Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the Veterans Affairs' Committee held a hearing where the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs stated, because of the budget cuts that the Republicans are advocating and a likely government shutdown, veterans' pension checks may not go out on time.

Believe it or not, this is not April Fool's.

At the same time that the veterans' checks may arrive late, my Republican colleagues want to extend tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Just last December, we were forced to vote on extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, adding $700 billion to the deficit. The Republican plan for the FY11 budget, as well as the new budget plan they just released, are nothing more than a reverse Robin Hood--taking from the poor and middle class people to give huge tax breaks to the rich.

You know, Mr. Speaker, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. The American people will wake up.

Mr. Speaker, today in the VA we had a hearing on how would the shutdown affect the veterans. You know, you can tell something about a country or an organization as to how they spend their money.

In December, when we gave $700 billion tax breaks to the richest people in the world, then we are worrying about in 2 or 3 months whether or not we are going to have money to pay for the veterans' pensions or their health care, it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that we continue to practice what I call reverse Robin Hood, robbing from the poor and working people to give tax breaks to the rich. Unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for their work in bringing this bill to the floor. I think the aviation community deserves a long-term aviation bill so they can plan for the future needs of the traveling public. We have had 18 extensions already, and it is time for the House and the Senate to find a compromise and send a bill to the President.

Sadly, we're missing a great opportunity to invest in our airports, allowing them to prepare for the expected growth in air traffic and put people to work improving our aviation infrastructure. Without additional PFC revenues and AMT relief, airports will have little capital to invest in their facilities. We keep talking about creating jobs and rebuilding the economy, but we don't do anything about it.

My home State of Florida relies on air service to support our tourism-based economy. We have 20 primary airports, 22 reliever airports, and 57 general aviation airports, with our top three airports alone generating nearly 45 million enplanements a year. These airports create jobs and help grow the economy, and we're not going to get out of the recession we're in by starving our airports of funds for our infrastructure.

This bill does address an important issue in my district by preserving access to the Military Airport Program, MAP. The MAP program provides critical support to those communities which have been given the responsibility of converting closed military bases to civilian use. The participation of the Cecil Field Airport, which is just outside of Jacksonville, is a prime example of how this program can successfully transform former military airfields to commercial service that in turn help strengthen the Nation's aviation system. In the case of Cecil Field, continuing to include uses by the Air National Guard and Reserve units makes this a win-win for the community and for the military. And I want to add that we have more landings now than we did before we turned the facility over.

MAP grants also support projects that are generally not eligible for AIP funds, but which are typical and needed for successful civilian conversion such as surface parking lots, fuel farms, hangars, utility systems, access roads, and cargo buildings.

I know this bill still has a long way to go in the process, so I hope we can make improvements as we move to conference.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose this spurious legislation to eliminate a program that has just begun to help our constituents recover from the horrible housing crisis that has taken hold of our communities.

This program has helped more than 600,000 families stay in their homes while helping neighborhoods avoid the associated blight that comes with vacant and foreclosed homes.

The legislation allowed hard-working American families in danger of losing their homes to refinance into lower-cost government-insured mortgages they can afford to repay.

Florida has had over 82,000 permanent and trial modifications under this program. This is over 82,000 families who do not have to worry about where they are going to sleep tomorrow. 82,000 families who know where their kids are going to go to school tomorrow.

I was able to hold foreclosure workshops in cities and towns throughout my district to help these families at risk of losing their homes. With this program's help, these families were able to stay in their homes, keeping neighborhoods intact.

I believe that more money should be used to keep people in their homes. To the administration's credit, they attempted to create other programs that would do that. The Republican majority has spent the last weeks attempting to eliminate those programs also.

Eliminating this program without a replacement program for the people on the front lines of this recession is heartless and should be criminal.

Defeat this legislation and vote to keep people in their homes and our communities living and vibrant.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose this spurious legislation to eliminate a program that has helped our towns and cities recover from the horrible housing crisis that has taken hold of these communities.

