Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I bring forward today deals specifically with reforms that many States have made. I will talk specifically about reforms that have been made in my great State of Louisiana, especially as it relates to teacher evaluation. Specifically, what my amendment would do would be to remove the mandate that is in the legislation that requires States to adopt the Federal rule on teacher evaluation. The reason I say that is not just because Louisiana has a highly successful teacher evaluation program that is working very well for the people of Louisiana, but in general, when you look at the successes that we've seen across the country as it relates to education reform, it has been State and local governments that have driven those great successes. That is because the States are the incubators, and our States and local governments are the most accountable to the parents who have most at stake in concern for the children's education. The amendment specifically makes sure that there can be no mandate by the Federal Government, especially one that would override what is being done at the State level. I have seen very closely in my State--in fact, when I was in the State legislature, we passed some dramatic education reforms. When you look at the city of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, before the hurricane, it was probably one of the most failed, corrupt public education systems in the Nation. Because we made reforms--not only at the State, but at the local level--where we created charter schools, we had so much innovation that now other States across the country are looking to what we did as a model for how to transfer or merge urban education. Parents are actually much more involved in their children's education because they have a real stake, they have real choices to give their children, better educational opportunities, and I don't want to see that interfered with by anything that might come out of the Federal Government. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to address a few of the points that were made by my friend from Colorado. He said, ``It's hard to get evaluations right.'' I actually agree with him on that statement. If that's the case, then the question we are posed with is: Who is best suited to evaluate teachers? Is it some unelected bureaucrat in Washington or is it a State or a locally elected official who is directly accountable to the parents of those children? So we're not presented with some false choice of whether or not to evaluate teachers. As I pointed out, in the legislature in my State of Louisiana, they fought it out, and they actually passed a teacher evaluation program a few years ago that's doing well. It's actually getting good results. That's the kind of innovation we should be encouraging. We shouldn't have this idea that there is this ``one size fits all'' in Washington and that Washington knows best and that, if a State can do it better, too bad, that's its fault because the Federal Government wants to tell it how to evaluate its teachers. I think we ought to trust the people who know best and who are most directly accountable to the parents of the students, and that's our State and local school boards. That's why this amendment says, if they've got a better way to evaluate teachers, they're the ones who are better suited to do it, not some unelected bureaucrat in Washington. With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

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

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The way that this amendment is drafted actually would apply nationwide. This would move $2 million out of that administrative account in the Department of Energy, move it into the overall Corps construction budget, so it would be available to the Corps of Engineers for construction projects across the Nation.

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

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment that deals with the Corps of Engineers' new program that was put in place 2 years ago, specifically in the New Orleans district, called the Modified Charleston Method. The Corps changed the usual and normal method for mitigation. On any kind of mitigation that's done on wetlands throughout the country, you have to mitigate if you are going to do development. Everybody understands that. Everybody has worked with that over the years. Two years ago, the Corps changed, specifically for the New Orleans district, that process and literally put in place a process that has made it very unworkable to do a lot of our flood protection projects and economic development projects. This amendment, by the way, is identical to language that we passed in the same appropriations bill last year, so the House has already gone on record saying that this is an unworkable plan by the Corps of Engineers. This new MCM method, as it is being referred to, has literally shut down many flood protection projects and economic development projects in south Louisiana. What we have been saying to the Corps of Engineers is let's work together on putting reasonable rules in place. This rule is unworkable, so much so that the Corps didn't even use these rules when they were doing their own projects. Americans understand that when government tries to impose rules on the people and yet doesn't even follow those same rules themselves, it shows there is a problem. Yet that's what is happening in this case. All we are saying is everybody understands we need to do mitigation, but when the Corps comes out with these new rules that triple, in many cases, the amount of mitigation that needs to be done to a point where it is unworkable--as an example, just last year, Corps permit applications for development projects were down by 33 percent because they literally took off the table the ability to do any kind of development in many areas of south Louisiana--that's not how rules