Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional entrepreneur and my dear friend, Philip P. Smith. As the president and chief executive officer of Phil Smith Management, Inc., he is better known as the founder of Phil Smith Chevrolet, a successful General Motors (GM) dealership in my Congressional district that serves the greater South Florida area from Palm Beach to Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. On April 18, 2012, Phil will be inducted into the 2012 Entrepreneur Hall of Fame at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) for his longstanding business leadership and community involvement.

The NSU Entrepreneur Hall of Fame was established in 1990 to honor the lifetime achievements of outstanding entrepreneurs who contributed not only to the growth of a phenomenal entrepreneurial business, but have also demonstrated a willingness to contribute time, effort, and financial resources to programs and activities that enhance the quality of life in the communities in which they live. For more than 30 years, Phil has been serving the South Florida community as a business leader and philanthropist. His first equity venture was in a Toyota dealership in Homestead, Florida in 1980. With a direct hands-on sales and management approach, Phil has since built his organization from the ground up and now operates 14 auto dealerships throughout Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Phil is responsible for the overall operations of Phil Smith Management, Inc., including working with the equity partners at all locations and orchestrating its acquisitions and growth strategies. Thanks to entrepreneurs like him, GM has again become the world's top- selling automaker. Phil Smith Chevrolet has consistently ranked as one of the top dealerships in Broward County in a variety of GM categories, including customer satisfaction, service, and vehicle fleet and GM parts sales. Furthermore, in recent years, Phil Smith Chevrolet has proven to be a true economic linchpin to distressed areas in Broward County. Phil takes great pride in the fact that most of his 104 employees have worked for the dealership for many years and live in and have strong relationships with the surrounding community.

The Phil Smith Automotive Group has received numerous awards, including the J.D. Powers Quality Dealer Award, Toyota President's Award, Ford Chairman's Award, and Acura Dealership of Distinction recognition. Phil is also past chairman of the Southeast Toyota Dealer Council, a past member of the National Toyota Dealer Council, past president of the South Florida Auto-Truck Dealers Association, and a past director of the Florida Automobile Dealers Association.

Raised in South Florida, Phil is well-known for his civic and charitable involvement. He is actively involved with the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Humane Society of Broward County,

American Cancer Society, Make a Wish Foundation, and other organizations. In addition, Phil is Co-Chairman of the South Florida Super Bowl Host Committee and has board positions with the Orange Bowl Committee and the Broward Workshop, a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of 100 Broward businesses and professions.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor and privilege to recognize Phil Smith on this special occasion. His business leadership and commitment to the South Florida community is a testament to American entrepreneurship, and I can think of no one more deserving than Phil to be admitted to Nova Southeastern University's Entrepreneur Hall of Fame. I am so pleased to pay tribute to my dear friend, and wish him great success for many years to come.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding the time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act. There may be beneficial provisions in the underlying legislation to make the FCC's processes more transparent and more efficient.

I do suggest that the FCC has made great strides in this regard under the leadership of Chairman Genachowski, and certainly more can be done. But the fact remains that my friends on the other side of the aisle have squandered important opportunities in this process to walk the walk and talk the talk.

Now, last night an amendment was offered by my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, to require FCC disclosure of spending on political advertisements, which was opposed in committee but made in order to go forward today.

Recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the Citizens United case, have opened the door for unlimited spending by wealthy entities aiming to influence the electoral process. These individuals, organizations, and corporations have the financial resources to reach millions of Americans through cable, broadcast television, the radio, and other media.

Unfortunately, Americans do not yet have the right to know who is paying for these efforts. Under current law, Americans have no way of knowing whether an advertisement urging them to vote for a certain candidate or support certain legislation is being done at the behest of someone who stands to make a lot of money from that candidate or the bill.

That's no way to run a country. That's no way to hold an election. And that's no way to run a government.

Since Citizens United, our government is less like a democracy and more like a mystery. I firmly support the Eshoo amendment and ask all of our colleagues to do so. It aims to provide some clues by requiring the disclosure of any individual or corporation that contributes $10,000 or more for the purpose of airing political programming in an election cycle.

This amendment is modeled after the DISCLOSE Act, sponsored by my friend and colleague, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Both these measures educate voters by disclosing who is donating money to influence the electoral process. It is as simple as that: transparency, accountability, and democracy.

Yet some of my Republican colleague friends continue to be baffled as to why the American people will want to know who is trying to influence them. Last night in the Rules Committee, my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) was indicating his motions regarding this; and I said to him what I say to all of our colleagues and to all Americans, that the day somebody shows up with $500, you would be interested to know, if they are opposed to you, who they are.

So the question remains: Why do some Republicans oppose these efforts now?

Madam Speaker, we know full well about some of the biases that some Republicans have in favor of the wealthiest Americans. When they're not trying to eviscerate social safety net programs--as I suggested in the Rules Committee, and in 40 minutes we will be taking up the proposed budget that does just that--to make room for tax cuts for the well off in our society, it appears that Republicans are eager to allow the richest Americans to hijack the electoral process. Because that is what is about to happen, and it is and will be a hijacking.

When vast sums of money are used to influence the democratic process, the voices of those who do not have such resources get drowned out. When that influence is allowed to remain in the shadows, suddenly we find that the wealthiest interests in this country are the ones driving the bus, the train, the plane, and the rest of us do not know where the stops are.

