Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Ensuring Mental Competence in Immigration Proceedings Act. My legislation will make immigration proceedings more fair and humane for individuals with mental disabilities, and help prevent wrongful deportations and indefinite detentions. Specifically, this bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure that immigration judges will have the authority to stop proceedings or appoint counsel when an individual is not competent enough to represent him or herself due to a mental disability.

The status quo isn't working. Judges who in good faith have terminated deportation cases because of a person's inability to participate based on mental disability have had their decisions overturned. Consequently, these cases end up in an ongoing loop that keeps these individuals in costly, inhumane detention or results in their unfair deportation.

Examples of immigrants and U.S. citizens with mental disabilities who have been unjustly detained or deported include:

An immigrant from Mexico with severe cognitive disabilities who was declared incompetent by an immigration judge in which he was unrepresented by counsel. His case was put on hold and the Department of Homeland Security allowed him to linger in detention for four and a half years, at a cost to taxpayers of about $300,000;

A 50-year old legal permanent resident with schizophrenia who had lived in New York more than 30 years was ordered by a New York court to serve 90 days in a mental institution for trespassing. Instead, he was transferred to a detention facility in Texas, where he received no medication for weeks. He then faced a proceeding without counsel, and was deported to the Dominican Republic so quickly that his family did not know what had happened to him until he was gone;

A citizen who had bipolar disorder and developmental disabilities was deported to Mexico, and subsequently to Honduras and Guatemala. It took four months to return him to the United States. ICE officials claim that he signed a statement indicating he was a Mexican national--he was not.

All of these events could have been avoided if immigration judges had the tools they need to properly adjudicate cases involving individuals with mental disabilities, and if these individuals had access to counsel. We cannot allow citizens and immigrants to be wrongly deported or remain in indefinite detention simply because they have a mental disability. By granting judges the ability to discontinue proceedings when an individual is mentally incompetent or to appoint counsel so that the individual receives a fair adjudication, this bill will reduce the costs of long detentions and delayed proceedings and make our immigration system more just.

The National Association of Immigration Judges has asked Congress for reform. Over fifty organizations including Human Rights Watch, the National Disability Rights Network, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Immigration Lawyers Association endorse the Ensuring Mental Competence in Immigration Proceedings Act. This legislation is the right thing to do for mentally incompetent detainees, for our courts, and for taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

Isn't it true that in most of the liquor stores and other establishments of that type they charge no fees for cashing the checks because they want people to get the cash to gamble? In many of our districts in California they don't have to go to these payday loan places and pay exorbitant fees to get a check cashed and so that it really, in many ways, it is helpful in our communities.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume

I'd like to point out that the last time I watched television, they told me that we still have troops in Afghanistan who should be brought home. And we've not addressed the Medicare physician payment cuts, the payroll tax cut extension, unemployment insurance extension. Roads, bridges, and public transit systems are falling apart, and Congress hasn't brought forth legislation to invest in the infrastructure to repair those vital structures. And we continue to have an imbalanced Tax Code that lets Members of Congress get richer at the expense of working families, and we've done nothing to change that.

Yet rather than tackle any serious problems, the Republicans are using the very little time that they permit Congress to be in session to debate repealing the law that the President has already made clear will not be implemented. In other words, we should repeal a law that isn't going to happen. Now, that's a vital use of our time. He's clearly stated, the President has, that the CLASS Act, as part of the Affordable Care Act, can't meet the tests put in the statute.

Now, remember that Republicans probably would like to repeal all of ObamaCare, and I'm not sure exactly which part they want mostly to repeal. In other words, I assume that the 2.5 million youngsters who now get health insurance, the Republicans would like to kick them off the rolls and let them go to work or earn their own way to health insurance.

It's lowered prescription drug costs, ObamaCare has, for millions of seniors, for a bill that the Republicans wrote that was too costly. I presume the Republicans would like to raise the cost of pharmaceuticals for seniors. Republicans generally like to do anything that the pharmaceutical obviously asks them to do, and I'm surprised they haven't brought that up yet.

