Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, just yesterday I stood with parents of young children in Davie Florida who attend early education classes at Crayons Child Care Center.

We spoke about how vital early education is in the development of children.

How early education increases high school graduation rates, and how 50 years of solid research has shown that early education is shown to reduce crime and delinquency.

We spoke about how early education in minority and lower income communities helps to narrow the achievement gap and lifts future generations out of poverty.

And how, for every dollar spent in early education, our communities yield up to a $7 return on our investment.

Unfortunately, though, we weren't there to highlight the success of early education, we were there to highlight something that borders on insanity.

Insanity because just over a week ago, this body made the largest cut to education in our Nation's history.

Now, we all understand that our Nation needs to cut spending.

But the society that balances its budget on the backs of its children should not be surprised when the spine of its future is broken.

Davie is a long way from where we stand here today in Washington.

And sometimes it is easy for Members to overlook, or to not understand how what happens here in the Capitol means out in the real world.

That is why I stand here today.

I stand here because the parents I met with cannot stand here and tell you, Mr. Chair, what these cuts will mean to their children.

Should the cuts to early education funding that were passed in H.R. 1 stand, some of the children at Crayons Child Care will no longer be able to attend early education.

And if students are forced to leave their early education classes there will be teachers at Crayons Child Care that will lose their job.

Laying off teachers and dimming the future of America's children is no way to balance the budget.

These children are 2, 3, 4 years old.

They didn't run up the debt and deficit of our country, but the response from Republicans in the House of Representatives was that they would pay for it.

Republicans preserved tax credits for oil, gas, and chemical companies; they cut Head Start funding.

They preserved tax credits for the coal industry, but they cut Early Education funding.

The parents I met with yesterday in Davie are just a handful of the 9,148 children in Florida that will lose their early education classes if these cuts are to stand.

That just doesn't make sense.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Mayor Rae Carole Armstrong of the city of Plantation, Florida. Mayor Armstrong has nearly 30 years of distinguished public service working on behalf of the residents of Plantation and the south Florida community, and we will miss her strong leadership.

Since 1999, Ms. Armstrong has served as mayor of Plantation, promoting and fostering small businesses, revitalizing parks and neighborhoods, and generally enriching the local community. As the first female council member in Plantation--a position she held for 16 years--Rae Carole Armstrong was known for supporting athletic groups and engaging in educational partnerships.

Her special ability to work with a broad array of local interests allowed Mayor Armstrong to shepherd the city into the new millennium while maintaining Plantation's close-knit community appeal. Her coalition-building leadership benefited not only the residents of Plantation, but the entire south Florida community.

In that spirit, all of south Florida thanks her for her many years of service, and we wish her great success in her future endeavors. Thank you, Rae Carol.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, is it a violation of the House rules wherein Members are not permitted to make disparaging references to the President of the United States? In two previous gentlemen's statements on the amendment, both of them referred to the Affordable Care Act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as ObamaCare. That is a disparaging reference to the President of the United States, it is meant as a disparaging reference to the President of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Republicans' latest cynical and callous attempts to derail health care reform, and I think it's quite interesting that the gentleman from Montana would be dismissive of the issue of deficit reduction and that somehow that's now labeled a distraction.

I think that adding $5.5 billion to the deficit when we should be going in the opposite direction is far more than a distraction. It's a moral imperative that we not do that. In the past 6 weeks, we have seen the true face of the Republicans' legislative agenda. Rather than work to create jobs and improve our economy, they have focused on baseless attacks on American families.

With their repeal and replace bills, they have demonstrated that they don't mind if insurance companies drop patients as soon as they get sick, or that families wouldn't be able to save thousands of dollars by keeping young adult children on their family plan. And with this pernicious amendment, we now see their outrageous attempts to strip funding from the implementation of the health care law.

Let's be clear: Our colleagues across the aisle want to yank funding from a law that is already helping millions of Americans. This amendment would seize funding from the agencies and workers who have already been tasked with implementing the most essential tenets of the Affordable Care Act, provisions which are already making a world of difference in millions of lives.