This amendment, along with the DISCLOSE Act and similar efforts, aims to provide Americans with the basics of who is spending how much on what. It does not impose any new obligations on broadcasters or providers; it does not hold broadcasters or providers liable for inaccurate information; and it does not take action with respect to posting this information online. This is a simple disclosure requirement. It benefits all Americans. It is good for our democracy.

Quite frankly, I think that a commendable thing occurs when many of the amendments are made in order. In this particular instance, I'm especially pleased that my colleagues made the Eshoo amendment in order.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I appreciate my colleague for asking. I was hoping that Mr. Bishop from New York would be here, but in light of the fact that he is not, I'm prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If Mr. Bishop does arrive, then perhaps I would use some of my time to yield to him.

We all know that this legislation is never going to pass the Senate, and so this exercise remains just that, an exercise.

Republicans claim to be in favor of reducing the size of government, but this bill will require the FCC to hire 20 additional staff at a cost of $26 million over 5 years just to handle all the additional work created.

Rather than focus on stimulating the economy, funding infrastructure investments, and improving our democracy, my friends on the other side insist on devoting time and energy in a pursuit that is never going to go beyond this Chamber.

Rather than support transparency and our democratic process, my friends on the other side want to shield the best off in our society and corporations from having to disclose their financial influence on the political process. And rather than work with Democrats to craft comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that can pass the House and Senate, Republicans would rather see their partisan bills die than allow a compromise measure to live. I would say that I'm appalled, Madam Speaker, but this kind of thing seems to happen all the time around here.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 14, the House companion to the bipartisan Senate transportation bill and to discuss our proposal, but before that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my heartfelt sympathy for the people who have been struck by the recent tornadoes in the Midwest and South. These disasters have caused the deaths of more than 30 people in five States and left several communities in need of support, including volunteers, food, clothing, and monetary contributions. Although we will be able to rebuild these communities, we can never replace the lives lost, and my thoughts and prayers are with those families today.

These disasters are a reminder that the needs of relief and recovery efforts are constant. When disasters--be they hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, floods, or tornadoes--wreck entire communities and drive whole families from their homes, rapid and generous outside assistance is essential to preserving lives and property. I hope that we can learn from this disaster--and other recent natural disasters around the country--that we need to better coordinate and find Federal disaster relief efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I once again extend my deepest sympathies to the people who have been affected by these tornadoes. I urge all the appropriate Federal agencies to ensure that these communities receive the help they need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of an outstanding human being. Isiah Courtney Smith, a former judge, pioneer and, personal friend of mine, passed away on February 29, 2012 at the age of 89.

Judge Smith, also known to many as ``I.C.'' was born on September 15, 1922 in Lake Helen, Florida. In 1940, after graduating from Euclid High School in Deland, he went on to enroll at Florida A&M College, where I also attended law school. Judge Smith's education at Florida A&M was interrupted by World War II, when he volunteered and was assigned to an intake facility near Raiford. It was at this facility where Judge Smith demonstrated his first acts of courage by marching through a segregated camp to inform the white officers of his resignation. A year later, Judge Smith was officially drafted. After his service, Judge Smith returned to his studies and graduated with a degree in history. At this point, he had also met and fallen in love with Henrietta Mays and together they moved to New York while Judge Smith attended Brooklyn Law School. They were married on January 1, 1949.

In 1954, Judge Smith received his law degree and started a practice with his college friend William Holland. This partnership would be the catalyst for the civil rights movement in Palm Beach County. Judge Smith lived in a time where there were many barriers to social mobility for those of color. Institutionalized discrimination prevented many African Americans in this country from reaching their potential, but my dear friend Judge Smith possessed skills and abilities that could not be suppressed and that he used to fight for the civil rights of others.

As the third African American lawyer in Palm Beach County, Judge Smith was well aware of the injustices occurring in his community. He became a champion of civil rights and was a voice for those who were treated as second class citizens based on the color of their skin. Judge Smith and his partner William Holland orchestrated the movement to desegregate Palm Beach County's public schools after the Supreme Court's ruling of ``separate but equal'' being unconstitutional was largely ignored throughout the county. In his own words, Judge Smith wisely stated that: ``Nothing separate can ever be equal''--a sentiment that I strongly agree with. In addition to his quest for equal access to public education, Judge Smith and Mr. Holland fought together to integrate the West Palm Beach municipal golf course and to eliminate separate eating and bathroom facilities on Florida's turnpike. It is hard to fathom the amount of courage required to combat bigotry and hatred, but Judge Smith faced these challenges head-on and spent his life taking a stand against those who sought to keep the status quo.

After spending many years in a successful private practice with Mr. Holland, he was appointed as a Palm Beach County Court judge in 1986 by Governor Bob Graham. During his time on the bench, Judge Smith was known for his professionalism. After serving in this capacity for six years, he retired at the age of 70.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to all those who have been impacted by the loss of such a great man. My thoughts are with Judge Smith's wife Dr. Henrietta Smith, their two children Robin Smith and Reverend Cynthia Smith Jackson, and all of their family and friends during this most difficult time. I was truly honored to have known Judge Smith. He was a tremendous individual whose commitment to bettering South Florida, and working selflessly to ensure equal rights for all Americans will never be forgotten.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 5. Not only does this bill overlook the rights of injured patients, but it's also an attempt by the House Republican leadership to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

I would remind my friend from Florida that there is no example that allows for any of us to have it both ways. This matter violates the Constitution and, clearly, not just for those who argue the 10th Amendment from a conservative or a liberal perspective. It is all of us that feel very strongly that this measure usurps the power of States.

