Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to Sections 2202 through 2214 of the bill, which cuts funding for needed investments in transportation and infrastructure. These are reckless cuts to important programs and place our country's economic recovery in jeopardy.

Specifically, the cuts to transportation and infrastructure funding will not only cut jobs, but will curtail investment in our country's long-term economic growth.

Mr. Chair, the best way to reduce the deficit is to put Americans back to work. The Republican CR is a job-killing bill that would do nothing more than wreak havoc on the American economy and will put us at an overall competitive disadvantage.

The Republican CR cuts almost $18 billion from transportation and infrastructure investments alone. Investing in our crumbling infrastructure keeps our economy moving forward and puts Americans back to work by creating desperately needed jobs in the hard-hit construction industry.

Adopting the GOP Continuing Resolution would result in the loss of nearly 300,000 private-sector jobs a figure that is in stark contrast to the GOP's commitment to keep job creation their number one priority.

These reckless cuts to investments in roads, bridges, transit and rail will have tremendous consequences to our economic recovery and will render us uncompetitive in the global market.

The cuts to transportation and infrastructure projects include: a cut of $1.4 billion in the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund program; a $6.3 billion cut in high-speed/intercity rail; a cut of $613 million in the Tiger II program; and a cut of $75 million in the Tigger II program.

These draconian cuts to the transportation and infrastructure budget will have a tremendous impact on the health and stability of our economy. Democrats and Republicans both agree that the Federal Government needs to tighten its belt when it comes to spending.

However, cutting funding to transportation and infrastructure programs will curtail the investments that are desperately needed to sustain our long-term economic recovery.

These divisive cuts to critical transportation and infrastructure projects will compromise programs that are invaluable to increasing efficiency of commerce, reducing fuel consumption, and creating jobs.

The Republican proposal to cut key funding from the transportation and infrastructure budget will undermine the stability that is required of long-term transportation projects that require a steady source of funding and will eliminate key investments in roads and bridges that foster private sector job growth.

The job-killing Republican Continuing Resolution will rescind $2.5 billion for high-speed rail projects that have already been awarded. These are critical investments for our future.

Creating efficient and affordable high speed rail line in popular transportation corridors, such as the Los Angeles to San Francisco will create thousands of jobs, protect our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In California alone, the GOP CR rescinds over $1 billion in funding for high-speed/intercity rail. This is absolutely unacceptable.

In addition, the GOP Continuing Resolution would cancel 76 projects in 40 states and would cut $234 million that would be used to improve our nation's air traffic control system. The Republican proposal also threatens adequate funding to wastewater treatment facilities and sewer lines putting 40,000 American jobs in jeopardy.

In California alone, the Republican CR would cut over 40,000 transportation related jobs. Hundreds, if not thousands, of those jobs are sure to be lost in my district.

This Continuing Resolution would also cut almost $100 million in funding to keep our water clean and would reduce funding to the state of California for transportation projects by over $1.2 billion.

This bill does not create jobs, stifles long-term economic growth, and puts our country at a competitive disadvantage. This is not what the American people want.

I urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposition to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Sections 1628 through 1634, and 1648 of the bill, which cuts funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

I oppose these provisions because they are unwise, irresponsible, and undermine our nation's ability to prepare, respond, or mitigate natural and man-made disasters and terrorist attacks. In short, I oppose the bill because it puts the security of our homeland at risk.

This bill that the Republicans are bringing to the floor today is reckless not only to our

economy and American workers, but also to our national security.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 revealed the catastrophic consequences of the inability of first responders, fire, police, and rescue personnel to communicate with each other via radio during emergencies.

Communication glitches also occurred during the response to Hurricane Katrina. Yet the Republicans want to terminate grants for interoperable emergency communications. Have we not learned anything from the communications failure during 9/11?

These draconian cuts will put our first responders at risk and slow down the response to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I cannot in good conscience accept these cuts to interoperable emergency communications.

The irresponsible Republican plan also put our nation's fire fighting ability at risk. I am from California and we know about fires. The bill eliminates the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant program, (SAFER), which is why it is strongly opposed by the InternationalAssociation of Fire Fighters (IAAF).

The IAAF estimates that these cuts will result in the loss of 5,200 jobs on top of the 5,000 fire fighter jobs lost since 2008. These cuts will put our communities at risk.

