Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Donate for Disaster Relief Act.

Forty-seven major disasters were declared last year. The year before that, we had 99 major disasters. Three major disasters have already been declared in 2013. On top of that, there were a number of smaller incidents that do not rank on the scale. A tornado that destroys a single house might not be a ``super storm,'' but for the family that lost its home, that tornado certainly is a major disaster.

Things are not going to get better. There are going to be more major disasters. We are going to have to pay for the response and repair. We need to start thinking about what we can do ahead of time to be prepared for when they strike. We don't have to wait for the worst to happen before we actually do something. This bill will help us get ready beforehand. Why wait?

The Donate for Disaster Relief Act creates a completely voluntary cheek-off on income tax returns that lets taxpayers elect to donate to a disaster relief trust. This bill is an opportunity for us to share our selflessness and generosity before an emergency situation.

The harsh reality of disasters is that while we may not be able to predict when, we certainly can be prepared. The altruism of the American people is on display in their willingness to pitch in and help those in their greatest time of need. This bill creates an easy way for concerned Americans to anticipate the need for disaster relief, wherever and whenever it may be necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Donate for Disaster Relief Act.

Forty-seven major disasters were declared last year. The year before that, we had 99 major disasters. Three major disasters have already been declared in 2013. On top of that, there were a number of smaller incidents that don't rank on the scale. A tornado that destroys a single house might not be a ``super storm,'' but for the family that lost its home, that tornado certainly is a major disaster.

Things are not going to get better. There are going to be more major disasters. We are going to have to pay for the response and repair. We need to start thinking about what we can do ahead of time to be prepared for when they strike. We don't have to wait for the worst to happen before we actually do something. This bill will help us get ready beforehand. Why wait?

The Donate for Disaster Relief Act creates a completely voluntary check-off on income tax returns that lets taxpayers elect to donate to a disaster relief trust. This bill is an opportunity for us to share our selflessness and generosity before an emergency situation.

The harsh reality of disasters is that while we may not be able to predict when, we certainly can be prepared. The altruism of the American people is on display in their willingness to pitch in and help those in their greatest time of need. This bill creates an easy way for concerned Americans to anticipate the need for disaster relief, wherever and whenever it may be necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, a bill that I first introduced in the 109th Congress. This legislation authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to make use of already closed military facilities to coordinate emergency response and provide voluntary humanitarian assistance to Americans displaced by natural disasters.

From Hurricane Katrina to Hurricane Sandy, and numerous other destructive disasters, we have seen time and time again how emergency relief efforts can be complex, expensive, and oftentimes chaotic. Despite the extraordinary efforts can be complex, expensive, and oftentimes chaotic. Despite the extraordinary efforts of agencies like FEMA, the American Red Cross, and other local and national organizations to provide immediate relief, natural disasters can leave tens of thousands of Americans struggling for long periods of time. Sixteen months after Hurricane Katrina, 60,000 Americans were still ill-housed, and struggling to access adequate food and health care, education and jobs. I have seen similar effects following hurricanes in my home state of Florida.

While disaster preparedness, response, and recovery has improved greatly in recent years, difficult challenges remain. I believe that we must increase the availability of temporary housing in times of national emergencies, and improve training and preparedness for national emergencies in order to ensure that we can mitigate as much as possible the humanitarian catastrophes that occurred in the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic Coast, and elsewhere in the nation.

My legislation authorized FEMA to establish six National Emergency Centers throughout the United States. The Centers will be used to provide temporary housing, medical and humanitarian assistance for individuals and families displaced due to an emergency. The Centers will also serve as a centralized location for the training and coordination of first responders in the instance of an emergency. In addition, the Centers will improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts between governments, private companies, not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the use of these facilities would be totally voluntary on the part of displaced Americans. No federal agency is authorized under this legislation to force anyone to evacuate to these facilities, nor to force those who voluntarily arrive there to remain longer than they wish. The goal is to provide the facility and means for Americans displaced by disasters to continue leading their lives as much as possible.

The National Emergency Centers will be located on military bases that have been closed during the most recent Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC) round. I am proposing these sites because the necessary infrastructure to house, feed, and care for evacuees over an extended period of time is already in place, thus limiting the cost and time needed to construct these facilities. Military bases often contain large warehouses or hangers, ideal locations for storing large amounts of supplies and equipment. Finally, military bases are often accessible by a wide range of transportation links, and may themselves have train yards or airstrips capable of facilitating the rapid disbursement of supplies or relief efforts.

Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to better prepare and more adequately respond to the needs of communities hit by natural disasters. Furthermore, we must ensure that basic needs of disaster victims are met immediately following the devastation. The goal of this legislation is to improve humanitarian relief to individuals and families displaced and suffering from the effects of a natural disaster. The idea is to have an accessible central location that can house large numbers of people while providing for their immediate medical and daily needs.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and urge the House Leadership to bring this bill to the floor for its swift consideration.