The intent of this program which I voted for was to stabilize neighborhoods. The legislation allowed hard-working American families in danger of losing their homes to refinance into lower-cost government-insured mortgages they can afford to repay.

I was able to hold foreclosure workshops in cities and towns throughout my district to help these families at risk of losing their homes. With my community's help, many families were able to stay in their homes, keeping neighborhoods intact.

I believe that more money should be used to keep people in their homes. To the administration's credit, they attempted to create other programs that would do that. The Republican majority has spent the last weeks attempting to eliminate those programs also.

The intent of the NSP legislation, begun more than three years ago, was to quickly and efficiently distribute funds to neighborhoods and communities that have a large number of foreclosed, vacant, or bank- owned properties. The local government's goal should be to utilize the funds to secure communities and neighborhoods that have unique needs as a result of the foreclosure crisis.

The use of non-governmental agencies in the NSP program was innovative. HUD could have further been innovative and used rent to own to keep people in their homes.

NSP also seeks to prevent future foreclosures by requiring housing counseling for families receiving homebuyer assistance. HUD seeks to protect future homebuyers by requiring States and local grantees to ensure that new homebuyers under NSP receive homeownership counseling and obtain a mortgage loan from a lender who agrees to comply with sound lending practices.

Defeat this legislation and vote to keep people in their homes and our communities living and vibrant.

I would like to submit this article from the Florida Times-Union into the Record about the amount of Jacksonville homes underwater.

[From the Florida Times-Union, March 8, 2011]

Nearly Half of Jacksonville Home Mortgages Underwater at End of 2010

(By Kevin Turner)

March 8.--Nearly half of mortgages residences in

Jacksonville were underwater at the end of 2010--47 percent--

primarily because their values have sunk below the amount

their owners owe on their mortgages.

The phenomenon is also known as ``negative equity.''

According to real estate data aggregator CoreLogic, another

4.8 percent of all mortgaged Jacksonville mortgages were in

``near negative equity'' status, or owed the same or nearly

the same as much as their homes were worth.

Combined, 51.8 percent of Jacksonville homes are underwater

or nearly so, according to a report released today by real

estate data aggregator CoreLogic.

Although sinking values are thought to be the chief cause,

increases in mortgage debt are also a factor, CoreLogic

noted.

The local combined underwater percentage is significantly

higher than the national average of 27.9 percent of mortgaged

homes nationwide that are underwater or near underwater. Some

23.1 percent were fully underwater.

The difference in the statistic locally and nationally

underscores the lingering effects of bursting of the real

estate value bubble in hardest-hit Florida, Nevada, Arizona

and California.

The Associated Press also reported:

Nationally, the number of Americans who owe more on their

mortgages than their homes are worth rose at the end of last

year, preventing many people from selling their homes in an

already weak housing market.

The percentage of homes underwater at the end of the fourth

quarter, at 23.1 percent, was up from 22.5 percent, or 10.8

million households, in the third quarter.

The number of underwater mortgages nationally had fallen in

the previous three quarters, mostly because more homes had

fallen into foreclosure.

Underwater mortgages typically rise when home prices fall.

Home prices in December hit their lowest point since the

housing bust in 11 of 20 major U.S. metro areas. In a healthy

housing market, about 5 percent of homeowners are underwater.

About 2.4 million people have only 5 percent equity or less

in their homes, putting them near the tipping point if prices

in their area fall.

Roughly two-thirds of homeowners in Nevada with a mortgage

had negative home equity, the worst in the country. Arizona,

Florida, Michigan and California were next, with nearly 50

percent of homeowners with mortgages in those states

underwater.

Oklahoma had the smallest percentage of underwater

homeowners in the October-December quarter, at 5.8 percent.

Only nine states recorded percentages less than 10 percent.

When a mortgage is underwater, the homeowner often can't

qualify for mortgage refinancing and has little recourse but

to continue making payments in hopes the property eventually

regains its value.

The slide in home prices began stabilizing last year. But

prices are expected to continue falling in many markets due

to still-high levels of foreclosure and unemployment.

