Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and honor the memory of Emma Bates from Riviera Beach, Florida. Mrs. Bates passed away on October 9, 2011, following a year-long battle with stomach cancer. Previously, she had beaten both breast and colon cancer, attesting to the strength and perseverance that drove Mrs. Bates throughout her life.

Mrs. Bates moved from her native Baxley, Georgia to the Glades area in Florida as a child. She graduated from Roosevelt High School in West Palm Beach. After graduation, she enrolled in several business management courses at what is now known as Palm Beach State College and later found an interest in cosmetology. It was not long until she opened her own hair salon, the Intimate Salon of Beauty in Riviera Beach. Mrs. Bates was believed to have been the first licensed African- American beautician in Palm Beach County.

She was known by many in the community as an activist who worked tirelessly for what she believed was right and in the best interest of the Riviera Beach community. She served as the chairwoman of the Citizens Task Force and was a campaign manager for multiple candidates, including a successful campaign for City Council in 2007.

Mrs. Bates was a woman who was truly loved by her community and worked hard for what she believed in. I am deeply saddened by her passing, which is more than a personal loss, but also a loss for the community that she fought for and inspired. Her selfless efforts will continue to be felt for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to Mrs. Bates' family and friends during this most difficult time. Her memory will live on and she will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Mrs. Frances

Reeves Jollivette Chambers, a great educator, historian, and civil rights activist in Miami's African American community. Fran passed away at the age of 89 after a lengthy struggle with Alzheimer's disease. My thoughts and prayers go out to her family and friends at this most difficult time. She is survived by her daughters, Regina Jollivette Frazier and Cleo Leontine Jollivette; son, Cyrus M. Jollivette; her brother, Garth C. Reeves; four grandchildren; and three great- grandchildren. Tragically, Fran lost her first husband, Cyrus M. Jollivette, Sr., to a storm in January 1960. In July 1963, she married James R. Chambers, who passed away in June 2000.

Fran was born on November 13, 1921, in Overtown, Miami's historic African American neighborhood. She was the sixth of five surviving children born to the late Henry E.S. Reeves and Rachel Jane Cooper Reeves, who had emigrated from Nassau, Bahamas to Miami in April 1919 and founded The Miami Times, Florida's oldest Black newspaper. Fran graduated from Booker T. Washington High School in 1938 before receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude from Bennett College in 1942 and a Master of Arts degree from New York University in 1959. In addition, she later studied at the University of Miami, University of Florida, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical (A&M) University, Florida Atlantic University, and Barry University, earning more graduate credits than required for her doctorate.

Fran was a true educator. For more than 37 years, she taught and guided students at Dunbar Elementary School, Miami Jackson Senior High School, Continuing Opportunities for Purposeful Education (COPE) Center North, and Holmes Elementary School as a teacher, reading specialist, counselor, and principal. During this time, Fran also dedicated her time and energy to numerous causes as a volunteer for the March of Dimes and the American Heart Association, JESCA board chair, a board member of Senior Centers of Dade County, and a member of the American Association of University Women. In the 1970s and 1980s, she was a member of the Florida State Board of Optometry and the League of Women Voters.

After retiring from the Dade County Public Schools in July 1979, Fran continued giving back to her community and traveled the world, visiting over 50 countries and six continents. She was a lifelong member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a platinum member of The Links, Inc., and a charter member and past president of the MRS Club, a six- decades-old group of friends. Fran was also a member of the Daughters of the King at Incarnation Episcopal Church.

Almost 30 years ago, Fran first dreamed of publishing a book that would preserve and share the history of Miami's Black pioneers. Her vision was realized in Linkages and Legacies, a 120-page, hardbound coffee table book chronicling the works, deeds, and experiences of Miami's Black pioneers. Published in March 2010 by The Links, Inc., Greater Miami Chapter, through the non-profit Linkages and Legacies, Inc., this publication was distributed for free as a gift to the community. Furthermore, Fran's concept served as the inspiration for the AT&T African American History Calendar, which was created 17 years ago. These important works would not have been possible without the efforts of individuals like Fran, who have dedicated their lives to serving their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege and pleasure of knowing Fran and her family personally. The Miami community has lost one of its great pioneers, and she will be dearly missed. Thanks to Fran's many contributions, however, her legacy of education, compassion, and love will live on for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This month we stand together with those who have bravely faced this disease, as well as to raise awareness toward finding a cure.

I am proud to wear this pink ribbon pin in support of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and to recognize the importance of early detection in an effort to eradicate this disease, includin encouraging women and men to follow recommended screening guidelines. Furthermore, we must make certain that every woman has access to regular mammography screenings.

For more than 20 years, the observance of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month each October has provided a time for us all to reflect on loved ones who have won and lost the battle against breast cancer.

Every two minutes, a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, and every thirteen minutes one woman will die of breast cancer in the United States. In Florida alone, an estimated 15,330 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women in 2011 and 2,690 of these women will die from this disease. These statistics are some of the many reasons I am a supporter of legislation and action that aids the fight to end breast cancer. I have also signed the National Breast Cancer Coalition's Congressional Declaration of Support for Breast Cancer Deadline 2020. By declaring my support to end breast cancer by January 1, 2020, I am proud to commit to continuing to educate myself and my constituents about the issues surrounding breast cancer.

Unfortunately, today we see a decline in screening rates. A recent study of 1.5 million women found that of those over the age of forty, with health insurance, less than fifty percent had received the recommended annual screening. The key to ending this disease is early detection, which reduces costs associated with the disease. The costs for early stage treatment are estimated at approximately $22,350 per person, while late stage treatment costs nearly $120,000 per person. Early detection of this life threatening disease is crucial to saving lives and ultimately reduces the burden on patients and our health system.

There are 2.5 million breast cancer survivors living in the U.S. today. They are the embodiment of bravery, as well as to the importance of promoting awareness about breast cancer, following recommended guidelines, offering treatment to those affected, and continuing to fund groundbreaking research.

