Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because it has been more than 100 days since my friend and colleague, Representative Roy Blunt, the point man for the rumored Republican alternative health reform plan, said, I guarantee you we will provide you with a bill.

Even Louisiana Republican Governor Bobby Jindal urged his party Tuesday to work with Democrats to offer health care solutions.

The time to act on health insurance reform is now. We must act to offer the choice of affordable quality health care to all Americans putting you and your doctor, not the insurance companies, in charge of your health care while we reduce the problem of ballooning health care costs on American families, businesses, and our fiscal future.

``No'' is not a solution. Saying you support reform with no evidence of that support and no plan just doesn't cut it. Continuing to say ``no'' to reform leaves tens of millions of Americans without health insurance, and 45,000 Americans die every year because of this.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle can't run away from the fact that they have no plan.

The time to act on health insurance reform is now.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 772, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2918) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2918.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the conference agreement which we present to the House today for the fiscal year 2010 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill authorizes a total of $4.6 billion for the operations of the House and the Senate and for the operating budgets of the legislative branch support agencies. The overall amount is $254 million above the 2009 enacted level and $500 million below the request. The net increase over the enacted level is 3.5 percent.

This is the first freestanding conference agreement for the Legislative Branch bill since 2005, and the first since I became Chair of the subcommittee. I am pleased to report that the agreement preserves all of the priorities of the House, and that the Legislative Branch bill is on time and under budget. Madam Speaker, this package was developed in full cooperation with the minority and represents a fully bipartisan agreement.

The principal responsibility of our subcommittee is to serve as stewards of the legislative branch, its institutions, and its employees. In fulfilling these goals, the 2010 Legislative Branch bill provides funding for the routine and recurring costs of paying our hardworking staff, maintaining and repairing the buildings in which we work here in Washington and in our districts, securing the Capitol complex from threats, and for the technologies which we depend on to communicate among ourselves and with our constituents.

Key investments in this category include $1.369 billion for the operations of the House. This includes basic pay and benefits for employees as well as a number of technology improvements, including funds to replace the aging electronic voting system in the House Chamber. It includes $328 million for the Capitol Police to protect the Capitol, the Members, and our visitors; $602 million for the Architect of the Capitol to support ongoing operational costs to the Capitol complex and to fund key initiatives to repair and upgrade these facilities; $643 million for the Library of Congress, which is an increase of $36 million over 2009, or 6 percent. This includes $15 million, as requested, to accelerate improvements in the Library's IT infrastructure, the Librarian's top priority for 2010.

Madam Speaker, this bill is about more than just maintaining the status quo; it includes a number of new investments intended to provide for the long-term health of the Congress, and especially for the House of Representatives. It includes important security funding to protect the employees, visitors, and the institution itself. Let's not forget that one of the planes piloted by terrorists on September 11, 2001, was purported to be headed for the Capitol. A few weeks ago, a brave Capitol Police Officer engaged in a shoot-out with an individual brandishing a gun. Last year, a bomb was found in a car confiscated by the Capitol Police in the underground garage of the Government Printing Office. The legislative branch budget may seem trivial and unimportant, but it funds the greatest democratic institutions in the world.

Madam Speaker, the Legislative Branch bill also funds our most important assets: the dedicated employees who staff our offices, committees, and support teams. We have endeavored to provide adequate funds for their compensation and benefits, but must do more if we are to continue to be able to recruit and retain the high-quality workforce which each Member depends upon. I am pleased that this conference agreement retains a House priority--funding for new childcare and tuition assistance programs which are currently being considered by the Committee on House Administration.

We also must take care of and preserve for future generations the grand buildings of the Capitol complex, many of which are aging and badly in need of repair. I am pleased that the conference agreement retains $50 million of the $60 million approved by the House in June to initiate a long-term effort to provide for the revitalization of the iconic buildings of the Capitol complex.

The new House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund will allow us to spread the cost of very expensive renewal projects, such as the 100-year-old Cannon House Office Building rehabilitation, evenly over the next decade. It allows the Congress to deal with these requirements in a more thoughtful and deliberate way. I am very proud that this bill steps up Congress' effort to deal with its aging infrastructure in a more forward-thinking manner.