I'm fond of saying what Randy Barnett, constitutional law professor at Georgetown, said, that people seem to be fair-weather federalists, and they abandon federalism whenever it is inconvenient to someone's policy preferences.

H.R. 5 combines two completely unrelated measures. The first one is the reform of our Nation's medical malpractice system. The second one is the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was established by the Affordable Care Act. Please don't get me wrong; I'm fully aware of the challenges inherent to our medical liability system. The excessive cost of medical malpractice insurance faced by physicians seriously impairs our Nation's health care system by encouraging the practice of defensive medicine. This contributes to higher health care costs for both doctors and patients as well as diminished access to care for consumers.

But while I agree that our medical liability system needs to be changed, I do not believe that it should be at the expense of the fundamental rights of patients, including their ability to seek compensation for wrongful injuries. Indeed, this bill imposes an arbitrary and unfair cap on noneconomic damages that injured patients can receive. Such limitations will extinguish our rights and have devastating consequences for individuals harmed by physicians and medical products.

In addition, this bill seriously encroaches on the 10th Amendment of the Constitution by preempting State laws. And I'm not buying the confusion offered in the Rules Committee yesterday nor by my good friend from Florida. I know preemption when I see it. I know the 10th Amendment, and I know that people have stood for the 10th Amendment. I need not remind my colleagues that countless Republicans have made statements regarding this particular matter not fitting within the framework of the 10th Amendment's commerce provision.

My Republican colleagues like to talk about frivolous lawsuits and unreasonably large jury awards. But I asked the question yesterday of the maker of this particular provision, what is his leg worth? It's easy for us here inside the beltway, and it's easy for us on the Republican or Democratic side, liberal or conservative, to be about the business of talking about somebody's harm. Then what happens is, all of the lawyers that are the bad people of the world, everybody wants the best lawyer when it is them and their problem that is a problem.

I asked the maker of the bill, how much is his leg worth? When you cut off the wrong leg, who can stand among us and say that $250,000 is enough? So where did that cap come from? It came from a 1978 provision, $250,000. This is 2011, moving fast with costs rising.

I ask anybody here or that is within the range of this particular measure at this time, please tell me, when did your health care insurance costs go down? I don't know of any example. I have been paying health care insurance for 49 years, and it's gone up repeatedly during that period of time. And I don't care whether there was a Republican President or a Democratic President, health care costs went up, and I don't think that this little measure here is going to bring it down.

What do you think about the family in Chicago whose perfectly healthy baby was born lifeless because the hospital team failed to provide him with proper oxygenation during labor and to perform an emergency cesarean section on the mother? The boy is now 5 years old, suffers from permanent neurological damage, and is totally dependent on the care of his parents for all his daily activities. You ask his parents if $250,000 is enough for a lifetime of care. Oh, no.

Then you say, well, thrust it on the States. Let Medicaid take care of it. And then what you do under the Ryan budget, my good friend, is you say block-grant Medicaid. I saw that movie in Florida when they block-granted Medicaid, and it was used for everything else other than for poor people. Something is wrong with that movie.

What about the judge in Palm Beach County who had a surgical sponge left in his stomach after having abdominal surgery and had to wait 5 months to have it removed? By then, the pus and bile-stained mass measured more than a foot long and a foot wide, and the rotted part of his intestine had to be removed. Ask him if a lawsuit was frivolous.

Each case and each injury is different. It is not the role of Congress to decide the fate of these individuals and families devastated by malpractice by establishing arbitrary limits on the financial compensation that they are entitled to.

As you all know, the medical malpractice portion of this bill is actually a pay-for, meant to offset the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB. IPAB is a board of 15 physicians and experts established by the Affordable Care Act to find ways to control health care costs associated with Medicare.

Under the act, IPAB will make recommendations to slow the growth rate in Medicare spending if spending exceeds a certain target rate. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the repeal of IPAB would increase direct spending by $3.1 billion over 10 years--$3.1 billion. Now is not the time to repeal measures that can save our Nation money and reduce our deficit without offering any substitute, and that's the take-away from this.

My friends say don't do IPAB; and I say to my friends, well, what do you do? And you do nothing. That's what you do, and that's what you've been doing here in the Congress since we came here. We have given ``do- nothing Congress'' a new meaning. Rather than dealing with jobs, the things that people are completely interested in, rather than passing the infrastructure measure that the Senate has passed that will deal immediately with jobs in America, we are here passing a measure--and it will pass the floor of the House of Representatives--that will go to the Senate and go nowhere. So then what did we do? We did nothing.

The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that, thanks to the cost-saving mechanisms in place in the Affordable Care Act, IPAB will not likely be required to act for the next 10 years.

I heard my colleague, just a minute ago, say that health care costs have gone up since President Obama has been in office. My mom is fond of saying that if we're going to keep pointing back to the other President--if Obama says Bush did it, and Bush says that Clinton did it, and then Clinton said that Bush did it, and Bush said that Nixon did it, and Nixon said that Carter did it--then we could just point back to George Washington and say George Washington did it then and get it all over with rather than continuing this charade before the people, making them think that somehow or another we have the solution here.

Health care costs have gone up, and they're going to continue to go up until we as men and women in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate and as the American people sit down and decide that this is a solvable problem which will allow us to address those things that are vital in this country.

