Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, last year unemployment insurance kept over 3 million people, including 1 million kids, out of poverty. These benefits are due to expire, and without an extension, more than 300,000 Californians will lose this lifeline.

Extending unemployment insurance is the smart thing to do. It creates jobs. People spend their benefits, they buy gasoline, groceries, put people to work in the communities, send their kids to school.

People scraping by on unemployment aren't looking for a handout. These are people who have been working for a long time. They are employable. There just aren't jobs, and they're out there looking to find one. We should help them. They're not looking for a handout, they're looking for a hand up.

Are we going to tell them we had money for wars and bank bailouts, tax cuts for millionaires, and not for workers? I don't think so.

A constituent frustrated at the gridlock in Congress wrote, ``America, wake up before it's too late. Our political system doesn't work.''

Let's all work together and prove this constituent of mine wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Alameda County Social Services Agency, Department of Children and Family Services. Due to their exemplary work to open more good homes to foster children by actively recruiting and working with LGBT families, they have earned the All Children-All Families Seal of Recognition from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, a leading organization in the advocacy of LGBT civil rights.

Alameda is only the second county in the nation to receive this recognition. By eliminating the barriers that LGBT couples and individuals face when they chose to adopt or foster, Alameda County has helped to fulfill their mission of ensuring that every foster child finds a loving family. One example of how important Alameda County's work has been in this area is Lara and Emkay Bosque. Lara and Emkay have adopted two young children. Thanks to their efforts, two beautiful children are growing up in a permanent and loving family, instead of the foster care system. We need more families like the Bosques and I will be displaying their family photo in my office during November, which is National Adoption Month.

At this time of celebration for Alameda County it is important to remember that they are a shining example of what counties and agencies across the nation can do to decrease the number of children in our foster

care system by finding them permanent, stable homes. Currently our foster care system serves over 400,000 children, with over 105,000 waiting to be adopted. LGBT families can play an important role in decreasing the number of children in care. Unfortunately, LGBT individuals and couples face discrimination in 31 states when they attempt to adopt or foster. Congress invests over $7 billion in our child welfare system annually, yet we are allowing potential adoptive parents and foster families to be excluded to the detriment of children.

We should show our support of those children who are without families by passing HR 1681, the Every Child Deserves a Family Act. I introduced this bill to protect those families looking to foster or adopt children from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status or on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved.

It is the purpose of our foster care system to find children families who will love and cherish them. There should be no added burden for anyone based solely on their sexual orientation, marital status, or gender identity.

I would again like to acknowledge Alameda County for their commitment to children in search of families and to the families willing and able to adopt a child in need. I hope more counties will follow their inspiring lead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that thousands of abused and neglected immigrant children in our foster care system have the opportunity to overcome their abuse and become successful adults.

Every year, hundreds and perhaps thousands of abused and neglected children leave the child welfare system and become illegal immigrants through no fault of their own. Under a law passed by Congress in 1990 immigrant foster youth are able to gain legal status. This status, known as Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), is available if a child is in the foster care system, under 21, and cannot be safely reunified with their family or returned to their country of origin.

SIJS ensures that the child has a recognized legal status and a pathway to becoming a citizen. After a young person leaves foster care, they are not eligible for SIJS. Unfortunately, many youth and many caseworkers are unaware of SIJS or how to apply. As a consequence, potentially eligible youth ``age out'' of the foster care system every year without a legal status. After being cared for by our child welfare system because they were victims of abuse and neglect, these young people then leave the system and face the threat of deportation and lack access to the supports other transitioning foster youth rely upon. My office has heard from young people who aged out of the system and others who were adopted who never heard of SIJS. These youth were forced into the underground economy, face exploitation, and live in constant fear of being deported to a country they don't know.

To fix this problem, the Foster Children Opportunity Act will require that all children in the foster care system be screened for SIJS eligibility and other forms of immigration relief. It also requires that they be assisted in applying for the status. Child welfare agencies and juvenile courts will be provided with technical assistance and additional resources to make this happen. In addition, my legislation will guarantee that youth who obtain SIJS have access to the same benefits, such as student loans, Medicaid, and food stamps that support other former foster youth as they make the transition to adulthood.