I understand that my good friend, Dr. Boustany, actually has the makings of a bill that would help long-term care. And I also understand that the only reason he hasn't introduced it--I'd be glad to make it an amendment if it's ready to go right now--is that the health insurance industry doesn't like it. Well, if the health insurance industry doesn't like it, it must be spectacular, and I hope we'll see it. Maybe you'll tell us a little bit about it, and I'd like to applaud it because he has done some great work in this area, and we need to do this.

The fully implemented ObamaCare, health care, whatever you want to call it, by 2014 will extend affordable, quality medical care to 32 million uninsured Americans. That's a plan. Maybe we could change it. Maybe we could make it quicker. Maybe we would extend it to more people. Maybe we could save some money. But that has to come from the other the other side of the aisle.

We oppose this, and I'd like to think that our Republican friends would work with us to improve it and move us in that direction.

I'd like to highlight a letter of opposition to repealing the CLASS Act that is signed by more than 70 organizations representing millions of senior citizens, people with disabilities, and people suffering from various diseases. These groups include: AARP, the Autism National Committee, the AFL-CIO, and Easter Seals, and United Cerebral Palsy.

They urge Congress to ``reject H.R. 1173, and instead focus on a constructive path forward.''

I ask that this letter be inserted into the Congressional Record as part of this debate.

January 31, 2012.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: The

undersigned organizations write to oppose legislation, H.R.

1173, to repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and

Supports (CLASS) program and respectfully urge members to

reject such legislation.

In 2008, 21 million people had a condition that caused them

to need help with their health and personal care. Medicare

does not cover long-term services and supports (LTSS), yet

about 70 percent of people over age 65 will require some type

of LTSS at some point during their lifetime. As our

population ages, the need for these services will only grow.

In addition, about 40 percent of the individuals who need

LTSS are under age 65 and LTSS can enable individuals to work

and be productive citizens.

Regardless of when individuals may need these services,

there is a lack of financing options to help them plan and

pay for the services they need to help them live

independently in their homes and communities where they want

to be. Family caregivers are on the frontlines. They provided

care valued at $450 billion in 2009--more than the total

spending on Medicaid that year. Private long-term care

insurance helps some people pay for the cost of services, but

it is not affordable for most, and some people are not even

able to qualify for it. Too often, the cost of services wipes

out personal and retirement savings and assets that are often

already insufficient--as a result, formerly middle class

individuals are forced to rely on Medicaid to pay for the

costs of LTSS. There are few options for individuals to help

them pay for the services they need that could help them

delay or prevent their need to rely on Medicaid, the largest

payer of LTSS.

That's why we support the CLASS program--to give millions

of working Americans a new option to take personal

responsibility and help plan and pay for these essential

services. CLASS could also take some financial pressure off

Medicaid at the state and federal levels--paid for by

voluntary premiums, not taxpayer funds. For us, this is about

the financially devastating impact that the need for LTSS has

on families across this country every day and the essential,

compelling and urgent need to address this issue. Every

American family faces the reality that an accident or illness

requiring long-term care could devastate them financially.

This issue affects the constituents of every U.S.

Representative. CLASS is an effort to be part of the

solution. The CLASS actuarial report established that CLASS

can still be designed to be a ``value proposition,'' although

development work was still needed. The actuarial report also

noted that federal actuaries ``. . . agreed that certain

plans, designed to mitigate the adverse selection risk . . .

can be actuarially sound and attractive to the consumers.''

Rather than repeal CLASS, we urge continued dialogue and

development of a viable path forward. The need to address

LTSS and how these services will be paid for in a way that

is affordable to individuals and society as a whole will

not go away.

Families will continue to need a workable LTSS option to

protect themselves; and a

path forward is essential because the need for these services

will only continue to grow. We appreciate your consideration

of our views that are based on the experiences of millions of

families across this country. We urge you to reject H.R.

1173, and instead focus on a constructive path forward.

