Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1213.

This bill would eliminate funding for a key component of the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion--the State-based health insurance Exchanges.

The Exchanges are the chief vehicle through which we will give millions of individuals and small businesses--currently locked out of the market--access to affordable coverage.

The Affordable Care Act provides each State with the flexibility to design its own Exchange--tailored to meet the needs of its residents, strengthen the private insurance market, and provide consumer protections.

This bill repeals the funding for the Exchanges and eliminates that flexibility.

Repeal would deny Illinois and every other State the funding needed to setup a unique State solution for improving and fixing broken insurance markets.

This bill undermines the work already being done in Illinois and, given the State budget situation, will likely mean Illinois would be unable to run its own State-based health insurance Exchange.

In September, Illinois received a $1 million grant to begin planning and establishing its Exchange.

Without funding to move to implementation, we won't have the resources to get our Exchange up and running and millions of Illinoisans will lose access to affordable, adequate health insurance coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, or Yom Hashoah, and to pay tribute to the men, women, and children murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

This week, we pause to join in solidarity with people around the world to remember one of the darkest chapters in human history. During the Holocaust, six million Jews were killed, and countless others were brutalized, raped, dehumanized, and robbed. The world pledged ``Never Again'' would such a tragedy be allowed to occur, but over sixty years later we continue to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred and intolerance, even genocide.

The Days of Remembrance hold a deep meaning for me, as a Jew, and for my community. My district, the 9th Congressional District of Illinois, is home to one of the largest concentrations of Holocaust survivors in the country. An estimated 3,500 Holocaust survivors live in the Chicago area, including the Village of Skokie, which boasts a vibrant Jewish community built by survivors in the 1940s and 50s. The community recently celebrated the opening of the new Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center, a state of the art facility dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust.

This year, we also mark the 65th anniversary of the verdicts at the first of the Nuremberg trials, as well as the 50th anniversary of the trial of Adolf Eichmann. By holding the perpetrators of genocide legally accountable for their heinous crimes, those trials were defining moments in the evolution of international justice. The trials also produced a comprehensive record of the Holocaust by collecting both documentary evidence and survivor testimony.

In a world where genocide and other massive violations of human rights are far too prevalent, it is critical that we preserve the history of the Holocaust and the memories of survivors and other witnesses. This week, we pause to remember all those who perished, honor those who survived, and redouble our pledge to fight genocide, intolerance, and persecution wherever they occur.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1214.

School-based health centers are a critical component of our nation's health care safety net.

More than 1,900 school-based health centers across the country provide access to care to nearly two million students.

Centers in high schools in my district like Maine East, Evanston Township, and Sullivan and Senn in Chicago, ensure that students can get access to primary, mental, and dental health services.

School-based health centers are often the only source of health care for many children and adolescents who would otherwise go without needed services, and services are provided regardless of students' ability to pay.

They offer treatment to students who lack insurance or whose parents are unable to take time off work to take them to the doctor. They keep children from missing school, and they ensure that children's health care needs are met.

Studies have shown that school-based health centers decrease emergency room visits and Medicaid expenditures while improving grades, school attendance, and graduation rates.

The Affordable Care Act provides grants for construction, renovation, and equipment for school-based health centers to increase access--this bill denies access.

If we are concerned about providing our children with access to health care--we must reject this bill.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3.

You know, Republicans say that they are for smaller government, but that ends when it comes to women. In order to curtail women's reproductive rights, it isn't enough to prevent the public dollars from helping poor women end a dangerous or unplanned pregnancy. That's already the law: no public money for abortions. But now they are going to raise taxes on small businesses, telling them that if they offer a health plan for men or women that has the gall to cover abortions--and, by the way, that's about 90 percent of plans that cover all legal procedures--then they can no longer get a tax break for offering such a plan.

Raising taxes on businesses that offer comprehensive health plans, that's the bill that's up today. Now, even private money of individuals, both men and women, and businesses will now face a new tax. So, so much for small government and lower taxes that the Republicans talk about.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. But don't be confused. H.R. 3 goes far beyond current law which is already highly restrictive and, frankly, which I oppose.