Thank you very much. I appreciate very much, Rob, you giving us an opportunity to speak regarding Jay's service. I am especially grateful to you, Congressman Woodall, for asking me to participate.

I met Jay 19 years ago. I've been in this institution now, this is my 20th year. Nineteen years ago, I had quintuple heart bypass surgery, and during the period of recuperation and rehabilitation, I did most of my work here on the floor for a protracted period of time and came to know Jay during that period of time. As has been said by Congressman Ryan and Minority Whip Hoyer, the institution that Jay has served is critical and important for all of us, and most of the people that work here on the staff--the police officers, the people who report on and transcribe our words--go unrecognized year in and year out, even sometimes when they retire.

In this instance, we could do ourselves no less proud than to recognize that Jay began, as Paul Ryan just said, in the office of Republican Leader John Rhodes, but he also served as assistant manager for Speaker Newt Gingrich, the floor assistant for Speaker Dennis Hastert, and has served as the floor assistant for then-Republican Leader John Boehner and now Speaker John Boehner. Jay is loyal, knowledgeable, efficient, fair, and one thing that I don't know how many of you have observed, he's also swift afoot. He can get from that cloakroom to this floor or to the Speaker's rostrum faster than anybody I've ever seen.

During the 19 years I've known him, we pass each other here in the institution, but one thing that is important is that we are constantly recognizing each other, and Jay does that with all of us. And one thing that I'm going to miss--I don't have many people that I can turn to-- was he was always fair about giving me a clue about when we were going to leave this joint. And I'd ask him now: Jay, if you know--I'm coming over there to shake your hand. If you know when we're going to leave, tell me, please.

We wish you well, my friend, and Godspeed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Daisy Lea Alexander Kennedy, the beloved wife of my dearest friend and Chief of Staff, Arthur ``Art'' W. Kennedy. Sadly, she passed away on November 21 2012. I am truly blessed to have known Daisy and my thoughts and prayers go out to Art, his family, and friends during this most difficult time.

Daisy was a loving wife and mother, a lifelong educator and mentor, and an active member of her community. Born on October 3, 1932 in Evergreen, Alabama to the late Delilah and Richard Alexander, she was the youngest of five children. At an early age, the family moved to Pensacola, Florida. Daisy was educated in the Escambia County Public School System and graduated from Booker T. Washington High School. She went on to attend Florida A&M University (FAMU), where she received both her undergraduate and graduate degrees.

With a great passion for teaching and mentoring, Daisy worked tirelessly for 37 years in the Broward County Public School System. She also played a critical role in her grandchildren's education, teaching them important skills such as writing, reading, and math.

Furthermore, Daisy was a faithful member of First Baptist Church Piney Grove since 1956. She sang soprano in the choir, started the noonday bible study, and held several leadership positions. These included being the first chairperson of the church directory, a past president of the Pastor's Aide, a former Sunday School Superintendent, a member of the hospitality committee, and an active member of the Missionary Circle of Mary of Bethany.

In addition, Daisy was a highly respected and admired member of the community, dedicating her time to numerous organizations. She was a strong supporter of the FAMU Alumni Association, the Golden Heights Neighborhood Association, the Kappa Silhouettes, and the Retired Teachers' Association.

On July 8, 1984, Daisy was united in holy matrimony to Art Kennedy. With this union came seven children, eighteen grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren, plus one on the way.

Daisy leaves to cherish her wonderful memory a loving and devoted husband, Art; her children, Sharon Telfer of Winter Haven, Florida; Lennard Robinson, Sr. of Plantation, Florida; Janice (Jerome) Boger of Conyers, Georgia; Michael Bruce (Joyce Marie) Kennedy of Miramar, Florida; Vikki Johnson of New Carrollton, Maryland; Arthur (Yolanda) Kennedy of Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Jill Kennedy of Plantation, Florida; her grandchildren, Patrick, Shante, Shannon, Daima, Danielle (Marcus), Trawick, Kendall, Bryce, David (Amanda), Kasey Korey, Kiara, Daniel, Lennard, Moriah, Marion, Rico, Alex, and Tyler; her great- grandchildren, Marcus, Kamari, Lauren, Elijah, Ayden, Cameryn, Khambrea, King, and Kennedy; two brothers, Henderson Alexander and William Crosby; one sister, Alberta Lewis; a host of nieces, nephews, and cousins; her goddaughter, Deetra Durham; two very special friends, Mary Ellen Sands and Jackie Hall; and countless others.

Mr. Speaker, for those of us whose lives she touched, Daisy Kennedy will always have a special place in our hearts. She will be remembered fondly and dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 100th anniversary of the Lake Worth Public Library. This library is a symbol of what a community can accomplish when it comes together for a common goal and embodies the American hunger for knowledge and education.