Mr. Speaker, I commend those advocates, survivors, and men and women who fight the disease every single day. In honor of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I encourage everyone to make a renewed commitment to following recommended screening guidelines and I will continue the effort here in Congress to eradicate breast cancer by supporting breast health awareness, education, research, screening and referrals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Fairness in the American Tax Code Act of 2011.''

During these difficult economic times, the wealthiest of Americans should be paying their fair share in taxes. Our nation's unemployment rate is over nine percent and yet, we have the lowest tax rates in decades. Why are we giving tax breaks to Wall Street CEOs and Big Oil Executives, instead of helping the millions of Americans who are struggling.

Thanks to loopholes in the tax code, M. Speaker, the rich keep getting richer. The top one 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.

Since President Ronald Reagan started lowering tax rates up until President George W. Bush slashed capital gains and income tax rates for the wealthy to their current historic lows, the wealthy have continued to pay less and less in taxes. As I travel throughout my district, into areas where the unemployment rate is over 40 percent, I ask myself where are the jobs and where did all the money go?

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 Americans, 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.

My bill simply asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share. It produces a progressive ``job creation'' surtax for those making more than $350,000. The surtax increases gradually until those with incomes over $10 million are paying the same amount on all their income as the legally required statutory rate. M. Speaker, it is time for the wealthiest of Americans to pay their fair share in taxes.

An editorial in the New York Times recently noted: ``Critics also claim that raising the capital gains rate would hamstring investment. But economists studying the historical record have concluded that the effect is small, dwarfed by considerations like profit growth. The truth is that despite the current low tax rates, American businesses-- small and big--are investing very little. Business surveys show that the main reason is that there are very few customers with money to buy their products.''

The wealthiest Americans have rigged the tax system in their favor to the detriment of the middle class. They've changed the rules to their own financial advantage. My bill will make our nation's tax code fairer.

Mr. Speaker, investing in America is the only way that we are going to create jobs. The Fairness in the American Tax Code Act of 2011 ensures the investments made for strictly personal gains are investments that will actually create jobs in America. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me

in supporting this critically important piece of legislation that will help to put our nation's economy back on track.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the city of Delray Beach on the occasion of its centennial celebration. For 100 years, the city of Delray Beach has symbolized the American spirit: looking ahead in times of prosperity; enduring in times of difficulty; and always rising to meet the challenges that have at times weighed on our country's history.

From its modest beginnings as an agricultural area in 1894, Delray Beach quickly grew, attracting many visitors in the winter months. On October 9, 1911, with a population of nearly 300, the area of Delray was chartered by the State of Florida as an incorporated town. Industrial plants for the canning of pineapples and tomatoes were built, bringing in new residents and ushering in an era of prosperity. By 1920, Delray's population had reached over 1000 residents. Today, it is estimated that more than 65,000 people call the city of Delray Beach home.

The city has seen its share of highs and lows throughout the years. The early 1900s saw Delray prosper, only to experience economic hardships by the Great Depression. By the 1930s, Delray was again flourishing, only to find itself in engulfed in the unrest faced by our nation during the civil rights movement. But Delray Beach, like our country, endured.

In the 1980s, prosperity was again seen changed to decay, as many of the small mom-and-pop stores that lit the downtown area were forced to close their doors. But today, even in the face of economic hardships, Delray Beach has united to create a plan for redevelopment and revitalization that has transformed and continues to transform its commercial center.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor the history of the city of Delray Beach, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to ensure that Delray Beach, along with the countless other cities and towns across our great nation, experience growth, prosperity, and success in the next 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, colleague, and fellow Floridian for yielding the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 2250. In my considered opinion, both these bills are yet another effort by the Republican leadership to demonize the Environmental Protection Agency while doing nothing to create jobs for the millions of Americans who are unemployed.

My colleague Mr. Nugent, my friend, cited the letter, the authors of same being Walter Minnick, Robert Aderholt, G.K. Butterfield, and John Shimkus. I signed that letter. I was not the author of same. I do not deny any of its particulars, specifically the fact that there should be flexible approaches to address the diversity of boiler operation, sectors and fuels that could prevent severe job loss.

I would remind my friend that the measure that we were speaking of is under a stay and, therefore, the implementation of the provision will continue, I believe, to allow for the needed flexibility.

And I think you referred, and I refer again, to the portion of the joint bipartisan letter:

``As EPA turns to developing a final Boiler MACT rule''--mind you, they had not, and this was as of August of last year--``we hope you will carefully consider sustainable approaches that protect the environment and public health while fostering economic recovery and jobs within the bounds of the law.''

That is precisely what I signed on to and stand by, and I don't believe that it is inconsistent with anything that my friend pointed out nor did he suggest that it would be inconsistent.

But I did also hear my friend talk about Washington doublespeak, and I distinctly heard him refer to what has now kind of perpetuated itself inside this beltway, and that is the statement that was made earlier by the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives that ``at this moment the executive branch has 219 rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million. That means under the current Washington agenda, our economy is poised to take a hit from government of at least $100 million.''

I would ask my colleague to not follow on that pattern; otherwise, you get caught in the Washington Beltway doublespeak. The better proof allows an analysis that was done by The Washington Post, and I'm not a follower necessarily of The Washington Post Fact Checker, but so far I've not heard anyone reference them.

They do give people Pinocchios for when something is not the truth. It's either one Pinocchio, two or three. As it turns out, what the Washington Post said following the Speaker's comments that you have used here today, my dear friend, is that Mr. Boehner left the distinct impression that 219 new regulations were hanging like a sword of Damocles over the U.S. economy; but it turns out the number of potential regulations is inflated as well as the potential impact. Overall, his statement contains significant factual errors, and they give it three Pinocchios. I would urge that you not try to earn these Pinocchios that they're talking about, and let's try to get the facts straight.

