Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution welcoming the new state of Southern Sudan, encouraging Sudan and Southern Sudan to resolve separation issues and the future of the Abyei region, and urging the Governments of Sudan and Southern Sudan to abide by the principles of peace, democracy, and human rights.

Sudan is geographically the largest country in Africa and one of the least developed regions of the world. Sudan has been ravaged by civil war intermittently for four decades and ethnic, religious, and economic conflicts have ensued between the Muslim north and Christian-animist south. These past twenty years,

an estimated two million people have died and four million people have been displaced. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed in January 2005, put an end to the long-lasting conflict between the north and the south by establishing a semi-autonomous government for Southern Sudan for a duration of six years, after which Southern Sudan would vote for secession or unity.

From January 9 to 15, 2011, Sudan held a referendum to decide if Southern Sudan would become a sovereign and independent country, or remain part of Sudan. Approximately 3.8 million Southern Sudanese exercised their right to self determination, and on February 7, 2011, the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission (SSRC) announced the final results, with almost 99 percent voting for independence from the north.

On February 7, 2011, Sudan's President Omar Al-Bashir officially accepted the final results of the referendum, and the United States announced on the same day its intention to formally recognize Southern Sudan. On July 9, 2011, Southern Sudan will become the sovereign and independent Republic of Southern Sudan.

While I applaud these recent accomplishments, several issues pertaining to the separation of the two states remain and must be resolved prior to the conclusion of the transition period. These include and are not limited to: the legal status of populations in the north and south, wealth sharing, resource management--especially oil revenues, division of assets and debt, currency, security arrangements, and infrastructure and institutions building. The future status of the oil rich region of Abyei--full integration with Sudan or Southern Sudan, or partition of the region in two--also needs to be determined.

My resolution congratulates the people of Southern Sudan for exercising their right to self determination and welcomes the new nation of Southern Sudan. In addition, it calls on both parties to resolve separation issues prior to the conclusion of the transition period, including the status of Abyei. It also urges Sudan to put an end to repression and violence, and Southern Sudan to create democratic institutions and plan elections. Lastly, the resolution pledges that the United States will work with both governments to ensure a peaceful transition to independence and encourages other nations to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has played a major role in bringing this devastating conflict to an end. I will continue to monitor the issue and advocate for a peaceful and nonviolent separation. Not only do the people of northern and southern Sudan deserve it, but it is in the interest of our nation and the world to establish peace and stability in the region. Therefore, I encourage other nations to welcome the new state of Southern Sudan and assist with their transition process.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Obviously, this measure amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and seeks to repeal those provisions that establish and appropriate funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund. It also rescinds any unobligated balance appropriated to the fund.

As I listened to my friend from North Carolina, two things jumped out at me immediately. One is her usage and the ruling Republican majority House Members' usage of the term for the Affordable Health Care Act as ObamaCare. I said earlier in the Rules Committee I guess I could call it HastingsCare, because I supported--as did many Members of this Congress who are still here and some who are not, on both sides of the aisle--health care provisions for America long before any of us knew Barack Obama's name.

When it's used the way that it is, it's in some manner attempting to be demeaning of the President. He does not bear the sole responsibility for the Affordable Health Care Act. I would assume some of that responsibility. And what I would say is he and many others in this body did not go far enough in that we did not establish universal health care for all Americans in this country.

The other thing that jumps out on this particular matter, calling it a slush fund and then allowing that it is going to be in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat. It puts us in a strange position in the House of Representatives when my colleagues with the ruling majority of the House of Representatives have sought and been successful in eliminating the opportunities for Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to seek to have appropriations earmarked for respective undertakings in their congressional districts. Rather, they would eliminate those earmarks and--guess what?--put it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.

So I find it inconsistent to make the argument on one hand, and then on the other hand say, Oh, it's okay for the unelected bureaucrats to have some opportunities to spend our money. Quite frankly, I take umbrage with that. I think I can do a better job defining a need for a treatment plant in Belle Glade than can an unelected bureaucrat.

The burden of chronic diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and stroke, present a significant public health challenge to all of our communities and our Nation as a whole. In my home State of Florida, over 10 million cases of seven chronic diseases--cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental disorders, and pulmonary conditions--were reported early on in this decade at the cost of about $17.6 billion in treatment, and resulting in $68.7 billion in lost productivity and economic cost.

Simply put, we have a sick care system, not a health care system. Tens of millions of Americans are suffering from health conditions that could possibly be preventible. This is further exacerbated by the continuing rise of health care costs. Despite the fact that chronic diseases are responsible for seven out of 10 deaths among Americans each year and that they account for 75 percent of our Nation's health care spending, less than 3 percent of our health care spending goes to preventive health care services and health promotion.

As you know, the Affordable Care Act, or the HastingsCare Act, or the Hastings and ObamaCare Act, or the Hastings and Obama and DemocratCare Act created the Prevention and Public Health Fund in order to assist State and community efforts in preventing illness and promoting health. The Prevention and Public Health Fund represents an unprecedented investment of $15 billion over 10 years to help prevent disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they become severe. It aims to transform the focus of our system of care from primarily treating illness to maintaining long-term wellness by leveraging the power of preventive medicine.

