Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend several votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 3650 and ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 4506.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend several votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 3650, ``aye'' on final passage of H. Res. 1069, and ``aye'' on final passage H. Res. 935.

Madam Speaker, the State of Michigan's unemployment is 687,400 people unemployed. Detroit has 305,200 people unemployed. We have 15 million people unemployed in our nation. America and Americans are practically shouting for Congress to get Americans back to work. The best stimulus package is a job. H.R. 2847, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, is not that bill. This legislation, providing tax incentives to businesses to hire people. This is not the answer. How Congress can walk away with more than 680,000 people unemployed in Michigan, and more than 15 million people unemployed in our nation, is shameful.

When I served as Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, along with my CBC colleagues, I pushed for more than two years for both a strong summer jobs program and a federal bill that would directly hire the unemployed. This is a bill that is modeled off of the successful Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) program of the 1970s- 1980s. The CETA program, which gave grants directly to cities, counties, and non-profit organizations to hire and train individuals, worked to lower our unemployment rate and stabilize our economy during the previous recession. It would be easy to make this legislative fix not next week, not next month, but right now. During the Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt almost halved the unemployment rate with a similarly aggressive program under the Work Progress Administration. I am ashamed and disgusted that the U.S. House of Representatives cannot find the collective political courage and will to do what is needed for the people of America.

What does a real jobs bill look like? In addition to what I have pointed out earlier, a real jobs bill would:

Create public jobs initiatives, involving the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration and the Corporation for National and Community Service, to maximize direct training and hiring:

Provide locally-directed funding for Summer Youth Employment and collegiate-level apprenticeships and/or fellowships:

Enforce the minority contracting requirements under the Department of Transportation and promoting equal access to funding for projects of the National Significant and National Corridor grants in the extension of SAFETEA-LU:

Expand unemployment insurance and COBRA benefits: and

Provide access to capital and technical assistance to capital for small businesses from the Small Business Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency.

I am sure that there are other areas, but these areas, in particular, would be a great place to start.

I know too well that the Democrats have inherited the worst job market since World War II. Too many workers have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. GM and Chrysler have gone bankrupt. We are staring down the barrel of a $12 trillion deficit. This fiscal year, we have to make difficult decisions. All Americans, in Congress, in business and at home, must work together to keep our recovery on track by helping small businesses create jobs, investing in our infrastructure and clean energy industries, and keeping police, firefighters, and teachers on the job. This bill is not that bill.

I understand politics. I know the legislative process. It is my belief that this bill is supposed to be the first in a series of bills that is to address the chronically unemployed. Regrettably, I also heard this more than two years ago. Today, Congress is no closer to a real jobs bill two years later. The time for incrementalism is over.

I remain a proud and steadfast supporter of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses have been helped. However, that bill was meant as a quick, temporary fix for businesses and to help stimulate the economy. Employment was a welcome by-product of that law. 15 million people who are still unemployed are telling us that we need to do more. We need to do it now.

This is not a jobs bill. This is a business tax cut bill. While I remain willing and able to work with my colleagues for a real jobs bill, I cannot support this tax cut legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, come to pay homage to a giant--to our leader, our chairman, the epitome of a public servant. All of us feel like he was our best friend.

As the newest member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, I was in awe as I watched the chairman yield, educate, speak, and do what he did so that all of the members on our subcommittee, on both sides of the aisle, could participate in the process.

Chairman Murtha held 32 hearings before we even got to the appropriations bill last year. I was at every one of them. To watch him and to watch the prestige and the honor that he received as well as gave to those who came before our subcommittee was astounding. Chairman Murtha welcomed me into the group. It is a prestigious group. In my 32 years of public service, there has been none like it.

I honor you, Jack Murtha, for your wisdom, your courage. It has already been said--and I akin myself to all of my colleagues who have come before me, but the redundancy needs to be said over and over again--that our country has lost a giant. This institution will never be the same. We will strive to carry the torch and passion of Jack Murtha, those of us on the committee, on the full committee, and in this Congress on both sides of the aisle.

We love you, Jack Murtha. I pledge to you, as I do my work here in the United States House of Representatives, it is because of you and others like you who showed me and helped me to become that defense protege, if you will, who will speak out, who will protect our men and women in uniform and our entire United States of America. So rest in peace, my great warrior.

To his family--to his children and grandchildren--know that you have a friend in all of us. We have adopted you into our family. Let us speak and serve and reach and grow and build a new United States of America as Jack Murtha has held us to do.

God bless you, Jack. We will never forget you.

