Gulf1-E-Miller

Congressman Jeff Miller's Newsletter for January 22, 2012

Last week, President Obama took the extraordinary action of denying the application for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. In a move that would cost thousands of jobs by any measure, this Administration’s decision to block the pipeline shows they are out of touch with the message Americans have been delivering for more than a year – where are the jobs?

The Keystone XL project is a proposed 1,700 mile extension of an existing energy pipeline. It would provide a critical link from abundant petroleum supplies in Canada to U.S. refineries. When finished, Keystone is estimated to carry 1.4 million barrels of petroleum every day, significantly expanding the refining capacity of North American energy companies. 

However, Keystone XL is more than an energy issue. It is a jobs issue. The Keystone XL Pipeline project is estimated to inject $20 billion of private sector investment into our economy. It would create 20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 more jobs from increased economic activity. These are not Republican talking points – these numbers were provided by 22 members of the President’s own party in an October 19, 2011 letter to the President asking him to approve the pipeline. It is undisputed the Keystone XL Pipeline would create jobs. For a President who mentions the importance of American jobs in almost every speech he gives, I am astounded that his words are not followed by action.

The President was clear about his reasons for denying the Keystone XL permit. He tried to put the blame on Republicans for rushing his decision. However, the Keystone XL project has already undergone an extensive, three-year review led by the State Department. A multi-agency process, the review studied the pipeline’s environmental, economic, and energy impacts. More than 25 meetings were held with interested parties on both sides of the issue. The State Department’s own Environmental Impact Statement found that Keystone XL would have no significant impact on the environment. So why would the President push his decision on the pipeline until 2013 and after the November 2012 election?

The Administration should not play politics with job creation and economic recovery. So, as part of the end of the year discussion on the payroll tax holiday, House Republicans were successful in passing legislation that required the President to make a decision on Keystone XL within 60 days. Three years is too long to wait for this important project, and pushing the decision off for more than a year is unacceptable. On Wednesday, the President made his decision. Unfortunately, it was the wrong decision.

The Administration had an opportunity to create jobs – not through trillion-dollar government stimulus, but through private sector investment. They had an opportunity to increase American energy independence. They had an opportunity to show they were willing to put economic recovery above politics. But they rejected it. The Administration is no longer just failing to act on job creation, it is actively preventing it. Incredibly, the President said during debate over Keystone XL that extending unemployment benefits would create more jobs than the pipeline project. Jobless benefits creating jobs? I don’t think so.

The President would be wise to listen to the advice given by the citizens who would be affected by construction of Keystone XL, advice highlighted in Democrats’ October letter: "We need the jobs, it’s that simple."

Congressman Jeff Miller's Newsletter January 15, 2012

In an extraordinary move that pushes the boundaries of constitutionality, the President made a number of “recess appointments” last week to fill executive branch positions, even though Congress was not in recess.  Breaking with decades of precedent and ignoring the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution, the President appointed Richard Cordray as Director of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three new members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), despite the Senate’s stated objection to these nominations.
 
The United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2 is explicit in requiring the advice and consent of the Senate for officers of the United States.  The President has the power to fill any vacancies that “may happen during the Recess of the Senate.”  However, the President’s recent appointments were made when the Senate was demonstrably not in recess.  Because the Constitution requires the consent of each House of Congress before either can adjourn for longer than three days, each chamber has held sessions every three days.  The Executive Branch is now maintaining that the Administration can determine if Congress is in recess and thus make appointments at any point.

This argument is absurd and is a blatant power grab by the Executive Branch.  First, long-held legal precedent accepted by both parties for more than 60 years holds that Congress must be out of session for longer than three days to make a recess appointment.  Second, the argument that the President can decide on his own when Congress is in recess is a slippery slope.  If he counts the days between sessions as “in recess,” theoretically the President could make “recess appointments” when Congress goes home at night or pauses for a few minutes between debate.  Certainly this was not the intent of the founding fathers.

I fully expect these appointments will be determined to be unconstitutional and invalidated by both the courts and the American people.  However, a court decision on this issue could take years to work its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, so my colleagues and I are taking action now. 

