Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will open up thousands of good homes to foster children. On any given day, there are approximately 500,000 children in the child welfare system. Over 125,000 of these abused and neglected children are waiting to be adopted. There is an acute shortage, however, of adoptive and foster parents. The result is that many children, particularly minority and special needs children, languish in foster care without permanent homes. The severe developmental, emotional, and educational costs to children raised in foster care are well documented. The 25,000 youth who never find a permanent family and ``age out'' of the system each year are more likely than nearly any other group to become homeless, incarcerated, or suffer with mental illness or substance abuse.

Despite the shortage of adoptive and foster parents and the terrible consequences of long stays in the child welfare system, some states have enacted discriminatory bans prohibiting children from being placed with qualified parents due to the parent's marital status or sexual orientation. Currently, over 65,000 adopted children and 14,000 foster children are living with a gay or lesbian parent. Studies suggest that upward of 2 million gay and lesbian individuals are interested in adopting or fostering a child. Yet, statewide discriminatory bans and the practices of individual adoption agencies have resulted in fewer children being placed in safe and permanent homes.

Congress invests over $8 billion in the child welfare system each year and we should not accept policies that use Federal funds to enact barriers to adoption and close the door to thousands of potential homes. Multiple studies have found that adopted and foster children raised by gay and lesbian parents fare just as well as their peers being raised by heterosexual parents.

When considering a potential placement for a child, the only criteria should be what is in the child's best interest and whether the prospective parents can provide a safe and nurturing home. Bigotry should play no part in this decision. That is why I am introducing the ``Every Child Deserves a Family Act.'' This legislation would simply prohibit any entity that receives Federal child welfare funds from denying or delaying adoption or foster care placements based solely on the prospective parent's marital status or sexual orientation. States and child welfare agencies that fail to end discriminatory practices would face financial penalties. This is the same approach that put an end to race discrimination in adoption and foster care placements.

Abused and neglected children in our child welfare system are some of the most vulnerable members of our society. We cannot allow divisive politics to further harm these children by shrinking the number of prospective adoptive and foster parents. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in saying yes to children and no to bigotry by cosponsoring the ``Every Child Deserves a Family Act'' and working with me to make it law.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize Elizabeth ``Jackie'' Noyes on her retirement from more than 36 years of service as the Associate Executive Director with American Academy of Pediatrics. Throughout her career, Ms. Noyes has played a significant role in shaping health policy in the United States--especially as it affects children.

I've worked closely with the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure that each and every child in America has quality, affordable coverage. They are a rare provider organization in Washington, DC. Their mission is much more about advancing better health care for their patients than it is about advancing pay increases for their member physicians. Jackie has been a key player in that mission for nearly four decades.

Ms. Noyes has a long, varied list of accomplishments, honors, and boards that she's participated in throughout her time with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Highlights include serving as Chair of the National Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines; on the board of the Children's Dental Project, Inc., Children's Hospice International, and the Coalition for Health Funding; and as a member of the Specialty Society Advisory Committee for the American Medical Association. She's also been published by well-respected organizations, including Advances in Pediatrics, California Pediatrician, and the American Journal of Psychology.

Throughout Ms. Noyes' career, she has been recognized for her dedication to children's health with several awards, including a Certificate of Appreciation for Outstanding Contributions to the Health and Welfare of America's Children and Adolescents by the U.S. Surgeon General.

She has played a key role in creating and improving health care laws including vital programs like Vaccines for Children, Head Start, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She also played key roles in the passage and renewal of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990, the Children and Pregnant Women Health Insurance Act of 1993, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Children's Health Insurance Accountability Act of 1996, and the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equality Act of 2008.

In honor of her retirement, the Friends of Children Advocacy Fund has been created to support the initiatives of the American Academy of Pediatrics and its advocacy for child health programs and public health. The Friends of Children Advocacy Fund will continue her work to improve the health of children.

She has been a valuable asset to the American Academy of Pediatrics and their mission to improve the health of America's children. I thank her for her dedication, wish her well in retirement, and fully expect to continue to hear her name in connection with initiatives to improve children's health.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Defense Authorization bill. As we focus on slowing the rising cost of health care, we should be just as vigilant about ever higher levels of defense spending.

