Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 5, the so- called Student Success Act.

H.R. 5 reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and it is one that we have waited a long time to revisit. I hoped that we could work together on this bill because all of us care about our children's growth and development. Both Republicans and Democrats share concerns over the rate at which we are falling behind other nations. And whether you are liberal or conservative, we know that we need to hold our schools accountable for their performance.

That is why this bill is so distressing. H.R. 5 is as dysfunctional as anything else that has come to the floor this Congress. It may not be as pointless as the 38th and 39th votes to repeal Obamacare that we had Wednesday. And it may not have been rammed down our throats quite as aggressively as the Farm Bill was last week. But this bill is still a piece of unilateral maneuvering--when we could be working together.

Instead of spending public funds for the public good, H.R. 5 creates a quota system that shifts funds to private schools that are meant to go to low-income children and schools. Along the way to privatizing our public schools, it decreases accountability for states and school districts by block-granting specialized grant programs--allowing funds meant to address specific hardships to be diverted elsewhere.

I will admit to my friends across the aisle, that while I know some in your base may buy into that pipedream--it is not the way to rebuild America. Formalizing the distinctions between our two Americas is not the key to healing our nation. Nor is depriving extra help to students with special learning barriers.

Give our children their future. Give them a bill that will guarantee a 21st century school system to lead the world. I urge my colleagues to use this opportunity for something greater than mere posturing, and oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority for their Centennial Celebration. Founded at Howard University in 1913, this international sorority has long focused on providing young women with the strength and experience to lead.

Whether in law, science, business, or education, Delta alumnae all have one thing in common: they are dedicated to serving their communities. The five points of the Delta experience are Economic Development, Educational Development, International Awareness and Involvement, Physical and Mental Health, and Political Awareness and Involvement.

The strength they gain through focused development on these points doesn't just benefit the young women who join Delta Sigma Theta. Through projects like the Delta Towers here in Washington D.C., their work with Habitat for Humanity across our nation, or their youth outreach programs--we are all better for the generosity of the Deltas we know and love.

To all the Delta sisters out there--best wishes for the next hundred years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in advance of the back-to-back votes brought to the floor by House Republicans to delay two key pieces of the Affordable Care Act: the individual responsibility and employer mandates.

Today I will vote for the 38th time against a partisan attempt by Republicans to partially or completely repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act.

The debate on these bills has added to the already 80+ hours spent on repeal efforts in the House, which has cost the American taxpayer $55 million.

If the Majority were to succeed in their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 129

million Americans with pre-existing conditions would lose the security of knowing they cannot be denied coverage. 25 million Americans will miss out on the opportunity to receive quality, affordable health insurance coverage through the new health insurance marketplaces. 6.6 million young adults would lose coverage provided through their parents' plans, including 3.1 million who were previously uninsured. 105 million Americans could again worry about lifetime limits on their health insurance coverage.

Many constituents of Michigan's 13th District are among those already benefiting from Obamacare. So far, 121,000 of our neighbors who previously lacked health insurance have access to quality coverage without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of preexisting conditions, including 43,000 children who can no longer be denied coverage. 136,000 individuals--including 26,000 children and 61,000 women--now have health insurance that covers preventative services without any copays, coinsurance, or deductibles. And 103,000 13th District residents are saving money directly because of ACA provisions.

All the while, the Majority has made no meaningful attempt to repeal damaging across-the-board sequestration cuts or come to the table to discuss legislation to create quality jobs with living wages.

Mr. Speaker, it's long past time to end the dysfunction epitornized by repeated efforts to repeal Obamacare, so that we can turn our focus to addressing the serious problems facing everyday Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with the support of my colleague and friend Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon to introduce the ``Saving America's Pollinators Act of 2013.'' This legislation requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to take swift action and prevent future mass die-offs of honey bees.

One of every three bites of food we eat is from a crop pollinated by honey bees. These crops include: apples, avocados, cranberries, cherries, broccoli, peaches, carrots, grapes, soybeans, sugar beets and onions. Unfortunately, unless swift action is taken, these crops, and numerous others, will soon disappear due to the dramatic decline of honey bee populations throughout the country. For over a decade now, honey bees have been suffering rapid population losses as a result of a phenomenon known as `colony collapse disorder.' Another decade of these mass die-offs will severely threaten our agricultural economy and food supply system.

