Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the artificial pancreas, which will transform the way we treat diabetes in our country. Millions of Americans have diabetes. Diabetes accounts for approximately $174 billion in health care costs in the U.S. each year, 32 percent of our Medicare expenditures.

Studies show that tight control of blood glucose levels significantly reduces or delays the development of diabetic complications. Most patients with diabetes cannot achieve tight glucose control with traditional diabetes tools. Erratic blood glucose levels can cause devastating complications, including kidney failure, blindness, nerve damage, amputations, heart attack, and stroke.

The artificial pancreas can allow individuals suffering from diabetes to regulate their blood glucose levels using an insulin pump and a sensor. The system can prevent low and high glucose levels and help individuals with diabetes avoid the worst and most costly complications while allowing them to remain healthy until a cure is found.

In April of this year, 250 Members of the House, myself included, and 60 Senators sent a letter to the FDA urging them to approve the artificial pancreas. I am encouraged by FDA's response to have a decision by December.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2587, the misleadingly named ``Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act.''

This legislation, if enacted, would gut key provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, a law which has ensured the right of working Americans to fight for better working conditions, a better salary, and better benefits for themselves and their families for more than 75 years.

H.R. 2587 would strip from the National Labor Relations Board the ability to take action against any employer that has been found to violate the law by closing an office, relocating a plant or firing workers in retaliation for exercising their rights to organize or petition for fairer benefits.

Even worse, passage of this legislation would open the door for companies to engage in the practice of illegally moving jobs overseas. In the past, the NLRB has been able to take action against companies that have attempted to move their operations overseas who do so with the clear goal of punishing employees for exercising their fundamental organizing rights.

This legislation would open the door to wholesale off-shoring of U.S. jobs at a time when this Congress should be discouraging such behavior.

A bill of this magnitude, which would set back decades of established labor law and precedent, should be considered in a much more deliberative manner.

I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisles to vote in favor of working Americans and to oppose this legislation.

Madam Speaker and Members, jobs are the issue, and the American Jobs Act is the solution that this House should consider on the floor immediately. This bill will help reverse the flow of jobs overseas and will help rebuild the manufacturing base in America, providing good jobs for hardworking Americans.

Make It In America creates jobs in America. This bill builds America. The long-term FAA reauthorization will create 150,000 jobs, and reauthorizing the surface transportation bill will support 134,000 projects around the country, 5,000 mass transit projects, and nearly 1 million jobs over the next year. The national infrastructure bank proposal would combine public and private resources to build, rebuild, and repair the country's key infrastructure.

This bill also helps create jobs through the Tax Code. The proposal cuts the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses on their first $5 million in payroll; it offers a $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers--get them on the tax rolls and not on the unemployment rolls--and it starts a ``Returning Heroes'' hiring tax credit, between $5,600 and $9,600 for firms that hire unemployed veterans.

We have the responsibility to help our country climb out of this tough economy, and this bill is a proposal that deserves bipartisan support to help accomplish that.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 693 and 694, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I was absent earlier today due to a prior commitment scheduled before we knew the House would be in session. On the votes I missed, on H.R. 2715, to provide greater authority and discretion to the CPSC in enforcement of product safety laws, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

On H.R. 398, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to toll during national and active duty service abroad in the Armed Forces, I would have voted ``yes.''

On H.R. 1933, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify requirements, I would have voted ``yes.'' While I do recognize the shortage of nurses in our country, I would hope that we should focus on providing more incentives to students here to become nurses.

On the motion on ordering the previous question on the rule for S. 365, I would have voted ``no.''

On H. Res. 384, the rule providing for consideration of S. 365, I would have voted ``no.''

On the Journal vote, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, members of the House leadership have walked away from the negotiating table three times and continue to push their plan to cut Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid benefits, protect the top 2 percent of Americans at the expense of 98 percent of our families, pass a short-term deal that would lead to credit downgrade, higher interest rates, and a tax hike on every American and repeat this crisis next year.

Let me read you some emails that I've received:

``I'm a disabled 57-year-old gentleman who is restricted in a wheelchair. I thank God I live in a country where I am able to receive disability income like millions of other disabled Americans and Social Security recipients. I'm afraid if the Republican leadership gets their way, I'll soon be living on the street.

