Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites our families.

Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

My dear colleagues, this is the simplest of simple amendments. It asks of this House only one thing, to acknowledge the truth of these words:

Greenhouse gas pollution is contributing to long-lasting

changes in our climate that can have a range of negative

effects.

Our country and this Congress are at a critical moment in the history of our small planet. We are privileged as leaders of the most powerful country on Earth to be in a position to lead the world in combating climate change. There is still time.

If we act now, we can protect our natural resources, like water, promote job growth, and ensure that our descendants are able to live healthy lives on this planet long after we are gone.

Making the right choice begins with accepting the fact of climate change. It is hard to ignore this reality. The 10 hottest years in human history all occurred since 1998. This time last year, we had just completed the hottest year ever in the United States, a full degree hotter in terms of average temperature than the previous record. Though we are dealing with cold in many parts of the U.S. this year, the scientists tell us global temperatures are continuing to warm.

Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, among others, will be submerged during this century unless meaningful action is taken. Here at home, we are seeing more and more severe droughts, wildfires, storms, and hurricanes--often all in the same year.

There are tremendous economic incentives for the United States to take climate change seriously. In December, the Pew Charitable Trust estimated that the clean energy sector could generate $1.9 trillion in revenue from 2012 to 2018. We also know that there are three times as many jobs created per dollar spent on renewable energy than on fossil fuel. As we work to create an economy that supports 21st century jobs, how can we overlook one of the world's fastest-growing industrial sectors and the millions of jobs it would support?

Large multinational corporations have joined environmentalists, scientists, and the vast majority of the American public who recognize the impact of carbon pollution on our world. For example, Coca-Cola has already suffered from a global water shortage that is driving up costs, and Coke has recognized climate change as a challenge to its future profitability.

The business plans of ExxonMobil and other Big Five oil companies assume they will have to pay for the cost of carbon in the future. This Congress should recognize the same facts that these business leaders have accepted: climate change is real and requires a different game plan. History will not be kind to climate change deniers.

The Schakowsky-Lowenthal amendment doesn't ask for much. It doesn't change the bill's provisions. It simply asks us as 21st century leaders of the most powerful country in the world to say ``yes'' to this simple fact: climate change is real and can have negative consequences.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alexis ``Lexie'' Kamerman, a courageous and talented young woman who tragically lost her life in an Afghan terrorist attack on January 17th. Lexie was killed in a Kabul restaurant that was specifically targeted by the Taliban because of its popularity with westerners.

A 27-year-old Chicago native, Lexie was committed to rebuilding Afghanistan through education, particularly for young women and girls who might not otherwise have the opportunity to go to school. In her role as a Student Development Specialist at the American University of Afghanistan, Lexie worked to help the next generation of Afghan women take their place as leaders in society. Friends and family of Lexie point to her strength, fearlessness, and passion as key to her decision to serve.

Lexie grew up in Chicago, and graduated from the Latin School in 2004. She attended Knox College, where she was a fierce competitor on the water polo team. Lexie received her M.A. in Higher Education from the University of Arizona.

Sadly, the American University of Afghanistan community lost another member during the January 17th attack: political science professor Alexandros Petersen from Washington, DC. He was only 29. While both Lexie and Alexandros were far too young to be taken from us, their talent and passion for serving others, regardless of the potential dangers, are examples to which we should all aspire.

My deepest condolences go to the friends and family of Lexie Kamerman, particularly her parents, Jack and Alison.

Mr. Speaker, this week the Environmental Protection Agency recognized seven organizations from across the country that are working to ensure sustainable urban growth with the National Award for Smart Growth Achievement. I am proud to recognize the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning's GO TO 2040 initiative for receiving this honor.

GO TO 2040 focuses on sustainable prosperity--working within Chicago and around the world to cement the city's place as an economic and cultural center. By 2040 Chicago will need to accommodate up to 25 percent more residents. The plan addresses public transportation, community planning, government cooperation, and resource management to ensure that Chicago remains a vibrant and diverse city, with room for our communities to grow.

