Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise this evening to speak in strong opposition to the Pence amendment. The Pence amendment is an attack on women's health. This much is clear.

What isn't clear is what these women who today are cared for by Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses would do for care if the Pence amendment should pass.

Planned Parenthood serves 3 million Americans every year. These are Americans who rely upon Planned Parenthood to receive their annual wellness exams; Americans who rely upon Planned Parenthood to receive contraceptive services to prevent unplanned pregnancies; Americans who get tested and treated for sexually transmitted infections, improving their health and protecting the health of their community; Americans who rely on Planned Parenthood for their cancer screenings, tests that can detect cervical cancer or breast cancer early, when it is easier and less expensive to treat, saving our entire health care infrastructure millions of health care dollars.

And these Americans cannot just go somewhere else, somewhere that my colleague on the other side of the aisle would find more palatable. Sixty percent of those who use Planned Parenthood services consider it to be their main source of health care, their medical home.

A vote to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding is a vote to cut these Americans off from their health care system. Surely we can't want that.

In my own congressional district, Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo Counties serve over 31,000 patients every year. I must ask the supporters of this mean-spirited amendment, where should these 31,000 people go, especially now when this reckless Republican omnibus spending package cuts community health centers by $1 billion?

And what about your constituents? In the amendment's author's own State of Indiana, 18,000 citizens rely upon Planned Parenthood services each year, 18,000 Hoosiers whose elected Representatives are voting to shut down their doctors' office.

Finally, Madam Chair, I know that the supporters of this amendment are trying to characterize this as a vote about abortion. It's not about abortion. It's a vote about whether or not you believe in providing women and Americans comprehensive health care. Because, despite all the misinformation being thrown around here, 95 percent of Planned Parenthood services have nothing to do with abortion. And as has been strongly and firmly stated, there are no Federal dollars used for those receiving abortion services.

The last time I checked, 97 percent is an A-plus, which calls into real question the motivation behind this amendment. Combined with the mean-spirited bills moving through the Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committees, attacking women's health service access, with the zeroing out of title X family planning funds in this bill, with a reinstatement of the global gag rule, with a 50 percent slash in international family planning money, and a completely devastating slash to the Women, Infants and Children's nutrition program, along with other cuts I have mentioned, it adds up to only one conclusion: House Republican leadership is starting an all-out war on women's health care. The targets? Women's insurance coverage, their providers, their health care choices.

For more than 90 years, Planned Parenthood's doctors, nurses, and other health professionals have been providing health care to millions of women, and one in four American women voters has received care from a Planned Parenthood health center at some point in her life.

So let's take a stand against this attack on women's health care. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Pence amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the misguided spending bill on the floor. Instead of creating jobs, this troubling bill slashes higher education funding.

How can we expect our students to compete globally when we don't invest in the resources to allow them to succeed?

Under this bill over 1 million college students in California alone will have their Pell Grant cut by $675. These students probably won't be able to take classes next semester or buy textbooks. It doesn't make sense.

America's businesses need a well-trained, highly skilled workforce. If we want our country to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world we need to start with adequate funding for higher education.

This bill is a direct attack on our future workforce and economic stability. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Our students deserve better, our country deserves better.

Vote ``no'' on the reckless Republican omnibus spending bill.

Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I am troubled to be on the floor this afternoon.

Americans still are facing staggering unemployment rates, and our economy has not yet fully recovered; but instead of talking about the many ways we can generate jobs, especially clean-energy jobs that can't be shipped overseas and about ways to improve the health of American families, we have an extreme piece of legislation before us.

Americans all agree that fiscal discipline is a must, but special interests giveaways and legislative earmarks to protect big polluters won't balance our checkbook. Putting health protection on the chopping block means dirtier air, dirtier water, and more children's lives at risk. One of the most egregious legislative earmarks in the bill would block the EPA from doing its job, which is to protect our health from air pollution.

Madam Chair, not allowing the EPA to address carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act is flat-out dangerous. Climate change is a serious problem. The scientific evidence is clear. The debate is over. Climate change is real. It is happening--and human beings are largely to blame.

2010 was the hottest year on record. In the last decade, the Earth experienced nine of the 10 hottest years since data has been recorded. We are also starting to see the irreversible damage to our economy and to our environment. Sea levels are rising. Acidification is happening in our oceans. The world is witnessing increased rainfall, floods, droughts, and wildfires; and our fresh water supplies and capacity to grow enough food will be severely challenged in the years ahead.