Just last week, we were having this very same discussion about a bill that made it easier for power plants to emit

harmful mercury and other toxic pollutants into the air. Today, we're talking about letting industrial boilers and cement kilns do the same thing. Last week, I asked, Why is it that certain ones can follow the standards and that others can't? I still am puzzled by that. I also asked last night how it is if we don't know what the rules are going to look like that we would be smiting down, if there is such a word, the rule.

Mr. Speaker, we are judged by what we do and not by what we say. What my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to do is to call up bills that are shortsighted and undermine our ability to maintain the public health and cleanliness of our air and water. Bills like these that destroy regulations protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink have the same consequences regardless of intent. Republicans cannot close their eyes to these effects and plead good intentions.

I assure you these effects are severe. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that does, in fact, hinder brain development in infants and children. Other toxic metals getting a pass under these bills are arsenic, chromium and lead, which are known to cause cancer and birth defects.

Despite these facts, my friends on the other side cling to their anti-regulatory dogma with fanatical fervor. I had a friend last night say to me that some people have a conscience and brain and that others just think about dollar signs. I feel that my colleagues who have brains--I believe they have consciences--seem to place the dollar signs ahead of many of the practical matters that would benefit society.

This anti-government rhetoric has gone so far as to lead my colleagues on the other side astray of the protocols laid out by Majority Leader Cantor. In the third protocol laid out in his Legislative Protocols for the 112th Congress, Leader Cantor writes:

``Any bill or joint resolution authorizing discretionary appropriations shall specify the actual amount of funds being authorized. Authorizations shall not utilize terms such as `such sums as may be necessary' or similar language that fails to specify the actual amount of funding being authorized.''

Yet neither of these bills specifies how much money is authorized for the implementation of the bill, leaving the cost a mystery. Furthermore, ambiguous language in these bills will create legal uncertainty and ensure litigation. Since these bills don't specify how much they cost, neither bill contains an offset for the cost. These bills also defy Leader Cantor's fourth protocol that we know around here as CutGo. There will be a real cost for the EPA to take on another lengthy rule creation process, but my friends on the other side have chosen to ignore this contradiction.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are not just bureaucratic infighting. They will have real and measurable effects. According to EPA's analysis, H.R. 2250 would result in a significant number of premature deaths, in a significant number of additional heart attacks, and in considerable numbers--more than 100,000--of additional asthma attacks that otherwise could have been avoided.

Likewise, H.R. 2681 would cause tens of thousands of adverse health effects, including the premature deaths that are suspected and the heart attacks and additional asthma attacks that otherwise could have been avoided.

The reason I didn't use EPA's numbers is I don't think EPA or anybody else has the prerogative to make a decision about how many people are going to die at a certain time. That said, it does not mean, however, that one person is not going to die, and it does not mean that one person is not going to have asthma. My position is one death that could be avoided is too many, and one asthma attack, if you've been around children who have them, is too many if they could be avoided.

In light of these estimates, these bills appear to be nothing more than another attempt to purge any government intervention related to keeping our air clean and environment safe.

Consider that these regulations the Republicans say are destroying jobs have not even gone into effect. The Boiler MACT rules dealing with industrial boilers, as I, along with my colleagues, wrote to EPA, are currently in an administrative state while the EPA reviews industry- provided data. That's why we sent the letter during that period of time--to ask them to please consider the diversity, as I continue to do, of boilermakers in this country.

We don't even know what those rules are going to look like; yet the Republican gut reaction is to oppose them. Or consider that the cement rules have been finalized for a year already. Most cement plants are already in compliance, and those plants that aren't are working with the EPA to get in compliance.

Mr. Speaker, based on what I've seen by the Republican-led Congress, it is clear to me that they have no intention of using their power to create jobs. I heard my colleague, my friend, say that the President's administration is not about the business with the so-called, he said, American Jobs Act. I don't know whether it would create a single job or not. We wouldn't know it until it passed, and it isn't going to be passed here in the House of Representatives because the agenda that you've laid out is an agenda that's going to attack the EPA as if they are some horror show here in this country and not an agenda, as you heard in the one minutes this morning and as you've heard from the Democratic leadership repeatedly, to bring up the Jobs Act, to put it on the floor, to let it be debated under an open rule, and to do what's necessary for us to create jobs.

The history of the Clean Air Act shows that its benefits--longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and ecosystem protections--outweigh the costs by more than 30 to 1. I continue to remind my friends that the Clean Air Act was implemented under the Richard Nixon administration, and it has been in existence for 40 years. This country has experienced ups and downs during that period of time insofar as its economy is concerned, and said regulations haven't caused all of the economy to collapse.

Otherwise, during the period when Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton and those of us who were here balanced the budget, we wouldn't have been able to do it if the Clean Air Act were all that bad as you all are pointing out in your continuous attack against the EPA. In the time since the act was passed, air pollution has been reduced by more than 60 percent while the gross domestic product of the United States grew by more than 200 percent.

Furthermore, an EPA economic analysis found no indication that any cement plant would close due to the cement rules. At most, the analysis at this point indicated that 10 underutilized plants would go idle temporarily while waiting for economic conditions to improve.

However, if we can get the economy back on track and restore the demand for cement, then those plants will not have to go idle. We need to focus on creating customers and restoring demand. I heard that from my colleague saying that's what he hears from businesspersons, I hear that same thing, that they need demand and that they need customers. We need to make it easier for them to do that and not easier for the suppliers to pollute.

You know what's a great way to create more demand for concrete? Invest in infrastructure projects that use concrete for roads and bridges, the very same proposals called for in the President's Jobs Act.

If Republicans are so concerned with the concrete plants shutting down, you should work toward helping these businesses sell more concrete. Making it easier for them to pollute does not provide underutilized plants with new customers.

