Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. If the gentleman has a parliamentary inquiry, I don't think that comes out of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, we are here today because the EPA has continued to push this effort to pass a national energy tax. It was tried through cap-and-trade over the last year and a half. That bill went through the legislative process and was defeated in a bipartisan way. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue when we're talking about preventing the EPA from running millions of jobs out of our country, and that is literally what's at stake here. Believe me, as people look through the letters of support and as we comb through the days of testimony that we've had on this over the last 2 years with regard to this concept of the EPA's regulating greenhouse gases, Madam Chair, we are talking about a proposal by the EPA that, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, would run 3 million jobs out of our country. Now, we should all be here working feverishly to create jobs. In fact, our legislation, the National Energy Tax Prevention Act, will create jobs because it will remove the uncertainty that exists today where so many employers, so many of our job creators, are scared to death of the threat now of regulation coming over; because, again, Congress rejected their proposal for the national energy tax through cap-and-trade in a bipartisan way.

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

Mr. SCALISE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the offer of the gentleman from California, but I cannot adhere to a United Nations framework. I cannot adhere to the ability for the EPA to continue to keep their nose under the tent to provide whether it's called ``technical assistance'' or whether they try to continue to push things, because the EPA does interact with States on other issues, and I surely would not want to see some kind of situation where the EPA is going to try to hold something else over a State's head and use this threat, because they really do want the chance to regulate greenhouse gases and impose an energy tax. So I think we've debated it very thoroughly. I understand your position, and I respect the gentleman from Connecticut's position. I just don't agree. I think we need to preserve American jobs and let the States do what they already do such a good job of doing; but we need to tell the EPA that ``no'' means ``no.'' They've got their own role to play, and it's not regulating greenhouse gases. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, March 9, 2011. Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Upton: On behalf of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), I am pleased to offer our support for H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act (EPTA). This legislation is necessary to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act, thereby removing a regulatory uncertainty that is impeding domestic economic growth and job creation. AISI is comprised of 25 member companies, including integrated and electric furnace steelmakers, and 140 associate and affiliate members who are suppliers to or customers of the steel industry. AISI's member companies represent approximately 80 percent of both U.S. and North American steel capacity. The steel industry in the U.S. has substantially reduced its GHG emissions over the past two decades. The industry has reduced its energy-intensity by 30% since 1990, and reduced while GHG emissions by 35% over the same time period. The industry has well exceeded the Kyoto Protocol targets, is committed to continued improvement, and hasn't waited for Congress or EPA to act. The domestic steel industry is both energy-intensive and subject to substantial international competition. In particular, this competition comes from nations such as China, where no similar CO2-reduction legislation or regulatory policies exist. In the absence of an international agreement on GHG emissions reductions, EPA regulation of stationary sources will only transfer emissions--and high-value manufacturing jobs--overseas. This will have a negative impact on domestic industry and will not result in a net emissions reduction worldwide. As you know, the Clean Air Act was not written to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and is therefore the wrong mechanism for EPA to use in this case. No policies have been proposed to accompany the EPA regulations to address competitiveness concerns of energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries, such as steel. The result will be the ``leakage'' of emissions and manufacturing jobs to competitor nations without comparable regulations, which is problematic from both the economic and environmental perspectives. If the EPA is allowed to proceed with its GHG regulations from stationary sources, plants in the steel industry will be forced to adhere to yet another level of new strict regulations and be required to obtain costly permits. This would be a devastating blow to investment and growth in the industry, not to mention the implications of coupling these regulations with the recession that has hit the country and the manufacturing economy. Sincerely, Thomas J. Gibson, President and Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. SCALISE. I reclaim my time, Madam Chair, because I am talking specifically about the amendment. If I am allowed the opportunity to continue with my comments, I have to finish a thought first before we talk specifically about the amendment. First of all, if you look at what happened by legislation, they tried legislation, and the legislation failed. A bipartisan vote defeated that legislation. Then they came back with