If this amendment passes, seniors will be thrown back into the Medicare part D doughnut hole coverage gap and be forced to pay exorbitant costs for their prescription drugs. Women in desperate need of an annual mammogram or a colonoscopy will once again face prohibitive copays or perhaps face denial of coverage for the preexisting condition of simply having ovaries, and our Nation will once again return to the egregious practice of denying so many young children coverage for their health history that they cannot control.

Rather than roll back the hard-fought consumer protections and freedoms that unshackled Americans from the whims of private insurance companies, Republicans should be working with us to build on and improve the health care system. Instead, they wish to use this amendment process to reverse the progress that we have made with these vital health care reforms. I am glad the American people can see their hypocrisy right out in the open.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendment 13, which would defund Florida's new clean water rules. This amendment will harm Florida's economy and threaten the natural ecosystems on which we rely.

This past November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved a final regulation setting new water quality standards for Florida's lakes and streams. This clean water rule is desperately needed to address the nutrient pollution contaminating more than 1,000 miles of State rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900 square miles of estuaries.

Potential tourists to Florida often envision images of pristine beaches, beautiful waterways, and vibrant coastal ecosystems with great fishing and recreational opportunities. That is why so many people flock to our State. Florida's waterways, beaches, and coastal ecosystems are critical parts of the economic engine that drive Florida's $65 billion a year tourism industry.

But without the new clean water standards, this could all evaporate. Already algae outbreaks plague many of our lakes and rivers, depleting oxygen levels and suffocating living organisms. Nutrient pollution results in massive fish kills, waterways clogged with toxic green slime, beach closures, and reduced waterfront property values.

We need these new clean water standards because the current standards for determining when someone is polluting is vague, and therefore unenforceable. Waiting until the waterway is choked with sewage, fertilizer, or manure is simply no way to manage our water.

For over 10 years the State of Florida labored to produce a clean water rule but never quite got there. In the absence of State action, EPA had to act to protect Florida's waters. EPA produced a rule built on years of data collected by the State and based on the best science available.

The clean water rule is also the product of tens of thousands of public comments, numerous public meetings and workshops, and years of consultations between the State of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

While EPA took over finalizing new standards, they did not take a ``my way or highway'' approach. They listened to Florida's citizens and regulated entities, made many adjustments, and included plenty of flexibility.

To begin with, the final nutrient standards are comparable to the State's own draft standards. In some areas they are more stringent, but in other areas, they are less stringent. The major difference between the State and Federal rule is that the EPA actually finalized it rather than continuing the foot-dragging.

And as a practical matter, all this amendment will really do is hurt the very stakeholders its proponents say they want to help.

EPA built in a 15-month delayed implementation to allow it to provide technical assistance to stakeholders and ensure compliance is achieved in the most efficient, cost-effective way possible. EPA is using this time to hold workshops, seminars, and other meetings of regulated entities to achieve this end. But with this amendment, that all goes away. These regulated entities will still have to comply with the law, but now they'll be on their own.

Perhaps even worse for the regulated entities, this amendment will prevent State water managers from utilizing the flexibilities of the rule. It would prevent the EPA from working with the State to develop and implement a process to review and approve site-specific alternative criteria proposed by regulated entities. This makes no sense.

This rule provides flexibility to regulated entities and to the State. If the amendment passes, it would be devastating to Florida's economy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for my colleagues' support of an amendment to protect our most vulnerable constituents, our children.

This bipartisan amendment is a simple one. It says that child victims of sexual predators should not be forced to fight for funding scraps if deep cuts to the Department of Justice occur.

This amendment fences off $30 million within the Department of Justice's Justice Assistance Account for child exploitation prevention and interdiction. It ensures that, even in this time of painful budget cuts, that we will protect the most precious and vulnerable among us.

Over the last decade, child pornography trafficking has exploded into a multi-billion-dollar global industry. The majority of both demand and supply is based in the United States and, sadly, most often involves parents or adults that the victim knows and trusts.

Tragically, the demand for images of young children being sexually exploited, raped, and even tortured can only be supplied through the continued sexual abuse of more children. Literally, every image of child pornography is a crime-scene photo.