Warrior. Statesman. Husband. Father. Legislator. Chairman John P. Murtha was the epitome of the best of what our nation's military and this Congress does. As one of the seven people in the history of our country selected to Chair the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Chairman Murtha comes from a family with a long and stellar line of service to our country. Chairman Murtha's great- grandfather served in the Civil War. His father and three uncles served in World War II. Chairman Murtha, along with his brothers, served in our nation's military during the Vietnam War. His sons served in the military as well. Of course, we all know that Chairman Murtha went in as an enlisted man in the United States Marine Corps, serving as a drill sergeant at Parris Island, South Carolina, the home to many of our Marines. In 1966, Chairman Murtha volunteered for active duty in the Marine Corps, joining his brothers in combat. Chairman Murtha earned two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry in Vietnam. Chairman Murtha served in the Marine Corps in the reserves, and retired as a Colonel.

Chairman Murtha, after active duty in Vietnam, became active in politics and was elected to Pennsylvania's House of Representatives. When Chairman Murtha was elected to Congress in 1974, he was the first Vietnam era veteran elected to Congress. Chairman Murtha was a dedicated and devoted servant to the people of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District. We all know Chairman Murtha.

What many people do not know is how Chairman Jack Murtha fought for pay raises for all members of America's military. How Chairman Murtha demanded accountability from all our Presidents on the number of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. What many people do not know is how Chairman Murtha took a young Member of Congress aside and taught her or him how to get things done. What many people do not know is that Chairman Murtha was feared, and also respected; Chairman Murtha was intimidating and also loved. There is a reason that just over my shoulder, on the House floor, a flag hangs in respect, love and admiration in the seat that Chairman Murtha called home for more than three decades.

Chairman Murtha's respect went far beyond the confines of the House Appropriations Committee on Defense. When our Nation's warriors go to fight for us, they deserve nothing but the best in return. That was Chairman Murtha's goal for the men and women of our Nation's military. Chairman Murtha, very simply, made things happen. You know what? Most of the things that Chairman Murtha made happen never made the pages of the newspaper. They were not in a sound bite on television or on radio. But each and every Member who walks these halls know that Congress is a lot emptier and things will not be done as quickly or as well since the loss of Chairman Murtha. I do not believe that it is an understatement when I say that the reason why our troops in Iraq are coming home today is because Chairman Murtha, warrior, statesman, and lover of his men and women in combat, said ``enough.''

Chairman Murtha knew defeat and victory. Chairman Murtha loved the institution of Congress, he loved his family, he loved his Marines, he loved his service members of our nation's military, and those individuals who volunteer to put themselves in harm's way to defend our Constitution. Chairman Murtha defended our Constitution as a Marine in combat in Vietnam. Chairman Murtha defended our Constitution as a Member of Congress. Chairman Murtha will continue to guide the spirits and souls of us all as we work to solve the problems of America. Because that is what Chairman Murtha did--solve problems.

Chairman John Patrick Murtha, rest in peace. To his wife and family, know that we will always honor and cherish his memory, and we thank you for sharing him with us for more than three decades. The heart of a lion that once roamed the halls of Congress is lost, and I will miss his kind heart, his vivacious spirit, and his intelligence forever.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted and passed H.R. 2491, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. While Iran has been noncompliant with both United States and United Nations demands that it stop nuclear enrichment efforts, I could not, in good faith, support this initiative. My vote of ``present'' on this measure should not be interpreted nor misunderstood about a lack of concern regarding the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. It does not.

Like many of my colleagues, I have significant reservations regarding Iran's violations of its obligations under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. The recent rejection by Iran of international organizations to inspect their nuclear capabilities and the threat of expanded nuclear enrichment programs continuing unchecked practically mandate that Congress and President Obama continue to work together. This combined effort must be toward increasing pressure on Iran if multilateral diplomacy reaches no reward. Congress must support President Obama's diplomatic efforts to help curb Iran's activities relating to their nuclear program. Congress must also support this administration's efforts to guarantee human rights and democracy for all people, especially women, in Iran. Congress must continue to forge with the President an all-out effort for diplomacy that is often difficult, but necessary.

H.R. 2491, as enacted, could very well threaten the diplomacy sought by the President. If enacted, the bill could punish the people of Iran who are suffering from its denial of democracy. Over the past few months, we have seen firsthand the discontent amongst Iranians with their government. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that our policy decisions, particularly sanctions, are implemented in a manner which does not detrimentally impact those not at fault. Broad, wide-reaching sanctions on gasoline will not only hit the people of Iran the hardest, but are unlikely to directly impact the government at all. I am not against sanctions. In fact, I think sanctions in light of Iran's dissonance are not only appropriate but needed. However, targeted sanctions that impact those with whom we are at odds versus those that target an entire country are the best way to approach such an important decision.