In the midst of an economy still suffering the effects of the greatest recession in a generation, the only answer my friends on the other side seem to have is to dismantle any government regulation intended to protect our Nation's public health and environment. This, Mr. Speaker, is economic extremism.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it's my prerogative to assist in correcting a couple of measures. I kind of wish my good friend--and he is and he's going to be a real asset to our institution as an institutionalist, and I'm referring to my friend, Mr. Woodall from Georgia. He and I enjoy quite a tete-a-tete in the Rules Committee. It's just that when he puts forward his proposition, I wish he had that same fervor with all of the closed rules we have had in the House up to this time. One-half of all of the rules we've promulgated until today have been under closed rules. This one is a modified open rule. And, yes, you're correct, Members can come down and they can go forward if yesterday they knew today that they had to meet by the close of business the amendment process.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Absolutely.

Reclaiming my time, I can't agree that this one is done right, but it's a modified open rule. It's not an open rule, and you know that as well as do I.

But more important, I want to refer to my good friend from Florida as well when he said that CutGo is not applicable in this particular situation. I disagree. And I think what needs to be understood by my colleague, Mr. Nugent, is we don't make these rules here in the House. The protocols have been established early on, and we don't say what CBO needs to do. I think all of us are in agreement that CBO is a nonpartisan requirement, a group that estimates for us what would be the net cost of legislation.

In this particular measure that we are considering, H.R. 2681, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2681 would have a net cost of a million dollars over the next 5 years. The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 300, natural resources and environment.

Now then, I repeat the protocols enunciated and promulgated by the majority leader, Mr. Cantor: any bill or joint resolution which authorizes the appropriation of funds for any new agency, office, program activity, or benefit shall also include language offsetting the full value of such authorization through a reduction in the authorization of current ongoing spending.

Now, that just is not happening here. And CutGo, although applicable, is being waived, I guess.

At this time, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, my good friend and classmate, Mr. Blumenauer.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my friend that when plants like he referenced are closed, it doesn't mean that the demand is not still there. And what happens is it means that new plants are being built. And guess what happens when you build new plants? You use steel, you use cement, and you have jobs. So I'm not certain that analogy that he put forward holds in that case.

I would tell my friend from Florida to know that I have no further speakers at this time and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Nugent and I are from Florida. The largest supplier of energy-- electricity, specifically--in Florida is a company known to him and me as Florida Power and Light. Mr. Nugent probably does not remember that I ran for the Public Service Commission in the State of Florida to deal with regulatory matters and to address the ongoing concerns. And much of what we talked about at that time, in addition to two lawsuits that I had filed in my community, was about coal-fired electric generating plants.

Florida Power and Light, being an extremely responsible energy producer, has taken upon itself to eliminate much of their coal-fired activity. And in spite of all these regulations and their alleged uncertainty and everything having to do with it, they now are using gas-fired facilities and working on trying to reduce emissions, period, and have no problems. The largest electricity producer in this country is Exelon, which has no power. They come from Mr. Shimkus', the gentleman that just spoke, territory in Illinois. That's where they're based, and they have no concerns with complying with these regulatory matters.

Now, one thing I heard about cement being imported, the reason for that is the low demand. And if my Governor and some of these other Governors would get off the dime and go about the business, and if this Congress was to go about the business of implementing the infrastructure provisions that are offered in the Jobs Act of the President, then we would use more cement, and we wouldn't have to get any from anywhere as we have not in the past when the economy has that kind of demand.

For people who believe in the Republican anti-government, ``the EPA is the evildoer of the world'' doctrine found in many of these bills-- and I might add we will see more of this according to the majority leader--we are going to demonize EPA, those 17,000 employees. I found it ironic that someone commented a minute ago that they have enough staff in order to be able to do it, while at the same time every time we look to cut some agency, we are cutting EPA, and many people in the Republican Party have used as their mantra the elimination of the EPA.

So I don't know that they could offer any kind of regulation on the Clean Air Act or anything else. But I offer to them these suggestions: If you don't like regulation, don't drive on roads; don't fly; don't go to national parks; don't worry about listeria in cantaloupe and lettuce; don't worry about mercury, chrome, cadmium, and other toxins that pollute the air and cause our children to have asthma. Just don't do that. Don't have any regulations. Just go about your business. And we would then find ourselves in mass confusion with people with premature deaths that are unnecessary.

We can do this. We can have a conscience and a brain and we can make money in this country. We've done it in the past; we will do it in the future.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2401 is a toxic bill that attempts to dismantle any government regulation to protect our Nation's public health and environment.

To set the stage for my brief remarks, let me cite to the American public Executive Order 12866, which says: ``Each agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation, and recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its cause.''

Now, we've been operating under that particular provision for a substantial period of time. And quite frankly, Congress' decisions with reference to the Clean Air Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1970, came about as a result of continuing arguments from industry that cleaning up air pollution was too expensive or not feasible.

This bill forbids the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing both the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule and, importantly, the Cross-State Air Pollution rule requiring coal-fired power plants without modern pollution controls to install controls, to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants, fine particulates, and the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain.

In the Rules Committee, I spoke about being in Lavigny in Poland and watching the pollution that was destroying the Black Forest in another country, in Germany. We've had that take place in our States, where one State is offering emissions that come down on another State's population, and therefore the Cross-State Air Pollution rule said that coal-fired plants should install modern pollution controls. And guess what? Sixty percent of them, including one of the largest producers of electricity in this country--Exelon in Illinois--do favor these same rules that are being sought to be delayed. And they favor them for the reason that, among other things, it has produced jobs and it has cured the problems that have been pointed out by

the American Lung Association and countless other organizations that favor the Clean Air Act and are opposed to delaying further two particularly important measures that would allow for pollution to continue to be cleaned up.

Port Everglades in Florida, right outside my constituency, for all of the years that I have lived there--and that nears 50--this coal-powered plant has been producing emissions. Over the course of time, they have reduced those emissions. And Florida Power & Light recently indicated that they're going to do everything that they can to meet the emissions standards rather than sit up and try and oppose them because they recognize, one, that they do have all of the juice--if you can call electricity that.