Madam Chair, the longer we delay taking action to address climate change, the more difficult and expensive the solutions will be. That is why the EPA is taking a cautious, flexible, and balanced approach to addressing carbon pollution. Each of the steps it has taken so far has followed the letter of the law. For four decades, the Clean Air Act has protected the health of millions of Americans, including our children, our seniors and the most vulnerable among us, from all kinds of dangerous air pollutants. The law also has a tremendous track record in providing certainty to businesses and delivering economic benefits.

Since the Clean Air Act was enacted, overall, air pollution has dropped while the U.S. GDP has risen 207 percent. We have also seen major health benefits, including asthma reduction, lower lung cancer rates, and much greater productivity. In fact, by 2020, the benefits of the Clean Air Act are expected to reach $2 trillion, exceeding any cost by more than 30 to 1.

All of these benefits, Madam Chair, are jeopardized by this dangerous rollback of the Clean Air Act included in the Republican omnibus spending bill.

And that's why groups, many groups ranging from the American Lung Association to the American Sustainable Business Council, have decried the harm of this proposal to people's health and our economy. And it's why I stand with them today in opposing the extreme earmarks to gut the Clean Air Act. This sweeping proposal has many impacts. It would block new construction. It tampers with the clean car agreement between the automakers, the States, and the Obama administration. And it would stop the renewable fuels standard in its track.

Madam Chair, our constituents want us to create jobs and to stand up for the health of our families. They don't want us to stand with the big polluters. This attack just doesn't make sense.

Last month, President Obama stood on the House floor and talked about ``winning the future'' through innovation, and he used clean energy as his central example. We know that clean energy will put Americans to work. It will help our economy grow, and it will help America compete in a global marketplace. Let's create jobs by investing in cleaner forms of energy. Let's not obstruct the EPA from doing its job of protecting the public's health and environment.

These are crucial issues, Madam Chair, for the public and the planet. It's our duty here in this place to ensure both are protected from harmful carbon pollution. Unfortunately, this extreme legislation does not meet this crucial test. Congress should be investing in America's future, not moving backwards.

So I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to this irresponsible omnibus with all of its reckless spending cuts.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to speak in strong support of the Lowey amendment reinstating the funding for the title X program, which supports family planning services for all of our constituents. While we all agree on the need to reduce spending, it is just bad policy to eliminate a proven, successful program that saves the taxpayer money and provides critical health care services for our mothers, our sisters, our friends. This is bad policy.

The title X program, the only Federal program devoted to family planning, is the core of the public effort to ensure that all women, regardless of income, have the knowledge and health care they need to plan for their families. Its flexible grant funds not only help pay for direct client services but also help to ensure that State and local governments and nonprofit organizations across the country can place safety net clinics in the communities that need them the most. These clinics are the primary source of health care for millions of low- income American women.

By helping women and couples plan and space their pregnancies, family planning services have led to healthier mothers and children and have been instrumental in the long struggle for women's equality in education, the workforce, and society.

In light of the economic downturn, the freedom that the title X program has given to women in the workforce is particularly important. But this program hasn't just been successful for the over 4\1/2\ million Americans who use it every year. It has been successful for the American taxpayer, as every dollar spent on this program saves our Nation nearly $4 in return.

In light of the important role that family planning has played in health care and society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called family planning one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, alongside other critical breakthroughs like vaccinations and the campaigns against smoking.

Over 40 years ago, title X family planning funding was enacted on a unanimous vote in the Senate and by an overwhelming majority in the House. When signed into law, then-President Richard Nixon said it fulfilled a promise that ``no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.''

How far we have come from that time to this day, when we have the research to prove that a program works, and yet the House Republican leadership has recklessly decided to cut it completely. Eliminating title X now would be a devastating blow to the health, the security, and the dreams of millions of American women and their families, denying 5 million women preventive care, including annual exams, lifesaving cancer screenings, contraceptive services, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infection.

If Members of Congress really want to reduce our Federal deficit, we would double funding for family planning, which studies have shown could save the taxpayers nearly $2 billion per year. And yet, for some reason, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to believe that cutting this program, defunding a program that actually saves Americans money and improves the health, improves the health of millions of Americans, that somehow this is a good idea.

For those Members who oppose title X funding, I ask you: How do you plan to ensure that the women in your district and your State have access to lifesaving prevention services? This sham of a Republican omnibus spending bill contains no answers to these questions, just broken promises for the American people.

Let's be clear. A vote against title X is a vote for unintended pregnancies. A vote against title X is a vote for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. A vote against title X is a vote for increased rate of cervical cancer and breast cancer if caught late or if at all. And a vote against title X is a vote for increased abortion rates.