The City of Compton in my district is home to an Emergency Operations Center operated by FEMA. My district is also home to several major oil refineries, gas treatment facilities, and petro chemical facilities. California's 37th Congressional District is also home to the Port City of Long Beach and is located on the outskirts of Los Angeles. A centralized emergency response center is vital to my district and the surrounding communities.

This Republican job-destroying continuing resolution seeks to eliminate these Emergency Operations Centers. Not only will the elimination of these centers result in the loss of jobs, they will put my constituents and other Americans across the country at risk. This Emergency Operations Centers are needed to coordinate the necessary resources during an emergency.

I cannot support depriving first responders, firefighters, and police officers of the tools needed to respond to public emergencies, natural or man-made. Why would we want to risk a repeat of the disaster we witnessed in the response to Hurricane Katrina? How are we better off by depriving our first responders the ability to communicate with each other during an emergency? It defies common sense.

Terrorists that are trying to attack our country are modifying their techniques to try to find our nation's vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, the Republican's bill reduces Federal, State, and tribal capabilities to secure our nation against terrorist and other catastrophic threats. This bill also diminishes our ability to protect our borders and significantly scales back our ability to detect chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 continues the Republican avoidance of bringing job creation bills to the floor. Since the Republican's have been in control of the House, they have not brought one job creating bill to the floor. Not one. Worse, the bill before us today will actually kill jobs. Thousands of Americans will lose jobs under this Republican bill. Instead of our keeping our economy moving forward as was the case during the Clinton Administration and during the 111th Congress, this bill will reverse the economic progress we have seen for the last several months.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1. Let's work together to ensure our first responders have the tools and resources needed to respond to natural and man-made disasters and terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 1. First of all, I want to begin my comments by talking about last night, a couple issues that were so important to many of us. Number one, COPS grant funding, and also CDBG, which stands for Community Development Block Grants.

Now, I don't know about many of you, but I started my legislative career in local government, and, for most of us, we know that COPS grant funding is what actually puts the police officers on the streets, in the neighborhoods, that can help protect the communities. Now, I would ask you, do you want to take two police officers out of your neighborhood? I don't think so.

I would ask the question, why are we willing to support police officers in Iraq and Afghanistan and to do nation building there, and yet we are not willing to do nation building in our own country? Something is wrong with this proposal today. We don't have the right priorities, and that is why I stand in opposition.

Community Development Block Grants. When I was on the city council, what did that fund? Parks, housing, to help businesses. Do we want to say no to that? Is that what really this budget is about? Is that where the abuses have been, in the neighborhoods? I wouldn't say yes to that.

So let me end with my last comments, which I am going to focus on, which is the committee of jurisdiction

on which I serve. I am the ranking member of the Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response Subcommittee. I stand in opposition to Sections 1628 through 1634 and 1648 of this bill, which cut funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, also known as FEMA. I oppose these provisions because they are unwise, irresponsible, and they undermine what our Nation learned.

Do we want to go back? How many of us remember watching on television when we looked at 9/11. How many of us remember Hurricane Katrina. It wasn't that long ago, and I know I don't want to go back.

This bill that the Republicans have brought to the floor is reckless. It is not only reckless to our economy, it is reckless to the American workers, and, above all, it puts our national security in harm's way.

The terrorist acts of September 11 revealed the catastrophic consequences of our inability to communicate. Have we forgotten? We just got interoperable radios in my district in Signal Hill just last year. They are not all connected, and it is a huge vulnerability for all of us. Communication glitches also occurred during the response to Hurricane Katrina, yet the Republicans want to step back and terminate those grants for interoperable emergency communications.

Have we not learned anything? These draconian cuts will put our first responders at risk and slow down the response to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I cannot in good conscience, and I don't think any of you can as well, accept these cuts to such vital pieces of emergency equipment that we all need and we depend upon.

Further, this shortsighted Republican plan also puts our Nation's firefighting ability at risk. Now, I am from California. We know about fires. We know about the need for firefighters. This bill would eliminate the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grants program. You tell the resident who has lost their home that, oh, we will deal with this next year. Fires aren't something you plan. They are an emergency that has to be responded to.