That means homes purchased at the height of the real estate

boom are unlikely to recover lost value for years.

Underwater mortgages also dampen home sales. Homeowners who

might otherwise sell their home refuse to take a loss or

can't get the bank to agree to a short sale--when a lender

lets a borrower sell their property for less than the amount

owed on the mortgage.

Home sales have been weaker in areas where there are a

large number of homeowners with negative equity.

The total amount of negative equity increased to $751

billion nationwide, up from $744 billion in the previous

quarter.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the Third Congressional District of Florida, I rise to recognize and wish a Happy Birthday to Bishop James E. McKnight, a man of God and leader to the community of Gainesville, FL.

Bishop James E. McKnight was born March 14, 1930, and is a life-long resident of Gainesville, Florida. He has been married to Jessie M. McKnight over 56 years with three sons and one daughter.

As a man for whom education was key, Bishop McKnight graduated from Lincoln High School in Gainesville, Florida and attended Florida A & M University in Tallahassee, Florida. Bishop McKnight was not only a religious and community leader but also a patriot, he joined the U.S. Army and received special training in the Intelligence Division while serving in the Korean War from 1951-1953. Bishop McKnight has been a pastor in the Church of God by Faith for 53 years. He is presiding pastor of Gainesville Church of God by Faith in Gainesville, Florida, where he and his wife have served as leaders for over 50 years.

Under his leadership at Gainesville Church of God by Faith, a new building was built in 1973, and renovated and expanded in 1990. Bishop McKnight is very involved in the community and has served as a Board Member of the Eastside Clinic and development projects and the Black on Black Crime Task Force for many years. He was instrumental in offering their place of worship as a shelter to the residents of the former Kennedy Homes Apartment Building, who were displaced by fire in 2003. He received an award as a distinguished leader in the Gainesville Community in March of 2007. Bishop McKnight is highly respected and well known as a ``Praying Man'' in the Gainesville community and surrounding areas, and the National Church of God by Faith.

Mr. Speaker, just last week, Congress passed a two-week Continuing Resolution to cut spending and keep the government running. Now, in all my years as an elected official I have never seen a CR (Continuing Resolution) last as little as two weeks!

I clearly see that on Capitol Hill these days it is only the big dogs that get to eat at the table! The Republican Party, while slamming through tax cuts for the rich last December is leading the charge for tens of billions of dollars in budget cuts for job training programs, environmental protection, disease control, programs to assist homeless veterans; transportation and infrastructure (including cuts to high speed rail and Amtrak), crime protection, education programs and dozens of other critical Extension of Remarks areas for our country.

As always, if these cuts do pass, they will fall on the shoulders on the working poor and middle class. It is obvious that Republican lawmakers in the House remain indifferent to the suffering the cuts could bring to the American people. Moreover, as shown in a study conducted by Moody's Analytics, their budget plan also jeopardizes American jobs and our country's economic future by rolling back investments that would help the private sector to grow and put people back to work!

I thank my classmate for giving me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule. I would like to begin by discussing the importance of reauthorizing the surface transportation bill. It has been a long time since we had a bill; since 2005, in fact. I cannot overemphasize the importance of completing this bill as soon as possible, not only to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure but for the desperately needed jobs it will create.

Transportation projects are a natural economic development tool. The Department of Transportation has indicated for every $1 billion invested in transportation, it creates 42,000 permanent jobs and $2.1 billion in economic activity. It also saves the lives of 1,400 people. You can't argue with those numbers.

Transportation funding is a win/win for everyone involved. States get to improve their transportation infrastructure, which creates economic development, puts people back to work, enhances safety, and improves local communities.

Yet in delaying the passage of this much-needed legislation any further, we are doing a disservice to the driving population, and the Nation as a whole. The States who are battling red ink want to see this bill passed. The construction companies who are laying off employees want to see this bill passed. And the citizens waiting in traffic jams, like my constituents on the I-4 corridor in central Florida, want to see this bill passed. If this Congress fails to pass a real transportation funding bill, our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and the citizens who use it, will suffer for years to come.