and regulations are supposed to work. You ought to be working with local communities and not saying you can't even protect yourself from flooding. Literally, if you look at the wetlands rules, they are preventing us from restoring wetlands with these rules on wetlands. It doesn't make sense. It is something that's unworkable. This amendment addresses this problem and says, if the Corps can't move forward with the Modified Charleston Method, then let's go back to the table and put some rules in place that actually make sense, put some commonsense rules in place. I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment that reestablishes priorities here. It's similar to an amendment we passed overwhelmingly last year on this same piece of legislation, the Energy and Water appropriations bill. What this amendment does is it transfers $2 million out of the Department of Energy's Administrative account and moves that money into the Corps of Engineers construction budget. And the reason we're doing this is to move more projects forward, to actually get some of that backlog that the Corps of Engineers have moved forward and open up the door for projects all across the country that are vital to not only our Nation's waterways, our economy, our ability to export, but in Louisiana, for example, it would provide opportunity to move forward on the Louisiana Coastal Area plan, which is a coastal restoration plan that's a major flood protection project. So what we're talking about is, literally, one penny, one penny coming out of administration, of bureaucracy in Washington, to move that money into actual construction projects. And I think when you talk to taxpayers across the country, they are less concerned about having bureaucracy in Washington. They want to actually see government get things done. They want to see this backlog get cleared out, and they want to see other projects that are important to our Nation's economy move forward. And that's what this amendment does. It's a bipartisan amendment. I want to thank my colleagues--Mr. Richmond, Mr. Cassidy--who have also helped work on this. But again, this deals with projects all across the country that are in a backlog that could help move our economy forward rather than spending that money on administration in Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, we've had reports that HHS Secretary Sebelius has been soliciting funds from private companies to go and promote the President's health care law. In fact, there's a committee in Congress that's investigating these reports and how it would either potentially break the law or clearly violate ethics laws. In addition to that, now we're seeing reports that the Obama administration is pressuring the NFL and the NBA to go and promote their health care law. It is unethical for the Obama administration to pressure organizations that they regulate to try to promote their policies. So if Secretary Sebelius or any other Federal administrator is using their power in the regulatory structure to go and pressure organizations to promote their policies, they need to stop it right now, Mr. Speaker; and we need to continue in the House our oversight investigations into any kind of unethical activities like those that are being reported.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) for yielding and for bringing this amendment. I think it's important to point out that this was an arbitrary cap that was put in place based on problems that were really created in the 1950s when initial revenue sharing was done. For whatever reason, there are various reasons, one State was singled out to not be able to participate in revenue sharing. It just so happens to be the State that produced about 30 percent of the offshore oil and gas. All we're asking for is a little bit closer to fairness. This amendment's a really important step in the right direction and continues the concept that we've always promoted: to allow States that do participate in producing American energy to also participate in the revenue that's produced to the Federal Treasury. It's an incentive to continue to encourage that kind of American energy exploration. I support the amendment.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise proudly in support of life and in strong support of H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Scientific studies have proven that babies can feel pain as early as 20 weeks after conception, and passage of this bill is a major step forward in the defense of life. The Gosnell murder trial refocused Americans on the horrors of late- term abortion, and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act sends a loud message that our great Nation stands up in defense of life. I'm proud that Americans United for Life ranked Louisiana as the number one pro-life State in the Nation. I have an example of that. If a woman who is pregnant is murdered in Louisiana, not only is the murderer charged with the murder of the mother, but also for the murder of the unborn child. I think it's a proud day that we're here standing up in defense of those babies after 20 weeks saying this country will not allow those babies' lives to be terminated. I proudly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it, as well.