GO TO 2040 has four challenges for city and state government to consider--creating livable communities, maximizing the potential of human capital, ensuring efficient government, and promoting regional mobility. Those issues impact all major metropolitan communities, and this roadmap is an important step as we look to build a sustainable future for our cities.

GO TO 2040 is a leading example of the type of work that will preserve and improve our urban centers for generations to come. I am proud to recognize the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning's work to keep our city great.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be absolutely obsessed with taking away a woman's right to make her own personal health decisions with her own money.

Today, we could be extending unemployment benefits to 1.6 million Americans. Instead, we are considering legislation that would discriminate against a woman's right with her own money to pick an insurance policy. We could be raising the minimum wage instead of effectively banning abortion coverage in the ACA market, even though not a penny of Federal dollars will go to do that. We could be passing the Healthy Families Act to provide paid sick leave, instead of erecting more barriers to women's ability to protect their health, and yes, including access to safe and legal abortions.

We should be defeating this legislation for three reasons:

First, because women and their doctors--not politicians--should make their health care decisions;

Secondly, because we should not be undermining access to comprehensive insurance coverage of women's health insurance paid by the insured woman, not the government;

Third, because we have more pressing priorities to address.

It is time that we moved on to things that matter to the American people and not continue this relentless war on women's rights.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for coming to the floor and talking about the community. And it really is ``the economy stupid'' for most Americans who feel a sense of growing insecurity. Wages haven't gone up for decades.

But the leader, our leader, Nancy Pelosi of our leadership, has launched a campaign on behalf of women in America saying, when women win, America wins, and highlighting the issues that really affect women day to day, calling for things like affordable child care, an increase in the minimum wage, paid leave, which it turns out is a major priority of women.

I see you have got a sign there.

No. Why don't we just turn our attention to that sign.

Ending the gender pay gap, which actually is 77 cents to the dollar that men earn; paid sick leave; permanent child tax credit; improve diagnosis and care for Alzheimer's patients; and on and on.

But we have been bolstered by an incredible new effort that has turned into a remarkable book called: ``The Shriver Report.'' It is a co-effort, and it is a study by Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress called: ``A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink.''

The idea here is to give a voice to women. It has got all the facts and figures one would want; but it also has the stories, the actual voice of women who feel so pressured by this economy, but also feel that their voices aren't being heard.

It is a really important book. I wanted to read on the back there are kind of some of these ``wow'' facts that are there that everyone should keep in mind about the status of women in our economy:

One in three women in America is living in poverty or

teetering on its brink. That's 42 million women plus the 28

million children who depend on them.

The second bullet:

The American family has changed. Today, only one in five

families has a homemaker mom and working dad. Two out of

three families depend on the wages of working moms who are

struggling to balance caregiving and breadwinning.

Three:

The average woman continues to be paid 77 cents for every

dollar the average man earns. The average African American

woman earns only 64 cents and the average Latina only 55

compared to White men.

The fourth bullet:

Closing the wage gap between men and women would cut the

poverty rate in half for working women and their families and

would add nearly half a trillion dollars to the national

economy.

Five:

Women are nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers, and a

vast majority of these workers receive no paid sick days. Not

one.

When they did a survey of what is the number one thing that you want, women said: sick days for themselves and to go home and take care of their children.

Six:

More than half of the babies born to women under the age of

30 are born to unmarried mothers, most of them White.

Seven:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans and 85 percent of

millennials believe that government should adapt to the

reality of single-parent families and use its resources to

help children and mothers succeed, regardless of family

status.

So the American people, two-thirds say government does, in fact, have a role.

Eight:

An overwhelming 96 percent of single mothers say paid leave

is a workplace policy that would help them most, and nearly

80 percent of all Americans say the government should expand

access to high-quality, affordable child care.

That is a worry that so many mothers have every single day.

Nine, women living on the brink overwhelmingly regret not making education a bigger priority.

Ten, the trauma and chronic stress of poverty are toxic to children, making them two-and-a-half times more likely to suffer as adults from COPD, hepatitis, and depression.