So when we call upon our firefighters, the International Association of Firefighters, they are opposed to this. Why? Not because they are not being fiscally responsible, but because this bill would cut jobs, 5,200 jobs on top of the 5,000 firefighters we have already lost. Is your community willing to lose more firefighters? I don't think so.

The city of Compton in my district is the future home to an emergency operations communications center operated by FEMA. My district is home to several major oil refineries, gas treatment facilities, petrochemical facilities, and, of course, the challenges and opportunities of two ports, of both the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. These centralized major business economic engines thrive. But we also have problems sometimes, and that is why we need the appropriate support of fire and communications to protect them.

This Republican bill seeks to destroy jobs, to end operation centers, all of the things that we have learned from the past. I can't support depriving first responders of the equipment they need to do their jobs. I can't support this bill and hurt our firefighters, our police officers and those who choose to serve us.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1, and I urge my colleagues to really look at this bill closely and make sure that our communities aren't paying. But the real abuses that got us here, that is where the cuts should begin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, section 1709; however, I want to state for the record I am completely supportive of the program that he spoke of today.

This particular amendment, however, seeks to eliminate funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, a vital public health, environment and infrastructure program that was reauthorized with huge bipartisan support that Representative Calvert referred to, through a bill I authored last year. That is the purpose of my standing, because I was an author of that bill this year.

DERA is a proven program that improves air quality by reducing diesel emissions. It has strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate and from a diverse coalition of transportation, health, and environmental organizations.

I thank Congressman Moran, and I applaud his leadership efforts to protect and preserve our environment and natural resources. He has been a stalwart advocate in the struggle to reduce harmful emissions from antiquated coal-fired power plants and protect green space and green infrastructure. However, today is a rare moment that he and I do not agree.

DERA is a voluntary national and State-level grant and loan program that reduces the diesel emissions by upgrading and modernizing older diesel engines and equipment. For someone like me and my district, this is important. It's the lives of my constituents. By design, it looks to reduce the emissions from 20 million existing diesel engines in use today by as much as 90 percent.

The $50 million designated for DERA is but half of the authorized level and already a 20 percent cut in the program from last year's funding. Although I would say, for the record, that it has not been terminated, it is merely a recommendation by the President at this time.

Eliminating funding entirely would be a huge mistake and cause substantial detriment to the economic health and environmental interests, particularly of communities that are along port areas.

Since DERA funding began in 2007, more than 3,000 projects nationwide have benefited from this program, creating considerable employment opportunities in the area of manufacturing, installation and servicing of emissions-related technology. The bill I authored this last year, which passed in December, will actually amplify job creation further by expanding the program and increasing the number of eligible beneficiaries.

Additionally, DERA is widely considered one of the most cost- effective Federal programs in the Nation. The EPA has estimated that in California alone the program averages more than $13 in health and economic benefits for every $1 that it receives in funding. Projections estimate that nearly 2,000 lives will be saved by 2017 in direct relation to DERA's impact on air quality.

In my district, the positive benefits of DERA are far reaching, home to the two busiest container ports in the United States, the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. On average, 35,000 trucks commute to and from these ports daily. By the year 2030, this number will be expected to triple. Just imagine for a moment the pollution caused by these vehicles in a single day.

Now, think of those Americans who live along those freight corridors and are exposed to the pollutants on a daily basis. Would you want that for you and your family? In my district, these folks already suffer from asthma and cancer rates far above the national average, and it's documented. Air quality improvements and reductions in emissions are vital to the quality of life and health of these families and countless others throughout the Nation.

I would also like to add that DERA is often mentioned in association with the trucking industry and freight movement. There is another important area where diesel engines are most frequently utilized and where DERA will create a substantial necessary improvement in our public transportation and our school bus system.

These vehicles are vital to the millions of Americans who rely upon them every day to get to work or school. Many of these folks include young children whose lungs and immune systems are still developing and who are especially susceptible to health problems. We owe it to these young people and their families to give the DERA program our full support and see its funding maintained.

DERA has been endorsed by a large coalition of leading environmental health and transportation organizations who also believe in its effectiveness at protecting and creating jobs, promoting healthy economies and healthier citizens. At a time when our future is so heavily dependent upon economic growth, infrastructure investment, and improving the quality of life of average Americans, it seems counterintuitive to cut funding for a program that provides us with so many benefits.