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congressman Cassidy's amendment. I want to touch on a few things. First of all, when we talk about the need for reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program, there were many things that needed reform. In fact, the program had expired, lapsed, in some cases for a few hours, for a few days, multiple times over the last few years. That's an inconsistency that I don't think any of us want to see in our economy when it literally meant home sales would have to be canceled. Realtors that were preparing to have a house sold, somebody that was buying a house, selling a house, couldn't even do that because banks require, in many cases, that flood insurance be attached to the mortgage. And if there was no program for flood insurance, that means somebody couldn't even buy or sell a house. So it had an incredible disruption in our economy. But there's also the importance of making sure that the program is sustainable. When you look at what is flawed in the interpretation of FEMA, as we stand right now, a year after passage of the law, FEMA has admitted themselves they're not ready to implement the changes in the law. I want to mention a few communities in particular because it highlights the problems that have maybe been misrepresented or maybe just not even understood by some people when they wonder about this program. I'll use some examples of communities in my district in coastal Louisiana. Houma Terrebonne, for example. The Houma Terrebonne flood protection system was a system that was built by the people in those communities. It wasn't a Corps of Engineers project. That community did not flood in Hurricane Katrina, did not flood in Hurricane Rita. It didn't flood in Hurricane Isaac. And yet if you look at what FEMA has done with a community like that, they don't even recognize that that flood protection exists. They decertified that levee; and so everybody in that community who never flooded, they never filed a claim. There's this perception out there that these are people who flooded multiple times. These people in this community never flooded, even during Katrina, Rita, and Isaac; and yet FEMA has decertified their levee and said, basically, they don't have a levee. So somebody who's behind the levee protection system that worked for Katrina, FEMA has said that levee system doesn't exist. That person now is being faced with currently maybe a $500 premium that FEMA is telling them is going to go up to $15,000 a year. Does anybody really think that a family making maybe $40,000, who has a home that never flooded, they never filed a claim, and now FEMA is going to tell them you have to pay $15,000 a year just for your flood insurance? I think one of the reasons CBO said there's no score on this is they recognize that person can't pay that $15,000 premium. You've literally made that home worthless--a home that never flooded and that's behind the flood protection system. The irony is let's look at the Corps of Engineers certified flood system. Go look at New Orleans. The New Orleans flood protection system that failed during Katrina, flooded thousands of households, caused tremendous devastation and loss of life, that's a certified levee. That system failed to certify. The Houma Terrebonne system that never failed, that never flooded, is decertified by FEMA. You're going to tell those people they have to pay $15,000 or $20,000 a year for flood insurance when they never flooded? And their system works. The same thing with the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection System. FEMA, under their interpretation of that law, is saying that levee doesn't even exist. Let me show you a picture. This is during a storm recently. You can see the floodwaters here; and yet behind that levee system the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection System, these people didn't flood. All you see is green grass here. There's no water because they didn't flood. FEMA has said this flood protection system doesn't exist. So these people who never flooded, who haven't filed a claim, they're not a burden to the system. They're paying premiums to the system right now. They're actually helping to try to get it back into the black. FEMA is saying this levee system doesn't even exist, so now these people have to pay maybe $20,000 a year in flood insurance. Again, they can't pay $20,000 a year in flood insurance. Nobody that's not a millionaire can do that. And so they'll walk away from that home. The bank will have to absorb that mortgage. And so their homes are basically going to be deemed worthless, even though their flood protection system works today. They never flooded. By the way, this one, the same like Houma Terrebonne, the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection System didn't flood in Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, or Hurricane Isaac. They didn't file a claim, and yet their system is decertified. This is a flawed and broken system. It's the reason CBO says there's no score to this. Because the way it's being implemented is unworkable. And even FEMA is admitting this isn't ready for prime time. So this amendment is needed to say let's go back and actually make a system that works. Fix the problems with the system. But you don't go and punish the people that played by all the rules and never even filed a claim. So I support the amendment, urge my colleagues to do so as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I thank Congressman Terry from Nebraska for bringing this bill forward. I rise in strong support of the bill to green-light the Keystone XL pipeline. Look at the facts about what this means to America: 20,000 jobs immediately and energy security. We're going to be getting 830,000 barrels of oil a day from a friend in Canada that we don't have to get from Middle Eastern countries who don't like us. Of course, what's the answer by President Obama? For 5 years now, he said ``no.'' He said ``no'' to American jobs and he said ``no'' to American energy security just because some radical environmental extremists have told him that they don't want this. But even the labor unions say they want this. Of course, who's to benefit by the United States not doing the Keystone XL pipeline? China. China wants those jobs. And if President Obama gets his way, China will get those jobs. We don't want China to get those jobs. We want America to get the 20,000 jobs and the $7 billion of private investment. How can this happen? With the stroke of a pen. Today, President Obama can approve the Keystone pipeline, but he won't. So if he won't, then here Congress is taking action to get those 20,000 jobs. Instead, we ought to approve this bill and get the Keystone XL pipeline built.