There are numerous studies that have come out in the last few months documenting the current state of affairs. The American Society of Civil Engineers has found that this country's infrastructure ranked ``D''-- barely passing, certainly not acceptable for a superpower like the United States.

So we need to really pass this bill and really pass a full 6-year reauthorization bill so the States can plan and the communities can plan for their transportation needs.

I have to take a moment to talk about high-speed rail because come Friday--it is a very sad state of affairs for the people of Florida. The Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, has indicated that he is going to turn down $2.5 billion for Federal high-speed rail funding. That is very sad for the people of Florida because we have worked for a number of years across the aisle. Mr. Mica and I have worked. And, in fact,

when I was first elected, for every dollar we sent to Washington, we were receiving 77 cents in Florida transportation dollars. I worked to change that formula, and now we get 92 cents, and that is $5 billion.

Well, for once Florida has an opportunity to get some of their gasoline tax dollars back and to put Floridians to work. We have 12 percent unemployment. With the 90 percent funding from the Federal Government and the 10 percent private, that would generate over 60,000 jobs. But it is so sad, and it is really a no-brainer for the Governor. He indicated he spent over $100 million to be the Governor of the State of Florida, and he indicated that he wanted to put Floridians to work.

Well, Mr. Governor, how are you going to put them to work? What are you going to work them on besides talk? What really puts people to work is transportation and infrastructure, and it is a no-brainer, the high- speed rail project. The communities have worked on it. In fact, in 1980 Bob Graham, being the Governor, appointed me to a committee to work on high-speed rail. Let me just say, when there is no vision, the people perish.

I yield to the gentleman.

Sir, that is the lowest; but it would provide 60,000 jobs because you're not just looking at the construction, but everywhere you build a station is economic development, and it is jobs.

Let me say, this is public-private. In other words, we would be contracting the jobs out. Companies, private companies, would be building these stations. In fact, over eight different companies have indicated that they want to be partners with this. It is sort of the way we build airports. The Federal Government goes in and puts the major infrastructure down, and then there are private operators.

All I've got to say is that I have been elected for 30 years and this is in my opinion the worst politics I have ever seen. The Bible says, ``Without vision, the people perish.'' The people of Florida are going to suffer. We have a roughly 12 percent unemployment rate. That's over 2 million people that's unemployed. This is an opportunity to put 60,000 people to work. That translates not just in jobs, but if you have a job, you can pay your mortgage until the foreclosure goes down. It goes on and on. I want to thank the President, the Vice President, the mayors and all of the communities who have worked together for this project.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise today as the ranking member on the Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads. I have been on this committee for over 19 years. I serve on Transportation because it's one of the most bipartisan committees in the House.

I have got to tell you I am very, very disappointed with Florida Governor Rick Scott. Last week, the Governor told Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood that the State of Florida can do without the $2.5 billion for Federal highway rail funding. That's $2.5 billion, and 90 percent of the project is funded with Federal tax dollars. That's money that Floridians sent to Washington that we are sending back to Florida, gasoline tax money, not money from any foreign source, by the way.

In addition, it didn't just happen. We worked on it, bipartisan, for years. In fact, in 1980 Bob Graham appointed me to a committee to work on high-speed rail in Florida. Over 30 years we worked on it. And let me just tell you 90 percent of the funding would put over 60,000 Floridians to work. It's 90 percent of the funding. Is the other 10 percent there? Absolutely. The private

sector has indicated that they would put the 10 percent there.

I have model trains in front of me today. We have over eight companies committed to high-speed rail. In fact, we started the rail system in Florida in this country, the Florida Flagler. In this country, we started the rail system, and now we are the caboose; and they don't use cabooses anymore.

But all of our partners, the Chinese, the French, eight different countries want to be our partners. They have indicated that they would put up the 10 percent because they want to have the first right of refusal to go from Orlando to Miami. And everybody knows that's the money maker. Well, why is the first portion that the State of Florida applied for and the legislature in Florida came to the Congress and asked us to be partners, why was that first leg the first leg? Because all of the environmental issues have been resolved. In other words, we could put rail in Florida tomorrow if this contract went out.