And in the final analysis, those of us that benefit from it are going to wind up paying more. But to pay more to make sure that children don't have asthma and to make sure that people don't have lung pollution and to make sure that lakes don't go dead from mercury or that fish don't have in them more mercury than they rightly should for food consumption, then I'm willing to pay more; and I believe most Americans are as well in order that we will have clean air.

I ask for support of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Frederica Wilson for organizing the ``We Love Our Carrie Meek'' 1-minutes.

Carrie, I want to make sure that you understand that this is not funereal, and they've kind of made it sound that way. This is a tribute to you. And since you and I came here together, along with Jim Clyburn, Corrine Brown, Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Bennie Thompson halfway, since he came a little bit later, I speak for them as well.

Eddie Bernice could not be here but asked that I recite a portion of her remarks, and that is that your career in the House was distinguished as well as that on the State level.

Almost immediately, the Congresswoman established herself as a champion of expanding federal programs to create jobs and provide initiatives for African American business owners. In a battle that is still being fought today, Congresswoman Meek passionately opposed cuts to social welfare programs in the 1990s to prevent the financial burden from being carried on the backs of the middle class and the disadvantaged.

I have the distinction of offering Eddie Bernice's full remarks and the compliments and congratulations from all of our class that came here in 1992, and an even greater distinction of speaking with Carrie perhaps as much or more than most of the Members with regularity and sharing with her the number of jokes and a number of anecdotes that we have together.

I, as well as all of us, are proud of you, Carrie, and the enormous work that you have done and that you will continue to do through the foundation. And thanks again for sending Kendrick to us as well.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2401. I do thank my colleague, Mr. Bishop, for granting the time for the opposition.

This bill is really another attempt by the Republican leadership to demonize the Environmental Protection Agency and dismantle any government regulation intended to protect our Nation's public health and the environment.

H.R. 2401 is a waste of time and an absolute insult to the millions of Americans without jobs. Instead of crafting legislation to increase consumer confidence, instead of helping Americans hold on to their homes, instead of creating jobs for the millions of people who are unemployed, instead of relieving the burden of the middle class by making the Tax Code more fair, my friends on the other side are asking us to vote on a bill that effectively bars the EPA from finalizing and implementing two of the most significant air quality regulations in decades.

Coal plants--and let me lay my bona fides out here: I do believe in clean coal--the biggest source of unregulated mercury emissions in the United States, pump out 48 tons of emissions every year. Mercury contaminates more than 6 million acres of freshwater lakes, and I want to just take the prerogative of talking about one.

I was born in Altamonte Springs, Florida, and the nearest lake to where I was born is called Mobile. At one point, my grandfather could pass by and say to my grandmother, I'm going down to the lake and catch some fish--and be guaranteed that that was going to be the case--and bring it back home in short time.

Now that lake is dead, and it's because of mercury contamination that that lake is dead; 46,000 miles of streams, and the stream that led into Lake Mobile is dead. And 225,000 acres of wetlands across the United States in all 50 States have some type of fish consumption advisory. Let me repeat that: all 50 States have some type of fish consumption advisory.

What's more, there are substantial economic benefits to these clean air rules that my friends are trying to block. The EPA estimates that the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards alone could generate more than 30,000 construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs, benefiting steelmakers, pipefitters, boilermakers, and others.

The economic value of air quality improvements totals $59 billion to $140 billion annually. That's 25,300 lives lost to toxic air pollution; over 11,000 heart attacks; more than 12,000 asthma attacks, and a significant portion of them being children; over 12,200 additional visits to the emergency rooms of our country; and hundreds of thousands of missed work days.

Overall, the EPA predicts that the monetary value of protecting Americans' health through implementing the Clean Air Act is projected to reach $2 trillion in 2020 alone. Yet this bill ignores those benefits.

Madam Speaker, all of us know that times are tough, but this great Nation has been through tough economic times before. Environmental regulations are not the problem. The economy was really tough--and we are reminded of it often by my colleagues--under President Carter; yet the EPA at the time managed to set new national air pollution standards for airborne lead and began the phaseout of ozone-layer-destroying gases from aerosol spray products.

Nor has protecting the environment always been a partisan issue. The EPA has also had great successes under Republican Presidents. Upon founding the EPA in 1970, President Richard Nixon said the following: ``We can no longer afford to consider air and water common property, free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences. Instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw garbage into our neighbor's yard.'' That was in 1970.

One of the first tasks assigned to the EPA was to enforce the Clean Air Act, also signed by President Nixon. Since its adoption, these regulations have prevented an estimated 200,000 premature deaths.

During President Reagan's administration, the EPA tested elementary and secondary schools for asbestos for the first time and named protecting endangered wetlands a top priority, while

subsequently opening the new Office of Wetlands Protection.

And contrary to what many of my friends across the aisle believe, history did not end with President Reagan. President George H.W. Bush implemented the new cap-and-trade policies that successfully addressed the growing problem of acid rain.

President Bush's EPA also started the wildly successful Energy Star program, helping Americans save money through adopting energy-efficient products and practices. Since then, Energy Star has saved Americans $17 billion on utility bills.

And on a more personal level, I grew up at times with asthma, as did a cousin of mine who still suffers the effects of it. Several of the employees that work with me now and some before have had asthma, and I genuinely believe that if we did not have the clean air standards that we have today, some of us may not be here.

In light of all these accomplishments, it's clear that H.R. 2041 is nothing more than an effort, at the behest of a big, big set of businesses, to delay and block necessary and important regulations that will keep our country safe and clean.

Republicans claim that this bill assists agencies with their economic analyses of EPA regulations. This is nothing more than a convenient, ad hoc justification.

Firstly, all major regulations already receive years of extensive cost-benefit analysis before implementation. At the same time, this bill fails to take into account any of the health and environmental benefits of the regulations in question, rendering the one-sided ``cost-only'' analysis set forth by this bill unnecessary.