No one on the international stage comes close to our military spending. The United States accounted for 41.5 percent of the entire world's military spending in 2008--the next closest country was China at 5.8 percent. To put this in perspective, if we spent only six times as much as the next closest country, instead of seven times as much, we would have more than enough money to completely pay for health care reform.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Defense Authorization bill. That said, there is an important provision in the bill that I support, extending hate crimes laws to cover sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability. I have supported hate crimes legislation throughout my career in Congress, including as a co-sponsor of this legislation when it was approved by the House in April, and I am glad that the hate crimes provision in this bill will finally become law.

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

Today, we have a bill before us that will basically protect the Social Security checks from dropping in 2010 as a result of what could be called a ``quirk'' in the relationship between our Medicare part B premiums and the Social Security checks. Some seniors will still be feeling the effects of the recession in 2010, and this bill at least ensures that they will receive stable Social Security checks.

If we fail to act, about 4 million seniors and people with disabilities will see an increase in their part B premiums, which would result in a decrease in their Social Security checks.

I am quite sure that all of us understand that, even among the higher income beneficiaries under Social Security, a Social Security check becomes part of the financial fabric of most of our beneficiaries. They budget it. They know they're going to spend it on rent or on groceries or on presents for their grandkids. It will be difficult for all of us to explain why there was a $5, a $10 or even a $15 cut in their checks.

Some people have suggested we send checks at the end of the year as, I guess, we did last year. I don't think they'd make that connection. I don't think they'd figure out why those checks came and from whom they came.

This levels the playing field so that a small percentage of beneficiaries will not be paying to hold the other 75 percent harmless. There is a very small number of upper-income seniors who will basically receive a cut in their part B benefits. These seniors, this group, already has a higher premium because it's income related, and they pay taxes on their Social Security benefits, which some of the lower-income beneficiaries do not.

Also, we hold harmless some very low-income beneficiaries whose payments are made by Medicaid. Therefore, if we didn't pass this, some of the States who are already having severe problems with their Medicaid would have an extra burden for that small group.

The bill is paid for out of a Medicare fund which we set up some years ago for just this kind of a program. It's a fund where we set aside money each year in the event we needed dollars to solve a problem. This is a problem that we foresaw coming up for a diverse group of our beneficiaries, and it seemed to be a fair way to not disrupt their financial planning and to provide a level playing field so that all the beneficiaries receive the same treatment and some were not subsidizing others. It's a bill that I hope will have broad bipartisan support, and I think it will serve our Social Security beneficiaries well.

Judge David L. Bazelon,

Center for Mental Health Law,

Washington, DC, September 24, 2009.

Hon. Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington DC.

Dear Chairman Rangel and Chairman Waxman: The Bazelon

Center for Mental Health Law supports H.R. 3631, the

``Medicare Premium Fairness Act.'' This bill will protect the

Social Security benefits of persons with disabilities by

ensuring that their monthly payments are not reduced due to

an increase in Medicare Part B premiums.

It is expected that there will be no cost of living

adjustment (COLA) in Social Security benefits paid in 2010,

which will cause a hardship for individuals with disabilities

and others who receive Social Security payments. However,

Medicare Part B premiums are expected to increase.

Fortunately, under current law, most of these beneficiaries

will be ``held harmless'' and will not see an actual

reduction in their monthly Social Security benefits. However,

about 27% of beneficiaries are not covered by the ``hold

harmless'' provision, including low-income individuals who

are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, new Medicare

enrollees, and new enrollees whose Medicare premiums are not

deducted from their Social Security checks. Their monthly

Social Security benefits, which are the sole source of income

for many, could be reduced by more than $20 per month to pay

for the premium increase.

A substantial number of people with mental illness are

dually eligible for SSDI and Medicare benefits. However, as

major mental illness typically has an age of onset in a

person's early twenties, their work history is very short and

their benefits are very low (benefit level depends upon

quarters you have paid in as well as earnings) making

increased Medicare costs even more difficult to bear. H.R.

3631 would extend the current ``hold harmless'' policy to all

Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, no individual with

disabilities who is a Social Security beneficiary will see a

decrease in his or her monthly Social Security benefits due

to Medicare Part B premiums. And former beneficiaries who

buy-in to Medicare will be protected.