Sincerely,

AAPD; AARP; ACCSES; AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Alliance for Retired

Americans; Alzheimer's Foundation of America; American

Association on Health and Disability; American Counseling

Association; American Dance Therapy Association; American

Geriatrics Society; American Music Therapy Association;

American Network of Community Options and Resources; American

Society on Aging; The Arc of the United States; Association

of Assistive Technology Act Programs; Association of

University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD); Autism National

Committee; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bazelon Center for

Mental Health Law; Brain Injury Association of America

(BIAA).

California Foundation for Independent Living Centers; Cape

Organization for Rights of the Disabled (CORD); Center for

Independence of Individuals with Disabilities; Center for

Independent Living of South Florida; Inc.; Children and

Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD);

Coalition of Geriatric Nursing Organizations; Council for

Exceptional Children; The Council on Social Work Education;

Direct Care Alliance; Disability Rights Education & Defense

Fund; Easter Seals; Epilepsy Foundation; Health & Disability

Advocates; Inter-National Association of Business; Industry

and Rehabilitation; LeadingAge; Lutheran Services in America;

Mental Health America; The National Alliance for Caregiving;

National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); National

Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a).

National Association of County Behavioral Health and

Developmental Disability Directors (NACBHDD); National

Association of the Deaf; National Association for Geriatric

Education (NAGE); National Association for Home Care &

Hospice; National Association of Councils on Developmental

Disabilities; National Association of Nutrition and Aging

Services Programs (NANASP); National Association of

Professional Geriatric Care Managers; National Association of

Social Workers; National Association of State Directors of

Special Education (NASDE); National Association of State Head

Injury Administrators; National Center on Caregiving; Family

Caregiver Alliance; The National Center for Learning

Disabilities; National Committee to Preserve Social Security

and Medicare; The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-

Term Care (formerly NCCNHR); National Council on Aging;

National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare;

National Council on Independent Living; National Disability

Rights Network; National Down Syndrome Congress.

National Multiple Sclerosis Society; The National

Rehabilitation Association; National Respite Coalition NISH;

Paralyzed Veterans of America; PHI-Quality Care through

Quality Jobs; Physician-Parent Caregivers SEIU; Self-

Reliance; Inc.; Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE);

Social Work Leadership Institute/The New York Academy of

Medicine; United Cerebral Palsy; United Spinal Association;

Volunteers of America.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in closing, I repeat that there are real problems in this country of much more urgency than trying to repeal a bill that doesn't do anything, that won't work, that the President has said won't be effective. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this Republican agenda to tear down our health system. It's mugwumpish. It just sticks your head in the sand and says let's repeal things and let's not go about fixing it.

As I said before, I'm sure Dr. Boustany has a great bill, and I'm hoping that he'll bring it to us and we can proceed to deal with the problem of long-term care for our senior citizens.

I have seven children who would like to see that done very quickly and get me off their hands, thank you very much. And so anything we can do together, I look forward to working with the distinguished gentleman.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Narrowing Exceptions for Withholding Taxes Act. This legislation will close a loophole in existing tax law that allows certain self-employed individuals to avoid paying their fair share of Medicare payroll taxes.

Medicare is financed in part by a payroll tax paid by employers and employees. The total tax is 2.9 percent split between workers and employers. Self-employed individuals pay the full 2.9 percent themselves.

Under current law, the S corporation structure allows certain self- employed individuals a way to avoid paying full Medicare taxes. Income received as compensation for services to that S corporation will be subject to the Medicare payroll tax, but any income classified as a distribution of profits will be exempt. This loophole in our tax law encourages income manipulation. These individuals pay themselves a nominal income for their services to the S corporation and classify most of their income as profits and dividends, to avoid paying the 2.9 percent payroll tax.

The House Democrats first tried to close this loophole in December 2009 with H.R. 4213, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. That bill passed the House, but did not pass the Senate. At the time, the Joint Committee on Taxation scored this provision as raising $11.2 billion in revenue over ten years.