My bill will not change current immigration law. Nor will it result in any adults who have engaged in illegal behavior from gaining legal status because a person with SIJS cannot act as a sponsor for any family members. The Foster Children Opportunity Act has nothing to do with the fight over immigration reform. It is simply about fulfilling our responsibility to all abused and neglected children and providing these youth with a fighting chance to succeed. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple legislation that will improve the lives of thousands of vulnerable children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2576, legislation brought forth by House Republicans today. It is being considered in order to pay for the previous bill that eliminates a Republican-written provision in law requiring a 3 percent withholding tax on payments to government contractors.

H.R. 2576 changes a provision of the new health reform law that defines income for purposes of qualifying for financial help obtaining health insurance. The effect of the bill is to reduce the number of Americans eligible for financial assistance with their health insurance costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, if enacted, it will cause up to a half a million people to lose access to affordable health coverage.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will gleefully point to support by the Administration as a compelling reason to support this legislation. I respectfully disagree and believe the Administration is dead wrong on this one.

First, the Administration decided on its own--without consultation with Congress who wrote the Affordable Care Act--that this definition of income was a ``glitch'' in the law. They are wrong.

This definition excludes non-taxable Social Security income from the definition of income. As a result, it helps to assure that more people who obtain Social Security between ages 62 through 64 and people who qualify for Social Security because of severe disabilities have access to affordable health coverage. That wasn't a glitch. It was intentional. Making the change proposed in this bill saves money by kicking these very vulnerable people out of eligibility for financial help with their health insurance costs.

It's also important to note that we intentionally picked up this exclusion from the definition of income because this exclusion is typically applied for purposes of qualifying for other tax credits and benefits.

While I oppose this bill on its own merits, I also take issue with its pairing with the 3 percent withholding legislation. Yesterday, Ways and Means Ranking Member Levin went to the Rules Committee with an alternative way to finance the 3 percent withholding bill. His alternative would have offset the cost of this business tax cut by closing a tax loophole improperly enjoyed by oil and gas industry giants. Yet, Republicans prohibited his amendment from being brought to the floor for our consideration today.

Clearly, Republicans believe the needs of the highly profitable oil and gas industry outweigh the need for early retirees and people with disabilities to afford health insurance.

With H.R. 2576, Republicans are forcing these vulnerable people to pay for yet another tax break for business. It's the wrong thing to do and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my esteemed colleague, Congressman Mike Honda, to recognize Clyde Mann and celebrate his efforts to establish a National Science Day in the United States. Mr. Mann is a science instructor at Warm Springs Elementary School in Fremont, California. Recently he organized, almost single-handedly, a Science Alliance Day at the school.

During the Science Alliance Day a team of 40 Silicon Valley executives visited and made presentations to the 846 students at Warm Springs Elementary School. During this day-long, school-wide extravaganza students were able to get excited about science and learn about the ways that science shapes our future.

Mr. Mann recognizes the growing need for a trained workforce that is knowledgeable about science and technology and his goal is to establish a National Science Day throughout the country. If this goal is accomplished Mr. Mann is sure that our country's students will develop a passion for science by participating in science activities during National Science Day celebrations at their schools. Recently he said, ``you're going to have a whole generation of kids across the country that are going to be very interested and engaged in science and to want to pursue science in the future. This is the Apollo moment acted upon.''

The start of Warm Spring's science day was spectacular. There were demonstrations featuring robots, dry ice, DNA models, Maglev demonstrations, Mars rover facsimiles, and exploding balloons, and geysers of Coke powered by Mentos, not to mention the scientists and technology executives attending the event. To make sure that the students were not distracted by hunger there were even science themed snacks. According to an excited fourth-grader, ``we made edible DNA with toothpaste and marshmallows and twisters''. This sort of excitement is exactly what Clyde Mann envisions in his efforts to create a National Science Day.

Congressman Honda and I applaud Clyde Mann for his accomplishments, commitment, and vision for a National Science Day. If established, National Science Day will excite students about science as well as provide them with a knowledge base to prepare for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Save Our Climate Act, a bill that will create a simple tax on carbon. A carbon tax is a straightforward way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, spur development of alternative energy, slow climate change, and decrease our deficit.

The impacts of climate change become more severe with each year we fail to act. The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and violent storms are becoming more common as the planet gets hotter.