For these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, but I seek to work with my colleagues to support other funding to support the program laid out.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 38, an irresponsible piece of legislation that asks the members of the House to abdicate their responsibility to vote on a budget for the federal government. This resolution opens the door to massive funding cuts to programs that are critical to our fragile economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, with H. Res. 38 the Republicans have offered what they call a ``Budget Resolution''--but what should be called a ``Budgetless Resolution'' because it contains no numbers, no specifics and, worst of all, no ideas for job creation or economic recovery.

Instead, it takes the unprecedented step of giving unilateral authority to the Budget Committee chairman to set spending limits for the federal government. With all due respect to Chairman Ryan, no members of Congress should ever contract out their vote to another member--especially not on something as fundamentally important as setting funding levels for the federal government.

H. Res. 38, the Budgetless Resolution, is a one-page document that makes the vague and simplistic goal of reducing federal spending to 2008 levels or less. Democrats are serious about deficit reduction. But we also must make sure that we continue on the path to economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. If we are going to work on deficit reduction--as we should--we should go through the budget surgically, examining where federal investments are working and where they are not.

The Republican plan is the exact opposite approach--it is deficit reduction while blindfolded. The across the board Republican budget cuts would seriously hurt the people in my district by gashing funding for critical programs.

We are not talking about ``duplicative'' or ``wasteful'' spending. We are talking about Title I education funding that gives poor students after-school support that helps them reach their full potential; GOP cuts would leave over 332,000 students in California without extra academic support.

We are talking about Title II education funds that keep class sizes small and classrooms more focused; GOP cuts would lay off over 1,000 teachers in California, resulting in dramatically larger class sizes for students in my district.

And this is just one example of the effect that Republican budget cuts would have in one state and in one area. Imagine how devastating the cumulative effect of Republicans' blind, across the board cuts. We are not talking about stripping funding for ``bridges to nowhere''--we are talking about real people; real lives; real families.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to cut spending, let's not do so blindly. Let's have a bipartisan conversation about what our spending priorities are and where we can afford to trim the budget. I am certain that we can come to some agreement if we at least allow a conversation to be had. Deficit reduction is one of Democrats' top priorities. But we owe it to the American people to do so responsibly.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H. Res. 38.

Mr. Speaker, as the 112th Congress goes to work on the policies and actions needed to move America forward, Democrats continue to make job creation, economic recovery and debt reduction the top priorities. Unfortunately, the first actions by the new Republican Majority are not consistent with these priorities.

These goals should be accomplished in a way that is aligned with the needs of working families--what will generate good jobs for working people; what will ease the burden for middle class families; what will create long-term economic growth for everyone. Democrats measure everything Congress does by these goals.

In the 37th district of California, things are improving, but unemployment and foreclosure rates are still well above the national average; this is the time to keep moving forward with policies tailored to help working families. Now is not the time to move backwards to policies that got us into this recession in the first place.

The Republicans have employed a lot of rhetoric about jobs and the economy; however, their first actions in control of the House show no follow through. The initial issues being pursued by the GOP are:

The repeal of Health Care Reform. Republicans knew the repeal would go nowhere in the Senate, but still insisted upon wasting valuable time that could have been spent on job creation.

The Republicans have offered what they call a ``Budget Resolution''-- but what should be called a ``Budgetless Resolution'' because it contains no numbers, no specifics and, worst of all, no ideas for job creation or economic recovery.

The Budgetless Resolution is a one-page document that makes the vague goal of reducing federal spending to 2008 levels. This budgetless resolution opens the door to reckless slashes in funding to programs that are critical to our fragile economic recovery.

In California alone, Republicans' blind budget slashing would cut 237 million from Title I funding for poor students. The cuts would leave over 332,000 poor students in California without additional academic support that helps them perform to their full potential in school and, ultimately, achieve their dreams and goals; this does not help us stay competitive in the global marketplace. And this is just one example of Republican cuts in one area in one state. Imagine the damage that Republicans' across the board, reckless cuts will do to our economic recovery.

This is not the smart way to manage the budget. It is worse than arbitrary; it is like

budgeting with blindfolds on. It gives no thought, no reasons and no real discussion on how the cuts would be made and what the ramifications would be.