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the House on Friday, May 17. During this time, I was home attending my daughter's kindergarten graduation ceremony. I would like to submit how I would have voted had I been in attendance for the following votes: Rollcall No. 155, on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 216, a resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 1062. I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 156, on the Adoption of H. Res. 216, a resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 1062. I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 157, on Agreeing to Amendment No. 2. I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 158, on Agreeing to Amendment No. 3. I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 159, on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 1062 with instructions. I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 160, on Passage of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I rise in strong support of this rule. And as a proud cosponsor of this bill to repeal ObamaCare, I think it is very important that we in this House have this vote. Yes, we've had this vote many times. I think it's important to have it again this Congress because so much more has come to light since the last time that this vote was held in the last Congress. What are some of those things? Well, of course, when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker, she famously said, ``You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.'' Well, we're seeing more and more every day just how many devastating things are happening in our economy because of ObamaCare. In fact, how bad is it? It's so bad that one of the Senate architects of the bill, Senator Max Baucus, said: ``I see a huge train wreck coming down.'' Now, when they were in the back room writing this bill, he was the guy with the pen. He wrote the bill in the Senate, and he said it's a train wreck coming down. Why would we want to do this to the American people? The system of health care that we have today has some problems, but why would you want to destroy the things that work? You fix the things that work. This bill, ObamaCare, is actually scheduled to increase health care costs dramatically for American families. In fact, what will it do to our health care system? And this is what families are finding out, all across not just southeast Louisiana, the area that I represent, but all across the country. This chart shows all of the different Federal agencies that come in between a patient and their doctor in health care. It used to be the patient talking to the doctor, and they made the health care decision. That was the sacred relationship in health care. Now you've got all of these Federal agencies. And who's at the top? The IRS. The IRS is the enforcement arm of ObamaCare. And, of course, just in the last few days we've seen the corruption at the IRS where they've literally gone and picked winners and losers, picked partisan fights, and literally tried to enforce the Obama administration's will, punishing the enemies of the Obama administration. This is not the agency that should be running health care. We need to repeal this law and fix the real problems in health care.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I think it's an important point you make about how people make decisions based on price, because every weekend, when I go back home to southeast Louisiana and when I talk to my families and small businesses that are trying to figure out how ObamaCare is going to affect them, there is a recurring theme that comes through, and it's something we hear every single day. First of all, small businesses have no idea how they're going to be able to comply with this law when they look at the mountains of regulations. We had recently stacked up all of the pages of regulations and rules that have come out, and it's well over 7-feet high. A small business that doesn't have, maybe, five, six, seven employees--they don't have an H.R. shop, they don't have teams of attorneys and accountants, they can't figure all of this out, and they're asking these questions. But we're also hearing this from large companies that provide really good health care for families all throughout southeast Louisiana. I hear this from colleagues from other States, too. When they look at this law, they say, The President promised, if you like what you have, you can keep it. Yet that promise is broken for millions of Americans who are facing these costs that have been discussed. Look at the drastic increases of 73 percent that will hit families. If you have a good insurance policy that you like, if you have good health care, it's a 73 percent increase for you. If you're trying to get new health care, it's 96 percent more you'll have to pay because of ObamaCare. I think what's the most frightening to families is when they see the new bureaucracy. This is the new bureaucracy created by ObamaCare. If you look, I think the most sacred relationship in health care is the doctor and the patient. There should be nobody in between the doctor and the patient when it comes to making health care decisions. Yet, under ObamaCare, look at all of this mountain of red tape and agencies that come between families and their doctors in ObamaCare. At the very top of this--again, it's most riveting and has been brought up before-- is the Internal Revenue Service. First of all, does anybody at the IRS have any kind of medical degree or even EMS training? Now the IRS is the enforcement agency of ObamaCare. Of course, that was riveting before the scandal that came out last week, but in light of the new scandal in which the IRS is literally targeting people, President Obama's administration is allowing this. Not one person has been fired by the way. The Obama