Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of World Stroke Day, which was observed on October 29, 2011.

Stroke is a global health crisis that kills six million people annually. While some stroke survivors gain full functionality back, 30- 50% of survivors require the support of a caregiver or have difficulties returning to work. While these numbers are startling, they do not adequately address the emotional toll which stroke survivors and their families must deal with, let alone the associated financial hardships which accompany a stroke.

While there are numerous risk factors that increase an individual's risk of stroke, it can affect anyone at any age so we all must be prepared. Use the ``FAST'' method to remember the warning signs:

F (FACE): Ask the person to smile. Does one side of the face droop?

A (ARMS): Ask the person to raise both arms. Does one arm drift downward?

S (SPEECH): Ask the person to repeat a simple phrase. Is their speech slurred or strange?

T (TIME): If you observe any of these signs, call 9-1-1 immediately.

I am proud to pay tribute to the seven million stroke survivors, their families and care givers and hope that the global community will take part in the effort to reduce the impact of stroke in the future.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 819, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes on October 25, 2011 and would like the record to reflect that I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall No. 803: ``no.''

Rollcall No. 804: ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, our top priority must be creating jobs.

Yesterday I hosted a job creation conference for my constituents right here in Washington, D.C. Central Coast business owners, development experts, job trainers, and educators shared their experiences about job creation and discussed actions the Federal Government can take to support them. I'm grateful to these dedicated job creators for taking the time and effort to come all the way from California for this important event.

We had a packed day, hearing from policy experts and top White House economic officials about the steps we need to take now to create jobs today and strengthen our economy for tomorrow. Opinions were diverse and spirited, but there was clear consensus on: making it easier for businesses to succeed by lowering taxes and increasing

access to credit; and making smart investments in education, in innovation, and in infrastructure. These are bipartisan, commonsense solutions.

Mr. Speaker, we simply can't wait any longer. The message from my constituents is clear: Put aside our partisan differences. Take action now for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to an issue of great concern to the health and welfare of students across our country. Just 2 weeks ago, we lost Angela, a 16-year-old cheerleader in California who collapsed at a football game from sudden cardiac arrest.

Sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death in the United States, and sadly that trend is only increasing, especially among students. But there are ways to prevent these tragic events, like the remarkable story of Kylee, a seventh-grade student from Texas, who collapsed at school last week. Her life was saved when two trained teachers used CPR and an automatic external defibrillator to kick-start her heart. If it had not been for this heroic intervention, doctors estimate that someone in Kylee's situation would only have a 3 percent chance of survival.

These stories underscore how vital CPR and AED training are to saving lives. That's why I'm introducing the Teaching Children to Save Lives Act. My legislation will provide students with the lifesaving skills of CPR and AED training, knowledge they will carry into adulthood so that one day they might save the life of a classmate, a friend, a family member, or even a complete stranger.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Teaching Children to Save Lives Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided legislation.

While the House leadership claims that this week's agenda is all about jobs, the discussion of this bill on the House floor shows their true colors. Just like when they almost shut down the government over Planned Parenthood, today we, once again, witness how ideological campaign promises trump needed actions on jobs and the economy.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again, H.R. 358 does not create a single job--not one. Instead, it's an unprecedented assault on the rights of women and families everywhere to make important life decisions.

This bill does a lot. It limits the choices of women and families to purchase health insurance with their own dollars; it removes vital protections to ensure that a pregnant woman with a life-threatening condition can get lifesaving care; and it circumvents State laws that ensure that women have access to preventive services, like screenings and birth control.

But what this bill doesn't do is trust our Nation's women and families to make their own health care choices.

This is unacceptable.

Some have claimed that the Affordable Care Act has led to taxpayer- funded abortions. That is false. Others have claimed that this bill is nothing but the Stupak language that divided our Chamber last year. I was involved in every debate over the Stupak amendment in the House. Madam Speaker, I can tell you this is way beyond that misguided amendment.

So I urge my colleagues to abandon this divisive effort, to put the brakes on this extreme legislation, and to let us turn our focus to the issue of job creation to help the American people.

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

I am.