The bill is a complete waste of time. It does nothing in addition to going nowhere. It does nothing to help the

American people. It contains nothing to improve the affordability and accessibility of health care. And repealing IPAB, if you want to talk about frivolous, that's what frivolous is. Let us give the American people what they really need right now--and that's jobs. How many times do we have to say that down here for people to finally get it?

Frankly, I'm appalled by the hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues who keep stating that Federal spending needs to be kept under control. But at the first opportunity they wind up rejecting one of the most serious tools in place to actually tackle Medicare spending and find ways to make care more affordable.

What are the Republicans offering to replace IPAB? Nothing. Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, the Republican majority has sought to repeal as many provisions of the Affordable Care Act as possible without providing any replacement and absolutely no long-term solution. If we do nothing, Medicare costs will continue to increase, thereby increasing the burden on millions of seniors, disabled individuals, and their families all across this country.

What is the Republican plan? What is the plan? It is to replace Medicare with the new Ryan budget introduced yesterday. It is to replace it with some kind of premium that is nothing but a voucher system that would certainly result in increased costs for seniors and reduced benefits.

The truth is that the Republicans have no plan to reduce Medicare, and I defy them to present it. If you look at the budget that was released yesterday, it's all filled with blank spaces--and I'll fill in the line--nothing, nothing, nothing. So, instead of just repealing IPAB, let us improve it, reform it or replace it. By doing nothing, it's surely not going to fix the problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Georgia--and he is my friend--pointed out that his amendment was made in order yesterday. I might add, in keeping with the notion if you can't have it both ways, he would strike all the findings. And it seems to me that that's admitting justification for the authority to pass Federal tort reform. But it directly contradicts the same constitutional arguments they will be making next week before the United States Supreme Court in their effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a bill which many of the same conservative lawmakers argue that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to pass.

I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from New Jersey, a member of the Budget Committee, the distinguished gentleman (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will be very brief before yielding to my friend from the Rules Committee.

My friend from Florida says that he appreciates the hyperbole. I hyperbole on occasion when I find that my friends who are taking positions that are going to hurt people require everything from hyperbole to passion to try to get the American people to readily understand. And to demonstrate what I'm talking about, my friend just stood and said that the IPAB board will be rationing. The statute, the provision giving rise to it, if it ever comes into existence in the future, specifically says that they cannot ration. I don't know whether my friend read that provision or not.

But I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would be happy to yield to my friend just for a moment. So then what you're saying is, the IPAB board, which may bring down costs--and I might add you just said that Congress could not touch it, quoting you--that's not true. Congress could change it as long as it stays within the prescribed limits, and that is simply what the law, itself, says.

But what is the Republican plan? As I understand it from Mr. Ryan's budget as offered yesterday, it would be a premium system for Medicare. Now you've just said that rationing by any other name or that you know it when it's a duck, and all of that kind of stuff. Well, a voucher by any other name is still a voucher, and you're going to tell me that that's a good system?

I yield to my friend.

I reclaim my time only to say that you had it right, ``select.'' For example, our Governor in the State of Florida had one of those select provisions, and he's one of those people that wants us to turn everything over.

I happened to have had the good fortune yesterday of having the chairman

of Blue Cross Blue Shield visit me, who thinks that this particular measure is something that would be helpful in his industry, but that's something for another day.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule that it bring up H.R. 14, the House companion to the bipartisan Senate transportation bill.

I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I appreciate the gentleman for asking.

Madam Speaker, would you advise both of us how much time each has.

I have more speakers than I have time; but I know that during that period of time, I'm going to have at least two more speakers and possibly three.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, would you tell me just how much time I do have.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the debate and the time that he's allowed us. I thank all of our colleagues who came here.

This H.R. 5 is going to be devastating to medical malpractice victims. Patients shouldn't have to pay the price for excessive malpractice insurance.

If we want to reform the medical liability system, let us start with addressing insurance costs and physicians' premiums. Let us start with finding strategies to reduce and prevent mistakes and crack down on repeat offenders. Today, 5 percent of all doctors are responsible for 54 percent of malpractice claims paid.

Let's not start with penalizing patients for injuries due to no fault of their own. Let's not give the American people another reason to believe that Congress is out of touch. Thousands of people die each and every year due to medical malpractice. This is not frivolous.

We had 16 of our Members come forward yesterday to offer amendments. We're going to have 6 hours of debate on six, ostensibly, because we, in the Rules Committee who have the power, refused to waive the power to allow those amendments to come in, some that included things such as not being able to allow a child 3 years old who may have a matter that doesn't manifest itself until he or she is 8 be barred because of time constraints, measures that deal with, like the pediatrician in Delaware who raped 100 or more children, babies, and that position would not be allowed for.

I know that one would argue that some lawsuits are frivolous, and they are. I am a lawyer. I am a trial lawyer, and so I clearly support the trial lawyers, so as how that's understood with my bona fides. But when people are dying, that's not frivolous; and, as I said, people want the best lawyer that they can find.

Madam 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.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I do so for the reason that this measure does nothing, is going nowhere, will go to the Senate and will not pass, and everybody in this House knows it.

We have to stop doing nothing and do something for the American people and jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and it is preprinted.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to preface my remarks by indicating, at the close of my remarks and when the debate is concluded on this amendment, I do not intend to call for a vote, largely for the reason that I believe that the ranking member, Mr. Grijalva's amendment covers much of what I have offered in this amendment; and second, out of respect for my colleague from Accomack, Mr. Rigell, who I believe has brought this matter, as many of us may be wont to do in the future, regarding the economic concerns that exist in his community.