So actually, poverty is dangerous to the health of children as they grow into adulthood in very dramatic and particular ways.

And so when we think about poverty in America, when we think about extending unemployment benefits, when we talk about the SNAP program, and when we push to raise the minimum wage, one of the important lenses to look through is how is it affecting the women, one-third of whom are on the brink or actually living in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a Rabbinic Statement, ``Step by Step toward Shalom with Iran.''

Signed by 120 Rabbis, including my own Rabbi, Andrea London of Beth Emet Synagogue in Evanston, IL, the statement opposes any actions that would undermine ongoing negotiations, emphasizes the importance of peaceful conflict resolution, and welcomes the possibility of negotiations with Iran.

As we continue to work to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons, I believe that the Rabbinic Statement offers an important perspective.

Rabbinic Statement: ``Step by Step Toward Shalom With Iran''

As Rabbis, Cantors, and other Clergy serving the American

Jewish community, we are deeply committed, as Jewish

tradition teaches--

to the shalom--peace, social justice, functioning

democratic process, and ecological sanity--of the country

where we live--all of which would be damaged by still another

unnecessary war;

to the shalom, peace and security, of the State of Israel,

to its democratic character, and to its special relationship

with the Jewish people;

to unequivocal action by all the Arab-majority and Muslim-

majority states to make peace with Israel, and to Israel's

unequivocal action to make peace with all its neighbors,

including an emergent Palestine;

to our respect and our prayers for salaam, peace and

justice, among our cousins in the Abrahamic tradition, Arab

and Muslim civilizations;

to the peace and prosperity of all the ``70 nations'' of

the world;

and to the healing of our wounded planet.

For all these reasons, we welcome warmly the greatly

increased possibility of a peaceful resolution of the

conflicts among the U.S., Iran, Israel, and other nations.

We especially welcome the new attitudes toward the Jewish

people and toward the nuclear issue set forth by the new

President of Iran, and his assertion that Iran will never

hold nuclear weapons. We also recall the fatwa and repeated

assertions by Grand Ayatollah Khamenei that for Iran to

possess nuclear weapons would violate Islam.

We urge the U.S. and Iran to move swiftly to agree on a

step-by-step process of reducing and ultimately ending

sanctions against Iran in accord with steps by Iran to make

its nuclear research transparent and to allow verification

that its research is directed wholly toward civilian uses of

nuclear energy. We believe that such a step-by-step process

is the best way to guarantee that both parties are fulfilling

their commitments.

We urge Iran to make clear its full acceptance of Israel as

a legitimate state in the fabric of international relations,

protected like all other states from aggression and attack.

We urge the Government of Israel to welcome steps by Iran

to make clear and verifiable its commitment to use nuclear

energy and research for peaceful purposes only, not for

pursuit of nuclear weaponry, and while this process is under

way, we urge Israel to end hostile acts and statements toward

Iran.

We urge the peoples of the United States, Iran, and Israel

to reject and oppose all statements and actions from whatever

source that undermine the swift and thorough achievement of

agreements to ensure the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear

program and to end sanctions against Iran.

We urge the American people to recognize and do tshuvah

(``turning'' or ``repentance'') for the ethical errors of our

own government toward Iran particularly--the U.S.

Government's intervention in 1953 to overthrow the

democratically elected reform government of Iran; U.S.

actions to support the tyrannical regime of the Shah until

the Iranian people overthrew it in 1979; and U.S. support for

Iraq's wars of aggression against Iran in the 1980s,

including U.S. support for Saddam Hussein's use of chemical

weapons to kill 100,000 Iranians.

We urge the Iranian people to do tshuvah for their

government's demonization of the United States and Israel,

for its holding U.S. diplomats hostage for more than a year

in 1979-1980, and for the support it seems to have covertly

given for attacks on Israeli citizens.

We believe that this combination of governmental acts and

public rethinking and re-feeling can move American society,

the entire Middle East, and the world toward the shalom that

Judaism yearns for.