Several years ago, law enforcement informed Congress that it could identify hundreds of thousands of individuals perpetrating child exploitation offenses online, but admitted it was investigating fewer than 2 percent of these known individuals due to a lack of resources that left them outnumbered and overwhelmed.

The vast majority of these identifiable sexual predators remained at large, and their young victims beyond rescue.

Congress and the President responded by passing and signing into law the PROTECT Our Children Act, which provides desperately needed resources for the vital Internet Crimes Against Children task forces.

These task forces are teams of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors that lift the digital fingerprints, rescue the children, and hold perpetrators accountable.

The ICAC task forces rescue child victims in real time, victims like Alicia Kozakiewicz, who was sexually assaulted at age 13 by a man who befriended her online and abducted her from her Pittsburgh home. She was rescued by the FBI and the Virginia ICAC task force.

Now is not the time to pull the funding rug out from under these ICAC task forces. Congress is already funding this effort at only half of its authorization. Yet the law is making a difference. The Department of Justice recently released its ``National Strategy'' to combat child exploitation, but it is only first getting up and running. Now is not the time to impose draconian funding cuts on the Department of Justice that could thwart this progress.

I want to thank Congressman Shuler, Congressman Lamar Smith, and Congressman Dan Lungren for supporting me in this bipartisan effort. This important amendment will give State, local, and Federal law enforcement the resources they need to protect our most vulnerable.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, sadly, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no idea how to create jobs or turn the economy around, so their true colors have come to the surface. And Speaker Boehner made that clear when asked about the potential job losses that will result from horrendous budget cuts that we have been debating for the last couple of days, when he responded, so be it.

So I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is a dangerously ideologically motivated stunt that will imperil the lives and well-being of millions of women and their families. This amendment is not just a war on Planned Parenthood, as the gentleman from Indiana said. It's a war on women.

Planned Parenthood clinics are a crucial part of our national health care fabric. Through Federal funds, including Medicaid reimbursements and title X funding on an annual basis, Planned Parenthood health centers are able to offer nearly one million lifesaving screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast examination, contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients, nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, and education programs for 1.2 million individuals. These are much needed services that we could not afford to lose.

In addition to completely de-funding Planned Parenthood, this amendment would also strike all Federal funding for title X programs. This would be a colossal mistake and truly a matter of life and death to millions of women nationwide.

Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a key component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and an essential element in the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies.

Today title X serves over 5 million low-income individuals every year. In every State, women and men rely on title X for basic primary and preventative health care including annual exams, lifesaving cancer screenings, contraception and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, in 2009 alone title X providers performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including nearly a million HIV tests.

As a breast cancer survivor whose cancer was caught at the earliest stage, like my friend from Connecticut, I know how critical these screenings are in saving women's lives. And preventative care isn't limited to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid STDs.

Supporters of this bill mistakenly argue that this cut is necessary to prevent Federal funding for abortions. Let me be clear: Federal funding for abortions is already prohibited by law. This has been the case for decades. Yet this amendment attempts to take funding prohibitions to an unconscionable new level and, if passed, will result in millions of women not being able to obtain necessary preventive care like birth control and cancer screenings.

If Republicans truly want to reduce abortions in this country, they would vote against this amendment. Indeed, title X actually reduces the number of abortions. Title X services help to prevent nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion. Current statistics from the Gutmacher Institute indicate that nearly half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended. We should be providing women and their families with the resources they need, not striking them.

Indeed, Planned Parenthood and the title X program provide vital family planning services which help improve the life of the mother and the child. It's a simple fact. Family planning keeps women and children healthy. When women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to seek prenatal care, improving their own health and the health of their children. In fact, access to family planning is directly linked to the declines in maternal and infant mortality rates. There should be no shadow of a doubt that this amendment is anti-woman and anti-family.

