Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 3463, which would strip funding from the public financing of presidential campaigns and the Election Assistance Commission. I wholeheartedly believe that we should be looking closely at faults in our electoral system, but this bill is a step in the entirely wrong direction.

Make no mistake--our election system is in crisis. Money has a corrupting influence at every level in the process. Candidates must constantly raise more and more money to remain competitive, and large corporations such as insurance, oil or other special interest groups are able to exert a substantial influence. It is increasingly hard for middle class or low income individuals to have their voices heard.

This bill would only worsen the problem. Matching funds are intended to give small donors a more effective voice by doubling the impact of dollars given by those who can only afford to contribute small amounts of money. It gives presidential candidates a substantial reason to focus on small donations, instead of merely courting big donors. Eliminating matching funds will all but guarantee that candidates focus even more on donors who are able to contribute large amounts of money each cycle.

Instead we should be looking at how to make money play less of a role in the system--not more. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1404, the Fair Elections Now Act. This bill would shift a candidate's focus to receiving a large number of small donations from constituents in their states or districts. This would level the playing field and give small donors--working families, seniors, and others--as much influence as the 1% and mega corporations. If H.R. 1404 were passed, it would go a long way towards righting what is so wrong about our process today.

Rather than considering H.R. 3463 today, we should be discussing how to stop the avalanche of state laws that will have the effect of suppressing voter turnout--laws promoted under the guise of eliminating voter fraud--a virtually non-existent problem. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, recent changes to voting requirements could result in disenfranchising more than five million legitimate, eligible voters this cycle. That number is more than the margin of victory in two of the last three presidential elections.

The various initiatives proposed--whether they are photo identification requirements, the reduction or elimination of same-day, early or absentee voting opportunities, or placing onerous hurdles on voter registration--all disproportionately impact vulnerable voting populations that we should actively be encouraging to vote. Instead, over and over we see state legislatures doing whatever they can to stop these groups from turning out at the polls.

It is our duty as members of Congress to investigate those practices and ensure that

American citizens are encouraged and able to participate in the electoral process. What agency is similarly tasked with making sure that Americans are given every opportunity to exercise this right? The Election Assistance Commission. I believe its role is fundamental. Disbanding the entire agency is the worst possible solution, given recent changes in voting requirements across the country. Rather, the Commission must be given the tools necessary to ensure that disadvantaged, low-participation and other groups are not disenfranchised by recent changes in state law.

It is by addressing these two key issues--the role of money and how to boost voter participation, that we will meaningfully address some of the most serious problems with the electoral system today. I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and instead pursue positive election reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Gabriel Zimmerman, who tragically lost his life in the senseless shooting on January 8, 2011, that took 5 other lives and resulted in the serious wounding of our wonderful and resilient colleague, Representative Gabby Giffords.

Gabe dedicated his life to helping others. On that day, he had organized a Congress on Your Corner event so that constituents could bring their problems to Representative Giffords and her staff to get them solved. We have learned a lot about Gabe's commitment to service-- his practice of going the extra mile to help improve the lives of so many.

In January 2007, Gabe began serving as Constituent Services Supervisor for newly-elected Congresswoman Giffords. In that role, he oversaw an extensive constituent advocacy program, working directly with the people of Arizona's Eighth Congressional District every day. He then served as Congresswoman Giffords' Director of Community Outreach, where he organized hundreds of events to allow constituents all over southern Arizona to meet with Congresswoman Giffords. I know how much my colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, relied on Gabriel and how much she valued their work together.

Margaret Bowe, a close college friend of Gabe, described him as ``a warm, funny, energetic, smart, interesting person who was passionate about life.'' She went on to explain ``Gabe's purpose, his motivation, his passion, was to help people, he believed in the ideals of our political system.''

I remember that day well--my thoughts and concerns went out to those involved in that horrific event but also to my own staff, who work extremely hard, putting in long hours to serve the constituents of the 9th District of Illinois. Every one of them is committed to helping people and they are regularly in the same role that Gabriel was on that January morning. They do not get the recognition that they deserve, often enough.

Our staffs are out there in our communities every day, embodying the same values Gabe worked so hard for. In remembering Gabe, we also must salute the thousands of staffers across the country, who keep his memory alive by proudly serving their communities and country.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Gabe's family and friends, among them my colleague Gabrielle Giffords, who so deeply mourn his tragic death.

Mr. Speaker, as we pause to reflect on World AIDS Day, I want to thank the many activists and advocates who work tirelessly--every day--to focus increased attention on HIV/AIDS education, treatment and prevention. I want to recognize the great work of David Munar and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, and Mark Ishaug and AIDS United, who--along with countless organizations across the country and world--are working to end HIV/AIDS and to ensure that people with HIV/AIDS live longer and better lives.

HIV/AIDS is one of the world's most pressing global health challenges. It is a danger to global security and to the future of people around the world. Nearly 35 million people are living with HIV/ AIDS around the world, including over one million Americans. Our community, our nation and the entire world are threatened by this terrible pandemic.

