Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dr. Michael Lemole, who is being honored this year by the National Library of Medicine and Friends of the National Library of Medicine for his lifetime of achievement in medicine and neurosurgery.

Dr. Lemole is one of the exemplary medical professionals who cared for our colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, following the January 8th shooting in Tucson, Arizona.

The National Library of Medicine and the Friends of the National Library of Medicine are organizations dedicated to improving health and health care through the dissemination of accurate and quality medical information to medical practitioners and researchers.

They have chosen to recognize Dr. Lemole this year for his outstanding commitment to these values, his exemplary career in the field of neurosurgery, and his skillful actions that helped to save the life of Congresswoman Giffords on January 8, 2011.

Dr. Lemole's career reflects a physician at the pinnacle of his profession.

He pursued specialty training as a Cushing Clinical Fellow, a distinction awarded by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.

He has published more than 30 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters, and is a member of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and the North American Skull Base Society.

He was honored as a Top Doctor by US News and World Report in 2011, was named the 2011 Doctor of the Year by the Pima County Medical Society, and, in 2009, was named a Top Surgeon by the Consumer Research Council for America.

Additionally, Dr. Lemole has served his country as a flight surgeon with the United States Air Force Reserve in the 944th ASTS at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. He was recently named the honorary commander of the 355th Medical Group, based at Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona.

Dr. Lemole's assiduous commitment to his work, his vocation, his community, and his country led him to the top of the medical world. It also leads him to save lives, both with his hands and his contributions to the field of neurosurgery.

We thank him for his efforts to save the life of our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, and for a career dedicated to the healing of people.

Congratulations to Dr. Lemole for a deserved recognition.

I rise today to honor the achievements of Marcia Jo Zerivitz, the founding executive director and chief curator of the Jewish Museum of Florida.

Marcia has been a leader in the organized Florida Jewish community for more than 40 years. Originally from West Virginia, she has been a leader in Jewish organizations since her work with Hillel during her college years. Since the 1970s, Marcia has held various leadership roles within organizations such as Israel Bonds, AIPAC, ORT, and Hadassah.

Throughout her lifetime, Marcia has broken the glass ceiling as the first woman in many positions, including as president of the Greater Orlando Jewish Federation. She is one of the first women nationally to hold this office. She was also the first woman to chair the Florida Association of Jewish Federations Conference in 1979. In 1993, Marcia guided the restoration of an abandoned 1936 art deco building on Miami Beach, which served as an Orthodox synagogue for 50 years, and she opened the Jewish Museum of Florida in 1995.

She led the effort to get the museum accredited and has presented more than 50 exhibits in 15 years. The museum, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, has collected, preserved, and interpreted the Jewish experience in Florida since at least 1763, when Jews were first allowed to live in the State.

In 2003, she initiated State legislation for a Florida Jewish History Month, which is now recognized each January. Then in 2005, Marcia and members of Miami's Jewish community approached me with the idea to designate a month to honor the contributions that American Jews have made to our Nation. As a result, I was the proud sponsor of the Jewish American Heritage Month resolution, which the House and Senate unanimously passed in 2006 and which has been proclaimed by President Bush and President Obama annually since then.

Marcia Zerivitz should take great pride in knowing that Jewish American Heritage Month, which is now celebrated across our Nation each May, began with her work at the Jewish Museum of Florida.

I am honored to recognize Marcia Jo Zerivitz for the positive impact that she has made, not just on Florida's Jewish community but on communities across our Nation. I wish her well on her retirement, and I thank her for enriching the lives of countless others in the Jewish community and around the country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 358. When I speak with women in my district, they are concerned about finding a job, keeping their home from foreclosure, or putting food on the table. What they do not ask for is their constitutional rights to be threatened or their health to be endangered. Yet this bill does just that.

Rather than focus on continuing to rebuild our Nation's economy, the Republican majority is focusing their time on, once again, seeking to limit women's access to reproductive care.

I am particularly troubled that this bill, the Protect Life Act, actually does just the opposite. This bill would override core patient protections and allow hospitals to legally refuse lifesaving treatment to women, thus allowing them to die in a hospital despite their treatable condition. This extreme legislation is dangerous to women's health and does nothing to address the jobs crisis facing American families.

I urge my colleagues, if they truly want to protect life, to vote against this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lois Capps, and in opposition to the underlying bill--the majority's latest assault on clean air and public health. I'd like to thank Congresswoman Capps and all of my colleagues who've spoken in opposition to this bill, which puts the health of all Americans--especially our children--at great risk.

