Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by what I heard while I was home in August. People are disappointed with us, their elected representatives, and they want us to do our constitutional duty of solving the Nation's problems and to start working together.

They want to get America moving again. They want the problems of the economy addressed. They want jobs, they want opportunity, and they want a government that works for the good of the country.

Is there anyone amongst us here that is proud that we could not produce a budget? that we caused the downgrading of the U.S. Government securities? that we caused appalling disorder and confusion in the market, stifling economic growth and job creation and contributing to the hopelessness and the misfortune of millions of Americans?

Failed leadership and failed followership--we owe the country better. We must do better.

I hope that those of you here who feel ashamed of our performance, as I do, will join together. It is our duty to solve the Nation's problems and to stop this nonsense. If we do not, the people in their righteous and justified outrage will get rid of us all. And well they should.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as an original co-sponsor and in strong support of H.R. 2715, a bill that will fix many of the unintended consequences of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008. I, along with my colleagues, Messrs. Rush, Barton, Whitfield, and Waxman, helped write CPSIA in response to the massive influx of dangerous and tainted Chinese imports during what some have termed ``the summer of recalls'' in 2007. The House's bill was negotiated in a bipartisan manner. It was reported favorably by the Committee on Energy and Commerce through a unanimous vote and then passed by the full House, 407-1. Then our dear friends in the Senate got hold of the bill, and we have been trying to fix the mess ever since.

Although this process has taken over two-and-a-half years, I am pleased that H.R. 2715 will solve in great measure the problems CPSIA has caused. This bill will ensure that CPSIA's lead limits are prospective. It will put in place a waiver process to exempt from CPSIA's lead limits products that do not pose a danger to children's health and safety. H.R. 2715 will make the common-sense clarification that CPSIA's lead limits do not apply to bicycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and books. Finally, the bill will allow the Commission discretion to prescribe alternative third-party testing requirements with a view toward helping smaller businesses with more finite resources comply with the law. It bears mentioning that all of these changes will not undo the strict protections built into CPSIA to keep kids safe from dangerous products.

H.R. 2715's significant improvements to CPSIA come as a result of bipartisan negotiation and cooperation. Despite the turmoil and rancor in Congress over the past few months, this bill shows that the House of Representatives can still legislate and do so in a manner befitting our Founding Fathers' vision of representative government. I would like to thank my friends and colleagues, Messrs. Upton, Waxman, and Butterfield for their fine work on H.R. 2715. Mrs. Bono Mack, in particular, deserves praise and congratulations for her success on this bill, her first as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. Although often overlooked, the work of staff on H.R. 2715 demands deserved recognition, especially that of Gib Mullan and Michelle Ash, Republican and Democratic counsels, respectively. Their steadfast determination and hard work have made this bill a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 2715 and in so doing help put CPSIA's long and storied legislative sage to rest. We should all support this bill with the knowledge that it--in a manner pleasing to Hippocrates--will do no harm. I pray our colleagues in the other body will adhere to this principle in their expeditious consideration of H.R. 2715.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in heavy-hearted support of S. 365, an imperfect, bipartisan compromise to raise the debt ceiling and rein in federal spending. House and Senate leaders have been bickering for months over this issue, and we have waited until the 59th minute of the 11th hour to reach an agreement. If we do not raise the debt ceiling by tomorrow, our economy will be deeply shaken, resulting not only in massive losses to Wall Street, but also in increased costs and interest rates for American families. With the severe threat of default upon us, it is time to come together for our Nation's best interests.

This is not the bill I would have written, and I do not know a single Member of Congress who believes this bill is perfect. I agreed with President Obama's sentiments today when he said that ``as with any compromise, the outcome is far from satisfying.'' However, as a Member of Congress, there are times when you must hold your nose and vote for a compromise that, while imperfect, is necessary. I believe this is one of those times. The grave threat of default is far too near and too serious not to vote for this agreement.

I am happy to see that this compromise provides long-term economic certainty, raising the debt ceiling until 2013. This will give our markets, investors, and economic partners abroad confidence in the U.S. economy and our ability to pay our bills. It also takes a bold step toward fiscal responsibility, resulting in over $2.1 trillion in deficit reduction, as recently scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I believe it is important to seriously address our national debt so as not to burden future generations.

The bill will immediately enact strict ten-year spending caps on both defense and non-defense programs, resulting in $917 billion in savings. It also creates a bipartisan congressional committee which will identify an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November 23, 2011, including from entitlement and tax reform. Both the House and Senate will hold an up or down vote on the committee's proposal.

I believe this compromise cuts too far into many important government programs and that these spending reductions will not be easy to swallow. Discretionary spending will be brought to its lowest levels since the Eisenhower Administration. I am reassured, however, that cuts will not be made to Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, Pell Grants for low-income college students, or civilian and military retirement programs.

I am greatly disappointed that this compromise does not immediately include revenue increases for the wealthiest Americans, and I believe it places the brunt of the burden of deficit reduction on low-income and middle-class families. I am optimistic, however, that the future plan set forth by the bipartisan congressional committee on deficit reduction will include such revenue increases. Instead of protecting tax breaks for Big Oil, corporations that ship jobs overseas, and the very richest among us, these groups should share in the sacrifice.

We could each sit here refusing to support a bill that does not mirror our individual priorities, allowing the U.S. to default on its loans and permitting an economic catastrophe. Or we could come together and support a compromise that, while imperfect, gets the job done. We were elected to be mature civic leaders who could put public interests before self interests. I urge my colleagues to serve that purpose by supporting this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in unreserved opposition to H.R. 1315, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act. H.R. 1315's short title is ironic, given the bill's thinly veiled purpose of eviscerating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and continuing to allow unchecked consumer abuses by the financial institutions responsible for the crash of 2008. This is cynical legislating, Mr. Speaker, and ugly proof positive that my friends on the other side of the aisle care more about Wall Street banks than Main Street families.

H.R. 1315's provisions show that Republicans clearly have not learned the lessons of our ongoing Great Recession. Today's bill weakens the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's ability to devise protections to protect the American public Not only does H.R. 1315 allow for consumer financial protection rules to be overturned more easily, but it also strips the time limit within which the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) must review and vote on petitions against them. H.R. 1315's perilous net effect is the crippling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its ability to protect Americans from all manner of deceitful Wall Street rascality.

As if reducing consumer protections were not enough, my Republican friends also feel the need to use H.R. 1315 as a vehicle to play wild games with the legislative process. The rule to bring H.R. 1315 to the floor mandates that when passed, H.R. 1315 will include H.R. 830, an unrelated bill to terminate the Federal Housing Administration's refinance program. I opposed H.R. 830 when it was originally considered on the House floor because I believe it hastily terminates a promising program tailored to benefit responsible homeowners. Wrapping H.R. 830 into the text of H.R. 1315 is Republican leadership's irresponsible ploy to appear fiscally austere at any cost, all while violating their own vaunted ``three-calendar-day'' and ``72-hour'' rules. Republican leadership might as well come on to the floor and announce, ``Do as I say, not as I do.''

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1315 and the ongoing debt limit debate have shown that the House Republicans are more concerned about the needs of their fat cat friends on Wall Street than American families that are living paycheck to paycheck. It is for all of these reasons and more that I strongly oppose H.R. 1315. I urge my colleagues to do the same so they can sleep at night with the peace of knowing they voted their conscience to protect the very people they were elected to represent, not the banks that crippled our country's economy.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strident opposition to H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This unfortunate bill is just another in a long line of Republican attempts to sabotage policies put in place to protect the health and safety of Americans, as well as to improve the environment while at the same time fostering economic recovery. I categorically reject the Republicans' cynical and shortsighted approach to governing and urge my colleagues to follow suit by opposing this bill.

I am not without justification in my criticism of H.R. 2354. To be clear, it contains a rider to block the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act, landmark legislation that I helped write and pass into law. The bill also blocks EPA's authority to oversee mountaintop removal coal mining, effectively allowing mountains to be carved away at corporate leisure. Finally, the bill would remove EPA's authority to make storm water programs more effective, which strikes me as curious given my Republicans' bent on making government leaner, meaner, and more effective. On a broader note, H.R. 2354 constitutes an attack on the integrity of the Clean Water Act, which has helped restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Just as this bill would allow coal companies to carve away mountains, so too would it carve away EPA's precious and necessary authorities under the Clean Water Act.

H.R. 2354's assault on Americans and their environment extends beyond allowing the desecration of the beautiful waters they so treasure. The bill also curtails programs meant to advance economic recovery in a manner more sustainable for the environment. While I commend my colleagues on the House Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee for dedicating funding to repair the damage caused by the recent storms and floods, I do not agree with taking funding from critical infrastructure projects that offer enormous economic impacts in a myriad of communities across this country. If my colleagues recognize the storms and floods as emergency events, then they should have had the fortitude to allocate emergency funding to these

repairs outside of the normal appropriations process.

By nature high-speed rail funding are immediate economic generators. Under H.R. 2354, the 15th District is slated to lose more than $495 million in funding awarded to four highspeed rail projects in our district. The projects that would be derailed are the development of new train stations in Ann Arbor and Dearborn, the joint Midwest Regional Rail passenger rail equipment purchase, and the rehabilitation and improvement of track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn. This rescission will result in the loss of as many as 13,008 jobs.

And as if cutting funds for mass transit were not enough, H.R. 2354 also seeks to eviscerate the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, which helps automakers and suppliers produce more fuel efficient vehicles and decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil. This is the height of folly and quite frankly indefensible.

Mr. Chair, for all of these reasons and more, I oppose H.R. 2354 and urge my colleagues to do so as well. Their children and grandchildren will thank them if they do.

Mr. Speaker, along with my good friend and colleague, Congressman Gene Green of Texas, I am introducing the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act today to address the sensible and long neglected needs of public safety. This legislation builds on S. 911, Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison's outstanding bipartisan bill, which was recently reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Congressman Green's and my bill do all the same things as S. 911. It allocates the D-Block free of charge to public safety and establishes a framework for the deployment of a nationwide, interoperable, wireless broadband network for public safety. The bill also establishes a funding mechanism to ensure the construction, maintenance, and upgrade of this network. It has been nearly 10 years since 9/11, and Congressman Green and I find it disgraceful that public safety has neither sufficient spectrum nor a national interoperable network to use. Our bill will remedy that and help public safety better protect American lives.

The one important difference between our bill and its Senate companion is that ours builds in stricter conditions and requirements for a voluntary incentive auction of broadcaster spectrum. Our bill, like S. 911, seeks to tackle the Nation's growing need for wireless spectrum, but ours makes explicit that the Commission may conduct only one incentive auction, that broadcasters not be coerced into relinquishing spectrum, and that broadcasters be fully compensated for costs associated with repacking. Congressman Green and I have sought answers from the Federal Communications Commission about the effects of broad incentive auction authority on broadcasters and consumers. The Commission has provided us little assurance that these effects will not be far-reaching and negative, so Congressman Green and I feel compelled to include more rigid protections in our bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a strong bill and one worthy of the entire House's support. I would note that this bill has been endorsed by many stakeholders, including the Communications Workers of America (CWA), the Public Safety Alliance (PSA), APCO, the National Association of Sheriffs (NSA), and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). I urge my colleagues to join with Congressman Green and me in supporting public safety and addressing our country's critical spectrum needs by co-sponsoring the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise to reluctantly support H. Res. 268. I support the resolution because I strongly agree in principle that the Israelis and Palestinians must negotiate a two-state solution.

H. Res. 268 contains much with which I disagree. We have seen such resolutions in the past. Unfortunately, their intent is to advance a specific narrative that I believe is at odds with the urgency of a negotiated peace. The resolutions are brought to the floor without the ability for Members of Congress to provide input at either the committee level or during consideration on the House floor. As a strong supporter of Israel and her right to self-defense, I take issue with this approach.

My biggest concern with H. Res. 268 is its call to cut aid to the Palestinians. Such a move would be at best premature and at worst detrimental to the prospects of resuming negotiations. The unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah is tenuous and the path forward for a potential unity government is unknown. Let me be clear: I would never advocate United States aid for Hamas or any government that contains Hamas. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel; it has never supported the peace process and it sympathizes with America's enemies like al Qaida and Iran. But at a time when much of the Middle East is shifting toward democracy, it is irresponsible and against our own interests to withhold dollars that we know are being used by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank to promote greater economic stability and physical security--for both the Israelis and Palestinians. Cutting off aid would be a setback for those working toward peace. Indeed, as the New York Times argues in its editorial on May 8, 2011, such a move may ``shift the political balance dangerously toward Hamas.''

In addition, H. Res. 268 is as egregious for what it includes as what it leaves out. The resolution does not suggest that the United States should play a strong role in bringing both sides back to the negotiating table. It does not say that both sides must continue negotiating without preconditions. Nor does it say both the Israelis and Palestinians must cease unilateral actions. The omissions raise serious questions. How can we as leaders of our nation reaffirm our commitment to a lasting two-state solution without acknowledging that U.S. leadership is critical to bringing about that solution? How can we ask one side and not the other to make difficult concessions?

The stakes in reaching a negotiated peace agreement are as high as ever as the window for a two-state solution narrows. The United States must help both sides rejoin negotiations, not pass resolutions laden with threats, grandstanding, and obfuscation. As the President stated in his speech at the U.S. State Department in May, ``At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That's certainly true for the two parties involved.''

My stance on this conflict is well known. I support a two-state solution that results in a Jewish and democratic state of Israel living side-by-side in peace and security with a Palestinian state. H. Res. 268 does nothing to achieve this outcome.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2055, the fiscal year 2012 Military Construction and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Appropriations Act. This legislation, which provides $129.7 billion in funding for the VA, is critical for our veterans returning from multiple tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, and all those who have so bravely and honorably served our nation in the Armed Forces, including the 46,370 veterans living in the 15th district of Michigan.

There are a number of provisions in this bill with which I am pleased. First, it continues the Democratic-initiated effort to provide advance appropriations for the Veterans Health Administration so the VA may adequately plan for our veterans medical needs. Second, it builds on the previous Democratic Congresses' commitment to our veterans by providing funding to reduce the VA claims backlog, allow for quality medical care, and ensure the promise of a college education.

I am particularly pleased efforts to weaken workers' rights were defeated during consideration of this legislation. Both a proposed ban on implementation of Project Labor Agreement requirements as well as a proposal to bar VA and the Department of Defense from enforcing the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement on contracts would have unjustly harmed middle class working families and led to poor construction on VA and DoD facilities.

Mr. Chair, this legislation continues the Democrats tradition of caring for our veterans. This job is never done and at a time when we are engaged in conflicts around the world, it is imperative our current and former military men and women know that their government supports them.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our veterans by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 2055.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment.

At a time when 30 people have been grossly sickened and died in Germany and 3,000 have been sickened, we are cutting Food and Drug's enforcement budget. The legislation would cut the food safety budget of FDA by $87 million below fiscal year 11, and $205 million below the President's fiscal year 12 request.

We are witnessing now one of the deadliest E. coli outbreaks ever overseas in Europe, and that infection is spreading across the society of the world. My amendment has the support of the Consumers Union, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, U.S. PIRG, and the National Women's Health Network.

It is time for us to understand that every year in the United States, 3,000 Americans are killed with bad food, 128,000 are hospitalized, 48 million are made sick. We have imported food that is causing all manner of difficulty: Bad peanuts with salmonella, bad mushrooms, E. coli in peppers, melamine in dairy products, salmonella in eggs, bad shellfish and fish from China.

The amendment sees to it that Food and Drug has the resources it needs to do the job to protect the American people from bad food being imported into the United States. We are able to inspect less than 1 percent of the food coming into the United States. This is a positive risk to the American consuming public.

The situation here is indefensible. The House last year passed major improvements in our food safety laws. And we saw to it--we had a funding mechanism which was removed by the Senate. But without the adequate funding that this amendment would afford to our people, we will find that they are at risk of serious health dangers from bad food and from sickness that comes with those things. We are here, by this amendment, giving Food and Drug the resources that it needs, some $49 million, to see to it that these imported foods and other foods are safe.

This is extremely important. And while you might say, well, I don't know whether it is going to affect me, somebody in this country is going to get sick because bad food came in and because it kills people when that happens.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment until we can get ourselves in a situation where we have proper and adequate funding for Food and Drug to see to it that our people are safe from imports which are causing sickness, illness and death to the American people.

The legislation, unfortunately, does cut the food safety budget, and it cuts it in ways which are threatening a piece of legislation which has strengthened Food and Drug with the support of not just farmers and consumers, but also of the food processing industry, which rallied around and supported the legislation along with consumer groups and all of the other sources in industry, recognizing we desperately need something to be done to ensure that our people do not get sick and die from bad imported foods.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I urge them to do so with vigor until such time as we can get a fee system in place which will adequately support Food and Drug and see to it that our people can sleep easily after they have a full meal knowing that the food they have consumed is safe.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my good friend for yielding to me.

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the Appropriations Committee and their extraordinary staffs for their courtesy to me as we have gone on through this legislation and through the discussion of this amendment.

I've listened to my Republican colleagues tell us how great we're doing. My good friend, for whom I have enormous fondness, presents us with a bunch of pictures of food. It looks great. Maybe it's safe and maybe it's not. He has got a bunch of numbers that say that it's 99.99 percent safe. That sounds wonderful.

But what are the real facts? All right.

The real facts are that, at the time that this cut is going into place on Food and Drug's budget, 3,300 people have been sickened in Germany with a particularly dangerous form of E. coli, and 30 people are dead. It is spreading across the German borders into other countries.

Now, how are we doing over here?

First of all, Food and Drug has been starved of resources for years and has not been able to provide the necessary protection to the American people from imported food, which is coming in and is, frankly, sickening people.

What is the situation? Salmonella and peanuts, bad mushrooms from China, E. coli in peppers coming in from Mexico, melamine in dairy products. It kills kids. It kills babies. It causes all manner of health risks and dangers.

There are bad pharmaceuticals coming in. We haven't been able to get ahold of that problem yet, but I'm going to try and get a bill that will address that; and I'm going to try and see to it that we get a fee system that will enable us to not have to quarrel about these moneys on the House floor.

But in this country, let's look. If this is going so well and if the Secretary of Agriculture is so right and if my dear friend from Georgia is correct, then there is really nothing to worry about; and I would like somebody around here to tell me what I'm then going to tell the 3,000 people who are killed in this country by bad food every single year. 128,000 of them are sick enough that they have to go to hospitals. On top of that, 48 million people get sick.

There is no way on God's green Earth, with the budget that Food and Drug has, that they can properly and adequately protect American food and protect the American people from the dangers of bad imported food. China is the Wild West. The stuff that they're exporting to the United States, quite frankly, I'm not sure I'd feed my hogs.

Having said these things, it is time for us to stand up to the problem and to say, Okay. We're going to spend the money that's necessary to keep people safe. We are talking about $49 million here. A lot of money. But how much do you think it takes to bury 3,000 Americans? How much does it cost to take care of 128,000 people who are hospitalized every year because of this? or to take care of the 48 million people who get sick? and the mothers who lose babies because of bad milk and things of that kind that come in from China, where they put melamine in them to up the fictitious levels of nitrogen and protein?

So I beg you, let us do what is necessary to see to it that Food and Drug has the funds that they need to do the job to protect the American people.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. This legislation before us would cut the food safety budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by $87 million below FY 2011 and $205 million below the president's FY 2012 budget request. At a time when we are witnessing one of the deadliest E. coli outbreaks ever overseas in Europe, the House stands ready to cut funding for our food safety systems. This is indefensible and why I am offering an amendment that will which takes $49 million from several administrative accounts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and transfers them to FDA for the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), of which I am the author. Specifically, this amendment cuts $5 million from the Departmental Administration account, $20 million from the Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments account, $10 million from administrative expenses under the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund, $4 million from administrative expenses under the Rural Housing Insurance Fund, and $10 million from the Foreign Agricultural Service.

I want to make clear that the offsets I am offering are difficult, and not accounts which I would cut in normal circumstances. However, these are not normal circumstances, and the draconian cuts already made by this legislation to the food safety budget leave me with no other choice. The cuts to the USDA General Administration Account and to the Buildings and Administration Account are certainly damaging. I believe in the good work USDA is doing to promote agriculture in this nation, but these specific accounts did not receive as large a cut as others. The safety of our nation's food supply must take priority over these administrative accounts.

Furthermore, the cut to the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund, which provides loans to farmers when they can not obtain them in the private sector, will be taken from an administrative account which will not affect the loan levels to farmers in need. The cut to the Rural Housing Insurance Fund, which guarantees some rural housing loans, will also be taken from an administrative account which will not impact the loan level. Finally, while I am supportive of the Foreign Agricultural Service and their work to promote agricultural exports overseas and their international development efforts, I believe the American people would agree that at a time when we recently had a recent scare with Salmonella in eggs and authorities have agreed that the E. coli outbreak which is impacting Europe could happen here, our priority must be on the safety of our own food supply.

I want to make it very clear that the money given to FDA by my amendment is intended for their food safety activities. Last Congress when this institution overwhelmingly passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act, it had bipartisan support, the support of consumer groups, food safety groups and industry, and a guaranteed source of funding for food safety activities. The food safety reform law gives FDA the tools it needs to prevent and detect food-borne illnesses--like the E. coli outbreak in Germany--from occurring.

Under this new law, the FDA has the authority to recall food products, to require food facilities to have safety plans to identify and mitigate risks, and to increase the frequency of FDA inspections of facilities here and

abroad. Unfortunately, a dedicated fee to fund the changes to our food system was dropped by my friends in the Senate and now we are witnessing a perfect storm--because of the political whims of my colleagues we are limiting the funding available for food safety activities at the same time the FDA has the responsibility to begin implementation of the historic food safety law.

Year after year we witness devastating outbreaks that sicken or kill innocent people. We have seen E. coli in peppers, Salmonella in peanuts, melamine in milk--the list goes on. A fee system is not a radical concept. The drug industry pays a user fee dedicated to assisting the FDA with the review of new drug applications and the medical device industry pays a user fee dedicated to the review of marketing applications. Such a fee guarantees that the FDA has a source of funding dedicated to their review process free from political posturing.

We can all agree that we must reduce our budget deficit and that all options to cut spending must be on the table. However, at a time when we are witnessing the latest E. coli outbreak in Europe sicken nearly 3,200 people and kill 33, it is unconscionable that we would cut funding from the agency whose responsibility it is to prevent such food-borne illnesses here in the United States.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment restoring funding to the FDA for their food safety activities.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1216. As a declining number of physicians in our Nation are entering into primary care fields, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are working to pass legislation that will irresponsibly impede critical training of the next generation of primary care physicians.

A primary care physician shortage is a very real and alarming problem looming before us. The Association of American Medical College's Center for Workforce Studies anticipates a shortage of 45,000 primary care physicians and a shortage of 46,000 surgeons and medical specialists in the next decade.

Since 1965, the Medicare Graduate Medical Education program, which has been supported by mandatory funding, has trained the majority of resident trainees across the country in a hospital-based setting. The Teaching Health Center program is the first medical graduate program of its kind to allow future physicians in primary care fields to train in the actual setting they will be practicing in--community-based health centers.

My colleagues claim that converting the Teaching Health Center program from a mandatory appropriation to an authorization--subject to the annual appropriations process--will not endanger the program. We saw during the debate on the fiscal year 2011 budget that could not be further from the truth.

During that dreadful debate it became painstakingly clear that my colleagues know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.

Subjecting this program to the annual appropriations process will not allow for a predictable and stable funding stream needed to assist community-based health centers and resident trainees in planning and preparing for this training.

We all recognize and agree with the need to reduce federal government spending, but making the Teaching Health Center program a pawn in the appropriations game is foolish at best.

Further, I find it ironic that during debate in the Energy and Commerce Committee my colleagues expounded on their desires for more investment in our health workforce, yet at the first opportunity they are placing the Teaching Health Center program in the vulnerable position of future funding reductions.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1216 is another plan in the Republicans' repeal health reform platform. Passing this legislation will jeopardize funding for the Teaching Health Center program, further delaying the fundamental training needed for our primary care physicians.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for the training of our primary care physicians and vote no against this reckless piece of legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition today to H.R. 1213, which would repeal funding available to States to establish health insurance Exchanges. Repealing this funding will dramatically hamper States' efforts to provide critical access to affordable and high quality insurance for the uninsured or underinsured.

The Exchanges are a vital component to the Affordable Care access in that they will help simplify the process of purchasing insurance for American families and small businesses.

For the first time, individuals, families and small business alike will be able to shop for their coverage like they would for any other product--comparing the benefits, the services and prices side-by-side so that they can make a decision about what coverage will best fit their needs and their budget. These marketplaces will be transparent and competitive.

It is ironic that my colleagues across the aisle continually claim that the States best know the needs and challenges facing their population, yet today's legislation would hamstring the ability of States to plan and prepare their own exchanges.

HHS has already made available more than $296 million to 48 States, the District of Columbia and four territories to begin this work, and my home State of Michigan received more than $999,000 to begin their planning.

This funding will help Michigan determine who will be eligible for the Exchange, review the technical components needed to run the Exchange, develop a model and structure, as well as begin stakeholder discussions on implementation.

Repealing this funding will not only hurt Michigan's efforts, but also the efforts of the other States and territories that have already begun planning and building their own marketplace and delaying implementation.

According to CBO, such a delay would prevent almost two million people from enrolling in state exchanges, and increase the number of uninsured by 500,000 in 2015. Further, CBO found that 85 percent of the cuts in H.R. 1213 will come on the backs of low and moderate income families through subsidy reductions for the purchase of health coverage.

More importantly, the successes of critical consumer protections that make up the Patients Bill of Rights in the Affordable Care Act depend on working Exchanges by 2014.

These reforms will end the worst abuses in the insurance industry:

Ending discrimination for pre-existing conditions, gender, health status or family history;

Requiring coverage of preventative care services;

Protecting the patients' choice of doctors;

Preventing rescissions of coverage as a patient is being wheeled into the operating room; and

Prohibiting arbitrary limits on coverage, among other things.

If we want the States to be able to pave their own path forward in creating a robust and successful exchange designed to help employers and consumers to navigate the purchase of health coverage, than we cannot vote in favor of defunding these critical grants.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this attempt to defund the Affordable Care Act.

I thank my friend.

I rise today in vigorous opposition to H.R. 1214. This bill is not only going to cut access to health care for American children, but it's going to kill jobs in the construction industry and construction projects around the country. More than 1,900 school-based health centers across the country provide access for health care services to over 2 million people right now. For the first time, the Affordable Care Act authorized these centers and also offered a dedicated source of funding for construction, renovation, and equipment.

Three hundred fifty applicants, many of whom are currently running centers

at this time, in 46 States and the District of Columbia have applied for the first round of competitive grants, including the Young Adults Health Center located in my 15th District of Michigan. These grants will be used to enhance the capabilities of these centers and will jump-start shovel-ready projects that will create immediate construction jobs and allow for the purchase of necessary supplies and equipment, boosting local businesses, but providing health care for our kids. Until more operating funds are available--and I would hope my colleagues on the other side will support such funding--we need to ensure that at least the facilities that are ready to apply for this kind of grant will be able to do so in order to better serve our children and the communities.

I think that this would be an extremely unwise bill. It's a part of an announced plan by my Republican colleagues to first of all attack the whole of the health care reform bill over the last Congress and then to attack it piece by piece. What they seek to do here today is just a part of another step towards the gutting of the health care bill which will make things better for our people and which is paid for, which is not going to add to the deficit but which, in fact, is going to save better than $140 billion this 10 years and in the next 10 years $1.4 trillion.

This is penny wise and pound foolish. Reject the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1473 and urge my colleagues to vote for this imperfect compromise. This is not the spending bill I would have written, and it is safe to say that not one Member of Congress believes this bill is perfect. However, Democrats and Republicans have spent endless hours negotiating across the aisle to form something that is at least satisfactory to most, and I appreciate their efforts.

Congress has passed seven interim continuing resolutions (CRs) in fiscal year (FY) 2011 and has funded most of the year with stopgap spending bills. On the same day we are voting on FY 2011 funding, we are considering the FY 2012 budget. The time has passed for us to enact a full-year spending measure for FY 2011 that will allow us to focus on the future and bring stability back to the federal government.

While I am pleased this CR is a significant improvement from H.R. 1, the previous full-year CR, this bill still includes hazardous cuts that threaten many important federal programs. I believe Congress's spending legislation should reflect what our Nation values most, and I do not like what this bill says about our priorities.

The current CR includes cuts that will fall on the backs of our most vulnerable populations, including low-income women and children, dislocated workers, and those in need of affordable health care. I also do not support its cuts to law enforcement and emergency responsiveness, nor its massive reduction in environmental conservation funding. The current CR also fails to prioritize innovation and development, and I believe such reduced funding for critical government programs will delay our economic recovery.

In all, the bill cuts over $40 billion from FY 2010 spending levels. Yet it actually increases defense spending. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not an accurate portrayal of my priorities, nor those of the majority of my constituents. That said, this bill is a significant improvement from H.R. 1, and only includes about a quarter of the cuts included in the original spending bill. I am happy to see that the current CR will increase investments in education, providing our children with the tools they need to succeed. Race to the Top education reforms, Head Start programs, and Pell Grants for low-income college students will receive the funding they need. I also am happy to see adequate investments in Wall Street oversight, food safety inspection, and infrastructure grants to spur local economies.

While I believe this bill cuts too far into many important government programs, I also acknowledge that everyone will need to make sacrifices if we are to adequately address our increasing level of federal debt. These spending reductions will not be easy to swallow, but we will face many difficult choices as we begin to return this country to a solid financial footing.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1473.

Mr. Speaker, I take pride in announcing to the House that our good friend and colleague, Mr. Markey of Massachusetts, is joining a select group of Members who have cast 20,000 votes in this great body.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Members wish to congratulate this distinguished Member for a long period of outstanding service to the public.

Madam Chair, today we rise to debate irresponsible legislation cloaked in fiscal responsibility, legislation that will assuredly put the nation's public health at risk.

Today's debate is not one over concerns of mandatory funding for our nation's public health investments, it is another shot at the Affordable Care Act.

Our health system is inherently designed to provide treatment for the sick and ill, but does not currently contain the incentives necessary to keep consumers from becoming sick in the first place.

Just two years ago total health expenditures in the U.S. was $2.5 trillion, and only 3 percent of that funding was spent on preventive health care services and health promotion.

If we want to cut down on the costs of hospitalizations and inappropriate emergency room visits, we have to help American families better manage their chronic diseases like diabetes or asthma and help them stay well through vaccines and screenings.

This was the purpose behind the Prevention and Public Health Fund--to make a strong investment into prevention and wellness programs and promote innovative prevention that will help to save our health system costs in the long run.

And now we are seeing the good work that the Prevention and Public Health Fund is doing in our states.

Michigan has received over $2 million for public health activities-- building capacity in our health departments, hiring and training epidemiologists and scientists to study infectious diseases, improving access and quality of health services in medically underserved communities, and helping to promote better primary care for those in need.

Thus, the Prevention and Public Health Fund is not only creating much-needed jobs in my home state, but also undertaking meaningful projects that will help to improve the health of our country.

Let us be clear that this legislation will not become law, and rather than use the time of this body for valuable legislation such as creating jobs and improving our economy and the health of our nation, my colleagues choose to focus their efforts on another vehicle to defend the Affordable Care Act.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.