The IRS does not have the resources to audit all 4 million S corporations to ensure that there is no underreporting of income. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the GAO have all highlighted the systematic underreporting of income. The GAO estimated that pass-through organizations underpaid $15 billion in 2001, with a median payroll tax underpayment of $20,127.

Teachers, firefighters, and nurses can't structure their income to avoid payroll taxes. This is a strategy for lawyers, lobbyists, and investment managers. This legislation would close this loophole by targeting the individuals most likely to take advantage of this loophole. These are professional service businesses built on the reputation and skill of three or fewer employees in the field of health, law, lobbying, engineering, architecture, accounting, investment advice or management, or brokerage services. Under this provision, all of the profits someone gets from an S-corporation they own would be subject to the payroll tax. These shareholders will no longer be able to underreport wage income to exclude the rest of their earnings from the payroll tax.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took advantage of this loophole. When he filed his 2010 taxes, he reported earnings from his two S Corporations of just $444,327 in income but $2.4 million in profits and dividends. This nearly $3 million was just earnings in the same year from the same two organizations. However, by choosing to report only $444,327 as wage income, the Wall Street Journal estimated that Mr. Gingrich saved himself $69,000 in Medicare payroll taxes. His $2.4 million in profits and dividends was exempt from the 2.9 percent payroll taxes due to a flaw in our tax laws.

This legislation would put our workers on an even playing field. Self-employed individuals would no longer have the option to avoid the taxes with the creative use of a pass-through entity. Just like those individuals who work in an ordinary partnership or sole-proprietorship, or work for a larger institution, every taxpayer would pay his or her fair share toward the Medicare trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mayor David W. Smith who is retiring after serving 33 years as the Mayor of the city of Newark, California.

Mayor Smith began his career in 1967 after graduating from Michigan Technological University with a degree in Business Administration and Industrial Management. He began his career as a Plant Manager at Ethyl Corp. After working at the plant for ten years he developed an interest in public service. In 1976, he was elected to the Newark City Council. Just two years later, in 1978, he was elected Mayor of the city of Newark.

Mayor Smith is currently serving his 16th consecutive term as mayor, the most senior mayor currently serving in California. Additionally, he is also 2nd in mayoral seniority in the United States. During his service as Mayor, Smith was the Vice President of the Retail Division of Oatey Supply Chain Services from 1979 to 2006. More recently, he has served as the Executive Director of Ohlone College Foundation since 2006.

Mayor Smith's accomplishments during his tenure as Mayor are exemplary. He has displayed the highest level of public service to his citizens, and his commitment can be seen through the wide array of organizations and committees in which he was involved. He was a Trustee and Committee Chair of the United States Conference of Mayors, and was highly involved in the Arts Committee as well as the Education Committee. He was previously chair of the Alameda County Transportation Authority and the Tri-City Waste Management Authority, and was also President of the Alameda County Conference of Mayors. He is the currently the Chair of the Newark Redevelopment Agency, the Newark Disaster Council, and the Newark Community Development Advisory Committee.

Mayor Smith has received a myriad of awards for his outstanding accomplishments. He was honored as a Distinguished Alumni of Calumet High School, and an Outstanding Young Alumni of Michigan Technological University. He was selected as one of California's Five Outstanding Young Men, and was named a Life Member of the United States Junior Chamber, a leadership and civic organization.

I join many others in saluting Mayor Smith for his commitment to excellence, thanking him for his exemplary service, and wishing him well on his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and thank Vince Panvini for his decades of service on behalf of sheet metal workers locally, nationally and internationally. Panvini's retirement from his position as Director of Governmental Affairs for the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association is a great loss to the community of sheet metal workers and to the labor community as a whole.

Throughout his career, Panvini has proven himself as a first-rate organizer and representative of his union members. For close to 50 years, this second-generation sheet metal worker has been a member of Local Union 19 in Philadelphia. He won election as a Local 19 trustee and later to their Executive Board. He rose to an appointment as Local Union Organizer, then was appointed--and later elected--as Business Representative for the Local. After attending training at Harvard Trade School for International Labor Relations, he was appointed as Director of Governmental Affairs for the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association in January 1994.