Madam Speaker, this conference agreement also includes the fiscal year 2010 continuing resolution. I fully support this action. There are just 5 days until the start of the new fiscal year, and a continuing resolution is necessary to continue basic government services. It is a clean continuing resolution which follows the same pattern used in previous years, in particular, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution which was added to the Defense Appropriations bill by our friends on the other side of the aisle when they were in the majority. The only differences that have been added above the current rate are important increased investments in veterans' health care and funding in preparation for the 2010 census.

Before concluding, Madam Speaker, I want to take a minute to thank the minority, particularly my friend and ranking member, Mr. Aderholt from Alabama, for their very strong contributions to this conference agreement. I also want to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, Vice Chairman Mike Honda, Representative Betty McCollum, Representative Tim Ryan, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, Representative Ciro Rodriguez, Representative Steven LaTourette, and Representative Tom Cole. They all made important contributions to this product, and I truly appreciate their friendship and their effort.

I also want to thank our staff for the work that they have done throughout the year. They have put in long hours and have been very helpful to the Members. This includes Mike Stephens, our subcommittee clerk; Liz Dawson, the minority clerk; Shalanda Young, who has just joined the subcommittee staff; Jenny Kisiah, from the minority; Dave Marroni; and Matt Glassman, from the Congressional Research Service. And I want to thank my own associate staff, Ian Rayder, and the associate staff of all the Members on the subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this conference agreement to the House and urge the support of all Members.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I will continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to point out that with the greatest respect to the gentleman from Kentucky, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill before us being used as a vehicle for the continuing resolution was the most ready to go. There were no outstanding issues at all.

The gentleman from Wisconsin has just indicated a number of issues remaining on the Homeland Security bill. We are 5 days from the end of the fiscal year with an intervening weekend included in those 5 days. It is simply a matter of making sure that we are not shutting the government down.

I appreciate the good work of my colleague, Mr. Aderholt, and the members of the minority on getting this bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, in the best possible position to serve as a vehicle to keep the government open.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Alabama and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as well as the members of our subcommittee, for the good work that they have done on developing this Legislative Branch appropriations bill.

We have a good solid product to make sure that we can move the legislative branch institutions forward and to preserve the legacy of the Capitol complex and its institutions for future generations. We also are going to make sure that we keep the government running.

I am hopeful that my colleagues, both on the other side of the aisle as well as on my side of the aisle, will vote for this bill. A vote against this bill would jeopardize the security and safety of our citizens. Shutting the government down is not a responsible action.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2918) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.

Madam Speaker, while I support some of the content of the motion to instruct, essentially what much of it does is it ties the hands of the conference committee and really essentially would prevent us from being able to ensure that the government would continue to run.

There is precedent for adding unrelated matters in conference reports. The leadership on the other side of the aisle did so in 2006, and our tradition and our preference in the House is to make sure the conferees have as much flexibility as possible to ensure that the government can continue to function.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it's important to note that it is entirely appropriate to consider amending--at the point that we do--amending the CR to the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, which is essentially a government function. Our purpose in continuing to pursue that avenue would be to ensure that the government can continue to function.

In addition to that, because the legislative branch essentially has no significant differences of opinion, it really was the most appropriate vehicle and makes the most sense to utilize as a vehicle.

With that, I am prepared to yield back if the gentleman is.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 738) recognizing the 15th anniversary of the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve that option until later on in the week as the stakes get higher.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I rise today in support of House Resolution 57, and thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for her kind words. We are in support of this legislation today to express our support for the importance of swimming lessons and recognizing the persistently high rates of drowning fatalities among children.

Drowning is, as you have heard, the leading cause of unintentional deaths in America to children ages 1 to 4. Last year alone, 13 children in Broward and Miami-Dade counties, which are in my congressional district, died as a result of accidental drowning in swimming pools and spas.

In fact, a recent report issued in May by the Consumer Product Safety Commission indicates that the average number of drowning deaths involving children younger than 5 in pools and spas has actually increased from a yearly average of 267 from 2002 to 2004 to 283 from 2003 to 2005.

I have been involved in the issue of pool safety throughout my career, and worked hard with many of my colleagues in this body and in the Florida legislature to pass swimming pool safety legislation and drowning prevention legislation. The passage of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act which was signed into law by President Bush on December 19, 2007, was a milestone in our efforts. The goal of that law is to improve the safety of all pools and spas by increasing the use of layers of protection and promoting uninterrupted supervision to prevent child drowning and entrapments.

Although I have been pleased to see public pools around the Nation come into compliance with the new regulations, it is clear that we must continue to raise awareness about the necessity of swimming lessons for all of our children.