Florida has 12 percent unemployment--12 percent--and in my area 15 percent. The Governor says that he's not a politician--and I agree with him--but he says he's a businessman. What businessman would walk away from 90 percent funding? So, 90 percent funding, and you're a businessman? Well, he's concerned about Florida being left with the 10 percent. Well, if you're a businessman, then you know attorneys. They can write it any way you want to make sure that we can protect the people of Florida. So that's not the issue. Money is not the issue. Liability is not the issue.

This is the worst kind of politics I've seen since I've been elected. It's a sad state of affairs. The Governor says let's get to work. I agree with you, Mr. Governor, but you have to be working on something. You have to have some projects. Infrastructure is what put America to work.

What projects do you have, Mr. Governor, in your budget? You say: Well, I want this money. I think it would be better used for ports. What's in your budget? Ports. Florida has 14 ports. We compete with other States. So what is in your budget that is going to put Floridians to work? You come and say: I want another lane on I-4. Well, anybody who lives in Orlando or visits Orlando knows another lane will not help us. We have eight lanes.

I just returned Monday from Salt Lake City, Utah, where we lost the money. A few years ago, money for Orlando went to Salt Lake City, Utah, and they run trains every day, move 40,000 people a day by rail. That's Salt Lake City, Utah. And so the money that we have appropriated this Friday will go to some other State. It will go to New York or California or Salt Lake City, Utah, or some other place. We are going to have rail in this country.

What happens when failure is not an option? We must make sure that we work together to put Floridians to work.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise today very disappointed with the Governor of the State of Florida, Rick Scott. Last week, the Governor told Transportation Secretary LaHood that the State of Florida could do without $2.5 billion in Federal highway funds for rail. This money poses no risk to the people of Florida and would create over 60,000 jobs for Floridians.

Unfortunately, Florida's Governor seems to be much more interested in politics than in creating jobs or improving the transportation system for the great people of Florida. Turning down high speed rail funds would do nothing to bring down Florida's 12 percent unemployment and, in some areas, 15 percent. Indeed, the high speed rail plan for Florida serves as a true example of a successful public-private partnership and, as DOT statistics show, for every $1 billion we spend in rail, it generates 42,000 permanent jobs.

I urge Governor Scott, who has until this Friday, to change his mind and fulfill his campaign promise of ``Let's Get to Work.''

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I am totally opposed to this resolution. I knew back in December when Congress cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires that in February we would be cutting services for the working poor, children, and the disabled.

The House Republican CR in fact is very similar to the last December tax cut bill, which included billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, while driving up the budget deficit an extra $700 billion. The proposed continuing resolution will be what I usually call reverse Robin Hood: it will rob from the poor and working people to give tax breaks to the rich.

In my area of specialization, transportation and infrastructure, this bill would rescind $2.5 billion for high-speed rail projects already awarded, as well as cancellation of 76 transportation projects in 40 States, bringing about a loss of 25,000 new construction jobs. Pink slips.

While the unemployment rate is still 9 percent in our Nation, it is critical to invest in infrastructure at this time. As I always said, Federal transportation and infrastructure funds are essential to job creation, and for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure projects, over 42,000 well-paid, permanent jobs are created and over $2 billion in economic development.

This resolution also cuts programs to assist homeless vets. Over 130,000 of our Nation's 24 million veterans are homeless on any given night. In this time of foreclosures and uncertainty in the housing market, it is inconceivable that we would limit the help available to those who serve and protect our country's freedom that we hold so dear. So we are going to give pink slips to over 130,000 veterans. I want to say that that will not happen--but pink slips to the veterans.