His success, friends and coworkers have said, is characterized by the fact that Panvini was ``born to do this work.'' His love of the job combined with his unparalleled memory and ``funny but stern'' personality has won him leagues of friends and allies. These attributes also won him great respect among peers, politicians, organizers, community leaders and union workers.

The labor community's loss at Panvini's retirement, however, will be his family's gain--a noble tradeoff. With a return to Philadelphia, he'll get quality time with family, his top priority. Panvini has a son, a daughter and four grandchildren. On top of that, Panvini will have more time to cheer on his Philadelphia Eagles.

I thank Vince Panvini for his years of service and wish him well in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of the Mayor of Fremont, California, Bob Wasserman. The residents of Fremont and communities throughout California and beyond mourn the loss of this dedicated public servant who passed away on December 29, 2011.

Mayor Wasserman was born in Gary, Indiana, and moved to California and attended public schools in the Los Angeles area. He became a Police Officer in the City of Montebello, California, and was appointed to the position of Chief of Police in San Carlos, California in 1969 where he served for three years. He was appointed Chief of Police in Fremont in January 1976 and retired in 1992.

In 1992, Mayor Wasserman was elected to the Fremont City Council and served until 2004. He was elected Mayor in 2004 and currently held that position.

Mayor Wasserman's 40-year career in law enforcement included appointments in Southern California and a term as president of the California Peace Officers' Association. He has been recognized by the California State Senate for outstanding public service and was the recipient of the Law Enforcement Executive of the Year Award.

His numerous affiliations include Past President of the California Peace Officer's Association, California Police Chief's Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training and Police Executive Research Forum.

He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Police Science and Administration from California State University, Los Angeles and received his Master's degree in Public Administration from the University of Southern California.

Mayor Wasserman is survived by his wife of 53 years, Linda, and their two children, Dan and Jill. I join the community extending heartfelt sympathy to the family, colleagues and friends of Mayor Wasserman. He served with honor and distinction and his many positive contributions to make a difference in the lives of others have left an indelible mark and will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chief Gregory Stewart. Chief Stewart is retiring from the Union City, California Police Department on December 30, 2011.

Chief Stewart began his career with the Union City Police Department in November of 1975. After beginning his career as a Public Services Cadet he was then appointed to the position of Reserve Police Officer in 1977. Soon after, he was hired by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department as a Deputy. After his work at the Sheriff's Department he returned to the Union City Police Department and began his duties as a police officer on May 1, 1978.

He quickly ascended the ranks of the Police Department. On December 16, 1986 he was promoted to Sergeant; to Lieutenant on October 1, 1996; to Captain on December 25, 2000. After years of exemplary service to the city and its citizens he was appointed as the Department's seventh Chief of Police on December 21, 2006.

During his career, Gregory Stewart served with distinction in a number of assignments. These have included Patrol, Investigations, Field Training, Supervisor of Patrol, Traffic, Crime Prevention, Research and Analysis, team leader of the Specialized Emergency Response Team as well as Field Operations and Support Services Commander.

Chief Stewart developed an affiliation with Union City's Youth and Family Services department, which led to a cooperative effort to apply the philosophy of the ``Boston Cease Fire'' program which aimed to reduce teen violence. He also implemented the ``Crime Free'' program, a citywide effort to improve the quality of life for Union City residents.

Chief Stewart has continually displayed astuteness, veracity, diligence, and objectivity in executing his duties as Chief Police. Throughout his tenure, these traits have earned him the respect and admiration of his subordinates, peers, other Law Enforcement professionals, and the community of Union City.

Thank you Gregory Stewart for 35 years of dedicated service in Law Enforcement and for 33 years as a sworn officer with the Union City Police Department. Your commitment and leadership have been exemplary and will leave a lasting legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Commander Donna Shearn. Commander Shearn is retiring after serving 25 years as a member of the Newark, California Police Department.