While my colleague from Indiana may frame this amendment in the context of fiscal responsibility, that is once again a mistaken premise. This amendment would not cut the deficit. In fact, title X actually saves taxpayer dollars. Since many of the patients

served by title X are on Medicaid, preventative care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. Indeed, for every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in Medicaid-related costs. That's savings to both Federal and State governments.

And one of the most detrimental and dangerous things we could do to women and their families right now is to de-fund the leading title X provider nationwide, Planned Parenthood. Every year, Planned Parenthood works tirelessly to improve the health of communities across this country. Six in 10 women who access care from centers like Planned Parenthood say it is their main source of health care. We cannot cut these women off from the health services that should be available to all of them.

Efforts to undermine the title X program and this essential health care provider are not only reckless; they are also anti-woman, anti- child, and anti-taxpayer.

Madam Chair, this is a horrendous amendment that would devastate access to health care for millions of American women and should be defeated.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in support of Amendment 23 offered by Mr. Hastings, my good friend from Florida, which would help people living with HIV/AIDS afford treatment through the vital AIDS Drug Assistance Program. This program, known as ADAP, provides HIV-related prescription drugs to low- income people with HIV/AIDS who have limited or no prescription drug coverage.

This essential national program is undeniably in the midst of a devastating funding crisis. The combination of an economic recession, State budget cuts, and increased testing and diagnosis of HIV have created the perfect storm against ADAP's fiscal situation--more patients are requiring ADAP treatment as the program has been emptied out. This has resulted in drastic cuts in services provided and thousands in 10 different States have ended up on waiting lists to receive these necessary lifesaving drugs.

In my own State of Florida, with the largest of all such waiting lists, 3,276 individuals languish without access to affordable lifesaving treatment. Our State has lowered financial eligibility down to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, while at the same time reducing the formulary for the patients who still qualify.

This is an enormous problem for a State with the third highest HIV/ AIDS population and the highest rate of new infections in the country. You may be shocked to know that the new infection rate in south Florida is higher than in Africa. We cannot let this happen in our own backyard to our neighbors and our constituents.

Though our administration has demonstrated that funding ADAP is a priority, we just keep hitting the wall. Current funding levels for this program are unsustainable and we must do more to help. This amendment would help give the ADAP program a much-needed boost and help thousands of patients access the treatment they so desperately need.

In this budgetary climate, we must make smart and sensible decisions. Where we can afford to make an administrative haircut, if the tradeoff is saving lives, it is our moral imperative to do so. By reallocating these greatly needed funds to save ADAP, we ensure that people living with HIV/AIDS in our communities can access the treatment they need to stay alive while we stem the tide of new infections and save our Nation money in the long term.

I strongly urge you to support the efforts of this responsible and compassionate amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in strong support of the amendment to add funding back to title X from my colleagues Congresswoman Lowey and Congresswoman DeLauro, who have always been fierce advocates for women's health, and I am thrilled to join them in this important fight.

Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a key component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and an essential element in the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies. Efforts to cut the title X program would take away funding from essential women's health care providers like Planned Parenthood.

Today, title X serves over 5 million low-income individuals every year. In every State, women and men rely on title X for basic primary and preventative health care, including annual exams, lifesaving cancer screenings, contraception, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, in 2009 alone, title X providers performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including nearly 1 million HIV tests. And preventative care isn't limited to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid STDs.

If Republicans truly wanted to reduce abortions in this country, they would vote for this amendment. Indeed, title X actually reduces the number of abortions. Title X services help to prevent nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion. So we can say for certain that title X funds play a vital role in helping to reduce the number of abortions in our Nation, working towards the goal of making abortions safe, legal, and rare.

But it goes further. The title X programs through providers like Planned Parenthood provide vital family planning services which help improve the life of the mother and the child. It has been proven time and again that family planning keeps women and children healthy. Studies have shown that when women have better access to family planning, it leads to healthier outcomes for both mother and child.

When women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to seek prenatal care, improving their own health and the health of their children. In fact, access to family planning is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality rates.

Eliminating the national family planning program will result in millions of women across the country losing access to basic primary and preventative health care and to the providers that offer these services. Without title X, more women will experience unintended pregnancies and face potentially life-threatening cancer and other diseases that could have been prevented.