Signed:

Shalom,

Initiating Signers:

Rabbi Amy Eilberg, Rabbi Everett Gendler, Rabbi Marc Gopin,

Rabbi Dr. David Gordis, Rabbi Nancy Fuchs Kreimer, Rabbi

Mordechai Liebling, Rabbi Ellen Lippmann, Rabbi Gerry

Serotta, Rabbi David Shneyer, Rabbi Susan Talve, Rabbi Arthur

Waskow, Rabbi Sheila Weinberg, Rabbi Rebecca Alpert, Rabbi

Ethan Bair.

Kohenet Ellie Barbarash, Rabbi Rachel Barenblat, Rabbi

Benjamin Barnett, Rabbi Eliot Baskin, Rabbi Renee Bauer,

Rabbi Dennis Beck-Berman, Rabbi Leonard Beerman, Rabbi

Marjorie Berman, Rabbi Phyllis Berman, Rabbi Leila Gal

Berner, Rabbi Binyamin Biber, Kohenet Shoshana Bricklin,

Rabbi Jason Bright, Rabbi Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus, Rabbi

Joshua Chasan, Rabbi Aryeh Cohen.

Rabbi Andrea Cohen Kiener, Rabbi Hillel Cohn, Rabbi David

J. Cooper, Rabbi Robert Dobrusin, Rabbi Art Donsky, Rabbi

Doris Dyen, Rabbi Renee Edelman, Rabbi Diane Elliot, Rabbi

Sue Levi Elwell, Kohenet Ahava Lilith EverShine, Rabbi Ted

Falcon, Rabbi Charles Feinberg, Rabbi Michael Feinberg, Rabbi

Fern Feldman, Rabbi Brian Field, Rabbi Tirzah Firestone.

Rabbi Nancy Flam, Rabbi Jeff Foust, Rabbi Ruth Gais, Rabbi

Hillel Gamoran, Maggid Andrew Gold, Rabbi Dan Goldblatt,

Rabbi Laurie Green, Rabbi Julie Greenberg, Rabbi Moshe

Halfon, Rabbi/Kohenet Jill Hammer, Rabbi Edwin Harris, Rabbi

Lauren Grabelle Herrmann, Kohenet Judith Hollander, Rabbi

Linda Holtzman, Rabbi Shaya Isenberg.

Rabbi Burt Jacobson, Rabbi Josh Jacobs-Velde, Kohenet

Sharon Jaffe, Rabbi Melissa Klein, Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum,

Rabbi David L Kline, Rabbi Debra Kolodny, Rabbi Douglas

Krantz, Rabbi Hannah Laner, Rabbi Daniel Lehrman, Rabbi Jason

van Leeuwen, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Kohenet Carly ``Ketzirah''

Lesser, Rabbi Richard Levy, Rabbi Annie Lewis, Rabbi Andrea

London.

Cantor Abbe Lyons, Rabbi Jeffrey Marker, Rabbi Nathan

Martin, Rabbi J. Rolando Matalon, Maggid Melvin Metelits,

Rabbi Yocheved Mintz, Kohenet Tiana Mirapai, Rabbi David

Mivasair, Rabbi Lee Moore, Hazan Judith Naimark, Rabbi Laura

Owens, Cantor Steven Puzarne, Rabbi Victor Reinstein, Cantor

Stephen Richards, Rabbi/Kohenet Margie Klein Ronkin, Rabbi

Moti Rieber, Rabbi Brant Rosen, Cantor Aviva Rosenbloom,

Cantor Richard Rosenfield, Rabbi Jeff Roth, Kohenet Mei Mei

Sanford, Hazan Pamela Sawyer, Rabbi Julie Saxe-Taller, Rabbi

Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, Rabbi Chaim Schneider, Rabbi Randy

Schoch, Kohenet Alumah Schuster, Rabbi Dr. Arthur Segal,

Rabbi Jonathan Slater, Rabbi Eric Solomon.