Democrats believe that jobs and the economy should be the top priorities and everything we do is measured against those goals. Republicans are failing the test.

Madam Speaker, I concur in the expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011.

Like all Americans, on Saturday morning I was saddened and sick to my stomach when I watched the horrible attack against my colleague Congresswoman Giffords, known as Gabby to me, her staff, her constituents and to all Americans.

We now know, on January 7, Congresswoman Giffords reached out and sought ``new ways to reduce the highly partisan divisive tone that all too often dominates our public discourse.'' Today I am going to do exactly that: not in words of criticism, but thoughts of observation and desire to help.

For law makers whether federal, state or local . . . This tragic incident must make us re-evaluate our spending priorities and accept the fact that our continued failure to provide adequate funding for mental illnesses is a mistake.

For the agencies, whether they be educational, military, or private vendors/businesses . . . we must be diligent in connecting the dots, doing the extra work, taking the time to think out of the box, stop working in silos and to insist on utilizing technology for good like the real time utilization of information.

For the parents, whether your child, who will always be your child regardless of their age, should not be allowed under our own roofs to turn their rooms, garages or backyards to a private area one fails to tread.

For protectors and preservers of the law, it is not okay to tell me there is nothing wrong with someone sending a hate e-mail saying, ``I'm concerned it's time for a good old fashioned lynching/tar and feather.''

For those who debate and protest, it is not okay to spit, say racial slurs, to say reload or to arm in reference to a debate; neither is it okay to say a group other than yourself is a Neanderthal and they want people to die quickly.

For our court, even in 1919 and 1931 in the cases of Schenk v. United States and Near v. Minnesota, had the wisdom to know ``the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.''

Tell me how anyone, any court, or any legislative body could justify a man carrying a AR 15 rifle and a pistol, feet not miles from where our president was speaking that . . . That was not right in August 2009, last Saturday, today, or tomorrow.

And now for those of us, we turn to this resolution on the floor today, page 4, sections (7-8) the resolution references:

Right of the people peaceably to assemble,

All can participate without being silenced with intimidation,

And threats of violence.

I have watched right here in this room and on these grounds, leaders not fulfilling this words of ``peaceable assembly free of intimidation.''

We too must not just react, but now is the time to act. Not just in legislation but in what Congresswoman Giffords asked us to do: ``reduce the divisive tone.'' Maybe if we start as leaders, others will follow.

I express condolences to the families of those who lost their lives, I pray for strength for those who survived and have long roads to recovery, and I commit to do work on this issue and how I work with you my colleagues. As Representative Giffords' husband holds her hand as she heals, I am ready for her to return to hold her hand as we as a country heal as well.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 12, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes today to discuss the continued need in Congress for reduced administrative spending and increased accountability to the American people.

In a time when we are keenly aware of the need for civility and cooperation in order to improve the American quality of life, I believe there is at least one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on and which should be the springboard towards meaningful change.

This belief is that the federal government has an obligation to the American people to be stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars by operating in an efficient manner and to reduce spending whenever possible.

For this reason, I support bills like H.R. 292, the Stop the OverPrinting Act, which will help eliminate the wasteful production of unnecessary copies of bills and resolutions in Congress.

The STOP Act will not only do its part for the environment by reducing Congress' paper consumption, but it will also take a step, even if just a small one, towards more efficient operations, increased accountability and reduced government spending. As we are all aware in this economy, every little bit helps.

The STOP Act was introduced by my colleague from across the aisle, the honorable gentleman from New York, Christopher Lee. I am happy to stand in bipartisan support and know that there will be many opportunities in the future to find common ground and remain accountable to the hard working citizens we represent.

In fact, I would like to mention one such opportunity I offered during the 111th Congress and which I plan to reintroduce in the 112th, the Cost Recovery and Fair Value for Services Act. This legislation will help us meet our obligation to the American people by ensuring that the federal agencies within the executive branch set their user fees for services provided at rates that are both equitable and cost- effective.

This act would require the chief financial officer of every federal agency to provide a report to the director of the Office of Management and Budget which would review fees charged for services provided and make recommendations based on equitability with consideration to a user's ability to pay and the extent to which the use of the service provides a public benefit.

By setting appropriate user fee rates, agencies can contribute to the shared fiscal responsibility that our current economic situation demands without overburdening the public or inhibiting public engagement.