Unfortunately, African Americans, Latinos, and other minority groups are more likely to live below the poverty line, putting expensive swimming lessons out of reach for too many kids. That is why we must encourage communities around the country to provide free lessons to low-income children as part of an overall child safety program.

I want to commend the organization Swim Central in my home county of Broward for the exceptional example that they provide in doing just that, providing swimming lessons for more than 30,000 children, to kids in Broward County since the year 2000.

House Resolution 57 not only condemns the persistently high rates of drowning among children, but it celebrates the hard work of organizations that are offering access to swimming education and are teaching skills that will help save lives.

I thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Sires, for introducing this important resolution and urge my colleagues to help bring awareness to this serious issue by joining me in support of its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 738) recognizing the 15th anniversary of the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 738 recognizes the 15th anniversary of the passage of the Violence Against Women Act.

Signed into law on September 13, 1994, by President Bill Clinton, the Violence Against Women Act, also known as VAWA, recognizes the severity of crimes associated with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

This historic legislation was the first comprehensive policy package designed to dramatically reduce violence against women. Its protections and provisions were subsequently expanded and improved in the Violence Against Women Acts of 2000 and 2005.

When VAWA was reauthorized in 2000, it improved the foundation established in VAWA 1994 by creating a legal assistance program for victims and by expanding the definition of domestic violence crimes to include dating violence and stalking. I could not be more proud of these accomplishments, and I am honored to be here today to help recognize this significant program's 15th year of success.

VAWA-funded interventions have lowered both domestic violence and sexual assault rates. Not unimportantly, since the 1994 passage of VAWA it is estimated that more than $14 billion in societal costs have been averted by reducing the need for emergency and medical responses.

This important legislation has also succeeded in bringing communities together to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Currently, law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, victim services, and community-based programs work together on the grassroots and State-wide levels to develop long-term plans for addressing the four categories of crime.

VAWA funding of demonstration projects, trainings, and development of specialized courts and police teams has led to the creation of new techniques to successfully prevent violence against women. For example, the Sexual Assault Services program created in VAWA 2005 enabled our Nation's 1,300 rape crisis centers to reduce waiting lists, reach out to underserved

communities and provide more comprehensive services to survivors of sexual assault. But that's not all this monumental legislation has done to help eradicate violence against women. In addition, VAWA 2000 created T and U visas to allow victims of human and sexual trafficking and violent crimes such as sexual assault to come forward and seek law enforcement assistance without the fear of deportation.

Over 1,300 victims of human trafficking have received T visas. The National Center for Victims of Crime has also witnessed dramatic improvement during the past 15 years in the way our Nation responds to stalking cases. This progress, too, is attributed to the Violence Against Women Act.

Undoubtedly, VAWA has provided crucial Federal support for criminal justice officials and victim service providers who work so hard each day to hold offenders accountable and keep stalking victims safe.

The holistic approach to addressing violence against women that VAWA promotes is inextricably linked to the improved safety and security of victims of domestic and sexual violence and their families. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur and associate myself with the remarks of the gentlelady from Tennessee as we celebrate 15 years since the first passage of the Violence Against Women Act.

I remember back in my early days in the Florida Legislature when we were struggling--and I'm sure that you went through the same thing in Tennessee--just to get domestic violence recognized as a serious crime. And we fought to pass laws like this one around the country, fought subsequently to get a crime like stalking declared as a crime and not just get sort of brushed aside as something trivial that women shouldn't worry their pretty little heads over. These kind of crimes, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, are taken seriously now by law enforcement. They have the resources behind them as a result of the Violence Against Women Act.

We look forward to the reauthorization, the discussions that will occur next year, and celebrate the 15th year since VAWA's first introduction and passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 10, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Thank you. Thank you so much to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Meek from Florida. It is great to be back here in the 30-Something Working Group.

We're pushing that ``something'' far-- exactly--given that your birthday was the other day, mine is in 2 weeks and that we're a little bit past 30-something. I like to say that we're the ``something'' in ``30-something,'' so I'm hanging my hat on that.

We have been reconvened by you, under your chairmanship of this working group, because yet again it is time to make sure that we can be clear and straight and direct with the American people. This is the season now of hard bargaining and of hard choices, and we have an opportunity for the first time in our lifetimes and in the lifetime of our generation to really, finally, achieve comprehensive health care reform.