``I'm very concerned that the default would cause even more dire straits for the average homeowner/worker than even currently exists. That does not even count the repercussions that would result from higher interest rates, falling dollar in the global economy, and lower earnings on annuities and other investments, such as decreasing principles.''

What we need is not a Republican plan or a Democratic plan; we need an American plan to deal with our debt that will take care of it so we don't have all of these dire consequences next Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Jesus ``Jesse'' Thomas Campos, who died July 22, 2011 in Houston, two weeks shy of his 90th birthday.

Jesse is survived by his wife of 57 years, Esther, his son, Adrian, and his daughters, Olga and Edna, as well as numerous grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

Jesse served his Nation with distinction during the Second World War, as a member of the U.S. Army from 1941-46. During the war he was assigned to the 672nd Amphibious Tank Battalion and made numerous first assault landings in the Pacific, was wounded twice, and was awarded the Purple Heart and three Bronze Stars. He was also a Pearl Harbor survivor.

Jesse was a close friend, a constituent, and an important member of our community. He was very active in our local American Legion post and with the Disabled American Veterans. He also received numerous awards for his dedication and service to our community.

His loss will be felt by family, friends, and the Greater Houston community, and I ask that you remember the family in your thoughts and prayers.

I would like to submit for the Record a copy of Jesse's obituary that appeared in the Houston Chronicle on July 25.

[From the Houston Chronicle, July 25, 2011]

Jesus Campos

Jesus Thomas Campos, Husband, Father, Brother, Veteran and

Community Leader, Jesus Thomas Campos of Houston died

peacefully at home Friday, July 22, 2011. He was two weeks

shy of his 90th birthday. He was born on August 6, 1921 in

Goose Creek (now known as Baytown) to Maria Ramos and Jose

Campos. He graduated from Robert E. Lee High School in 1941

and enlisted in the Army and served from 1941-46.

He is survived by his wife of 57 years, Maria Esther

Estrada Campos. He is preceded in death by his parents and

several siblings, as well as by his daughter, Leah Aguirre of

Houston. Jesus is survived by his son, Adrian, and daughters

Olga (Kevin Benz of Austin), Edna (Eldon Thomas of Houston

and Asheville, NC), as well as numerous grandchildren and

great-grandchildren.

Jesus was proud of his involvement in Houston's Hispanic

community especially his work on behalf of various political

candidates, Get-Out-the Vote efforts and improving

educational opportunities for Hispanic students. He was also

proud of his distinguished military record. During World War

II, he was assigned to the 672nd Amphibious Tank Battalion

Attached to the 15th Division. He made numerous first assault

landings in the Pacific, was wounded twice and was awarded

the Purple Heart, 3 Bronze Stars, an Arrowhead in the

Asiatic-Pacific and World War II Campaigns and a Good Conduct

Medal.

Jesus retired from Exxon after 20 years and was an active

member of the American Legion and the Disabled American

Veterans. His recent awards and honors include the

Distinguished Hispanic Volunteer from Houston Mayor Bill

White in 2007; Eagles Award in 2005 from the San Jacinto

Chapter of DAV; Participant in Honor Flight #2 to visit the

WWII Memorial in 2009; Fiestas Patrias Distinguished Hispanic

Award 2006, recognition by numerous members of the U.S.

Congress, the Texas Senate and House; the Houston City

Council, the American GI Forum, and the League of United

Latin American Citizens. He will be respected, loved and

missed by everyone who knew him.

The family will be receiving visitors Tuesday, July 26 from

5-9 pm with a Rosary at 7 p.m. at Forest Park Lawndale, 6900

Lawndale Ave, Houston TX 77023. Funeral services will be held

Wednesday, July 27 at 11 a.m. at Forest Park Lawndale. In

lieu of flowers, please send donations to the American GI

Forum of Texas, 2626 South Loop West #320, 77054-2649,

Houston, TX 77086; (713) 666-4796; www.agiftx.org. Donations

will go to the Community in Housing Development which assists

with housing for American Veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my absence from votes cast on the afternoon of July 25, 2011. My voting percentage is 98 percent for the 112th Congress, and I rarely miss votes, but yesterday, I was absent due to a prior commitment scheduled before we knew the House would be in session on Monday.