In recent weeks, Republicans in this Congress have produced some of the most anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-family bills that we have ever seen, trying to redefine rape, raising taxes on women who have private insurance with comprehensive health care coverage, telling women who need our help the most that they are on their own.

But that just didn't just go far enough for them. Republican proposals to cut title X funding and completely shut down Planned Parenthood, where millions of women receive their only health care, is one of the most spiteful, egregious moves we have ever seen.

It is truly mind-boggling that the same Members who purport to be anti-choice can turn around and say in the same breath that they want to strike all Federal family planning funding. So now they don't just want to make abortions illegal, they also want to throw a huge obstacle in the path of those who want to prevent themselves from ending up in a situation where they might need one. This helps no one. It doesn't help women, it doesn't help families, and it certainly doesn't help reduce our deficit. That is because title X actually saves taxpayer dollars.

Since many of the patients served by title X are on Medicaid, preventive care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. Indeed, for every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in Medicaid-related costs. That is savings to both Federal and State governments.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this amendment of my good friends that would reinstate title X funding in the continuing resolution. The decision by Republicans to defund title X was not only reckless, but thoroughly anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help correct a massive injustice against American women and families.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it has been 6 weeks

now since Republicans assumed control of the House of Representatives, and we have yet to see a single job-creation bill brought to the House floor.

Indeed, just last week we spent roughly 10 hours debating a primary function of Congress, that of congressional oversight, something we already do. Yet still no legislation brought forward to spur job creation.

But while the Republican Congress has yet to bring forward a jobs agenda, they have found plenty of time to bring forward an extreme anti-woman agenda. Just recently we saw the introduction of H.R. 3, legislation that originally sought to redefine the definition of rape. Yes, that's right, legislation that would change rape from acting without a woman's consent to instead require women to prove force was used in order to prove rape.

It remains to be seen whether Republicans working on this legislation have shelved their plans to redefine rape and whether they will revise the language in H.R. 3. Still, 163 Republicans signed on as cosponsors of the bill with the forcible rape language included.

But the extreme anti-woman agenda doesn't stop with attempting to redefine rape. This week the House will vote on an amendment introduced by Representative Mike Pence that would eliminate family planning and lifesaving preventive care to millions of individuals each year. Mr. Pence's amendment does this by eliminating title X funding.

Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a key component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and an essential element in the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies. Efforts to cut the title X program would take away funding from essential women's health care providers like Planned Parenthood.

Today, title X serves over 5 million low-income individuals every year. In every State, women and men rely on title X for basic primary and preventive health care, including annual exams, lifesaving cancer screenings, contraception, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.

In fact, in 2009 alone, title X providers performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases including nearly 1 million HIV tests.

And preventive care isn't limited to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid STDs. Title X actually reduces the number of abortions. In fact, title X services help prevent nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion.

Planned Parenthood and the title X program provide vital family planning services which help improve the life of the mother and the child. Indeed, family planning keeps women and children healthy. Studies have shown that when women have better access to family planning, it leads to healthier outcomes for both mother and child.

When women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to seek prenatal care, improving their own health and the health of their children. In fact, access to family planning is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality rates.

Eliminating the national family plan program will result in millions of women across the country losing access to basic primary and preventative health care and to the providers that offer these services. Without title X, more women will experience unintended pregnancies and face potentially life-threatening cancer and other diseases that could have been prevented.

The simple fact is that this proposal is anti-woman and anti-family.

Now, I know that we're all interested in finding ways to cut Federal spending, and Representative Pence's amendment to eliminate funding for title X is framed in the context of fiscal responsibility.

But even more important than cutting spending is asking the question, are we reducing the deficit? Unfortunately, the answer to whether the Pence amendment would also cut the deficit is ``no.'' That's because title X actually saves taxpayer dollars. Since many of the patients served by title X are on Medicaid, preventative care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. Indeed, for every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in Medicaid-related costs. That's savings to both Federal and State governments.