Through the Community Transformation Grants program, for example, the fund empowers State and local governments and partners to implement community prevention interventions that help reduce chronic disease and health care disparities.

In fact, the fund is already being used in all 50 of our States and the District of Columbia to prevent smoking, increase physical activity, reduce alcohol and drug abuse, increase immunizations, train the Nation's public health

workforce, prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and help control the obesity epidemic in our country.

In addition, the Prevention and Public Health Fund provides funding for States to help develop a health insurance exchange by 2014. Footnote there: We should have had a public option, where consumers will have access to a new market of more affordable, quality health coverage, as well as funding for up to 400 school-based centers in order to provide a safety net and improved access to care for children.

Since the enactment of the HastingsCare, ObamaCare, DemocraticCare, RepublicansDon'tCare measure last year, the Department of Health and Human Services has awarded approximately $21.98 million in grants to organizations in Florida alone through the Prevention and Public Health Fund to help improve wellness and prevention efforts, including more than $9.3 million for community and clinical prevention, more than $3.1 million for public health infrastructure, and more than $9.4 million for primary care training.

If we are to reduce health care costs, we must improve the health of all Americans. Investing in proven preventive measures can significantly reduce the risk of developing these diseases, improving people's lives and saving money.

According to a report from Trust For America's Health entitled ``Prevention for a Healthier America,'' investing just $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs that increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save our Nation more than $16 billion annually within 5 years.

This is equivalent to and potentially greater than the amount as estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office by which H.R. 1217 reduces direct spending over a 10-year period. Furthermore, a public opinion survey by Trust for America and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that 71 percent of Americans favor an increased investment in disease prevention.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is supported also by nearly 600 national organizations, including the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Families USA, and the AIDS Institute.

H.R. 1217, on the other hand, is nothing more than an attack on affordable health insurance, primary care and safety net care for children. This bill is yet another feeble attempt by the ruling majority Republicans to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately destroy the HastingsCare, ObamaCare, DemocraticCare, RepublicansDon'tCare bill one piece at a time, including those programs that have already been funded and are helping millions of middle class, elderly, and working poor Americans and their families as we speak.

The misinformation that pervades the health care debate in this country never ceases to amaze me at all.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, the ruling Republican majority, would have the American people believe that the Prevention and Public Health Fund is a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to spend money freely without congressional oversight. This is simply not true. A specific funding amount is allocated for prevention efforts through the fund each year during the fiscal year period: $500 million in 2010; $750 million in 2011; $1 billion in fiscal year 2012 and so on up to $2 billion beginning in 2015.

This gives the Secretary, whomever she or he may be, under Republicans or Democrats, the flexibility and health care providers the funding certainty that they need to implement prevention and public health interventions that help Americans make healthier decisions for themselves and their families. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is the first and only Federal program with dedicated ongoing resources specifically designed to improve the public. It represents our commitment to preventing illness and investing in our Nation's long- term physical and fiscal health.

Let me say this, Madam Speaker: Every day that I awaken, I start my day by trying to figure what can I do to follow the scriptural mandate to help the least of us. I am curious whether my friends in the ruling majority have the same feeling.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, that's just about the most convoluted, backward argument that I can imagine that I've heard in the 19 years that I've been here in the United States Congress.

There is not one dime in the Prevention and Public Health Fund that can or will be used for abortions. The law in this land, enunciated by a legend and an icon, among the other things that Henry Hyde was, is that Federal funds cannot be used for that purpose, and to carry us into that neverland that the previous speaker just spoke of is astoundingly wrong.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Of course I will. Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Please, let's have a clear understanding that no dollars from this fund are going to be used for abortions.

I don't have any opportunity to guarantee whether or not I'm going to be alive in the next 30 seconds, let alone tell you what may happen. But if you ask my belief, and yours was your belief that it may be used is what you said, my dear friend, all I'm saying is it is not going to be. And the law enunciated through Henry Hyde, and almost verbatim has been included in the Affordable Care Act, precludes the use of money for abortions.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui), a former member of the Rules Committee that we miss.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), my classmate and my good friend.

I yield an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, please inform both sides the remaining amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 1354, the American Jobs Matter Act of 2011.

To address that, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, no prevention and public health funds are or can be used to pay for abortions, and this bill has absolutely nothing to do with that. What it will stop, this bill as offered by the ruling Republican House, is immunization for kids and seniors, programs to stop childhood obesity and to prevent heart disease and diabetes. That's what they are stopping. Please don't be misled. No dollars from this fund will be used for abortion.

If we as legislators are to be about the business of helping Americans live healthy, productive lives, we must change our fundamental approach to health care by investing in illness prevention, not just treatment.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is the key to a coordinated, comprehensive, sustainable and accountable approach to improving our Nation's health outcomes. I would also add that at a time when Americans are looking to Congress for leadership, the Republican ruling majority in the House are continuing their assault on comprehensive health care reform that expands coverage to 32 million people instead of focusing on job creation.