As the HIV virus has spread, the face of its victims has changed. Women now account for 52 percent of the adults living with HIV/AIDS around the world. In regions like sub-Saharan Africa, gender inequalities have left women particularly vulnerable to infection. The battle to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS among women will ultimately hinge on our ability to empower them with the information and the tools needed to protect themselves, their families and their communities. That is one of the reasons

that I have been such a strong supporter of microbisides research.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic has not spared the world's children. Last year there were 3.4 million children across the globe living with HIV, and the disease has left more than 16.6 million AIDS orphans, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa, in its wake.

Despite the many advances of the last thirty years, as the pandemic has grown, so have the challenges. Despite the significant expansion of treatment programs, only 47% of the 14.2 million people who were eligible for treatment were receiving it by the end of last year. Despite the 21% drop in deaths from AIDS since 2005, last year 1.8 million people died of AIDS. HIV remains a leading cause of death worldwide and the number one cause of death in Africa.

The United States has a responsibility to lead the fight against HIV/ AIDS by containing the spread of the virus, helping to provide treatment, and investing in a cure. It is critical that we continue to meet this responsibility, especially after last week's announcement by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that they cannot fund any new grants for at least two years because of the global financial crisis.

To ensure that the millions of people battling HIV/AIDS do not become collateral damage of the economic downturn, and to uphold our responsibility as a global leader in the fight against HIV/AIDS, I will do whatever I can to ensure that we maintain commitment to domestic and global AIDS programs. That includes funding for PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, as well as vital funding for domestic programs like the Ryan White CARE Act, and the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Program, and especially, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, given that some states are changing the income eligibility criteria for that program, while others are seeing waiting lists.

While we have come far in the fight, we so have a long way to go, and we cannot afford to become complacent.

While many hours have been spent by this body debating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, far too little time has been devoted to the United States' growing dependence on private military contractors: the weapon-carrying, for-profit security companies-- mercenaries--who have become integral and counterproductive actors in our war efforts.

I believe that the increased reliance on hired guns to provide security in conflict zones undermines our policy objectives, and I am not alone. In 2007 then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that the mission of many security contractors was ``at cross purposes to our larger mission in Iraq.''

We should be concerned. Private contractors don't wear the badge of the United States. They answer to a corporation, not to a uniformed commander. Our government doesn't even know how many contract personnel we've hired. Because legal jurisdiction remains murky, we may lack the ability to prosecute contractors for alleged violations committed overseas.

We need to end our reliance on security contractors in conflict zones. Since 2007 I've introduced the Stop Outsourcing Security Act to phase out the use of for-profit contractors for mission-critical tasks, including security, intelligence and interrogation in conflict areas. The SOS Act builds on legislation I have introduced since 2001, including the Andean Region Contractor Accountability Act to prohibit military contracting in Colombia and neighboring nations.

While the problem applies to other private contractors, there is one company that has been synonymous with misconduct--Blackwater. Operating under a culture of recklessness created by its founder, Erik Prince, Blackwater employees have been implicated in a wide range of alleged misconduct since 2004--from shooting and killing civilians to gun- running.

Five former Blackwater executives, including its former president, Gary Jackson, were indicted in 2010 for weapons charges. The company agreed to a $42 million administrative settlement with the State Department for 288 alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations. At least seven civil suits for alleged abuses by Blackwater personnel in Iraq have been settled, and legal action is still pending against four Blackwater guards accused of massacring 17 civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square in 2007. Further, the Iraqi Government, our ally, has repeatedly asked that Blackwater be ousted, leading the United States State Department to refuse to renew the company's contract in 2009.

In short, Blackwater, now renamed Xe, has been a center of controversy for years in congressional committees, the press and among members of the military. Yet the company has received over $1.25 billion in taxpayer money.

Recently, Mr. Prince has launched a video game called ``Blackwater,'' glorifying the discredited company he started, and now Mr. Prince has adopted yet another heavy-handed tactic--the attempted intimidation of a Member of Congress.

Last month a letter from his attorney was hand delivered to my congressional office. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting the letter for the Congressional Record. It accuses me of defamatory statements, characterizes my efforts to urge investigations into Mr. Prince as a violation of congressional power, and describes possible legal action if I persist.

I come to the floor today because I believe it is my responsibility as a Member of Congress to speak out against policies and entities that I believe are damaging to our Nation. I want to make it clear to Mr. Prince that I will not stop working to end our reliance on private security contractors or to investigate any and all allegations of misconduct. I want to make it clear to the military men and women who have shared their concerns that they are endangered by the behavior of hired guns employed by Blackwater-like companies, that I will keep speaking out to protect our mission and our brave troops from risk.

And I want to tell the families of the men and women who have been killed in incidents involving Blackwater and other such companies that I will continue to push for full investigations and, whenever appropriate, criminal charges.

diGenova & Toensing, LLP,

Attorneys-At-Law,

Washington, DC, October 7, 2011.

Delivered by Hand

Hon. Jan Schakowsky,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky: This firm represents Erik

Prince concerning false and defamatory statements you have

made against him.