Commander Shearn began her career with the Newark Police Department as a police officer on August 16, 1986. While serving as an officer, she was assigned to patrol and the Special Enforcement Unit. Additionally, she was a member of the Hostage Negotiation Team. Commander Shearn was one of the first three original D.A.R.E. officers and also worked as a School Resource Officer. To show her commitment to the citizens of Newark, Commander Shearn was active in the creation of the Newark Police Department's Vision Statement.

In July 1991, Commander Shearn was promoted to the rank of Sergeant, the first and only female to make Sergeant in the Department's history. She served as Administrative Sergeant, as well as Acting Detective Division Commander. In addition to her Patrol Sergeant responsibilities, she supervised a number of Department programs. These programs included, Field Training Officer, Acting Supervisor, Explorers, Hostage Negotiations, Trauma Response, Vehicle Abatement, Safety Patrol, and Patrol Scheduling and Staffing.

On July 1, 2004, Commander Shearn was promoted to Police Lieutenant. She was the

first female Police Lieutenant in the Department's history. During her time as Lieutenant, she served as the Administrative Lieutenant and the Patrol Operations Lieutenant. The Lieutenant position was reclassified to the rank of Police Commander on January 1, 2009. Commander Shearn is the first female Police Commander in the department's history.

Commander Shearn was named Employee of the Quarter for Fall 2003. She received this award for organizing and coordinating a Board of Corrections jail inspection. The Newark Police Department passed this inspection with significant recognition. In 2009, she received the honor of the City of Newark Employee of the Year award from Mayor Dave Smith at the annual Employee Service Awards. She received this award for her dedicated efforts to advance the Police Department, despite the limited resources allocated to the Department.

Commander Shearn was awarded the Chiefs Challenge Coin of Special Recognition for her outstanding work, loyalty to the organization, and tireless efforts in the development and promotion of the Mission, Vision, and Values of the Newark Police Department. This coin is issued only to members of the Police Department who consistently perform at exemplary levels or rise above with a single act of excellence.

I join in saluting Commander Shearn for her commitment to excellence, thanking her for her exemplary service, and wishing her well on her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act because it will continue to waste more money on weapons we do not need and wars that are not necessary. This legislation prioritizes military spending over our economic stability, the health of our people, and the basic civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. The costs of this bill are simply too great.

Families in my district and across the country are facing unemployment, foreclosures, and the loss of their retirement savings. All levels of government are making difficult decisions to decrease budget deficits. Now is the time to focus our efforts on bringing the defense budget under control. Instead, this bill continues our unsustainable spending on wars and the military.

It is our job to spend taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently. When it comes to defense, we have failed miserably. We have doubled our military spending since 2001, and spend six times more than China--the next highest-spending country. Continuing to spend 60 percent of our discretionary budget on an already bloated and redundant defense sector is more than just negligence; it is malicious. Every dollar we spend on war and weapons is a dollar we cannot spend on education, health care, infrastructure, or even deficit reduction. This bill does nothing to seriously rein in our defense budget.

To make matters worse, this defense authorization is costing American citizens more than just their tax dollars, but their civil liberties as well. Provisions within this legislation allow anyone--including Americans--to be detained indefinitely by the military if found to have ``substantially supported'' forces ``associated'' with a terrorist organization, or who ``are engaged in hostilities'' against the U.S. or ``coalition partners.'' As none of the quoted terms are defined, this vague language gives excessive and broad power to the military.

Our Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to detain American citizens without charge or trial, nor does it give the military the authority to act in place of our justice system. And yet this legislation would codify into law the authority of the military to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists--something never even seriously considered during the McCarthy-Cold War era. I could never support a measure that, in the name of security, violates Americans' constitutional rights.

This authorization is not an accurate reflection of American values. Our first priority is

not, nor should it be, spending more money on defense than every other Western country combined. Defense spending should not receive privileged budgetary treatment while the rest of our budget faces deep cuts, nor should it be used as a vehicle to suppress civil liberties. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this wasteful and dangerous legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3630, which would be better entitled ``the House Republicans' ultimate year- end wish list.''