While I would like to think of this as an oversight, it is not the first attack to women's access to health care that has been seen in the 112th Congress. Combined with the mean-spirited bills moving through House committees that reopen the culture wars, it is obvious that this extreme and reckless proposal by the Republican majority to defund title X clinics is just the next step in an all-out Republican assault on women's health.

This Congress should be focused on creating jobs for the millions of moms working to put food on the table, not attacking their rights and their health.

I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey amendment to add some common sense to this omnibus spending bill.

I thank my Colorado colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sort of troubled that we're here this afternoon. Americans are still facing staggering unemployment rates and our economy has not yet fully recovered. But instead of focusing on job creation, we're wasting 2 days--and taxpayer dollars--on a resolution directing committees to conduct oversight on government regulations.

I have been a Member of Congress for over a decade and I know that committees already do oversight on government regulations. Without prompting, a well-run committee will make sure the government's regulations are necessary and effective at protecting the American people. In fact, the Energy and Commerce Committee, under the leadership of Henry Waxman in the last Congress, did just that. Our committee conducted oversight on the failures that led to the BP oil spill in the gulf and the reckless Wall Street behaviors that caused a near meltdown of our economy.

When insurance companies announced that they would pad their profits with huge rate increases on American families--after they dropped individuals from coverage just because they got sick--it was our committee that stood up to them. I'm afraid, though, that in this new Congress, American families won't get that same kind of protection.

Yesterday, our committee held a hearing on legislation that would insert the government into private decisions between a patient and her doctor. We also held a hearing on legislation that would put the interests of polluters ahead of the health of millions of Americans, including our children, our seniors and the most vulnerable among us. That wasn't oversight to help create jobs or to help the American people; it was just examples of promoting an extreme agenda that puts the public's health at risk.

Mr. Speaker, instead of telling committees how to do their jobs, we should be creating jobs for the American people--health care jobs, clean energy jobs, high tech jobs, manufacturing jobs. This is America's top priority. This is what we should be talking about here on the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a truly remarkable constituent of mine, Mr. Jack LaLanne, who passed away this past Sunday.

Known as the godfather of fitness, Mr. LaLanne opened his health club in Oakland in 1936. For over 30 years, he starred in ``The Jack LaLanne Show,'' encouraging all Americans to eat healthier and to exercise.

Today, as our country faces an epidemic of obesity, we know that Jack LaLanne's emphasis on physical fitness and healthy eating made him a man truly ahead of his time.

In addition, he accomplished many remarkable feats over the course of his life, such as swimming handcuffed from Alcatraz to Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco in 1955, completing 1,033 pushups in 23 minutes on TV in 1956, and swimming the Golden Gate Channel towing a 2,500- pound cabin cruiser in 1957.

Jack LaLanne used to say, ``I can't afford to die; it would wreck my image.'' But I think we can all agree that his image is intact and his influence on our Nation's health will continue for years to come.

He is survived by his wife of over 50 years, Elaine, and 3 children: Dan, Yvonne, and Jon.

Thank you, Jack LaLanne, for all you have done for the health of this country.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 359.

This deeply flawed legislation would do away with a voluntary program that helps ensure transparency in our elections.

Created in the wake of Watergate, the presidential election public financing system--which this bill would eliminate--has helped stop corporate interests from buying elections with large anonymous donations.

While I'm disappointed that Republicans are playing political games with our election safeguards, I can't say that I'm surprised. H.R. 359 is just the latest effort by the new Majority to undermine our campaign finance laws in favor of Wall Street Banks and foreign corporations.

This political gimmick comes one year after the catastrophic Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates to unlimited and anonymous special interest spending in our elections.

Last year my Democratic colleagues tried to repair some of the damage done by passing the DISCLOSE Act--a bill that would require corporations to stand by their advertisements and to keep foreign-owned entities from funding our elections.

Virtually all Republicans voted against this bill in the House, and their colleagues in the Senate blocked it from consideration.

Mr. Chair, this bill is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on transparency in our elections that does absolutely nothing to create American jobs or encourage economic growth. In fact, by shifting our election system to favor big business, this legislation could strengthen the power of companies that ship American jobs overseas.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for an open and transparent election process, and vote no on this deeply flawed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes on January 26, 2011 and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 23: ``yes''; rollcall No. 24: ``yes''; rollcall No. 25: ``no.''

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided and misdirected and destructive resolution.

The American people have charged us with creating jobs and strengthening our economy. My colleagues in the majority appear more focused on getting in a good sound bite before tonight's State of the Union.