Cantor Robin Sparr, Rabbi David Spitz, Rabbi Toba Spitzer,

Rabbi Margot Stein, Rabbi Naomi Steinberg, Rabbi Gershon

Steinberg-Caudill, Rabbi Danielle Stillman, Rabbi Alana

Suskin, Rabbi Louis Sutker, Rabbi Daniel Swartz, Rabbi Renae

Toben, Rabbi Brian Walt, Rabbi Simkha Y. Weintraub, Hazan

Gregory Yaroslow, Rabbi Barbara Zacky, Rabbi Laurie

Zimmerman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of President Johnson's announcement of the war on poverty.

I recently had the opportunity to visit the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and Museum in Austin, Texas, and I was astonished by just how much he and the Congress were able to accomplish during his time in office. Since 1967, poverty has declined by more than a third. Still, 49.7 million Americans live in poverty, including 13.4 million children, but the war on poverty and the programs really worked. Here are some of them:

Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Head Start, school lunch, child nutrition, migrant assistance, Job Corps, legal assistance, small business and rural loans, and Indian reservation programs.

All of those were put into effect and really worked.

Dana Milbank had an article today in The Washington Post where he said, And what is the response to the 50th anniversary? It is the Republicans declaring war on the war on poverty, as they have for the last 50 years.

It is time for us to work together and continue to end poverty.

If that referred to me, I apologize.

Thank you very much for organizing this hour for the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about human issues that really don't lend themselves to any kind of political label. We are talking about people. And I think this is what has hurt me so much is the meanness, the meanness.

I just celebrated my 15th year here in the House of Representatives, and I have to tell you that we have disagreed across the aisle on a lot of different things, but the demonization of people who are struggling just to live a decent life. We are talking about people when we talk about the unemployed who aren't looking for the huge fancy job. They want to make enough to be able to raise their children comfortably, to be able to eat, put a roof over their head, just modest things that add up to a decent life.

Aside from all the arguments on why it is really dumb economically to not extend those unemployment benefits, that it will actually cost us jobs, 250,000--I don't know what the estimate is--if we don't put money in people's pockets that they can go out and spend, why would things that used to have a bipartisan consensus not prevail today?

In 1959, 1962, 1973, 1977, 1985, 1994, and 2003, we extended unemployment insurance benefits until the level of long-term unemployment--those are people unemployed over 6 months--fell below 1.5 percent. Today that is 2.6 percent of Americans. That is over 1 million Americans.

What are we doing? Who are we? That is what I asked myself around the holidays. We had a lot of cold weather and snow--typical Chicago in some ways--and people are celebrating and still going out and shopping and Christmas lights and Christmas trees. I was picturing--I know some of those families for whom this was so bleak and so unnecessary--that we could have, in 5 minutes before we left here, just extended those unemployment insurance benefits.

And you've got that sign there that says: Each week that we fail to act, 72,000 more people--that is a pretty hefty small town of people-- will lose their benefits, people who only are qualified for those benefits if they are seeking work, three people searching for every job that is available in this country.

You talked to people who have experienced this ultimate sense of insecurity: What is going to happen to me and my family? What I hear at the end of that story when I talk to people is: I don't know what I am going to do. I don't know what I am going to do.

For many people, the fear of homelessness is just right outside their door right now. I don't get it.

We celebrated the--and I mean celebrated--the 50th anniversary of the announcement of the war on poverty and all the things that we did and that were supported for many years.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 50th Anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson's declaration of the ``unconditional war on poverty.'' The question we must now ask is whether we will continue to fight to win the war on poverty or whether we will allow those who would rather wage war on the poor themselves carry the day.

No one can argue that we have won the war on poverty. We have only to look at the nearly 50 million Americans who are living below the official poverty line--including more than 16 million children. But we can argue--and should do so vigorously--against those who call the war on poverty a failure and want to raze its very foundation.

The war on poverty was based on the idea that we should make sure every American has access to a good education, economic opportunity, sufficient food, housing and health care to climb out of poverty, reach their full potential, and contribute to the economic strength of our country.