Madam Speaker, as the debate today has shown, this Chamber is deeply divided over this bill. But we should all be able to agree that when a pregnant woman is in a medical emergency, we must do all we can to save her, and that is what this final amendment affirms.

I want to be clear: The passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will immediately be voted upon.

Madam Speaker, the underlying bill creates a loophole which would allow hospitals to circumvent the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, a law that has saved many lives. The law, called EMTALA for short, was established to ensure that when a patient arrives at a hospital in critical condition, particularly women in labor, the patient will at least be stabilized. It is truly the embodiment of the Hippocratic Oath to ``apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required.''

EMTALA has been law for over 25 years--and it works. However, the bill before us today could lead to a radical and uncalled for loophole to this law. It would allow providers to refuse emergency care for women even if their lives are endangered by their pregnancy. The hospitals could even refuse to give a referral.

I'm a nurse who's worked long shifts in the hospital setting, and I find it immoral to deny care to a woman with a life-threatening condition just because she's pregnant. This loophole is wrong, it's extreme, and it's cruel.

Unfortunately, there are some tragic complications that can occur during pregnancy for which a therapeutic abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. I'm speaking about conditions like severe preeclampsia, where a pregnant woman's rapid rise in blood pressure can lead to seizure, stroke, multiple organ failure, and her death; or pulmonary hypertension, a condition that the American College of Cardiology guidelines explicitly states necessitates the termination of a pregnancy to avoid maternal death.

If you've never heard of these conditions, it might be easy to think they're not significant. But to the women whose lives are saved by these emergency abortion services--oftentimes mothers who very much want this pregnancy to be successful--this issue is more than politics. It's literally life or death. What if your wife or your daughter was rushed to the hospital, pregnant, with severe bleeding. You don't research or compare the policies of your local hospitals. You go to the one that's closest--the one you trust will save your loved one. But when the diagnosis is made and an emergency abortion is necessary to save her life, what would you do if that hospital refused to perform it to stabilize her or even provide a referral for her care elsewhere? Thanks to the protections provided by EMTALA, this cannot happen today. But if this bill before us becomes law without my amendment, it very well could.

Madam Speaker, my amendment is not just a debate between two sides of the abortion issue. It is about saving women's lives in the middle of very traumatic times for them and their families.

I would like to bring to your attention a letter sent to Chairman Pitts from the Catholic Health Association. CHA is clear in its religious affiliation and its opposition to abortion. So perhaps because of this perspective, CHA says this best. ``CHA member hospitals have been providing compassionate, quality care under both EMTALA and the Weldon amendment without conflict since the enactment of these provisions. Accordingly, the Catholic Health Association does not believe that there's a need for the provider nondiscrimination section to apply to EMTALA.''

CHA's statement is clear: EMTALA's treatment requirement and the current provider conscience laws work together hand in hand. There is no need for an unprecedented carveout or exception that would endanger women's lives.

As a nurse, I respect the conscience clause language a great deal. But I cannot ever imagine a situation where morally, ethically, and legally a medical professional could be allowed to stand by and let someone needlessly die. No pregnant woman or her family should be afraid that she would be denied the care she needs when she goes to a hospital in an emergency. We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

Today we have the opportunity to fix a problem created with this legislation

before tragedy strikes. So I urge you to protect women's lives and support this final amendment to this bill.

Catholic Health Association

of the United States,

Washington, DC, February 9, 2011.

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts,

Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Catholic Health Association of the

United States (CHA) would like to express our continued

support for the intent of your legislation, H.R. 358, the

Protect Life Act, to further ensure protection of the unborn

and of providers' conscience rights.

We have had the opportunity to review your revised version

of H.R. 358 and would like to share our concern regarding one

specific modification to your legislation. Section 1303(f)

regarding emergency services laws, including Emergency

Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), now includes

a reference to a new provision regarding provider

nondiscrimination (Section 1303(g)). Your provider

nondiscrimination language is similar to the conscience

protections of the Weldon Amendment. CHA member hospitals

have been providing compassionate, quality care under both

EMTALA and the ``Weldon Amendment,'' without conflict since

the enactment of these provisions. Accordingly, CHA does not

believe that there is a need for the provider

nondiscrimination section to apply to EMTALA.