First, I joined in writing a letter to the President expressing our outrage at his usurpation of power by making appointments when the Senate was not in recess.  The letter focuses on the appointment of Mr. Cordray as head of the CFPB based on the Senate’s clear lack of consent to his appointment.  Not only did the President make this appointment when Congress was not in recess, but he did so knowing the Senate did not approve. 

Second, I am co-sponsoring along with more than 70 of my colleagues a Resolution of Disapproval which explicitly states the disapproval of the House of Representatives to the President’s attempts to override the legislative branch of government.  Specifically, it expresses our chamber’s belief that the CFPB and NLRB appointments took place when Congress was not in recess and were made in violation of the Constitution.

Third, I am co-sponsoring the Executive Appointment Reform Act (EARA), a bill led by Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) that would prohibit the payment of any salaries to recess appointees until such appointee is formally confirmed by the Senate.  This law actually exists on the books already, but includes so many exceptions that it is rendered impotent.  EARA would abolish these exceptions, preventing funds from paying the salaries of recess appointees as well as prohibiting gratuitous or voluntary service.  The bill also precludes any final regulations from the CFPB until its Director has been confirmed by the Senate. 

The appointments of CFPB Director and NLRB Members fly in the face of 60 years of consistently held legal opinion, the U.S. Congress, and the Constitution.  I am appalled at this lack of respect exhibited by the President for the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial systems of our country, and I will continue to fight these “recess appointments” or any attempt by the President to override the Constitution.

Congressman Jeff Miller's Newsletter January 8, 2012

Since taking control of the House of Representatives last January, Republicans have understood that American voters want a responsible government that doesn’t waste their money or make it extremely difficult for their businesses to succeed.  In 2011, we took significant steps to reduce the size and scope of government and have conducted business using an open process that allows for Members to propose amendments to reduce spending.  Over the course of the year, I voted for hundreds of amendments to reduce unnecessary spending.  Using this open process, we cut discretionary spending by $95 billion, the largest reduction in discretionary spending since the end of World War II. 

Budgetary responsibility, however, must also be paired with economic prosperity.  House Republicans understand that we must take actions to reduce regulatory burdens and create an economic climate in which businesses can expand and hire new employees.  The Federal Government, on average, issues 8,000 regulations each year.  These excessive regulations avert job creation and hinder economic growth.  According to the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually, and a small business with less than 20 employees faces an average cost of $10,585 per worker each year as a result of federal regulations.

In May, Republicans released the “Plan for America’s Job Creators,” a comprehensive approach to reducing government barriers to job growth.  We have passed more than 35 bills that would empower small owners by removing burdensome regulations that impede private sector job creation, reduce the tax burden on families and businesses, increase competitiveness for American manufacturers and encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. 

The fight to continue cutting government spending and helping to create jobs will continue into 2012.  The Senate continues to hold up more than 25 job-creating bills passed by our chamber and is likely to persist in its efforts to hinder job growth. The upper chamber also refused to negotiate on a long-term extension of the payroll tax holiday, instead punting on the issue with a two-month extension.  The Senate needs to work with us on passing bills that provide long-term security to job creators and the American people.  We cannot wait until the next election to make the big decisions required of us.

We represent you, the American people, and the Republican House majority understands that it is our duty to restore fiscal responsibility and support our nation’s job creators.  Even though we have taken numerous steps to right our economy, there is still much to be done.  I and my Republican colleagues in the House, will continue to take the lead in this coming year to reduce government spending and regulations and provide tax relief for American families and businesses, while continuing to stand for conservative principles that ensure the continued prosperity of our great nation.

Congressman Jeff Miller's Christmas Newsletter December 25, 2011

After a year full of contentious debate here in Washington and spirited political discourse debate across our nation, I would like nothing more than to take pause, give thanks for our many blessings, and wish you and your family a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah – but, I am not supposed to.  Under current House rules, I am prohibited from including holiday greetings in a newsletter by the House Franking Commission, the group responsible for oversight of Congressional communications.