Every year, Planned Parenthood works tirelessly to help to improve the health of communities across this country. Efforts to undermine the title X program and this essential health care provider are not only reckless, they are also anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-taxpayer.

Can we please stop the relentless attack on women, stop pursuing the divisive anti-woman legislation and focus on job creation and spurring economic growth once and for all?

Offered By: Ms. Wasserman Schultz

Amendment No. 211: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Wasserman Schultz

Amendment No. 212: Page 202, line 6, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $30,000,000) (increased by

$30,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 72.

It's been five weeks since the House Republican leadership convened the 112th Congress. But we've yet to see any legislation brought to the floor to spur job creation, as they promised. None.

And just yesterday Republicans voted against allowing a jobs bill-- the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act--to even come to the floor for a vote.

Instead of focusing on jobs, they are spending ten hours this week talking about how Congress should perform oversight duties.

Forgive me if I point out that this is one of the main responsibilities of Congress. Don't waste ten hours talking about it, just do it.

And if a House Committee does anything right now, I'm sure our constituents would appreciate sending them an American job-creating bill.

Our economy is showing clear signs of recovery, but it is fragile and there is still much more work to do. There are too many Americans out of work and even more struggling to make ends meet.

We should be building on the economic recovery efforts of the last two years, not backtracking. But that' s just what' s happening.

Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is dictating spending caps for fiscal year 2011, which will cut the same types of discretionary spending that was such a critical component in the Recovery Act--making Chairman Ryan's plan a veritable ``anti-Recovery Act.''

Democrats in Congress have committed to measuring every effort by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit. Well so far, the Republican leadership gets a ZERO for the 112th Congress.

I say to my Republican friends, let's stop wasting time and let's get to work!

Oh, and if you are serious about weighing the benefits of Federal regulations, I recommend my colleagues read the Bush Administration's 2008 report to Congress on the subject.

That report found the annual benefits of Federal regulations to the American public outweighed the costs by as much as 14 to 1. So perhaps we should be reading that report on the floor instead of this colossal waste of time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to also honor our first responders killed in the line of duty, two brave south Florida police officers shot and killed just this past week. Miami-Dade County veteran detectives 41-year-old Roger Castillo and 44-year-old Amanda Haworth died last Thursday while protecting the community they love.

As part of a fugitive task force working with the U.S. Marshals Service, Officers Castillo and Haworth were members of a professional elite unit whose mission is to go after violent career criminals. Last week, they were attempting to arrest one such violent criminal. They were hunting a fugitive suspected of murdering another man simply for raising his voice with the suspect. When police knocked on the door of a home where he was believed to be, the suspect opened fire, killing Officers Castillo and Haworth and injuring Officer Diedra Beecher.

Combined, Officers Castillo and Haworth dedicated 44 years to servicing the citizens of south Florida. They put their lives on the line every day to make us safer. And last Thursday, these two heroes made the ultimate sacrifice. We lost them to a senseless act of violence by someone with a total disregard for the lives of others. We grieve their loss not only to the community they served, but to the families and loved ones they leave behind.

A 21-year veteran on the force, family members say Detective Roger Castillo loved two things in this world, his family and his job. His wife of 15 years, Debbie, also works as a police officer. Officer Castillo leaves behind his three sons, 14-year-old Anthony, 11-year-old Michael, and 9-year-old Brian. A dedicated father, neighbors said that he was the kind of dad you would see on the front lawn tossing around a football with his boys.

Amanda Haworth spent 23 years on the force. A neighbor said the only thing she loved more than her job was her 13-year-old son, Austin. A single mom, Amanda Haworth would never miss her son's baseball games and would often practice with him in their backyard. Amanda Haworth was the first female detective ever killed in the line of duty in Miami- Dade County.

While I did not have the good fortune of knowing these two detectives, I know this: I know these were two exceptional individuals taken from us and lost too soon. These were incredible parents, ripped from their families before their time. They were excellent public servants trying to make our community a better place to live. We send our thoughts and prayers to heal their families.