This Republican bill is an affront to senior citizens, middle class workers, and low-income families--at a time when Americans are enduring the toughest economy since the Great Depression.

As this bill details, Republicans would have seniors permanently pay increased Medicare premiums for just one year of a payroll tax cut for working Americans and a one-year gutted extension of unemployment insurance.

This bill is wrongheaded, it's heartless, and it's bad for our fragile economic recovery.

Republicans want one in four Medicare beneficiaries to start paying significantly higher Medicare premiums. If their proposal were fully in effect today it would hit people with $40,000 in annual income--those aren't the rich.

They ignore the reality that wealthier seniors already pay more for Medicare benefits today--and they've also paid more in Medicare taxes during their working years. Republicans should be honest about their goal here. This isn't to make the rich pay more, it is designed to undermine Medicare's guaranteed benefits for ALL of America's senior citizens and people with disabilities and get the government out of the business of guaranteeing health benefits.

Republicans have also tucked in a special interest giveaway that costs $300 million. They would undo parts of the health reform law in order to give physician-owned hospitals more room to grow and to line their pockets. We already know these facilities have caused patient deaths and run up Medicare costs with unnecessary use of tests and procedures. This Republican handout is bad for Americans' health, but it's great for these special interest friends of the Republicans.

The Medicare provisions and giveaways are enough to oppose this legislation. Unfortunately, this bill is also a vehicle to attack working families and environmental protections.

This bill would eliminate 40 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits for workers in my state of California and many other states. Not only do House Republicans want to pull the rug out from unemployed people searching for work, they also want them to submit to the indignity of having to take a drug test to qualify for benefits. Not only are you out of a job, you are also a presumed drug user in the eyes of Republicans.

America may want to drug test House leaders for including terrible anti-environmental policy riders that are entirely un-related to either tax cuts, unemployment insurance, or Medicare. In order to sweeten the pot for the more radical members of the Speaker's caucus, this legislation would block the EPA from reducing mercury pollution. It would also usurp Presidential authority and approve the Keystone tar sands pipeline without proper review.

We need to get down to the business of extending unemployment insurance, protecting seniors and preserving the middle class. This dangerous bill, once again, shows Republican's willingness to hang the middle class and senior citziens out to dry to further their special interest agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a new Kaiser Permanente initiative to encourage breastfeeding as an important component of preventing childhood obesity and promoting other health benefits. Kaiser is implementing a systemwide program to ensure mothers are provided ample breastfeeding education and support. They will track their successes as a measure of hospital quality.

Research suggests breastfeeding has multiple benefits for baby and mother alike. Breastfed babies have a lowered risk of childhood obesity as well as allergies, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome. Nursing reduces a mother's risk of post-partum depression, Type 2 diabetes, ovarian and breast cancer.

Family- and patient-centered prevention initiatives like this will play an enormous role in battling America's toughest health care challenges. Kaiser's new breastfeeding initiative is an example of how a commitment to prevention can positively impact health outcomes.

Health care in America must shift from its singular focus on treating disease to incorporating a strong commitment to prevention. I encourage other major health care providers to follow Kaiser's example.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act). It is unfortunate but not surprising that we are voting on this legislation today. We are just weeks away from millions of people being kicked off unemployment insurance and Medicare providers having their payments cut by 27% making it difficult for seniors to find a doctor or get access to care. Instead of dealing with those pressing issues we are voting on another ideological Republican message bill. More false promises from the Republican House Leadership that jobs will miraculously appear if we just eliminate rules that keep our food safe to eat, our air and water clean, and our cars safe to drive.

The REINS Act is aimed at making government less efficient and less responsive to the issues facing our country. The legislation would make it nearly impossible for the government to pass regulations. Any rule developed by an agency through the extensive notice and comment process that we currently use would now be forced through both houses of Congress, where majorities would have to affirmatively vote within 70 days or the rule would disappear. Under the REINS Act, proposed rules would be subject to even more rounds of approval in a new system biased to ensure that these rules fail to be adopted.