We support your effort to pass H.R. 3631.

Sincerely,

Chris Koyanagi.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 300,000 workers who will lose unemployment benefits by the end of the month if we do not act.

The economic crisis that President Obama and this Congress inherited has caused unemployment to spike throughout the country. Competition for jobs is intense, with six jobless workers for each new job. The result is that an estimated 50 percent of unemployed individuals have been jobless for more than 6 months. The Unemployment Insurance system has done a good job of helping families make ends meet during the recession, but we must protect those who still cannot find work and whose benefits are about to run out.

The Unemployment Compensation Extension Act (H.R. 3548) would provide immediate relief to millions of workers by extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in states with high unemployment rates. In my state, California, the unemployment rate is at 12.2 percent--a 70 year high. If Congress does not act, nearly 70,000 Californians will run out of benefits by the end of this month and a total of 154,000 Californians will exhaust benefits by the end of the year. In total, 1 million workers around the country will exhaust benefits by the end of the year. We cannot allow that to happen. While the economy begins to recover and the economic stimulus starts to take hold, Congress has an obligation to ensure that families can put food on their tables and pay their bills.

I am a co-sponsor of the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of creating education opportunity for millions of students. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (H.R. 3221) is the single largest investment in college affordability in our nation's history. In addition, the legislation will provide much-needed resources for states to develop and improve early childhood education programs.

The ideal behind this bill is simple: stop providing taxpayer subsidies to banks to act as the middlemen in student lending, save billions, and reinvest most of those savings into our beleaguered education system.

By moving all student loans into the Department of Education's Direct Lending Program, this legislation saves $87 billion that would otherwise be siphoned off by private lenders. These savings allow for historic investments in the Pell Grant and Perkins Loan programs for low- and moderate-income students. Over 16,000 students in my Congressional District rely on Pell Grants each year. These students will see the maximum grant rise to $5,500 in 2010 and automatically increase each year thereafter to keep up with inflation. By 2019, the maximum grant is expected to be $6,900. Similarly, the Perkins Loan program will receive a $6 billion boost, providing assistance for thousands of new students.

The bill also invests in another vital resource: Our community colleges. H.R. 3221 invests $10 billion in community colleges to modernize facilities, implement reforms, and work with local employers to create curricula to ensure that students are graduating able to fulfill local workforce needs.

Finally, the legislation before us will help to make sure that every child enters school ready to learn and achieve by creating the ``Early Learning Challenge Fund.'' This fund will provide resources to states to expand and improve their ``Birth to Five'' early childhood education programs by improving licensing standards, developing high quality curricula aimed at cognitive, emotional, and social development, and building a highly qualified workforce.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act is an example of reform that this Congress can achieve when we are willing to put aside the narrow concerns of special interests and support common sense policies that will provide greater educational opportunity. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Defense Appropriations bill. As families and businesses struggle in this recession, this bill spends money on the wrong priorities for our Nation and the world.

The legislation provides $128.3 billion to fund wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that never should have been waged, as well as $9.3 billion for missile defense funding that doesn't work. According to the Washington Post, over $6.9 billion in funding is for new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that the Pentagon doesn't want.

We are wasting money on these projects as defense eats up a larger share of our budget--58 percent of all discretionary spending, up from 51 percent four years ago.

This giveaway to defense contractors comes at the same time that Members of Congress are balking at health care reform that will cost a fraction of our defense spending over the same time period. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 75th Anniversary of the East Bay Regional Park District, headquartered in Oakland, California. The story of the EBRPD is an inspirational one in which citizens, during the toughest of economic times, had a mission. In the late 1920s, thousands of acres of surplus watershed land were available for development. Far-sighted civic leaders sought to preserve this land and retain a balance of recreational and wilderness features.

With 65 parks, over 1,100 miles of trails, campgrounds, visitor centers, historic sites, lakes and shorelines, the mission of the East Bay Regional Park District is to provide recreational opportunities, ensure the natural beauty and cultural history of the land, and protect wildlife habitat.

In 1934, during the depths of the Great Depression, members of a grassroots land preservation movement placed a measure on the ballot. It passed by a resounding 71% and the first regional park agency in the nation, the East Bay Regional Park District, was created.

