Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 5738, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service in Macomb, Michigan, as the Lance Cpl. Anthony A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier Annex. In accordance with committee requirements, the bill is cosponsored by all members of the Michigan delegation.

After graduating Dakota High School in Macomb Township, Anthony DiLisio enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. After recruit training, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. He was deployed to Afghanistan in December 2009.

While on patrol in the Helmand province, Lance Corporal DiLisio and two other marines were attacked by enemy insurgents. Lance Corporal DiLisio was fatally wounded in the ensuing gun battle, leaving behind his parents, a fiancee, and a host of siblings and friends who all remember Anthony as a personable guy who always wanted to serve the people.

When we rename this postal facility in his honor, generations to come will know of his heroism and sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 5738, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging the passage of H.R. 3892, to rename the United States Post Office in Roseville, California, in honor of Lance Corporal Victor A. Dew.

Corporal Dew seemed to always have a special place in his heart for the United States Marine Corps since he was a young boy growing up in Granite Bay, California. After enlisting with the Marines in 2009, Victor chose the infantry. He wanted to be on the front line, making a difference to protect his country.

After completing recruit training, he joined the Third Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, First Marine Division, Marine Expeditionary Force, as an anti-tank assaultman. During his first tour of duty in Afghanistan while conducting combat operations in the Helmand province on October 13, 2010, Lance Corporal Dew and three other marines from his battalion were killed in action by an improvised explosive device.

Lance Corporal Dew's loyal devotion to duty reflects great credit upon himself and was in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Marine Corps. He leaves behind his parents, his brother Kyle, his fiancee, and a whole host of family and friends who continue to miss him dearly.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 3892 in honor of the service and sacrifice of Lance Corporal Victor A. Dew, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 3892, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today to speak in support of my legislation to name the Ellwood City Post Office in honor of Sergeant Leslie Sabo. By passing this bill, we are playing a small part in paying tribute to an exceptionally heroic man and his family for the sacrifices they made for this country.

Sergeant Sabo grew up in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania. He reflected the values of the blue collar steel town in which he grew up: kindhearted, hardworking, and dependable. He was drafted in 1969 and left the next year for Vietnam.

In the early months of 1970, Sabo was platooned in Vietnam. They were difficult years for him. They endured unbearable heat and humidity as they pushed through jungles and rice paddies as well as monsoon rains that seemed to never end.

In May of that year, Sergeant Sabo and his platoon were ambushed by the North Vietnamese soldiers in Cambodia. Amidst heavy fire, he ran to distribute ammunition to his fellow soldiers and was wounded as he threw himself over a wounded combatant to shield him from a grenade blast. Despite his wounds and the danger confronting him, Sergeant Sabo continued to provide cover to the medical evacuation helicopters as they retrieved wounded soldiers until he, himself, was killed by enemy fire.

For his bravery, Sergeant Sabo was recommended to receive the Medal of Honor. However, the recommendation languished for decades until it was discovered in the National Archives in 1999 by Alton Mabb, a Vietnam veteran from Florida. After many more years and some prodding by my friend Congressman Gerlach, who is a native of Ellwood City, and myself, the Department of Defense finally announced in December of 2010 that it would officially recommend to the President the award to Sergeant Sabo for the Medal of Honor.

I was honored to attend the Medal of Honor ceremony with my friend Congressman Gerlach this past May. The award was long overdue and much deserved for Sergeant Sabo, his family, and the entire community.

Sergeant Sabo left behind a wife who loved him, a brother who adored him, parents who cherished him, and a community that admired him. After many years, those who called Leslie a husband, brother, son, and friend are able to celebrate the man that made them all so proud. This year, Ellwood City dedicated a memorial and a bridge to Sergeant Sabo. This bill will allow the town to continue to celebrate its hero in another fitting tribute by naming the town's post office after Medal of Honor recipient Sergeant Sabo.

I want to thank Chairman Issa and Congressman Cummings, the ranking member, for moving this bill through their committee and allowing it to come to the floor for the vote later this week. I urge my colleagues to support it.

And I thank Mr. Clay for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Croatian American Civic Club of Farrell, Pennsylvania, as it celebrates the Centennial of the ``Hrvatski Dom,'' the Croatian home. This architectural and cultural landmark, which still stands, serves as a reminder of the great impact the Croatian community has on our region's rich cultural history. Their commitment to the preservation of their culture is worthy of this body's recognition and admiration.