While it is essential to curtail nuclear threats world-wide, sanctions must be seen as an option only after diplomacy has failed. In his letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Deputy Secretary of State James

Steinberg stated that the Obama Administration was ``entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran,'' and that sanctions, ``might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts.'' As we proceed in these important times, we must do so carefully, and in a manner that achieves the desired short-termed effect while remaining in accord with our long-term goals.

The decision whether to levy sanctions, particularly in the face of potential threat to peace, is of the utmost importance. Today, H.R. 2194 was brought to the floor under expedited procedures that limit debate and bar amendments reserved for non-controversial legislation. While the bill received overwhelming support, it does not make the subject matter any less controversial.

Iran has had decades of unilateral measures with practically no effect. In order for any sanctions to fully take effect, it must be multilateral. The unilateral approach of this legislation, combined with the potential unintended consequence it may have for the people, and the legislation's curtailing the waiver authority of President Obama so as to undermine the President's flexibility and pursuit of a dual track of diplomacy and unified multilateral pressure, are my reasons for my vote of present on this measure.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this legislation. My goal is to ensure that any sanction bill, signed into law, protects the interests of the United States, ensures that the President can negotiate from a position of strength along our international partners, ensures that human rights and democracy grow for the people of Iran, and prevents another nation from being armed with nuclear weapons.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Appropriations Committee and as an honored member serving on the conferee committee, this is a good bill. As you know, in the House of Representatives, we passed all 12 of our appropriations bills. The Senate passed nine of their 12 bills. Unfortunately, they were not able to do them all. Yet we met many hours a night and passed what is considered, I believe, a good bill for all of the reasons that you have mentioned--health care, veterans, education, transportation, helping our military men and women who are on active duty and those who are not. This is a bill that wraps up our 2009 appropriations process, less one bill, and we will take that up next week.

I commend Chairman David Obey as well as our ranking member, Jerry Lewis. I commend John Olver and all of the Chair people who have brought the bills together and who have worked many long hours to see that we get the work of the people done.

Our Appropriations Committee handles over $1 trillion for various programs of the Federal Government. We take our work very strongly. We work long hours. We spend many hours on it. All of the bills before us today have been reviewed. All 12 which have passed the House are pretty much the same bills we had in conference the other evening. I am proud of our work.

As an appropriator and in working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but specifically with the Democrats and under the leadership of Chairman Obey, I want the American citizens to rest assured you have a good product before you. We will continue to do what is necessary to fund our children's programs, our health programs, transportation, veterans--you name it. This completes, bar one bill, the 2009 appropriations process.

I am honored to be a part of that, and I look forward to the new year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief of Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses. I am worried sick that we have misplaced our priorities as Congress when we are voting on legislation to permanently, not temporarily, extend a tax cut to the richest, top 1 percent, of all income earners when Congress has not passed a public works job program for the unemployed. We are sending 30,000 of America's finest young men and women off to war in Afghanistan at the estimated potential cost of $20 billion per year. Congress must pass a public works job program.

This bill has not been considered through regular order. This bill has had zero hearings, there have been no subcommittee or full committee mark ups by the House Ways and Means Committee.

We currently have more than 15 million unemployed Americans. The national unemployment rate is more than 10 percent. In the State of Michigan, we have a reported rate of more than 15 percent, and in the city of Detroit, the unemployment rate is more than 28 percent. These are the reported rates. As Chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus during the 110th Session of Congress, from 2007 to 2008, I pushed to get a public works program. I also worked to get an aggressive summer jobs program in 2008. Both to no avail.

It would not be difficult to get a public works program done immediately. Working from the template that was established with the Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC, during the Depression era, updated by the Comprehensive Employment Training Act, CETA, we could insert language in one of the remaining Appropriations bills for consideration. Not only to get such a bill authorized, but appropriated as well. This would help hundreds of thousands, if not millions, get the best stimulus package there is--a job. The American people are begging Congress to do something to help them with employment. Private industry cannot do it alone. Our states and our cities do not have the resources to employ our people. It is up to Congress to make that happen. The Federal Government is the employer of last resort.

The President, just this week, will send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. This troop build-up, in America's second longest war, is estimated to cost half a million dollars per servicemember, and an estimated $20 billion per year. These troops will be on the ground in Afghanistan in less than 3 weeks. Meanwhile, Congress will still have done nothing toward getting jobs for their parents, their siblings, or their neighbors through a public works jobs program.