On the votes I missed: on the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2584--Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012, had I been present, I would have voted ``no''; and on the Journal vote, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman, the ranking member of Energy and Commerce, for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1938. I represent a district at the end of this proposed pipeline in southeast Texas. I have five refineries in my district, and this will give them an alternative for crude oil to keep those refineries running.

North American oil sands are a vital source of energy for the U.S., and with skyrocketing fuel prices, I believe it's imperative for the U.S. to diversify our energy sources by exploring alternatives such as the oil sands in Canada.

As the largest single exporter of oil to the U.S. and a stable energy partner, Canada has helped to reduce our dependence on energy supplies from unfriendly nations, and this partnership should continue and be encouraged.

The pipeline owner, TransCanada, has agreed to comply with 57 additional special conditions developed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for the Keystone XL project.

The supplemental environmental impact statement on the project has gone so far as to state that the incorporation of these conditions will result in a project that has a larger degree of safety over any other typically constructed domestic oil pipeline under the current code or law, and a larger degree of safety along the entire length of the pipeline similar to what we have in high consequence areas.

Additionally, an independent study showed that the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline is expected to directly create 20,000 high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs in the U.S. So not only will this project help our energy security, but it will help our recovering economy by creating thousands of jobs.

I am constantly hearing from building trades in the Houston area about their support for this pipeline and the bill. And yet none of this even matters because the bill very fairly doesn't say what the administration's determination should be. Instead, it says expedite the decision. It has been too long once the environmental review is complete.

I appreciate the Department of State's recent announcement that they are on track to make a final decision by December 31. Maybe that wouldn't have been announced last week if we hadn't had this bill moving in the House. But I do appreciate the effort. I support the bill and appreciate my colleagues' support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the drastic cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other crucial Federal programs that passage of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act would force upon the American people. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act takes our Nation closer to default by holding the debt ceiling hostage until Congress passes a constitutional amendment to limit total Federal spending to 18 percent of our gross domestic product.

The last time Federal spending was below 18 percent of the gross domestic product was 1966, when the median age was nearly 8 years younger and the average cost of health care was one-fifth of what it is today. Even under President Ronald Reagan, Federal spending averaged over 22 percent of gross national product. Though this legislation may claim to exempt many Federal programs from its spending limitations, there is almost no possible way to revert Federal spending back to 1960s levels without sharp cuts to every program, including Social Security and Medicare. Even the FY 2012 budget that the House Republican majority passed in April, which would dismantle Medicare as we know it, allowed for Federal spending to be above 20 percent of the gross domestic product.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote to support America's retirees, veterans, and children and oppose this dangerous legislation.

I rise in opposition to the drastic cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other crucial Federal programs that this Cut, Cap, and Balance Act would force on the American people. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act takes our Nation closer to default by holding the debt ceiling hostage until Congress passes a constitutional amendment to limit Federal spending to 18 percent of GDP. The last time Federal spending was below 18 percent of GDP was 1966. Even under Ronald Reagan, the Federal spending averaged over 22 percent of GDP. There's almost no conceivable way to revert spending back to the 1960s levels without sharp cuts in every program, including Medicare and Social Security. In order to reduce Federal spending to 18 percent of GDP, every Federal program, including Social Security and Medicare, would need to be cut by 25 percent.

Faced with the need to increase the debt ceiling in 1987, President Reagan called on Congress to raise the ceiling and said failure to do so would threaten those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits, create instability in the financial markets, and cause the Federal deficit to soar. It's funny, I agree with President Reagan.