Second, the version of the Energy and Commerce bill that was reported out suspends two major regulations that have been the subject of analysis, litigation, re-examination and rewriting for over two decades. Both the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive order 12866 signed by President Clinton require Federal agencies to perform the type of analysis required in the bill, including a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

By requiring unnecessary and duplicative studies, my friends on the other side could not make their desire to indefinitely block these regulations any more clear.

I've introduced an amendment that carves out an exception for rules and regulations drafted in adherence to the rules already on the books, freeing these important regulations to proceed along as scheduled.

Madam Speaker, based on what I've seen by this Republican-led Congress, it's clear to me that they obviously have no intention of using their real power to create jobs. Instead, they prefer to waste time on measures such as this bill that are designed to do one simple thing, and that is to further delay both past and future regulations.

Now, let me make it clear. I've quarreled, as have some of my colleagues, with the Environmental Protection Agency, as rightly we should when the circumstances permit, and that is, in my case, with the numeric nutrient standards that are proposed in Florida. A court has made a decision regarding the enforcement of those nutrient standards, and I believe that the communities involved are prepared to undertake to do what's necessary. And I do not believe that EPA has to involve itself at this point in time.

But when I quarrel with EPA, as I do, I don't do it in a way that demonizes the agency. I do it in a way that's looking for a solution.

One thing that I've learned in the years that I've been in this institution is that whether you have a right or left or center ideological perspective, to begin demonizing certain people suggests to me that those people probably have been successful. I don't know Lisa Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency Cabinet official, but I do know that the way people are screaming about the work that she has done suggests that she must be having some success.

It's time to call my friends out on the other side for their shenanigans, and show the American people that they are more interested in helping big business and the wealthy than the middle class and working poor Americans who continue to struggle all across this Nation every single day.

If we start cutting the regulations that protect the environment when we are down, where will we be when we recover?

I've seen firsthand what happens in places that disregard environmental protections for the sake of business. I remember being in Seong, China with a departed colleague, Gerald Sullivan, who was chair of the Rules Committee, and holding my hand in front of my face and not being able to see it. I also had that same experience in Los Angeles, California, in the late 1950s.

This certainly is not the kind of home that we want to leave for our grandchildren. The air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the soil on which we produce our crops is the earth that we call home. And, in my view, we must keep it clean.

Let me tell you what Ronald Reagan said. If we've learned any lessons during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that preservation of our environment is not a partisan challenge. It's common sense. Our physical health, our social happiness, and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources. President Reagan made those remarks on signing an annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Additionally, he said, in a radio address, that I'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development.

And more importantly, what he said is, what is conservative after all, but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live? And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live, our countrysides, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children, and our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it. He made those remarks at the dedication of the National Geographic Society's new headquarters building in 1984.

President George W. Bush said, our country, the United States, is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, in a joint address to Congress he said, I also call on Congress to work with my administration to achieve the significant emission reductions made possible by implementing the clean energy technologies proposed in our energy plan. Our working group study has made it clear that we need to do a lot more.

Those words from two Presidents that are revered, rightly, by many of us in this institution, and certainly by my colleagues that are Republican that share the same ideological perspectives, should be sufficient to put to rest this polluting bill that we could rename the Toxic Polluting America measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I'll try to do better about that as we progress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, a former member of the Rules Committee, a distinguished Member of this body from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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. 1366, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), whose father I had the privilege of serving with as well.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague from California spoke about what our committee would do. I would urge him to understand that Congress is doing it for them with this measure.

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.

Madam Speaker, the day before yesterday, Frances Beinecke, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the following:

``GOP lawmakers would have us believe that the public health and environmental safeguards stemming from the Clean Air Act--a 40-year-old law signed by President Nixon--are thwarting economic growth. It's not the unregulated market in mortgage debt, the U.S. trade deficit with China, or the shaky state of European banks that is freezing growth. It's the EPA's effort to reduce toxins from old power plants.''

Madam Speaker, millions of Americans are hurting and are in desperate need of our help. Instead of working to create jobs, my colleagues on the other side would rather consider ``do nothing'' bills. We've been doing nothing around here for a very long time now and have been considering ``do nothing'' to get our economy back on track. This ``do nothing'' bill does not create jobs, and it does nothing to help the struggle of middle class and working poor Americans. Let me just give some examples of the time line on the Environmental Protection Agency's laws and list them, in part, by administration.

I spoke earlier about the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act that President Nixon vetoed. His veto was overridden, and then he signed it on October 18, 1972.

Under President Ford, we got the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the cancer-causing pesticides were banned. There was the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976 under President Ford.

Under Jimmy Carter, we got the Clean Water Act of 1977. Then the EPA set a new national air pollution standard for lead, and I'm sure families with children understand that dynamic. The phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons took place in 1978.

Under President Reagan, in 1982, we got the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the asbestos testing in schools, which was critically important throughout this Nation. We got the Chesapeake Bay pollution cleanup and a 90 percent reduction of lead in gasoline. During that same period of time, although it was not his discovery, the ozone layer problem was discovered. Then in 1986, President Reagan signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, the wetlands protection measure, and the Right- to-Know Laws for chemical safety. The Montreal Protocol was signed by the President in 1987 and standards for underground storage tanks in 1988. The sewage Ocean Dumping Ban also came about in 1988.

The Alar pesticide ban for use on foods came under President Bush. Toxic waste control came under President Bush as well as the Pollution Prevention Act. Acid rain controls were enacted as well as the Energy Star program.

Those are just a few, and I won't go into the many under President Clinton and the few that have taken place under President Obama.

With that said, there seems to be this act against the Environmental Protection Agency that suggests that they have been harmful in some way--that's another word for ``demonize''--that they've been harmful, the EPA, in all of these things that have been done throughout all of this time that have helped our environment.

I just, for the life of me, don't understand why it is now we want to slow down this process and allow for an analysis, that is already being done, to be delayed. We want to protect and conserve the land on which we live--our countryside, our rivers, our mountains, our plains, and meadows and forests. That's what Ronald Reagan said. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children, and our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it.