A certain level of civility, understanding, and tolerance of the many faiths that make up our great nation is required, demanded even, by our Constitution.  However, a certain level of pragmatism is also necessary.  Banning the use of holiday phrases like “Merry Christmas” is an overreach by the Franking Commission in an attempt to use political correctness to stifle even the most routine of end-of-year greetings.  In fact, the use of general greetings such as “have a happy new year” or “have a safe and happy holiday season” is permissible under the rules.  But, we are not celebrating winter.  We are celebrating significant occasions in two religions that have fundamentally shaped our country throughout the course of history.

I hope the Commission reverses its guidance on holiday greetings, and this week I co-signed a letter to the Speaker of the House John Boehner and the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration Dan Lungren asking them to reconsider the rules.  The purpose of the Franking Commission is to prevent the abuse of letters for political purposes.  In no way is wishing someone a “Merry Christmas” political in nature.  The Franking Commission is not meant to police the greetings used by Members of Congress or to enforce PC politics.
 
As a Christian, I celebrate Christmas as the day to mark the birth of Jesus Christ.  However, oftentimes we can forget the meaning of Christmas by becoming too caught up in decorating or gift-giving, and attempts at political correctness can overshadow its significance.  This year, I am proud to co-sponsor H. Res. 489, a resolution that expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected for those who celebrate Christmas.  More than 65 of my colleagues from both political parties have also co-sponsored this resolution.  In addition, I am co-signing with members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus letters of thanks to the many U.S. retailers who continue to remember the reason for the Christmas season.  Whether or not you and your family celebrate Christmas, it is important to recognize the freedom of religion provided by our First Amendment and allow Christmas traditions for those who celebrate it.
 
As your elected Member of Congress, I represent thousands of people who celebrate the traditions of their Christian or Jewish faiths, and thousands who do not.  Just as we should not restrict the free speech of those who do not share a similar faith with mine, we must not restrict the ability to wish others a “Merry Christmas” or a “Happy Hanukkah.”
 
But for now, “wishing you and your family all the very best this Christmas season,” may you “have a safe and happy holiday season” and “have a happy new year.”

And Merry Christmas!

Congressman Jeff Miller Newsletter - 12/20/2011

The Christmas season is upon us, and most Americans are thinking about spending time with their family and celebrating the holidays.  Unfortunately, Congress still has unfinished business to attend to.  Many news reports this week have misrepresented the facts and blamed House Republicans for holding up an agreement on extending the payroll tax cut.  I think it is important to set the record straight. 

Last week, the House passed a bill to extend the payroll tax cut for all of 2012, leaving more of the people’s hard earned money in their own pockets.  Our bill would also help to create jobs through provisions to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, overturn harmful EPA MACT rules—which according to EPA’s own estimates would cost businesses billions of dollars, while also raising electricity rates by nearly 10 percent in the next decade and putting thousands of jobs at risk—and extend 100 percent expensing for investments in new equipment to help businesses expand and hire new employees.  The bill passed by House Republicans would also provide certainty to seniors by ensuring that doctors who treat seniors with Medicare would not see their reimbursement rates cut by nearly 30 percent. 

Unfortunately, rather than work with the House to extend these benefits for a full year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to hold a vote on a temporary two-month payroll tax holiday that would leave the American people and small businesses in a state of continued uncertainty.  In fact, according to the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, a non-partisan group that represents organizations that provide payroll processing services for more than 1.5 million businesses, this two-month payroll tax holiday “could create substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.”  Harry Reid’s payroll tax holiday would actually place substantial costs on employers and therefore deter them from increasing the size of their workforce.

Harry Reid’s payroll tax holiday fails to bring the certainty that businesses need to grow.  His bill also fails to address many important issues that were included in our payroll tax cut legislation.  While the House extended the payroll tax cut 12 months, the Senate bill extended them for only two months.  So, while House Republicans would give the average family making $50,000 a year an estimated $1,000 tax cut, the Senate would put just $166 back in the pockets of working families.  While the House included fundamental reforms to the unemployment compensation system, designed to help unemployed Americans get the education and training they need to be competitive in the job market, the Senate decided to simply hand out these checks for two more months.  While the House included provisions to save taxpayers $9 billion by cracking down on fraud and abuse, the Senate simply ignored the problem. 