Our last balanced budget was in 1999 and 2000, the last years of the Democratic President Bill Clinton. Since 2001 we had 9/11, federalizing airport security, war in Iraq, Afghanistan, war on terror, a prescription drug plan for seniors, and 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--none of these were paid for--all went to the National debt. We had a balanced annual budget without cutting Medicare or Social Security in 1999 and 2000. It is time for this chamber to end the political theater, to take the necessary steps to avoid default, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 579, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. Chair, I am opposed to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for several reasons. One of these reasons is that while this bill increases funding for the Army Corps of Engineers over the President's request, it is not enough. The Army Corps completes critical flood control projects and also, through dredging at our port, fuels a major economic engine in Harris County, Texas and has been underfunded for years.

The Port of Houston is the largest foreign tonnage port and the largest petrochemical port in the country. In fact, it moves the second largest amount of cargo in the country, as 8.5 percent of our nation's cargo moves through the Port of Houston. The commerce that occurs at our port is critical to our nation's energy and chemical sectors and to our country's ability to trade and move goods throughout our country. It is a port of national significance, but has not received the attention that is necessary to answer the challenges we face in the near future. Despite the national importance of our port, it is facing a dredging crisis.

Currently, the Houston Ship Channel is dredged to a depth of 43 feet, but it should be as deep as 45 feet. The Panama Canal is expanding and when it is completed, the Port of Houston should be able to accept ships that take full advantage of the larger Panama Canal, and for this, they would need a depth of 50 feet.

However, under both the President's plan and the Republicans' plan, dredging at the Port of Houston will be left behind. For instance, under the President's budget, dredging at the Port is funded at about $23 million, that is $60 million lower than the amount necessary to just get the port to a depth of 45 feet, let alone 50 feet, which would be millions more.

As we confront the dual challenges of adopting policies that create jobs and reduce the debt, funding for dredging projects is an item that, while costly, will have more of a positive impact on our economy than a negative impact on our deficit. The Texas Transportation Institute performed a study and determined that a direct economic impact of the loss of 1 foot of draft is $373 million. The majority of this impact is lost business opportunities due to light loading of non- containerized vessels. As the dredging crisis at the port continues to worsen, this opportunity cost will quickly accelerate.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Flood Insurance Reform Act, H.R. 1309.

Flood insurance is critical for homeowners in our area who rely on this program to protect their hard-earned investments in their homes. The National Flood Insurance Program is the primary source of flood insurance for Americans and people in our district. About 5.6 million homes and businesses nationwide rely on NFIP.

In our district, in Houston and East Harris County, Texas, flood insurance is a top priority. The Harris County Flood Control District does an impressive job of implementing new flood control measures in the way of maintaining bayous, building retention basins, and implementing drainage features, but even the best flood control will be defeated by a particularly bad storm.

While I support the underlying bill, I am especially supportive of measures that I first advocated for in 2007. During Floor Debate of the 2007 bill, I offered an amendment that was adopted, and it is also included in the bill we are debating today.

Our language provides for a limited, five-year phase-in of flood insurance premiums for low-income homeowners or renters whose primary residence is placed within a flood plain through an updating of flood insurance program maps. These homes can be valued at no more than 75 percent of the median home value for the state in which the property is located. This is important to residents of our district, who need the stability and stability that this provision allows.

I want to thank Chairman Bachus and Ranking Member Frank for their leadership on this issue and for including this important provision.

I thank my colleague, the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, for allowing me to speak.

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 268, a resolution reaffirming our Nation's commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

As cochair of the Democratic Israel Working Group, I would like to thank my colleagues, both Republican Leader Eric Cantor and our Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, for bringing this important bipartisan resolution to the floor.

I have been to Israel and the West Bank on numerous occasions. I can personally vouch for the desire of the people of Israel and the Palestinian territories to come to a peaceful settlement that will end decades of discord and violence.

A negotiated two-state settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians is the keystone of the peace process. It is the official policy of the U.S. government, the Israeli government, and, until recently, the Palestinian Authority.

Only through direct negotiations can difficult compromises be reached on core issues like borders, water, refugees, the status of Jerusalem, and security. Attempts to bypass direct negotiations and seek recognition of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state by the U.N. General Assembly will not help the Palestinian people. Instead, such a declaration will undermine the peace process and endanger the security and well-being of the very people it claims to support.

A unilaterally declared Palestinian state will lead to a greater height in tensions, turn the region into a powder keg, and invite terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to take advantage. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.