In 1912, as the city of Lake Worth was being built, the women of this new city recognized the need for a library. That year, the local newspaper sent out an appeal for book donations. As the donations came in, Mr. and Mrs. John L. McKissock would ride their bicycles the seven miles to West Palm Beach to pick up the donated books and bring them back to the new library in Lake Worth. A point of pride for the Lake Worth community is that the Lake Worth Library was established five months before the first school and almost two years before electricity was brought into the city.

As the library outgrew its room in the Lake Worth City Hall, plans were made for the library to be established as a memorial library in honor of General William Jenkins Worth, the man credited with ending the Seminole Wars. However, the bill that would have made this possible was vetoed by President Roosevelt after passing Congress.

The citizens of Lake Worth never gave up though. They worked together, and through fundraising and smart investment, they were able to complete the new library in 1941. Thanks to a sizable donation from James and William Strait, the Lake Worth Public Library was able to even open an art wing which was later converted to a children's library.

To this day, the Lake Worth Public Library is not your average community library. In addition to being a hub of educational activity for adults and children alike, the library is home to unique treasures such as the only known collection of historic paintings by R. Sherman Winton, and wood carvings by Sam J. Schlappich, a Lake Worth artist who exhibited at the Century of Progress Fair in 1933 and the 1939 World Fair.

Libraries like the Lake Worth Public Library and others around the country serve a vital role in our communities. They provide access to computers, books, and research material, host cultural events, and offer technology training essential in today's job market to people from all walks life. Libraries break down barriers and bring communities together, and the Lake Worth Public Library is no exception.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor the Lake Worth Public Library, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that despite cuts to Federal, State, and municipal budgets, libraries across the United States receive the support they need to continue their vitally important work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Taiwan's 101st National Day on October 10, 2012. This event marks the anniversary of the 1911 uprising that led to the establishment of the Republic of China.

Under President Ma Ying-jeou's leadership, Taiwan has made great strides in improving relations with mainland China, which has contributed to reduced tensions in the region overall. Furthermore, through the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, millions of citizens in both nations have benefited. China and Taiwan are continuing to pursue productive and peaceful negotiations to ensure a better future for their citizens, and cross-strait relations are better now than they have ever been.

The United States should support and assist Taiwan in building on its recent successes and playing a greater role in international organizations, such as the World Health Assembly. Taiwan is also on the road to gaining membership in the International Civil Aviation Organization. This important progress should be recognized and encouraged.

Mr, Speaker, Taiwan is an important ally to the United States, an outpost of democracy and freedom, and plays a critical economic role in the region. Millions of Americans buy Taiwanese products, and Taiwan is an export destination for a wide range of American products, from agriculture to raw materials to technology. The Taiwanese people are committed to hard work and democratic values, as well as productive and peaceful international relations. I offer my sincere congratulations on their 101st National Day, and look forward to celebrating Taiwan's future successes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cookie Henrey, a doorkeeper for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, who retired in August 2012. She worked there since 1987.

Cookie started to work on Capitol Hill during the summer of her 16th birthday, June 21, 1976. She worked as a counter girl in the House restaurant until she graduated from Fairmont Heights High School in June 1978. After graduation, Cookie married her childhood sweetheart, Michael Henrey. That union produced three sons, Michael, Jr. and twin boys Marcus and Marcell. In 1979, Cookie started to work for the Office of the Doorkeeper. She stayed there until 1986, and then moved on to work for the Capitol Police as a security aide.

So we will all miss that infectious smile. And, we will not have the sidebar and off-line chatter that so many of us shared with her. Cookie made a point of knowing every Member by name, kept us safe, and offered good tidings to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, for those of us who knew her, entering the Chambers of Congress will be less bright because we no longer have Cookie's sunny disposition. I am sure that I speak for all when I say, ``thank you, Cookie.'' Your service is deeply appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from my neighboring State of Georgia, whom I consider to be one of the most conscientious, hardworking individuals in the Congress, and I appreciate the fact that he's 18 months here in the Congress. He and I know that he understands this institution considerably, having worked here for a number of years, and I'm grateful the process allows and he has allowed that I receive the traditional 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides, as has been said, for consideration of two bills. To identify them again, H.J. Res. 117 is the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, and H. Res. 6365 is the National Security and Job Protection Act.

When my colleague began his remarks, he said the magic words, ``This is a closed rule.'' When I was, as he, 18 months in the House in 1992 and I would be on radio, people were talking about how awful it was that the Democrats had so many closed rules. The Democrats lost the election that following year in 1994, and one of the leading reasons was closed rules. Yet we find ourselves on something as important as the financial circumstances of this country coming to the floor at the 11th hour with a closed rule, and, in fact, not having many more days that we are scheduled to be here, but having absolutely no reason why we could not be here at any point in time between now and the time that our financial circumstances would begin to be, as they are, much worse. Maybe the Republicans should have added a third entitled resolution. I would call it the ``No More Getting Anything Done in This Congress Act,'' because that is the message of this particular package.