The Hyde amendment already prohibits women enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare, Federal employees, women serving in the military, women in Federal prisons, Peace Corps volunteers, and women seeking care under the Indian Health Services Act from getting the care they need. In other words, there is no Federal funding for abortion. But actually what it does do, among other things, is attack small businesses.

Let's hear the words of Frank Knapp, Jr., president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce with 5,000 members. Here is what he says:

H.R. 3 is an attempt to roll back the historic small business health insurance tax credit created by the Affordable Care Act. When the House voted to eliminate and defeat the entire Affordable Care Act, we--he means small businesses--could rationalize that this great benefit for small businesses was just collateral damage. My own Congressman told me he would support the small business health insurance tax credits in the Affordable Care Act replacement legislation. But small businesses can no longer think of themselves as collateral damage.

Mr. Knapp says: Let me make this very clear. A vote for H.R. 3 is a direct attack on small business. Every Representative who loudly proclaims their love for small businesses because they are the backbone of the economy now can put their vote where their mouth is. Their true support for small business will be judged by their ``no'' vote on H.R. 3.

I urge all my colleagues not to let this phony use of the Tax Code to take away the rights of small businesses that get tax credits or individuals to pay for abortions with their own money.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Polish Constitution Day and to commemorate the signing of Europe's first codified constitution on May 3, 1791.

Three years after the adoption of our own constitution, Poland became the second nation in the world to codify a constitution. Under the leadership of King Stanislaw August, Poland approved a constitution that contained many of the groundbreaking democratic principles also embraced by America's founding fathers. Among those was the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The constitution also placed peasants under the protection of the government and established the concept of political equality.

Since the adoption of the 1791 Constitution, Poland has withstood countless hardships to emerge as a strong U.S. friend and ally. Here in the United States, Polish-Americans have made critical contributions to the development of our nation. This weekend, the city of Chicago's vibrant Polish community, the largest outside of Warsaw, will hold its 120th annual parade in honor of this historic document.

I join with people in the United States, Poland, and around the world in commemorating the anniversary of this historic document, celebrating Polish history, and recognizing the important contributions that the Polish people have made to the development of democracy.

Finally, the United States of America made real the possibility of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--all of which are literally impossible unless health care is a right for all in our great country.

This resolution goes in the opposite direction. A vote in favor of this resolution tells Americans and small businesses that they will be left to do battle with insurance companies on their own, insurance companies that will once again refuse coverage, deny claims, and subject them to double-digit premium increases. And under their budget plan, they now want to end Medicare and leave seniors and disabled people to the mercy of private insurers.

Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have made their extreme agenda abundantly clear--undermine women's access to reproductive health care and attack the local women's health providers they rely on to provide cancer screenings, routine gynecological examinations, contraceptive services, immunizations, and testing and treatment for sexually-transmitted infections.

One in five American women has received care from a Planned Parenthood health center at some point in her life, making it one of the largest women's health care providers in the country. Planned Parenthood clinics serve over 3 million Americans every year and plays a critical role in our Nation's health care system. The Republican budget would deny them any funding.

Bonnie S. from Evanston, IL, wrote:

``I found myself without health care in my early twenties even though I was still working. I was in a committed, long-term relationship and needed birth control and a yearly pap smear. Planned Parenthood was my main healthcare provider for nearly ten years.''

``I have only had one sexual partner in my life. I have never had an abortion. Without Planned Parenthood, I would not have been able to afford birth control and a yearly pap smear, things that no woman should have to go without. I'm sure there are many women out there with a story like mine. Stopping funding for Planned Parenthood would be a horrible thing.''

Lesley W. from Evanston, IL, wrote:

``I was shocked and horrified to learn that Congress has voted to defund Planned Parenthood. As an 18 year old college freshman, Planned Parenthood was the difference for me between getting reliable, high quality birth control and gynecological care, and leaving my reproductive health to chance. Now at age 49, married and a mother, I credit Planned Parenthood with giving me the tools for a healthy and responsible sex life. I never had an unplanned pregnancy. I never got an STD. When AIDS came around, I knew how to protect myself and my partners. Planned Parenthood may well have saved my life, as it has saved the lives of thousands of women (and men) over the years. To not fund it is not only cruel and unethical, it is remarkably short sighted. How many more unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and STDs will we now see? How many young women will avoid prenatal care because they are afraid of a gynecologist's office? How many will avoid screenings for cervical cancer?''