I am proud of my vote in favor of the economic stimulus package, which has helped to delay our downward economic spiral. The abysmal unemployment rate, however, demands that Congress do more. An aggressive public works jobs program, with funding from the Federal Government going directly to cities and counties, providing jobs and training, focusing on infrastructure development and based on the successful Civilian Conservation Corps and Comprehensive Employment Training Acts, is what America wants and Americans need. Infrastructure investment has created more jobs, with fewer dollars, and with

less time than any other Recovery Act program. There are still 9,500 shovel-ready projects across the country that could get started in the next 120 days. An aggressive investment by Congress in a new Civilian Conservation Corps or Comprehensive Employment Training Act focused on infrastructure repair and improvement would create thousands of American manufacturing jobs, American construction jobs, American city and county government jobs, and American service sector jobs.

Why is the House of Representatives today pushing for a permanent extension at this time of this legislation, when the Ways and Means Committee asked for a temporary extension? Furthermore, the Senate has said that they will only consider a temporary extension--which, in these fiscally austere times, is certainly reasonable.

I am a supporter of our families, our farmers and our small businesses. I want our families, farmers, and small businesses to succeed. The timing for this permanent extension to the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans, when we have more than 15 million Americans out of work, is wrong. I will continue to fight in Congress for a new, comprehensive public work jobs program that will get Americans, who want to work, back on the job.

Today, I rise to recognize 25 years ago one of our leaders of this world, Rev. Jesse Jackson, ran for President. I was honored in 1988 to be a delegate when he ran again. Rev. Jackson, as was mentioned earlier, 25 years ago called for single- payer health care. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get it last week, but we're on the way to new health care competition.

He also called for increased funding for public education. Public education. Just what we need today. The Equal Rights Amendment--thank you, Rev. Jackson--has now become law. He called for a work program, an employee program, 25 years ago.

The things that you called for then, Rev. Jackson, in your leadership, still exist today. Thank you for standing up, for speaking out, for being the man that God intended that you be. We love you.

Madam Speaker, I was unavailable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' for S. 1314, ``yea'' for H.R. 3539, and ``aye'' for H.R. 3767 on final passage under suspension of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I support our House bill which will let women and doctors control their health decisions.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day. Choice, competition, quality, and peace of mind. I want to commend the Speaker for her leadership and our chairman in our caucus for putting together a bill that will help American families.

The 36 million Americans who do not now have insurance will be insured. Your premium costs will go down. The quality of all insurance will be increased. No longer will insurance companies be able to examine and cut you off when you get ill. Prescription drugs will be cheaper. The AARP supports this bill. Medical doctors and nurses support this bill. The Consumers Union supports this bill. The UAW supports this bill.

It's a great historical day for our country. I predict it will be, as we go forward, as strong and as popular as Social Security, Medicare, and now our new national health care program.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Democrats, for standing strong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act, offered by Rep. John Dingell of Michigan and ask all of my colleagues to support this historic bill before us that will expand coverage to 36 million uninsured Americans, ensure that patients and physicians make their own health care choices, reduces administrative costs, invests in wellness and prevention, reforms the insurance industry by ending discriminatory practices, especially pre-existing conditions and health disparities, and allows young adults to remain on their parents' insurance policy until the age of 27.

I have held numerous town hall meetings in my district to listen to the views of my constituents. My office has received numerous calls, emails, and letters on this subject, with an overwhelming majority asking me to vote YES on the bill because America cannot wait any longer for health care insurance reform. More than 300 groups, representing millions of Americans, have expressed their support for the bill, including the American Association of Retired Persons, the American Cancer Society, the United Auto Workers, the AFL-CIO, the SEIU, Families USA and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. The groups expressing their support include a broad range, including groups representing doctors, seniors, small business, youth, women, persons with disabilities, consumers and patients.

Health care insurance reform is not a Republican or Democratic issue, it is an American issue. Under a Democratic President, we witnessed the beginnings of health care reform with Medicaid and Medicare in the 1960s. Under another Democratic President, we will witness the second coming of true health care reform.

Today's vote will mark a change in our country where every American will know that health care is a top priority for this country. When I was a newly elected Member to the U.S. House of Representatives, Congress was in the throes of reforming health maintenance organizations or HMOs. While this was well intended, at the time, I asked, ``what about those millions of people who go to work each and every day, who care for our senior citizens in nursing homes, who clean our bathrooms, cook our food, clean our streets, and send their children to college, but whose employers do not provide health care?'' What happened is that those individuals did not have health care coverage, period. Now is the time to help those janitors, street sweepers, short-order cooks, child care workers, home health care providers, and small businesses so that those workers, too, will be able to have health care.