This continuing resolution is merely a reminder that my friends in the majority were unable to complete work on the regular appropriations bills.

Instead of devoting congressional time to tackling the needs of essential government programs, Republicans have spent the summer trying to repeal the health care law, giving away benefits to the oil and gas industry, and chipping away repeatedly at women's rights.

Now, my colleague is correct in many respects to point out that the other body presents us with challenges, but it is not as if the other body has not done something. Let me tell you one of the measures that I have a continuing interest in because of my constituency, and that is that the Senate has passed a farm bill for a 5-year extension.

What my colleagues or leadership on the Republican side will not do is put that farm bill here on the floor even though we are faced in this country with a residual from one of the worst droughts that America has ever experienced. Even though food prices for all of the people in this country are continuously rising, here we are with this time that the chair of the Agriculture Committee and the ranking member begging the leadership, cannot find time for it to be on this floor. Instead of devoting our time to tackling the needs of essential government programs, we decide that we're going to attack women's rights.

Now, suddenly, you seem to have awakened to the looming, described, fiscal cliff. It's kind of good that you've noticed; but rather than address this challenge head on, the Republicans are pushing a bill that doesn't do anything. The sequester replacement does not actually prevent the sequester with a prudent mix, and every panel that has looked at this says that we have to have a prudent mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. What the Republicans simply do is kick the can down the road, which is no surprise.

I said in an earlier Rules meeting, and it was during the Olympics, that if kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, then Congress and the Republican majority would win gold, bronze, silver, and tin. This poor can doesn't have much more space to be kicked on, and I can tell you it places the burden on someone else to deal with this in the future. And this is what my Republican colleagues would call fiscal responsibility?

We got into this mess because of the massive deficits the Republicans piled on this country. Two wars in the Middle East not paid for, huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans--for those among us that are in a high-paying position--and huge, unpaid prescription drug benefits are all things that Republican Members in this House voted for despite the huge costs that would be imposed.

In fact, just 61 bills have been signed into law this year, the fewest in more than 60 years. In all of 2011, only 90 bills were signed into law. When Democrats controlled both Chambers in 2010, 258 bills were signed into law.

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm the only person who is making this observation that is being made. Let me cite two people, especially here inside the Beltway, that have made this observation, and that are generally respected as nonpartisan and accepted as experts by Republicans and Democrats.

We on this side are not the only ones who have noticed the lack of productivity that I just identified with the 61 bills. Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann wrote in a Washington Post column, the two gentlemen, and I am quoting them:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for

more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this

dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both

parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we

have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the

problem lies with the Republican Party.

That's from two particularly nonpartisan observers that everybody around here recognizes as experts. Now we are asked to support the Romney-Ryan vision of America, which ignores any responsibility for today's economic difficulties and instead demands that those who have the least in this great country should sacrifice the most. While Republicans last year were fighting tooth and nail to default on our debt obligations and crash the economy, millions of Americans were fighting to keep their jobs and millions lost them.

Millions of Americans were fighting to pay off their mortgages, and millions could not pay them. Millions of Americans were seeking access to quality health care, and they could not afford it. Millions of children of parents who wanted them to go to college are finding themselves without the capacity to get a decent education largely for the reasons that I have suggested.

But under the Romney-Ryan vision those priorities should take a back seat

to increase defense spending, and yet give more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us in our society. When it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, student loans and public safety, the Republicans are quick to dismiss billions of dollars in essential funding with a wave of their hand and the crocodile tears of deficit reduction. But when the defense contractors stand to lose just $1, Republicans suddenly find their fighting spirit and cry about a weakening America.

It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans can't shake off their do- nothing indolence to fight as hard for all Americans as they do for the richest.

We have a long list of programs, tax cuts, and activities set to expire at the end of this year; but rather than confront those challenges head on, Republicans are wasting our time with do-nothing bills. I suppose that when you have absolutely no ideas to offer besides tax cuts for those that are better off among our society, you may as well campaign on a platform of ``we have no ideas or even a plan to offer.'' But the American people need and deserve much more.

Mr. Speaker, I reject the Republican notion that a do-nothing Congress can help grow our economy, create more jobs, and address the many challenges facing this Nation from crumbling infrastructure to the impossibly high cost of education; and I also reject the Romney-Ryan vision that the only solution, at least that they have offered to these challenges, is tax cuts that help the rich and increase military spending.

My Republican colleagues paint a very pessimistic vision, Mr. Speaker, of a country where it appears to them that we have given up on trying to better everyone's lives and instead use the public's resources to enrich those who have already made it.