Instead of doing further harm to our recovering economy by burdening America’s businesses with two months of uncertainty, House Republicans want to remove the wet blanket hovering over our economy and provide twelve months of certainty for American families and businesses.  Today, with the vast majority of Senators already on vacation, House Republicans remained at work.  We passed a bill to create a conference committee between the House and Senate to resolve our differences, and House Republicans remain committed to working through the Christmas season to find a way to extend this tax cut for all of 2012.  But, yet again, Senator Reid seems willing to hold up the entire process by dictating that the House accepts his amendment.  While House Republicans were busy trying to find a solution, Senator Reid said, “I will not re-open negotiations until the House follows through and passes this agreement.”  This abdication of the Senate’s responsibility to work for the American people is unfathomable.  Harry Reid needs to call Senators back from their vacation and work with the House to extend the payroll tax cut in a way that will help, not harm, our economy.  The time to create certainty and help our job creators put unemployed Americans back to work is now.   

Congressman Jeff Miller's Newsletter December 11, 2011

Throughout the year, House Republicans have strived to pass bills that will provide jobs by lowering the cost of doing business in America.  Specifically, we have passed five bills to increase domestic energy production, seven bills to encourage entrepreneurship and business growth, four bills to increase the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers, and two bills to eliminate expensive tax provisions for small businesses.  Additionally, a major part of our Plan for America’s Job Creators is to empower small business owners by reducing the costly burden of government regulations.  To date, we have passed fifteen bills to eliminate, to delay, or to provide additional oversight of executive branch agency regulations.  This week, the House passed one of our signature bills on this initiative – the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, or the REINS Act.

Led by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a number of federal agencies have spent the last three years advancing an extreme regulatory agenda.  These agencies have been given broad discretion by the White House to implement expansive federal rules that have the force of law.  Onerous regulations act as an implicit tax on businesses, one which companies must either pass on to their consumers or reduce their workforce in order to comply.  Moreover, rules are constantly changing, limiting the ability of companies, especially small businesses, to plan for their future. 

The Small Business Administration recently estimated that federal regulations cost the United States economy $1.75 trillion every year.  To put that in perspective, federal regulations cost our economy annually more than 10 percent of our Gross Domestic Product.  The Obama Administration counted 410 new major rules in its regulatory agenda for 2010 and 2011 – four times the number of major rules than during the first two years of the previous Presidency, and regulatory burdens from new regulations just this year will cost $67.4 billion.  All of this is done by unelected bureaucrats who face little or no scrutiny from the voting public. 

The REINS Act would limit the federal rulemaking powers of unaccountable bureaucrats by requiring Congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to the economy of more than $100 million.  In other words, any proposed federal rule that would cost the U.S. economy $100 million or more would be voted on by Congress.  The bill would ensure that each of these rules receives an up-or-down vote in a timely manner, returning the power to legislate to elected legislators.  This increases transparency and accountability in the regulatory process, and gives American taxpayers and American companies more say in the regulations that will impact their lives and their businesses.  Of the 4,225 regulations currently under proposal, 224 are would qualify as major rules under the REINS Act.  Even if each of these only cost the economy exactly $100 million, they would add another $22 billion in negative economic impact annually.  The REINS Act would reverse the trend of unrestrained rulemaking and allow an elected Congress to review and approve these damaging regulations before being foisted on our country’s job creators.

I am a proud co-sponsor of the REINS Act and was pleased to see the bill pass the House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 241-184.  Small businesses and the American people need relief from over-burdensome regulations that are crushing our economy, limiting its growth, and preventing the job creation that we desperately need.  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up and pass this bill immediately, along with the roughly two dozen other jobs bills still pending on the Senate floor.

Congressman Jeff Miller Newsletter December 4, 2011

House Republicans were elected last year on a message of jobs, and we have never lost focus on that mission.  It has been, and continues to be, our number one priority, and throughout the year we have passed nearly 30 jobs bills that would help create jobs and improve the economy.    Unfortunately, more than 20 of these bills are still stuck in the Senate abyss and may never see the light of day. 