Croatian immigrants, who began construction on the Hrvatski Dom in September of 1912, would arrive immediately after their 12-hour shifts at the steel mills to work on the arduous task of laying bricks. On Thanksgiving, 1912, less than three months after the beginning of construction, the Hrvatski Dom was officially opened, serving as a testament to the dedication and perseverance of these immigrant laborers.

Starting as lodging for a collection of Croatian immigrants, the Hrvatski Dom quickly transformed into the central location for a community of like-minded Croatian Americans. As the hub for Croatian immigrants, the Hrvatski Dom became an educational, musical, and athletic haven for young and old alike--bridging the gap between the old country and their new culture as American citizens. I would also like to give special recognition to a celebrated member of the Croatian American Civic Club, who passed away earlier this year. Known as Aunt Polly, Mrs. Pauline Desput exemplified the love and care of the Croatian community in Pennsylvania.

I take great pride in celebrating and congratulating the Croatian American Civic Club of Farrell on its momentous day.

Mr. Speaker, while I would have preferred the Lofgren approach, I rise in support of the STEM Jobs Act because it's critical to keeping America competitive in the global economy. The United States has the best institutions of higher education in the world, particularly when it comes to the STEM fields.

Yet U.S. businesses frequently express concerns over the availability of qualified workers to perform jobs that are available and need to be filled once we educate and train these students for jobs. We send them back to their home countries to compete against us. This simply makes no sense.

By passing this bill, we will help ensure that the best and brightest in the world aren't working for our competitors abroad, but that America keeps that talent here at home and they play on our team instead of competing against us.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

I, too, rise to pay tribute to our great colleague, Congressman Jerry Costello. We've spent a lot of time during this hour talking about what a great person Jerry Costello is, which is certainly true. He is a kind and decent man. He operates in a bipartisan manner, and he is a friend to nearly everybody in this institution. We could continue to take the entire hour just talking about what a very fine person Jerry Costello is. Yet, when you look at the legislative record over the decades of service that he has offered to his constituency and to the country, there are a few things that stand out.

On the Transportation Committee, Jerry Costello has a long and lasting record of many achievements, but he also has a lot of things he has done back home that those of us in Washington maybe don't see every day. For example, when the Base Closing and Realignment Commission slated for closure a military base in Jerry's district, Jerry Costello did what is nearly impossible--he got the realignment commission to review the facts; he had that decision overturned; and he saved that military base and the thousands of jobs that go with it for his district. That's a lasting achievement he can be proud of.

When you look at things on the Transportation Committee that have lasting significance, a changing in the law to benefit all Americans. There was a tragic, terrible catastrophe--an air disaster in Buffalo several years ago. Jerry Costello took the lead in this Congress and in this country in changing the laws dealing with pilot fatigue and the requirements for the pilots on the planes. That is going to save lives around this country, and that is going to allow for the averting of this type of disaster in the future. That happened because of Jerry Costello's leadership.

So, Mr. Speaker, when we think about the lasting contributions that Jerry Costello has made, yes, many of them are personal. Many of them have to do with the relationships he has built and the friendships he will carry forward into his new career, but let's also remember the many significant legislative achievements for his district that are unparalleled to anyone else's in this institution.

So, Jerry, we wish you the best. We are going to miss you.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will restore $15.5 million that was cut from the Yellow Ribbon program under this bill.

While I understand the tough budget constraints we face, I think we can all agree that programs that provide essential services to the brave men and women who risk their lives to serve our country should not be on the chopping block. Simply put, no one should stand ahead of our Nation's veterans and our men and women in uniform when it comes time to making Federal funding decisions.

Congress established the Yellow Ribbon program in 2008 to provide tailored support to meet the unique needs of the National Guard and Reserve combat veterans and their families before, during, and after their deployments. The services it provides includes suicide prevention, career counseling, access to health care, veteran, and education benefits. Last year alone, the Yellow Ribbon program held over 2,100 events across the country, reaching over 300,000 servicemen and -women and their families.

