Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Congressional Record the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Santa Barbara Declaration, drafted February 17, 2011.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-profit and non-partisan organization based in Santa Barbara that has worked for peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons since 1982, hosted a conference in February 2011 on the dangers of nuclear deterrence. The statement, drafted by experts from around the world, outlines many reasons to work toward the eradication of nuclear weapons.

I urge my colleagues to read the Santa Barbara Declaration and strive to build a more peaceful world.

Reject Nuclear Deterrence: An Urgent Call to Action

Nuclear deterrence is a doctrine that is used as a

justification by nuclear weapon states and their allies for

the continued possession and threatened use of nuclear

weapons.

Nuclear deterrence is the threat of a nuclear strike in

response to a hostile action. However, the nature of the

hostile action is often not clearly defined, making possible

the use of nuclear weapons in a wide range of circumstances.

Nuclear deterrence threatens the murder of many millions of

innocent people, along with severe economic, climate,

environmental, agricultural and health consequences beyond

the area of attack.

Nuclear deterrence requires massive commitments of

resources to the industrial infrastructures and organizations

that make up the world's nuclear weapons establishments, its

only beneficiaries.

Despite its catastrophic potential, nuclear deterrence is

widely, though wrongly, perceived to provide protection to

nuclear weapon states, their allies and their citizens.

Nuclear deterrence has numerous major problems:

1. Its power to protect is a dangerous fabrication. The

threat or use of nuclear weapons provides no protection

against an attack.

2. It assumes rational leaders, but there can be irrational

or paranoid leaders on any side of a conflict.

3. Threatening or committing mass murder with nuclear

weapons is illegal and criminal. It violates fundamental

legal precepts of domestic and international law, threatening

the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people.

4. It is deeply immoral for the same reasons it is illegal:

it threatens indiscriminate and grossly disproportionate

death and destruction.

5. It diverts human and economic resources desperately

needed to meet basic human needs around the world. Globally,

approximately $100 billion is spent annually on nuclear

forces.

6. It has no effect against non-state extremists, who

govern no territory or population.

7. It is vulnerable to cyber attack, sabotage, and human or

technical error, which could result in a nuclear strike.

8. It sets an example for additional countries to pursue

nuclear weapons for their own nuclear deterrent force.

Its benefits are illusory. Any use of nuclear weapons would

be catastrophic.

Nuclear deterrence is discriminatory, anti-democratic and

unsustainable. This doctrine must be discredited and replaced

with an urgent commitment to achieve global nuclear

disarmament. We must change the discourse by speaking truth

to power and speaking truth to each other.

Before another nuclear weapon is used, nuclear deterrence

must be replaced by humane, legal and moral security

strategies. We call upon people everywhere to join us in

demanding that the nuclear weapon states and their allies

reject nuclear deterrence and negotiate without delay a

Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable,

irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear

weapons.

Blase Bonpane, Ph.D.*, Director, Office of the Americas;

Theresa Bonpane*, Founding Director, Office of the

Americas; John Burroughs, Ph.D.*, Executive Director,

Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy; Jacqueline

Cabasso*, Executive Director, Western States Legal

Foundation; Ben Cohen, Co-

Founder, Ben & Jerry's; Kate Dewes, Ph.D.*, Co-

Director, Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand;

Bob Dodge, M.D.*, Coordinator, Beyond War Nuclear

Weapons Abolition Team; Dick Duda, Ph.D.*, founding

member, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation--Silicon Valley;

Denise Duffield*, Associate Director, Physicians for

Social Responsibility--Los Angeles; Richard Falk,

J.S.D.*, Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Commander

Robert Green (Royal Navy, ret.)*, Co-Director,

Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand; David

Krieger, Ph.D.*, President, Nuclear Age Peace

Foundation; Robert Laney, J.D.*, Secretary, Nuclear Age

Peace Foundation; Kayo Maeta, Chair, Women's Peace

Committee, Soka Gakkai; Kenji Shiratsuchi, Chair, Youth

Peace Conference, Soka Gakkai; Diane Meyer Simon,

Founder and President Emeritus, Global Green USA; Dr.