To their families and loved ones, I struggle to find words that can offer solace and comfort in your time of distress. The great poet William Wordsworth once said, ``Not without hope we suffer and we mourn.'' Perhaps he meant that we find hope in the belief that our thoughts and prayers will in time heal their families, and in the hope and belief that the children of Officers Castillo and Haworth will grow up knowing that their parents made this sacrifice to make their world and our world a better place. In the meantime, we will suffer and mourn.

After going through our own senseless tragedy with our colleague, Gabby Giffords, we share in the pain of senseless loss and inexplicable violence. Officers Castillo and Haworth will be forever in the hearts of our community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republicans' cynical attempt to replace the health care reform law.

Yesterday's decision to repeal the Affordable Care Act was truly damaging to the American people, but today's decision to tout the central reforms of the Affordable Care Act as Republican ideas is simply baffling. If the provisions in H. Res. 9 were really the Republicans' priorities, they would leave the Affordable Care Act intact because all of these provisions exist in the current law.

If we all agree on the importance of keeping young adults on their parents' insurance, prohibiting insurance companies from dropping coverage for the sick and strengthening Medicare, then this spectacle is a colossal waste of time that we don't have. If Republicans really want to guarantee these consumer protections to the American people, they would not stage partisan antics with this kind of resolution.

Even when Republicans had control of the entire government for 6 years, they did nothing to reform our Nation's health care system. And during that time, premiums skyrocketed, the number of uninsured Americans grew to 47 million, and those with insurance saw their benefits decimated. Of course, it would have been great to have the Republicans as willing partners during the last 2 years as we worked hard to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, they insisted on being the Party of No even as we incorporated so many of their party's ideas into the law.

Rather than roll back the hard-fought consumer protections and freedoms that unshackled Americans from the whims of private insurance companies, as former Republican Senate Majority Leader Brill Frist said, Republicans should be working with us to build on and improve the health care system.

Not to mention, every potential minute spent in committee focusing on redundant legislation is another minute that we are not helping American families and businesses emerge from this recession. Democrats have pledged to measure all legislation by the proposal's success at creating jobs, strengthening the middle class and bringing down the deficit.

Unfortunately, the Republican majority's hasty vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act fails on all such accounts. The American people deserved and got real reform. This vague resolution stating so-called Republican principles on health care reform is like giving the American people a wish sandwich. There's nothing between the bread, but we wish there was.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the story of Patricia Maisch. Pat, as her friends call her, lives outside Tucson and has been fittingly hailed as one of the heroes during the tragic shooting of our colleague and friend Gabby Giffords. Pat actually knocked the second gun clip out of the shooter's hand as he was attempting to reload, very likely saving the lives of more innocent people.

She was in line to talk to her Congresswoman, to share that she thought that the title of the health care repeal bill was disingenuous and because Pat and her husband own a small business north of Tucson. The spouse of one of their employees has a preexisting condition and they have been unable to find affordable coverage to cover her. Pat wanted to tell Congresswoman Giffords that the health reform law will help them provide health insurance for this employee. She wanted to ask Gabby to stand up to attempts to repeal health reform.

Pat was unable to deliver her message to her Representative, but she asked me to share it with you now. Heed the words of Pat Maisch. Heed the words of millions of Americans needing health care. Don't repeal vital health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the story of Patricia Maisch.

Pat, as her friends call her, lives outside Tucson and has been fittingly hailed as one of the heroes during the tragic shooting of our colleague, Gabby Giffords. Pat actually knocked the second gun clip out of the shooter's hand as he was attempting to reload, very likely saving the lives of more innocent people.

She was in line to talk to her Congresswoman to share that she thought that the title of the repeal bill was disingenuous, and because Pat and her husband own a small business north of Tucson. The spouse of one of their employees has a preexisting condition, and they have been unable to find affordable insurance to cover her. Pat wanted to tell Congresswoman Giffords that the health reform law will help them provide insurance for this employee. She wanted Gabby to stand up to attempts to repeal health care reform. Pat was unable to deliver her message to her representative but asked that I share it with you now.

Heed the words of Pat Maisch. Heed the words of millions of Americans needing health care. Don't repeal health care reform.