On September 8, 2011, Guy Adams, a Los Angeles-based

correspondent, published in the London-based Independent an

article discussing ``Blackwater'' (2011), a video game owned

by Mr. Prince. In that article, Mr. Adams attributes to you

the following observation: ``If Mr. Prince had not emigrated

to the United Arab Emirates, which does not have an

extradition agreement with the US, he too would now be facing

prosecution.''

We demand you cease and desist any further public

statements that suggest in any way that Mr. Prince ``would be

facing prosecution'' or has engaged in criminal conduct under

any circumstances.

Your caprice in making a false and defamatory statement

about criminal culpability is particularly galling in light

of your husband's guilty plea to federal fraud and his time

in prison. One would think you would be sensitive about

falsely accusing others of criminality.

Mr. Prince has answered his country's call to serve both in

military uniform and civilian life. Mr. Prince served his

country with honor as a commissioned officer in the United

States Navy SEALs. He deployed with SEAL Team 8 to Haiti, the

Middle East, and the Balkans.

Mr. Prince's support for human rights around the world is

well established, from funding famine relief in Somalia and

the Sudan, to contributing to the building of hospitals,

schools, orphanages and churches and mosques in the Middle

East and Asia. He financed a feature film, The Stoning of

Soraya M., about the oppression of women in Iran. Mr. Prince

has spent time and resources to improve conditions for many

who live under despotic regimes surrounded by war, drought,

and famine.

Your statement to Mr. Adams, which imputes commission of a

crime, is per se libelous. Raboya v. Shrybman & Assoc., 777

F.Supp. 58, 59 (D.D.C. 1991); Farnum v. Colbert, 293 A.2d

279,281 (D.C. 1972).

Your malice cannot be questioned. You have a multi-year

history of making derogatory comments about Mr. Prince and

his former company, Blackwater. You have abused your

Congressional power to request that Mr. Prince be

investigated.

In May of this year, you attempted to initiate a Department

of State investigation of Mr. Prince in a letter to Secretary

of State Clinton. You based your request on your ``concern

that Mr. Prince is now exporting his services.'' Absent from

your letter was any mention of other American security

consultants who are performing the same business in the

Middle East and Asia.

You brag on your official website that you have ``focused''

on private security contractors who ``work for companies like

the infamous Blackwater.'' In October 2007, you requested

then Secretary of State Rice to ``terminate[] Blacwater's

contract immediately.'' In February 2009, you issued a press

release alleging Blackwater's actions have put ``our troops

in harms [sic] way and jeopardized our mission in Iraq.'' In

September 2010, you purposely evoked a criminal context by

mischaracterizing Blackwater as a ``repeat offender.''

The facts you assert about Mr. Prince show complete

reckless disregard for the truth. For example, Mr. Prince did

not immigrate to the UAE. He maintains a residence in the

United States. Mr. Prince has never committed nor ever been

charged with any crime.

A federal court in July 2011 dismissed Mr. Prince from a

civil law suit finding there was no evidence on which to base

the claims. Moreover, a jury found there was no liability for

United States Training Center, the company formerly known as

Blackwater. A quick check would have verified these readily

available facts.

Your interview with Mr. Adams is not protected by the

Speech or Debate clause. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S.

111, 124-125 (1979).

As you are surely aware, since articles quoting you are

published in other countries, you are subject to defamation

laws in those countries as well as in the United States. If

you do not like the ``Blackwater'' video game, you are free

to express your opinion. But you are not permitted under the

laws of the United States and numerous countries where your

statements are published to make false accusations about Mr.

Prince's status under the criminal law.

Sincerely,

Victoria Toensing,

Counsel for Erik Prince.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I rise in opposition to the balanced budget amendment. It was just a decade ago that President Clinton left office with not just a balanced budget but a surplus, and we got there by a one-vote margin. No Republican votes whatsoever.

And here we are today, after 8 years and two wars and two tax cuts that were paid for on the credit card and mainly benefiting the wealthy and a devastating recession that could have been prevented had financial regulators not turned a blind eye to Wall Street, and now we're debating an amendment to the Constitution that offers anything but balance.

This amendment would destroy the budget and, in the process, wipe out jobs and eviscerate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, extended unemployment benefits, as well as education, cancer research, veterans, bridge repair, and food inspection. You name a program, and this amendment will put it at risk.

A balanced budget amendment could force Congress to cut all programs by an average of 17.3 percent by 2018. This amendment would limit the ability of the Federal Government to respond to national crises, including an economic or natural disaster. It would virtually guarantee that recessions turn into depressions.

This amendment will require a supermajority to raise the debt ceiling--a reckless requirement given how close we came to defaulting earlier this year when just a simple majority was required.

And I'm really tired of hearing Republicans say, well, if States and families must balance their budgets, so should the Federal Government. The States have to balance their operating budgets, but they can still borrow for capital projects. And families have to manage their budgets, but they can do so by incurring debt, home mortgages, student loans, car loans, and payments for medical bills. This amendment blocks the Federal Government from making investments in the same way.