administration made a decision to target Americans based on their beliefs, based on their values, and that's the agency that will be tasked with enforcing ObamaCare. They had little credibility before all of this scandal emerged, but now, in light of this, I think the lead Senate architect, Max Baucus, one of the authors of the bill, just a few weeks ago--they rammed it through, and Speaker Pelosi 3 years ago said that you've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it--said it's a train wreck coming down. In fact, he's not even running for reelection next year. This kind of bureaucracy should not be put in place for any type of government agency, let alone coming between patients and their doctors. This is the massive bureaucracy that ObamaCare is. This is why we have this vote tomorrow to repeal ObamaCare, and it's a bill I'm proud to cosponsor. Again, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership in the hearings that we've had on the Oversight Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce to expose some of this, and also to even get testimony from Obama administration officials who say they're not even ready to comply with the legal deadlines in the law that are coming up in the next few months. This should not be dumped upon our families, whether it's in southeast Louisiana or anywhere else in the country. We need to repeal this bill and actually get back to work on fixing the problems in health care, like cost and access, that are now made even worse with ObamaCare.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and give thanks to the very first person that came to work for me when I came to Congress 5 years ago, my legislative director, Megan Bell. Unfortunately, she is going to be leaving our office as she goes on to bigger and better things. But Megan has been a tremendous and tireless public servant for the people of southeast Louisiana and has provided great leadership to our Nation. She's been a huge help to me on energy issues, on health care issues, on coastal restoration issues, and so many things. When the Deepwater Horizon accident and disaster occurred 3 years ago, Megan was right there helping not only to get people back to work, but also to help draft and lead through the legislative process the RESTORE Act, which provided incredible support to the people back home. She also provided great help to constituents. On a Friday afternoon, when we got a call from a father whose son needed lifesaving treatment, she worked through the whole weekend to get FDA approval for a lifesaving clinical trial. She's just a great public servant, somebody that I think we can all aspire and look up to. We will miss her here at the Capitol, and I surely will miss her at the office. But she will be going on to bigger and better things, and I wish her all the best.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for bringing this bill forward, Congressman McClintock's Full Faith and Credit Act. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the bill because what the bill does is clearly take default off the table as an option when we're having negotiations over the debt ceiling. Now, people would say why is this even an issue. Unfortunately, it's an issue because the only people in town who have been threatening default are President Obama and liberals in Congress. And you've heard some of the speakers against this bill today talking about the threat of default. What's so good about this bill is it takes default off the table. It takes away their ability to default on our Nation's debt. In fact, President Obama in the last debt ceiling negotiation almost 2 years ago was the one running around the country threatening to default on our credit, so much so that it scared the markets and hurt our economy. And, in fact, it is one of the things that led to a downgrade, the first time in our Nation's history that our credit rating was downgraded because the problem that gets us to the debt ceiling is that Washington has a spending problem. It's spending that continues to force us to hit the debt ceiling. And so when we're negotiating on the debt ceiling, we shouldn't be worried about the President running around threatening default; we should be focused on fixing the spending problem. Americans sent us here to tackle the tough issues, not to be clouded and confused by the President's threats of default. Unfortunately, the GAO has even said the President can prioritize. He should. It would be responsible to pay your debts, but the President himself has said he would consider defaulting if we hit the debt ceiling. And so what this bill says is you pay Americans first. As the chairman of Ways and Means pointed out, it is American citizens who own the bulk of our debt. They would be paid. Social Security would be paid. But then we could focus on the spending problem, and the negotiations on debt ceiling would be about solving the spending problem in Washington that continues to force us to hit the debt ceiling so that we can stop living from crisis to crisis and finally get our economy moving again. I urge passage.