In addition, over 200,000 children we are going to kick off of Head Start. A pink slip for the Head Start program. We are going to reduce the maximum Pell Grant $800 per student. It takes away over 20,000 researchers supported at the National Science Foundation. And a program that is near and dear to my heart, over 1,300 cops will be taken off the beat. This program was started under President Clinton, where we put an additional 100,000 cops on the beat and cut down crime.

We cut another 2,400 firefighters. Pink slips for the firefighters. And we cut $2.5 billion to the National Institutes of Health. Budget decisions by Congress and the President should prioritize the most vulnerable communities who are struggling to make ends meet at this difficult economic time, not the wealthy and the powerful.

Today's bill on the House floor does absolutely nothing to create jobs or improve our Nation's economy but is a direct assault on the most vulnerable by cutting the budget in every single area, from transportation to our Nation's veterans to our Nation's children to police on the beat protecting our citizens. Once again, the Republican Party is asking our seniors, our students, our children, and working families to make fiscal sacrifices while millionaires and billionaires and powerful special interest groups get to walk off without a scratch.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the Third Congressional District of Florida and myself we rise now to offer our heartfelt condolences and pay tribute to the life of Dr. Michael Bernard Butler, a humanitarian, healer, life activist and friend.

We are moved and encouraged when recalling the life achievements of this giant in the field of medicine and community and social activism. As a husband and father, we embrace his wife, his foundation for more than four glorious decades, Mrs. M. Jean Clarkson, and their children Brian and Michele. As man for whom education was the key, Dr. Butler received his B.S. Degree from Talladega College in Talladega, Alabama and the degree of Medical Doctor from Howard University, Washington, D.C. Additional studies took him to Frankfurt Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Mercy Catholic Medical Center, also in Philadelphia. These academic and professional accomplishments insured his certification by and admittance to prestigious medical societies, and he was an Assistant Professor at the University of South Florida.

As a man who served his country, Dr. Butler distinguished himself on the field of battle in the Vietnam War with his service to and for the physical health and morale of those in his charge. He distinguished himself as a fine

Naval Officer who valued his service to others and extended that service to other international theatres of need.

As a community activist, he gave of himself and his talents to benefit both the individuals and the many organizations he served. From the American Cancer Society to the Seminole County Rotary Board, the YMCA, the United Negro College Fund, Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., NAACP and was a founding member of the Sweetwater and Heathrow Country Clubs. These and many other civic activities were distinctive and the accolades received for all his good works from many were prolific and countless.

And as a man of integrity, Dr. Butler was both gifted and inspiring. Where he saw pain, he sought to relieve it with medical acumen and personal interaction; where he saw potential in others, he gave them impetus and encouragement; where he saw despair, he brought direction and promise; and where he saw the need for love and caring, he gave of himself.

The life of Dr. Michael Bernard Butler was one of accomplishment, service and sharing. And now in his passing we pay tribute to the man and his life of service to all of us, and we pray that by his example each of us become the bearers of his legacy of caring. We come now to join in prayer for mother Janie Bell Butler, wife M. Jean Clarkson Butler, son Brian Butler, daughter-in-law Cathy Brown-Butler, daughter Michele Butler, two grandsons Michael James and Andrew, sister Judy Butler Rivers and husband Nathaniel, sister-in-law Rogena Butler and a host of loving relatives, friends, whose lives have been forever changed by this man of peace. We thank Our Heavenly Father for allowing us to be blessed with the time spent with Dr. Butler, our friend and brother.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 9, which instructs authorizing committees to develop legislation replacing existing healthcare laws. While I applaud the majority's intention to finally present their own comprehensive solutions to the health care crisis in this country, I note that they don't need a resolution by the entire House to do so. Committees can develop legislation on their own at any time. Moreover, I reject the idea that the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act must be ``replaced.'' The PPACA represents a century of effort by people of all political persuasions to give people the peace of mind that comes from knowing they have access to affordable care. No law is ever perfect. Certainly, all legislation can all be improved and I welcome the opportunity to further the progress made by the 111th Congress on health care reform.