But I believe differently. We can afford to invest in our future. We can afford to create jobs. We can afford to make the choices now that will reap benefits for future generations--right now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend and colleague, Mr. McGovern, I would just urge my colleague from Pennsylvania to know that all of us are mindful, and rightfully should be concerned, about what's transpired in the Middle East. But he cites to one set of finances, and I would urge that he look at how and why the United States is involved in a compact with the Egypt military for the moneys that are distributed there, and not base it on what is happening today but look at what has happened throughout the years to assist in stabilizing that area. It didn't just happen overnight. It happened as a result of a serious compact in peace negotiations.

I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My good friend from Georgia speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, you're saying that we began this process open and this democracy flourished, and you were so passionate about it until when we left at 5 a.m. in the morning you rushed home and you were on fire.

I'm curious to know when we finish up here, ostensibly tomorrow afternoon, what is it that would cause us not to be able to be here and allow, as you put it, every Member to have his or her say for their constituents on this measure?

But, no, we're here on a closed rule.

I understand that the government has to continue and that's why we are doing a continuing resolution, but I also know we could have done an omnibus bill, and I also know that my colleague and others were the ones that caused this country to come to the brink and our credit rating to be assaulted; and you are going to tell me that we can't stay here tomorrow, that we can't come back here after the holidays or tomorrow and stay here if need be to get this done?

But, no, we're doing it now before April so that when we come back, we will be faced with the same crisis, and the only thing that's going to change is the faces and the places that the people come from, and all I'm saying is let's do it now. Let's do those things that you were talking about. And if it requires 5 a.m. in the morning, let's do it at 5 a.m. in the morning. I'm 76 and I'm still staying up. I don't know about you.

I yield to my colleague from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, first I ask my colleague. You know and I know you have farm interests in Georgia the same as I do, not necessarily the same, but we have farm interests in Georgia and farm interests in Florida. The Senate did pass the farm bill.

Can my colleague tell me why we don't have the farm bill on the floor during all of this period of time? We could at least do that in light of the disaster relief that took place.

I yield to my friend.

Where did you get the number 2-year rather than 5-year bill from? Because the 5-year proposal is what the chair of the Agriculture Committee, your and my colleague, Mr. Lucas, is seeking to offer. But I don't want to get us caught in the weeds.

Let me go ahead and yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I also have no further speakers and I'm prepared to close, and I thank the distinguished gentleman.

I also would like to offer an apology to my colleague. I committed a parliamentary faux pas when I said you speak out of both sides of your mouth. In the heat of the moment, I guess what I was trying to say is you said one thing one way than you said at another point in time, so I offer you my deepest my apologies.

Mr. Speaker, we will soon start another long district work period even though we haven't given the middle class an extension of tax cuts for the next year. If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House won't leave town until middle class tax cuts are signed into law. The first step is to give this House a vote on the middle class tax cut, introduced by Mr. Levin, which is the same proposal the Senate has already passed and the President is eager to sign.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, there is an upside to the Republicans' ``do-nothing'' Congress.

First, it creates a clear contrast between the Republicans and Democrats.

Democrats want to press forward with meaningful ideas to create jobs, improve access to affordable health and education, and invest in the kinds of programs that bring about progress and prosperity for all Americans. I believe that my friends in the majority want to push legislation that either cuts taxes for the wealthiest among us, or increases spending on the military, or does nothing more than pay the bills today--play politics while accomplishing nothing.

This is not about the deficit. The United States doesn't lack the money to prioritize our future. What we do lack is the political willpower and leadership necessary to set gainful priorities.

The Romney-Ryan vision for America is nothing more than a reckless sellout to the ideological extremes of the Republican Party, a party that is utterly dominated at this point in our history by a Tea Party dogma which cares more to preserve tax cuts for the rich than to be about the business of ensuring the well-being of our entire society.

The so-called ``sacrifices'' continually demanded by the Republican majority in order to provide ever more money for foreign wars and tax cuts for the wealthy are shortchanging the future of this Nation. Continuing to move further to the right--or to the left--does not constitute progress. Furthermore, the closed-door negotiations and closed process is truly disheartening and does not reflect the democracy that is supposed to be the hallmark of this institution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will my colleague yield?

I just want to ask, 6 months from now, when we come back, if you and I are here, will you commit that we would have that debate 6 months from now under an open rule?

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the PCIP Improvement Act of 2012, a bill that will make much needed improvements to the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program, created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

As you know, the ACA prohibits insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage or renew policies because of a person's pre-existing condition. While the provision already affects children up to 19 years of age, it will only apply to adults in January 2014. In the meantime, adults with a pre-existing condition can get coverage through the PCIP program, a temporary high-risk pool which has helped over 50,000 previously uninsured individuals get coverage.

While I have always been a strong supporter of this important program, I believe that some improvements need to be made in order to make it a success. Indeed, enrollment has been significantly lower than initial projections, which varied from 200,000 to 375,000. One of the biggest obstacles for enrollment in the program is a Congressional mandate requiring that individuals applying for PCIP coverage have not had creditable insurance coverage during the 6 months prior to the date they

apply to the program. Since the program's inception in July 2010, 69 percent of applications have been denied because individuals had creditable coverage within 6 months of applying.