The 111th Congress has taken bold steps to provide more access to health care for Americans. While we have expanded health coverage to more than five million uninsured children through the passage of the State Comprehensive Health Improvement Plan or SCHIP, we must complete what we started. Access to health care is vital to the health of not only individual Americans but to the American economy.

Even before our recent economic crisis, health care was getting more expensive, what few benefits were offered were eroding, and even more people were losing coverage. In 2007, according to various sources, 45 million Americans were uninsured; this number is an increase over 2000's 38.7 uninsured Americans. And this is the uninsured; we are not even discussing the millions more senior citizens, working poor and families who are underinsured. I am talking about seniors who have to choose between eating or their prescriptions. I am talking about those families who have to choose between taking their child to the doctor or food for the week. The economic crisis has only made this situation worse.

The bankruptcy of the automobile industry, the closing of auto dealerships, and the crisis faced by automobile suppliers have caused thousands more in our Nation and in particular the state of Michigan to lose their employee health benefits.

Our version of health care reform, the Affordable Healthcare for All Americans Act, has four key highlights for Americans and American businesses: lower costs; greater choice; higher quality and peace of mind. As Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius said earlier, if we do nothing to reform health care, we will continue to live sicker, die faster and pay twice as much.

Health care reform legislation should require coverage of the full range of women's reproductive health services. H.R. 3962 protects these rights and ensures that all women have access to a health care plan that meets their needs while respecting current law. The Stupak amendment would limit access to reproductive care in the private and public options, and does not allow citizens to pay for the procedure out of their own pockets. I voted against the Stupak amendment.

Health care reform will provide lower health care costs

Under the America's Affordable Health Care Act, there will be no more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care. No more rate increases or exclusions for pre-existing conditions, gender or occupation. There will be an annual cap on the out of pocket expenses for individuals and businesses. Finally, for the first time, there will be guaranteed and affordable oral, hearing, and vision care for children.

By having a public health care plan, the bill will ensure competition for Americans to have the best health care at the most affordable cost. Also, since everyone will have health care, no one industry or business will be at an advantage over another one.

Health Care reform will provide greater choice for all Americans

Americans will be able to keep their doctor, and their current plan, if you like what you have. With a high quality public health insurance option competing with private insurers, there will be more choice of providers and more benefits. The important aspect is this--every American will have a choice of providers, versus today's choice, for the uninsured, of the emergency room or no care at all. No one will be forced into a public option. This will just be one of many choices.

Health care reform will provide higher quality health care for all

Americans and businesses

You and your doctor--not insurance companies--will make health care decisions. As more primary care, family doctors, and nurses enter the workforce, even more access is guaranteed for all Americans. Also, the bill mandates coverage for mental health care, a key issue that will affect, in particular, the families of our service members who are returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Health care reform will provide peace of mind

The bill provides a cap on catastrophic coverage--coverage for traumatic injuries such as spinal cord injuries and long-term health care. There will be no more denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, and no reason to make a life or job decision based on whether or not you or your family will have health care coverage.

We need health insurance reform now. Access to quality, affordable health care is critical to the well-being of all Michiganders and all Americans, today and tomorrow. Central to all of this is addressing the needs of uninsured Americans, strengthening our Medicare system, providing health insurance to low-income children and families, funding research into diseases like diabetes and cancer, and giving patients the ability to make decisions with their doctors, not health insurance companies. An estimated 1,400 families lose health insurance every day that we do not pass health insurance reform.

One aspect of this legislation of which I am most proud is its fiscal responsibility. According to a letter dated November 5, 2009 from the non-partisan, objective Congressional Budget Office, this bill adds not one dime to

the deficit. Furthermore, this bill reduces the deficit by an estimated $109 billion. This is not only fiscally responsible, it allows us to provide health care to the least of our sisters and brothers.

When this bill is signed into law, ten provisions of the bill will take effect immediately:

It will begin to close the Medicare Part D ``Donut'' Hole. The bill reduces the donut hole by $500 per Medicare recipient and also institutes a 50-percent discount on brand-name drugs.

It gets health insurance to the uninsured. By creating a temporary insurance program, health care will be available for people who have been denied a policy due to preexisting conditions or who have not had health care for several months.