``Planned Parenthood was there when I needed it, and I want it to be there for my daughter and the next generation of young women. It plays a crucial role in our national healthcare, and must be funded.''

Poll after poll has shown that Americans support the work of Planned Parenthood centers because investing in commonsense, proven, effective prevention and primary health care is smart health policy.

Republicans need to stop attacking Planned Parenthood and they need to end their war on women's health.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Republicans are trying to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility today. It's just ridiculous. They are the party responsible for a decade of fiscal recklessness with two unpaid-for wars, two unpaid-for tax cuts, and a blind eye to Wall Street leading to a disastrous recession. And as the President said yesterday, ``There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending $1 trillion on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.''

This chart illustrates that, from 1979 to 2005, the bottom 20 percent of households saw their incomes increase by a grand total of $200. Over the same period, the top .1 percent here in the red saw income growth of nearly $6 million each year.

There is nothing courageous about a plan that would protect the wealthy and Big Oil and big corporations that ship jobs overseas at the expense of elderly and their Medicare and their Medicaid and the disabled and children.

The Republican budget resolution does not reflect the values of Americans, and I urge my colleagues to reject it soundly.

You know, budgets aren't just about a series of numbers. Budgets fundamentally are moral documents. And I fear that Republicans have made clear that their moral compass puts the wealthy and big business ahead of the American middle class, our seniors, disabled, and poor.

In order to pay for an enormous tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, they are ready to abolish the guarantee of Medicare. In order to protect tax cuts for the oil industry, they would cut Medicaid, resulting in seniors and the disabled being forced out of nursing homes and causing poor children to lose health care coverage or pay more. In order to pay for tax cuts for businesses that ship American jobs overseas, they would cut investments in education and job training programs.

The Republican budget does not represent Americans' core values and should be rejected.

Here they go again. The Republicans failed in their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and now they are reversing course and trying to cripple implementation by attacking individual provisions of the law.

The United States has a health care system designed to treat the sick, not to prevent disease from occurring in the first place. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is a crucial component of the health reform law's effort to remedy that weakness and transform today's sick care system into a prevention-focused health system.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund will avert future illness, save lives and restrain the rate of growth of health care costs. It's a dedicated investment in community prevention and is a much-needed down payment on the health and economic well-being of all Americans.

Federal investments from the Prevention and Public Health Fund have already begun to address improvements in the Nation's health status by supporting essential and proven prevention activities, such as immunization--immunization and tobacco cessation.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund holds great promise to improve the capacities of State and local health departments to protect communities from health threats through the use of technology. It will increase numbers of highly skilled scientists and other public health professionals.

I want to be very clear, and you've heard it yourselves. This is simply another attempt by Republicans to defund the Affordable Care Act and stop its implementation. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

I am so happy to join you. And I thank you for coming down to the floor each week and making the point that we have choices in the United States of America.

We can put our people back to work. We can reduce our debt and our deficit, but we don't have to do it on the backs of middle class Americans, and we certainly don't have to do it on the backs of our elderly. That's exactly what the budget proposal by our Republican Budget Chairman Paul Ryan says. He said, look, the country is broke. We've got to just show courage and we've got to cut that deficit--we agree with that--and the way that we think we ought to do it is by ending Medicare as we know it, by abolishing Medicare. Instead of that guaranteed benefit that all older Americans can aspire to now, can get when they're 65 years old, that persons with disabilities would get, they know that it's there--and I cannot imagine that there is not every single Member of this House, Republican or Democrat, where people come in and say, I hope I can make it until I'm 65 and get on Medicare because I can't get insurance, and even if I could, I can't afford it right now or I have a preexisting condition. He wants to do it on the backs of senior citizens.