Jennifer Allen Simons, C.M., Founder and President of

The Simons Foundation; Steven Starr*, Senior Scientist,

Physicians for Social Responsibility; Hirotsugu

Terasaki, Executive Director, Peace Affairs, Soka

Gakkai International; Rick Wayman*, Director of

Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Bill

Wickersham, Ph.D.*, Adjunct Professor of Peace Studies,

University of Missouri.

*Initial signer from The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence

Conference, hosted by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa

Barbara, February 16-17, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of an American hero and my friend, Rear Admiral George H. Strohsahl. RADM Strohsahl passed away on Sunday, May 22, 2011. Over the course of his life, his vision and dedication to Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) and the Ventura County community at large were greatly inspiring. It is truly an honor to pay tribute to him today.

Admiral Strohsahl's Navy career spanned 39 years starting as a Midshipman at the Naval Academy in 1955 and finishing as the Commander for the Naval Air Warfare Center, the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation organization of Naval Aviation with 10 installations across the country and over 25,000 employees. During his career he flew jet attack aircraft from aircraft carriers in both the Pacific and Atlantic fleets which included two tours of combat flying in Vietnam and command of an A-6 squadron. He was the Air Boss on USS Nimitz and played himself in the popular Kirk Douglas movie ``Final Countdown.''

He was the director of the Tactical Air Analysis office in the Pentagon which was part of the McNamara systems analysis team known as the ``Whiz Kids.'' He was Program Manager for the F/A-18 Hornet Family of aircraft which was and still is the largest aircraft acquisition program in the Navy. He commanded the Pacific Missile Test Center at Point Mugu from 1988 to 1990 and as senior Naval officer for the South Central California area was active in many civic organizations in Ventura County at that time.

Over the years, I have worked with RADM Strohsahl on many issues that affect Naval Base Ventura County. I particularly appreciated his leadership during our fight against the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process. His testimony before the 2005 Commission was instrumental in minimizing the amount of technical work being removed and job loss from our base. He was a steadfast advocate for the Navy and worked endlessly to ensure others understood the importance of our military.

RADM Strohsahl was married for 44 years to the late Marvalyn Fiske. They raised three children, one of whom resides now in Ventura with her husband and family. He is blessed today to be married to Mary Anne Vernallis of Newbury Park whose late husband, Sam, was a long-time associate of George's in the Navy and a well-respected civic leader in Ventura County. Together, George and Mary Anne share 5 children and 8 grandchildren.

I know I speak on behalf of the entire Ventura County community when I say RADM Strohsahl will be greatly missed. His commitment and hard work on behalf of NVBC and our community at large will be felt for generations to come. While his resume is tremendously impressive, he might best be known by his family, friends and co-workers as a generous, patriotic and altruistic man. It is a great honor to pay tribute to his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of May as National Stroke Awareness Month, the time each year that we as a nation reaffirm our support in the fight against stroke, a leading cause of death and disability.

National Stroke Awareness Month plays an important role in educating Americans on the warning signs and risk factors for strokes, as well as how the latest neuroscience discoveries enhance our understanding of strokes and lead to new and exciting treatments.

According to the American Stroke Association, a stroke occurs every 40 seconds, affecting roughly 795,000 Americans each year--killing approximately 136,000 people a year, and costing the nation through healthcare services, medications, and missed days of work.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition, and through my experience as a nurse and health care advocate, I know firsthand the importance of educating the American people to recognize the warning signs of a stroke and be ready to act fast.

Moreover, the most effective method to combat stroke is to prevent it, and that to do that, we need to place a greater focus on educating the American people on the risk factors associated with an increased risk of stroke: high blood pressure, atrial fibrilliation, diabetes, heightened cholesterol, lack of exercise, and smoking.

Family history of stroke, gender, and place of residence are also factors.

While strokes are one of the major reasons that quality of life can diminish as people get older, they are not inevitable.

The same steps that contribute to keeping physical vigor--regular exercise, a healthy weight, and a balanced diet--can maximize the chances of staying sharp and alert for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, based on basic science findings, neuroscientists have developed several options for treating stroke, including clot-busting drugs and minimally invasive surgery techniques.

Yet despite numerous advances, the global and national prognosis for stroke is dire.

According to a study by the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association published earlier this year, stroke prevalence is projected to increase by 25 percent in the U.S. by 2030, and direct medical costs for treating stroke are expected to increase by 238 percent, to $95.6 billion within the same time period.