It's time to stop playing games with the health of the American people and get down to business. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass a jobs bill without any further delay. I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Carolyn Jackson Herring, who died on April 12, 2001 at the age of 46. Ms. Herring was a selfless mother, sister, daughter, and friend. She was also a dedicated public servant in the Tampa Bay community. Ms. Herring stands apart as an ideal citizen and was a living testimony of resilience, patience, and love.

Ms. Herring was born on July 26, 1954 to Johnnie and Mildred Jackson in Jasper, Florida. In later years, the Jackson family relocated to St. Petersburg, Florida. Ms. Herring later graduated from Lakewood High School in 1973, where she was a member of the first integrated graduating class. In 1977, she received her Bachelor of Science degree in Education from the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. While attending the University of Florida, Ms. Herring was an active member of the Crossroad Christian Organization, as well as several advocacy groups for those suffering with sickle cell anemia.

For over fifteen years, Ms. Herring dedicated her life to assisting the lives of the mentally ill. She served as a Counselor and Residential Director for Boley Centers for Behavior Health Care, Inc. After her passing, Boley Centers dedicated their main lounge area in her honor in recognition of her steadfast commitment to public service and advocacy for the mentally ill. Prior to working with Boley Centers, Ms. Herring was a headstart teacher in the Pinellas County School System.

Ms. Herring was also an active member of Bay Vista Church of Christ, where she served on the Board of Directors for several years.

Survived by her daughter, Oneshia Herring (Washington, DC); her parents, Johnnie and Mildred Jackson (St. Petersburg, Florida); sister, Thelma Jackson-Burns (St. Petersburg, Florida); and brothers, Johnnie Jackson, Jr. (St. Petersburg, Florida) and Alonzo Solomon (Atlanta, Georgia), Ms. Herring was known throughout her family, colleagues, clients, and community as a compassionate leader with a peaceful, virtuous, and generous spirit. While her presence is truly missed, her legacy continues to live on in the hearts of all the many people she touched.

Mr. Speaker, Alphonse de Lamartine once said ``To love for the sake of being loved is human, but to love for the sake of loving is angelic.'' For her angelic spirit and unconditional love to her family and community, it is with great privilege that I celebrate the life of Ms. Carolyn Jackson Herring. I extend my deepest condolences to her friends and family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Shari B. Kaplan for her extraordinary efforts in abuse treatment for children and adults. She has worked tirelessly through her ``Can't Tell Foundation'' to give hope to victims of domestic and sexual abuse and children who are plagued by bullying. Her foundation has been a pioneer in treatment for victims and relies on several methods to allow victims to cope. Such practices include self-defense, music and movement, Qi Gong and yoga, nutrition, mentoring, improvisational work, meditation, individual therapy, family therapy, group therapy and support.

Ms. Kaplan herself was a victim of bullying and has experienced the personal pain of abuse with her closest family. She was in a horrific bike crash when she was young that left her with physical injuries that ultimately lead to bullying when she was in school. Additionally, her children were victims of abuse at the hands of her nanny's 13-year-old son. Using the wisdom she gained from her own pain and experience in helping her children cope, she went on to help others deal with their pain and create prevention policies against abuse in all its forms. Her more recent goal is to raise 6.5 million dollars to help build a treatment facility in Boca Raton, Florida.

Abuse and bullying has become an epidemic in this country. Suicide is the second major cause of death in teens and young adults ages 13-24. In addition, government statistics show that 32 percent of 12- to 18- year-olds say they have been bullied.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize and stand with a woman who has decided to stand up against abuse and bullying. Ms. Shari B. Kaplan has truly dedicated herself to this important cause and I wish to give her my full support.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I welcome my dear friend, Bishop Henry Fernandez, as our guest chaplain for today's opening prayer.

He is an anointed speaker, educator, accomplished author, and entrepreneur. Henry B. Fernandez answered the call of God on his life in 1985 and later became an ordained minister in 1988.

In July 1991, Bishop Fernandez began to demonstrate his faith in God and a commitment to ``walk by faith'' in

every area of life when, along with his wife, Carol, he founded the Plantation Worship Center in the cafeteria of a local elementary school in south Florida with only 11 members. Now known as The Faith Center Ministries, the church makes its home in the former Sunrise Theater, where its more than 8,000 members embrace a mission of ``Reaching the World for Jesus.''

Bishop Fernandez is an amazing inspirational speaker, author, community servant, and business person whose work continues to manifest the freedom of worship enjoyed across our Nation. Through his work, he has encouraged us all to exercise faith and live victoriously.

He and his wife, Carol, have two sons, Seion-Zane and Elijah-Zane.

I am truly honored to welcome my friend and inspirational leader, Bishop Henry Fernandez.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my good friend from South Carolina.

David Frishberg wrote, in 1975, ``I'm Just a Bill.'' This has been utilized. I utilized it yesterday. My friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) utilized it again today. I shan't go into all of it, but I would encourage the American public to understand that my friends know how a bill becomes the law.