And suppose in 2008, when the deficit seemed manageable, we had a balanced budget amendment. The effect on the economy would be catastrophic. If the 2012 balanced budget were balanced through spending cuts, those cuts, it is predicted by Macroeconomics Advisers-- --

Macroeconomics, a nonpartisan forecasting firm, said that those cuts would throw about 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9 percent to about 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by about 17 percent instead of growing at an expected 17 percent. This amendment will only make the economy worse.

Vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

By forcing each state to recognize every other state's concealed carry permits, this legislation would create serious safety challenges for communities and law enforcement officials across the country. Further, it seriously infringes upon individual states' rights to set minimum standards based on local needs and concerns.

This legislation has been called the ``lowest common denominator approach'' to public safety. Currently, states use widely varying criteria to determine who is allowed to carry a concealed firearm. At least 38 states prohibit individuals convicted of certain dangerous misdemeanor crimes from obtaining concealed carry permits; 35 states require completion of a gun safety program or other proof of competency in order to receive a permit; at least 36 states have age restrictions; and 29 states will not award concealed carry permits to alcohol abusers.

Forcing national reciprocity would allow individuals who would be denied a permit in their home state to apply for a permit in a less restrictive state. It jeopardizes the safety of police officers making routine stops, who may not have the resources to verify the validity of an unfamiliar, out-of-state concealed carry permit.

Mr. Chair, right now states can determine their own concealed carry regulations. They can choose to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states, and they can choose to end those agreements. They can choose to only allow residents of the state to obtain concealed-carry permits, or they can opt to issue licenses to both residents and non- residents. They can chose, as Illinois has so sensibly done, not to allow concealed carry at all.

Different states have different crime fighting concerns and priorities, and this legislation is a dangerous attempt to override state laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of Lincolnwood.

Not many cities can boast a more colorful start than Lincolnwood. A hundred years ago, the city came to be known as Tessville after a band of tavern owners incorporated the area to take advantage of a loophole during Prohibition that allowed organized municipalities to grant liquor licenses.

It was an unconventional way for a city to begin. Though not as infamous as its Midwestern counterpart Dodge City, Kansas a few decades prior, Tessville was also known for its speakeasies, saloons and gambling halls.

In the 1920s, under the helm of long-serving Mayor Henry Proesel, came an electric rail. With the electric rail came new ideas and prosperity.

Stricter liquor control laws were passed, and Tessville would become Lincolnwood--an ethnically diverse, popular community that offered fast access to and from Chicago, and good fortune for its residents.

Since then, Lincolnwood has had many proud moments--from the construction of a 1.5 million-gallon water tower to the election of Peter Moy, the first Asian American to serve any municipality in Illinois as its President.

Over the years, city efforts--including the Vision 2020 plan--have yielded improvement in repairing infrastructure, renovating city parks, and construction of new parkways.

Today, Lincolnwood is a vibrant community that still sports a strong business sector and a diverse population. The city of Lincolnwood has much to be proud of and much to look forward to in the next 100 years. I am proud to serve as Congresswoman for Lincolnwood and wish its leaders, businesses and residents a happy 100th anniversary.

Everybody has the same issues: the underground systems, the water systems, the overhead systems, the bridges. I wonder sometimes about those who don't support the American Jobs Act. Don't they drive over bridges? Don't their families drive over bridges?

We have 400 unsafe, structurally unsafe bridges in the State of Illinois, and so aside from the jobs that it would create, the safety issues that would be addressed.

I wanted to just debunk a myth that is so persistent and that some of our colleagues on the Republican side want to repeat over and over again, and that is that the stimulus bill did nothing, created no jobs. And of course that's just not true. No matter how many times they say it, it is not true. Between 1.9 million and 3 million jobs were created or saved.

But I also know it's not true because many of those same people, when the ribbons get cut on those projects, actually appear at the ribbon cuttings. As we speak right now, there are people who are collecting those photos and videos and news accounts of those people who say the stimulus program created no jobs so that we can compile those kind of things and show the hypocrisy that you have when the project opens, there they are, smiling and cutting the ribbon, because it's not true. It did create jobs.

I wanted to point out that at the very beginning of our country, George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to come up with a manufacturing strategy. Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury, and he came up with an 11-point manufacturing strategy because, at that point, almost everything had to be imported mainly from England, from whom our colonies had just broken and now our new country was trying to create its independence.

Really what Alexander Hamilton did was kick off the American industrial revolution, and there are a number of principles which I think are very applicable today. They call stimulus--he doesn't use that word, but he talks about pecuniary bounties, which essentially is to support industries, to give money to create jobs. This has been found to be one of the most efficacious means of encouraging manufacturers; and it is, in some views, the best, though it hasn't been the practice, he says, of the United States, and that we should do that.

He also says, the encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, and the introduction into the United States such as may have been made in other countries, particularly those which relate to machinery.

So we had a comprehensive industrial manufacturing policy which involved the public sector making contributions, investing and making sure that not only did we have a vibrant industrial economy, but we had people that would work in those things.