As the national leadership organization of more than 2,000

Catholic health care systems, hospitals, long-term care

facilities, sponsors, and related organizations, the Catholic

health ministry provides care throughout the nation to

patients of all ages, races and religious beliefs. Catholic

hospitals provide a higher percentage of public health and

specialty services than other health care providers including

state and local government, other not-for-profit, or

investor-owned (for-profit) hospitals. These services include

neonatal ICU, obstetrics, breast cancer screening and

mammograms, children's wellness, child and adolescent

psychiatric services, community outreach, dental services,

crisis prevention, palliative care, pain management programs,

nutrition programs, hospice, HIV/AIDS services, geriatric

services, alcohol and drug abuse treatment, and trauma care.

Many of these services are critical to our communities and we

continue to provide them even though many of these services

are not self-sustaining and must be subsidized by other

hospital revenue.

Building upon our country's tradition of pluralism and the

freedom to exercise our beliefs, CHA has long supported

language within appropriations legislation to prohibit

federal funding of abortions (Hyde amendment) and language to

protect hospitals and other institutional and individual

health care providers should they decline to provide, pay

for, or refer for abortions (Weldon Amendment).

Again, while we continue to believe the current provisions

of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prevent federal funding of

abortion, we support your efforts to further ensure permanent

protection of the unborn and of provider's conscience rights

and look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

Sr. Carol Keehan, DC,

President and CEO.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Association of Amputee Surfers and its founder, Dana Cummings.

On Saturday, I participated in AmpSurf's sixth annual Operation Restoration on Pismo Beach in California. Together, disabled veterans and other people with disabilities took to the water and learned to surf with the help of the local surfers. This event proved that the power of the ocean can inspire, educate, and rehabilitate the disabled, especially our veteran warriors.

Earlier this year, I met one of those veteran warriors at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He was recovering from injuries he sustained from an IED attack in Afghanistan. Before he'd enlisted in the Marines, Cody had volunteered with AmpSurf right there on Pismo Beach. So it was a special treat to see his mother at the beach on Saturday, supporting all those in the water as her son rehabilitates.

I know Cody and so many others are resolved and determined to get back out in the water, and they'll be able to do it with the help of AmpSurf. Cody's story brings AmpSurf's wonderful cause full circle.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring AmpSurf and what it does for our veterans and for those who share the powerful forces of sacrifice, perseverance, and healing.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I rise today in opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I oppose this bill for many reasons. First, Colombia does not yet meet the high standards we should be demanding of our trading partners. While Colombia has made admirable progress, trade unionists continue to be brutally murdered and attacked. This is unacceptable. We can't just look the other way and hope things get better.

Second, this agreement makes permanent the trade preferences that have absolutely devastated California's cut flower industry, which produces 80 percent of domestically grown flowers. This agreement continues millions of dollars in subsidies for Colombia flower growers but provides no such support for our domestic growers. California's growers have developed a plan to cut costs and compete globally, but they can't do it alone. It's only fair that our domestic flower growers get a little help from their government, too. This FTA is a huge missed opportunity to help this valued domestic industry.

For these, and so many other reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

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

Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker, there are times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate, and we've heard some heated debate on this bill. But my final amendment offers us the opportunity to come together and do something extraordinarily important, and that is to protect our children and grandchildren from mercury and other toxic air pollutants.

I want to be clear. The passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon.

Now, I make no apologies for opposing the bill, but regardless of how one feels about this bill, or even EPA's cement standards, my amendment should be something that we can all agree upon, and that's because it only does two simple things: First, it says we should have safer air standards on giant cement plants if they're located near schools or hospitals with a maternity ward or neonatal unit. That's because these large factories are the third largest source of mercury pollution in the United States.

We all know that mercury is extremely dangerous to young children, to nursing mothers, and to women of childbearing age. Mercury exposure affects a developing child's ability to walk, to talk, to read, to write, to learn. That's why I think none of us should want to see this in our districts: A giant cement plant in Midlothian, Texas, spewing mercury and other pollutants in the air right next to J.A. Vitovsky Elementary School.