This makes continued strong and sustainable funding for the National Institutes of Health even more critical.

By supporting the National Institutes of Health, researchers will be able to discover better ways to protect the brain from potential strokes, minimize the damage that occurs, and develop better ways to repair and reorganize the brain after a stroke.

For all of these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Stroke Awareness Month, celebrating the outstanding contributions the field of neuroscience is making to learn more about stroke; the contributions of the American Stroke Association in educating the public about stroke warning signs and treatment; and the investments made in scientific research through the National Institutes of Health to develop treatments for those suffering from this devastating disease.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this reckless bill. I cannot count the number of times Members on both sides of this aisle have decried shortages in the primary care workforce of our communities, and working, often in a bipartisan manner, to develop ways to increase the primary

care ranks. Yet today, the next victim in the Republican obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act is a program that does deal with these shortages. It increases our primary care physician ranks, and trains them with special expertise in serving the community.

The bill before us would defund this program, taking many qualified Americans out of the primary care workforce before they even have an opportunity to join it. Moreover, cutting these training programs would also affect already existing jobs at the 11 community-based entities that have already expanded their programs to train these new doctors. Taking away this funding will force possible layoffs and have a chilling effect on other sites developing this type of program.

Yes, it is paid for through mandatory funding. But that is not unheard of or even unusual. In fact, the federally funded Graduate Medical Education program, which has had measured success in strengthening our health care workforce, is a mandatory spending program. The program the Republicans are trying to cut today is simply a complement to this GME program, focused on community-based care and prevention.

The choice on H.R. 1216 is clear: if you believe that we do not have a jobs problem and that we have all the doctors we will ever need, then go ahead and vote for this bill. But if you believe that we need to create good jobs and the professionals to fill them, that we need more primary care providers, you must vote against H.R. 1216 and protect this very important program. We can't have it both ways.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous amendment.

Last month, the Republican majority brought us to the brink of government shutdown over its disapproval of Planned Parenthood. But here we are again, a new week, but the same obsession with reopening the culture wars. This time, instead of saying that Congress knows better than a woman and her family about her reproductive health care, this amendment takes one step further. It says that Congress knows better than our medical doctors and medical educators about what our medical training curricula should look like. This is an unprecedented restriction, one that goes against the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's guidance and against medical ethics themselves.

Medical education is supposed to prepare our future doctors for whatever they may come across in their practice. This includes women whose lives are in danger due to their pregnancy, for whom terminating a pregnancy is the only way that woman will stay alive. Keeping future providers from learning these procedures--and it is an option that they may choose only if they choose to learn it--puts these women at risk. Regardless of what one's views are on women's reproductive rights, I think we can all agree that our future medical providers should be trained and ready for any medical emergency that they might encounter. To play politics with their education and the lives of women is an embarrassment.

Madam Chair, it is time for this Congress to learn to trust the American people, to trust our doctors, to trust our families, and to trust women.

The American Congress of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

Washington, DC, May 24, 2011.

ACOG Opposes the Foxx Amendment to H.R. 1216

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

(ACOG), representing 55,000 ob-gyns and partners in women's

health, opposes the Foxx amendment to H.R. 1216, an amendment

to the Public Health Service Act.

The Foxx amendment would disallow GME funding for abortion

training, part of ob-gyn educational curricula in accredited

medical residency programs, and unnecessarily duplicate

already recognized protections for medical students and

teaching hospitals who choose to not participate in abortion

training.

Residency education standards are set by the universally

recognized Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical

Education (ACGME) whose Residency Review Committees (RRCs)

accredit residency programs. These standards, supported by

the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

require that ``experience with induced abortion must be part

of residency training.''

These standards already fully accommodate institutions,

programs, and individuals

who choose not to participate in abortions or abortion

training. Every ob-gyn residency program may opt out of

providing in-house training, and is required only to offer

their residents an opportunity for abortion training at an

outside facility. Similarly, residents with religious or

moral objections may opt out of receiving abortion training,

and are required only to be trained in management of abortion

complications--not the provision of abortion, but the care of

potential consequent medical complications.

Training in abortion, for those institutions, programs, and

individuals who choose to participate, is important to

women's health. Federal funds may be used for abortions in

cases of rape, incest, or when a woman's life is endangered.