By the way, when George Washington found out that he had been elected President, he looked for an American-made suit and finally found someone in Connecticut that was actually making those, the fabric; because, while we had the raw materials, they were made into clothing mostly in England, and he was darned if he was going to be wearing an imported-from-England suit to the inauguration as President.

That's exactly right.

These are called public works projects for a reason. They're done by the public sector. They are good for our country. They are good for our economy. They put people to work. And that's exactly what we ought to be doing, and that's what the American Jobs Act is for.

Let me just emphasize one other piece of it, and that is the piece of fixing our schools. Again, not only does this create jobs and not only does this do it summer, winter, spring, and fall because you don't have to wait for construction season, but it's also good for our children who are sitting in schoolrooms around the country that are really toxic, where there's asbestos contamination and that are dangerous or inadequate in the sense of being unwired for the kinds of technologies that we need for the future in order for them to be able to get good jobs, not only now but when they become adults and go into the workforce.

This is such a no-brainer to me. If we are serious about wanting to educate or children as well as put people to work, as well as create a healthy environment for them, this is such a sensible proposal, a part of the American Jobs Act.

And electrical connections for the Internet.

On Thursday, I will join my colleague Representative Barbara Lee, Catholic Charities USA, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the National Council of Churches, and several other Congress Members that my colleague mentioned to participate in the Food Stamp Challenge, an effort to draw attention to the crisis of hunger in America.

As part of the challenge, participants will eat on the average SNAP allotment. That's what we call it now. There's no more food stamps. Now people get a card that they can actually use to charge the food. But we'll eat on the average SNAP allotment of $1.50 per meal for a week.

Having participated in this event in the past, I know it is extremely difficult to eat a healthy diet under such strict budgetary guidelines. Nevertheless, SNAP is the difference between chronic hunger and a basic meal for 45 million Americans.

Now, obviously, that means I'm going to give up any Starbucks coffee. But even the $1 coffee that I was able to buy in the cloakroom just before I came out here is something that will be just too precious to spend. That's almost a whole meal's worth just to buy that cup of coffee.

In 2010, 14.5 percent of American households were food insecure, meaning they lacked the capacity to put enough food on their tables. They relied on nutrition programs like SNAP to make ends meet.

In this, the wealthiest country in the world, one out of four American children is now food insecure, meaning there are nights that they go to sleep hungry. It really is a moral issue, as my colleague pointed out.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--that's SNAP--provides an essential safety net for American families. More than half of SNAP recipients are children.

The Republican budget passed in the House--with no Democratic support, I might add--would cut $127 billion from SNAP over the next decade, a 20 percent cut. The House Agriculture appropriations bill-- passed, again, with no Democratic support--would also cut the SNAP program.

You know, these may be just numbers, $127 billion here and several billion dollars there, but their effects are very real for people across the country. I recently received dozens of messages on paper plates from EZRA Multi-Service Center in Chicago. They rely on SNAP to make ends meet, and they

fear the repercussions of further cuts. The plates answer the question: What would happen to you if SNAP benefits are cut?

Heather C. in Chicago said that it's already hard enough to feed her children as it is, and cutting SNAP would mean her kids would suffer. She says, ``My food stamps stretch out for about 2 weeks out of the month, so if I didn't have them, then it would cost me an extra $250 a month to feed my children. Food these days is so expensive, and the more help we can get to feed our kids the better.''

And, by the way, most of the people on the SNAP program are on just for a temporary amount of time, just like the Congresswoman said, to bridge a gap when they're really in need.

Jack K. worked for decades as a taxicab driver but retired with very little wealth. He says now, ``I now live in subsidized housing and depend upon soup kitchens and food pantries for food.''

An anonymous client from Chicago writes that if SNAP benefits are cut, ``it would be impossible for me to feed my four children every day. It's bad enough that because of this recession there's a lack of jobs. That alone makes it difficult to provide for them. These programs give people the temporary help they need to be okay until a job is obtained. Please take into consideration the children who depend on their parents for survival.''

One commenter said she needs the program because she lost her life savings to cover medical costs which continue to this day. ``Instead of being middle class, I am now living below the poverty level,'' she says. ``Without assistance, I would be back in a homeless shelter. As it is now, I am unable to afford utilities, between my rent and medical expenses.''

And Robert B. in Chicago said the bad economy has left him in long- term unemployment. ``I lost everything. If my benefits were cut, I wouldn't eat for awhile.''

We have options in this wealthiest country in the world. For example, I've introduced H.R. 1124, the Fairness in Taxation Act, which would raise revenues by increasing tax rates on the 1 percent richest Americans. Income over $1 million a year would be taxed at 45 percent, moving up to 49 percent for income over $1 billion. And, by the way, that's lower than during the Reagan years.

So I invite my colleagues to join me in the Food Stamp Challenge and learn, just even for a week, what it's like to live on $1.50 a meal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to Food Day and the importance of addressing our hunger crisis in America.

Spearheaded by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Sen. Tom Harkin, Food Day enlists anti-hunger advocates, physicians, authors, and elected officials to advocate for healthy, affordable food produced in a sustainable, humane way. I am honored to be a member of the Food Day Advisory Board.