H.R. 1, the measure that we have been talking about, really did pass the House of Representatives and it went over to the United States Senate and it was rejected. The President also said that he would veto H.R. 1 if it reached his desk. So what we're doing here is symbolism. My friends on the other side are entitled easily to message anything they wish to address their base, but don't bring it to the American public under the aegis of this is something serious. It is not. It is absurd. It is a complete waste of time. And, even more importantly, as has been said by

many, and I believe everybody on the other side understands, it's unconstitutional.

It also has not gone unnoticed that my friends who advocated rightly that there should be transparency, in addition to being transparency, that measures should be allowed to be read before they're utilized. The leadership of the House of Representatives held a press conference before any Member of the House of Representatives saw Mr. Womack and Mr. Woodall's bill. Knowing this, then, I guess what must be happening here is we are wasting our time on patently unconstitutional measures.

I won't go into all the details about the need to address jobs, but I do know this: Steny Hoyer said earlier what all of us in America know, and when we were children we celebrated a lot--a lot of us--and it was April Fool's. We played jokes on people. But, listen, the American people are not fools and they're not foolish enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just have a question. Do you really believe that what you're doing is constitutional?

Will the gentleman yield again for yet another question?

Do you have any precedent for the constitutionality of this particular measure? And I urge you based on what you just said, there have been measures that were deemed, but that was when they were agreed upon, but there is no authority anywhere for us to pass a law requiring of the United States Senate to undertake to do something, and I appreciate my colleague yielding.

Unique and unconstitutional.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in strong opposition to H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, also known as the SOAR Act. I also am very pleased that my friend from Utah has, in the tradition of this committee, granted the time to our side. This legislation revives the District of Columbia's school voucher program, a program that was allowed to expire after 5 years of failing to improve student achievement.

My colleague said that there will be statistics on both sides. Doubtless that is true. I also have great respect that the presenter of the rule today is a school teacher. At least if somebody is going to meddle in somebody else's business, they ought to at least know a little bit about what they're talking about. Too many times in our States, too many times in this place, many of us who are not educators, nor have we been involved, are making decisions about the education of children when we should be being a lot more careful.

For example, I'm sure that my colleague, who knows his State well, as I know mine and as we know ours--all of us in this institution--is mindful that in the last 41 years voters have rejected private school vouchers every time they have been proposed--interestingly enough, two times in Utah, I would urge my good friend. As late as 2007, Utah voted 62 percent to 38 percent not to have vouchers. Before that, it was sort of like the District of Columbia. Incidentally, in 1981, 89 percent of the people in a referendum in the District of Columbia voted against vouchers--but in 1988, in Utah, 67 percent. It didn't change very much from that time to 2007, which isn't very much time from now.

So how dare we come here to tell these people that we are going to thrust upon them something they don't want without a single bit of consultation with a single member of the public officials in this community being consulted. I might ask why we are here debating such a misguided, narrowly focused measure when violence is raging in the Middle East, when earthquakes and tsunamis have ravaged Japan, and when our own Nation's economy is kind of sputtering along. I suppose, when it is one of the leadership of the Republican Party's pet issues, the people's work can always be put on hold. This matter is nothing more than a shallow attempt to, once again, appease the right-wing of the Republican Party.

Well, Madam Speaker, Congress' oversight of the District is not an excuse for political pandering to the Republicans' special interest of the day du jour. My colleague used Leo Durocher. He played with and against Yogi Berra. Yogi Berra reminds me, if I were to use an analogy, that this is deja vu all over again.

He and Leo would be proud that we are talking about them, Mr. Bishop.

Whether it is gun rights, a woman's right to choose or education policy, the District is not and should not be the dumping grounds for Republicans' ideological whims. My colleagues have already stripped the District of its limited vote in Congress. The least they could do is allow them to control their education system just as every other jurisdiction in this country is able to do.

The people of the District of Columbia did not ask for or want this program, nor were they or their elected officials consulted, as I have pointed out. If they had been, I'm sure the committee would have been told what many of us already know: that this program is simply a waste of money. According to legislatively mandated evaluations, the D.C. voucher program failed to show any statistically significant impact on student achievement. This is in contrast to reading and math scores across the District, which did improve over the same period. Though my colleagues claim that this program serves students who would otherwise be stuck in failing schools without the resources to adequately meet their needs, only about a quarter of the students using vouchers came from schools in need of improvement.

Additionally, the Department of Education found that students participating in the D.C. voucher program were significantly less likely to attend a school with ESL programs, learning support and special needs programs, tutors, and counselors.

Further, private schools are not required to hold the same level of transparency or accountability as public schools. Rather than directing these funds toward improving all of the District's public and charter schools, as Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has proposed, this program only serves 1.3 percent of the 70,000 students enrolled in the D.C. public schools.