While well-intentioned, this wait period has shown adverse effects by incentivizing people with pre-existing conditions to go uninsured for 6 months to qualify for the program. Individuals who lost their health insurance through no fault of their own and can no longer find coverage must wait 6 months to apply, thus exposing themselves to high out-of- pocket medical costs and unnecessary health risks. Unfortunately, because they go without insurance for such an extended period of time, they enter the program with a need for immediate care and cost more to the program.

Furthermore, considering mini medical plans as creditable coverage also encourages individuals to go with absolutely no coverage for 6 months in order to apply to PCIP. Mini medical plans are basic plans that may pay for portions of a doctor's visit or prescription drug, but do not provide catastrophic coverage or enough benefits for people with pre-existing conditions. Individuals who choose to obtain such a plan within 6 months of applying for PCIP to limit their medical liabilities will no longer be eligible for the program.

Such a misfortune happened to one of my constituents who lost his health insurance when he lost his job and has been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition since then. In June 2010, he received limited coverage through a mini medical plan that did not cover his pre-existing condition. When he applied to PCIP in September 2011, his application was denied because he had such plan within 6 months of applying. The only way for him to qualify was to go completely uninsured for 6 months. I cannot, in good conscience, advise my constituents in need of immediate care to wait 6 months to seek medical coverage.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will address these serious issues by eliminating the 6-month wait period and excluding mini medical plans from creditable coverage. My bill will bring us on step closer to ensuring accessible, affordable, and quality health care for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to help make PCIP a more successful program by supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution in support of the XIX International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2012), which takes place from July 22, 2012, through July 27, 2012, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, DC. AIDS 2012 is organized by the International AIDS Society (IAS) and brings together more than 20,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries, including 2,000 journalists. My resolution supports a stronger international response to HIV/AIDS that seeks to prevent the transmission of HIV, increase access to testing, treatment, and care, improve health outcomes for all people living with HIV/AIDS, foster greater scientific and programmatic collaborations around the world to end HIV/AIDS, and protect the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, there are approximately 33.4 million people living with HIV worldwide, and nearly 30 million people have died of AIDS since the first cases were reported in 1981. The United States is heavily engaged in both international and domestic efforts to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic, including the United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Taxpayers in the United States have paid more than $45 billion through PEPFAR and the Global Fund, which have enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress.

Since 1985, the now biennial International AIDS Conference has brought together leading scientists, public health experts, policymakers, community leaders, and individuals living with HIV/AIDS from around the world to enhance the global response to HIV/AIDS, evaluate recent scientific developments, share knowledge, and facilitate a collective strategy to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. AIDS 2012 is a tremendous opportunity to strengthen the role of the United States in global HIV/AIDS initiatives within the context of significant global economic challenges, reenergize the response to the domestic epidemic, and focus particular attention on the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS that continues in the United States.

The theme of AIDS 2012, ``Turning the Tide Together,'' embodies the promise and urgency of utilizing recent scientific advances in HIV/AIDS treatment and biomedical prevention, continuing research for an HIV vaccine and cure, and increasing effective, evidence-based interventions in key settings to change the course of the HIV/AIDS crisis. AIDS 2012 seeks to engage governments, non-governmental organizations, policymakers, the scientific community, the private sector, civil society, faith-based organizations, the media, and people living with HIV/AIDS to more effectively address regional, national, and local responses to HIV/AIDS around the world and overcome barriers that limit access to preventative care, treatment, and other services.

My resolution supports the goal of bringing renewed awareness of, and commitment to, addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis in the United States and abroad. In particular, it recognizes that formulating sound public health policy, protecting human rights, addressing the needs of women and girls, directing effective programming toward the populations at the highest risk of infection, ensuring accountability, and combating stigma, poverty, and other social challenges related to HIV/AIDS are key to overcoming HIV/AIDS. It also encourages the ongoing development of innovative therapies and advances in clinical treatment for HIV/AIDS in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Speaker, 25 years after the III International AIDS Conference was held in Washington, DC, we are now at a point where we have the tools necessary to prevent the spread of HIV and bring an end to the crisis. Now is the time to commit. HIV/AIDS is not a partisan issue. But it will take a bipartisan effort to overcome HIV/AIDS as a nation once and for all. Continued commitment by the United States to HIV/AIDS research, prevention, and treatment programs is crucial to protecting global health. I urge my colleagues to support my resolution, which recognizes the importance of the XIX International AIDS Conference in the global effort to end the HIV/AIDS pandemic and create an ``AIDS- free generation.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce this amendment to help ensure clean drinking water. This measure amends H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act, by exempting from the moratorium regulations that ensure drinking water is safe.