This amendment simply requires recognition of the very real health consequences of air pollution. For example, curbing mercury pollution will protect children and mothers from toxins that damage a developing brain.

With this amendment, the required report must assess the effect on birth and developmental defects and infant mortality rates caused by the delay in better clean air standards. What's wrong with that? Who could be opposed to that?

For such a small additional effort, this assessment would provide crucial information affecting the health of all American families.

As a mother of three young children, whose health is among my absolute greatest concerns, I urge my colleagues who are parents and grandparents to take a moment and consider the impacts of this bad bill.

Delaying EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will have serious consequences on their children and grandchildren. Remember that we are their first line of defense in this world.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this good amendment and opposing the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of Constitution Day, as this past weekend we celebrated 224 years since this nation's founders first signed the hallowed document that governs our nation to this day.

The beauty of our Constitution is that it is a living document. When the Constitution was written, women were not permitted to own property, vote, or attend many institutions of higher learning. Today, women are earning doctorate degrees at higher rates than men, serving as CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies, and even as Cabinet Secretaries.

But even with this solemn document to guide and govern our nation, women today still earn less than their male counterparts, and minority women even less. Women are more likely to be living in poverty and without healthcare. Women still only make up 17 percent of the current Congress.

As we continue to build on women's rights in this country, we are standing on a firm foundation in the Fourteenth Amendment. As we celebrate Constitution Day, women especially must remember how far we've come--and how far we still have to go.

Thank you very much for putting together this important Special Order hour to give us an opportunity to come together in support of our ally and friend, the State of Israel.

I rise today in praise of President Obama's enduring, unequivocal support for our ally Israel and a vision for a peaceful world.

This morning at the United Nations, President Obama shared with an international audience his commitment to Israel's security in the midst of a challenging region and complex times. The administration approached this year's U.N. General Assembly standing strong with our ally in many respects. From once again boycotting the anti-Semitic activities surrounding the Durban Conference, to pledging to veto any Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence in the Security Council, to working all summer with our partners and allies against the unending efforts to criticize and delegitimize Israel at the U.N., President Obama has been a stalwart ally of Israel in this international forum. I'm so pleased that he continued in that vein this morning with his address to the General Assembly.

In his historic speech to this global audience, President Obama once again demonstrated his stalwart support for our friend and ally Israel. Importantly, President Obama used this opportunity at the United Nations to unambiguously state his support for direct, bilateral negotiations as the only way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and create a Palestinian state.

As the President said, ``a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. There is no shortcut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. It is the Israelis and the Palestinians, not us, who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.''

President Obama made it resoundingly clear that unilateral action will never create a state and that we must continue to support a process between two peoples that recognize both security concerns and national aspirations. And that clarity has not gone unnoticed.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, speaking after the President's speech today, said that our President is wearing a ``badge of honor'' for his commitment to direct, bilateral negotiations as the only way to a Palestinian state.

As he has done so many times in the past, President Obama again put forth our country's unshakable commitment to Israel's safety and security as a central tenet to peace. The President reaffirmed our enduring friendship to our ally Israel noting the very real security concerns of being surrounded by hostile neighbors. He made clear to the world that he understands the very real threat Israelis face in constant rockets and suicide bombs and children coming of age knowing that, throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Only when Israel feels its security concerns are met will future generations of Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in pride and in peace.

With the international community assembled, President Obama stressed the difficult but vital efforts we must all make in our quest for peace, not only for Israelis and Palestinians, but also across the Middle East and all around the world.

He spoke of the accomplishments of revolutions that have brought burgeoning democracies to the Middle East and North Africa over the past year and the frustrated aspirations of many in the region where democracy is yet to come.

In praising the new free Libya and urging the international communities to join us in sanctioning Iran and Syria, the President affirmed his commitment to supporting those who wish to cast off tyranny. And in a world free from the terror of Osama bin Laden, President Obama emphasized our continued quest to end the religious, gender, and sexual persecution that prevents all people from achieving their true potential.

I am so proud of President Obama's unwavering support for Israel and his overall vision for peace that he laid out at the United Nations this morning.

Hopefully, hearing the strong message from the United States, the Palestinians will once again return to the negotiating table with Israel and work out a just and lasting solution between the two parties. In the meantime, we can stand tall with the exemplary efforts by this pro-Israel President as we continue to engage diplomatically over the coming weeks to ensure that bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will resume.

Thank you, Mr. Deutch, for your unwavering support for our ally.