regulation. So this proposed regulation is being addressed by our bill, the underlying bill. The amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut proposes to create a loophole to continue to allow the EPA to get their nose back under that tent to regulate greenhouse gases. You can just look at the language to see that it allows for that loophole that we're trying to close. First of all, in a bipartisan fashion, Madam Chair, Congress has said we don't want the EPA imposing the national energy tax that cap-and- trade would propose. We don't want those millions of jobs leaving our country. Then they came back through regulation, and they said, Well, we'll just do it through regulation, a de facto cap-and-trade energy tax, because they couldn't get it passed through Congress. Of course, anyone who has taken civics knows you're supposed to go through the legislative process if you want to change policy. So, if our underlying bill passes the House, then they won't be able to go through regulation; but the gentleman's amendment would actually say that there would be a loophole even though Congress would say, No, you don't have the authority to do that. You can't run those jobs to places like China where they have absolutely no environmental controls that we have today, which are dramatically better than those they have in China and India and in some of the other countries, countries which would be happy to take the millions of American jobs that would flee this country if they were able to get away with it. We have to reject this amendment and take that loophole away. Don't give them that loophole to continue to regulate greenhouse gases through a de facto cap-and-trade national energy tax. So I would ask that we reject this amendment and pass the underlying bill.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield for a parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. And so finally, to address the real problem in the country with this runaway spending, what we said under both Speaker Boehner and then chairman of Appropriations Committee Hal Rogers is that we've got to stop the bleeding. We've got to start cutting spending. And we brought a bill to the floor that allowed for $100 billion in cuts. That's billion with a B. Real cuts to spending at the Federal level to finally start that process. By no means is this the finished product, but it was the first start of the process of finally getting spending under control. That bill came to the floor. We had a lot of debate. An open process. Any Member could bring an amendment to that bill. I brought an amendment to get rid of a bunch of these czars, these czars that are killing jobs in our country, that are getting paid millions of dollars to go out there and try to implement radical policies that run jobs to China and India and other places. That amendment passed. A lot of good amendments passed to cut spending, but ultimately we set a new tone. We said, number one, we're going to put our money where our mouth is. We promised that if we get the reins of power in the House, that we would actually really start cutting spending. So we cut $100 billion. We sent that to the Senate. And we're almost at 2 weeks past the point where we sent that bill over to the Senate. They still haven't had one ounce, one minute, of hearings or debate on our bill that we sent to them to cut $100 billion in spending.

Mr. SCALISE. I think it became very clear very quickly just what is at stake here. There was a battle line that was drawn. In fact, as we were debating that bill to cut $100 billion and, as I said, with a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, $100 billion is just a start. Well, President Obama comes out and actually starts criticizing us for cutting $100 billion. He said $100 billion is too much. Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said $100 billion is too much to cut. Again, we're saying $100 billion is just the beginning. We've got to cut more than $100 billion. And so you quickly saw a divide. There is a divide right now in Washington. I don't think there's a divide in this country. I think most people, people I talk to when I go back home to south Louisiana, my colleagues that I talk to that are going back home and having town hall meetings, meeting with their constituents, families and small businesses are saying, it's about time that we're finally seeing real cuts coming out of Washington, but yet the President and the Senate leader that were saying $100 billion is too much to cut. And so we've sent them $100 billion, but what's at stake here, it's not just getting spending under control, it's getting jobs created again in America. One of the reasons we are seeing such stagnant job growth in this country is due to the uncertainty that is created by the runaway spending. These are interlinked issues--the spending problem in Washington and the problem with the slow economic recovery--because people are afraid to create jobs. Our job creators are under attack by Federal bureaucrats, who are bringing out all these regulations every single day to kill jobs. We are seeing in my home State, in south Louisiana, where the administration doesn't even want to explore for energy in America. They've only issued one permit in 10 months to drill. In fact, now we're looking at the Middle East. We're putting more dependence in this country on Middle Eastern oil, under the Obama administration, at a time when the Middle East has never been in more disarray, which is why people are seeing over $3.20 or so a gallon at the pump. It's because of the President's own policies. This is killing jobs. It's not only running more jobs overseas, but it's also raising the prices of energy and gasoline for families.