What does that mean?

That is a term that has been thrown around for weeks and weeks now, and we've gotten to the point probably where most people's eyes glaze over or where they turn the channel or where they, you know, just begin to tune out, but it's to their peril if people tune out to this debate and to this discussion, because we have the best opportunity for reform that we've had in American history. We have brought health care reform the furthest that it has ever been brought.

Five of six House and Senate committees have passed legislation reforming the health care system--to do what?--to ensure that never again will an insurance company be able to drop you or to deny you coverage based on a preexisting condition and to ensure that never again will your insurance and your health care be tied to your job instead of to you. We'll make that insurance coverage portable so that wherever you go and whatever decisions are made either to continue to employ you or if you move on to another job that health care will be attached to you.

Never again will we have to deal with health care-related bankruptcies or deaths as a result of not having health insurance, both of which happen now because people are facing catastrophic illness and because they don't have health insurance coverage. They have to wait until they're so sick that they have to use the most expensive ways of getting their health care treatment, whether it's the emergency room or because they are so sick that they have much more significant costs to their health care, and as a result, are bankrupted directly as a result of their health care problems.

There were 1,210 health care-related bankruptcies, Mr. Meek, in my congressional district last year. I know we have the numbers for every congressional district; 1,210 individuals went bankrupt because of their health care problems. Families USA talked about how we had six health care-related deaths in Florida directly attributable to the fact that people did not have health insurance. How did they come to that conclusion? Because, if you don't have health insurance and if you have a basic health care problem, a simple health care problem, you can't afford to go to the doctor, so you get sicker and sicker until, one day, some folks just die because they become so sick that they can't get the problem taken care of, and then the problem overwhelms them even when they are able to access emergency care. So this directly attributes death to the lack of health care coverage. In 2009 in America, that is just unconscionable.

Over the last few weeks, I have spent a lot of time in my district going around and speaking to small business owners and individuals who either have preexisting conditions or who face astronomically high health care insurance premiums. They're frustrated. They say it's long past time that we get a handle on these costs; but what is the response on the other side?

You know, there are a lot of folks who are friends of ours on the other side of the aisle who are saying that they're for reform, that they support health care reform--and this is the nice version--but that they just don't like the direction that we're taking it. They don't want socialized medicine. They don't want the government takeover of health care or the government to get in between you and your doctor.

Let me read you this passage, my colleagues, and just see what you think about this expression of sentiment. This is a voice on a record, urging listeners to write their Members of Congress and to ask them to oppose this legislation:

``And, if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in America when men were free.''

Now, does that sound familiar? It does sound familiar because it sounds like what our friends on the other side of the aisle are doing to scare people, particularly senior citizens, into believing that somehow they're going to be giving up their freedom if we pass health care reform. Well, actually, that was Ronald Reagan back in 1961 when he was trying to scare seniors and scare doctors and scare Americans into believing that somehow Medicare was going to be the end of the health care system and of health care coverage as they knew it.

And now it would be to any of our peril if we went home and suggested that people be separated from their Medicare, because it's been one of the most successful health care programs in American history covering seniors who would have certainly died if not for having that health care coverage. And we have got to make sure that we have this discussion in this debate in a responsible manner.

We are not going to get in between you and your doctor, Americans and their doctor. On the contrary, we want to make sure that the people who are between you and your doctor, which are the insurance company bureaucrats, who are looking more at the bottom line than they are at making sure you stay healthy, that they are moved aside and we can have health care reform and health care coverage that ensures that people stay healthy, that they can get the access to health care that they and their health care provider decide is appropriate, that we bring down the cost of that health care and that we make sure that we force, especially in some of the communities--not that you and I represent, because the three of us represent fairly urban areas, but in the places in this country where there is maybe one or two private plans and very little competition.

So they can charge whatever they want. They can include whatever they want in those policies, that side by side, with the private plans, is a public

option that keeps those private plans honest, that forces them to be more innovative, forces them, in order to hold on to those customers, to provide coverage that's more comprehensive and more affordable.

Just to continue your point to its next logical step, shifting this health care system from a sick care system to what it is now, to a prevention and wellness-based system, ensuring that people can get their health care needs and their checkups taken care of before they get sick, is going to prevent those catastrophic, maybe not completely preventible catastrophic illness, but stave off chronic and catastrophic illness so that the actual health care that people go and get is less expensive health care, is preventive-based health care, and we will have a generally healthier population.