It bans lifetime limits on health care coverage. The bill prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage-- traditional coverage or catastrophic care coverage.

It provides health insurance for young people. It requires health insurance plans to allow young people through age 26 to remain on their parents' insurance policy at their parent's choice.

It eliminates cost-sharing for preventive services in Medicare. It eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program.

It ends health care rescissions. It prohibits insurers from nullifying or ``rescinding'' a patient's policy when they file a claim for benefits, except in cases of fraud.

It bans copayments and deductibles. It eliminates copayments for preventive services and also exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program.

It increases funding for community health centers. It increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow twice the number of patients seen by Community Health Centers for the next 5 years.

It increases the number of primary care doctors. It increases the investment by the Federal Government in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

Creates long-term health care for disabled adults. The bill creates a longterm care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.

As with Medicare and Medicaid, the Federal Government has the Constitutional power to reform our health care system. The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states . . . or to the people. Article One, Section Three, also known as the Commerce Clause, says the same thing. The Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is good for small businesses. Under this legislation, many small businesses will be eligible for a new tax credit to help them provide coverage for their workers and their families--and they or their workers will get access to a new comparison shopping marketplace with low rates and good benefits like large groups get. Without health insurance reform, small businesses would pay nearly $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years in health care costs for their workers. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation--only 1.2 percent of the wealthiest Americans will be subject to the surcharge and it would only apply to dollars earned over $1 million for a couple and $500,000 for an individual. Furthermore, 86 percent of all businesses are exempt from the requirement to provide health insurance coverage to their workers.

Nothing in the House bill will cut basic Medicare benefits. The Affordable Health Care for America Act strengthens and improves Medicare benefits for older Americans and helps eliminate waste, fraud and inefficiency from Medicare--including gross overpayments to insurance companies providing Medicare Advantage plans which do nothing to improve care for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is comprehensive health insurance reform that covers 96 percent of Americans, ensures affordability for the middle class, provides security for our seniors, ends discrimination by insurance companies against the sick, caps what Americans pay out-of-pocket and protects our children's future by not adding to our deficit.

Finally, health care reform will allow the United States to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world. We are the only nation that does not provide universal health care coverage to its citizens. This puts the health of not only individual Americans at jeopardy, it puts the health of our economy in jeopardy. Businesses that have to compete with China, India, Europe and other countries are doing so on an uneven, unfair playing field, because while China, India and European businesses do not have to pay for health care, American businesses do. Health care reform will allow these businesses to truly compete on a global plane.

I applaud my colleagues in the House of Representatives for supporting this legislation in ensuring that health care reform is accessible, available, and affordable for all Americans and American businesses. Two generations is long enough for the American people to wait for comprehensive health care reform. Health care is the key moral and economic imperative for our Nation and this Congress. We must reform health care now.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the final version of the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which includes language that would ban funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). While ACORN has fallen under media scrutiny for actions reported by the media, no criminal charges have been filed against ACORN, no indictment has been reached against ACORN, and no trial by jury has taken place regarding ACORN.

I support an investigation of ACORN, and ACORN has already moved forward with an objective, unbiased investigation of these allegations. Instead of acting on factual data, Congress is reacting based on media reports of alleged wrongdoing. All Americans have the presumption of innocence. With this vote, Congress has ignored this presumption, and the Constitution, as well. This vote against ACORN--or any liberal, conservative, or independent organization without merit--is wrong. In these economically and socially difficult times, Congress must utilize leadership, reason, sense, and sanity. This vote is not sound leadership, and it is not what the American people expect or need.

Congress should not, and must not, start punishing individuals, businesses, or groups without a fair trial. Congress must not assume guilt based on media reports, Internet chat rooms, or anything less than a complete and full investigation of the facts by the appropriate law enforcement agency. Some Members of Congress have even questioned the Constitutionality of Congress' refusing funds to inflict punishment on individuals without a fair trial. While I am not an expert on the Constitution, I do know that we must protect the rights of all individuals. The language in this bill, which would ban federal funds for ACORN for the length of any Continuing Budget Resolution, is wrong. It is wrong to punish organizations or individuals without a trial, and it is wrong because it totally obscures the good work that groups like ACORN have done for years. It is wrong because Congress must lead and not follow.

ACORN has operated for almost 20 years fighting for poor people. The organization has registered voters and attained housing for low income individuals and families.

This vote sets a very chilling precedent of acting first and asking questions or investigating later. I do not know the merits, or lack thereof, of ACORN's alleged wrongdoing. I do know that when Congress acts without the complete set of facts and does not consider the ramifications that this precedent sets, it hurts all Americans.