While Food Day and its advocates focus on a number of important food- related issues, one that Congress has failed to fully understand is the crisis of hunger. In 2010, 14.5 percent of American households were food insecure, meaning they lacked the capacity to put enough food on their tables.

Several federal programs work in conjunction to prevent hunger. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) keeps 45 million people from going hungry. Over half of SNAP beneficiaries are children, and eight percent are over age 60. The Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program provides food assistance to 9 million mothers and children under five years of age. These programs are needed now more than ever.

The Republican Budget, passed in the House with no Democratic support, would cut $127 billion from SNAP over the next decade, a 20 percent cut. The House Agriculture Appropriations bill, passed with no Democratic support, would also cut SNAP funding.

The 2011 Continuing Budget Resolution cut WIC by $504 million, and the 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill would cut it by an additional $700 million, or roughly 10 percent.

These are numbers, but they affect real people. I recently received a dozens of messages on paper plates from the Ezra Multi-Service Center in Chicago. The plates answer the question: what would happen if SNAP benefits are cut?

One anonymous client said that if the program is cut it would be impossible for her to feed her four children.

Robert from Chicago said that he has lost everything. ``If my benefits were cut I wouldn't eat for a while.''

A third client said ``if my benefits were cut, I would not be able to eat or sleep. I would have to look in the garbage for food.''

In the wealthiest nation on earth, that is simply unacceptable.

I urge my colleagues who are members of the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction not to consider cuts to SNAP, WIC, or other nutrition programs that serve as a lifeline for families struggling to make ends meet. Instead we should look to raise revenues by increasing tax rates on individuals and corporations who can afford to contribute more.

As we work to rein in our deficit, we must ensure that no American is forced to go without food.

Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 797 on H.R. 2273, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Madam Speaker, I rise today to issue a warning to America's seniors and working families: Top Republicans are still trying to privatize Social Security. The GOP Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, author of the budget that ends Medicare and increased health costs for seniors, admitted he views Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. And Congressman Pete Sessions, who serves in House leadership for the GOP, introduced legislation labeled ``Savings Account For Every American Act'' that would have people opt out of Social Security by sending their contributions to a private account.

According to Stephen Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, this change will ``severely compromise'' the ability to pay for current seniors and those near retirement. ``So Social Security, the ability to pay benefits to people who are currently receiving, or are now approaching the time of receiving benefits, would be severely compromised. Our year of trust fund exhaustion would certainly come to be much sooner than 2036.'' In other words, the plan of the Republicans to privatize Social Security would put that program that has never missed a check to Americans in danger. We need to oppose those efforts.

I thank my friend, the gentlewoman, for yielding to me. I rise in support of her point of order.

The American people are begging us to work together to create jobs to bolster the economy. Instead, we're here once again to consider legislation that endangers and attacks the right of women and is far out of the mainstream of American priorities.

H.R. 358 is extreme legislation. It is another attempt to unravel the health care law while at the same time expanding anti-choice laws that will harm women's health. It would take away a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health--even with her own money. It would allow public hospitals, as you heard, to deny emergency abortion care to women in life-threatening situations. It would expand the existing conscience objection to allow providers to avoid providing contraception. We're talking now about birth control.

This legislation revives a debate that has already been settled. There is no Federal funding for an abortion in the health care reform law. Legal experts have said it, independent fact-check organizations have said it. Yet Republicans continue to insist that the possibility of funding remains.

Federal funds are already prohibited from being used for abortions under the Hyde amendment--at the expense, I should add, of poor women, Federal employees, women of the District of Columbia, and women in the military. But this bill goes way beyond that law. The attention Republicans are focusing on the private lives of women--what American families do with their own money--makes it clear that their real goal is to ban all abortions and end access to birth control and contraceptives.

Republicans don't want government to protect the water we drink--oh, no--or the air we breathe or the food we eat, but they do want to intrude in a woman's right to choose.

We are now at 280 days into this Congress without passing a jobs plan, yet the Republican majority has consistently managed to pass extreme and divisive legislation targeted at women's health. The administration strongly opposes H.R. 358, and this bill has no chance of becoming law. Now is the time to work on the issues that are most important to Americans--creating jobs and improving the economy--rather than restricting reproductive choice and access to family planning.

American women will suffer if this bill becomes law, but we're just wasting time here because it will not. And it just shows how mean spirited and extreme this legislation is. It's a way to roll back women's health and rights. It's too extreme for women, too extreme for America, and we should reject it right now.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We are running out of legislative days before the end of the year, and instead of focusing on jobs or the economy, the House leadership has decided once again to consider legislation that endangers and attacks the rights of women.

H.R. 358 is extreme legislation that puts the lives of women in danger. This legislation undermines the guarantee of emergency care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA.

H.R. 358 strips EMTALA of its power to ensure that women receive abortion care in emergency situations at hospitals by making their right to health care secondary to a hospital's ability to refuse to provide abortion care.