I would only add, he cited to 16 percent unemployment earlier today in his presentation on the floor. I could take him to some places in the congressional district that I'm privileged to serve and show him 40 percent unemployment in a rural area that happens to be in the same contiguous area as the Everglades National Park. And I'm sure that I could come back here and offer some measures that would allow for Belle Glade and Clewiston and South Bay and Canal Point to have an opportunity to convert land that is in a national park that was given for that purpose, to leave the reversionary restriction aside and to go about the business of allowing for those counties, Hendry and Palm Beach County and Broward, to be able to utilize the land as they see fit.

Land has a market value at some point. As I understand it--and I stand to be corrected certainly by my good friend and colleague from Washington--the original deed in this property allowed that if the parcel was no longer used for recreational purposes that it would revert to the Federal Government. Well, clearly, that reversionary clause is what we are seeking in this particular measure, in this specific one, to overturn. I believe it's wholly unnecessary but, more importantly, I think it sets a bad precedent of involving Congress in consensually entered agreements.

As I've explained, the county was granted the land on the condition that it be used as a park. And I understand, and understood further, from my good friend Mr. Hastings' comments yesterday at the Rules Committee, that the land can't even be accessed--if it were not Mr. Hastings, then it was Mr. Bishop--and, therefore, it is important that they make this change.

Congress shouldn't grant special treatment of something as erratic as market value because the market value of land is always changing. And all I have to do is look at my mortgage and look at how the prices have gone down, as they have all over this country.

I heard the statement yesterday in the Rules Committee that the land is useless. I don't think any land is useless. Mark Twain said that we ain't going to have much more land, just to paraphrase him. They're not manufacturing it; although, I think Singapore may very well take issue with that comment.

It's a park, and it is important that the Federal Government conditioned the transfer of the land to the county in the first place on the promise that it would be used as a park. The county agreed to those terms when it initially received the land, and now, in all due respect, they want to back out.

It's not unexpected to want to alter an agreement when conditions surrounding the deal change. In fact, if the county no longer wants to use the land as a park, there are remedies readily available within the Federal Lands to Parks program that it could choose from.

Consequently, changing the agreement today because of a shift in market value sets a bad precedent. We don't know what the market value of the land will be a year from now; we don't know what it will be 5 years from now; and we certainly have no idea what it will be 200 years from now. Before you know it, every county and every State--and this is why I feel very strongly about this--will be here, asking Congress for the same special treatment as soon as the market shifts in their favor.

My amendment requires appraisals of the land, and I believe that Mr. Grijalva's does as well. All I ask is that if we don't want it to be a park anymore, as the county doesn't, then the county should look to the remedies it already has available to them.

I believe the market value will shift. I hope Mr. Rigell is successful. I believe the measure will pass.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for just 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, my good friend, Doc Hastings-- that is, not Doc Brown--is mindful that we are going to have a future. I just want to comment that there is a future, and we tend to do it around here. As a matter of fact, we do it in budgetary matters; we do it all around.

I appreciate very much my friend pointing out that creativity that I offered. At the very same time, I think Mr. Grijalva's amendment is deserving of serious consideration, and I support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Wynnebrook Elementary, a school in my district that exemplifies all that is right with America's public education system. Under the guidance of Principal Jeffrey Pegg and his talented faculty, Wynnebrook has been rated an ``A'' school by the State of Florida nine years in a row.

I toured this fine school on March 15, 2012 and saw for myself everything that makes it great. I met wonderful teachers and spoke to classroom after classroom of happy children who were clearly excited to learn.

Wynnebrook Elementary's students are overwhelmingly minority children, and most come from low-income families. Despite these challenges, writing scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) are in the 90th percentile, with reading scores close behind. Scores in nearly all core subjects are over 80 percent as well.

There is no lack of enthusiasm at Wynnebrook. Several teachers were eager to tell me how pleased they are with the continued excellence of Wynnebrook. They are certainly a large part of its success, with several having taught at Wynnbrook for over 30 years. Additionally, the children were eager to ask me questions about my occupation and career. I was especially impressed with the number of students who told me they would like to become doctors or lawyers.

Wynnebrook is proof that when schools get the funding they need, they will turn out intelligent, well-adjusted children who want to succeed in life. What I saw that day served as a reminder of the importance of Title I funding in ensuring that our nation's students receive the education they deserve, regardless of their financial background, and reinforced my determination to work for increased funding for public education as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Principal Pegg, reading instructor Leslie Millar, and all the fine teachers and staff members I met at Wynnebrook Elementary, and I look forward to even greater success from its administrators, faculty, and students in the years to come.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill add the following:

(d) Valuation of Land.--Any instrument executed pursuant to

subsection (a) shall provide that, before the restrictions

referred to in this Act are removed from the deed referred to

in this Act, an independent appraiser shall complete an

approximate valuation of the land in each of the following

years: 1776, 1865, 2013, 2017, 2032, and 2212.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Lady Panthers girls' basketball team of Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on their recent state championship. Once again, under the inspiring leadership of Coach Marcia Pinder, the women's varsity basketball team won the Class 5A state title. The game was hard fought on both sides but even under intense pressure, the women of Dillard High persevered to defeat St. Johns Bartram Trail. With staunch defense and discipline, this team made history by clinching their third consecutive state title and seventh title overall.