Mr. Speaker, on September 9, 2010, I missed the following rollcall votes because I was unavoidably detained out of town: rollcall vote No. 695--on agreeing to the Hunter amendment; rollcall vote No. 696--on agreeing to the Carney amendment; rollcall vote No. 697--on motion to recommit H.R. 1892; and rollcall vote 698, on final passage of H.R. 1892. All of these rollcall votes were related to H.R. 1892, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all four rollcall votes.

Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2010, I missed the following rollcall votes because I was unavoidably detained out of town: rollcall vote No. 699--on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2076, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2011; rollcall vote No. 700--on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2633, the Appeal Time Clarification Act of 2011; and rollcall vote No. 701--on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1059, to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes.

If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three rollcall votes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the millions of Americans employed through our nation's vibrant arts sector. I stand in opposition to the unreasonable cuts proposed in Mr. Walberg's amendment to H.R. 2584, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012. Both the amendment and the underlying bill propose irresponsible cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

To understand the rich history of federal funding for the arts, one need look no further than my home state of Florida. From our State Library's extensive archives of folksongs documenting the history of Florida's multicultural fishing communities, the exquisite Depression- era murals that tell the history of Florida along the walls of our Federal Courthouse in Tallahassee, to Key West's intricate Hurricane Memorial down south, evidence of the positive impact of federally supported art projects abound throughout Florida.

Federal funding for the arts began during a time of great economic hardship in our country, under President Roosevelt's New Deal. During the Great Depression, artists were among the tens of millions of Americans out of work. They were able to get back to work through vital federal arts programs of the day. A significant portion of the materials documenting Florida's New Deal arts projects are housed in my home district, in the Broward County Library's Bienes Museum of the Modern Book. This collection contains hundreds of vintage Florida tourism posters and postcards created by artists employed by the Federal Arts Program (FAP), and visual aids produced for use in schools across the country.

The words of President Roosevelt's director of the FAP, Harry Hopkins, ring just as true today as they did in 1939 when he said of artists struggling during the Depression, ``Hell, they have to eat too.'' The arts are not just a nice thing to have on display or something to do if there's free time, or if one can afford it. Arts jobs are real jobs, and today, more than ever, the arts are an economic engine in our communities.

My Congressional district is home to at least 2,800 arts-related businesses that employ 10,000 people. In this time of economic hardship, we know that the arts community has been affected deeply-- forced to shed jobs and lose critical donations from the private sector.

I hear my colleagues across the aisle say that the arts can and should be supported by the private sector and philanthropy alone. However, federal support for the arts plays a critical role in leveraging private funding. On average, each NEA grant leverages at least seven dollars from other state, local, and private sources. Private support cannot match the leveraging role of government cultural funding. In our current economic climate when private donations are far harder to come by, this public seed money is more important than ever.

The NEA facilitates essential public-private partnerships through its grants and initiatives. Thanks to NEA support, previously underserved rural and inner city communities across the country are seeing a resurgence of cultural opportunities, which in turn increases tourism and attracts business. The arts have been shown to be a successful and sustainable strategy for revitalizing rural areas, inner cities and populations struggling with poverty. Arts organizations purchase goods and services that help local merchants thrive. Last year alone, arts tourism contributed more than $192 billion to the U.S. economy. Arts audiences spend money--more than $100 billion a year--on admissions, transportation, food, lodging and souvenirs that boost local economies.

Across the country, we see the positive impact of the arts on our students and families; yet, this bill proposes cuts to the NEA that will negatively affect thousands of children, young adults, and seniors engaged in lifelong learning.

As a legislator of more than 18 years and as a mother of three, I have seen time and again the tremendous impact art has on the developmental growth of children. It helps level the learning playing field without regard to socioeconomic boundaries. Students engaged in the arts perform better academically across the board and the NEA plays a crucial role in enhancing arts education across the country.

Children exposed to the arts are also more likely to do better in math, reading, and foreign languages. I will always support funding for arts in education because I know it is critical to America winning the future. An innovative country depends on ensuring that everyone has access to the arts and to cultural opportunity. We must guarantee that all children who believe in their talent are able to see a way to create a future for themselves in the arts community, be it as a hobby or as a profession.

Ever since our nation's founding, the inspired works of our artists and artisans have reflected the ingenuity, creativity, independence and beauty of our country. Federal support for the arts has helped preserve our cultural legacies for generations and we must protect its ability to do so in the years to come. The art our culture produces defines who we are as a people and provides an essential account of our history for future generations of Americans.