Our continued addiction to burning fossil fuels not only accelerates climate change it is also a drag on our economy. We need a policy that discourages the use of fossil fuels and promotes investment in efficiency and alternative energy sources. The simplest solution is a carbon tax.

My legislation imposes a tax on each ton of carbon dioxide contained in a fuel. The tax is imposed upstream, at the point of manufacture or import where it is easiest to administer. No new bureaucracy will be needed.

The tax increases every year at a predictable rate so that the market, including investors and individuals can adjust to the tax and plan for the future. Unlike a cap and trade system, a carbon tax does not require a complicated trading market, auctions, or an exchange to function and it is insulated from speculation and volatile swings in pricing.

A steadily rising carbon tax will provide the certainty American businesses need to make the long-term investments in new energy sources that will break our addiction to fossil fuels. The United States can be the leader in green energy. A carbon tax will help to unleash American innovation and create jobs. That is why economists across the ideological spectrum--from Arthur Laffer and Alan Blinder on the right, to Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph Stiglitz on the left--have endorsed the idea. Through border adjustments, my legislation will protect American manufacturers and ensure that imported goods from countries like China are not given an unfair advantage over American products.

At a time of deep budget cuts meant to reduce the deficit, a carbon tax can be part of the deficit solution. My legislation will dedicate $437 billion toward deficit reduction over 10 years. In addition, the Save Our Climate Act will protect families from increased energy prices. Revenue generated will be distributed back to individuals as a yearly dividend to all Americans. The average dividend in the first year of the bill would be $172 per person, rising to $761 in the fifth year and $1126 in the tenth year.

We have a moral obligation to act to prevent catastrophic climate change and preserve our planet for future generations. The Save Our Climate Act is a first step toward meeting that obligation and creating a sensible tax code that incentivizes innovation and rewards responsibility. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program (TAA) and in opposition to the three free trade agreements between the U.S. and South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

TAA provides essential assistance to workers who lose employment due to trade agreements with foreign countries. We need to extend it. More than 280,000 displaced workers in 2010 relied on the greater job training options, health care tax credit coverage, and extra weeks of income support provided under the TAA program to get back on their feet after losing their jobs to foreign countries.

The residents of my district in California have firsthand experience with the benefits of TAA. California has seen multiple plant closings due to trade with countries around the globe. Last year, the NUMMI auto plant in my district closed and nearly 5,000 employees lost their jobs along with thousands more who worked at suppliers for the plant. For these workers, TAA is a lifeline that is providing retraining, education, and other assistance to help them find new jobs.

U.S. trade policies and free trade agreements, such as NAFTA and DR- CAFTA, have decimated our manufacturing sector. They have protected corporate interests at the expense of workers and created incentives to ship jobs overseas. I opposed those agreements and I oppose the unfair free trade Agreements with Panama, Korea and Colombia that are currently before Congress.

If we want to get our economy back on track, we need to focus on creating jobs and not shipping more jobs overseas. These three free trade agreements follow the same failed Bush-era trade policies that allow multinational corporations to challenge public interest laws that protect the environment, health, and workers.

The agreement with South Korea will increase our trade deficit by billions of dollars and cost us an estimated 159,000 jobs. The Colombia agreement stands out because it would have us lower trade barriers with a country in which only 2 percent of workers are unionized and more trade unionists are murdered annually than anywhere else in the world. We should not sign more agreements that ship our jobs overseas, grant exceptional rights to large corporations, and fail to protect workers' rights or our environment.

Republicans in Congress have spent eight months tying the extension of critical TAA benefits to the three pending free trade agreements. In doing so, they've abandoned the very people who will get our economy going again: workers. It is a further wrong that the extension of TAA is just for two years, and not longer. These new trade agreements are going to be permanent. We should ensure that permanent TAA protections are there for the workers who will lose their jobs as a result of the trade agreements. Our vote today in favor of an extension of TAA will provide real help to these workers and their families. We owe it to them to support TAA and to oppose the three pending free trade agreements that will cost more jobs. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Steve Jobs, Apple's co- founder, who passed away yesterday after a lengthy battle with cancer.

In his short 56 years on this planet, Jobs fundamentally changed the way the world communicates, learns, transacts and gets its entertainment. He also managed to make technology fun and widely accessible.