It is my hope that when this legislation arrives on the House floor, colleagues from both parties will share the same bipartisan spirit I exhibit today and support my efforts to control wasteful spending and restore fiscal accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a giant of public service, Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr. who passed away yesterday at the age of 95. Sargent Shriver was the absolute embodiment of selfless devotion, harnessing the excitement of the Kennedy era to the ideals of volunteerism and assistance to those less fortunate in this country and around the world. The programs he organized have endured for nearly half a century and have become true institutions, affecting generations of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that tomorrow marks the 50th Anniversary of President Kennedy's Inaugural Address. On that cold January day in 1961, a young President inspired the Nation to lift itself up and apply its energies to advancing America and its ideals at home and around the world using those iconic words: ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'' As one of his chief lieutenants, Sargent Shriver

spread President Kennedy's message far and wide to millions of little boys and girls, some of whom, myself included, rose to heed his call to public service.

Mr. Speaker, since the age of 6 I have wanted to work for others, and though I was a little girl at the time, I was touched by the energy of the times and the spirit of service has never left me. The ideals that Sargent Shriver advocated fell across a generation.

Born in Maryland, Sargent Shriver earned his undergraduate and law degrees at Yale University. Despite organizing a group focused on keeping America out of World War II, he volunteered and served for 5 years in the Pacific with the Navy, achieving the rank of lieutenant and receiving the Purple Heart for wounds suffered at Guadalcanal. He became associated with the Kennedy family, first managing a store in Chicago owned by Joseph Kennedy Sr. and later marrying Eunice Kennedy, John F. Kennedy's sister. He worked on the Kennedy campaign and endeared himself to the newly elected President.

On October 14, 1960, John F. Kennedy gave a speech at the University of Michigan and lingered afterwards with a group of students, the conversation lasting long into the night. During that meeting, they discussed the idea of a government program whereby young Americans would be sent to developing nations to aid in local projects, mostly centering on education, health, and agriculture. President Kennedy assumed office with this program in mind, and on March 1, 1961, the Peace Corps was born with Sargent Shriver as its first director. Volunteers arrived in five countries during 1961. In just under six years, Shriver developed programs in 55 countries with a volunteer count of more than 15,000.

The Peace Corps will also celebrate its 50th Anniversary in March, and it can credit its success to the diligent devotion shown by its first director and to his predecessors who must strive to meet his lofty standards. Sargent Shriver carried the flame of Camelot. Entire generations, inspired by his energy, took up his call to right wrongs, improve their communities, and implement his color-blind approach to administering the government.

In his drive to promote social equality and bring more people to public service, he founded numerous social programs and non- governmental organizations, including the Head Start Program, VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action, Upward Bound, Foster Grandparents, Special Olympics, Legal Services, the National Clearinghouse for Legal Services (now the Shriver Center), and Indian and Migrant Opportunities and Neighborhood Health Services.

His record of service includes representing the U.S. as Ambassador to France, being the 1972 Democratic candidate for Vice-President, practicing international law, and membership on the boards for numerous non-governmental organizations and philanthropic institutions. In his later years, he and his beloved wife, Eunice, organized The Special Olympics and made it an international force for the dignity of the disabled.

Mr. Speaker, Sargent Shriver once said, ``The only genuine elite are the elite of those men and women who gave their lives to justice and charity.'' Today I commend Sargent Shriver's long life and distinguished career. His dedication and work on behalf of others has directly benefited thousands of communities, from the inner cities of the United States to the most remote villages in Africa. He was the model of civil service and he will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2, the ``Patient Rights Repeal Act of 2011.'' This bill is a giant step backwards for our country. By repealing the landmark achievement of the Affordable Care Act we would be taking away affordable coverage and financial security from thousands of my constituents and millions more across the country.