The difference between House Republicans and Senate Democrats has always been action versus inaction.  When we say we want to create jobs and lower unemployment, we back our words with action and pass legislation that supports job growth.  Our colleagues in the upper chamber love to talk about jobs, but where is the action?  Where are the jobs?

Just this week, House Republicans added two more jobs bills to the Senate’s ever-growing pile of legislation that would help provide jobs for Americans.  The Senate only needs to pick up our bills, consider them, and send them to the President for signature.  We can promote an economic environment that allows companies to hire again by liberating them from the excessively-burdensome rules mandated by the federal government.

On Thursday, we passed a jobs bill that would require federal agencies to analyze fully the impact any proposed regulation would have on small businesses before adopting the new regulation.  H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, would expand the coverage of economic analysis on new rulemaking to include indirect effects on small entities and would require greater public comment and participation on proposed rules.  Furthermore, it would eliminate the ability of agencies to waive or delay the economic impact analysis.  Despite the fact that an analysis on the economic impact of new regulations on small businesses is already required, agencies have increasingly used their loophole provisions to avoid undertaking a proper analysis.  This has led to countless regulations that hinder job growth.  The Small Business Administration recently estimated that federal rulemaking imposes a cumulative burden on the U.S. economy of $1.75 trillion, with small businesses bearing the largest burden of these regulations.  H.R. 527 is yet another step in our efforts to decrease government overregulation.

We passed another jobs bill on Friday – H.R. 3010, or the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would require federal agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking alternative that meets the statutory objectives laid out in law.  The bill also would require advanced notice of major proposed rules in order to increase public participation.  It includes important safeguards when new rules are set forth to protect public health or safety, but would require that these benefits outweigh the cost.  Overall, H.R. 3010 makes the regulatory process more transparent, agencies more accountable, and regulations more cost-effective.

Together, these bills will lower the cost of doing business in America, freeing companies to hire more workers.  Our country’s current rulemaking process is decades old and has become an outdated model in a globalized economy.  With increased competition from countries that enjoy far fewer regulations on businesses, America has been put at a disadvantage, costing us jobs and economic growth.  House Republicans are continuing to fix our obsolete regulatory system by passing legislation to reduce these onerous regulations in order to create jobs right here in America.

Congressman Jeff Miller's Newsletter - November 20, 2011

Congressman Jeff Miller's Newsletter   

The size of our national debt is astounding, and its rapid expansion is extremely troubling as it continues to threaten our economy and hamper the ability of businesses to grow.  We cannot risk the future prosperity of our nation by continuing to recklessly spend money and heap trillions of dollars of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. 

The idea that massive debts are harmful to the government, and that laws should be put in place to safeguard taxpayers from these consequences, is not a new idea.  Thomas Jefferson advocated for a balanced budget over 200 years ago.  In 1982, in a speech to the nation on the federal budget, President Reagan told us, “We have tried the carrot and it failed, but with the stick of a Balanced Budget Amendment we can stop government’s squandering overtaxing ways and save our economy.”  And in 1995, a Balanced Budget Amendment passed the House of Representatives only to fall one vote short in the Senate of receiving the necessary two-thirds majority required to send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification.

In the sixteen years since, our national debt has nearly tripled in size, growing by almost $10 trillion, or approximately $1.6 billion per day.  This year alone the federal government will spend $3.7 trillion, while only collecting $2.2 trillion in revenue, meaning that more than 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend is borrowed money.  In fact, all federal spending after July 27 of this year has come from borrowed money.

Our budgetary problems are difficult, but the ultimate answer is simple.  Last week, the House of Representatives voted on the solution.  We held a vote on a four page bill that has the power to fundamentally change the flawed way that Washington spends taxpayer money by sending a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment to the states for ratification.  This commonsense bill would have forced the federal government to abide by the same basic budgetary principle that guides families throughout the nation and 49 out of 50 state governments: don’t spend more than you take in.  Despite the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly supported the Balanced Budget Amendment, I am deeply concerned that fewer than 30 Democrats voted in favor of the bill, which failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority.  Some Democrat Members who voted in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1995 changed their position for partisan reasons, thwarting the will of the people. 