I will add to that the description that you provided of 60- to 65- year-olds.

There are many people in that category, and you can extend it actually down to about age 50, people who are sort of past their quality working years and should be retiring, maybe continuing to work and wearing themselves down. It is going to actually make them more sick, but because they have preexisting conditions and they are not yet Medicare- eligible and the only insurance many of them have is tied to their job, they are anchored to those jobs.

My own mom is one of those individuals. She has a preexisting condition and she gets her insurance coverage through her work. She is 63 years old and is not Medicare-eligible yet, so she has to continue to work full time in order to keep the coverage. There are countless stories like that in America. And she is the mother of a Member of Congress.

Just to show you, people are bandying about how privileged we are and our families. We have good coverage, decent coverage, but basic coverage, and our family members are just like any other family members across America. We all can list out countless examples of people who would benefit from comprehensive health care coverage.

Before I yield back to the gentleman, I want to go back to our friends on the other side of the aisle, because it has been frustrating to me as I have debated, and I am sure each of you has debated colleagues of ours on the other side of the aisle on this subject over the last few weeks, to hear them say that they are for reform, because, quite frankly, I just don't think that passes the smell test.

They were in charge here for 12 years. The last eight, they were in charge of everything. They had the opportunity. The ball was in their court. They certainly could have taken the ball and run with it. But health care reform was not a priority for them. It never has been, and it isn't now.

It is disingenuous for them to suggest that they are for reform, but not the reform that we are proposing. If they were for reform, they could have gotten it done. The reform that they offered the American people was some lame prescription drug part D program for Medicare that left a giant doughnut hole that thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of senior citizens are falling into that our health care reform proposal would fill and make sure that people wouldn't have to decide not to stop taking their medicine once they fall into it, and be able to again focus on getting people well and keeping them well instead of spiraling ever downward into a more sickly state.

You know, Mr. Meek, I can't help in listening to you but think of this debate through my eyes as a mom. There's nothing more important to moms than making sure that your children stay healthy, and there's nothing that tears out a mother's heart worse than looking at your child, knowing they're sick and knowing that you can't do anything to make them well, and you would do anything to make your child well if you could.

Imagine layering on top of that angst for a mother the fact that she wasn't covered by health insurance nor were her children, and as a result, she couldn't even take her child to the doctor when they first got sick and she has to wait and wait and wait until her child gets sicker and sicker and sicker until she has to use the emergency room as her primary access point for health care for her child.

Now, for me, we are at the point in this country in our Nation's history where you should not be separated from our ability to provide for the health and well-being of your child due to the difference in your wealth.

When a child turns 5 years old in this county, Mr. Meek, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Murphy, no parent has to worry about whether they're going to be able to pay for their children's education because we have education that's universal in America. It's a given. It was decided over 100 years ago. Everyone gets equal access to education and the government pays for it.

We're not even going that far here. What we're saying is health care should be a right and should not be a privilege.

Mr. Ryan, one of the things that just galls me, which is why I keep going back to it, is how disingenuous our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been.

Let me quote one of our colleagues, and I won't name her. She said this last week to a conservative organization, and this was reported in the newspaper. A colleague of ours, in talking about their views on health care reform said, ``What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass.'' And then she continued, ``Right now, we are looking at reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom, and we may never be able to restore it if we don't man up and take this one on.''

That is a direct quote from one of our colleagues who I won't name, but, Madam Speaker, I would like to enter this into the Record.

Talking Points Memo: 9/1

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) spoke yesterday to the right-

wing Independence Institute, the Colorado Independent

reports, and she called on conservative to really come

together in the fight against President Obama on health care.

``What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our

wrists, be blood brothers on this thing,'' said Bachmann.

``This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make

sure this doesn't pass.''

The sanguinary rhetoric continued. ``Right now, we are

looking at reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out

of freedom,'' she said. ``And we may never be able to restore

it if we don't man up and take this one on.''

Bachmann also denounced a system under which some Americans

pay half their income in taxes: ``It's nothing more than

slavery.''

We don't even have to deal with transparency because it's clear that the stakes are so high for them. If I hadn't read it myself, I wouldn't have believed it. The stakes are so high here. They know that if we're successful at finally reforming the health care system and covering everyone, that politically next year they won't be able to be too successful in the elections. And that's what it's about for them, it's about power.