Procedurally, this resolution empowers a single person to decree the entire Nation's budget for the rest of the year--no hearings, no markups, no vote. And this plan is nothing more than a gimmick that will destroy jobs.

For example, reverting to 2008 budget levels will cut more than $17 million from the National Health Service Corp. This program trains and employs health care providers, all while caring for millions of Americans. Moreover, it will cut both nurse faculty loan programs and nurse training programs by nearly 70 percent. These cuts will decimate our health care workforce now and long into the future.

Madam Speaker, in 2008, over 27,000 qualified applicants to our Nation's nursing schools were turned away because we didn't have enough faculty to train them. Countless others couldn't even afford to go. This budgetless resolution will do nothing more than exacerbate a real growing problem.

Members from both sides of the aisle know that we desperately need to increase our health care workforce, not cut it. Instead of cutting jobs, we should be creating them, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this budgetless resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided and costly legislation. First, I think we should be spending our time here on creating jobs instead of rehashing settled law. Secondly, I want to speak on behalf of the millions of Americans already benefiting from the strong consumer protections in this law. Across the country, parents now know that their children can be insured after graduation from high school or college.

Seniors in the dreaded doughnut hole have received help to pay for prescription drugs and now can have a free physical each year. And women no longer have to worry about paying higher premiums, because insurance companies often consider females a preexisting condition. And all Americans are now eligible for free preventive screenings. People already sick can no longer be dropped from their plans. Lifetime and annual coverage limits, that fine print that can thrust a family into bankruptcy just because someone gets sick, these are gone. Because the law bans insurance companies from excluding folks from preexisting conditions, people who need insurance the most can now have access to it.

For some of my colleagues, these important provisions may seem abstract; but for my constituent Gwendolyn Strong and her family, this law means everything. Before, the Strongs lived in constant fear that Gwendolyn, diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy, would reach her policy's lifetime limit and then become uninsurable because she has a preexisting condition. But the consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act mean that Gwendolyn will receive the care that she needs, and her family is protected from bankruptcies.

A vote for this misguided bill will put the future of the Strong family and millions of other families at risk again. The impact is real. In my district, Medicare benefits will be taken from 100,000 seniors. It will raise taxes on over 16,000 small businesses. And none of us can afford the $230 billion that repeal will add to our deficit. That's why I am urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for the sake of the Strong family, for the sake of all families, vote ``no'' on H.R. 2.

I thank my colleague from Iowa.

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H. Res. 32, a resolution to honor Gabby Giffords as she recovers from her injuries, to pay tribute to those who lost their lives, and to thank those who helped the injured and prevented further loss of life.

This is a devastating and emotional week for all of us here in Congress, for our staff, and for America as a whole. The senseless and atrocious loss of life in Tucson has infringed upon our sense of safety and decency. It has also left us grieving for a colleague, for her staff, and for the six Americans who lost their lives last Saturday, as recited by my colleague from Hawaii just now.

Representative Giffords--Gabby to so many of us--is truly a treasured Member of this body. She is a gifted legislator, frequently leading her colleagues on issues like solar energy, space endeavors, veterans health care, and comprehensive immigration reform. But Gabby is also known around Capitol Hill as a smart, generous, and unfailing dedicated public servant and friend. She is the one who would be helping to plan a baby shower for one of her colleagues, to reach across the aisle to lend a supportive hand to a colleague in need of advice or a laugh, to take time to offer a hand to a staffer after a long day at work.

I also think of Gabby as a unique and all-too-rare representative in this Congress. She prefers considerate and detailed debate over harsh and angry rhetoric. She chooses her words thoughtfully, and has spoken out against violent language and the consequences such careless acts create.

So I would argue if we really want to pay tribute to Gabby here today, may her service not be an exception to the rule. We in this Chamber have the opportunity to live every day by the words we are speaking today.

Madam Speaker, the sorrow and grief of Saturday's tragedy will echo for many years to come. As we pray and take stock of this tragedy, I am also concerned by the ease with which a clearly troubled young man could obtain a firearm. And I believe that this incident also illuminates a serious gap in our mental health system, one where far too many ill people slip through the cracks. The price for these failings is all too often paid, as in this case, by friends and neighbors. We owe it to the victims of this horrific tragedy to improve our mental health system.

We owe it to the victims of this horrific tragedy to improve our mental health system; and, in addition, to address gun violence. We can do better. Let us resolve to do so. Like everyone here and countless at home, I am praying for Gabby's swift recovery, for her constituents who lost their lives, and for our country.