At the outset, the Park District included only seven Alameda County communities and no parks. By 1936, it was able to purchase enough land to create three parks. The first three parks were opened with great fanfare on October 18, 1936. The opening of Redwood Regional Park in 1939 soon followed.

In the 1940s, Pearl Harbor and the start of World War II halted the District's growth. Much of Tilden Regional Park was turned over to the U.S. Army Defense Command. At the end of the war, the District began an era of prudent growth as people returned to the parks seeking family recreation. Concessions such as Tilden Regional Park's steam train, carousel, and pony ride were added. This growth continued into the 1950s with Roberts Regional Park's swimming pool, baseball field, and picnic areas.

Between 1968 and 1987, the District added 32 new regional parks and preserved 43,000 acres of the East Bay's most scenic parkland. During the period 1988-2008, the District added 15 new regional parks and an additional 34,000 acres of open space. There were increased volunteer opportunities and expanded communication tools, such as the District's website. District staff also built and opened Camp Arroyo, a state-of- the art environmental education and youth camp.

The Park District describes itself as a work in progress as it struggles to acquire and operate regional parks and trails to serve the Bay Area population. Regardless of future challenges and opportunities, the East Bay Regional Park District is committed to providing East Bay residents with recreational opportunities and open space reserves close to home.

I join the community in celebrating the East Bay Regional Park's 75th Anniversary and send best wishes for many more successful years of service.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the 2010 Labor, Health & Education Appropriations (H.R. 3293). It will ease the recession by increasing job training, strengthening the social safety net, and investing in families. I am particularly supportive of the bill's education and health care provisions.

The bill makes critical investments toward the goal of providing every student with a world-class education. Additional resources will go to Title I schools serving low-income students, as well as programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), which serve 6.7 million students with disabilities. The bill also provides $545 million for assistance to thousands of schools with chronically poor performance. When coupled with funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, states will receive $4 billion to turn around these schools and create opportunities for children.

This legislation will also make college affordable for many more students by continuing to increase the Pell Grant. Since Democrats took charge of Congress in January 2007, the maximum Pell Grant has increased 37 percent from $4,050 to $5,550.

The legislation also invests in our health care system to make our nation healthier and more productive. The bill will help Community Health Centers provide care for 17 million Americans with a $2.2 billion investment. It will also help us to meet nursing and other workforce shortfalls by increasing support for training of medical professionals. Finally, the legislation provides a $992 million increase for the life saving research carried out by the NIH.

This bill continues the commitment to reconstruct our public schools and address the health care crisis by building on the historic education and health investments made by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California, the Honorable Judy Chu, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Madam Speaker, as the dean of the California delegation, it is my duty and a deep pleasure to introduce the newest addition to our delegation, Dr. Judy Chu. The election of Dr. Chu is groundbreaking--not only because she's a Renaissance woman--she taught psychology at East Los Angeles Community College--but also because she's the first Chinese American woman ever to serve in Congress.

Dr. Chu's impressive record as an elected official goes back over a few years. She was elected to the Garvey School District's Board in 1985. She's held the title of mayor, city councilwoman, State assemblywoman and chair of the Assembly appropriations committee, vice chair of the California State Board of Equalization, and now a Member of Congress.

The causes she has championed over the years are as varied and important as the offices she has served in. As chair of the Assembly appropriations committee, she ensured that programs benefiting students, people with disabilities, and the elderly were properly funded. Her effectiveness extended to the Assembly floor, building coalitions to pass legislation that enhanced protections for victims of domestic violence, strengthened hate crime laws, and brought much- needed improvements to public school facilities.

Her experience as a professor, public servant, and advocate for families and the less fortunate will make her an important voice in this Congress. I know she's ready to hit the ground running.

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Chu to the House of Representatives.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Madam Speaker, this past Sunday my colleague from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz, addressed the issue of health reform in a guest editorial for the Philadelphia Inquirer. In her piece she laid out an indisputable case for why the current healthcare system has become unacceptable for Americans and what we must do to fix it. I encourage all of my colleagues to read the article and to work in the coming months to ensure that we enact affordable, quality health care for all.

[From the Philadelphia Inquirer June 21, 2009]

Op-Ed Headline: Fixing health care

Health-care reform is the number-one issue my constituents

raise with me, and a leading concern of business owners. For

Democrats in Congress, health-care reform is a moral and an

economic imperative.