Did any one of the Republican cosponsors of this legislation ever take a class in government or civics when they were in high school? Passing a law requires approval of the House, Senate, and then the President. Congress then delegates the relevant rulemaking to the agencies because these agencies have the manpower, time and expertise to develop the appropriate rules. This legislation turns the relationship between the three branches of government, and our entire regulatory system, on its head.

Our economy needs a level playing field that protects consumers and small business from corporate and other special interests. Science- based regulation helps to create a stable and fair marketplace for consumers and businesses alike. The REINS Act would further empower big business to challenge regulations that they disagree with regardless of the benefits to the public health and welfare. This is yet another Republican attack on the American middle class intended to please their corporate benefactors. I cannot support this legislation and I urge my fellow members to join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. This bill is just one more Republican attack on workers and middle class Americans under the guise of protecting the ``job creators'' we hear so much about from the other side of the aisle.

In case you missed the recent Republican Presidential debate when front runner and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said we should do away with child labor laws, the Republican message is clear: laws that protect workers are not needed. Instead, workers should just rely on the benevolence of ``job creators'' to pay them for the hours they worked or to hold a fair union election. Today's legislation is another attempt to undermine workers' rights.

For eighty years, the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, has operated as an intermediary between workers and employers. I applaud the NLRB's decision to modernize union election rules with standardized election timelines and electronic petition filing, and a streamlined hearings process. House Republicans responded to these modest and overdue changes by bringing up legislation to interfere with workers' rights to organize.

Every aspect of this legislation would make it more difficult for workers to form a union. It would allow companies to obstruct any attempt by workers to unionize and create infinite avenues for employers to delay elections, including litigation. These delays empower those employers who want to intimidate and harass workers and bring in union-busters. It would also allow employers to gerrymander bargaining units to skew election results in their favor.

When I hold town meetings in my district, my constituents are not clamoring for Congress to make it harder to join a union. They want our economy fixed and they want jobs. Attacking working men and women, as this bill does, will not create a single job or help a single family pay their bills. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the Balanced Budget Amendment. This amendment is just another opportunity for the House Majority to pander to their right wing base instead of focusing on the issue that ordinary families care about--jobs.

The families in my district are concerned about their next paycheck and how they will make that next mortgage or rent payment. Unemployment is unacceptably high, and in California it's even higher than the national average. There are five applicants for every available job. Unemployment benefits are set to expire at the end of the year for 305,000 people in my state, and millions nationwide. Our highest priority should be creating jobs and helping those who need help staying afloat while they search for work.

Instead of creating jobs the Congress is voting on this reckless amendment to the Constitution that would damage our shaky economy and end Social Security and Medicare as we know them. This balanced budget amendment would prevent the U.S. from responding to an economic crisis or making the investments we need to repair our infrastructure. H.J. Res. 2 is designed to guarantee that working families will bear the burden of deficit reduction through steep cuts to vital programs, instead of asking the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes.

The balanced budget amendment is a distraction. The legislation has no chance of getting 2/3 support in the House and Senate or the support of 3/5 of the states, which is needed for ratification. We certainly won't be seeing a balanced budget amendment added to our Constitution anytime soon. This vote is typical for this Republican Congress. It is no surprise that our approval rating is 9%. Since Republicans took control of the House, the agenda has been dominated by symbolic votes to wipe out environmental protections, eliminate states' abilities to control guns, reaffirm our national motto which no one has threatened, limit access to abortion, weaken social insurance programs, and outsource American jobs.

There are plenty of good ideas to get our economy back on track. We could extend unemployment insurance, create jobs by repairing our infrastructure, and reform our tax code so the wealthy and Wall Street are paying their fair share. This balanced budget amendment doesn't impact our economy at all. Instead, it is a distraction from that work. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.