As the number of returning National Guard and Reserve combat veterans increases, the need for these services increases along with it. My amendment will help to ensure the Yellow Ribbon program is there to meet the increasing need. My amendment simply restores funding for the Yellow Ribbon program to its level from the previous year, fiscal year 2012, paid for by transferring funds from the overseas contingency operations transfer account. The $15.5 million returned to the Yellow Ribbon program represents only one half of 1 percent of this account. While I recognize its importance, I think a small part of the funding can and should be used to help our National Guard and Reserve veterans and their families navigate through the challenges associated with their deployment.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Altmire

Amendment No. 19: Page 127, line 5, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(increased by $5,500,000)''.

Page 128, line 11, after the dollar amount insert the

following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 129, line 4, after the dollar amount insert the

following: ``(reduced by $18,500,000)''.

I thank the gentleman from California.

I was listening to the discussion, as I often do, and I wanted to bring a perspective to join that discussion, Mr. Speaker, as they were both talking about health care.

As one who did not support the health care bill originally, I do think it's important to recognize, as has been happening in this discussion, what's working with regard to the health care bill, what's already been implemented that's making a real difference in people's lives.

The reason I did not support repeal of the health care bill both times we brought it up was because I have the fourth most Medicare beneficiaries of any district in the country. I have 135,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Many of them are caught in the doughnut hole, what we have come to know as that gap in coverage in the Part D prescription drug program. We are now entering the third year of the phase-in to completely close that doughnut hole. Already, people who are in the doughnut hole have received a $250 compensation for coverage through the doughnut hole. They're getting a steep discount on brand-name drugs. Moving forward, as I say in the years to come, they're going to completely close the doughnut hole and get coverage all the way through. That's something that would not have happened if we had repealed the health care bill.

Small businesses all across the country that struggle with the skyrocketing cost of health care that's affecting every family and every business in this country, they're getting a tax credit to help offset the cost, to provide coverage, if they choose, to their employees. That's something that's making a real difference in the district that I represent. They are being able to cover people up to age 26. Often, they are recent college graduates struggling in the down economy. With the job market of today, the parents' plan is being able to for a short period of time insure those young adults after they've graduated from school and may be in transition in their life or in the job market. That's making a real difference for people that I represent. For people with preexisting conditions--

children today and, beginning in 2014, for adults--they will not be able to be denied coverage because of a chronic health condition. That's something that's long overdue in this country. Those are all things that have been implemented. They're in the law today. They're taking effect, and they're impacting people. We can't overlook that.

The legal issues have been decided. This is settled law now. What we need to do is make sure--especially with the Medicaid ruling, which was not talked about as much because the court focused on the mandate. But with the States being able to opt out on the Medicaid side, we have to find a way for health care providers to be guaranteed coverage for people who come to their door, whether they be a hospital, a physician, a long-term care facility, whatever it may be. When the health care bill was put into place, before it became law, the deal that was made in return for universal coverage covering people in this country was the providers--all those provider groups I mentioned--gave a little. They understood they had to take some cuts to help offset the cost of that, the cost to the government and to the taxpayer. Now the court has said that States can opt out of part of that through the Medicaid program. We need to make sure that those health care providers are able to keep their end of the bargain and the government keeps their end of the bargain by finding a way to cover everybody.

I did want to add that perspective again as someone who didn't originally support the bill. There are things that are working and have been implemented, and I commend both my friends from California and New York for having the discussion tonight.

I appreciate the gentleman opening the door for that issue, and health care is just one issue facing American families in the country today. I know that this group that meets periodically when we're done with session to have these discussions, as I'm sure both of my colleagues do, Mr. Speaker, I hear from people in my district after these discussions show up on people's TVs.

I hear from people all over the country, in fact, that say you need to continue talking about the job market, continue talking about infrastructure repair, something we have talked about at length, talk about health care, talk about issues facing small businesses and working families in America, because that's something that I think gets lost in the politicization that takes place in a Presidential election year. We're starting to head towards that time of the year when politics trumps everything, and it's unfortunate because what gets lost is these are real people. These are real Americans that are suffering in the job market.

Absolutely, I would agree. I had a chance to chat with them earlier today, and there is no group that should stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when it comes time to making Federal funding decisions, so I'm glad that they are joining us today.

Madam Speaker, it's been 7 years since the Congress enacted a long-term highway authorization; and since that law expired in 2009, State transportation agencies across America have had to deal with the uncertainty of looming funding expirations, construction workers have not known whether there would be jobs available to them, and motorists, retailers, and manufacturers have watched our infrastructure continue to crumble as this body continually failed to act. We cannot wait any longer. That's why I'm pleased today Congress will finally pass a long-term authorization that will provide certainty that has been lacking for years.