American families are facing inadequate health coverage,

mounting bills, and lack of access to care. They like their

doctors and appreciate the quality of care provided by their

hospitals. But, they have deep worries that their current

coverage may change suddenly and limit access to their doctor

or to needed benefits.

Business owners are struggling to pay for health benefits

for their workers, forcing them to pass greater costs to

employees or drop coverage.

Increasing costs for the federal government are neither

sustainable, nor producing the health outcomes they should.

Taxpayers pay 46 percent of our nation's $2.5 trillion

health-care costs. And, just as in the private market, costs

are skyrocketing. The share of our GDP devoted to health-care

spending has doubled in the last 20 years, threatening our

budget stability.

The status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. We must

do a better job to contain costs for families, businesses,

and the government, and to ensure meaningful, affordable

coverage for all Americans.

Can we? I believe we can by keeping what works, fixing what

doesn't, and demanding quality care and greater value for our

dollar.

In the first three months of this new administration, we

did more to strengthen health care than in the prior decade.

We expanded affordable health coverage to 11 million American

children, took major steps to modernize medicine through

health-information technology, invested significantly in

lifesaving medical research, and ensured that U.S. workers

and their families hurt hardest by this recession continue to

have access to health coverage when they lose a job.

Building on these achievements, we can find a uniquely

American solution to cost, coverage, and quality. This is

essential if our businesses are to be economically

competitive, our people healthier, and our federal budget

balanced.

Here's what we should do:

First and foremost, we start with the acknowledgment that

health care is a shared responsibility. Every American will

be expected to get health coverage and employers will have to

provide coverage or help pay to cover the cost of the

uninsured.

As President Obama has said, if you have coverage, and you

like it, you can keep it. This means work-based coverage for

most Americans, Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for our

poorest and sickest, and continued benefits for veterans.

For the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, many of whom

are working families, we will help you buy either private or

public coverage. While everyone will have to pay part of

their premiums, partial subsidies on a sliding scale will be

established and can be used to buy either private or public

insurance.

To ensure affordable, meaningful coverage, we will change

the ground rules in the insurance market. Denying coverage or

charging more for preexisting conditions, health status, or

sex is going to stop. Insurers will have to simplify terms

and procedures. And, we expect insurers to pass those savings

along to their consumers.

Next, we know that in order to control costs and improve

health-care outcomes, delivery of health services must be

more efficient, more accountable, and better coordinated.

Changes in Medicare and the new public-insurance option will

create choices for patients to find primary-care providers

and will mean better continuity of care for those with

chronic diseases. We will gather, analyze, and disseminate

information on best practices to doctors, nurses, and health

providers, and then expect them to use it. And, we must have

a renewed focus on primary care, encouraging future health-

care providers to enter the field and working to ensure their

excellence.

Third, we have to strengthen our commitment to innovation

and technology. Americans have always been scientists and

innovators, and we must keep investing in the next generation

of medicines, technologies, devices, and cures.

Finally, without increased personal responsibility,

Americans will not be healthier. We must take greater

responsibility in the way we get health care and the way we

take care of ourselves. If we don't, we all pay the

consequences--from lost productivity, to the cost of

expensive care, to personal pain and suffering.

Setting our nation toward a healthier, more economically

competitive future will take fair and responsible financial

investment. We are committed to covering the cost of health

reform. To do so, we will consider means that are

appropriate, fair, shared, and the least disruptive to

economic growth and financial security for our families. The

president has asked that those making under $250,000 not be

burdened by higher taxes. These are the parameters; the

decisions will be difficult, but ones that you have entrusted

to us.

Much of the cost of health-care reform will come from

savings within the system. Reducing hospitalizations,

duplicative testing, and medical errors, ending the current

overpayments to private insurance companies that contract

with Medicare, and insisting on better prices for

prescription drugs for seniors will result in hundreds of

billions of dollars of savings.

Besides the significant dollars that will come from savings

and new premiums paid

by those currently uninsured, stakeholders in health care,

including insurance companies, hospitals, doctors,

pharmaceutical companies, medical-device manufacturers, have

committed to reducing costs by $2 trillion over 10 years.

These savings should be passed along to consumers.