In the early 1980s, I had the pleasure of collaborating with this once-in-a-generation innovator. At the time he was just a young guy. We met on an airplane and got to talking about a shared interest: getting computers, which were then cutting-edge technology, into classrooms.

Job's vision was for Apple to give a computer to every school in the country. I had been interested in projects to improve kids' computer literacy in a world that was becoming ever more technologically sophisticated. At issue was our children's lack of access to that technology.

On our cross-country flight, Jobs explained that he was bumping up against a tax hurdle in his effort to give Apple computers to schools. Donating goods to a school, he found, was not viable for a business because they could only write off the very minimal production cost of the item. This limitation made it financially untenable for Apple, or any other manufacturer, to donate computers to schools. Somewhere over the Midwest, Jobs and I agreed to work together to remove this barrier.

In the months that followed, Jobs came out to Washington and helped me and my staff write legislation to create a charitable deduction allowance for computer donations to elementary, middle and high schools. Senator John Danforth, a Missouri Republican, picked up the torch and introduced the legislation in the Senate.

Our original bill passed the House with flying colors but died in the Senate. In the next Congress, Rep. Bill Archer, a Texas Republican, joined me in the House to champion the

bill that became law in 1984. Passage paved the way for the broad distribution of donated computers to our kids' schools.

Critics questioned whether the donated computers would ever make it out of the boxes they came in because not every teacher was technologically minded. Others called the federal tax credit a waste of money. How wrong they were.

Steve Jobs made technology accessible the world over by putting computers into our classrooms, our homes, and our pockets. In honoring his life, we must remember naysayers' initial doubts about whether computer technology was worth federal investment. As we consider our federal deficit and ways to shrink it, we must not become so rigid as to fail to support innovation. Had we not taken that risk decades ago, our educational system, our communities and our world would be a drastically different place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague, Mr. Moran of Virginia, to reintroduce the Restoring Protection to Victims of Persecution Act, a bill that would end the practice of barring asylum claims by those who have been in our country for more than a year.

In 1996, this one-year bar to asylum was enacted as a way to prevent fraudulent claimants from being granted asylum. Sixteen years later, there is no evidence to show that deadlines of this nature are effective in preventing fraud. Rather, the implementation of this law has resulted in the return of refugees to countries where they face persecution because of their gender, religion, nationality, or political involvement.

Although the law includes exceptions to excuse those who are determined to have valid reasons for applying for asylum after one year, adjudicators routinely deny applicants who meet these exceptions. People who are attempting to care for their children, hide from their abusers, cope with past trauma, and deal with the challenges of surviving in a new country are repeatedly and arbitrarily denied asylum status because of missing the one-year deadline.

Once denied, an applicant has only two other possibilities for safety: to petition for withholding of removal or to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture. Both these forms of relief demand an applicant surmount a much higher standard of proof than asylum and do not allow reunification with family members or provide them permanency.

Everyone in Congress can agree that our immigration system is overwhelmed with a massive backlog of cases and in desperate need of reform. The one-year deadline only adds to this amassment of immigration cases and leads to government waste. More importantly, this law is hurting the very people we ought to be helping. This is a human rights issue that must be addressed as quickly as possible, and I implore my colleagues to support this desperately needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Child and Family Services Improvement

and Innovation Act (H.R. 2883). This legislation shows that we can work together across the aisle to improve our child welfare system. Yet this bill is just one step in our ongoing efforts to fix the foster care system. In this time of unacceptable poverty and inequality, we must continue to support families in order to prevent kids from being neglected or abused. As we debate how to shrink our debt, we must also ensure that preserving and improving the safety net that protects our children is a higher priority than protecting special interest tax breaks.

Despite the fact that I am not on the Human Resources Subcommittee for the first time in many years, I am pleased that my colleagues still listen to some of my ideas. Last year, Congressman Langevin and I introduced a bill to reduce the high number of foster youth who are victims of identity theft and are unable to secure student loans or even get a credit card. Today's legislation includes a provision from our bill that will provide youth who are about to age out of foster care with a copy of their credit report as well as resources to help clear up any credit issues. This provision is what I hope is the first movement toward ensuring that foster youth leave the system with a clean financial slate and a chance to succeed.

There are many important provisions in today's bill: maintaining a set-aside to support caseworker visits with foster children; decreasing the overuse of psychotropic drugs on foster youth, and improving education stability for children in care.