But I don't want to just pick on Texas. In California, a giant cement plant in Tehachapi sends far more mercury into the air than any other plant in the State, and it's less than 3,000 feet--3,000 feet--from Monroe High School. That's less than half the distance between where we are today here in the Capitol and the Washington Monument.

Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important to us than our children and our grandchildren. Having spent 20 years as a school nurse, I really don't need any reminders of this, but just 6 months ago my family was blessed again with the birth of a new baby boy. So every time debates about mercury pollution come up, my thoughts immediately go to him and the tens of millions of other children in this country. I know how small and fragile little Oscar is, and I want to make sure that I'm doing everything I can to protect him, to make sure the air he breathes and the water he drinks is as safe as it can possibly be. I'm no different from the millions of mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles across this country and right in this Chamber. We all want the best for our kids, so we must reduce the risks of this pollution to them, especially in places that should be safe, like a school.

The second part of my simple amendment gives all communities the right to know what pollution is coming from these giant cement factories. Without the sight of ominous clouds billowing from nearby plants, it's easy to assume that we're all relatively safe, but you don't need to live right next door to a giant cement plant to suffer the effects of mercury pollution. I learned this firsthand when I received test results showing that I have an unsafe level of mercury in my body. And I'm not alone--both in the levels of mercury in my system and by the fact that I didn't know about it until I got tested this past summer. Who in this Chamber thinks they have a dangerous level of mercury in their system? Probably no one. But who here has actually been tested to know for sure? Probably very few of us.

So, my final amendment just calls for a little transparency. It makes sure that giant cement plants can't hide the truth about the pollution they're dumping into our air each year. It just gives American citizens a right to know what's in their air. That's all.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that my colleagues consider these two simple propositions: Why should our kids go to schools where mercury is spewing from smokestacks just down the street? And why should any of our constituents be kept in the dark about the pollutants that they're being exposed to? They shouldn't. And we shouldn't stand idly by and let it happen.

So today we have the opportunity to speak with one voice. We can vote to protect our children and our grandchildren from mercury and other toxic air pollutants. It's up to us. I urge all of us to support this final amendment to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, it's my hope that we can all simply agree to this amendment. It would simply add a finding to the bill illustrating the health benefits of EPA's mercury and air toxic cleanup standards for industrial boilers and incinerators.

Opponents of these cleanup standards argue that they cost too much and will lead to job losses. I don't agree with that assessment.

Over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has fueled American innovation and has created jobs, and it has made the United States a leader in the multibillion-dollar environmental technology sector.

Mr. Chairman, the health benefits of EPA safeguards are not in dispute, and that's why those facts should be included as part of this bill.

For decades, industrial boilers and incinerators have been some of the largest pollution emitters in the United States. They're responsible for some of the most dangerous air pollutants we have in this Nation, including mercury, lead, and cancer-causing dioxins. That's why EPA took action last year to require that industrial boilers and incinerators cut their emissions and simply follow the Clean Air Act.

But instead of supporting EPA's action, the bill before us would delay their standards by at least 3\1/2\ to 4 years. It would eliminate any deadline by which industrial boilers and incinerators must comply with EPA safeguards. It could mean thousands and thousands of additional pounds of mercury and other toxic pollution released into our air each year.

Now, proponents of this legislation are quick to say EPA safeguards to cut this pollution would--and now comes the drumroll--cause economic ruin and job losses, and they point to industry-paid-for studies to provide evidence. But indefinitely delaying EPA safeguards will not lead to the economic ruin and job losses. What it will do is put the lives and the health of millions of Americans at risk.

Failing to implement the EPA's air pollution standards for boilers and incinerators would result, just in 1 year, in as many as 6,600 premature deaths, 4,100 nonfatal heart attacks, 4,400 hospital and emergency room visits, 42,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and over 320,000 days of missed work and school. For every additional year of delay that H.R. 2250 allows, these numbers only continue to grow.