Scientists have reported that common symptoms of this decline are attributed to the use of a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids. The 'Saving America's Pollinators Act' will address the decline of honey bee populations by directing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend the registration of certain neonicotinoids--known as imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotafuran--and any other members of the nitro group of neonicotinoid insecticides until the Administrator has made a determination that such insecticides will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on pollinators based on an evaluation of peer-review scientific evidence and a completed field study. The bill will also require the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to regularly monitor the health and population status of native bees and identify the scope and likely causes of unusual native bee mortality.

This legislation is extremely critical to examining the death of honey bees and will allow us the opportunity to adequately secure our future food supply. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and protect America's pollinators.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2642, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.'' Separating this bill from the nutrition provision, including SNAP, is a foolish and immoral decision. The process that House Republicans chose to bring this bill to the floor was egregious and a blatant violation of this body's policy of giving Members and the public 72 hours to read a bill. This bill denies Members the opportunity for robust debate and to consider reform of farm policies. Many new provisions were inserted in this bill late last night. Furthermore, passage of this bill would undermine our efforts to assist vulnerable Americans, risk severe cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP), and will allow outdated allotments and quotas under current farm policy to become permanent law.

We are living at a time when low-income working families, senior citizens and disabled veterans are struggling to put food on their tables and children are attending school hungry--often leaving them unable to concentrate. Having a bitter partisan fight on the House floor opens the door to cuts to nutrition programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and Women, Infant and Children program (WIC), which will only dramatically increase hunger in our country and drive even more people to food banks. Until every American has access to a decent paying job, American families should have the ability to feed their families.

Every major deficit reduction packaged signed into law over the last thirty years has always been negotiated according to the principle of not increasing poverty or inequality. That's why I will continue to fight against cuts to the SNAP program and misguided efforts aimed at breaking the urban-rural coalition that protected and strengthened this program throughout our history. This bill fails our children and the most vulnerable in our country. Investing in hunger relief is a fiscally sound decision. It is a cost-effective and an investment in our nation's future. I ask you to stand with me to protect the most vulnerable and our most vital safety net in fighting hunger in America. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 20, 2013, I inadvertently voted against the Pitts-Davis amendment to H.R. 1947, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013'' which was designed to reform the United States' national sugar policy. However, I rise today to clarify my position concerning this amendment and to state that I fully support the Pitts-Davis amendment and will continue to support and cosponsor H.R. 693, the ``Sugar Reform Act of 2013.''

It is unfortunate that the failed FARRM Bill proposed reforms for every commodity program except the sugar program, the most intrusive and outdated of them all. Our focus in Congress should be geared toward balancing the needs of all Americans. Instead, our current sugar policy's one-sided approach favors sugar processors and growers over American consumers and businesses. Under current law, the sugar industry is able to reap record profits when domestic sugar supplies are tight because of government restrictions. Yet, the cost of the sugar program is then passed on to taxpayers when surplus sugar burdens the market. As a result, American families have to spend additional money on their grocery bills and American companies are placed at a competitive disadvantage. We must limit these government restrictions and allow for a competitive marketplace that will balance the needs of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Nurse and Health Care Worker Protection Act of 2013, on behalf of myself and my colleague, Mr. George Miller of California. This legislation provides important protections to nurses, nursing aides, and other

health care workers who face frighteningly high rates of injury due to unsafe patient handling practices. In 2011, nurses had the fifth highest rate of musculoskeletal disorders of any profession; nursing aides were number one.

However, this does not have to be the case. Modern technology, in the form of mechanical lifts and other assistive devices, makes the manual lifting and moving of patients mostly obsolete. My bill would require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to promulgate a standard to protect health care workers from the some 36,000 severe injuries they suffer each year.

In creating a federal standard to protect nurses, we will be joining health care facilities across the nation, and a number of states--such as Texas and California--who have passed similar legislation and seen dramatic savings as a result, mostly in the form of lower workers compensation and health care costs.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and join me in making health care workers and patient safety a priority.

Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. I appreciate this important debate and participating in it.