Safe drinking water is essential to public health. There is a long and terrible history of polluters dumping all matter of toxins into rivers, streams, and other sources of drinking water. Aside from the environmental destruction, it costs an enormous amount to effectively clean such sources once they have been polluted. It costs even more to provide the necessary medical care for persons made sick by exposure to polluted water.

We cannot afford to weaken or delay critical agency actions designed to ensure the continued enforcement and regulation of clean water rules.

This is not about creating jobs. Polluting water doesn't create more jobs, but it does negatively impact public health. We must remain vigilant in protecting our water supplies, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time in light of the fact that I don't think anyone else is going to speak on this amendment.

I clearly understand my colleague's position as set forth. One thing I cannot abide and offer by way of constructive criticism is the fact that all over this Nation too often we find that polluters cause our streams, rivers, and waters to be damaged. I'm a fifth-generation Floridian, and I heard the gentleman in the Rules Committee and on the floor today speaking pridefully, and rightfully, about his children. I've seen the damage in Florida, and I have seen much of the damage that has been done around the Nation. While it is true that the legislation as offered would allow for the President to come to Congress for approval, by the time Congress gets through doing anything, the pollution that we are trying to avoid may very well have overtaken us.

We have a very fragile ecosystem in our country and, as it pertains to water, it would just be absurd for us not to be able to address it immediately.

I'm pleased to yield such time as he will consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I'd like to address process just very briefly, and that is that, when we began this session of Congress, we were advised by our Republican colleagues that we were going to bring up each measure individually and discuss them. This is a structured rule that does contemplate the opportunity for many Members to participate, but it isn't an open rule. What it is is it's a measure as the base bill that has cobbled to it six distinctly different measures--evidenced by the number of thank- yous that had to come from Dr. Foxx to the various committees.

I do agree with the one, Dr. Foxx, where you thank the young man for creative thinking. This is out of the box when it comes to us as far as process is concerned being creative. Cobbling six pieces of legislation--with another to make seven--is a bit much.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Act of 2012, and H.R. 6082, which has such a long and convoluted name that the cost to the government to simply print the bill may require the Republican majority to raise the debt ceiling.

What the red tape bill should be called, Mr. Speaker, is the ``Eliminate the Government's Ability to Protect Its Own Citizens Act of 2012,'' because that is what the radical legislation--creative, though one may think it is--aims to do.

Under this legislation, Federal agencies would be prohibited from issuing new regulations until the unemployment rate falls below 6 percent.

And I defy any economist or anybody else in the world to tell me when that's going to be in an economy such as the one that we have. So too, would new regulations be prohibited between Election Day in early November and Inauguration Day in late January.

For the past 2 years, the Republican majority has been spending its time doing everything, it seems to me, to crash the economy by defaulting on our debt, eliminating the greatest health care protections made in decades, and turning sensible decisions about women's health care into a fantasy of religious persecution.

But now it appears that perhaps struggling Americans have finally managed to capture the Republicans' attention, except that the majority's response is not to make the kind of investments that will actually create jobs, but, instead, to gut the Federal Government's efforts to protect the health and safety of American citizens.

I realize that in the fantasy world inhabited by some far-right ideologues allowing polluters to run amok is tantamount to creating jobs, allowing corporations to pursue fantastic profits at the expense of public health and safety is somehow good governance, and enabling the middle class to fall farther and farther behind the ultra-wealthy is somehow a shining example of the American spirit.

But I have to ask, under this legislation, where will these new jobs come from?

I suppose we'll need more doctors to care for sick children, since the FDA will be prohibited from monitoring the safety of baby formula. We will need caregivers, I'm sure, willing to provide free care for older Americans, as Medicare will be unable to change its payments to providers. And we'll need new water treatment plant workers, as corporate polluters will have increased freedom to dump harmful chemicals into our drinking water, as they have for years.

If I sound extreme, Mr. Speaker, it's because this bill is extreme. A blanket prohibition on new regulations is not any kind of solution to grow our economy. The FDA, the EPA, and the Veterans Administration, these agencies are not responsible for the failure of our jobless recovery.

What is irresponsible is the failure to address the real needs of the American people. Rather than preventing the Federal Government from ensuring clean drinking water, we ought to be investing in the infrastructure that makes clean drinking water possible and that desalinates salt water.

We ought to be investing in economic development projects, in the national infrastructure, in clean energy technology, in education, and in the kinds of programs that support those Americans who are struggling the hardest. Rich CEOs of big polluters aren't one of those that are in need.

But speaking of rich CEOs out of touch with everyday Americans, it was Mitt Romney who said in 2009 that, ``You have to have regulation.'' He said that regulations need to be modernized, reviewed, and effective, and that Republicans ``misspeak'' when they say they don't like regulation.