Mr. SCALISE. You're exactly right, because when we're talking about where we are today, it's important to look at how we got into this mess and the mess that we're trying to clean up, but the fact that historically last year Speaker Pelosi failed to even bring a budget to the floor when she was Speaker and so there was no budget that was passed. What that means is, like I said, while families are putting together their own budgets and families and businesses are dealing with the problems in the economy and shortfalls and they're cutting back and doing more with less, the Congress didn't even pass a budget. And so under Speaker Boehner now as we've got this new Republican majority here, we came up with a plan to fund the government for the rest of the year, but to fund it in a way that actually started cutting spending. I think one of the big problems that's been out there for a long time, things that you and I want to deal with, we want to cut spending and start putting our country back on a path to a balanced budget. And so we had this debate 2 weeks ago in the House where we said, okay, we want to be responsible about funding government, but that means we've got to start making real cuts. You can't just keep spending at the rate you're spending with the deficits that go along with it. We've got to start cutting so that this pie that you showed actually starts getting addressed and shrunk in a way that the Federal spending starts getting closer to matching the amount of revenue that's coming in.

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. That's the beauty of the people's House. I think what you're doing, you hold this weekly town hall forum, as we call it, to talk to the American people about what really is happening here in the people's House, in the Congress, and how it affects people all across this country. Of course, I had three town hall meetings last week when I was back in my district, when Congress had finished dealing with one part of this budget problem. I think when you talk about what's wrong with the spending, how out of control spending is in Washington, we had taken some action 2 weeks ago to say it's finally time to start righting the ship. Speaker Pelosi had the reins of the House of Representatives for 4 years. Of course during that 4 years that Speaker Pelosi was running the House, we saw unbridled runaway spending and record deficits, to the point where we now have a $1.5 trillion deficit. One thing that she left behind that we're dealing with is the fact that Speaker Pelosi didn't even bring a budget to the House floor last year so there was not even a budget, when families across this country had their own family budgets and families and small businesses are dealing with their crises and shortfalls by cutting spending.

Mr. SCALISE. I thank my good friend from Missouri. When we talk about feared and loved, I'm not sure where we fit in, but I do think it's important----

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. And what is not being pointed out here is, while the gentleman from Massachusetts is talking about companies and royalties, he fails to mention, first of all, that the second largest source of Federal revenue next to income taxes is royalties that are paid by oil companies. They are paying billions of dollars in royalties. They are hiring tens of thousands and, in some cases, probably in the millions of Americans to work in the energy industry. But that, right now, is at jeopardy by this administration's policies. In fact, as my other colleague from Louisiana just pointed out, just last week another company filed for bankruptcy because of this administration's policies shutting off the ability to issue permits and allow people to go back to work. And so what does this amendment do? Well, my colleague talks about royalties. Let's actually read what his amendment does as opposed to what he says about his amendment. The amendment by Mr. Markey says: None of the funds made available by this act may be used to issue any new lease that authorizes production of oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This is about closing off more domestic sources of energy production at a time when the Middle East has never been more volatile. You might as well just call this the OPEC protection amendment, because it ensures that more of these companies, as they are already doing, will be going out of the country. And by the way, oh, is this hypothetical? Of course it's not. I have got a list here of some of the rigs by some of the very companies my colleague talks about that are already leaving. And one of the countries that they have already left to bring their assets to to drill because they can't do business in America is Egypt. Two of these billion-dollar assets have actually said it's better to do business in Egypt and drill for energy there than to drill in America because of these radical policies. So I guess my colleague is okay with shutting off more domestic energy, allowing more American companies to go bankrupt. The White House has acknowledged 12,000 Americans have already lost their jobs because of these policies, and then my colleague wants to bring this amendment to shut even more areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off. OPEC might love this amendment, but I think Americans who are going to be paying $4 and $5 a gallon for gas at the pump this summer don't agree. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, we've seen over the last 2 years under President Obama a very disturbing proliferation of czars, these unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really seem to identify where they are, what they are doing. But we do know that they're wielding vast amounts of power, many of them making six-figure salaries, and yet you can't find out exactly what they're doing. Yet you have got the separate Cabinet that's actually appointed, goes through the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, which is the process that is supposed to be followed for the people who make these kinds of high-level decisions. In fact, I support the ability of the President to organize his administration; and, of course, if you look at article II, section 2 of the Constitution, it lays out the process for having these types of appointments, and it requires Senate confirmation. Yet you've got this shadow government that literally, completely avoided the transparency and the accountability of that Senate scrutiny. What we do in this amendment, which actually sacks these czars, we actually go through, and I'll start with the ObamaCare czar. Of course, we had a vote here on the House floor to repeal ObamaCare, which I'm proud to have supported, hope we continue to see move through the Senate. But in the meantime, we just had a hearing the other day, over 900 companies have already gotten exemptions, went and I guess lined up at the White House and must have known somebody right over there and were able to get exempted from this law that the President says is so important, so great, going to solve all these problems, and yet 900 companies have already been able to get secret exemptions. How have they done this? Who didn't get an exemption? Of course, our local businesses on Main Street would love to get that exemption. They didn't get that opportunity. We can't even find out who got these exemptions. So we are getting rid of the ObamaCare czar. Let's go to the climate czar. Of course you've got a person in there right now that supposedly is going to be leaving. This is a person who's continued to do things behind closed doors. In fact, when the moratorium on drilling came out, it was found out that it was the climate czar that actually doctored the President's own scientific study to try to say that the scientists that the President appointed recommended a moratorium on drilling. It turned out the scientist didn't say that at all. The White House actually had to apologize for the actions of the climate czar, for what they did. Again, behind closed doors, nobody can find out exactly what they are doing. So she's leaving. Let her leave, and take the funding, too. The global warming czar. There's actually a czar out there trying to still impose the cap-and-trade regime. Of course Congress has rejected cap-and-trade. We've seen study after study. In fact, Spain came up with a study that showed what happened when they tried to implement a cap-and-trade regime. What they found out was that for every green job that they created, they lost over 20 full-time jobs in the private sector. And they detail that out very well in their study about what that policy does. The National Association of Manufacturers said cap- and-trade would run over 3 million jobs out of this country. Yet we have got a global warming czar that's running around out there with taxpayer money, promoting a policy that would destroy jobs that this Congress doesn't even support. Again, you have got the green job czar. The green job czar, they haven't even filled the job of the green job czar since the last one resigned in disgrace. The last green job czar we had left in disgrace because he expressed comments embracing communism and actually tried to blame the American Government for the September 11 attacks. So of course that person left in disgrace. The job is still vacant. Let's get rid of it. The Guantanamo closure czar we get rid of in this amendment. Guantanamo Bay--in fact, if you look at it, it's estimated that we have to spend over $200 million to build another facility to hold them. Nobody wants them. New York said, We surely don't want to try these terrorists on American soil right down the street from where the World Trade Center was attacked. And yet you've got a Guantanamo Bay closure czar when the President, himself, now has even backed off of closing Guantanamo Bay. I support him in that. We shouldn't be closing Guantanamo Bay, but we surely shouldn't have a czar that's running around out there doing who knows what for closing down Guantanamo Bay. There is a fairness doctrine czar that we get rid of. A fairness doctrine czar that is trying to undermine the First Amendment right of talk radio hosts. You know, there may be some people on the other side that don't like some things said on talk radio. That's their prerogative. The beauty is you have got a First Amendment that dictates that, and you have a marketplace. So the bottom line is it's time that we reestablish our responsibility as a legislative branch. Let's get back to those constitutional principles, and let's get rid of these czars. We shouldn't have the government running car companies. We shouldn't have the government running the shadow government, and we shouldn't have all these czars. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment because, I think, if you look all across the country--and of course we had a watershed election in November--and if you listen to the voters all throughout this country, as so many of us do who hold town hall meetings--people are tired of all of these government regulations that are killing jobs and stifling innovation. In fact, most people will tell you they are scared to death about the concept of the Federal Government regulating the Internet. So there was this net neutrality ruling that came up by the FCC in a 3-2 decision where all the Democrats voted for net neutrality, for this regulation, and where all the Republicans voted against. The FCC rarely ever has any kind of major ruling like this on a divided vote. I think it shows you that there is already controversy. The courts have already said that they don't necessarily have the authority to do this. That's why, as my colleague from Nebraska just pointed out, there is already litigation that is going on because we think the FCC overstepped its boundaries. You had a bipartisan group in Congress that came together and said, We don't want this kind of action going forward. This is something that should be done and solved in the halls of Congress. Of course, our colleagues on the other side, Mr. Chairman, haven't even identified a problem. If you actually want to look at it and if you look throughout our economy and at all of the troubles we have with it, one of the few segments that is growing is the technology segment of our economy because of the innovation that has been allowed to thrive, primarily due to the lack of government regulation. I think that goes to the heart of the real difference between our side and their side. They are the party of regulation, which stifles job growth, which stifles innovation. We are the party that says, let's allow a college student at Harvard University the opportunity to come up with an idea--and he dropped out of Harvard and is now a billionaire. In fact, maybe the largest percentage of billionaires in this country is that of Harvard dropouts, those who actually went out and came up with ideas to innovate, using the Internet, who are now billionaires who are creating thousands and millions of jobs--good, high-paying jobs. These are American jobs. Yet, through this net neutrality ruling, they want to stifle that innovation. So the first thing, I guess, we would have to ask is: Was net neutrality the reason that we were able to have that innovation that led to Facebook? Was net neutrality the reason that we were able to have such a proliferation of broadband that now over 95 percent of people in this country have access to broadband? By the way, they like it. They're not calling, saying, We want the government to come regulate the Internet now because there's a problem. In fact, they say just the opposite. They say look at this innovation that is happening. We had a hearing with the FCC yesterday about this issue. One of the FCC commissioners pointed out that, over the last 10 years, Mr. Chairman, over $500 billion--billion with a ``b''--of private investment has been made to develop broadband throughout the country. This is without any kind of taxpayer money. This is private sector money being put into the marketplace to go and create jobs, to go and create the kinds of technologies that allow you to view and use all the kinds of apps that are available on these kinds of devices. That was done without net neutrality. They would tell you that they need net neutrality in order to have this innovation. Of course, they fail to point out that net neutrality was not in place when all this innovation happened. In fact, most people will tell you that net neutrality is one of the things that's in the way of this kind of innovation, and we're already starting to see a stifling of the growth, a stifling of the private investment because of these threats of new regulations coming in from the FCC. And that's why it's so important that this amendment actually addresses this problem and says, Federal Government, get your hands off the Internet, allow the innovation to continue, because it happened and it's continuing to happen without that kind of government intervention that they so strongly want through net neutrality. And so when you look and they talk about these companies that have said that this is a great thing, net neutrality is a great thing. Some of the companies they listed, they failed to mention in that same letter the company said, well, maybe we can live with it but they also have some concerns about it. I didn't hear them mentioning that when they're talking about these companies. And you look at all of the innovation that has happened, and we're talking about massive job growth. You know, here at a time when our main focus needs to be on jobs, you've got the government coming in with yet another threat of regulation that will stifle innovation and run more jobs out of this country to countries where they don't tell you how to operate your network, they don't tell you what to do with the billions of dollars that you are investing to build broadband. Maybe our friends on the other side want the Federal Government to be running the Internet because they only want the government to be the one that can tell you what you can and can't do. And, in fact, in our hearing yesterday with the FCC chairman, we pointed out that in this net neutrality ruling, it allows the Federal Government to pick winners and losers. That's not what we should be about. We should be about innovation. We should be about passing this amendment to allow that innovation to grow and get rid of net neutrality.