Though my colleagues may claim to have a newfound commitment to education--my friend from the Rules Committee being an exception-- albeit for

only a few select students they have found this commitment. Let's not forget that, just a few weeks ago, some in this body and most in the Republican Party were content to cut--and my friend just used the kinship of Pell Grants with this proposal--Federal funding for 9.4 million students, to eliminate over 200,000 Head Start placements, to do away with supplementary education services for 957,000 underprivileged students, and to reduce or get rid of, they said, after-school programs for 139,000 students across this Nation.

I was just with the CEO of the Urban League's Broward and Palm Beach Counties--my constituency--and they were talking about how drastic this is going to affect the constituency in that area of underprivileged students and who they are seeing and what the juvenile justice system is now reaping from this ill harvest that we have thrust upon these people.

On the one hand, the Republicans go on about the need for fiscal discipline. They refuse to negotiate on legislation to keep the government operating, and they propose billions of dollars in cuts to our Nation's students. Yet they are perfectly willing to throw millions of dollars at a program that has proven year after year to be unpopular, inefficient, and downright ineffective.

If my colleagues truly wanted to improve the District's schools, along with the schools across the Nation, they would be bringing forth a serious measure to reform the No Child Left Behind provision. But no. Instead, we are debating a measure that has no hope of becoming law. It is simply to appease the political whims of a few in the Republican Party. The American people, in my view, are tired of the majority's using this institution to do nothing but spew ideological rhetoric.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will bring up H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, and I am mindful that there will be speakers regarding the same. The amendment will provide our government the tools to rein in unfair currency policies by the Chinese.

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 am going to at this time reserve any further comments that I have after the following statement:

It has been 13 weeks and still no jobs bill and no substantive plan to improve our Nation's economy. When my friends in the majority are ready to get down to the serious business of improving the lives of all American people, we will be waiting.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before yielding, I'll one-up the one-upper: Satchel Paige also said, Don't look back.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform us as to the remaining time.

I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, my good friend, Ms. Holmes Norton, who knows more about this issue than all of us combined.

To complete her thought, I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Sort of like ``Joe DiMaggio was against vouchers.''

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield myself 10 seconds to explain that we are still on the D.C. voucher matter, but the previous question is with reference to Chinese currency.

With that, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely correct about the Joe DiMaggio comment. But I've been around long enough to remember the Washington Senators. One of my personal friends played baseball with them, Earl Battey, and I won't tell you some of the things that Earl said to me when it wasn't about school vouchers.

But I leave to the seriousness of the moment 5 minutes of my remaining time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who has, with great persistence, tried to get clarity about taxation without representation.

Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend from Utah that I am going to be the last speaker.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute of that time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton.

Thank you very much, and I shall conclude.

I say to the chairman, before he leaves the room, that if any American corporation is paying 35 percent corporate tax, they need to fire their accountants.

Madam Speaker, if the people of the District of Columbia wanted a school voucher program, they would have created one--without the interference of Congress.

This pilot program was allowed to expire for a reason: It didn't work.

Why the self-proclaimed party of fiscal conservatism would support authorizing millions, 300 of those, in new spending for a downright useless program with no offset is beyond me. It is time for Republicans to take their hands out of the internal affairs of the District, and instead focus on what our constituents sent us here to do--rebuild our economy and put Americans back to work.

At a time when our Nation's schools and communities find themselves in dire fiscal straits, we should not be throwing money away to revive a program that has, by all objective measures, failed.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, so we can debate and pass real jobs legislation today, 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 rise today to honor the girls' basketball team of Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Led by Coach Marcia Pinder, whose 776-171 career record is top among all Florida basketball coaches, male or female, the Panthers crowned a 22-7 season by winning the Florida state championship for the second consecutive year. Under Coach Pinder's tutelage, the Dillard girls have consistently been recognized for being among the best at their sport, having won six titles overall.

In this year's title game, the Panthers led most of the way and, with their key rebounds and clutch free throws, the game, which went to overtime, and the title ultimately belonged to Dillard.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the Lady Panthers and Coach Pinder, who have once again reached the pinnacle of success in their sport, and I am glad that they represent my district. They are all fine sportswomen and people of whom we can all be very proud. It is my distinguished honor to recognize their achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Pensions Protection Act of 2011, which willprotect veterans from losing their pension benefits because they received payments to cover expenses incurred after an accident, theft, loss or casualty loss.

When assessing a veteran's eligibility for a pension, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) considers a variety of sources of revenue to determine a veteran's annual income. If such income exceeds the income limit set by the VA, the veteran does not qualify for a pension or loses their benefits. Currently, the VA considers any reimbursement that compensates a veteran for his/or her expenses due to accidents, theft or loss as income. Only reimbursements of expenses related to casualty loss are currently exempted from determination of income.

Under current law, if a veteran is seriously injured in an accident or the victim of a theft and receives insurance compensation to cover his/or her medical expenses, the cost of replacement of the stolen items, or for pain and suffering, he/or she will likely lose their pension. This means that the law effectively punishes veterans when they suffer from such an accident or theft.