I guess what Mitt Romney calls ``misspeak'' other people might call ``outright ridiculous'' because that is what the ideology behind this bill is. It is as ridiculous a notion that yet more drilling for oil will somehow--drilling in these places where companies like BP can cause the kind of incidents that we saw in the gulf--that somehow this is going to benefit the country. It won't.

The other bill to be considered under this rule is just the latest manifestation of the Republican energy doctrine: ``Only drilling, all the time, and everywhere.'' This legislation does exactly two things. It tears up environmental protections, and it further enriches oil company executives.

The House, under the Republican majority, has taken 142 pro-oil-and- gas drilling votes this Congress. Using the hourly cost of voting in the House, as calculated by the Congressional Research Service, the more than 90 hours we have spent debating these measures that everybody in this House knew were going nowhere when they left this House, we've spent $54 million of the taxpayers' money debating, and these are the people that would tell me they want to cut costs.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that there's always a chance that the Republicans will achieve success the 143rd time and additional hours that they try something. But once again, the majority's efforts reflect a dogged determination to rely on an outdated ideology that seeks only to reward the wealthiest corporations.

We are already drilling at historic levels in this country. The United States is home to more offshore drilling rigs than the entire rest of the world combined. Seventy percent of offshore areas currently leased are not even active yet.

This legislation isn't going to change the price of fuel for the average American. It does not mandate that oil drilled in the United States--Mr. Markey brought an amendment that allowed that if it's going to be drilled here, it ought to stay here. But this legislation doesn't allow for it to even be sold in the United States.

In fact, oil will simply be shipped out to the highest bidder, similar to what's going to happen with Keystone when it's completed, on the world market, generating enormous profits for the oil companies while sticking the American public with the bill.

I recently saw an editorial cartoon by Joel Pett. And in the cartoon, a man stands up at a climate change summit and asks, what happens if climate change is, indeed, a hoax, but we achieve energy independence anyway, that we preserve the environment anyway, that we create green jobs anyway, and livable cities, and have cleaner air and water. The answer, of course, is that we will all be better off.

Republicans can stick their heads in the tar sands all they want, but pumping more fossil fuels out of the ground and into the atmosphere will not sustain the American economy, nor provide the kind of economic prosperity that will benefit all Americans. And as I've said before, and I repeat again, I'll be the last person standing against drilling offshore of Florida.

At the same time, preventing the Federal Government from acting on behalf of public health and safety will not create new jobs. It won't return the unemployment rate to 6 percent, and it won't send a signal to the American public that their elected Representatives are ably minding public resources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend and colleague from Florida that when he speaks about 120,000 jobs that may have been created, Governor Rick Scott categorically rejected money for light rail between the I-4 corridor of Orlando and Tampa that would definitely have produced 18,000 jobs.

You can't have it both ways. You can't one minute say that you don't want something, and then the next minute say that some fictional number is going to take place that's a magic bullet. We worked hard to get that money appropriated. The last statement that he made was that you can't give something unless you get something. Well, they got from Florida, and that money went to the east coast corridor, to California, to Illinois. I'm not certain about whether any of it went to Kentucky, but I'm sure that the next speaker would be prepared to address that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell both sides how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), whose State did benefit from that money that was to go to Florida, as appropriated.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentlelady that I'm going to be the last speaker, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We could go back to the days when government was helpless against the robber barons who abused our public resources. We could go back to the days when citizens had no recourse against corporations who valued profit above individual health and safety. And we could go back to the days when unelected oligarchs drove this Nation's destiny, rather than democratically elected governments representing the interests of the American public.

Prohibiting Federal agencies from carrying out necessary and essential public protections will not create new jobs. It will not boost our economy. It will not protect the most vulnerable and disadvantaged Americans in a time of extraordinary uncertainty.

Drilling for oil everywhere and anywhere is not a solution. It won't even provide much benefit, unless you consider further enriching oil executives to be a benefit for millions of struggling Americans.

What Americans need is government that is willing to invest in its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which proposes that Congress will not adjourn until the President signs middle class tax cuts into law.

We have an opportunity to extend the middle class tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000. This should not be a partisan fight; this is what we were elected to do. We should not adjourn into August recess while American families across this country are trying to make ends meet. It is imperative that Congress act on behalf of families across this Nation and bring them the certainty and security that their taxes will not go up in 6 months.

I don't know about all of my colleagues here, but I have had the misfortune of having been involved in lame duck sessions; and the one that is coming up where we are about to go off the cliff is going to be brutal for some of the newcomers in this institution who do not understand that it seems to be a methodology to wait until the last

minute before we do something. We can do it in August. We can give 98 percent of the American people certainty about their taxes and be assured that if they make less than $250,000 their taxes will not go up in December, or that their taxes will not be leveraged so we can avoid seeing to it that the Bush tax cuts on the 2 percent of Americans that are even concerned about the little bit of money that each one of them would have to provide in order for us to ensure safety for children, education for children, safety for old people, and understanding that the middle class has this great need.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.