Consider what life would be like without Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start and college assistance, food stamps (now the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Jobs Corps and expanded unemployment insurance benefits, and Section 8 housing. How would we protect Americans in economically trying times without them?

Researchers tell us they make a difference. The EITC lifts six million Americans--half of them children--out of poverty, and SNAP does the same for almost five million people--also almost half of whom are children. In 2011, Medicaid kept almost 3 million Americans out of poverty. Unemployment insurance has kept 11 million people out of poverty since 2008. Without programs that help reduce poverty, almost twice as many Americans--nearly 30 percent--would live below the poverty line.

Are these programs perfect? No. Are there ways we can improve them? Of course, and many of us have been working to do so--to add new tools to lower prescription drug costs and eliminate fraud, to improve education by providing universal pre-K and making college more affordable, and to create jobs that will help the unemployed find work.

What we cannot do is follow the Republican Budget Proposal--which would give the average millionaire a $245,000 tax cut and pay for that by gutting SNAP funding, slashing education funding, cutting infrastructure investments, voucherizing Medicare, and cutting Medicaid by more than $800 billion over the next decade. Aside from my moral opposition to cutting those vital priorities, there is an economic reason: cutting them will hurt economic growth by preventing low-income Americans an opportunity to succeed and to contribute to our economic growth.

Instead, we should commit to strengthening the programs that have contributed to a reduction in poverty. Rather than cutting off unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans--and costing our economy more than 200,000 jobs in the process--we should extend the program so that those struggling to find work have the support they deserve in a time of need. Rather than weakening our education system, we should invest in universal pre-K and provide affordable student loans so that all students have a fair shot. Rather than cutting SNAP, we should restore the Recovery Act's boost to the program and ensure that it has adequate resources to prevent hunger in this country. Rather than cutting Section 8 and other housing assistance programs, we should make it our goal to ensure that everyone has a safe place to live. Rather than ending the guarantee of Medicare, we should ensure that it is strong and that our seniors have the health care they need and deserve. Rather than allowing workers to be paid less--in real terms--than at any time since the 1960s, we should commit to raising the minimum wage so that employment will mean escaping poverty.

Those investments, and others, can be made by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute a little more and by closing loopholes that allow American corporations to avoid their fair share in taxes. Those policies do not represent ``class warfare,'' they represent reality: if we are to end poverty, we need to invest in our people. In fact, I believe that what truly constitutes class warfare is the gutting of programs and policies that prevent poverty. If we make needed investments in preventing and reducing poverty, we will have an even stronger workforce, a more sound economy, and a brighter future for every American.

Thank you. I want to thank Congresswoman Speier for leading this really important debate.

We have been talking lately about how we are not going to be able to compete for the economic development in research and biotechnology and all the things that we do at the NIH. But I also want to show how economically--with one of your charts--it really doesn't work for us here at home as well.

Pretty much all you can see are the red lines, which are the costs every year in the United States of common diseases.

As my colleague, Congressman Garamendi, pointed out, we have $203 billion a year that Alzheimer's costs our society as a whole. This is cancer, $158 billion. We have hypertension, $131 billion; diabetes, $116 billion; obesity, $109 billion; heart disease, $95.6 billion; stroke, $18.8 billion, Parkinson's disease, $6 billion.

So it is really easy to see these red lines.

Teeny, tiny, and I think maybe the only one you can see here well is the amount of money that we are spending to address these diseases. NIH research funding and annual cost of care for major diseases in the U.S. is what this chart is about.

We spend $5.5 billion on cancer research. On Alzheimer's disease it has not even been a billion dollars. It is half a billion dollars for a disease that costs $200 billion to our economy. And on and on.

The teeny, tiny blue lines are barely very visible of how much we are actually investing in trying to deal with these diseases and diminish the tremendous costs to families and costs to government through our public health programs.

And so if we are smart investors, wise investors in how we can save ourselves money, we would put money into this kind of research.

I just want to give an example from my district of lack of being penny wise and pound foolish.