Abortion care is necessary in some circumstances to save a woman's life. During the hearing on H.R. 358 in the Energy and Commerce Committee, some witnesses wrongly claimed that this was not the case. In response to those claims, Dr. Cassing Hammond, director of Northwestern University's Center for Family Planning and Contraception wrote a letter, based on his 20 years of experience in obstetric and complex abortion care, to the committee to set the record straight.

In his letter, Dr. Hammond states:

``Most patients are healthy women having healthy babies, but I am frequently asked to provide abortions for

women confronting severely troubled pregnancies or their own life- endangering health issues. Physicians who provide health care to women cannot choose to ignore the more tragic consequences of human pregnancy--and neither should Congress.''

This legislation is an extreme and mean-spirited way to roll back women's health and rights. It is too extreme for women, too extreme for America, and we must reject it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act.

The American people want us to work together to create jobs to bolster the economy. Instead, we are here, once again, to consider legislation that endangers and attacks the right of women and is far out of the mainstream of American priorities.

H.R. 358 is extreme legislation. It is another attempt to unravel the health care law while at the same time expanding anti-choice laws that will harm women's health.

This legislation revives a debate that has already been settled-- there is no federal funding for abortion in the health care reform law. Legal experts have said it. Independent fact check organizations have said it. Yet, Republicans continue to insist that the possibility of funding remains.

Federal funds are already prohibited from being used for abortions under the Hyde Amendment--at the expense of poor women, federal employees, women in the District of Columbia and women in the military. But this bill goes way beyond that law.

It would take away a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health--even with her own money.

It could expand the existing conscience objection to avoid providing contraception.

And, it would allow public hospitals to deny emergency abortion care to women in life-threatening situations.

H.R. 358 undermines the guarantee of emergency care under the Emergency Medical

Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA creates a legal safety net that guarantees that anyone in need of emergency health care, including those unable to pay for health care, cannot be denied such care at hospitals.

H.R. 358 would strip EMTALA of its power to ensure that women receive abortion care in emergency situations at hospitals by making their right to health care secondary to the hospital's ability to refuse to provide abortion care.

Abortion care is necessary in some circumstances to save a woman's life. During the hearing on H.R. 358 in the Energy and Commerce Committee, some witnesses wrongly claimed that this was not the case.

In response to those claims, Dr. Cassing Hammond, Director of Northwestern University's Center for Family Planning and Contraception as well as its academic Section of Family Planning, wrote a letter to the Committee to set the record straight. Dr. Hammond has twenty years of experience in obstetric and complex abortion care.

In his letter, Dr. Hammond states:

Most patients are healthy women having healthy babies, but

I am frequently asked to provide abortions for women

confronting severely troubled pregnancies or their own life

endangering health issues. Physicians who provide health care

to women cannot choose to ignore the more tragic consequences

of human pregnancy--and neither should Congress.

Dr. Hammond then proceeds to give several examples from his own experience of women who required abortion care in life-saving circumstances. The following examples illustrate just a few of those instances:

One of my own obstetric patients carrying a desired

pregnancy recently experienced rupture of the amniotic sac at

20 weeks gestation. The patient had a complete placenta

previa, a condition where the afterbirth covers the opening

of the uterus. Although the patient hoped the pregnancy might

continue, she began contracting and suddenly hemorrhaged,

losing nearly a liter of blood into her bed in a single gush.

Had we not quickly intervened to terminate the pregnancy, she

would have bled to death, just as women do in countries with

limited access to obstetric services.

My service often receives consults regarding patients with

serious medical issues complicating pregnancy. We recently

had a 44-year-old patient whose pregnancy had been

complicated by a variety of non-specific symptoms. A CT scan

obtained at 23 weeks gestation revealed that the patient had

lung cancer that had metastasized to her brain, liver, and

other organs. Her family confronted the difficult choice of

terminating a desired pregnancy or continuing the pregnancy

knowing that the physiological burden of pregnancy and cancer

might worsen her already poor prognosis. The family chose to

proceed with the pregnancy termination.

My service frequently sees patients with early pre-

eclampsia, often referred to by the term ``toxemia.'' Pre-

eclampsia usually complicates later gestation, but

occasionally complicates pregnancy as early as 18 to 20

weeks, well before the fetus is viable. The only treatment

for severe pre-eclampsia is delivery. Otherwise, the

condition will worsen, exposing the mother to kidney failure,

liver failure, stroke and death. One Christmas morning I had

to leave my own family so that I could provide a pregnancy

termination for a remarkably sick, pre-eclamptic teenager.

These are women suffering from the most serious of health conditions. If H.R. 358 were in place, they could be denied the emergency care they need.

The attention Republicans are focusing on the private lives of women--what American family do with their own money--makes it clear that their real goal is to ban all abortions and end access to birth control and contraceptives.

Republicans don't want government to protect the water we drink, the air we breathe, or the food we eat--but they do want to intrude in a women's right to choose.

We are now at 280 days in this Congress without passing a jobs plan-- yet the Republican majority has consistently managed to pass extreme and divisive legislation targeted at women's health.