I urge my colleagues to stand against these irresponsible cuts to the NEA, which provides essential support for arts education and the arts community. Federal support for the arts keeps people employed and puts more Americans back to work. Now is certainly not the time to falter on our commitment to our nation's dynamic arts sector.

I would point out to my good friend from Texas, Madam Speaker, as a constitutional conservative, he should recognize that the Constitution, itself, was a series of compromises.

Our Nation and economy is being pushed closer and closer to default. Hardliners on the right--extremists by any other name--have refused to compromise. We are putting in jeopardy the payment of the Social Security obligations and paying the members of our military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday couldn't even answer in the affirmative that he was confident that those payments could be made if we default. We're putting in jeopardy the full faith and credit of our Nation.

Yesterday, seniors in my district called my office in tears, wondering whether we would default and what those consequences would mean for them. These are real people who live on Social Security to survive.

We have many strongly held views on both sides of the aisle. I don't like everything in the Reid proposal before us, but compromise is critical. I recognize that I can't have everything 100 percent my way. Democrats have been at the compromise table for months with an empty chair on the other side of the table. It is time for Republicans to warm that seat across from us.

Mr. Dreier claims that Republicans have brought the Reid proposal to the floor to show that it doesn't represent

a bill that can pass the House, yet the process is a sham. The bill has been brought up under a rule that requires a two-thirds vote of this House for passage, which they know cannot happen.

What are Republicans afraid of? They're afraid that a fair process might show just how much support there is for this proposal.

Where are the cooler heads in the Republican Caucus? Where are they? They appear not to exist. Your caucus seems to be held hostage by extremists and have driven the moderates from the room and from the discussion. Allowing extremists to take over is doing harm to our country.

Thank you.

President Obama and House and Senate Democrats have said we are willing to support cuts even to programs we would normally fight to preserve. Republicans in response have doubled down in a Groundhog Day move that has pushed dead-on-arrival proposals that jeopardize our economy by bringing us closer to the brink of chaos.

At the end of the day, the stewardship of our economy is our responsibility.

I rise in strong opposition to the Republican Default Act, which represents a continued effort by our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage while forcing an ideological agenda and jeopardizing our economy.

Yet again, our colleagues across the aisle have put forward a legislative proposal that would lead to crippling cuts in Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, all while refusing to even consider ending ill-advised tax breaks for the most fortunate Americans.

Who absorbs the total burden from these drastic cuts, Mr. Speaker? Our seniors and working families, that's who.

On a day when Exxon Mobil's second quarter profits soared 41 percent and they earned $10 billion, it is simply unconscionable for us to ask seniors, working families, children, and middle class folks to bear the burden of our deficits when we are asking nothing--nothing--of corporations, special interests and the wealthiest few. This short-term debt limit increase measure fails to instill the necessary confidence in the American people that we have their best interests at heart, and it certainly does little to calm our creditors throughout the world.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposition to this reckless, dead-on-arrival bill that the majority of the Senate and the President oppose so that we can find legitimate compromise with a long-term solution. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been sitting at the compromise table for a very long time. There is a cold, empty chair across the table from us. It is time for the Republicans to warm that seat.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2560, which attempts to manipulate the Constitution in order to impose a Ryan budget plan on steroids.

This is yet another thinly veiled attempt by our colleagues across the aisle to end Medicare as we know it while refusing to even consider ending ill-advised tax breaks for millionaires.

It is crucial that the American people understand that this plan would require even deeper cuts than under the Ryan Republican plan we saw in April. This means deeper cuts to investments in education, clean energy, and increased costs for our seniors.

President Obama has vowed to veto this bill, which ends the Medicare guarantee. And, incredulously, the gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries, unbelievable from a Member from south Florida. It slashes Medicaid and critical investments essential to winning the future in favor of protecting tax breaks for Big Oil, millionaires and companies who ship American jobs overseas.

Achieving a solution to America's fiscal challenges is absolutely an economic necessity, but the only way to achieve a real solution is through shared sacrifice. We can't ask our seniors, working Americans, and students to bear the burden of our deficits when we're asking nothing of corporations, special interests, and the wealthiest few. Incredibly, our friends across the aisle won't even put that on the table.

The nonpartisan CBO, Congressional Budget Office, has said that the number one policy decision that brought us to the need to prevent the Nation from defaulting on our debt for the first time in history were the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans. Yet here we are again rewarding the most privileged at the expense of our working families and our seniors, the bedrock of our society.