It's been said many times tonight that 700,000 jobs would be lost if H.R. 1--the top priority of the Republicans--were to pass, that the cuts that it would make, instead of spurring on jobs, creating jobs, putting the 15 million people that want to pay taxes--that's all they want is to go back to work and actually pay taxes, that that would be their dream come true, and it would also cut our deficit. But you know what the American people are thinking? They're thinking, We aren't broke--maybe we are, but not everyone is broke in America.

This is a sign that my staff made before I introduced a bill with an idea supported by 81 percent of Americans that it is time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share; 81 percent of Americans. That means it's not just Democrats and it's not just Republicans. It's Independents, and I believe that it's Tea Party people, too. They know that they are not getting a fair shake and that the millionaires are.

Did you explain the chart?

Well, what it says is that from 1979, at that end, to 2005, this is the growth in income over certain income categories. And you can see way down at the end there is a little bracket--even if you can't, you get the idea. There is a little sign down there that says that the bottom 20 percent of Americans over that period, almost 30 years, their income increased $200.

Let's go to the other end. The top 0.1 percent of Americans, their average income increased, actually increased, over $6 million. Their average income right now is $27 million. Get this: The bottom 90 percent of Americans--I was even shocked by this number--the average income is under $32,000 a year. Top 0.1 percent, $27 million; 90 percent of the rest of Americans, less than $32,000. This is not good for our economy and it is not good for our democracy.

Yes.

Just the people who need it, right? Just the people who need a tax break. Isn't that astonishing that they should actually pay less?

Yeah. Take it from Medicare and give them a tax break.

And, by the way, the top tax bracket in the United States of America right now starts at $375,000. So if you make $27 million or $375,000, you're still paying the same tax rate.

What I did was say, okay, let's make the taxes fairer. I said, starting at $1 million--that's earning in 1 year--45 percent tax rate. And it would ratchet up, $10 to $20 million, $20 to $100 million, $100 million to $1 billion, and then a $1 billion tax bracket. And you know what? There are Americans who have made $1 billion last year. The top 20 hedge fund managers, an average of over $1 billion a year. One guy made over $5 billion in 1 year. I'm saying those billionaires, that top tax bracket, 49 percent taxes. And guess what? That is lower than the tax rate in all the Reagan years. I'm under Ronald Reagan's highest tax bracket. It's fair.

This is not about punishment. It's not about revenge. It's certainly not about jealousy. It is about fairness in our tax system. And we would have plenty of money here. We wouldn't have to cut Medicare, of course we wouldn't. We wouldn't have to cut Medicaid, the poorest people off their health care. We wouldn't have to threaten seniors with cuts in Social Security benefits. And we could fund those job training programs to put people back to work. We could even fund infrastructure programs that put people on the job, or green energy programs that make America a leader in the world. We could do all those things. We are not broke as a people.

So my Fairness in Taxation Act, I hope people will sign on as cosponsors. Eighty-one percent of Americans think it's a good idea. We have to have the courage to follow--listen to people out there, and follow

One of the things that they say, that Paul Ryan says, We all have to sacrifice. Shared sacrifice. I believe in that. I think that's a good idea. But some people have been sacrificing for a long time.

If you drew another line starting at the bottom left and going to the top right of productivity increases in the United States, that line would shoot way up because we have the most productive workers in the world. Productivity has soared. And yet where have the benefits gone for our more productive workers? Right here. And it has been deliberate, and it's been based on policies that have passed in the Congress, a partnership between government that's been hand-in-hand with the wealthiest Americans. And the rest of America--and you know what, the other thing is if you started up here and tracked union membership, you would find that line going straight down.

When workers, as 62 percent of Americans agree is a good thing, have collective bargaining, they're able to help raise the middle class instead of having a disappearing middle class, which is what's happening now.

Today, the Republicans released their budget. Budgets are really moral documents, and Republicans have made clear that their moral compass puts hedge fund managers and big corporations ahead of America's middle class and senior citizens. Republicans gut education programs and investments in job creation, privatize Medicare, slash Medicaid, but leaving plenty of money to help subsidize big oil companies and to give tax breaks to those companies that put our jobs overseas.

There is another way. I have a bill that would create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, still lower than those under Ronald Reagan, and would raise $74 billion in 2011.