A vote in support of this bill is a vote for insurance companies over everyday Americans; it is a vote to return us to the days when fine print was used to cancel coverage for hard-working people; and it is a vote to take away parents' peace of mind, who will no longer know if their children will be able see a doctor when they get sick.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans will soon finally be free from the fear that affordable coverage will not be available to them and their families when they need it the most, repealing the Affordable Care Act would be devastating. Without the Affordable Care Act:

196,000 young adults would lose their insurance coverage through their parents' health plans;

Insurance companies would once again be allowed to cut off someone's coverage unexpectedly when they are in an accident or become sick because of a simple mistake on an application;

New insurance plans would no longer be required to cover recommended preventive services, like mammograms and flu shots, without cost sharing; and

269,623 on Medicare would see significantly higher prescription drug costs

Mr. Speaker, every time that I go home to my district, I meet with constituents who thank me for voting for the Affordable Care Act. They explain to me the peace of mind that they feel knowing that they will be able to afford the prescription drugs that they need; that their children can see a doctor when they get sick or break a bone; that their breast cancer treatment will be covered on their policy, rather than being written off as a preexisting condition. Health care reform provided the following benefits for the residents of my district:

Gave tax credits and other assistance to up to 146,000 families 15,100 small businesses have seen 50% tax credits to provide health care for employees.

Over 16,000 additional small businesses have been made eligible for health care exchanges that make insurance more affordable.

Help for small businesses are help for working families. Small businesses are the engine of the economy of my district and of our nation.

Improved Medicare for 63,000 beneficiaries, including closing the donut hole

Extended coverage to 88,000 uninsured residents

Guaranteed that 17,500 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage

Protected 1,100 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs

I refuse to vote for a piece of legislation that will reverse these benefits and harm so many of the people that I represent. Health care reform is a moral obligation to the American people and a critical part of our long-term economic recovery. It represents the largest middle- class tax cut in history and is projected to cut the deficit by $138 trillion over 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is serious about deficit reduction cannot in good conscience vote for this legislation. In addition to being the wrong thing to do to hard-working families, single-mothers, and senior citizens across the country, it is fiscally irresponsible. In fact, I would call this bill fiscally irrational--H.R. 2 would cost $1.3 trillion to repeal a piece of legislation that promises to cut the budget deficit by $138 trillion in the long-term. This does not make any fiscal sense; it is the exact opposite of what we should be doing and it is an unfair burden to place on future generations.

I oppose this bill because it threatens the peace of mind, financial security, and physical wellbeing of seniors, parents, and children across the country. I oppose this bill because I would rather side with everyday Americans than insurance company executives. I stand with the single moms, who no longer have to stay up all night worrying about how to pay the premiums to cover their child's illness. I stand with the senior citizens who built our roads and bridges and fought our wars and now can finally afford the prescriptions drugs that they need.

For all of these hard-working, middle class people, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the Patient Rights to Appeal of 2010, and I would urge my colleagues, let's keep true to the tone of civility. This isn't ObamaCare; it's actually called the Affordable Care Act.

So, Madam Speaker, at a time when Americans finally have a chance to see a regular doctor, to prevent sitting in hospital rooms in emergency waiting for desperate care, we finally have a chance.

What does this mean to small businesses? In California and in my own hometown, 15,100 small businesses have seen a 50 percent tax credit to provide health care for the first time for their employees. Over 16,000 additional small businesses will now be eligible for health care exchanges that will make insurance affordable. In my district, these are real people, like Betty Claire in my district.

Now you're talking about considering something that would prevent Medicare for 63,000 beneficiaries, extending coverage to 88,000 residents in my district. That's what we're talking about, and also when you look at guaranteeing 17,000 residents who previously had preexisting conditions.

My colleagues, I will vote ``no'' on H.R. 2. And I also urge my colleagues to consider not reversing. It's not time to go back. It's time to step forward.

Madam Speaker, I concur in expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011.

Like all Americans, on Saturday morning I was not only saddened, but I was sick to my stomach while I watched the horrible attack against my colleague, my office mate for 2 years, Congresswoman Giffords--known as ``Gabby'' to me--and her staff, her constituents, and all Americans.

We know now that on January 8 Congresswoman Giffords reached out and sought ``new ways to reduce the highly partisan divisive tone that all too often dominates our public discourse.'' Today, I am going to do exactly that, not in words of criticism, but thoughts of observation and a desire to help.

For lawmakers, whether Federal, State or local, this tragic incident must make us reevaluate our spending priorities and accept the fact that our continued failure to adequately fund mental illness is a mistake. For agencies, whether they be educational, military or private vendors and businesses, we must be diligent in connecting the dots and making use of good technology to have real-time information.