And we know this because EPA's analysis must follow the criteria set out by the Office of Management and Budget. Their analysis is based on peer-reviewed studies. The analysis is transparent, it is subject to public comment, and it has to be reviewed again by the Office of Management and Budget. The industry studies meet none of these criteria.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that EPA already announced it is reexamining aspects of these safeguards. They set out a time line providing industry more than enough time and opportunity to weigh in before refinalizing the rules by next April.

EPA has said that it does not need nor want additional time for Congress. Delays only hurt America's health.

Again, it's worth repeating. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are not at risk from these safeguards, like some of my colleagues say. EPA's analysis, reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget economists, project that these standards will have a net positive impact on EPA-- that's EPA's analysis, reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget--and they will achieve enormous public health benefits that allow Americans to work and go to school and lead healthy lives.

For every dollar industry spends to clean up even one industrial boiler or incinerator, Americans get up to $24 back in health benefits. What other investment results in this astonishing return for the American people? And that's why I'm offering this simple amendment today. It would remind us all of the tremendous health benefits that EPA's mercury and air toxic cleanup standards will achieve, and they should be included in this bill.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to ask if you are aware that these numbers have to be peer reviewed, so scientists and organizations have evaluated them, and they've come in. And they also have to be screened by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and then they're sent back to EPA. So they've gone through quite a wide variety of verifications.

Would you disagree with that fact?

But they did go through the process.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the American Jobs Act, which addresses two critical issues facing America today: the need for immediate investments in our Nation's infrastructure that will put Americans back to work, and the need to upgrade our schools to meet the requirements demanded by a 21st-century education.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I visited Adams Elementary School in Santa Barbara, California. This school is well over 45 years old and is in desperate need of more classroom space, a new library, and technology upgrades. Like other school districts around the country, Santa Barbara has been forced to cut budgets and lay off teachers, and struggles to pay for school upgrades which would promote a better-educated workforce. The American Jobs Act would help fix this problem by providing school districts with the resources they need to make the needed school improvements. This act would create good, well-paying jobs now and strengthen our future economy as well.

The American Jobs Act is about jobs, but it's also about our children's education. It's about our Nation's future. We should pass the American Jobs Act, Mr. Speaker; and we should pass it now.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of H.R. 1343. This legislation directs the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Agriculture Department's Rural Utility Service to do what they are already, to a great degree, doing--returning deobligated broadband Recovery Act funds to the U.S. Treasury.

As Mr. Walden just said, H.R. 1343 was reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee with broad bipartisan support, and we should always take every step possible to improve oversight and ensure that U.S. tax dollars are spent wisely. So that is a good reason to support this bill, but I think it's also important today not to lose sight of the fact that the Recovery Act has been a true success for broadband deployment.

The $7 billion in allocated broadband spending is bringing real economic, educational, and civic benefits to communities throughout the country. It's bridging the middle-mile gap, bringing high-speed Internet to small businesses and rural entrepreneurs. For businesses to grow, they need to expand their markets and enhance their realtime capabilities.

Broadband enables these successes. Broadband also connects patients with health care specialists thousands of miles away, and it enables doctors to monitor the vital signs of a heart patient while the patient sits at home.

Importantly, broadband brings the world's reference materials to the fingertips of our students in classrooms in big urban cities and in rural communities alike.

Simply put, broadband is no longer a luxury; it is a real necessity. That's why so many of my colleagues advocated for broadband applicants in our congressional districts. From coast to coast, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues joined us in understanding the necessity of broadband deployment, and there were tremendous success stories.

In my home State of California, for example, the Digital 395 Broadband Project is deploying broadband in rural communities up and down the eastern edge of the State. We're seeing community colleges expand their learning centers to provide outreach, training, and learning support services to increase the digital literacy skills of low-income residents. They are learning the critical skills needed to be full participants in our digital economy.

Across the country, the large-scale public-private Internet2 project is working to connect 121,000 community anchor institutions to a dedicated national fiber backbone. Colleges, universities, libraries, major veterans and other health care facilities, as well as public safety entities, are all benefiting from this Recovery Act broadband project.

As I said earlier, we must make sure that taxpayer dollars are always spent wisely; and that's why, to counter waste, fraud and abuse, the Recovery Act built oversight directly into the structure of the law. The two agencies overseeing the broadband programs, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture, were provided $16 million and $22.5 million respectively to oversee audit programs, grants, and activities funded by the Recovery Act.

