulings on pesticides, regulations of concentrated animal feeding operations, ruling on genetically engineered crops, definition of navigable waters and nonpoint source pollution, to name a few. We cannot continue to be faced with regulations that are not consistent, that overly impede on particular industries, discourage innovation and eliminate jobs and businesses. I look forward to Congress exerting their oversight power and to reign in the Federal agencies. Congress must ensure that we have regulations that are done fairly in a balanced manner to ensure the safety and health of the American people while controlling for overly burdensome cost on our society.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with my colleagues in support of H.R. 2 that will repeal the Health Care Reform Act. Sadly, this law is less about providing health care for all citizens and more about expanding Federal Government. It translates into substantial cost, over $500 billion, that must be paid for by hardworking, tax-paying Americans. In economic hard times, it is our responsibility to ensure that this does not occur. If we do not repeal this law, our inaction will serve as nothing less than gross fiscal irresponsibility. This must not happen. I want to tell you about the owner of the Pizza Hut in Headland, Alabama, who will be forced to close his doors due to the costs associated with this law. Then there is the gentleman who owns pharmacies throughout the Southeast, who told me he has the ability to create two jobs but who cannot do so because he doesn't know what the Federal Government is going to do to him next. Just like our forefathers answered the call to right wrongs, we too must answer a call. The citizens in our districts have spoken, and in their words, We must repeal this law.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago I took part in a reading of the U.S. Constitution in this Chamber. It was a fitting tribute to the great social contract between the American people and our government. The Constitution is an exceptional document, and we have all taken an oath to defend it, and defend it we must. Too often, our Constitution is under attack by the liberal activist movement that seeks to achieve through the courts that which they cannot achieve at the ballot box. On the front line are the unelected judges that disregard the words and meaning of the Constitution in favor of their own political and social views. They decide cases not on the law and the facts but on the outcome that they alone believe to be the best policy. Roe v. Wade is an example of this sort of judicial activism at its worst. Together with other cases, the Roe court created a fundamental right to abortion even though a simple reading of the Constitution reveals no such right. As a result, unimaginable harm has occurred. In the short time that I have talked tonight, another baby has been aborted. That equals one abortion every 2 minutes, 3,300 abortions a day, or 1.2 million abortions a year. Mr. Speaker, I am unapologetically pro-life. I believe that the miracle of human life begins at conception. I believe that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, ``knit together'' by God in our mother's womb. I believe that every American is entitled to basic human rights. And I believe that I have an obligation to do everything I can to fight for the unborn, to prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions, and to protect our democratic system from the encroachment of an all-powerful judiciary. Let us use this 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade as an occasion to reaffirm our beliefs and redirect ourselves to that cause.

Mrs. ROBY

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is on an unsustainable path. Over the last 2 years, all we have seen from Washington is more spending, more borrowing, and more debt. The American taxpayer has been burdened with $3 trillion worth of bailouts and buyouts. Never before has the government spent so much while the people received so little. One of the goals of the transition team was to restore fiscal responsibility to Congress. And I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for his leadership on that transition team. Working families all across America have been forced to tighten their belts during this economic downturn. The Congress should be no different. Our proposal would cut Members' representational allowances by 5 percent. It will save the American taxpayer at least $35 million annually over the next year. No one is suggesting that this is a silver bullet. In fact, it is far from it. Reducing our soaring debt will require this Congress to deeply commit to the tough choices that will be required to put our Nation back on track. But, in many ways, our budget woes began in this Chamber. And so, too, should they end. This resolution is a symbolic start to this process.