Such a tragedy happened to one of my constituents, a Navy veteran with muscular dystrophy who was hit by a truck when crossing the street in his wheelchair. His pension was abruptly cut off after he received an insurance settlement payment to cover medical expenses for himself and his service dog, and material expenses to replace his wheelchair. As a result, he fell below the poverty line, could not cover his daily expenses and mortgage payments, and almost lost his home!

There is clearly something wrong with a law that cancels veterans' pensions following the award of an insurance payment, which was only intended to cover exceptional medical expenses. I am distraught that the VA can cancel the pensions of unemployed and disabled veterans without further notice. The VA has a moral responsibility to care for our veterans and ensure that they live decent lives.

The Veterans Pensions Protection Act will amend the U.S. Code to exempt the reimbursement of expenses related to accidents, theft, loss or casualty loss from being included into the determination of a veteran's income. This will guarantee the continuity of our veterans' pensions and that no veteran will have their benefits unfairly and abruptly depreciated or cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will fix a loophole under existing law to ensure that pensions are issued to veterans who legitimately meet the income criteria and rely on such benefits to survive. We must enact regulations that help veterans live better lives, not hurt them. At a time when our nation's servicemen and women are fighting two wars abroad, we have a duty to our past, present, and future veterans to provide them with the very best services and benefits. We owe our veterans an enormous debt, and cannot thank them enough for their service. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011, prevents our Nation's highway, transit, and safety programs from expiring ahead of the upcoming construction season by extending them at fiscal year 2010 funding levels through September 30 of this year.

My friend from Texas referenced the fact that it would be bad if we did not do this before March 4, and I agree with him thoroughly. I am hopeful that he has the same attitude with reference to the overall aspect of any kind of shutdown of the government. A shutdown would be bad in any of its particulars, and not just as he referenced it, that I agree with, in the area of transportation and infrastructure.

This extension allows States to continue signing contracts, managing planning and construction, and paying for vital transportation and infrastructure projects while we finalize a multiyear authorization to update our network. As all of us know, our interstate highways, roads, and bridges are in desperate need of repairs and improvements. All you have to do is drive around Washington to prove that.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2009 report card, which rates the operational condition and future capacity of dams, levees, railways, roads, bridges, and transit by letter grade, our Nation's surface infrastructure is rated at a ``D.''

This is deplorable and, frankly, it's embarrassing--embarrassing for several reasons. I came here in 1992. We were advocating on both sides of the aisle that we should be about the business of repairing bridges in this country, and the multiples are enormous from that time. We were talking 14,000 bridges.

More than 26 percent of our Nation's bridges today are either ``structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,'' with the number of such bridges in urban areas on the rise. And we have seen what disasters can occur when a bridge collapses.

Existing rail capacity is inadequate to handle future freight and passenger rail growth without significant investment. Last year, I took the Amtrak to New York, and when returning to Washington, I looked at the rail underbed. I grew up near a railroad in Altamonte Springs, Florida. And the railbed in that time where I grew up in the 40s was 100 percent better than the railbed just outside of this city on the Amtrak line. That's ridiculous.

Our interstate highway program has changed little since it was created in the 1950s by the distinguished President, Dwight Eisenhower's vision. With ever-increasing congestion--and we see it right around here--and improvement costs, our Nation's roads were even poorer at a D-minus in 2009. One-third of America's roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 45 percent of major urban highways are congested.

Just last January, the main road in and out of one of the cities that I'm privileged to represent, the city of Pahokee, was closed for 17 days because of sunken asphalt. Now, that may not sound like much, a little old town like Pahokee being cut off. But a collapsed culvert had created a 2-inch dip measuring 252 square feet in size on the northbound lane of State Road 715. This resulted in hours-long detours for commuters and trucks, stymied local and regional business, and regrettably reduced access to Glades General Hospital and Pahokee Airport.

Similar stories can be found throughout my home State of Florida and indeed in communities across this Nation. We can, and we must, do better.

Just as routine and preventive health care costs much less than a trip to the emergency room, regular maintenance and improvements cost less than major overhauls and replacement. According to Transportation for America, for every dollar that we spend today on maintenance, we avoid $14 in future costs.

H.R. 662 obligates up to $42.5 billion for Federal-aid highway programs and $639 million for the equity bonus programs to ensure that States receive in Federal highway funds a certain portion of the gasoline taxes that they contribute.

Investing in our Nation's roads is about more than getting from point A to point B faster, which would be, in many respects, reason enough for many commuters. It's about having more time, about having more money, and about having more opportunities to work, play, live, and enjoy life. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion. That averages to $710 per motorist. Furthermore, poor conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs.

One way to ease congestion is getting more people to use public transit. In fact, transit use increased 25 percent between 1995 and 2005, faster than any other mode of transportation. However, nearly half of American households do not have access to bus or rail transit, and only 25 percent have what they consider to be a good alternative.

On that note, increasing the capacity of our transportation and infrastructure network means nothing if our roads are not safe. Each year, thousands of people die in road crashes in the United States, and millions more are injured or disabled. As cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety, I recognize that road crash fatalities and disabilities represent a serious public health concern. This extension authorizes $742 billion in highway-safety programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as $597 million for truck-safety activities of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in order to help save lives and minimize crash-related injuries.