Children in foster care are our collective responsibility. The reforms made in this bill will make children safer. I thank the Chairman, the ranking Member, and all the staff involved in crafting this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2587, the misnamed Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.

This bill dismantles key functions of the National Labor Relations Board and guts more than 70 years of established labor law in our country. If this legislation becomes law, it would eliminate nearly all worker protections when companies illegally fire workers and close or move plants in retaliation for union activities.

The proponents of this legislation claim that it will create jobs, but it does no such thing. Instead, it creates a race to the bottom with regard to workers' rights. This bill sends a message that we've abandoned the American worker.

H.R. 2587 will encourage employers to move jobs to states with less worker protections. It will also make it easier to outsource jobs to other countries. In my district, we've seen plants close, thousands of workers lose their jobs, and communities hurting as a result. We should be creating good jobs in this country and ensuring that hard working Americans don't have to give up their rights when they go to work in the morning. One way we can do that is by voting against this misguided bill and demonstrating that many of us in Congress still stand with the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 50th anniversary of Chabot College in Hayward, California. Chabot College was the first college opened by the Chabot-Las Postas Community College District. On January 10, 1961 voters approved the formation of a junior college district, with the first board of trustees elected on April 18, 1961.

Chabot College opened for classes on September 11, 1961, on a 7.5- acre temporary site in San Leandro, California and an enrollment of 1,163 students. On September 20, 1965 students began classes on the 94- acre Chabot College site in Hayward. Today, Chabot has an enrollment of close to 15,000 students and is a fully accredited institution that offers a curriculum of over 175 majors of study spread among its six academic divisions.

Fostering civic responsibility is one of the college-wide learning goals of Chabot. During the 2010 fall semester, senior faculty in the Administration of Justice and Political Science engaged in discussions about ways to revive the culture of civic engagement and service learning at the college. A key outcome of those discussions was an idea for a course in Law and Democracy as well as a Law and

Democracy lecture series. California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer will deliver the inaugural lecture in this series on September 15, 2011 and the first Law and Democracy course will be offered during the Fall Semester of 2012.

Lockyer's Law and Democracy lecture will be the keynote event of a weeklong celebration and will kick-off three days of student-centered community engagement events that will culminate on Citizenship/ Constitution Day on September 17, 2011. In conjunction with these other events, Chabot will provide its students with a training program in community organizing on September 16th and 17th.

A primary goal of the Law and Democracy lecture series is to expose Chabot College students, and the broader community, to a wide range of ideas and policy issues that impact their communities. Additionally, the organizers of the lecture series hope to help initiate conversations in the college and community about civic participation and responsibility.

I offer my congratulations to Chabot College on its 50th anniversary and for the launch of its curriculum in Law and Democracy and its Democracy Lecture series. Chabot is committed to nurturing an awareness of the importance of active civic engagement and responsibility in its students. I send best wishes for every success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called debt limit compromise, S. 365. A compromise is when the two sides each make concessions. This bill fails to meet that definition because all concessions come from Democrats. This debt ceiling legislation protects special interests at the expense of America's working families, children, senior citizens, people who've lost their jobs, and people with disabilities.

It punts the difficult decisions to a ``super committee'' of twelve Members of Congress who will be tasked with finding another $1.5 trillion in savings. Those twelve people will have the power to cut Social Security benefits, turn Medicare into a voucher, and gut the Medicaid program into oblivion. The rest of Congress will have only the right to vote yes or no on the entire proposal. Unlike the vast majority of legislation, no amendments will be allowed.

If the super committee fails, there will be automatic cuts to Medicare and additional draconian cuts on top of the draconian cuts that will be made when this bill is signed into law.

Default is a dangerous proposition. But there is only one reason that our country has been pushed to the brink of default: the Republican Tea Party fringe. We are in the midst of a completely manufactured crisis that was orchestrated by this extreme faction of the Republican Party. They are a minority in Congress and in our nation, yet they are holding our nation's economy hostage because Republican leadership continues to pander to them at the detriment of our country and its future.

Democrats and Republicans alike have lifted the debt ceiling some 75 times in our history. Paying our bills is a necessary part of responsible governing.