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 358, and this bill has no chance of becoming law.

We are running out of legislative days left before the end of the year. When is the Republican majority going to focus on jobs and the economy?

Now is the time to work on the issues that are most important to Americans--creating jobs and improving the economy--rather than restricting reproductive choice and access to family planning.

This legislation is an extreme and mean-spirited way to roll back women's health and rights. It is too extreme for women, too extreme for America, and we must reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Lisa Codispoti, a dynamic and talented champion for better health care who, tragically, lost her battle with her own personal health care challenges last week.

A senior counsel for the National Women's Law Center, Lisa was well- known on Capitol Hill. You could always count on Lisa for an on-target analysis of an arcane policy question or a suggestion for a creative way to overcome any one of the many obstacles we faced in winning health care reform. My staff and I relied on her for so much, and we were far from the only Congressional office that did so.

Lisa was also a hero to health care advocates around the country. As Rachel DeGolia, executive director of the Universal Health Care Action Network said of her, ``The movement for health care justice, and for justice of all kinds for women, has lost a wonderful champion and friend.''

Lisa's influence was broad and important. They may not have known Lisa personally, but millions of Americans are better off today because of her. Her work is evident throughout the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As a result of the law she helped to fashion and then enact, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition. People with existing health problems will no longer face job-lock or the pain of knowing that their condition is raising premiums for their co-workers. Coverage will no longer be denied or lifetime limits imposed. These are very real improvements that will make tangible differences in people's lives.

As her blog post below shows so clearly, this was not a theoretical exercise for Lisa. She lived her entire adult life knowing the significant problems that the private insurance market creates for anyone living with a health care condition--big or small. Her understanding and her experience made her arguments even more compelling and more effective.

We are better off for having known and worked with Lisa Codispoti. Her eloquence and knowledge, combined with her optimistic and gracious spirit, will be deeply missed.

The Health Care Law: Provides New Peace of Mind for Millions of People

With Chronic Health Conditions--Like Me

(By Lisa Codispoti)

For many health care advocates, the fight for the health

care law is more than just a job--it's personal. I was just a

sophomore in college when I was diagnosed with a chronic

condition that would require lifelong medical treatment. At a

time when most college students believe they are invincible,

my parents and I were consumed with issues like, would my

life-saving medical treatment--which would be necessary for

the rest of my life--be covered by insurance, and if so,

would they cover my treatment at school five-hours away from

my home? And what would happen when I graduated? Would I be

able to find a job that had decent health insurance? And what

if I decided to go to graduate school? In short, in addition

to worrying about my newly diagnosed condition, health

insurance was something I had to worry about. A lot. In fact,

it has been a recurrent worry throughout the last 28 years

since I was diagnosed. What is proper etiquette when

receiving a job offer to try to figure out if the insurance

they offer is good enough to cover your needed medical

treatment? Will you doom a small employer's health insurance

premiums with huge cost increases once you are added to their

workforce? How to explain to others offering to hire you

that, thanks anyway, you couldn't possibly open your own

consulting gig because you wouldn't be able to get health

insurance on your own?

That's why for me--and millions of Americans living with a

chronic health condition--passage of the Affordable Care Act

provides such peace of mind. And while I've been very lucky

over the last three decades to have jobs with decent

insurance, I wonder what kinds of different opportunities I

might have pursued had I not been so worried about finding

and keeping health insurance coverage. And still, there are

opponents of the law who want to repeal it and have stated

that the ``private market'' would somehow magically take care

of these problems. Right. Like the private market has done so

well for insurance for decades now. Like how the private

market has created conditions where women can't find

insurance at any price that includes coverage of a basic

health care service like maternity. Or allows insurance

companies to charge women more than men just because of their

gender.

Some opponents of the law have said that there could be

high risk pools for people like me who can't get coverage due

to a pre-existing condition. To an insurance company

executive, that sounds like a dream come true. After all,

insurance companies have been rejecting people from coverage

due to pre-existing conditions without accountability or

recourse for decades. But we're not just talking the serious

stuff like breast cancer or heart disease--we're talking

about previously having had a c-section. Or acne. Should

someone who is rejected by an insurance company because they

had acne be in a high risk insurance pool? All that does is

incentivize insurance companies to reject even more people

and fight over the remaining cream of the insurance risk pool

crop: healthy, young people. And thus further incentivize

insurers to reject people they deem not worth the risk (ie: a

risk to their high profits).

Already the Affordable Care Act is helping millions of

Americans living with a chronic health condition like me. And

for us, 2014 can't come fast enough because that's when the

majority of the Affordable Care Act provisions come into

effect. The thought that some would want take this law away--

and the peace of mind that comes with it--is maddening to me.

Is the law a cure for all the problems of our current health

care system? Of course not. Could the law be better?

Absolutely--I could point you to several places. But to

repeal the whole thing? No way. We can't go back. I know I've

waited 28+ years for this law--and there are millions who

have waited far longer.

That's why today I'm one of millions saying, Happy

Anniversary to the Affordable Care Act; here's to many more

years to come.