We can bring down the deficit, and we can do it while protecting programs that create jobs and that don't further burden old people, the poor, and middle class Americans.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of Amendment #21, the Latourette-Costello. I support this amendment because the bill we are considering today, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, contains a provision that would undermine the ability of aviation and rail workers to hold fair elections for union representation.

Last year, the National Mediation Board implemented a new rule that certifies a union as being representative of airline or railroad workers if a majority of ballots cast were in favor of the union. This was a major victory for workers, making collective bargaining rights more accessible for the first time in our nation's history. The bill before us today, H.R. 658, would eliminate that tremendous step forward by reverting to the old system which required that any eligible worker who did not vote in an election, for whatever reason, be regarded as voting against union representation. That is not the way elections for Congress are decided, it should be the way union representation is decided.

That policy was out of step with our nation's Democratic principles and if it is reinstituted will make it harder for workers to protect themselves through collective bargaining, ultimately leaving many workers without rights. Collective bargaining rights give workers a voice at work--a voice that is not just able to argue for fair compensation and benefits, but for safer workplaces and practices. Passengers have a strong interest in making sure that workers are able to raise those concerns. With this provision, the Republican Party once again is engaging in union-busting. I urge all of my colleagues to support the LaTourrette-Costello amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a grave threat to both our economy and our democracy, and that is the disappearing middle class.

Over the last 30 years, there has been a dramatic and deliberate transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very, very, very rich. Income inequality is now at the highest level since 1928. Wages have stagnated for middle and working class families despite enormous gains in productivity. Where has the money gone?

This chart shows the change in the average pre-tax household income from 1979 to 2005. The bottom 20 percent--that's that number way down in the corner--of households saw their incomes over those 30 years grow just $200. Over the same period, the top 0.1 percent saw income growth of nearly $6 million each year. The top 100th of 1 percent now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of Americans: $31,244.

Meanwhile, Republicans, who squandered a budget surplus, created a huge deficit with unpaid-for tax cuts that went mainly to the very rich, and whose policies allowed Wall Street recklessness to bring our economy to near collapse, are now demanding that the middle class foot the bill. Their solution to our fiscal mess is to gut vital programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and to make cuts in domestic spending that would cause an additional 700,000 middle class Americans to lose their jobs.

In the next chart, you can see some of the enormous cuts that they are proposing: $1.3 billion from community health centers, the only source of medical care for many families; $5.7 billion from Pell grants, reducing the size of the grant for 9.4 million students who want to go to college; and $1 billion in funding for high-speed rail, important infrastructure projects that will create good jobs--thousands and thousands of good jobs.

Once again, they are showing their utter disregard for the shrinking middle class and those who aspire to it by cutting important jobs programs and assistance programs for poor families.

Part two of the Republican program for addressing our economic problem, and every other problem, is to cut taxes even more for the rich. Enough is enough. It's time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. This isn't about punishment and it isn't about revenge. It is about fairness.

Currently, the top tax bracket starts at $375,000, failing to distinguish between the well-off and billionaires. I have introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act, which would create new tax brackets beginning at 45 percent for income over $1 million, rising to 49 percent for income of $1 billion a year or more; and, yes, there are people in our country who made $1 billion or more just last year. Historically, these rates are relatively modest. During most of the Reagan administration, the top tax rate was 50 percent; and in previous decades, the top tax rate was as high as 94 percent.

My bill would also address a fundamental inequality in our current law by taxing capital gains and dividends

at ordinary income rates in those brackets. Rich hedge fund managers should not be paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries because much of the income of the hedge fund manager is capital gains and dividends.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the Fairness in Taxation Act will raise more than $78.9 billion if enacted in 2011, allowing us to avoid the harsh cuts that will hurt the middle class. This is an idea that Americans support. In a recent poll, 81 percent of respondents supported placing a surtax on Federal income for those who make more than $1 million per year in order to reduce the deficit.

Passing the Fairness in Taxation Act will allow us to stop the war on the middle class, restore fiscal integrity and fairness, and fund initiatives that reflect our American values and goals.