I'm also pleased that the final conference report includes a provision I authored to make America's roads safer for older drivers. By improving the safety of our roads and highways and making older drivers' travel as safe as possible, we increase road safety for every American.

This bill is an example of the success Congress can achieve when we work together. I thank my colleagues for their dedication to our Nation's infrastructure, and I'm proud to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the motion.

The motion offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) seeks to eliminate a distracted driving grant program included in the Senate surface transportation authorization bill. I oppose this motion because it ignores the significant safety hazard that distracted driving poses to drivers, commuters, passengers, and pedestrians.

Distracted driving is any activity behind the wheel that takes a driver's attention away from the road. The rapid development and ubiquitous use of technology such as cell phones, smart phones, and in- vehicle touch screens has made routine distraction an almost commonplace occurrence in every vehicle across America.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2010 more than 3,000 Americans were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver and approximately 416,000 additional Americans were injured.

Distractions from technology can include texting, talking on a phone, or using a navigation system or other audio or visual equipment while in a vehicle. But because text messaging requires visual, manual, and cognitive attention from the driver all at the same time, it is by far the most dangerous distraction.

The Wireless Association reported that in June 2011 more than 196 billion text messages were sent or received in the United States, which is up nearly 50 percent from just 2 years ago over the same period. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also reported that more than 100,000 drivers are texting and more than 600,000 drivers are using cell phones at any given moment in time. Sending or receiving a text takes a driver's attention from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, which, while it may not seem like a long time, it's the equivalent of driving the length of an entire football field, taking the driver's eyes off the road. It's not surprising that, according to research done by Virginia Tech, a texting driver is 23 times more likely to be involved in a crash than a non-distracted driver.

The proposed grant program in the Senate bill is an opportunity to address the rapidly growing problem of distracted driving and to educate the driving public about the real and immediate dangers of distraction behind the wheel.

Mr. Speaker, thousands of American lives are at stake. And these are not statistics. These are people--like 21-year-old Casey Feldman, who was struck and killed by a distracted driver as she crossed the street in Ocean City, New Jersey in 2009. It's people like 56-year-old John Sligting, who was killed on his motorcycle when a teen driver talking on her cell phone missed a stop sign in June 2007. It's people like 13- year-old Margay Schee, who was killed on her school bus when a distracted driver rear-ended that bus in September 2008.

Although some on the other side of the aisle are skeptical of seemingly every Federal program, we must avoid the temptation to eliminate programs without considering the real impacts they have on the lives of our constituents and on communities all across America.

To the point the gentlewoman, my friend from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), raised in her opening remarks, the distracted driving grant program contained in the Senate bill is merely an incentive program, not mandatory. It's an incentive for States that have already passed laws and have them on the books. Therefore, there are no sanctions if States do not pass laws or participate. There are no penalties to not participate.

So, Mr. Speaker, to put it simply, this motion represents a giant step backwards in highway safety for all of America.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no further speakers. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The previous speaker talks about States being the innovators. I certainly agree on that.

This motion that we are talking about right now involves a State incentive program where States can qualify for Federal money for an optional grant that they may choose to participate in or not. If they do not choose to participate, they are free to pass any distracted- driver laws they wish or not. There is nothing in what is contained in the Senate bill that in any way inhibits or prohibits or disincentivizes States from passing their own distracted-driving laws. They are still free to do whatever they want to do and go as far or not as they want to go.

All the Senate language says is that if States choose to meet the higher Federal standards, they may qualify for potential limited grant money that will be made available. No State is sanctioned for not participating.

With that, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Yielding myself as much time as I would consume, I would, again, make the point that the program in question in no way sanctions, penalizes, disincentivizes, discourages or prohibits States from, in

any way, addressing driver safety. It in no way prohibits States from being innovative, from creating new technologies, new programs, doing things that are not recommended in the bill or this program. States are free to do whatever they want to do on this issue.

So to continually pound away at the point that we're somehow taking away the ability of States to be flexible is simply incorrect. It's not consistent with the program in question. It's not consistent with the language of the bill we are discussing.

With that, I would inquire of my friend--I have no more speakers on our side--is she prepared to close?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, we all agree that rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure is the best way to create jobs today and ensure long- term economic growth tomorrow. Our failure to pass a long-term, fully funded transportation authorization has undermined our competitiveness as a Nation, overburdened our local and State governments, and hurt American businesses.