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my colleague, Mrs. Hartzler from Missouri, for hosting this leadership hour to talk about our Second Amendment rights and for yielding time as well. I am very proud to rise in strong support of our Second Amendment rights and also in opposition to many of these bills that have been floating around Congress that would take away those rights that are so precious to all Americans. Those rights were so important that the Second Amendment to the Constitution--part of our Bill of Rights, the first set of amendments to our Constitution--enshrined this right to the American people to bear arms. This wasn't a right that they just gave to the militia, to the military, to our local law enforcement. This was a right that was granted to all Americans because it was so precious and important. We were all shocked and saddened by the murders at Sandy Hook; but I think what is also disappointing is, when you have these tragedies, unfortunately, there are people--Washington politicians--who try to take advantage of those tragedies, who then come behind and try to impose their own agendas in the name of somebody else. When you look at a lot of these bills that have been filed, they have absolutely nothing to do with those murders or with any of these other tragedies that we've seen. You look at Sandy Hook. He stole the gun. The gun was from his mother. He murdered his own mother. I think they counted over 40 different laws that were broken by the Sandy Hook murderer. Then somebody is going to tell you that one more law, which makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get a gun, would have stopped him from doing that when, in fact, he didn't even break the laws that they're proposing. So I think people see through that. People realize that these bills are, unfortunately, the same bad ideas that have been floating around for decades by people who just want to take away our Second Amendment rights. They just don't share those same beliefs that our Founding Fathers had when they felt that it was so important that all American citizens have these protections. I am proud to come from Louisiana. We call ourselves a Sportsman's Paradise. There, when you talk about the Second Amendment, we're not just talking about hunting. Some people want to say that the Second Amendment is really just about hunting. It's not about hunting. It's about a lot more than hunting. It's about the ability for people to protect themselves. I was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. During those days, there were some very dark days. We had a few weeks, not just hours or days, where you couldn't pick up the phone and call 911. There was no 911 system. In many cases, there was no power for weeks. You couldn't get law enforcement to come if there were somebody trying to come and loot your house or worse, so the citizens at home in their houses with their guns was the only protection that people had for not just days, but for weeks after Hurricane Katrina. One of the more frightening things that happened after Hurricane Katrina--there were many frightening things that happened during Katrina--but after Katrina, local law enforcement gave an order to have the police actually go door to door in the city of New Orleans and confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. It actually happened. It has been well documented to the point where I was in the State legislature at the time, and I filed legislation to prevent that from ever being able to happen again. In fact, the NRA, which is so decried by all of these gun control advocates, actually stood up and said that it's wrong for government to go door-to-door and take your guns from you. People said, Oh, that can never happen in America. Yet, it happened. It happened in an American city--in New Orleans. After Katrina, there is actual video footage of a woman, Ms. Connie. She was in her house in uptown New Orleans, and the police actually came to her house to take her gun. She didn't want to give up her gun, and they tackled her. They broke her collarbone. I actually brought her to testify for my bill. I am proud to say my bill passed back then and that no longer can anybody in Louisiana take away your guns even during a natural disaster. Fortunately, because of the NRA's leadership, they made this a national law. It's now a national law. But that actually happened. So this Second Amendment right is incredibly sacred, and it's unfortunate that some try to take advantage of disasters to go and try to chip those rights away. That's why we're here today, and that's why I'm proud of my colleague from Missouri and of so many others who are here to stand up for that right that we all hold dear.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise awareness about the trial that's going on in Philadelphia. Dr. Kermit Gosnell is on trial right now for the murder of at least four babies who were born alive as a result of a botched abortion, as well as a mother who was murdered during the process of an abortion at the hands of Dr. Gosnell. Now, just a few days ago, more than 70 Members of Congress sent a letter to the heads of the three major networks asking why they're not giving fair coverage to this trial. I think we all recognize if Dr. Gosnell used an AK-47 instead of a scalpel, the media coverage would rival a natural disaster. Yet barely a peep comes from the mainstream media because it happened to be an abortion doctor who was actually performing abortions. This is one of those untold stories in our country that we all need to stand up for, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're here today. We're going to continue to stand up for the lives of the unborn and for their rights.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rod Taylor on his recent selection to the Board of Directors at the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, NAFCU. Mr. Taylor has been President and CEO of Barksdale Federal Credit Union in Bossier City since 2008. Barksdale FCU is the largest member- owned credit union in Louisiana. Mr. Taylor previously served as Barksdale Federal Credit Union's Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer, a post he held for over sixteen years. Mr. Taylor served in the U.S. Coast Guard from 1973-1977 and received his MBA from Oregon State University before he started working in the financial industry with US National Bank of Oregon in 1983. Mr. Taylor also brings experience as a board member of other businesses, and he will bring a tremendous amount of expertise to the NAFCU Board. I wish Mr. Taylor the best of luck in his new role on the NAFCU Board and look forward to working with him in this capacity. I ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating Rod Taylor on this achievement.