I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii for her leadership in coming to this House and taking us by storm. To our ranking member who is managing the bill today, thank you for your support.

As has been mentioned, 140 years ago, Howard University established its law school. Since that time, hundreds of young men and women have graduated from this prestigious law school. Today, under the direction of our president, Sidney Ribeau, it is also carrying on the legacy that was started in 1869.

Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, known for his tenacity, his intelligence, his forthrightness, and at Howard University in 1869 and beyond, they talked about social engineers they were putting out, men and women who could elaborate and repeat the Constitution and represent young people, old people, and people all over this country. They continue in that tradition today:

Thurgood Marshall, 1954, the Board of Education, equal schools under the law;

Kurt Schmoke, former mayor of Baltimore, Maryland;

Our sitting Senator right now, Senator Burris from Chicago, Illinois, is a graduate of Howard law school;

Our own colleague, Gregory Meeks of New York, is a graduate of Howard law school.

The school today probably is just as important as it was, not probably, is just as important today as it was 140 years ago. I am honored that the House would take up the legislation today that we would pass it on suspension. In a couple of weeks, they are having a ceremony on campus at Howard University, and I invite all the alumni of Howard University to come back, come back on campus and let's celebrate.

Today we live in a world where equal protection under the law is a must. We must make sure that every citizen in America has access to quality representation, access to a fair process, and that lawyers from all over this country and abroad who represent those clients will give to the very best of their ability. Howard University law school is 140 years old. We thank those who began the school 140 years ago.

We pray that as the tradition of the law school continues to excel around the world, that we will continue to lift up the United States of America, that we will protect our judicial system, and that the lawyers who graduate from all the law schools across this country, including Howard University's law school, represent to the very best of their ability so that American citizens will know that the third branch of government is alive and well because in 1869 Howard University was established.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to say thank you and wish continued blessings of God upon U.S. Army LTC Rebecca Leggieri. Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri served as a 90-Day Military Fellow in the office in my 13th Congressional District Office of Michigan in Washington, DC, and is due to report to the Pentagon's Office of Public Affairs in a few days as she continues her service to our Nation.

Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri was invaluable in her ability in educating the office about the valued role that America's servicemembers perform every day to protect our freedom. As a mother, Army warrior and patriot, Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri offered a unique perspective on the impact and effect of the decisions that Congress, in general, and the House Appropriations Committee on Defense, in particular. I am proud that, in the United States of America, women who have ability, character and quality can advance to the upper levels of the military as Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri.

Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri was born in Schenectady, New York to Joseph V. Palowich and the late Monica Palowich. She graduated from Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School in Schenectady, New York where she excelled at basketball, track and swimming. Today, Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri is still involved in athletics with her children and continues to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Rebecca graduated from Saint Lawrence University in May 1989 with a bachelors of arts degree in English Writing and Government. Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri was a 4-year Army Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship student at Saint Lawrence University and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Quartermaster Corps upon her graduation from college. She served in command and staff positions in Quartermaster and Logistics units in New York, Virginia, Nebraska and Arkansas before being assigned to Washington, DC. She later earned a masters degree in Public Communications from American University in May 2004.

Rebecca began her career in Army Public Affairs at the Pentagon in 2002 as the Speechwriter for the Chief of the Army Reserve. Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri then served as the Public Affairs and Media Officer at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy from June 2004 until June 2005. She is currently serving as the Community Relations Public Affairs Officer for the Army's Chief of Public Affairs in the Pentagon.

While Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri has served for the last 3 months on Capitol Hill as an Army Fellow in the Army Congressional Orientation Program, ACOP, and assigned to me, Congresswoman Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, I have learned much about the contributions of our individual servicemembers and their families. I thank the Secretary of the Army and former Congressman Pete Geren and Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey, Jr. for this wonderful program that is a tremendous benefit to all Members of Congress.

Lieutenat Colonel Leggieri is also very active in the local community, serving for the past 4 years as Public Relations Chair on the Board of Directors for Coles Little League in Manassas, Virginia.

In thanking and wishing the continued grace of God to Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri, I also extend the same to her family. Rebecca is married to COL John Leggieri, also in the United States Army and from New York State. John and Rebecca were married 16 years ago, on July 24, 1993. They have two children, 14-year-old Olivia, who is entering high school this fall and 11-year-old Gabriel, who will be entering middle school.