Safe, dependable, and efficient transportation is essential to our economic recovery and our Nation's competitiveness. At a time when unemployment in the construction industry is double the national rate, this extension provides much-needed market stability to create and sustain thousands of jobs.

The transportation sector has played a crucial role in rebuilding the U.S. economy, most recently through the Recovery Act, which provided $27.5 billion in new funding for surface transportation programs through the existing Federal-aid highway program and $8.4 billion for transit. In addition, $1.5 billion and $600 million were made available in two rounds, respectively, by the discretionary grant program known as TIGER, the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery.

Extending these highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs is not only essential to our Nation's continued economic recovery, but also to our long-term prosperity and future. Today, we find ourselves on the cusp of a great opportunity, the opportunity to make meaningful investments in the future of this country, improve our quality of life and cut future debt. We need a truly interconnected, multi-modal system that effectively utilizes high-speed rail, light rail, streetcars, van pools, motor carriers by water, efficient buses, cars and

bikes. We need a system that helps ensure that lower-income workers can also get to and hold down jobs, a system that gets people where they need to go, increases our energy independence through new sources and innovative technologies, improves air quality, reduces traffic deaths and injuries, and creates jobs by supporting America's hard-hit construction and manufacturing sectors.

It is imperative that we not only extend the surface transportation programs through the end of the current fiscal year, but also pass a multi-year--yes, multi-year, as many as a 6-year--reauthorization as soon as possible. A new multi-year surface transportation authorization will create even more jobs and ensure that we can meet our growing transportation needs in the 21st century in a way that is affordable, efficient, innovative, resilient, sustainable, and accountable.

In this country, highways, roads, bridges and transit are neither Democratic nor Republican. They serve all Americans and help bring us closer together, literally.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I say to my colleague and my friend from California, sign me up.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Railroad Subcommittee and my classmate. We came here together.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

And I would also take this opportunity, if she would yield to me, to ask her a question.

The previous SAFETEA-LU measure provided some funding for a high-speed rail corridor. This particular provision does not. Am I correct that if we were to do the high-speed rail project, that the lowest estimate is it would provide 30,000 jobs?

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Florida was speaking about the light rail program that may expire on Friday, and I am hopeful that our Governor will understand that, a retort came from my friend from Texas about her saying about a lack of vision is what causes these kinds of matters. The gentlewoman from Florida was talking about light rail. I don't recall my friend from Texas being upset when we did light rail in Houston, and I was for that. I might add all of us know that we need to move people as best we can in other methodologies, as I have described earlier.

Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans must work together to invest more in our Nation's aging transportation infrastructure network; invest more, not less. We have a vision for America's future transportation infrastructure. Now we need the leadership to make it a reality. I shudder to think what would have happened to this Nation's overall national security had Dwight Eisenhower not had the vision and those Congresspersons who were here and the American people did not agree that we would have an interstate highway system. I understand that it takes money to do these things.

Let's look at Minnesota as an example. When the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, tragically, lives were lost and a system that was a city's lifeblood had to be repaired. It has been repaired. But wouldn't it have been so much better, not just to avoid the tragedy, that's obvious, but could we not have as we do see in some of these situations, that these bridges need repair, these levees need repair. The Congresspersons from Louisiana were talking about the levees that were blown away during Katrina 10 years before that happened. I stand here today and talk about a levee in the Everglades that unless it's repaired, it is going to cause a disaster. You either pay me now on these things or you pay a whole lot later. We're not talking about not spending, not investing. We're talking about doing it wisely and with accountability.

While I support the underlying bill, I would like to express my disappointment at the closed process. My colleague comes down here and talks about all the Members are going to get a chance to come down here and they're going to get a chance to express their ideas. Well, there may be some Members that may have had an amendment that might innovate something or might improve our transportation system. My friend from Texas will claim that this is technically not a closed rule, and it's true that the rule did allow one--one--amendment by Chairman Mica, who wrote the underlying bill that I support. You heard that correctly. The only Member who is allowed to offer an amendment is the same Member who wrote the bill.

On January 5, the distinguished Speaker of this House for whom I have great respect, and he is a friend of mine, stated the following:

``Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it--openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the Chamber closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work its will.''

My colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) offered a motion for an open rule, so these important matters could be debated openly on the House floor. But this amendment was defeated last night, or yesterday, in a party-line vote. In addition, I also made a motion to amend the rule and make in order an amendment by Delegate Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C. and cosponsored by Mr. Moran of Virginia which would simply have permitted the District of Columbia to spend its own money after March 4--in other words, this coming Friday--in the event of a government shutdown. That was defeated on a party-line vote.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, does this sound like an open process to you? I

urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and instead pass this much-needed extension through a truly open process that allows all Members to offer amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Doris Bowen Ellick, who died on February 16, 2011 at the age of 78. Mrs. Ellick was a dedicated public servant and a pillar in Palm Beach County. Mrs. Ellick stands apart as an exemplary citizen and living testimony to compassion, dedication, and selfless generosity.