It is essential to reduce spending now, and House Republicans have been leading this effort since day one of the 112th Congress.  But the fact is that any spending reductions we make now can be offset in future congresses by more reckless spending.  That is why it is imperative to pass a measure to permanently ensure that our federal government operates in a manner that is fiscally responsible.  But House Democrats obstructed the passage of a simple solution supported by nearly three quarters of Americans that would help solve our debt crisis. 

I have consistently supported a Balanced Budget Amendment since I came to Congress.  Throughout these years, I have seen support for it continue to grow.  Today, more than 65 percent of Americans support a Balanced Budget Amendment.  They support it because they realize that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a game-changer.  They realize that our federal budget and the state of our economy are tied together, and that passing a Balanced Budget Amendment would help to provide some much needed economic certainty to American businesses and entrepreneurs.  I was extremely disappointed to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand in the way of its final passage.  The need to fundamentally change the way Washington spends taxpayer money is imperative.  As we have seen and many have felt, an unbalanced budget with record deficits is a recipe for disaster.  Congress should not force American taxpayers to stomach the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility and the American people should not accept it.

Balanced Budget Amendment Vote

Washington D.C.—Congressman Jeff Miller (R-FL-01) issued the following statement on a proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution:

“Washington has a spending problem.  The reckless expansion of our debt threatens our economic prosperity.  Continuing on the same reckless path and placing the burden of our economic irresponsibility on our children and our grandchildren is not an option.  

Across the country, Americans have been calling for fiscal responsibility, and their efforts have changed the debate and forced Washington to change its big spending ways.  And these ideas are not new.  Great Americans from Thomas Jefferson to Ronald Reagan have called for fiscal responsibility and advocated for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

House Republicans have led the effort to chart a new course, but today House Democrats blocked the most important budget measure to come before the House since 1995.  They blocked a Balanced Budget Amendment despite the fact that almost three quarters of the American public support it.  I was extremely disappointed that Democrat Members, including many who voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1995, stood in opposition precisely when our nation can least afford to bankroll more reckless spending.”

Veterans Day Newsletter November 11, 2011

The United States of America is the greatest country on earth because of the sacrifices of the men and women who fight every day to defend our freedoms and those of our Allies around the world.  For 235 years, our soldiers have fought on battlefields, across the oceans, and in the air to protect the American way of life.  Today, on Veterans Day, we honor this service and sacrifice by taking a moment to remember and honor those who have worn the uniform in defense of our Nation.

Although this is the 58th year we have officially celebrated Veterans Day, our history of honoring our veterans extends back much farther.  Known originally as Armistice Day, November 11 was designated as a day to honor the anniversary of the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I, which went into effect at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918.   In 1954, President Eisenhower signed legislation extending the November 11th celebration to all veterans. 

As we honor our country’s veterans today, it is my sincere hope that each of you will join in not just another federal holiday, but use the day as a time to remember those who have served in our U.S. Armed Services.  As Iraq War veteran Phillip Carter put it so eloquently in this week’s Washington Post:

“Whether civilians fully realize it or not, the simple message of thanks sends a powerful message to veterans — that the nation will take responsibility for our actions in her service. In some small way, this collective acceptance of responsibility helps veterans to transfer some of the psychological burdens of wartime service to society. Such gratitude will not eradicate combat stress nor address every veteran’s experience. However, these small gestures do make a difference.”

It was their duty to fight for us overseas, and now it is our duty to fight for them at home.  I have spent my years in Congress working to improve the lives of our veterans and their families, and I hope you will join me in this mission.

So thank a veteran for his or her service.  Take a moment to reflect on their sacrifice.  Visit a local veterans’ cemetery to honor the fallen.  Join others in local charities that support our troops and veterans.  Write a card to a loved one stationed abroad or a friend who has served.  Not just today, but every day. 

And above all, remember what these brave men and women fought for – our lives, our freedom, and our country. 

To share in a small bit of our veterans’ history on video, please visit: http://veterans.house.gov/americas-heroes.