Cut, cap, and balance may make for a great sound bite, but it would have a devastating impact on our economy and American seniors. It is clearly more like ``duck, dodge, and dismantle.'' For the sake of our economy, it is essential that we move beyond politics as usual and take action to reduce our Nation's deficit and get our fiscal house in order.

On behalf of the 102,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my home district and on behalf of all middle class Americans, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this reckless bill and pass a balanced plan that engages us all in shared sacrifice to solve our Nation's debt crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our vibrant, participatory democracy and to speak out against voter suppression. I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, for organizing this Special Order to raise the warning flag on efforts now under way in many States to erode hard fought voter protections.

In the past generation, public officials of both parties have sought to make it easier for Americans to participate in the political process. With the expansion of Early Voting, absentee balloting, and Election Day Registration, the fundamental right to vote has become more accessible for millions of Americans--all while the integrity and administration of our electoral system has been improved.

That progress and our American tradition of ``expanding the franchise'' are now under attack. In state houses across the country, legislatures have enacted unnecessary and politically-motivated restrictions on the right to vote.

In my home State of Florida, Governor Rick Scott signed a law that imposes such high burdens on voter registration drives that the non- partisan League of Women Voters has been forced to end its registration efforts. The same law arbitrarily makes it more difficult for voters who moved, to change their addresses at the polls, a process that has proven effective in Florida for decades.

As part of a disturbing national trend, the Florida law also cuts the required hours for Early Voting by nearly half, reducing the Early Vote period from 14 days down to just 8 days. I know firsthand the value of early voting for Florida's large senior population, many of whom have difficulty in getting to the polls. Reducing the number of early voting days will have a major impact on their ability to participate in our democratic process.

Even though Early Voting allows busy working voters more opportunities to reach the polls, legislatures in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Georgia have also passed significant cuts to their Early Voting time periods.

An Early Vote reduction was also proposed in North Carolina, but--for now--has stalled because it would actually cost taxpayers more dollars to restrict Early Voting than to maintain the current system.

Strict photo identification laws, in which voters would have to show a specific type of government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls, were proposed in 36 States. Wisconsin, Texas, Kansas and other States passed these unnecessary laws even though 11 percent of eligible American voters--approximately 23 million people nationwide-- lack the photo ID these laws demand. Moreover, the Brennan Center for Justice has demonstrated that the elderly, racial minorities, and young voters all disproportionately lack access to government-issued photo ID and will therefore face the highest burdens under newly enacted photo ID laws.

In Maine, the governor signed a bill ending Election Day Registration even though 60,000 Mainers registered to vote in 2008 alone. In New Hampshire, the legislature actually pushed a bill that would redefine ``domicile'' in order to prevent students from voting.

Is this the kind of message to send to young people who want to participate in our democracy?

Restrictions on the right to vote burden all Americans, but they especially affect communities of color and other citizens who have historically experienced discrimination at the ballot box.

The nonpartisan group Project Vote has found that African-Americans and Latinos are more likely than white voters to register through a voter registration drive, meaning that fewer minority Americans will have the chance to register and vote in Florida because of these biased actions.

Despite these inequities, State legislatures around the country have never justified any rationale for these unnecessary changes except for the broadly debunked myth of voter fraud. These efforts to prevent eligible Americans from voting will do nothing to improve our electoral system, but they will reverse years of bipartisan progress in making the right to vote more accessible for every qualified citizen.

In the face of this assault on the right to vote, I am heartened by the commitment of my colleagues and our partners in the civil rights community to preserve the right to vote, knock down unnecessary barriers to the franchise, and continue to work for the inclusions of all eligible Americans in our political process.

Mr. Chairman, we are so proud of not just our victory, which was incredibly sweet, and we're really so sorry that our opposition is not in the press gallery to witness this acceptance of the trophy. But the two things that we are the most proud of, one is that we continue to be the best example of bipartisanship in the Capitol, in the United States Capitol, and we hope that our camaraderie will extend to the rest of the legislative process. Hopefully we can continue to be that example and it will carry over. We know that it carries over for all of our friendships and our relationships. Number two, the beneficiary of the Congressional Women's Softball Game each year is the Young Survival Coalition, which is an organization that is dedicated to raising awareness and providing assistance to young women diagnosed with breast cancer under 40 years old.

Most of you know that I was 41 when I was diagnosed 3\1/2\ years ago with breast cancer, and I am still here to talk about it, thank God. Thank you. There are only two women breast cancer survivors in the House of Representatives--myself and Sue Myrick. So as you can see, that's bipartisan as well. I know she and I both very much appreciate the time and dedication, companionship, camaraderie--I can never get through this without being emotional.