It prevents the State and local governments in every single one of our districts from funding repairs to their bridges, roads, and railways. It leaves our infrastructure crumbling. And it discourages businesses from creating construction and manufacturing jobs that American workers could be filling today.

Madam Speaker, I urge the transportation conference committee to finalize their work before the current authorization expires at the end of next week. We owe it to the American people to get this done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation we will be voting on this afternoon to repeal the $30 billion excise tax on medical device companies, and I'm proud to join Mr. Paulsen in his effort to prevent this misguided tax from taking effect next year.

The district I represent in western Pennsylvania is home to a number of medical device companies that have planted their roots in our region. They offer high-paying, quality jobs and are developing innovative devices that are saving lives.

One example is Zoll Medical, which manufactures the LifeVest, a lightweight, wearable defibrillator that continuously monitors a patient's heart. The device allows patients with medical conditions to return to their daily lives with the peace of mind that they are protected from sudden cardiac arrest. This is the type of innovation that we should be encouraging in this country, not penalizing.

The excise tax is simply misguided policy. The American medical device industry has proven that when given the chance to succeed, it has the ability to produce devices that can better the quality of life for Americans and even save lives.

The industry is already facing challenges from foreign competitors that have an easier time getting their products to market. We must give the U.S. device manufacturers the opportunity to succeed, not punish them for being innovators and risk losing the incalculable contributions they provide to our economy, the delivery of health care and quality of life for every American.

The rule that we are debating today provides us with the chance to vote to help ensure that the next great medical breakthrough is developed in this country right here in the United States and not overseas.

I urge my colleagues to support its passage, and I thank Mr. Polis for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend, Congressman Poe, for his strong leadership on this issue and for again working with me this year to highlight the critical importance of expanded mobile communications along our southern border.

Last year I had the opportunity to visit the district of our former colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, in southwestern Arizona, where I met with customs and Border Patrol agents, examined construction of the border fence and spoke with ranchers and residents who live and work in the remote areas along the U.S.-Mexico border. In rural areas along that border, cell phone service is virtually nonexistent, and where service does exist, it's often unreliable. Some ranchers even have to resort to communicating through the use of two-way radios.

The lack of cell phone service presents an obvious safety issue for ranchers, as my friend, Congressman Poe outlined, and it's a safety issue for residents and the National Guard troops who patrol that protected area. If a rancher feels threatened, he cannot currently call for help or alert law enforcement to the situation.

To address this issue, our amendment adds $10 million to the general account for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology to expand mobile communications in remote areas along our southern border. These funds may be used by the Department of Homeland Security to enter into public-private partnerships which will provide a more reliable communications link between law enforcement officials and citizens who live and work in our border areas.

Last year, Congressman Poe and I offered a similar amendment that passed with a strong bipartisan vote of 327 93. Despite its inclusion in last year's omnibus funding measure, little action to date has been taken by DHS to implement stronger cell coverage along the U.S.-Mexico border. I urge support of our amendment to show DHS that the safety of our southern border is a priority for this Congress.

This is a problem we can and must fix. Supporting this amendment will not increase spending, but what it will do is protect the public and increase the effectiveness of law enforcement in rural border areas.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, let me thank Chairman Culberson for his excellent work on this important bill which funds our Nation's military construction projects and provides support to the infrastructure that serves our Nation's veterans.

The Veterans Affairs campus located in Butler, Pennsylvania, provides critical health care services to veterans across western Pennsylvania. Two years ago I worked with my colleagues to provide $8.5 million to make improvements to the campus to ensure the veterans in our community receive the best care in the most up-to-date facilities.

Despite these improvements, the VA has plans to move forward with construction of an offsite health care center. And while this is a laudable initiative by the VA, many veterans in our community are worried that the construction of this new center will lead to the elimination of services that are currently available to them at the Butler VA, which is a valuable asset to the community relied upon by veterans throughout western Pennsylvania.

Valid questions about the rationale behind constructing a new facility have been raised in the veterans' community, and their input should be heard. Any new, offsite facility should complement, not replace services currently provided at the Butler VA campus. My colleagues and I will continue to monitor this issue to ensure the highest quality services to veterans will continue to be provided at that facility now and in the future.

I yield to the Representative of the Butler VA facility, my friend, Congressman Mike Kelly.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.