Capping off a 26 4 season, the title recently secured by the Dillard team is truly special. This third consecutive state title is a record for Dillard High, and makes their winning streak the second longest in Broward history and one title away from tying the County record of four consecutive titles. Furthermore, with their seventh state championship overall, the Lady Panthers hold the record for the most titles held by any girls' basketball program in Broward County, and makes them the second most winningest team in the State. Furthermore, they are just one championship behind the current record holders Jacksonville Ribault.

It should also be noted that all seven championships have come under the leadership of Coach Marcia Pinder, whose 804 175 record makes her the all-time winningest basketball coach overall in Florida's history. Following this recent championship, Coach Pinder was named the 2012 Russell Athletic/Women's Basketball Coaches Association (WBCA) National High School Coach of the Year. She will be honored at the 2012 WBCA High School All-American Game that is played in conjunction with the NCAA Women's Final Four in Denver, Colorado on March 31, 2012.

I would like to take the time to honor each player and coach who, along with Coach Pinder, made this record-setting win possible. The Championship Lady Panthers are: LaQuacious Adams, Alliyah Anderson, Shatorria Baker, Demetria Brown, Jo' Coretah Clayton, Brianna Green, Amber Hanna, Dominique Harris, Kareese Johnson, Jessica Jones, Macy Keen, Courtney Parson, Tiara Walker, and Kayla Wright. The Lady Panthers and Coach Pinder and their championship season were also supported by assistant coaches: George Adams, Brandon Adams, Tonia Adams, Tania Miller, Evelyn Powers, Enewetok Ramsey, and Chanell Washington. I would also like to recognize Dillard High Principal Casandra D. Robinson and Athletic Director Tracie Latimer, without whom the girls' basketball program would not be given the support it rightly deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the Lady Panthers, Coach Pinder, and all of their supporters who every year continue to push the bounds for what is possible within their sport. I am truly honored to represent such gracious sportswomen, and look forward to next season where I hope to see the Lady Panthers tie both the Broward County's record for most consecutive championships and Florida's record for most titles overall.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Mrs. Sara Louise Jones Pettis. Mrs. Pettis was a respected community activist in the Fort Lauderdale area, and her commitment to civic service was admirable. She recently passed away at the age of 90, and I would like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathies to her family and all those who knew her.

Mrs. Pettis was a resident of Fort Lauderdale, Florida for 64 years. She married Mr. Cyrus Pettis in 1941, and the couple lived in Fort Lauderdale since first moving to the area in 1947. They both understood the importance of giving back to the community. Mr. Pettis was a postal worker, and Mrs. Pettis served as a teacher's aide at multiple schools in Broward County.

Mrs. Pettis was known for her desire to improve the community. She was a lifetime member of the Parent Teacher's Association, and she volunteered at local schools, churches, and other charitable organizations. Mrs. Pettis was ultimately credited for expediting the creation of the Dillard High School Gymnasium in 1959. Her dedication to improving the lives of the people of Broward County was truly remarkable.

In 1985, the Pettis family received a very special recognition from then-First Lady Nancy Reagan. The First Lady recognized the Pettis family as a Great American Family. Over 25 members of the Pettis family were in attendance at a special White House ceremony. The award is given to families leading exemplary lives, and giving back to their communities. The Pettis family is one of only nine other families to ever receive this award.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Mrs. Pettis for her dedication to the people of Fort Lauderdale. I knew Mrs. Pettis personally, and I was saddened to hear of her passing. She had an extraordinary sense of civic duty, and I would like to extend my sympathies to not only her family and friends, but to the entire South Florida community, and all of those whose lives she touched. Mrs. Pettis will be truly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate an outstanding human being and my dear friend, Ms. Cathy Hughes, on receiving this year's National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, Chairman's Award, the highest honor the NAACP has to offer. Cathy is a true symbol of American entrepreneurship and success. From her humble beginnings growing up in an Omaha housing project to becoming a leader in the media industry, Cathy embodies the spirit of determination and hard work.

Cathy's story is nothing short of remarkable. Born Catherine Elizabeth Woods in 1947, Cathy was the eldest of four children. By the age of 17, Cathy had dropped out of high school and become a single mother. Although she attended two universities in Nebraska, she did not have the opportunity to graduate. Despite these challenges, Cathy knew that she wanted a career in radio from a very young age and, in 1969 at the age of 22, began volunteering at KOWH, an African American owned radio station based out of Omaha, Nebraska. There, she excelled in the radio business and caught the attention of the Howard University School of Communications in Washington, D.C., where she was offered a position as a lecturer and assistant dean. By 1978, Cathy had become the vice- president and general manager of WYCB AM and, a year later, along with her former husband, founded Radio One and purchased her first radio station in Washington D.C., WOL 1450.

Times were not easy at WOL 1450. Because of the lack of funding, Cathy had to give up her apartment and live with her son at the station. She also filled several roles as owner, producer, radio personality, and DJ, since she could not afford to pay personnel. But her perseverance and determination to see her dream succeed kept her going. Today Radio One is the largest African American owned and operated radio broadcast network, with over 65 radio stations in every major market in the United States and the seventh largest network in the nation. In 2004, Cathy launched TV One, a cable television channel dedicated to capturing the rich and diverse experience of African American life, history, and culture.