Northwestern University is developing one of the first major studies to look at the impact of contaminants from superfund sites--those are the most polluted sites in our country--on our reproductive health.

So Northwestern, which is in Evanston, Illinois, and I am proud to say in my district--a constituent of mine--proposed a study to examine the reproductive health impacts of exposure to metals, including zinc and lead, that are present in the DePue superfund site in Illinois--a very dirty site.

Initially, in the fall of 2012, the Northwestern University Superfund Research program, led by Dr. Teresa Woodruff, was awarded a positive score with a good chance of receiving funding in response to the NIH research application. Mind you, if we had been able to research this particular Superfund contaminated site, it would have helped all over the country where we have these kinds of contaminations.

Due to limited funding--due to the sequestration--in March of 2013, Dr. Woodruff and her colleague were informally given the option to receive a reduced amount for a reduced period of time since their application was deemed, in fact, meritorious. After electing to accept the reduced funding, the NIH informed the Northwestern University Superfund Research program that, due to the sequester cuts, their project would not be funded.

This lack of funding means Dr. Woodruff and her team are unable to perform this critical research which would be helpful all over the country to help us gain a better understanding of the reproductive health risks of Superfund sites and to help us determine the best practices for the future disposal of those toxic chemicals.

We are absolutely putting hands behind our backs in order to address critical health issues that are facing our country. We are hamstringing our ability to compete globally. We are hurting the health of Americans and of future Americans in not funding the study of reproductive health. It just makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense to cut the funding from the National Institutes of Health. It is hard to figure out what that argument would be. You certainly can't say this is frivolous spending, excessive spending.

So I really thank you for calling attention to the one of many ways that the sequester has hurt our country, but it is a very significant one. I appreciate your leadership.

There was some common sense on both sides of the aisle of things that were essential investments for our country, that it made sense from every angle at which you looked at this to make those kinds of investments in the National Institutes of Health.

I think, right now, we are dealing with some of our colleagues across the aisle who believe that government spending, regardless, is not a smart investment, that the sequester cuts, which are meat-ax cuts across the

board, do not distinguish in any way among the programs and that that is a smart way to go.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Congressman Rogers, doesn't agree with that--the sequestration, he agrees, hurts us--but, unfortunately, we don't have the same kind of bipartisan consensus. I think Democrats see the wisdom of this and that we need help from our colleagues. We had it then. We don't now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the many contributions of Cliff Hagedorn, a long time resident of Des Plaines, Illinois, and a pillar of our local veteran community. Mr. Hagedorn is a great example of a true American patriot.

Cliff Hagedorn grew up in Des Plaines--graduating from what is today Maine East High School and marrying his high school sweetheart, Valerie. Like so many other Americans during World War II, Mr. Hagedorn enlisted in the U.S. Army and prepared to risk his life on behalf of our nation.

On Easter Sunday 1944, Cliff Hagedorn landed with the allied forces in North Africa, and participated in actions that eventually stopped and then reversed German advances in the region. After succeeding in North Africa, he and his fellow soldiers spent the remainder of the war in Italy, pushing German forces back at every opportunity.

After the war, Cliff Hagedorn's contributions to his community continued--he raised a family in Des Plaines and helped to create the Des Plaines Senior Center. The Senior Center continues to offer vital services to this day and Mr. Hagedorn now holds emeritus status with the organization.

Cliff Hagedorn has also been an active member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2992 for several decades. In fact, earlier this month he celebrated 70 years of service with this institution--a truly remarkable achievement.

Today, at the age of 91, Cliff Hagedorn continues to work tirelessly in support of his country and his local community. Serving as Adjutant of his local VFW post, Mr. Hagedorn engages in outreach to the local community, visiting schools and teaching young people about the value of knowing their civics and their nation's history.

Cliff Hagedorn has devoted his life to public service, and we are all better off as a result. On behalf of a grateful nation, I want to extend our sincere thanks for all he has done for our country, and a heartfelt congratulations for seventy years of service to his local post of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Mr. Speaker, we can celebrate PEPFAR's 10 years of success in saving millions of lives by passing the bipartisan PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act.