Members of the House, by imposing a nationwide ban on abortions performed after 20 weeks, H.R. 1797, the so-called Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is nothing less than a direct attack on a woman's constitutional right

to make decisions about her health. It criminalizes previability abortions with only a narrow exception for the woman's life; it fails to include any exceptions for the woman's health; and it utterly disregards the often difficult personal circumstance women face when confronted with the needs to terminate their pregnancies.

The amended version of H.R. 1797 made in order by the Rules Committee last night attempts to address the nationwide outcry in response to comments by the bill's author at the Judiciary Committee's markup that ``incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.''

As amended, the bill now includes only a very limited exception for rape and incest that would only be available if the victim could demonstrate that she has reported the crime to the proper authorities. This reporting mandate isn't even required in the Hyde amendment, and it ignores the many reasons why rapes go unreported, including the fear of the abuser, fear of how the legal system may treat the victim, and shame. In short, the majority has determined that a woman's word is not enough to prove that she has been raped or the victim of incest. This pernicious legislation would also impose criminal penalties on doctors and other medical professionals.

But let's consider the facts, beginning with the sponsor's comments that ``incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low'' and that there's no need for an exception.

On the contrary, rape-induced pregnancy--unfortunately, I'm sad to say--occurs with some frequency. For example, the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network reported that during 2004 and 2005, 64,080 woman were raped, and of those rapes, 3,204 pregnancies resulted.

Madam Chair, I rise to discuss my amendment, number 104, to H.R. 1960, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.'' I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for accepting this amendment in en bloc amendment number five.

This technical amendment would improve Section 1036 of the underlying bill, which requires the President to provide information to Congress as to which organizations it believes are affiliates or adherents of Al-Qaeda, the reasoning justifying such designation, and whether each group constitutes an associated force that is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. My amendment addresses the latter part of this assessment dealing with so-called ``associated forces'' affiliated with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks has been interpreted by the last two Administrations as authorizing war between the United States and Al- Qaeda, the Taliban, and co-belligerent ``associated forces.'' Although we clearly know who Al-Qaeda or the Taliban are, it is unclear which organizations the Executive Branch is referring to when referencing ``associated forces.'' This absence of transparency as to the government's application of this legal concept allows for the possibility that the United States could rely on the AUMF as a broad, nearly limitless source of authority for military operations, including drone strikes, against groups that have little to no connection to the September 11 attacks in places like Mali, Somalia, or even Syria.

It is my understanding that Section 1036 of the bill attempts to address this ambiguity by attempting to discern the Administration's thinking about which groups it considers engaged in hostilities against our country. Unfortunately, it is unclear if Section 1036 is asking for information about ``associated forces'' for the purposes of interpreting the 2001 AUMF or simply seeking information about groups that affiliate with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban in a different context. This distinction is critically important, because the United States is only technically at war with ``associated forces'' covered by the 2001 AUMF and not with groups that have some other affiliation with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

My amendment eliminates this ambiguity by explicitly requiring the President to provide information about organizations it considers to be ``associated forces'' for the purposes of interpreting this war authorization. In doing so, it should help the Congress understand the scope of this outdated law, which has been interpreted by the Executive Branch and the courts in an overbroad manner, and ensure that it is not being used to justify uses of force unauthorized by and inconsistent with Congress, the Constitution, and international law.

Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Youth Jobs Act.

We are facing a jobs crisis in this country, and even our youth are not exempt from its effects. Five years after the Great Recession hit, 27 million workers are either unemployed or underemployed--roughly one out of every six U.S. workers. This is completely unacceptable.

Even worse though, is the impact this crisis is leaving on the next generation of workers.

America's young adults and teens are currently facing unemployment rates of 16 and 24 percent respectfully. The ramifications of these young Americans not being able to find work are troubling and far reaching.

We must do everything we can to make sure young Americans have the jobs they need to pay for higher education and to learn skills that will prepare them for careers and professions. If we do not create employment opportunities for all young Americans, we inhibit the ability and opportunity for them to move up the economic ladder, and to improve their conditions.

For this reason, I am introducing the ``Youth Jobs Act'' with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

This Act directs the U.S. Department of Labor to provide $1.5 billion in grants for states to provide summer and year-round employment opportunities for low-income youth. States could then use these funds to identify employment opportunities in emerging occupations and in the public and nonprofit sector to meet their community's needs.

An additional $1.5 billion would be distributed through competitive grants to states and local communities to provide on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for low-income youth and disadvantaged young adults. The grant recipients would be strongly encouraged to develop partnerships with employers, community colleges, community organizations and join labor-management committees.

At minimum, every state would receive $15 million to implement summer and year round job opportunities and training programs, with the remainder being targeted to areas of particularly high youth unemployment and poverty.

Ensuring there are adequate jobs for every American should be Congress' number one focus. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure to put America's youth to work.

Fact Sheet on Rep. Conyers' Youth Jobs Act

At a time when the youth unemployment rate is over 16

percent, and the teen unemployment rate is over 24 percent,

we have got to do everything we can to make sure that young

Americans have the jobs they need to pay for a college

education and to move up the economic ladder.

The Youth Jobs Act that will be introduced in the Senate by

Sen. Sanders will provide $3 billion in immediate funding to

employ hundreds of thousands of low-income youth and

economically disadvantaged young adults in summer and year

round jobs; and to provide young Americans with the job

training and skills they need for the jobs of the future.

This legislation is modeled on the youth jobs and training

programs included in President Obama's American Jobs Act.

The Youth Jobs Act would build on the success of the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which created over

374,000 summer job opportunities during 2009 and 2010 to

young Americans through $1.2 billion for the Youth Jobs

Workforce Investment Act program.

Under the Youth Jobs Act, the U.S. Department of Labor

(DOL) would provide $1.5 billion in grants to states to:

Provide summer and year round employment opportunities for

low-income youth, with direct links to academic and

occupational learning; and

Provide important services such as transportation or child

care, necessary to enable young Americans to participate in

job opportunities.

Each state that would like to participate in this program

would have to submit a plan to DOL that must include:

Strategies and activities to provide summer employment

opportunities and year-round employment opportunities for

low-income youth, including links to educational activities;

Identifying employment opportunities in emerging or in-

demand occupations;

Identifying employment opportunities in the public or

nonprofit sector that meet community needs; and

An estimate of the number of youth expected to be placed in

employment opportunities.

Under this legislation, DOL would also award $1.5 billion

in competitive grants to local areas to provide work-based

training to low-income youth and disadvantaged young adults.

Through this bill, DOL will award grant applications to

local areas that have the ability to:

Implement effective strategies and activities to provide

unemployed, low-income youth and disadvantaged young adults

with the skills needed for employment;

Provide opportunities for on-the-job training, and

registered apprenticeship programs;

Provide connections to immediate work opportunities; paid

internships; enrollment in community colleges; or basic

education and training for low-income young adults; and

Develop partnerships with employers and employer

associations, community colleges, and other postsecondary

education institutions; community-based organizations; joint

labor-management committees; and work-related intermediaries.

All states would receive a minimum of $15 million to

implement summer and year round job opportunities and job-

training programs under this bill.

The remainder of the funding would be targeted to areas of

high youth unemployment and poverty.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the $20 billion cut over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, included in the reauthorization of the Farm bill and supported by some of my colleagues on the House Committee on Agriculture. SNAP is the cornerstone of our nation's nutrition assistance safety net and touches the lives of over one in seven Americans. To highlight the importance of this critical safety net, last week I participated in a one day SNAP Challenge by limiting my total daily food budget to $4.50--the equivalent of the daily benefits received by individuals living in Michigan.

If these cuts are enacted into law, nearly 2 million low-income Americans will lose benefits and 210,000 children from low-income families will lose free school meals, which may be their only meal of the day. My colleagues claim that cuts are needed to reduce the federal debt. However, every major deficit reduction packaged signed into law over the last thirty years has always been negotiated according to the principle of not increasing poverty or inequality.

Moreover, families are already facing cuts to SNAP benefits. Under current law, the temporary boost in benefits provided in April of 2009 by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are scheduled to end on November 1. This expiration of enhanced benefits will cause a family of three to experience a $20-$25 month deduction in benefits, which amounts to a cut of $1.40 per person per meal. This reduction, coupled with the draconian $20 billion cut proposed in the Farm Bill, is simply cruel.