There will always be naysayers who say these decisions are

too hard, that health-care reform cannot be done, but I

believe that today even ``Harry and Louise,'' who helped stop

reform before, would tell us reform is a necessity. If our

businesses are to be economically competitive, our families

healthier, and our government fiscally sound, we must find a

uniquely American solution to our health-care challenges.

The time to act is now.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454). Global warming is real. Man causes it and it threatens nearly every aspect of life. We are right to act with urgency to end our nation's addiction to fossil fuels and combat global warming. But we cannot waste this opportunity by moving a deeply flawed bill that provides too much to special interests and too little to the environment and consumers. I cannot support the American Clean Energy and Security Act in its current form.

This legislation continues the ``clean coal'' myth by providing at least $60 billion for pie in the sky projects that will only continue the destruction of mountains and waterways at the hands of coal mining operations. More importantly, the bill takes away a vital weapon in the

fight to defeat new coal burning plants by repealing the EPA's current authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including the emissions of individual power plants. The result will be a rush to build new coal powered plants over the next decade and then an intense lobbying effort to ensure that these plants are grandfathered in by the time the rules are supposedly set to tighten in 2020.

The creation of a massive, trillion-dollar new carbon market should scare all of us. The new, highly complex carbon market will be ripe with opportunities for Wall Street speculation and manipulation. The Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission estimates that the carbon market will consist of 180 million contracts within 5 years, making it the world's largest commodity and derivatives market. The subsequent market volatility will hurt consumers by ensuring that energy prices continue to fluctuate. Market volatility will also dissuade long-term investments in clean energy and efficiency. This is the scenario that has played out in the European Union, where prices have swung wildly and some power plants have actually switched back to coal due to the low cost of emissions permits.

Many of these problems could have been dealt with through amendments that were brought before the Committee on Rules yesterday. One amendment that I cosponsored would have reigned in the carbon market by only allowing entities covered under the Cap and Trade program to trade allowances. This amendment would have greatly curtailed the ability of Wall Street to influence the carbon market and would have protected our economy from another financial meltdown. Unfortunately, this amendment was not allowed to come to the floor for a vote. I also cosponsored an amendment that would have continued EPA's current authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This authority would provide a backstop should the new cap and trade regime prove ineffective. Sadly, this amendment was also not allowed to come to the floor.

I commend the emission reduction targets laid out in the legislation. I am not convinced, however, that these targets will be met in the near future due to the many loopholes and dubious offset provisions contained in the bill. This bill unfortunately continues the Congressional tradition of subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Only this time it is cloaked in the disguise of environmentalism and the subsidies come in the form of free allowances, institutionalization of the ``clean coal'' fiction, and the gutting of EPA authority.

We have the opportunity and the responsibility to confront catastrophic global warming with bold action. Congress should seize that opportunity by passing legislation that would end our addiction to fossil fuels, prove our leadership to the world, and build a foundation for long-term prosperity. This legislation falls short of these goals. Many have said that this vote is a historic one that we will be judged by. In my view, history will judge this legislation as a missed opportunity. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill in its current form and work to bring a truly progressive bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the War Supplemental Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2346.

The illegitimate war in Iraq undermines our credibility on the world stage as we continue to occupy the country. Over 4,300 Americans and estimated hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in a war fought over lies. The conflict in Afghanistan was ignored while the previous administration led the American people into war with Iraq. We need to withdraw our troops and direct our support to humanitarian aid and a stable civilian government.

These wars have cost us the ability to properly address the biggest problems facing our country. Healthcare reform, our economy, and reforming energy policy are top priorities of Congress. We cannot justify hundreds of billions of dollars for these wars at the expense of the American taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act (H.R. 1886). I do commend the strong funding levels for development assistance, education, and health care contained in the legislation and if the bill consisted only of this type of humanitarian support I would gladly vote for it. I cannot, however, support authorizing over $1 billion per year in military aid to a nation that has already suffered under a military dictatorship and continues to experience daily violence.

The people of Pakistan do need our help to strengthen their democratic institutions, educate their citizens, and provide social and economic opportunity. What they do not need is an influx of guns, tanks, and other weapons that will lead to further destabilization and violence.

I urge all of my colleagues to stand for peace and vote against this legislation.