On February 17, 2012, Ms. Hughes was honored at the 43rd NAACP Image Awards, the premier multicultural awards show that recognizes the achievements of people of color in the fields of television, music, literature, film, and creative social justice. Cathy's name has been added to an illustrious list of past honorees, such as U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, Former Vice-President Al Gore, then Senator Barack Obama, and Aretha Franklin. And no one could be more deserving.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Black History Month, it is my distinct honor and privilege to recognize a pioneer in the media industry, a leader in the African American community, and my dear friend, Ms. Cathy Hughes. I commend her for her tireless dedication to empowering the disenfranchised and for continuing to be a powerful voice for those who too often remain unheard. Cathy, I wish you all the best for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating SFC Christine K. Tulloch for her retirement from the United States Army after 22 years of devoted service. She has also been nominated for the Legion of Merit Award to commemorate her faithful and courageous service. I am honored to recognize SFC Tulloch today for these accomplishments and also take a moment to acknowledge her birthday she recently celebrated on February 17th.

During her distinguished career, SFC Tulloch displayed thrift and foresight in her position as a Movement Supervisor conducting rail, airport, and sea operations. This position required SFC Tulloch to oversee supply chains in order to facilitate the movement of goods and services across significant distances. This work is a vital component of any successful military operation. She performed this duty from 2001 to 2002 in Fort Eustis, Virginia; from 2002 to 2004 in Bamberg, Germany; and from 2004 2005 in Tallahassee, Florida, where she also served as Training NCO.

Throughout her career, SFC Tulloch demonstrated an admiral commitment to the efficiency and effectiveness of military activities. For example, in December 2002 when her team was deployed as an advanced party in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, she administered the safe receipt and transit of more than 5,000 containers. In a conflict as hazardous as the war in Iraq, this was a logistical feat and one that she would repeat many times. In March 2003, her team would preside over the reception, staging and movement of over 40,000 combat and support troops. This would be an influential movement just prior to the second invasion.

SFC Tulloch also served in the U.S. Army Human Resources department where she administered assignments for as many as 12,000 soldiers. It was also necessary to coordinate the Joint Domicile and Married Couple's Program in which SFC Tulloch demonstrated her compassion as well as a high level of competence in arranging over 1,300 personal assignments a year. From 2009 to 2010, SFC Tulloch was promoted to Chief Movement Supervisor for the U.S. Armed forces in CENTCOM in Doha, Qatar. Her performance was such that she meticulously managed the transfer of millions of dollars worth of resources without waste or inaccuracy.

What made the work of SFC Tulloch exceptional was her ability to see opportunities to eliminate excessive bureaucracy in order to maximize the impact of expenditures. For instance, during her time in Iraq, SFC Tulloch was able to investigate some 2,000 overdue invoices and credit card purchases which meant that more than $3 million dollars was refunded to the U.S. Government. While being posted in Afghanistan, SFC Tulloch was placed in charge of equipment and vehicles valued above $24.6 million dollars. She was

able to direct the movement of these resources in a timely manner, even when given limited notice in which to organize herself and her team.

Mr. Speaker, on June 1, 2012 Sergeant First Class Christine K. Tulloch will retire from the United States Army. She should be proud of the fact that her record of accomplishments is truly commendable. Throughout her career, SFC Tulloch was able to execute the tasks assigned to her in a capable manner in spite of conditions that were often pressurized and hostile. It is my great honor to recognize SFC Tulloch and I wish her all the best in her retirement and hope that she may continue to use her talents to the betterment of those around her.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from South Carolina for yielding me time.

Millions of Americans all across this country are struggling, and they need our help. What they don't need is more Republican gamesmanship at their expense. The Democrats have literally forced the Republicans to realize that they can't just make policy measures that help the rich while taking away from the poor.

I may support this bill in light of the fact that it will give a payroll tax cut to 160 million Americans. It also extends unemployment insurance to those Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and it will allow seniors access to their physicians under Medicare. And, as a footnote there, we really should do the doc fix permanently and stop piecemealing and playing games with this particular measure.

The bill is not perfect, the pay-for is nowhere near perfect, and the length of the extension is not perfect, but it does contain critical provisions that many Democrats negotiated to keep in the bill. While we were able to compromise today, I do not think that my Republican friends deserve too much credit. Since they regained the majority, the American people have seen firsthand their obstructionist policies in action. In fact, earlier this week, my friends on the right attempted to bring to the floor a transportation bill so flawed that my former colleague and Transportation Secretary and good friend of mine, Ray LaHood, stated:

This is the most partisan transportation bill I've ever

seen, and it is also antisafety. It hollows out our number

one priority, which is safety. It's the worst transportation

bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service.

The American people want a government that understands the challenges they face daily. Republicans want an economy that works great for the greediest and leaves the neediest out in the cold. Just ask a teacher in my constituency in Belle Glade or Margate or a firefighter in Fort Lauderdale or Pompano Beach and they'll tell you an extra $1,000 in their pockets makes a huge difference in putting food on the table, gas in the car, and being able to stay in their homes.

We've been forced to strike this compromise because, for decades, Republicans have pushed policies that favor the wealthy. We should not forget that, while we are debating how to pay for this payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, and payments to Medicare

physicians, our Nation's massive deficits are due in large part to Republican tax cuts for the wealthiest in America.

The fact of the matter is that the wealthy have continued to pay less and less taxes. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan started to lower tax rates, and then President George Bush slashed capital gains and income tax rates for the wealthy to their now historic lows.