This year, I've voted twice to raise the debt limit ceiling. I first did so on May 31, 2011 when Republicans brought a clean debt ceiling bill to the floor. Because of uniform Republican opposition, that vote failed.

I next voted this past Saturday to raise the debt ceiling in conjunction with significant spending cuts when the House considered Senator Reid's compromise package. It was far from perfect, but it was much more balanced than the package before us today.

Today, the radical wing of the Republican Party has forced a no-win situation. Vote yes on today's ``debt-limit compromise,'' and we limit our ability to grow our economy, create jobs, and protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Vote no and we risk an unprecedented default that would further deteriorate our sputtering economy.

We should never have gotten to this point and it is up to those who got us into this mess to get the votes to end this crisis. However I will not allow my vehement opposition to this deal to put our country into default. If my vote is needed to prevent default, I will hold my nose and change my vote to yes. I will do that because governing requires tough choices. If Tea Party Republicans refuse to govern, it is up to the rest of us to do so for them.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Bipartisan Budget Control Act, H.R. 2693. Unlike Speaker Boehner's bill, which has already been defeated in the Senate, this is the compromise bill that is needed to avert a default and protect our fragile economy.

Congress needs to step up and start governing. Yet, the Republican majority appears uninterested in anything that has not been vetted by the radical wing of their party or designed to embarrass the President. Today is

no exception. Rather than holding a real vote on this bill, it is being brought up under suspension of the rules in order to guarantee failure. This is a procedure we use to name post offices and congratulate sports teams. It is not how we handle serious issues and it is shameful that Republicans are holding a non-serious vote when our nation is three days away from a default.

Make no mistake, this is not the legislation I would have written. It relies on cuts to domestic spending that will hurt the poor and the middle class. It includes no revenues, not even ending the egregious tax subsidies for big oil companies and corporate jet owners. However, the legislation does not cut Medicare and Social Security and protects both from automatic cuts in the future. It also saves $1 trillion by winding down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which have been major drivers of our debt. Finally, unlike the failed Boehner bill, this legislation provides certainty and stability by extending the debt ceiling through next year and ensuring that we will not be on the brink of default once again in a few months.

The long-term fiscal health of our country can only be improved if we make the investments necessary to create jobs and if we put revenues on the table. Unfortunately, House Republicans refused to consider the balanced approach that the American people wanted. Instead, they have driven us to the edge of default and the economic calamity that would result. Now is the time to act to end this crisis. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a responsible solution to the current crisis urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 627, Speaker Boehner's refusal-to-compromise, short-term bill that moves us closer to an unprecedented default.

This bill is not designed to become law. The Senate has made clear the votes aren't there for passage. If it did somehow reach the President's desk, he's publicly declared his intent to veto it.

Yet, here we are in the House of Representatives, wasting what little time we have left before the August 2nd deadline for default, considering this pointless piece of ideology just to appease the Tea Party.

If this doesn't make clear to the American public that the House Republican Majority is incapable of governing, I don't know what does.

The Boehner bill fails to address the number one crisis facing our nation: the instability of our financial standing. By providing only a short term debit limit increase--and guaranteeing we are in this same battle in a few short months--this bill would still lead to a downgrading of U.S. credit which would lead to higher interest rates and a tax on all American families.

The Boehner bill forces our country into this dangerous predicament solely to drive the extreme Republican agenda that demands protection of special interest tax breaks at the expense of vital public programs which people's lives depend on: namely, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

By making clear their refusal to consider any tax increases--even proposals to end corporate welfare for Big Oil and tax breaks for corporate jet owners--Boehner's ``solution'' puts a target on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Because the immediate savings in the bill would decimate discretionary spending for the next decade, the only other place to turn will be these social insurance programs that people have paid into their whole lives. Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid would be mined for savings at levels never before seen. The ability of these programs to continue to guarantee financial and health security to senior citizens, people with disabilities, and--in the case of Medicaid, families with low incomes--would be in serious jeopardy.

Avoiding default is critical. It's something Presidents and Congresses from both sides of the aisle have always worked together to do. Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner's bill is strictly partisan. It fails to meet the goal of long-term stability and, at the same time, endangers fundamentally important programs that Americans depend upon.

A yes vote on this bill means you don't think the threats of default are real and that you don't believe in guaranteeing Medicare and Social Security for our nation's seniors. I urge my colleagues to vote no.