Furthermore, current law meets most, if not all, of the goals identified in today's resolution. Since health care reform passed, the economy has grown, more than a million jobs have been created and thousands of small businesses have used tax credits to begin offering employees coverage for the first time. In order to foster competition and choice, the Department of Health and Human Services recently established a website where people can compare policies and when the exchanges launch in 2014, individuals and small businesses will select from a wide range of carriers competing for their business. Patients now have the right to choose their own primary care physician and women don't have to ask permission to see an obstetrician. Insurance carriers cannot arbitrarily deny care and patients have a robust right to repeal when company bureaucrats override doctors. Children cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and soon all Americans will enjoy that protection.

When PPACA is fully implemented, 32 million people will have coverage who never had it before, millions more will be able to afford coverage more easily, and seniors will not pay so dearly for prescription drugs. All of these actions can be done while extending Medicare solvency by twelve years by reducing waste, fraud and abuse and while slashing the deficit by $1.4 trillion over the next twenty years.

The Republican plan introduced in the House last session would cover just 3 million more Americans by 2019--leaving 51 million Americans uninsured in 2019. That plan reduced the deficit by $68 billion over the next 10 years--far less than the law we passed--and offered none of the cost savings and consumer protections that make health care reform work for all Americans. I sincerely hope Republicans offer more substantial solutions this session.

Finally, one goal of today's resolution that I must take issue with is the provision regarding abortion. Nothing in the PPACA allows for taxpayer funded abortions and I would strenuously object to any new laws that further restricted a woman's right to choose or allow medical professionals to deny legitimate services based on their own religious beliefs. There is no reason why the healthcare options for women-- participating in insurance exchanges should be any different than they are for women who can afford coverage on their own.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16, I intended to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, the Republican House Majority's effort to repeal the historic health care reform law that Democrats passed last year is merely a charade. And thanks to Democratic control of the Senate, the Republican bill will never cross the President's desk. Indeed, a vote for repeal will only scare those who have come to rely on the law's benefits.

I was first elected to Congress in 1992, and in all my years of service, I have worked to make affordable, quality health care available

for all Americans. Indeed, for nearly a century, leaders from all over the political spectrum, beginning with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have fought for health care and health insurance reform. In the words of the great former President Roosevelt, `the health of the people is a public concern; ill health is a major cause of suffering, economic loss, and dependency; good health is essential to the security and progress of the Nation.' In 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, which made him the first President ever to advocate on behalf of federal assistance for the elderly.

Yet it wasn't until 75 years later that our nation finally came together and passed the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' which provides health care access for all Americans. Prior to this, nearly one in five citizens in the wealthiest country in the world were uninsured. I applaud President Obama for his persistent, hard work on this issue, and I was a proud cosponsor of the original Health Care legislation when it was first introduced in the House of Representatives. And although there is no such thing as a perfect bill, this law is a great start, and it needs to be left up to the medical specialists to make slight changes to make it better, not politicians in the Republican Party who want to repeal the law entirely. Yet today, even though it would be nearly impossible to accomplish, the Republican Party wants to take our country in the opposite direction and eviscerate this law. If this were ever accomplished, it would have drastic effects on the constituents in Florida's third congressional district, as well as for Americans across the country. In fact, the Republican bill would take our Nation back to a system in which:

Children with pre-existing conditions, including 8,000-40,000 in my congressional district, were denied coverage;

Young people age 26 cannot stay on their parents' plans (for district 3 in Florida, their plan would eliminate health care coverage for nearly 4,000 young adults);

A system where Seniors pay more for prescription drugs, including 6,600 senior citizens who hit the Part D drug ``donut hole'' in my district, and would be forced to pay out of pocket costs, as well as 93,000 more Florida district 3 seniors who would be denied new preventive care benefits;

It also would force small businesses to pay higher taxes;

And increase the deficit by $230 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The cost of returning to the prior system is too great. For too long, health care has been a privilege, not a right in America. To return to a system in which nearly 20 percent of Americans do not have access to the greatest health care available in the world would not only be a tremendous step backwards, but outright insensitive to the needs of millions of Americans.