Girls and women who are victims of rape or incest, or whose

lives are endangered by their pregnancies, must have

continued access to this surgical procedure, and this care

must be safely provided by trained medical specialists.

The Nation's women's health physicians urge a no-vote on

the Foxx amendment. Should you have any questions, please

contact Nevena Minor, ACOG Government Affairs Manager, at

[email protected] or 202-314-2322.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Dos Pueblos High School Science Bowl Team. Michael Feldman, Daniel Gay, Ilan Goodman, Andy Granatelli, Daniel Richman and their coach Chris Jones made the South and Central Coast proud this month as representatives from California at the 2011 National Science Bowl, sponsored by the US Department of Energy in DC.

The U.S. Department of Energy National Science Bowl is a nationwide academic competition that tests students' knowledge in all areas of science. High school and middle school students are quizzed in a fast paced question-and-answer format similar to Jeopardy. Competing teams from diverse backgrounds are comprised of four students, one alternate, and a teacher who serves as an advisor and coach. The National Science Bowl's high school competition involves more than 13,000 students and is the only science competition in the United States sponsored by a federal agency.

In addition to their academic expertise, these students and their coach proved to be a popular and supportive team in DC. Honored by their peers, the DP team won the Civility Award, which recognizes excellent sportsmanship. In honor of winning this award, the team earned a nine-day trip to Alaska to study the region's glacial, biological and geological treasures.

Mr. Speaker, we speak often in DC of ``winning the future.'' I'm so proud to represent this remarkable group of students, and their coach, who are working tirelessly towards this goal. Today I mark their accomplishment and encourage all young people across the country to follow their example, and push themselves in math and science fields. Our competitiveness as a nation depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a valued constituent and a good friend, Dr. Wallace Shepherd.

Dr. Shepherd came to the Second Baptist Church of Santa Barbara as pastor in 2006. Since then, Pastor Shepherd has reestablished Santa Barbara's Martin Luther King Day event as a capstone celebration on the central coast of California.

He is an active board member of the Endowment for Youth program, which supports the education of underprivileged children through tutoring and scholarships. Dr. Shepherd also helped to found Eco Faith, a nonprofit organization that promotes conservation of energy in churches and houses of worship.

He has been appointed evangelism director of the Central District of California, and also the vice president of the Third Sunday Fellowship for Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. But as our House has just witnessed, he is at the core a powerful presence and a humble servant in the name of his faith.

I am honored to welcome him here to Congress, and thank him for his invaluable service to our community and to our country.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1231, the last and most egregious bill in the Republicans' oil addiction agenda.

It's unconscionable that we're voting today to expand offshore drilling even before stronger safeguards can be put in place, to mandate new leasing off the economically important coastlines of southern California, Alaska, and the entire eastern seaboard, each time these waters are open to drilling.

And it's cynical to claim that more drilling will relieve high gas prices. More drilling only means more profits for the oil industry, not lower costs at the pump.

We all know oil companies hardly need a boost right now. They're receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and reaping record profits.

On top of that, the oil industry is already drilling more than ever before. For example, offshore production has increased by more than a third in the last 2 years, and the gulf produced 1.6 million barrels of oil per day last year, an all-time record. Yet, despite all that drilling, gas prices continue to soar, and the reason is clear: More drilling here in the U.S. has little effect on the global oil market.

Nearly three-quarters of the world's proven oil resources are owned by OPEC nations. And even if we expanded offshore drilling significantly, we wouldn't see an impact on gas prices until 2030; and even then, it would be a matter of just 5 cents a gallon. This is according to the Energy Information Administration.

If, instead, we further raised fuel efficiency standards, we could lower driver bills at the pump. Building cars that go further on a gallon of gas is the best way to protect American families. It also creates jobs. It slashes our oil imports, and it reduces dangerous air pollution. This is the kind of solution we need right now.

We shouldn't be promoting reckless drilling that will fail to lower gas prices and endanger our coastlines. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1231.