Thank you Lieutenant Colonel Leggieri for your continued public service to the people of the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, to our Nation, and to the world. May you, your family and all of America's military have God's continued good grace and infinite blessings.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009, While this legislation is well meaning, it would remove power from Congress for spending and give even more authority to the Executive Branch; it would not reduce spending or reduce the deficit; it removes the important role of the House Budget Committee and House Appropriations Committee in determining spending for the citizens and vital needs of the United States. Finally, Congress now has strong provisions ensuring that the budget is balanced. All we need to do is our job.

Why are we here? In 1990, Congress passed the bipartisan Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. This law included a version of ``pay-as-you-go'' (PAYGO) requirement for new laws affecting mandatory spending and revenues, as well as annual limits on discretionary spending. This law expired in 2002. However, both the House and Senate have enforced PAYGO requirements through our own respective rules. As a member of the Appropriations Committee in both the U.S. House of Representatives and in the State of Michigan, I am used to making difficult decisions. The Appropriations Committee has to balance its budget and it has to pass its legislation on time in order for the Nation to function. Since the Democrats have been in the majority, earmarks--which account for 1 percent of the budget--have been reduced in both number and total. Discretionary spending has gone down. The Democratic leadership has mandated more disclosure, more openness and more transparency to the appropriations process.

The bill removes power from Congress for spending and gives it to the Executive Branch. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) states that ``the legislation would shift some control over the budget process from the Congress to the executive branch in ways that could effectively require lawmakers to vote on legislation without a clear indication of the potential impact of their decisions on the triggering of a future sequestration.'' Congress alone has the Constitutional authority to protect and spend the people's purse--not the Executive branch.

The bill would not reduce spending nor reduce the deficit. If the PAYGO system provided for by the bill was used in place of the current congressional rules, CBO projects that the legislation's enactment could lead to larger future deficits. Compared with current PAYGO rules, CBO contends that the bill could lead to higher spending or lower revenues in future years by incorporating certain increases in spending and reductions in revenues into the baseline for budget enforcement purposes. According to CBO, the legislation could increase deficits through three different budgetary mechanisms--the proposed temporary rule to score certain changes in spending and revenues relative to ``current policy'' rather than current law; the bill's modification of the baseline's treatment of some expiring mandatory programs; and the bill's proposed new system for scoring legislation to convert discretionary programs to mandatory ones.

The bill removes the important role of the House Budget Committee and House Appropriations Committee in determining spending for our constituents. By mandating across-the-board cuts, the bill removes the role of both the Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee to make precise, detailed revenue reductions or program changes. Mandatory across-the-board spending cuts and sequestration sounds good, but in mandating that all programs take a cut, inevitably hurts worthwhile, meaningful programs. This is the role of the authorizing and Appropriations Committees in Congress. This is the reason why members of Congress are elected--to make difficult, tough decisions. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, this is what we do all of the time.

The bill is not as strong as current PAYGO rules in Congress today. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill could ``enhance overall budget enforcement,'' but only if combined with the Congress' existing PAYGO rules. If the PAYGO system provided for by the bill was used in place of the current congressional rules, CBO projects that the legislation's enactment could lead to larger future deficits. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill could ``enhance overall budget enforcement,'' but only if combined with the Congress' existing PAYGO rules. If the PAYGO system provided for by the bill was used in place of the current congressional rules, CBO projects that the legislation's enactment could lead to larger future deficits.

The bill's mandatory across-the-board spending cut mechanism that is supposed to deter deficits is impractical. CBO believes that, under the bill, the power of mandatory cuts as a deterrent would be weakened for two reasons. First, the PAYGO scorecard would be based on the average annual budgetary effects of legislation over a 10-year period rather than ``year-by-year effects.'' Second, the sequestration mechanism would expire after FY 2014. According to CBO, those two factors would require less budgetary discipline than a requirement to fully offset increases in spending on a year-by-year basis or to continue the sequestration enforcement mechanism indefinitely.

Congress should not abdicate its role. We are all elected by the people of our congressional districts to do a tough job. Those same people can judge by our record how well we have served and represented them. I welcome the challenge that comes with balancing the budget. I refuse to balance the budget by further eliminating or reducing programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; like Food Stamps; or like the hundreds of other domestic programs that help women, children, senior citizens and families survive. Congress needs to retain control of the people's purse and not give the executive branch even more authority. We must make the difficult decisions on both revenue and spending cuts and increases and follow Congress' current, stronger PAYGO rules.

During a time when our country and my home state of Michigan is witnessing record unemployment, business losses and home foreclosures, it is time for elected leaders to do their job--lead. This legislation, while well meaning, abdicates the role of Congress and does not protect meaningful programs for children, women and families.