To further enhance oversight, the Pay It Back Act was passed as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform. It makes clear, in no uncertain terms, that all returned or deobligated funds must be promptly transferred back to the Treasury. In fact, the Energy and Commerce Committee heard testimony from Assistant Secretary Strickling and Administrator Adelstein that they were already promptly returning deobligated funds to the Treasury, and they saw no ambiguity in current law that would prevent them from continuing to return deobligated funds. Current law is clear: deobligated funds must be returned to the Treasury.

So while I do support the bill before us, I must be honest and say that I think it is a little redundant. Oversight was built into the Recovery Act, into the broadband programs, and was reaffirmed with Dodd-Frank. This bill simply reiterates what the NTIA and the RUS are already doing--vigorously overseeing broadband projects and returning all deobligated funds to the Treasury.

While this bill is not necessarily needed, I do not oppose it, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1343, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, it's my sincere hope that we can all agree to this amendment because it would simply add a finding to the underlying bill of illustrating the health benefits of EPA's mercury and air toxics cleanup standards for large cement plants. Opponents of these clean-up standards argue that they cost too much. I don't happen to agree with that assessment. But while we can debate the cost of the standards, the health benefits are not in dispute, and that is why those facts should be included as part of this bill; and that is what this amendment makes in order.

Mr. Chairman, for decades, cement plants have been one of the largest pollution emitters in the United States.

They are responsible for some of the most dangerous air pollutants in the Nation, including mercury and other emissions that react in the air to form soot and smog. But some cement plants are still failing to comply with basic Clean Air Act protections that are 13 years overdue. And that's why the EPA took final action last year to require these large cement plants to cut their emissions and to simply follow the law.

EPA science and health standards are based on the track record of the existing plants that do the best job at limiting harmful emissions. In fact, many plants have already installed modern pollution control technology that meets these requirements. But instead of supporting the EPA's lifesaving clean-up standards, the bill before us would delay these standards by at least 4\1/2\ additional years. And it eliminates any deadline by which cement plants must comply with EPA's safeguards. This could mean thousands and thousands of additional pounds of mercury and other toxic pollution released into our air each and every year.

These pollutants can cause cancer. They can impair brain development, and they can harm children's ability to learn. They affect the kidneys, the lungs and the nervous system, and they cause lung and heart disease and premature deaths.

Now, you've heard that some large cement plants want a free pass from cleaning up air pollution in the name of jobs. But indefinitely delaying EPA's clean-up standards will not prevent job losses. What it will do for certain is to put the lives and the health of millions of Americans at risk. Failing to implement the EPA's air pollution standards for cement plants over 1 year would lead to as many as 2,500 premature deaths, as many as 1,500 heart attacks, about 1,000 emergency room visits, about 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 130,000 days of work missed by people affected.

It's clear that the benefits of these pollution safeguards significantly outweigh these costs. For every dollar the cement industry spends to clean up one of its plants, Americans get up to $19 in health benefits back, and this fact is backed by peer-reviewed science.

What other investment results in this astonishing return for the American people? That's why I'm offering this simple amendment today. It would remind us of all the tremendous health benefits that EPA's mercury and air toxic clean-up standards will achieve.

So I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern over the Labor-HHS Education appropriations draft posted last week by the majority. Not only did this action circumvent the procedures of the House and disregard the input of committee members, but the bill is misguided and dangerous for our Nation's families and economy.

The draft eliminates the cost-effective Title X family planning program, blocks funds for evidence-based sex education programs to instead spend them on programs proven ineffective and discriminatory, and, again, threatens to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood.

This plan harms our health care workforce by slashing the job- creating National Health Service Corps program by 55 percent and making steep reductions to the Community Health Center program. And it wipes out the successful Senior Corps and AmeriCorps programs that not only provide jobs, but also critical low-cost services to our families and seniors.

The list goes on, but the theme is the same we've seen all year: The majority is more interested in putting ideology over common sense and partisanship over people's needs.