Does the bill that we're considering today leave the land better than we found it? I think you know the answer.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee and my good friend for yielding. I echo all of the sentiments that he has made previously.

Firstly, I'd like to point to the fact that the National Association of Manufacturers, in its last sentence in a letter directed to Senator Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell, says, ``During this time of economic recovery, we urge you to preserve this successful program''--meaning the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program--``that is helping preserve auto sector jobs and promote energy security.''

Bruce Josten, from the Chamber of Commerce, while citing to all Members of the House of Representatives that the chamber ``understands the importance of reducing America's unacceptable debt and believes that all programs must be on the table, the chamber urges you to bear in mind the facts about the ATVM loan program, which promotes manufacturing in the United States and is an important component of America's energy security.''

I only cited that for the reason that there could be no better person to know what martial law is than the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, who is my good friend. He and I, he and Mr. McGovern and I, Ms. Slaughter and he and I have been back and forth on martial law when Democrats were in charge and when Republicans were in charge. One thing you need to understand is this is martial law that you are bringing this rule under, and we don't even know what's in the bill.

Yesterday afternoon, the Republican leadership brought up a bill that failed American workers, failed our Nation's economy, and failed those struggling to recover from natural disasters. It is no surprise that their rank and file then failed them.

Rather than take up language that has already passed the Senate with bipartisan support, Republicans instead chose to pit unemployed factory workers against hurricane victims. This is not the kind of behavior that will bring our Nation out of this recession.

While Republicans continue their partisan squabbles, countless Americans are fighting for their livelihoods. Six years after Hurricane Katrina, roofs are still being replaced, homes are being repaired and paperwork is still pending for funds that have yet to be allocated. And if you've been to New Orleans, you'll see a whole section of that city that is not in repair.

In my home State of Florida, FEMA has already delayed $1.68 million for work resulting from 2004 and 2005 Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne and Dennis.

Given my colleague's distorted priorities, I can't help but wonder how long will the people of New England have to wait since we've been waiting in Florida since 2004 and 2005.

And some have been waiting for drought relief and flood relief for an equal number of years. But this appears to be of no consequence to my Republican colleagues as they fail to recognize that their ideological posturing has very real repercussions. Once again, their irresponsible behavior and unwillingness to compromise has put us on the brink of yet another shutdown.

H. Res. 409 unnecessarily will provide for same-day consideration of another Republican continuing resolution, violating the House Republicans' rules package passed in January which provided that all bills will be available to the public 3 days before coming to a vote. Not only did we not get the required 72 hours, we didn't get 24 hours.

The Speaker made it very clear. He said that we will dispense with the conventional wisdom that bigger bills are always better; that fast legislating is good legislating; and that allowing additional amendments and open debate makes the legislative process less efficient than our forefathers intended. Legislators and the public will have 3 days to read bills before they come to a vote.

We were told we would have 3 days to read bills before they come to a vote. We were told that they would be on the Internet and that technology is available so that all of America could see what we're doing. And as the Speaker said--and I thoroughly agree--fast legislating is not good legislating, especially when there is no need to require a rushed, closed process. As far as we know, we're voting on a same-day rule for a bill we don't even know exists. Before we even ask to spend billions of dollars, we should have some idea of what's going on. And it's not enough for me to hear that we're going to hear about it in the Rules Committee later on. I want to know what's going on right now.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to respond to your statement that you don't know where we--

No, that you don't know where we got the 72 hours from. Well, if you go on the Speaker's Web site, you will see in the very first paragraph what he says in that regard with reference to 72 hours. Perhaps that's where we got it from.

Just one thing, Mr. Chairman: Does the Speaker's word matter or not?

Mr. Chairman, one thing I really would like to make clear and take out some of the hyperbole and the passion from my side or yours, we know, and you have said--and I echo your expressions with reference to the need for us to address--

The only thing I am trying to get across is I don't want the American public to believe that whenever we get through--whether it's 72 hours, or whenever it is--that that means that the desperately needed money in Vermont and in New England and other places is going to be forthcoming most immediately because I'm telling you that from '04 and '05, from six hurricanes we are not being paid in the State of Florida.

Well, not only Floridians.

Exactly. That's the point. From tornadoes, from hurricanes, from fires, all over the place.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Libya's frozen assets be used to pay for humanitarian relief and military operations associated with the current conflict in that country.

Since Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi responded to peaceful demonstrations by attacking Libya's own citizens, the United States has been actively engaged with our international allies in thwarting the ability of the Qaddafi regime to visit violence, murder, and destruction on the people of Libya. This past February, the United States imposed economic sanctions on Libya and froze the assets of its leadership, promising to hold Qaddafi, his family, and the government of Libya accountable for its human rights abuses. It is estimated that the value of these assets exceed $30 billion.

On March 19, with the authority of the United Nations, the United States Armed Forces and our coalition partners launched Operation Odyssey Dawn in an effort to enforce the Security Council resolution. That mission has since come under NATO command and is now called Operation Unified Protector. Our Armed Forces have assisted in combat operations including providing intelligence, aerial refueling, targeting, and other aspects of NATO's daily bombardment of Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi. We have already spent over one billion taxpayer dollars on this effort, with operations costing millions more every day.

When the United States recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority of Libya on July 15, it paved the way for the Council to access some of the frozen assets to be used for humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts. With the Qaddafi regime at an end and the dictator himself on the run and in hiding, the United States will be moving into a posture that puts less emphasis on military operations and more focus on supporting the Transitional National Council's efforts to establish a working government.

The United States should pursue with the Council the viability of using some of those assets to reimburse NATO members for the cost of their military operations in support of the Libyan people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Libya's frozen assets be used to pay for humanitarian relief and military operations associated with the current conflict in that country.

Since Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi responded to peaceful demonstrations by attacking Libya's own citizens, the United States has been actively engaged with our international allies in thwarting the ability of the Qaddafi regime to visit violence, murder, and destruction on the people of Libya. This past February, the United States imposed economic sanctions on Libya and froze the assets of its leadership, promising to hold Qaddafi, his family, and the government of Libya accountable for its human rights abuses. It is estimated that the value of these assets exceed thirty billion dollars.