For parents, whether your child, who will always be your child regardless of their age, should not be allowed under our own roofs to turn their rooms, garages or backyards into private areas where we're even afraid to tread. For protectors and preservers of the law, it's not okay to tell me that nothing is wrong with receiving an email that says, ``I'm concerned and looking for a good old-fashioned lynching.'' For those who debate and protest, it's not okay to spit, to say racial slurs, to say reload, or to arm, in reference to debate, and it's also not okay to say a group other than yourself is a Neanderthal and they want people to die quickly.

For our courts, even in 1919 and 1931 in the cases of Schenk v. United States and Near v. Minnesota, our forefathers had the wisdom to know that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ``fire'' in a theater and causing panic.

So who would tell me that it would be appropriate that on August 17, 2009, that it would be appropriate for a man to carry an AR-15 rifle and a pistol only feet from our President.

And now, for those of us who are here today, we turn to the resolution on the floor.

On page 4, sections 7 and 8, the resolution says that we would have the right of people to peaceably assemble and that all would participate without being silenced for fear of intimidation. I'm sad to say that, yes, even in this own Chamber on these grounds, I don't think we've always fulfilled those words of ``peaceable assembly free of intimidation.''

We, too, must not react. But it's time to act, not just in legislation, but to do what Congresswoman Giffords asked us to do--to reduce the divisive tone in this country. Maybe if we start as leaders, others will follow.

I express condolences. I pray for those on their recovery, and I also commit to work on this issue and to work with my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 5, the House Republican rules proposal for the 112th Congress. As some of my Democratic colleagues have argued before me, this rules package is fiscally irresponsible, will balloon the national debt, and threatens the stability of government services that are critically important to millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican proposed rules package sets our country down a path of unaffordable tax cuts and threatens to suppress long- term economic growth and job creation. While many of my new Republican colleagues were elected on the platform of reducing the deficit, the new rules introduced by the Republican leadership will significantly increase the national debt by changing the House pay-as-you-go rules, ``PAYGO''.

The Republican proposed House rules package adds to the deficit by exempting tax cuts and the deficit increasing effects of selectively repealing the health care reform law from the PAYGO rules. On the other hand, the Republican rules package prohibits the House from raising revenue or closing tax loopholes to help pay for new spending entitlements for low and middle income Americans.

Unlike the deficit neutral PAYGO rules that the 111th Congress operated under, the proposed rules package will allow for taxes to be cut without having to pay for them. But as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has pointed out, ``tax expenditures are simply spending by another name and should not be exempt from scrutiny.''

Substituting cut-as-you-go, ``CUTGO'', for PAYGO is bad economics and worse policy. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has noted, ``Replacing the two-sided PAYGO rules with a one-sided CUTGO rule will not only make it harder to offset legislation, but also exempt potentially budget-busting tax cuts from any discipline.'' CUTGO is unwise, irresponsible, will result in economic stagnation, and substantially increase the debt burden on our children and grandchildren.

In addition to its fiscal irresponsibility, the proposed House rules package fails to address homeland security jurisdiction despite repeated calls for reform from the 9/11 Commission and every Secretary of Homeland Security. Failing to consolidate legislative jurisdiction over homeland security in the House Committee on Homeland Security will continue to complicate oversight and review of critical homeland security issues.

I also oppose the proposed rules package for the 112th Congress because it severs the user-financed basis of the Highway Trust Fund, and subjects necessary federal highway and transit investments to the vagaries of the annual appropriations process. This proposal will exacerbate the instability already being experienced by the U.S. transportation construction marketplace. Transportation projects are long-term in nature and require stable and predictable sources of funding. Subjecting them to the appropriations process creates a precarious and unaccommodating market for investments in infrastructure projects.

Finally, the Republican rules package disenfranchises residents of the District of Columbia and U.S. territories by ending the ability of delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to vote in, and preside over, the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. This would deliver a terrible blow not only to the symbolic vote of the delegates, but also to the voices of the five million residents of these areas who deserve to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, this ill-considered and fiscally irresponsible rules package was crafted by the new Republican majority in secret without meaningful involvement or input from members on this side of the aisle. Had such an opportunity been afforded to the minority, this rules package would be far superior and fiscally sounder.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H. Res. 5.

``Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.''