Mrs. Ellick was born on May 23, 1932 to the late Elder Sam and Janie Ross Bowens in Wacissa, Florida. She was formally educated in the public schools of Jefferson County Florida. In 1948, the Bowens family relocated to Belle Glade, Florida. Mrs. Ellick later graduated from Everglades Vocational High School.

For 23 years, Mrs. Ellick worked in the Palm Beach County School System as a teacher's assistant. While there, she was effectively a mentor, godmother, grandmother, encourager, and comforter to many. After retiring from Palm Beach County School System, Mrs. Ellick continued her passion for public service as a foster mother. In this capacity, she opened her home for the community and homeless.

While working as an educator, she met the love of her life, Alford Ellick. The couple wedded on April 7, 1951. From this union was born 8 children: Bernard, Alfred, Charles, Terris, Gerald, Reginald, Christopher, and Kenneth. She was irrefutably a devoted wife and mother.

Mrs. Ellick was also an active member of the Inspirational Church of God where she served on the Board of Directors and Board of Trustees for a number of years, and was officially ordained as one of the Mothers of the church.

In addition to working enthusiastically in her church, Mrs. Ellick devoted a majority of her time to her family. Invariably, she could be found with her children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and extended family.

For her commitment to her family, her community, and her nation, it is with great privilege that I honor the life of Mrs. Ellick and extend my deepest condolences to her friends and family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution in support of the Republic of India gaining a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Addressing a joint session of India's Parliament this past November 8, President Obama said that ``the United States not only welcomes India as a rising global power, we fervently support it.'' I could not agree more. In recent years India has proven to be a solid and supportive ally of the United States. As the international community looks to reform the policies and procedures of the Security Council, no nation deserves a seat at the table more than India.

As the world's most populous democracy--and second most-populous nation--India is an increasingly influential power, not only in its neighborhood in South Asia but also on the world's stage. India is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, enjoys the second- largest labor force, and is rapidly becoming a major hub for high-tech industry, telecommunications, and automobile manufacturing. As a major export/import nation, India is an important trading partner for dozens of countries around the world.

India has a strategic role in addressing major global security issues, makes its participation in international decisions essential. Having already provided tens of thousands of troops for dozens of UN peacekeeping missions around the world, India has earned a permanent role for itself in security decision-making, global conflict resolution, and questions of war and peace. As a nation which has suffered more casualties from terrorism than almost any other, India's commitment to effective counterterrorism measures is aligned with the United States' goals, and India has proved an indispensible ally with respect to our efforts in South Asia.

Finally, India regularly participates in numerous regional and international organizations, including the G20, the World Trade Organization, the East Asian Summit, and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. India has thus demonstrated a commitment to international dialogue and constructive engagement, and, indeed, enjoys good relations with most countries around the world.

Mr. Speaker, India is already a nation of great influence, respect, ambition, and ability, and a trusted member of the international community. An overwhelming majority of the United Nations General Assembly recently elected India to serve as the Asian regional representative to the Security Council. The permanent membership of the Security Council reflects the reality of global power in the immediate aftermath of World War Two--not today's 21st century reality of rising powers. As President Obama and many other world leaders have pointed out, India deserves a permanent seat on a reformed Security Council, where its voice and clout will be a much-welcomed and much-needed addition to the global security regime. I strongly applaud this effort and urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution commemorating Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on its centennial anniversary. The city was incorporated on March 27, 1911, but in fact Fort Lauderdale's history goes back much further.

Thousands of years ago the Glades Culture and Tequesta people settled in the area, although the modern history of the area began in the early 1800s with the Seminole Indian Tribe settlements. Conflict arose between the Native Americans and local white planters, leading to a series of wars over several decades. It was during the Second Seminole War, in the 1830s and 1840s, that Major William Lauderdale commanded a detachment of soldiers who built a fort along the New River, forever imprinting his name on the area.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as regional investments in rail, water, and road transportation took off, trading posts and residential neighborhoods grew up in the area, until Fort Lauderdale became a city in 1911. Four years later the city became the seat in the newly-created Broward County.

By World War Two Fort Lauderdale had become a major resort town, shipping port, and military base, where pilots and submarines did battle with German U-boats off the coast of Florida. The postwar period saw Broward become the second largest county in the State, and turned Fort Lauderdale into a major metropolis, commercial hub, and tourist destination.

Today, Fort Lauderdale has over 180,000 residents and ten million annual visitors. Nearby Port Everglades is the third busiest cruise port in the United States, and the city is a global center for yachting, with over 100 marinas and 42,000 yachts. The city's International Boat Show is the third largest in the world.

From pristine beaches and entertainment centers to its economic vitality and transportation network, Fort Lauderdale is a vibrant and livable destination city. The past hundred years have seen unprecedented growth and civic betterment, the outgrowth of suburbs and the rising of skyscrapers. I know that the next hundred years will mark great new achievements in urban development and economic prosperity. I offer my congratulations to the city and its residents on the occasion of Fort Lauderdale's centennial anniversary.