I thank my colleague from New Jersey for recognizing me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1229. A year ago BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, leaving 11 people dead and over 1,000 miles of shoreline oiled. It also left the local economy in shambles. The once lucrative fishing and tourism businesses were devastated by this spill. Many gulf residents are still struggling, and yet the oil industry would have us believe it suffered greatly during the temporary moratorium on new drilling. The fact is the gulf produced 1.6 million barrels of oil per day last year, an all- time record, and still the industry is clamoring for more.

Today, we're considering another bill on their wish list that sidesteps safety and environmental safeguards. H.R. 1229 forces this administration to unreasonably rush the permitting process for drilling activities. These permits are a final review opportunity for the Federal Government to ensure that everything is in place before an oil company drills deep into our ocean floor, but the majority is using the strain of high gas prices to push Americans into thinking that drilling is safe and that hurrying these permits will bring down costs.

It's as if we learned nothing from the BP oil disaster. Mr. Chairman, we cannot say drilling is safe when Congress has not taken necessary steps to strengthen protections for rig workers and the environment. We cannot say drilling is safe when the industry has yet to prove it has better means of preventing or cleaning up a spill than we saw that it did a year ago, and we cannot say drilling is safe when the government lacks the resources it needs to police an industry that for years policed itself, to perilous ends.

While the Obama administration has started acting on the lessons of the spill, Michael Bromwich, the head offshore drilling regulator, told the New York Times that his agency ``still lacks the resources, personnel, training, technology, enforcement tools, regulations, and legislation that it needs to do its job properly.''

Mr. Chairman, we know how to reduce the risk of oil spills. The President's oil spill commission laid out a list of recommendations for how Congress can prevent another spill from occurring. Many of my colleagues have amendments to put those recommendations in place. I hope this House will adopt them so we can say that drilling is safer.

Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1229. Let's not promote reckless drilling that will fail to

lower gas prices and endanger our coastlines. Let's instead strengthen safety and environmental safeguards for offshore drilling and support a quicker transition to cleaner, safer energy policy for America.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this oil spill amnesia bill that threatens our coastal communities.

H.R. 1230 is a collection of bad ideas. It mandates that the administration offer new lease sales, even though they say they're not prepared to properly oversee them. The bill sidesteps safety and environmental reviews, acting as if the Nation's worst oil spill in history never happened. And, it pushes a failed energy plan that pours billions of dollars into already overstuffed oil industry coffers.

The only thing it adds up to, Mr. Chairman, is a false promise. The truth is the Republican majority is hoping to delude the public into believing that this rush to new offshore drilling will provide a quick fix to high gas prices, but the harsh reality is this: The U.S. is never going to have control over world oil supplies or gas prices through drilling. We simply don't have the oil reserves, no matter how much we drill. What we do have is the ability to control prices by lowering our consumption, and that's just what we're starting to do.

For example, the EIA's latest report says we're lowering oil usage thanks in part to the President's fuel savings standards. We will get control over our energy future by making more cars that go further on a gallon of gas and bringing new types of fuel supplies to the table. If in 10 or 20 years oil and gas are still the focus of our energy debate, then we have miserably failed. We will have followed the path that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney charted, and we've seen where that leads: high gas

prices and billions in oil company profits.

It's about time we break free from our addiction to oil. I urge a ``no'' vote on this misleading bill that accelerates new dirty and dangerous drilling.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation.

A mere 2 weeks ago, the Republican majority brought us to the brink of government shutdown over their disapproval of Planned Parenthood. But instead of moving past divisive social issues and addressing our economic challenges with housing and creating jobs, we are here again today witnessing the Republicans' obsession with reopening the culture wars.

H.R. 3 represents the most egregious attack on reproductive rights in over 35 years, rights that are protected by the Supreme Court decision. H.R. 3 uses the Tax Code to effectively deny access to insurance that includes abortion care coverage, no matter how it is paid for. What it doesn't do is trust our Nation's women, trust our Nation's families, their doctors, their clergy, and trust small businesses to make their own health care choices for their employees. This is unacceptable. Make no mistake, despite the rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle, the bill is not about funding. It is about using our laws and our Tax Code to infringe upon the rights of women, the protected rights of women and families across this Nation.

Madam Speaker, it is time that this Congress places trust in our Nation's women, its families and small businesses to make their own health care choices.

Thank you, Mr. Garamendi, for yielding me time and for organizing us to have this conversation and this opportunity to pay tribute this evening.