Let us adopt this resolution today in honor of our beloved friend Gabby and the victims of this senseless tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the passing of an exemplary citizen of California's Central Coast: Mr. Harrell Fletcher.

Mr. Fletcher lived in the Santa Maria Valley for 80 years, moving to the area from Arkansas as a young boy. He attended San Luis Obispo High School and California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo. He moved to Santa Maria with the architecture firm responsible for building Camp Cook, now Vandenberg Air Force Base, in the early 1940's.

Over his decades in the Santa Maria Valley, he seemed to fill every role in the community at one time or another: local business owner, County Supervisor, school board member, founding member of the Los Padres National Bank, Fair board member and Coastal Commission member. He was the most senior land use consultant in the region and was the longest serving member of the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Fletcher also served on literally dozens of other groups, organizations and committees over the years, with each organization benefiting from his strong work ethic and unique insight into our community.

Mr. Fletcher and his wife Betty have been acknowledged frequently for their pivotal role in the growth of Santa Maria Valley community. In March 2004, the City of Santa Maria, in honor of Harrell and Betty Fletcher, dedicated ``Fletcher Park'' on their behalf. In 2009, the City Council declared July 24, 2009 as ``Harrell Fletcher Day.''

On a personal note, Mr. Fletcher always extended a gracious hand when working with both me and my late husband U.S. Rep. Walter Capps on a range of issues. We may have been of different political parties but that did not matter to Mr. Fletcher. He was always generous and affable, and always interested in addressing the issues to make life better for Santa Marians. Like my late husband, I considered it an distinct honor and privilege to work with someone so dedicated to his community, and who influenced so much of its growth for so many years.

Harrell Fletcher is survived by his wonderful wife of almost 60 years, Betty, and their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. I thank them for sharing Harrell and his many talents with us these many years and offer my deepest condolences on their loss.

Madam Speaker, the issue facing the country is jobs. Instead of repealing health care, we should bring up a jobs bill like the China currency reform. And so I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.

Today I speak on behalf of the millions of Americans who are currently benefiting from the law and yet have been shut out of the legislative process. The way in which this legislation has been brought to this floor is a travesty. Before the Affordable Care Act became law, in the House alone we held nearly 80 hearings on the merits of reform. But this bill to repeal this lifesaving law has not had a single hearing. Not one amendment has been allowed for an up or down vote here today. That's probably because the majority knows hearings would show that the law is already a real success.

While we may disagree on the policy, we should be able to agree on the process. And this, my friends, is not the way to move legislation in the House of Representatives. We've all agreed upon that. That is why I urge my colleagues--especially the new Members who ran on the promise of ensuring an open Congress--to vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the reckless attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The new law has already put in place critical protections to help our families across this country. I want to tell the story of one family in my district whose life has been dramatically helped by this law, the Strong family of Santa Barbara.

Bill and Victoria Strong's daughter, Gwendolyn, was diagnosed at age 6 months with a rare disease, muscular spinal atrophy. Her care is extremely expensive; and before the new law, the Strongs lived in constant fear that Gwendolyn would reach her policy's lifetime limit, no longer be covered for treatments and be uninsurable because of her pre-existing condition.

The elimination of lifetime caps has given the Strongs peace of mind. They are guaranteed Gwendolyn will receive the care she needs and their family is protected from bankruptcy.

Repealing these safeguards will take that security away. It would put this courageous little girl at risk of having her health care cut off when she needs it most and it would put this inspiring family at risk of bankruptcy.

I urge my colleagues to stand for all those who are benefiting from the law, as the Strong family is. Vote ``no'' on repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Madam Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall vote on December 17, 2010, and would like the record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 656: ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 81, the Shark Conservation Act.

I want to thank Congresswoman Bordallo for introducing this legislation of which I am a cosponsor.

Shark populations in our world's oceans are dying.

We need to act, and we need to act now.

Sharks are at the top of the global marine food chain. Sharks have roamed our oceans since before the time of dinosaurs, but now their populations are being threatened by overfishing around the globe.

Shark-finning takes a tremendous toll on shark populations.

An estimated 73 million sharks are killed every year to support the global shark fin trade.

We must act decisively today to help protect these magnificent creatures.

The Shark Conservation Act would end the practice of shark finning in U.S. waters.

However, domestic protections alone will not save sharks.

We need further safeguards to keep marine ecosystems and top predator populations healthy. The Shark Conservation Act will bolster the U.S.'s position when negotiating for increased international fishery protections.

Healthy shark populations in our waters can help drive our economy and make our seas thrive.

This bill is not just about preserving a species, but about preserving an ecosystem, an economy, and a sustainable future.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 81.