On March 19, with the authority of the United Nations, the United States Armed Forces and our coalition partners launched Operation Odyssey Dawn in an effort to enforce Security Council Resolution 1973. That mission has since come under NATO command and is now called Operation Unified Protector. Our Armed Forces have assisted in combat operations including providing intelligence, aerial refueling, targeting, and other aspects of NATO's daily bombardment of Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi. We have already spent over one billion taxpayer dollars on this effort, with operations costing millions more every day.

When the United States recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority of Libya on July 15, it paved the way for the Council to access some of the frozen assets to use for humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts. With the Qaddafi regime at an end and the dictator himself on the run and in hiding, the United States will be moving into a posture that puts less emphasis on military operations and more focus on supporting the Transitional National Council's efforts to establish a working government.

The United States should pursue with the Council the viability of using some of those assets to reimburse NATO members for the cost of their military operations in support of the Libyan people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Dr. Garland E. ``Gary'' Morey, Jr., a pioneer in South Florida's HIV/AIDS community. Dr. Morey passed away after a lengthy battle with cancer on August 1, 2011, at the age of 57. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends at this most difficult time. He is survived by his life partner, William Silver; father, Garland Morey, Sr.; brother, Donald Morey; sister, Linda Thomas; and four nephews, Tim and Bryan Thomas, and Trevor and Kevin Morey.

Dr. Morey was born in Syracuse, NY, to Garland ``Gene'' Morey and Theresa ``Terry'' Morey. He graduated from Cicero High School, attended Cornell University for his undergraduate studies, and received his medical degree from Upstate Medical Center. Dr. Morey was determined to go wherever his service was needed. During his studies and residency, he completed externships at the University of Cape Town in South Africa and Alaska Native Medical Center in Barrow. Furthermore, Dr. Morey practiced in Syracuse before joining the Public Health Service and setting up a rural medical practice in Onley, VA. Later, his work would take him to Florida, where he went into practice in Marathon and Big Pine Key.

In 1987, Dr. Morey answered the call to help treat patients infected with a newly emerging immune system disease now known as HIV/AIDS. He moved to Fort Lauderdale and joined the Broward County Health Department's Northwest AIDS Center as its first HIV/AIDS specialist. Furthermore, he co-founded Care Resources, Inc., South Florida's oldest and largest HIV/AIDS service organization.

In September 1994, after caring for over 1,200 HIV-positive patients, Dr. Morey was forced to retire as a physician, but his work did not end there. He wrote grants, established new programs, and served on the committees and boards of numerous community-based organizations, including the University of Miami AIDS treatment center, Community Research Initiative, People With AIDS Coalition, International Foundation for Alternate Research in AIDS, Broward Community Foundation, Shadowood II, South Florida AIDS Network, Broward County HIV Health Services Planning Council, and chairman of the board for Center One.

When Dr. Morey lost his larynx to esophagus cancer in 2000, he joined the New Voice Club of South Florida. He became a speech therapist to help individuals like himself learn to talk and live with throat cancer. Dr. Morey also established a training program for nursing students at Florida Atlantic University and invited students to club meetings to work with members. In addition, he traveled to schools throughout Broward County teaching young children the hazards of smoking.

Mr. Speaker, for over 16 years, Dr. Gary Morey volunteered his time and expertise whenever and wherever he could to help those individuals most in need. He was a wonderful human being whose generosity and selflessness are a true inspiration to us all, and he will be dearly missed. Dr. Morey's legacy of care and compassion is now in our hands to continue. Let us honor his memory by working to ensure that people living with HIV/AIDS have access to quality health care and are treated with dignity and respect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. Alvin A. Davis, who as a teacher has shown outstanding merit and dedication to his profession and who has been a source of inspiration and courage for hundreds of students in my hometown of Miramar, Florida. For his accomplishments as the head band and music teacher for Miramar High School, Mr. Davis has recently been awarded the 2012 Florida Department of Education's prestigious Teacher of the Year Award. Additionally, Mr. Davis has previously been recognized as the 2011 Broward County Teacher of the Year and the African-American Community Unsung Hero Award in 2010 for his dedication to his students and the community.

While Mr. Davis teaches music, many see him as more than just a `music teacher.' For the past ten years he has taken the initiative to go above and beyond his duties as a teacher and makes the focus of his class on three things: academics, discipline, and music. He requires his students to receive one-on-one counseling with a member of the band staff and he personally reviews students' report cards and interim reports, even though it may not be part of his job description. Every school band rehearsal includes a one-hour study hall where students are tutored, even though his school may not have the budget for it.

But what is most outstanding is how Mr. Davis has made it his personal mission to ensure that his students make it on to college and move on to a brighter future, one that some students could never dream of. The Broward County school district confirms that for the past three years, every student who was a regular participating member of the Miramar High band program has gone on to college. Mr. Davis personally counsels his students on their future decisions and requires that seniors be only able to perform if they have registered for the ACT or SAT and if they can prove that they have applied to a college or university. Through his vision and steadfast dedication, Mr. Davis has single-handedly transformed the lives and futures of hundreds of students and their families.

Education is the back-bone of our country. It is what has made America prosperous, what has made the quality of life in this country the envy of the world, and what has safeguarded our democracy. Yet today we live in a time where the American education system, once ranked as top in the world, has slipped and tumbled to the point of not even making top twenty in some categories. Unfortunately, there are some voices who now decry the public education system as hopeless and worthy of scrapping. To those who have lost faith, I say that they should hear of the vision and successes of Mr. Alvin Davis who is dedicated, selfless, and capable, and works tirelessly every single day to transform the future of Florida's education system.

Mr. Speaker, as we recognize and honor Mr. Alvin A. Davis today for his accomplishments and his dedication, may we also recognize the hope and light educators like Mr. Davis bring to the future of this country.