I rise, like my colleagues have risen, to commend the many people involved in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. From all accounts, and from what we heard from Director Panetta yesterday, it was a meticulously planned and executed operation. I commend the President and his national security team for their focus.

When the President was running for office, he said that if he were presented with actionable intelligence on al Qaeda's leaders, that he would act, with or without the host country's permission or assistance. He got some heat on that commitment, if you'll remember, my colleague, but it's clear he was correct.

The result is that the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks has now been brought to justice and the organization he has led has been further weakened.

And I am so grateful to our colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for calling to mind, again, as all of us felt as we heard the news of Osama bin Laden's demise. We were immediately, at least I was, as well, reminded again of that awful day, 9/11 and the image, where we were when we heard the news, how we were riveted to watching the horror unfold, explode in D.C., at the Pentagon, and New York City and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

And I acknowledge that this was closure for those families who have suffered and continue to suffer, and a good thing that they have seen this person, this evil man brought to justice. But it doesn't lessen their sorrow and their loss, and we're mindful of that. And it comes back again to remind us that we have not, by any stretch, ended the threat of terrorism, and we must remain vigilant.

Mr. Holt talks about all of the New Jerseyans who lost their lives that day. And it was concentrated in our metropolitan areas surrounding New York City. But these were trans-country flights, and some of the passengers were bound for the west coast, and some of them were my constituents as well as, I don't know about Mr. Garamendi, but others in California I know, lost their lives and those families are still grieving. So my heart goes out to them this evening.

But I want to acknowledge also the comments and the contribution from our colleague from Detroit, Hansen Clarke, who acknowledges for us all, which I am very mindful of, that our need to remain vigilant includes our homeland security. And that goes immediately to the role that our first responders play, and the responsibility that we have in this body to make sure that our front line defense in our cities, in our rural areas, in our vulnerable places that we're all mindful of now with the heightened security, because we know that this event that happened just so recently is going to have some kind of effect, and we need to be even more on guard.

But every day we want and need our first responders to be there in our homes guarding our streets and guarding our communities and making sure that we're safe. And we have a responsibility to see that they have the resources to do that.

On the other hand, disrupting the operations of this murderous group is such an important step to safeguarding our country.

But, Mr. Speaker, my main reason for wanting to contribute and add to this discussion this evening is what I feel is our important duty to pay tribute to these Navy SEALs who pulled off this operation and to thank them. We don't know their names. We don't want to reveal their identities for the safety of their families. But these brave individuals serve, not for fame, not for fortune. They do it in some of the most dangerous situations imaginable. They do this service for us to protect our freedoms. They do it as they did this past weekend and on so many countless other occasions to keep our country safe. While we sleep, they are on watch. And for that, we owe them such a huge debt of gratitude.

Finally, I believe that all Americans are rightly impressed and grateful by the tireless work done every day by members of our intelligence and our military communities. Indeed, it was that relentless hard work that tracked down bin Laden and countless others of his ilk. The dedication, the sacrifice of these men and women and that of their families have been so critical to keeping our country safe. It is a duty that's been particularly heavy in the days since 9/ 11.

It's easy for us to go about our life and to resume our normal ways of living, but not for them and not for their families. And now, as this has occurred, we really want to call to mind all those who serve our country, at home and abroad in the military, wearing the uniform for love of country, for their patriotism. And we owe them so much. Their service in Iraq and in Afghanistan, whether we agree with the engagement or not, they are serving their country. And this has been nothing short of amazing.

I think of my own naval base, Ventura County, where the Seabees ship from, and the work that they have done and continue to do reconstructing the war-torn areas and assisting the folks in Iraq and Afghanistan and rebuilding their lives.

I think of the Air Force base at Vandenburg, which I'm also privileged to represent, where so much of this intelligence comes from as our operations are carried out with such precision and such skill. The multiple tours of duty, the extended tours, the time away from family and friends, the danger that goes along with every deployment. These burdens are, quite frankly, something that most of us don't think about enough. So much of what these brave men and women do goes unnoticed and uncommented upon.