Nearly 6 million people are receiving life-sustaining anti-retroviral treatments and providing care and support to more than 4.5 million orphans and vulnerable children. That is PEPFAR.

This bill extends critical authorities and strengthens program oversight to ensure access to essential prevention and treatment services. Most importantly, this bill extends existing funding requirements for treatment of orphans and vulnerable children.

We have brought to the world a tipping point in the fight against AIDS, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this very important bill. I thank my colleagues, like Barbara Lee, who have supported and initiated this amazing help for saving millions of lives.

Mr. Speaker, the number one cause of personal bankruptcies in this country is the cost of health care. Most of those people are so-called ``insured.'' These are the policies that are being offered that people find out, when they get sick, that they really aren't insured.

A major goal of ObamaCare is to protect every consumer from the worst abuses of the private health insurance industry. Starting next year, no consumer can be denied coverage or charged more due to a preexisting condition. This means that 129 million Americans will no longer have to live in fear that they could, one day, be unable to obtain affordable coverage needed to maintain their health or even to save their lives.

The Upton bill would turn back the clock. The Upton bill would allow insurers to cherry-pick among all health care consumers--the young, the healthy--by offering non-ObamaCare-compliant policies, leaving only the old and sick to purchase coverage in the marketplace. This is something they have wanted to do and have been doing for decades. This is going to drive up premiums and allow just the type of discrimination that ObamaCare absolutely ends.

Speaker Boehner said yesterday, We have currently the best health care delivery system in the world.

Are you kidding me--with tens of millions of people uninsured and tens of millions more with bad policies that don't cover this?

Rather than taking steps to weaken ObamaCare, my Republican colleagues should be taking this opportunity to build on ObamaCare; as the President said, to fix it.

Last week, I spoke with the director of the Illinois Department of Insurance about some of the unreasonable rate increases my constituents have faced in the past and their concerns about the new rates being quoted in letters they received from their insurers this fall. He told me that he doesn't have the authority he wants in order to protect consumers from excessive premiums. This authority includes the

ability to deny or to modify any unreasonable premium. Illinois isn't alone.

Today, Republicans denied us the opportunity to address this by refusing to consider legislation that would move us forward and provide rate modification authority in every State. Instead, they are choosing to move a bill that would drive up premium rates and undermine ObamaCare's new benefits and protections.

I want to caution people. Rather than re-up with some of the policies they have, check it out. What is really covered? Is there hospitalization? Is the emergency room covered? How many times can you go see your doctor? Go to the marketplace. It will be fixed. Pick a plan that is going to provide you with the real coverage and the essential benefits that you need that are provided under ObamaCare. We want to protect you from junk plans that are out there, but we want to let you re-up in plans that actually offer you the kind of coverage you want, that is essential, which is what the President did yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and Chicago actor, Mr. Mike Nussbaum. As an actor and director, Mr. Nussbaum has certainly made an indelible mark on the city of Chicago, Hollywood and the world. His unstoppable energy and dedication to his work keeps Mike Nussbaum on stage at age 90. His love for his family and friends, with four great-grandchildren and counting, also keeps him young.

Mike Nussbaum represents the epitome of success in the Chicago acting community. He has been nominated for the Joseph Jefferson Award ten times and awarded the prestigious award three times over the course of his long career. He has acted in movies such as Men in Black, House of Games, Fatal Attraction and Field of Dreams. He has performed in plays such as Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross, Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice and Becket's Endgame.

Mike's signature gift is that he is able to perform in such diverse roles not only because of his talent, but his hard work and unwillingness to quit. His major strategy is to keep his mind and body as supple as possible. For most, it is difficult to perform exemplary work at age 90--but Mike Nussbaum makes it looks easy.

Nussbaum helped build Chicago into the theatre powerhouse it is today. Chicago is now widely respected for its cutting edge theater. This could not have been done without Mike Nussbaum. Happy 90th Birthday, Mike!