I just appreciate being together again and knowing that on a regular basis over the next several weeks and months we will be getting together to press for health care reform for everyone.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize two heroic police officers from my district and to reinforce the importance of swimming pool safety.

On the evening of Tuesday, July 7, City of Pembroke Pines police officers Dennis Cuba, a seven-year force veteran and David Parsons, a 25-year force veteran, arrived within one minute of receiving a call about a boy whose arm was entrapped in the drain of a hot tub.

There is no doubt that the quick response and professionalism of the Pembroke Pines Police Department saved five-year old Miguel Marin's life.

Officers Parsons and Cuba were able to revive Miguel, but only after several attempts to free him from the brute force and suction of the spa drain--the result of a faulty drain cover.

Unfortunately, not all of these stories have a happy ending. Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional death to children under the age of five.

Hundreds of children across our country have died as a result of accidental drowning in swimming pools and spas.

In 2007, Congress passed the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, which aims to stop these senseless accidents.

In addition to encouraging the use of barriers, such as fencing to prevent children from wandering unsupervised into the pool, this law increases safety at public swimming pools and spas by requiring anti- entrapment drain covers. And yet even with these protections, we must remind parents to be vigilant and know where their children are at all times.

On behalf of the citizens of Pembroke Pines, I thank officers Parsons and Cuba for their heroic efforts and hope that we can learn an important lesson from this near-tragedy.

From the bottom of my foot.

In addition to that, we became even closer friends than we were when we started and raised awareness about the fact that young women can and do get breast cancer. We raised $50,000 for the Young Survival Coalition.

So, thank you to all the Members who came out, and all the staff. We especially want to thank the ladies of the Republican National Committee, Democratic National Committee, DCCC, NRCC, and the DSCC for participating and doing a great job. We're going to get you next year.

Announcement by the Chair

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, colleagues, the gentlewoman from Missouri and I would like to invite you to see how softball is really played when women come together in a bipartisan, bicameral effort to bring the parties together and to raise money for a good cause.

We encourage you all to come out this Tuesday, July 14, at 7:30 at Guy Mason Field for the first annual historic, bicameral and bipartisan congressional women's softball game.

We have been practicing now for a month and have the assistance of several of our colleagues who are veterans

of the congressional baseball team. A few of them were out there today. We were having a great time. The women have gotten to know each other and have been engaging in bonding.

It is my privilege to yield to my friend from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Speaker, we encourage everyone to come out and engage in a little off-campus, bipartisan fun and cheer on the congressional women's softball team.

I will be happy to yield.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the 80th anniversary of the City of Oakland Park in Florida's 20th Congressional District.

This once sleepy little town that was home to mostly farmers is now a bustling city with more than 43,000 residents.

Oakland Park is one of the older municipalities in Broward County. In fact, it was originally chartered as the town of Floranada in 1925.

But in September 1926 a hurricane devastated the area. In 1929, city leaders renamed it Oakland Park after the massive oaks that lined the community.

Residents and visitors can tour a piece of history always on display in this fine city. A portion of its oldest elementary school, Oakland Park Elementary School, is a nationally registered historical site. The school was built in 1927 and is the oldest school in continuous operation in Broward County.

The city is also at the forefront of innovation in Florida. It was the first municipality in the state to organize a public safety department. Oakland Park was also the first City to initiate a recycling program.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mayor Steven Arnst, the Members of the City Commission, and the city's staff for their many accomplishments that have made the City of Oakland Park a wonderful place to live, work and raise a family.

47 million. 47 million is an absolutely unacceptable number of Americans who go every single day without health insurance, who when they are sick can't afford to go to the doctor, which means that when they do have an ability to access the health care system, they have to wait until they are so sick that they use the emergency room as their primary access point, which makes health care astronomically more expensive.

When a child in America is 5 years old, American families don't have to wring their hands every day wondering how they are going to pay for a child's education, because it is universal. You go to kindergarten starting on the first day that you are 5 years old.

That doesn't happen in America when you turn 5 years old and it comes to health care. Parents all over America have to worry when their child gets sick whether they are going to be able to take their child to the doctor, is their problem going to get worse.

Parents and families in America have to worry about whether they are going to continue to have their coverage if they don't have a job. They have to worry about being able to get coverage when they are sick. Those are worries that are unacceptable in the most prosperous, most democratic nation in the

world. We must find a solution and create comprehensive health care reform for all Americans.