So, tonight, as we pay tribute to the courageous Navy SEALs who stormed that compound in Pakistan, I want us all to recognize the daily sacrifices of all of their brothers and sisters in arms, in the intelligence communities and serving in uniform. Let us thank them for the service that they have given and do give to us. Thank them for carrying out their duty to serve their fellow citizens every single day, and thank them also for calling to mind for us that they do this, not as Democrats or Republicans. They do this in service to their country.

And I believe that this action, such as we came together in 9/11, calls for us to join together in this Congress and in this country in a call to unity to rededicate ourselves to serving our country.

We have many pressing challenges today. Our involvement in Afghanistan is one of them, and it's a major one, and in Iraq as well. But we have our own homeland with our economic struggles that calls for us to work together as well.

So your desire to bring us together, Mr. Garamendi, makes me think about

a great many things and, again, to say how grateful I am that we have taken this important step in our war for freedom, against al Qaeda, but for freedom and for this life that we can enjoy in this country.

Grandson. Little Oscar Walter. But you are absolutely right.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest opposition to this shortsighted legislation. We all know that the only reason this bill is before us today is to try to derail the Affordable Care Act, which is already helping so many. And the exchanges this bill targets will make a clear impact, making it easier for individuals and small businesses to shop for insurance based on quality and price. They will provide the key structure to ensure the numerous consumer protections in the law are followed, and they will make the health insurance market both more competitive and more transparent.

Furthermore, the exchange program gives States flexibility to build the best plan they can to meet the unique needs of their residents. But this bill would defund that, resulting in an unfunded mandate. Forty- nine States have already received funds to begin this process. Many States are poised to move from planning to implementation. However, repeal would stop this development in its tracks.

What is clear is that a vote for this bill does not reduce costs; it just shifts them onto the backs of already cash-strapped States. It means delays: Delays that CBO has noted will lead to increased costs for consumers; delays that will result in 2 million more Americans being uninsured through 2015 alone.

I find it ironic that my Republican colleagues, who for so long have called for increasing a State's autonomy, are here to vote down a program that does exactly that, especially when their vote will lead to increased costs and more Americans being uninsured.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against H.R. 1213.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to H.R. 1214. As a school nurse who worked in our schools for very many years, it's been 100 days now of Republican rule, and we have not seen a jobs bill yet. Unlike previous efforts that just ignore job creation all together, today's debate is on a bill that will flat out hurt our economy and will keep people out of the workforce.

You know, there are children in each of our States who will, if this bill passes, be deprived of having access to quality health care when they need it most. School-based health centers provide comprehensive and easily accessible preventive and primary health care services for millions of our students nationwide. Services that keep students healthy, in school, and learning almost always these are children who have no other source of care.

And the need is clear: 350 centers from 46 States including many in my Republican colleagues' districts have already applied for these funds. They've taken the time and the resources to compile their applications. They are excited. They are expecting to hear in just a few weeks if their projects can move forward. To pull the rug out from under them now is simply a disgrace.

The centers have long garnered bipartisan support, worked with many of my Republican colleagues on their behalf; and, yes, the majority is now using this as a political football in their obsession to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is a true disservice to our children and also to our communities.

No matter what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, today's vote isn't about types of funding or process. We don't need a civics class about it. H.R. 1214 is just another attempt by them to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

I encourage my colleagues to stop taking health care away from children to fulfill their political promises.

Vote ``no'' on this misguided bill.

Offered By: Mrs. Capps

Amendment No. 2: In section 1, add at the end the

following:

(c) GAO Study to Determine School Districts Most in Need of

Constructing or Renovating School-based Health Centers.--The

Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a

study to determine the school districts in the United States

most in need of constructing or renovating school-based

health centers (as defined in section 2110(c)(9) of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(c)(9)). Not later than

1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a report

setting forth the results and conclusions of the study under

this subsection.

Offered By: Mrs. Capps

Amendment No. 3: In section 1, add at the end the

following:

(c) GAO Study to Determine School Districts Most in Need of

Constructing or Renovating School-based Health Centers.--The

Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a

study to determine the school districts in the United States

most in need of constructing or renovating school-based

health centers (as defined in section 2110(c)(9) of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(c)(9)), using the

funding made available under section 4101(a) of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-4) if such

funding were not repealed and rescinded under subsections (a)

and (b). Not later than 1 year after the date of the

enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit

to the Congress a report setting forth the results and

conclusions of the study under this subsection.