The women on this team came out 20 different times at 7 in the morning to practice to get ready for this game. We raised more than $50,000 for the Young Survival Coalition. Thank you. So many of you came out, and so many of our staff came out. We had 875 people come watch the game this year. It was just a phenomenal success. We can't thank you enough. We will be back next year. We understand that the press wants a rematch, they told us so the night of the game, and we look forward to beating them again next year.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express deep disappointment and concern about the severe proposed cut in this bill to the Federal Everglades Ecosystem Restoration effort.

The Energy and Water bill before us today slashes $32 million from the administration's request. These times of tight budgets certainly call for belt-tightening, but cutting 20 percent from the requested amount for Everglades restoration is draconian. It is wildly disproportionate to the more modest 3 percent cut in the bill to the overall fiscal year 12 Corps of Engineers construction fund from fiscal year 11 levels.

I thank my colleague Congressman David Rivera for joining me and other members of the Florida delegation to urge that full funding be restored to this important national priority, as Mr. Dicks just mentioned. I hope we can work together with Chairman Frelinghuysen to make this happen during conference with the Senate.

To be sure, Everglades restoration is a priority the Florida congressional delegation takes very seriously, and we have fought for adequate funding every year. Continued investment in Everglades restoration protects our water supply, benefits key job-creating industries, and enhances our quality of life.

A recent study by Mather Economics, commissioned by the Everglades Foundation, showed that there is a 4:1 return on investment for Everglades restoration projects. The Everglades is the source of water for millions of residents and visitors in south Florida. It is a haven for fishing, hunting, and boating activities and is home to scores of endangered species. There is no other ecosystem in the world like our Everglades, a true national treasure and important resource.

I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee to clarify certain language in the committee's report that we find deeply disturbing. I hope this language does not signal the committee's intent to deemphasize the importance of Everglades restoration in the future. In particular, the language refers to an inability to sustain funding levels and seems to say that the committee views Everglades funding to be inequitable, as if the Everglades has been receiving too much somehow.

I hope I am interpreting the language incorrectly. I hope the committee is not announcing that the Everglades is somehow being deemed as not being a national priority and will not continue to be singled out for cuts in funding from now on. Because, make no mistake about it, the Everglades is a national treasure and has been a national priority, as Ranking Member Dicks pointed out, for the Federal Government since we created the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in 2000.

Eleven years ago, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and from every corner of this great Nation came together with the executive branch and partnered with the State of Florida to embark on the largest ecosystem restoration effort on Earth. We understood then that it would not be easy, or inexpensive, but it had to be done to restore this unique ecosystem. The plan spans three decades, has over 60 component projects, and will take resolve and a sustained commitment to see this project through to its completion.

The Everglades Restoration Plan was spearheaded by esteemed Senators from around the Nation and both political parties--Republican Bob Smith from New Hampshire, Republican Dave Hobson of Ohio, Democrat Max Baucus from Montana, and, of course, Florida's own Senators Connie Mack and Bob Graham.

Congressman E. Clay Shaw said it perfectly right here on this floor during passage of the restoration plan a decade ago when he said:

``Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable to have this broad a cross section of Americans supporting legislation on any single issue. But protection of the

Everglades is a national priority because most Americans speak of this national treasure in the same breath as the redwood forests, the Mississippi River, Old Faithful, the Appalachian Trail, or the Grand Canyon.''

I couldn't agree more; and Presidents Clinton, Bush, and now President Obama share this commitment.

In 2001, George W. Bush said:

``This area needs our protection, and I am here to join with your Governor in the cause of preserving and protecting the Florida Everglades. For its part, the Federal Government carries important responsibilities and stewardship. It is not enough to regulate and dictate from afar. To preserve places like this, we must bring to our work a new spirit of respect and cooperation.''

Again, I couldn't agree more.

History is important. So are the words that we use or do not use. That is why I am deeply disappointed that the chairman has refused so far to state publicly that Everglades restoration is a national priority. I would note that the chairman, speaking on the Energy and Water bill for fiscal year 05, stood here on June 24, 2004, and referred to his own local port and harbor dredging and deepening project as a ``national priority.''

Well, having several ports in south Florida, I would agree on the economic significance of navigation infrastructure. But surely the Everglades, a unique national treasure, rises to at least the same level. We need to look beyond our own State borders and districts when we shape our priorities, as our predecessors did. I hope the chairman will see fit to stand with us now and recommit to Everglades restoration as a national priority.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri