Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of Mrs. Ann R. Porter and to acknowledge her contributions to education, social progress, and the Tampa Bay community.

Mrs. Porter, a product of Hillsborough County Public Schools, attended Tampa's Middleton and Blake Senior High Schools and graduated from the University of South Florida. After graduating from USF with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science, Mrs. Porter continued her studies at Nova Southeastern earning a Master of Science in Human Services and a Master's certification in Business and Entrepreneurship.

After returning to Tampa Mrs. Porter began her career as an administrative secretary of the Tampa Urban League. During the War on Poverty years, Mrs. Porter started her career as one of Hillsborough County's first Social Service Planners at the Tampa Economic Opportunity Council, which became the Community Action Agency of Hillsborough County. As a Social Service Planner, Mrs. Porter was responsible for writing federal and state programs favorable to the Tampa Bay community. She was also the first Head Start director under the Board of Hillsborough County Commissioners. On January 1, 2000, after 32 years of holding a variety of positions under the Hillsborough County Administrator's Office, Mrs. Porter retired.

Since retirement Mrs. Porter has kept busy by volunteering throughout Tampa Bay. She served as President of the Tampa Urban League Guild and coordinated its first youth group. Shortly after, she was appointed as a Commissioner of the Tampa Housing Authority by the Mayor of Tampa. However, a majority of Mrs. Porter's volunteer time has been with the NAACP. During Mrs. Porter's time with the NAACP's Tampa branch she served in every official capacity, including the president. After working to merge Hillsborough County's Tampa and Plant City branches, Mrs. Porter became the first president of the NAACP's combined Hillsborough County branch. Proudly, she is a founder of the Hillsborough County Martin Luther King Scholarship Fund and the Robert W. Saunders Library Foundation Board, Inc.

Currently, Mrs. Porter, a mother of four children, one son, three daughters and six grandchildren, serves in several capacities including membership on the City of Tampa's Community Development Corporation, Head Start Community Foundation Board, and the Commission on the Status of Women. Mrs. Porter is also a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority and serves as AKA Connection Chairman in the Gamma Theta Omega Chapter.

Moreover, Mrs. Porter was a member of the Greater New Salem Primitive Baptist Church for more than 60 years and served in various capacities. She is a member of Beulah Baptist Institutional Church where she serves in several capacities including the Chairlady of the Mother's Board Ministry.

Ann Porter is a tremendous role model for our youth and an inspiration to our community. She selflessly devoted her life to others and not only helped numerous individuals, she helped an entire community. That is why I rise today to honor Ann Porter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of the National Academy of Inventors, NAI. The NAI was founded at the University of South Florida, USF, in 2010, and has since become an institution that recognizes researchers who

translate their findings into inventions that may benefit society. To date there are more than 500 members in the NAI, each being awarded a patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The NAI provides a valuable role in the translation of science and technology within the university community, and for the benefit of society. It serves to promote creative thinking and originality, encourage the development and utilization of inventions, and offer guidance to new and existing inventor's efforts. Moreover, the NAI has assisted in awarding hundreds of successful patents for universities around the world.

More specifically, USF has progressed into a leading research university with important economic ties to the Tampa Bay community and Florida. The aptitude of the faculty, staff and students are the fundamental components that drive USF's research initiatives. USF lists among 14 universities in the top 300 organizations to receive patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2010 with 83 patents awarded.

Innovation, based on new inventions and technologies, has proven to be a key factor in the industrial and economic development of the world. The support, encouragement and development of technology and innovation are also fundamental to the success of a university, non- profit research organization or federal research institute. Furthermore, in addition to submitting this record, I am honored to introduce a House Joint Resolution recognizing the significance of the

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

In the aftermath of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, a consensus was reached that 80 percent of the Clean Water Act fines and penalties that BP is required to pay because of the damage go to the gulf coast. President Obama has proposed this, a bipartisan group of lawmakers-- lawmakers on both sides of the aisle--agreed to this, a national commission recommended it, another national task force recommended it, businesses, environmentalists, we've all reached consensus that 80 percent of the fines and penalties that BP will be required to pay for violating the Clean Water Act go to Gulf of Mexico recovery and research. But, see, Congress must pass a law to do this.

Everyone has urged the Congress to act on this, but the Congress has not done so, unfortunately. As the cochair of the bipartisan Gulf Coast Caucus, I asked my colleagues not to let the effort languish any longer. The House should act expeditiously to do so and devote 80 percent of the Deepwater Horizon fines and penalties to the Gulf of Mexico.

Unfortunately, the Scalise amendment could be interpreted as an endorsement of a particular piece of legislation, the RESTORE Act. And while the RESTORE Act does devote 80 percent of the fines and penalties to the gulf coast, it is flawed in its current form and does not achieve meaningful recovery for the Gulf of Mexico. So while I urge my colleagues, reluctantly, to defeat this amendment, the time is now for the Congress to pass an 80 percent bill and focus on the economic and environmental recovery of the Gulf of Mexico.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to our colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to see so much bipartisan support for legislation to devote 80 percent of the fines and penalties under the Clean Water Act from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster to the Gulf of Mexico. And I reluctantly have to oppose this amendment because the amendment is entitled RESTORE, and that is one of the pieces of legislation that, on the one hand, does devote 80 percent but, on the other, is completely flawed; and so for that reason, I'm going to have to urge everyone to vote ``no.''

But let's not lose momentum here. Let's redouble our efforts in this Congress as soon as possible to pass legislation that does devote 80 percent of the fines and penalties to the Gulf of Mexico.

The problems with the RESTORE Act are many. It does not focus on gulf-wide research and recovery. It does not devote the kind of resources to long-term monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico that many other areas in America enjoy. It potentially will duplicate the natural resource damage-assessment billions flowing to the impacted areas.

For those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership's transportation package is a dead end. It is being panned by businesses, Democrats and Republicans alike. What we will vote on next is the Republican funding portion of the package and it is a little bit different.

See, this is a special story. In fact, it is a love story, the love story of a breathtaking display of affection of Big Oil by the Republican party. The bill is a special Valentine, a love letter of the Republicans' undying devotion to Big Oil. No others compare.

The problem is that, with the Republican congressional leaders' blind passion for Big Oil, they correspondingly demonstrate an animosity to American families and businesses. See, it's been less than 2 years since the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, and the Republicans in Congress now propose to drill for oil just about anywhere.

Have safety measures been adopted by this Congress? No. Do they recognize that there are special places across America that are not appropriate for oil drilling? Not really.

For example, the bill would allow drilling right off of the beaches of Florida. Florida's tourism industry, meanwhile, employs more than 1 million people. Tourism and fishing are multibillion-dollar industries. Drilling closer to our shores puts those jobs at risk. Yet that's what the Republicans propose here. And for what? The CBO says

that if you drill off the coast of Florida, that will generate $100 million. Billion dollars in industry and tourism and fishing or $100 million?

BP decimated the gulf coast and caused billions of dollars of damage to our economy and our environment. The disaster is estimated to have cost the State of Florida, alone, $2.2 billion and almost 40,000 jobs.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, the Republican love letter to Big Oil could be the kiss of death for small businesses, hotels, motels, shrimpers, fishermen, and families that rely on tourism, and that's just in the State of Florida. This bill puts too many jobs at risk in a misguided, love-struck attempt to allow Big Oil to drill just about anywhere, including unique and sensitive areas all across America.

Republican leadership has made it abundantly clear they are willing to sell America to the highest bidder. Well, I'm here to say America is not for sale.

Is nothing sacred in this country anymore? Is nothing off limits? How about Mount Vernon, George Washington's home? Would we drill there if Big Oil could make a few bucks? How about Gettysburg National Battlefield? I hear there may be some natural gas nearby. Why not check Grandma and Grandpa's backyard. You're already trying to take away their Medicare, so why stop there?

There are places in America that are not for sale and should be protected, and my amendment provides a test. Here's the test:

I pick two special areas to put to the test in this Congress. My amendment will prevent drilling within 5 miles of any of the Great Lakes or the Everglades.

Now, don't get me wrong, we must have robust domestic oil production--in fact, that is happening now. We are currently producing in America at higher levels than ever before. We have more domestic production than we import. Last year, U.S. crude oil production reached its highest level since 2003. And the Obama administration has offered and continues to offer millions of acres of public lands and Federal waters for oil and gas exploration and production.

In 2010, the Department of the Interior offered 37 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas exploration, but the oil companies have only tapped 2.4 million acres. So why are we going to open up even more public lands for drilling when we haven't even used one-fifteenth of what's available? It's a love story. It's a love story.

Last year, although Exxon made $41 billion, BP made over $25 billion, the Republicans saw to it that American taxpayers chipped in another $10 billion from 2002 to 2008.

Well, enough is enough. We are not going to turn the Great Lakes into the ``Okay Lakes,'' and we're not going to turn the Everglades into the ``Neverglades.'' The Great Lakes and Everglades are not just environmental treasures; they are the lifeblood of our local economies. The Great Lakes and Everglades employ many Americans who work in tourism, lodging, fishing, and ecological industries.

I urge my colleagues not to play an enabling role in this tawdry love affair between most Republicans in Congress and Big Oil.

Vote ``yes'' on this motion and pledge your devotion to our great Nation rather than Big Oil.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise to urge our colleagues to support the STOCK Act when it comes up later today.

The STOCK Act is the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act. It essentially bans Members of Congress from using their position and information that is not available to the general public for their own personal gain, such as purchasing stocks based upon information we learn from a briefing here on Capitol Hill.

Public office is a public trust, and rules that apply to our neighbors and Americans all across the country should equally apply to Members of Congress.

I'd like to congratulate my colleagues, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter from New York and Congressman Tim Walz from Minnesota, who have worked on this legislation year in and year out.

Colleagues, we should all vote in favor of the STOCK Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bipartisan Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act. As a member of the Budget Committee and a cosponsor, I would like to thank Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen for their work and cooperation.

I support a line-item veto because congressional appropriations and spending oversight is broken. They're broken. Almost every year appropriation bills are rolled into one massive package at the end of the year with little opportunity to review, debate, or amend the provisions. That means Members have little ability to eliminate a wasteful expenditure or program.

This past year was a perfect example. Despite the expressed desire of Speaker Boehner that we would have open debate and open amendments on every appropriations bill, that did not happen. Instead, the bills were rolled into one huge package in the eleventh hour, released with, as I think Ranking Member Van Hollen said, 15 hours to review, and then Members were asked to provide an up-or-down vote. We had little ability or no ability to amend the bill. That is not how it is supposed to work.

The Congress must endeavor to effectively exercise its responsibilities and scrutinize every appropriation and be able to debate and amend expenditures. The logrolling of appropriations bills that has become common practice undermines confidence in Government and permits wasteful spending to squeak through.

Under this bipartisan line-item veto bill, we will establish a new layer of accountability in the budget process. The President, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, will have a new critical look at a spending provision, a potential veto or veto of that provision, but then it will come back to the Congress, and then we can debate it and vote on it in the light of day up or down.

Mr. Chairman, so far this congressional session has been described as a particularly difficult one, and it was highlighted by difficult debates of last year, and then we ended the year with a big appropriations package we were asked to vote on at the last minute with no review practically and no ability to amend it. So I have to say that it is refreshing that we can bring a bipartisan bill to the floor of the House that we agree on. Reform with a line-item veto bill today, hopefully the STOCK Act tomorrow.

I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan line-item veto bill and demonstrate to the American public that the Congress can work again.

I thank our colleague, Representative Capps, for yielding time and for her great leadership on behalf of middle class families across America.

I rise to encourage all of our colleagues to get to work on middle class tax relief and also take this opportunity to strengthen Medicare. We're going to have a lot of debates over Medicare here in the coming year.

This will be an opportunity to address a real shortcoming in Medicare, and that is protecting our parents and grandparents and the ability that they have to see the doctor of their choice. See, what will happen if the Congress does not act is there will be instituted very harsh cuts to the reimbursement rate for doctors who take care of our parents and take care of our grandparents under Medicare. We simply can't let this happen.

Democrats are interested in a permanent fix to these Medicare cuts to doctors. This is vitally important for tens of millions of our parents and grandparents all across America. And you better believe in the State of Florida, where we have 3.4 million seniors who rely on Medicare, we want to ensure that the ability of the doctor that they trust, that they see time and time again, will be there when they make that appointment in the doctor's office. We're interested in a permanent fix. We think working together we can get this done.

Medicare is that promise that has been made to generation after generation of Americans; that it will be there no matter what happens, how hard they work, what happens in their lifetime, Medicare will be there to serve them, and we need to ensure that the doctors are there on the front lines to take care of our parents and grandparents as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and highlight the distinguished life and career of the Honorable Lew Williams, who passed away sadly on December 3rd, 2011. Mr. Williams was a member of the Pinellas County School Board and a local educator. His impact on our community will be felt for years to come. He leaves behind two children and his wife, Arthurene.

Mr. Williams was elected to the Pinellas County School Board in 2010. However, over his lifetime, his impact was profound. Quiet and reserved, he chose his words carefully in a way that would be sure to have the most impact. His colleagues on the School Board have noted that he often had the ability to drive debates to a solution, while being one of the quietest individuals in the room. In his time on the Board, he was able to move the district in a different direction and was instrumental in leading the fight for changes in the district's superintendent position.

Lew Williams was born in Blakely, Georgia, but moved to Florida at a young age. Growing up in public housing, he saw education as a means to future success. Two educators saw his potential for achievement and helped pay his way for college. He graduated from Allen University with a bachelor's degree and South Carolina State College with a master's degree.

Mr. Williams was instilled with the same optimistic belief in those around him. He started out as a social studies teacher, but eventually went on to become a principal at five different Pinellas County schools. In 2010, Mr. Williams was elected to the School Board seat for District 7. Local educational leaders, such as the current head of the local teachers union, credit him for seeing leadership in them when he chose to hire them. His hard work, sacrifice and determination have truly impacted our community and continue to do so.

The Tampa Bay community mourns his loss and is so thankful for his many years of service to students and our community. I ask that you and all Americans remember such a remarkable educator for his ability to inspire success in others.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to honor and highlight the distinguished career of Tom Cavaleri. Mr. Cavaleri's contributions to the Tampa community are worthy of recognition by all.

Born in Tampa, Florida, Mr. Cavaleri attended Plant High School. Upon graduation from the University of South Florida, he began his first job with Hillsborough County, establishing and working with youth groups in the Sulphur Springs area to offer them productive and positive after school activities. Since then, Mr. Cavaleri's career with Hillsborough County has spanned 39 years and several departments, all the while devoting himself to helping the disadvantaged and underserved.

Throughout his career, Mr. Cavaleri has served as a social worker, a front line supervisor, a section manager, and is currently the division manager for Social Services in Hillsborough County. Through his work, he has improved the efficiency of customer service while also maintaining the compassion and human dignity so essential to an applicant during his or her time of need.

During his time as manager or director, Mr. Cavaleri has created innovative programs to improve program operations while also expanding the services available to Hillsborough County residents. This included designing and implementing a health care certification unit which centralized and streamlined enrollment processes, allowing front-line staff time to more effectively manage their clients, and leading the Health and Social Services department through a transition from crisis intervention to a case managed self-sufficiency model.

The Tampa community is proud to recognize Mr. Cavaleri for his continued dedication to improving the lives of Hillsborough County residents and, most especially the lives of those most in need. His outstanding commitment to improving the lives of others has made him an inspirational community leader and a true unsung hero. I ask that you and all Americans recognize such a remarkable citizen for his contribution and service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing problem across America involving identity theft and tax fraud. This new kind of criminal will steal Social Security numbers and then file for a fraudulent tax return.

The City of Tampa Police Department recently uncovered a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme, lost moneys to the taxpayers. So Congressman Rich Nugent and I, a Republican colleague from Florida, have been working together to tackle this problem.

I intend to file a bill this week that would, one, give local law enforcement the tools it needs to be an effective participant with the IRS in these tax fraud investigations. Right now Federal law doesn't allow local law enforcement to be an active participant. And, two, for folks that have their identities stolen, often months and months and months go by before the IRS is able to fix their return and their credit, and we've got to do that. It's leaving them hanging for months.

So I encourage my colleagues to join in our efforts to tackle tax fraud and this criminal enterprise.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

I support a balanced budget, and I support a balanced budget amendment; but this version would place a very dangerous straitjacket on our country's ability to address a disaster. I'm very proud to represent the State of Florida. But after a year of devastating tornadoes, floods and fires all across this country, you do not have to hail from the State of Florida to understand the impact of a natural disaster and the importance of our ability to speed assistance to local communities.

This amendment would erect roadblocks to our country's ability to address natural disasters and emergencies. Please recall how many of our GOP colleagues a few months ago sought to stall emergency aid. I will read from a press report from back in August: ``Americans who saw their homes flooded, streets ripped apart and businesses disrupted by last weekend's hurricane are about to face another storm: a new congressional battle. Unless additional disaster aid is appropriated, Federal officials said communities trying to rebuild from natural disasters this year in the Midwest and South will have to wait while funds are diverted to help victims of Hurricane Irene. The recent string of disasters, including a tornado that tore through Joplin, Missouri, and a flood that inundated Minot, North Dakota, is running into the same political buzz saw that nearly forced the government into default over the bitter fight over the debt ceiling this summer.''

Delays in emergency aid are unconscionable, and it is terrible for FEMA to have to choose between which American cities and towns can be helped and which ones can't. And the problem with this version of the balanced budget amendment is that it could cause impacted communities to live that nightmare again. It didn't happen after Hurricane Katrina or 9/11 or other disasters, but after the antics of this Republican Congress this past fall, I am very concerned that this version of the balanced budget amendment would allow another irresponsible Congress to block emergency assistance to local communities.

We should not set our country up to be at the mercy of Tea Party hardliners, not at the times when our neighbors and communities need us most.

I relayed my concerns to the House sponsor after he was kind enough to call me directly, and I appreciate that opportunity. Unfortunately, the Republicans did not allow any amendments or revisions, so I intend to file my own version of a balanced budget amendment, a version that seeks to avoid an irresponsible Congress from withholding disaster assistance.

Because this version of the balanced budget amendment is flawed, I urge its defeat.

Mr. Speaker, on May 25, 2011 I was unable to record my vote on the Foxx Amendment to H.R. 1216. If I had been able to vote, I would have voted ``no''.

I thank my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding me time.

In December of 2008, the communities surrounding the Tennessee Valley Authority's coal-fired plant in Kingston, Tennessee, suffered one of the worst environmental disasters in the Nation's history--5.4 million cubic yards, or over 1 billion gallons, of coal ash sludge covered the neighborhood after a dam break. This was along the Emory River. It damaged 42 homes. That disaster raised a lot of questions and concerns about how coal ash is stored all across the country. In that case, the TVA had used an above-ground, unlined storage pond that broke loose after a heavy rain.

Some States have appropriate storage standards, like my home State of Florida. They're appropriate. But the problem is some States do not have the appropriate standard, so I believe EPA was right to begin an appropriate national review of guidelines for proper coal ash disposal.

The problem here is the GOP bill stops that effort in its tracks. The GOP bill is too liberal and too permissive. I have relayed to EPA that many actors in the field recycle coal ash material. In my hometown of Tampa, we send a lot of coal ash for the building of the new Panama Canal expansion. And it's used in wallboard. This needs to be encouraged. We want to see the beneficial reuse industry flourish. Recycled fly ash should not be labeled as hazardous, and I think it shouldn't even be labeled as special waste, and I encourage the EPA to take this approach. In fact, I proposed an amendment to support this approach after discussion with industry leaders, but the Republicans ruled it out of order.

Without it, the GOP bill goes too far. They're abdicating their responsibility to protect communities from disasters like Kingston. The bottom line is that we all have a responsibility to ensure that coal ash is disposed of in ways that protect communities across the country and protect human health. The GOP bill does not take that approach and does not take its responsibility seriously. It could allow a disaster like TVA's Kingston catastrophe to happen again.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Madam Speaker, the debate on the GOP pollution bills has been very heated at times. The debate has exposed very divergent views between the parties here in Congress on the importance of clean air and on the value of good health for all Americans.

Despite our differences on how we treat air pollution, my amendment offers us an opportunity to come together on a bipartisan basis, specifically to protect the health of our older neighbors--America's seniors.

The passage of my amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If the amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill, and the bill will proceed to a vote. The amendment I offer today will ensure that we respect the health of our older neighbors, our parents, and our grandparents by protecting the quality of the air that they breathe.

Seniors are more susceptible than others to the harmful impacts of dirty air and pollution, and our neighbors need to understand what is in the air that they breathe, so my amendment proposes to do two things:

One, require waste incinerators located within 5 miles of a nursing home, an assisted living facility, or a hospital to simply use the most effective pollution control methods available. Two, require polluting boilers to notify surrounding communities of toxic emissions.

Without my amendment, the GOP bill will cause a dramatic increase in the emissions of mercury, dioxins, acid gases, and sulfur dioxide near populations that are particularly vulnerable to pollution.

Madam Speaker, the Clean Air Act protects us all from some of the most carcinogenic and dangerous pollutants. Mercury damages the developing brain and reduces IQ and the ability to learn. Sulfur dioxide is known to interfere with breathing, and as a result, is especially harmful to seniors.

Some seniors are so sensitive to dirty air and pollution they require oxygen tanks to aid their breathing, and a variety of health conditions afflicting seniors is aggravated by poor air quality. Any increase in hazardous air pollution will disproportionately harm our older neighbors at a time in their lives when they are the most vulnerable. We can save lives, and we can save money by requiring that these waste incinerators that are located near our older neighbors use the most effective pollution control methods available.

When it comes to the health and health care costs for older Americans, my colleagues, we've got to be smarter. It is not wise to aggravate the respiratory ailments of our older neighbors who likely are on Medicare, just as it is not wise for the GOP to advocate for ending Medicare as we know it. It doesn't save any money.

The nonpartisan CBO explained that the GOP plan to dismantle Medicare would simply shift costs to seniors without addressing the underlying issues. Actually, the GOP pollution bills here can be viewed as handing our parents, our grandparents, and our older neighbors higher medical bills tied to dirtier air.

So let's be smart. Let's ensure that waste incinerators located in areas where our seniors live use the most effective pollution controls. Other industries have done it, and this small industrial subset should not receive a special interest ``carve-out.''

Madam Speaker, while our older neighbors would be disproportionately affected by this GOP bill in its current form, they're not the only ones. Young people and pregnant women are also extremely vulnerable to an increase in the toxic emissions that this GOP bill promotes. This Congress has a duty to prevent such harm from happening when the evidence is so clear.

One sure way that we can help our families take adequate steps to protect themselves and their children is to ensure they're fully aware of the dangers that they face from specific pollution sources. So this amendment also requires large boilers to notify their local communities of emissions that are likely to increase because of this GOP bill. That way, families can take adequate steps to protect their children from mercury, dioxins, particulates, and sulfur dioxide. This information will also enable our local communities to make determinations on where to locate playgrounds and schools.

We must ensure that our families and communities have all the information they need to make the best decisions for the health of their children, and that they have a complete understanding of the location and scale of the threat posed by air pollution.

Madam Speaker, the GOP bill blocks critical health protections against air pollution. The EPA estimates that the GOP's anti-clean air bills together mean over 30,000 more premature deaths, over 19,000 additional heart attacks, and over 200,000 asthma attacks that otherwise would have been prevented.

We shouldn't let it happen.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will close by asking, in the spirit of the original bipartisan adoption of the Clean Air Act 40 years ago, that we come together on a bipartisan basis to adopt this important amendment to protect the health of our seniors and children all across America.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment and in opposition to this GOP bill.

Mr. Chairman, all Americans should be concerned with the GOP push to roll back America's fundamental environmental protections and health protections. This GOP bill strikes at the heart of American values. We are not a smoggy, Third World country. This is the United States of America; and over the past decades since the passage of the Clean Air Act, businesses have flourished and the air and water has gotten cleaner. These are not mutually exclusive.

That's why this GOP bill takes a step backward. It fundamentally weakens the Clean Air Act and grants unnecessary breaks to toxic air polluters.

Now, Mr. Waxman's amendment is very important because it targets one of the most dangerous and toxic neurotoxins, that is, mercury. We know that babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from a range of developmental and neurological problems, including delays in speaking and difficulties learning.

Children suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach their full potential. This clearly has a profound impact on the affected children and their families, but it also has a long-term societal impact.

It was in 1990 when the Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, amended the Clean Air Act and targeted the particular, the specific, polluters coming from specific sources. These specific polluters, some of them created jobs, acted to bring in modern technology, the scrubbers. They took the mercury out of the air. There are many examples in my home State of Florida of these manufacturing plants and utilities that have taken the mercury out of the air by installing the up-to-date modern equipment.

But there have been some businesses that have been very resistant to this, and they need to get with the program because it has been since 1990 when the law has said it's time to clean it up.

Now what year is this? This is 2011. Now, I would offer that after 20 years, these businesses have been on notice that they can use the American know-how and modern technology to clean up their plants, just like a lot of their other competitors have done.

Now, I've heard the argument that, boy, this is bad for business. But I'll tell you, coming from the State of Florida, clean air and clean water are good for business. Our tourism industry relies on clean water and clean air. And for the plants in the State of Florida that have cleaned up, it has really improved the commercial fishing industry, the recreational fishing industry, billion-dollar industries in my State. If they had not--if the Congress had not acted in a bipartisan way decades ago to say we're going to clean up the air and the water, I don't think we'd have as many visitors coming to my beautiful State for their vacations and fishing.

And fishing is important because we have so many that go out in the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic or out in the Keys and they fish and they bring it home to eat. Now, because mercury is not cleaned up to the greatest extent that we can clean it up, the Florida Department of Health has advised here, and I'm reading from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Advisory: ``The Florida Department of Health has advised the public to limit their consumption of fish from hundreds of waterbodies throughout the State due to unacceptable risk of mercury exposure. As a result, these waterbodies have been listed as `impaired' for mercury.'' This doesn't mean it's unsafe. But it means that you can't go overboard.

But you know what? We have the technology to continue to clean up so that people can eat all the great Florida seafood that is available to them. There is no reason to take a step backward. Other businesses have done this. They have cleaned up.

So earlier this year, after a decade of analysis and work by the EPA and interaction with businesses and other stakeholders all across the country, the EPA finalized standards to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution from these particular polluters. Their goal was to finally put these rules into effect this coming April. But, unfortunately, we're running into opposition from the most anti- environmental Congress in history.

People, this amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from these particular sites. If that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants, we're not going to proceed. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.