In 2007, 26.3 million Americans participated in SNAP nationally. In 2012, more than 46.2 million people received benefits--doubling of the number of participants in 2007. This is a testament to the fact that when people struggle to put food on their tables during an economic downturn, SNAP is able to respond to meet their needs. SNAP is our nation's most important anti-hunger program and we must protect it for the future sake of vulnerable children and families. I encourage my colleagues to stand up for low-income Americans and fight for this vital safety net.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent public revelations about the National Security Agency's extensive surveillance programs, today we are introducing bipartisan legislation that will curtail the excesses of these programs and protect our privacy rights. The ``Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of Telecommunications and Email (LIBERT-E) Act'' contains commonsense proposals to strengthen our civil liberties and hold our government accountable.

Specifically, the LIBERT-E Act provides for the following legislative changes:

The legislation reforms access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations. Section 2 of the LIBERT-E Act changes Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act in order to prevent the mass collection of business records that are not material to an authorized foreign intelligence investigation, an international terrorism investigation, or clandestine intelligence activities.

Currently, in order to obtain a Section 215 court order, the government need only show that the records are ``relevant'' to such an investigation. Recent reports suggest that the government's view of the ``relevance'' standard includes records of every telephone call on a given network. Section 2 of the LIBERT-E Act would also require that the government show that the relevance of these records to the investigation is based on ``specific and articulable'' facts, that the records are material to the investigation, and that the records ``pertain only to individuals under such investigation.'' In addition, the section removes a list of

``presumptively relevant'' records. The government should be required to show that the records it seeks are, in fact, material to a particular concern. The section also guarantees the recipient of a Section 215 order the right to challenge an accompanying gag order, and ensures notice and due process for any such challenger.

The LIBERT-E Act also requires additional disclosures to Congress and the public in Section 3 of the legislation. This section provides for greater accountability and transparency in the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This section amends existing reporting requirements contained in Section 601 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1871) by requiring the Attorney General to make available to all Members of Congress the information currently provided to the House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees. It also requires that the Attorney General make unclassified summaries of each ``significant'' decision, order, or opinion of the FISA Court available to the public within 180 days of their submission to Congress. Further, this section requires the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and the Intelligence Community to report on the impact that acquisition of foreign intelligence has had on the privacy of persons located in the United States.

Lastly, the fourth section of the LIBERT-E Act requires that each assessment or review required under Title VII of FISA be submitted in unclassified form, with an unclassified index if necessary.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure, which protects our privacy and increases transparency in the government's use of these authorities.

Madam Chair, I rise to discuss of my amendment, number 146, to H.R. 1960, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.'' My amendment simply states that nothing in the bill should be construed as an authorization for the use of military force against Iran. I would like to thank the cosponsors of my amendment: Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Ellison of Minnesota, and Ms. Lee of California. I would also like to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for accepting this amendment in en bloc amendment number eight. By adopting this amendment, the House of Representatives is making it clear, for the second straight year, that none of the provisions in this bill should be interpreted as a war authorization against Iran.

In recent months, the possibility of a preemptive military strike against Iran has been openly discussed as a policy option of last resort as our country and our allies determine how to best confront the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program.

At the same time, this national discussion has prompted a large number of current and former military and intelligence officials to come forward to encourage the Congress and the Administration to consider the possible consequences, both intended and unintended, of such a strike.

These include high-level former U.S. and Israeli national security officials, including a Bush administration National Intelligence Council chairman, a former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, Colin Powell's chief of staff, five retired generals, the former Director of the Israeli Mossad, and a former Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces.

These experts have raised concerns that an attack on Iran could possibly result in serious harm to the world economy, potentially ignite a regional war, and even push Iran into building a nuclear weapon.

With consequences as serious as these being raised by outside and former national security experts, it is critical that any decision to initiate military action against Iran be rigorously debated and, if necessary, be backed by a separate war authorization.

Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for rollcall vote 211, as I had stepped away from the House Floor momentarily. If I had been present for this vote, on final passage of H.R. 2217, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2014, I would have voted ``nay.''