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

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Let's talk really quickly about just what's so important about this resolution. As my colleague from Illinois talked about, we have had those hearings. In fact, we had the EPA administrator yesterday in committee, and she actually tried to state that her regulations are helping create jobs. The only problem is that, right after that, we had panelist after panelist of American job creators talking about how those exact EPA regulations are running jobs out of the country. So there must be some parallel universe that these bureaucrats are living in. They think they are creating jobs. And I guess, if you want to really look at it, they are creating jobs, in China, in India, in other places around the world instead of in America. We just had another hearing today on the problems with what is happening with the administration not issuing permits in the Gulf of Mexico. They are actually making our country more dependent on Middle Eastern oil at a time when you are seeing the Middle East in total disarray with what is happening in Egypt. There was just another super tanker that was hijacked by Somali pirates right off the coast of Oman, just yet another example that this is a volatile world. Yet you have got an administration that's using regulations to run more jobs out of this country. This is a time when we should be creating jobs. I'm really glad that we are actually focusing under this Republican Congress on exposing what those regulations are doing to destroy jobs in America. We can create jobs. We have got to get ahold of these regulations.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. It's such an honor to be able to pay tribute to Ronald Reagan here on the House floor, especially remembering his 100th birthday. It was special about a week and a half ago to be in the gentleman from California's district, going to the Presidential Library--Ronald Reagan's library; actually walking through that Air Force One plane that, among other places, took President Reagan to Germany, where he gave that famous speech and demanded, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It was Reagan's optimism that pulled our country out of the malaise of the 1970s. We need some more of that optimism here today. But while he is no longer with us, Ronald Reagan's legacy still endures today as an example of how we can get to that ``shining city on a hill'' again.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, prevention of discrimination against people with preexisting conditions was something we presented last year. It is something that's going to be one of the hallmarks of our replace bill. I hope the gentlelady supports us in preventing discrimination against preexisting conditions. That's part of the actual replacement that we are going to put forward that is real reform.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a liberal in Congress, the only person that would suggest that this ObamaCare law would actually reduce the deficit has got to be an Enron accountant. If you look at this bill, it rations care, it raises health care costs for families--yes, that was scored to raise the cost of health care. It's actually pushing thousands of doctors out of the practice of medicine. This job-killing bill is not reform. What we need to do is go back to the table and actually repeal this and replace it with real reform. But if all of my colleagues on the other side are correct in what they're saying about what's good about this, then why is it that when this bill was in committee, we actually brought up an amendment that said, if this is so good, all the Members of Congress have to join the government option. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? Every single member of the committee who voted for this bill voted to exempt themselves from it. So clearly that tells you, if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, it's not good law. Let's repeal this and start over with real reforms that actually lower the cost of health care, that address real problems like making sure people with a preexisting condition can't be discriminated against. Let's restore the doctor-patient relationship. That starts with repeal.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be removed as cosponsors of H.R. 61: Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Cole, Mr. Jeff Duncan, Mr. Franks, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Tom Graves, Mr. Kline, Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. Lummis, and Mr. McHenry.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart today that I join my colleagues in paying respects to the victims of the senseless tragedy that took place last weekend in Arizona. I extend my prayers to the families of those who lost their lives, to the wounded, and the recovering, and to our dear colleague, Gabby Giffords. Gabby is an energetic Member of Congress who works and enjoys and treats all of those she meets with decency and kindness. I was here with her just last week while we read the United States Constitution on the floor of this House. Gabby so eloquently read from that bedrock of our democracy the First Amendment. In a direct reflection of her passion for interacting with those she represents, Gabby read of the established right of the people to peaceably assemble. All of those gathered in Tucson on Saturday were engaging in what should have been a peaceful activity that is absolutely fundamental to our form of government--spending time with the gentlelady who so proudly advocates on their behalf here in the United States House of Representatives Among the fallen were Phyllis Schneck, a great-grandmother; Dorothy Morris, a devoted wife; Gabe Zimmerman, a public servant; John Roll, an honorable judge; Christina Taylor Green, a 9-year-old girl who just wanted to learn more about government; and Dorwan Stoddard, a man who gave his life protecting and saving his wife. They are all in our thoughts and prayers. Our Founding Fathers made no mistake when they included the right to peaceably assemble among the first tenets of democracy. The inexplicable violence of last Saturday is a stark, tragic reminder that we must never waver in our steadfast support of the First Amendment and the precious freedoms it affords us every day. As our colleague, Gabby, and all of those directly affected by this tragedy continue to heal from Saturday's incomprehensible events, let us remember the victims and their loved ones in our thoughts and in our prayers and in our actions. As those of us here have known, and as people all throughout the Nation are witnessing, Gabby Giffords is a fighter. Let's keep in our prayers the hope that she once again joins us back here on the floor of this, the people's House.