As I travel throughout the constituency that I'm privileged to represent, into areas where the unemployment rate in some places in the Glades is 40 percent, I ask myself: Who's actually benefitting from these tax cuts for the rich? It's certainly not the police officer living in Boynton or the nurse working at the VA hospital or the community health center in West Palm Beach.

Madam Speaker, while I'm pleased that we've come to a compromise to extend unemployment insurance, I remain deeply concerned that this bill reduces benefits from 99 weeks to as little as 73 weeks through December. I hear daily from constituents who are approaching the end of their unemployment period and are at a loss as to where to turn next.

Although the economy may be starting to recover, what are we supposed to tell those people who have been looking for a job for months and months on end? What kind of compromise are they supposed to strike with unemployment?

The best way to reduce the deficit is to put money into the hands of people who spend it. This is how we support our communities. If we invest more money in Main Street, consumers will have more money in their pockets to spend on putting food on the table, gas in their cars, and, as I said, being able to stay in their homes.

Every American should have the opportunity to succeed. Opportunity should not be limited by geography, race, gender, or the size of one's bank account. Yet thanks to massive gaps in the Tax Code, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The top 1 percent of earners are responsible for 20 percent of the Nation's annual income, up from 10 percent in 1981. The wealthiest CEOs are paid 400 times what the average worker earns. Only 30 years ago, it was 20 times as much.

Americans in the highest tax bracket are supposed to pay 35 percent of their income in taxes. However, since President Bush slashed the capital gains rate to 15 percent, the top 400 wealthiest that we continue to identify, one of about the top 4,000, for example, pay only 15 percent in taxes on 80 percent of their income. As the law is currently written, any wealthy American paying the full 35 percent needs to get a new accountant.

In addition to reducing the term of unemployment insurance coverage, this bill raises an additional $15 billion by requiring Federal employees to contribute a larger amount to their retirement accounts. My understanding is this is a grandfathered measure that will protect the ones that are Federal workers now; but I'm not sure that this is going to satisfy Members on either the right or left, or the Democrats or Republicans on this measure, since it's addressing Federal employees and there were other ways to get to that $15 billion.

Federal employees are currently in their second year of a pay freeze, while my colleagues across the aisle only a few weeks ago voted to freeze Federal employees' pay for a third year. Republicans don't think twice about limiting Federal workers' ability to support their families but are more than willing to shut down the government when bankers are asked to pay their fair share of taxes on their bonuses.

How much can we continue to pick on Federal workers? They are not fat cats. They are postal workers, receptionists, janitors, teachers, nurses, social workers, and police officers, to name a few. They are the fundamental underpinning of this Nation. How much can we continue to pile on their backs? We've already broken their bank accounts. How much weight should the wealthiest American, who can afford it, carry?

Investing in America is how we are going to create jobs. Let's build the infrastructure for the coming era of green energy. Let's fix our aging highways and bridges. Please, let's adequately fund our schools so our children can get a good education and can compete on a global level. Doing these kinds of things today will create a brighter America for generations to come.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from California, the distinguished gentlewoman, Ms. Matsui, a former member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, I had hoped that Ms. Velazquez or Mr. Engel would be here, but I'll say to my friend from South Carolina: Do you have other speakers?

All right. Then I'm in the position of having to go forward. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance renewal came before the House just 2 months ago, my friends on the right refused to renew either provision, while Democrats tried to avert a tax hike on the middle class. I believe that Republicans would rather let the payroll tax cut expire and unemployment insurance run out than ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.

Madam Speaker, if it's at all possible, I'm midway, but I still have the time and, with your permission, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, today I voted against the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3630, but within this legislation, there are provisions that I do support. I support giving a payroll tax cut to 160 million Americans, extending unemployment insurance to those Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and to allow seniors access to their doctors under Medicare. But there is a damaging aspect of this bill that will affect the pensions of future federal employees.

This bill raises an additional $15 billion to extend unemployment insurance coverage by requiring federal employees to contribute a larger amount to their retirement accounts. Federal employees are currently in their second year of a pay freeze while my colleagues across the aisle only a few short weeks ago voted to freeze federal employees' pay for a third year. Republicans don't think twice about limiting federal workers' ability to support their families, but are more than willing to shut down the government when bankers are asked to pay their fair share of taxes on their bonuses.

How much can we continue to pick on federal workers? They are not fat-cats. They are postal workers, janitors, teachers, nurses, social workers, and police officers. When did they become the bad guys? How much can we continue to pile on them before their backs break? How much weight should the wealthiest Americans, who can afford it, carry?

I am also concerned that this compromise to extend unemployment insurance reduces benefits from 99 weeks to as little as 73 weeks through December. I hear daily from constituents who are approaching the end of their 99 weeks and are at a loss as to where to turn next. Although the economy may be starting to recover, what are we supposed to tell those people who have been looking for a job for months and months on end? What kind of compromise are they supposed to strike with unemployment?

Furthermore, this legislation will blow a $100 billion hole in the deficit by not paying for the measure. It is a precursor from the Republicans for the beginning of the end of Social Security.

Millions of Americans all across this nation are struggling and they need our help. The Republican majority would rather implement policies that unfairly favor the wealthy, while asking the least among us to make enormous sacrifices. I am sick and tired of Republican gamesmanship. I voted against this measure, because `enough is enough.'