Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the NOAA budget cuts in the continuing resolution before us in the House today.

Slashing NOAA's funding by 22 percent will put lives, property, and critical infrastructure in jeopardy by diminishing our ability to respond to disasters like the gulf oil spill and to conduct safe evacuations in advance of weather emergencies.

Also, marine sanctuaries would be inevitably cut, and those sanctuaries are so essential to a healthy coastal environment, and to the fishermen and to the tourism economies along our coasts.

Cutting NOAA funding will also sacrifice the science and technology investments that we need to win the future and to maintain robust funding for this vital agency.

Mr. Speaker, the new majority in the House has told us that their decisions are guided by two principles: first, loyalty to the Constitution; and, second, a belief that the government is too large and too intrusive. Well, here's their chance to act on these principles, because the Patriot Act provisions we are voting on today represent Big Brother at its creepiest and most invasive. They are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.''

No, sir.

Mr. Speaker, for close to a decade now we've been told that our civil liberties must be shredded in the name of a so-called war on terrorism. We've been told that the national security imperatives of the moment are so great and so different than any we face in our history that we must submit to roving wiretaps and that we must empower the government to retain ``any tangible thing'' related to a terrorism investigation. ``Any tangible thing''--that gives the government pretty broad discretion to ferret out just about whatever they want. It is an invitation to overreach and abuse. I believe it has stifled freedom more than it has advanced it.

There is a real incoherence to an approach that says we have to do violence to our Nation's values in order to protect them. Benjamin Franklin's words are just as powerful today as they were more than 200 years ago when he said, ``Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.''

I believe we must let these provisions expire. And let's not stop there. Let's move toward a fuller debate about civil liberties and national security, a debate that revises and ultimately repeals the Patriot Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I stand strongly in support of Congresswoman Lowey and her amendment and title X and its protections for women and family. What a shame we're here tonight defending a woman's reproductive rights--defending a woman's right to make choices that work for her, that work for her family, that work for their future. Instead, we should be debating how we can get our economy going, how to provide jobs. Instead, we're defending a woman's right to control her body, her right to good health care, her right to prevent a pregnancy, and her right to end a pregnancy.

This, my friends, is the 21st century. We are not in the Middle Ages. It is time to respect women and to respect their choices. It is past time to begin creating jobs here in the United States of America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in disappointment that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) was not made in order.

While the Republicans cut the heart out of necessary, needed programs that would help the people who have lost their jobs--and they've lost these jobs through no fault of their own--it actually stuns me how unaware they are that it is our very obligation in this House to help make families whole again, to help them do what they have to do when they can't find work. But of course it's up to the Barbara Lees and the Bobby Scotts of this Congress to insist that we provide a lifeline for hardworking families who have exhausted all of their benefits. It is particularly shameful, Madam Chair, that this is something we're even questioning after giving billions of dollars in deficit-busting tax cuts to the very wealthiest.

After extending those tax breaks for the affluent, how can they say that we can't afford to extend unemployment insurance for families struggling to find jobs in this economy? The Republican leadership has given a lot of lip service to creating jobs, but they've yet to bring even one jobs bill to the floor. Now they have a chance to support emergency relief to millions of working families, a chance to extend unemployment benefits to help struggling families which will also help end the recession because, as it was just said a minute ago, getting people back to work will get our economy going again because working is actually the first crucial step in reducing the deficit.

Actually, unemployment insurance is a proven economic booster. According to the Congressional Budget Office, for every $1 spent on unemployment insurance, economic activity increases by $2.

In fact, the CBO has found unemployment insurance to be one of the most cost effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy.

There's no shortage of work ethic in America, Madam Chair. There is a shortage of work, however. So where is the majority party's jobs bill? Where is their support for the millions of people who have exhausted all their emergency unemployment benefits and are desperately looking for employment?

I urge my colleagues, provide additional unemployment benefits for those whose benefits have run out. And I suggest that the best thing you could do right now is help create jobs for America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the new majority in the House has told us that the decisions they make will be guided by two things. First, loyalty to the Constitution. And second, a belief that the government is too large and too intrusive.

Well, here is their chance to act on those principles. The PATRIOT Act provisions we're voting on today represent Big Brother at its creepiest and most invasive. They are a clear violation of the 4th Amendment's ``right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.''

Its been close to a decade now that we've lived under the PATRIOT Act. For close to a decade, we've been told that our individual freedoms needed to take a backseat. For close to a decade, we've been told that our civil liberties must be shredded in the name of a so- called war on terrorism. We've been told that the national security imperatives of the moment are so great--and so different than any we've faced in our history--that we must submit to roving wiretaps, that we must empower the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' related to a terrorism investigation.

``Any tangible thing''--that gives the government pretty broad discretion to ferret out just about whatever it is that they want. It is an invitation to overreach and abuse.

Meanwhile, it's not at all clear that the PATRIOT Act has made us safer. I believe it has stifled freedom more than it has advanced it. There is a real incoherence to an approach that says we have to do violence to our values in order to protect them. Benjamin Franklin's words are just as powerful today as they were more than 200 years ago: ``Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.''

I was impressed that so many members of the majority, in particular those just elected, voted against this measure when it came up on the suspension calendar earlier this week. I strongly urge them to do so again, and I hope they will be joined by more of their Republican colleagues who claim such a passionate belief in modest government. Or do they want to be known as the party that believes we should be tapping Americans' phones but not giving them affordable health care?

I believe we must let these provisions expire. And let's not stop there. Let's move toward a fuller debate about civil liberties and national security, one that revises and ultimately repeals the PATRIOT Act once and for all. This law is Constitutional graffiti. Patriotism means affirming and celebrating the values that have given America its strength and vitality for more than two centuries. A bill that violates several constitutional amendments has no business calling itself the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, on February 14, 2011, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 35-37. Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 35: ``yes''--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions; rollcall No. 36: ``no''--To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011; rollcall No. 34: ``yes''--On Approving the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, to recognize Mary Evelyn Arnold, who has been named the City of Sonoma's 2011 Alcaldessa, or Honorary Mayor.

The title, ``Alcalde'' or ``Alcaldessa'' when referring to a woman, is the Spanish word for ``Mayor.'' During the Spanish colonial period in California, the Alcalde was the primary civil authority. In modern times in the City of Sonoma, it is an honorary title and the contemporary Alcalde or Alcaldessa presides over ceremonial events for the city.

Alcaldes and Alcaldessas are nominated by the community and are representative of individuals with a long record of volunteer work. Ms. Arnold is no exception to this rule.

At the top of the list of Ms. Arnold volunteer passions is the library. She has served on both the Sonoma County Library Commission and as Chair of the Sonoma Valley Library Advisory Board.

She also serves as Treasurer and Chair of the Investment Committee at Vintage House, organizes the Wednesday cooking crew at Meals on Wheels and bakes birthday cakes for the WillMar Center, which offers support and counseling for children and teens grieving the death of a loved one.

Pets Lifeline (where she is the unofficial cat cuddler), Kiwanis Club of Sonoma Plaza and the AAUW Scholarship Committee round out her volunteer community activities.

Ms. Arnold is also very active in her church, serving on the Committee on Ministry of the Northern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ and serves as Vice Moderator of the First Congregational Church of Sonoma.

Ms. Arnold moved to Sonoma County in 1987 and was the co-owner of a specialty wine business and worked for the Wine Business Monthly and Wine Business Insider for several years, finishing her career with internet.com.

Mr. Speaker, Mary Evelyn Arnold is the quintessential volunteer, a dynamic and well respected member of the community. It is therefore appropriate that we acknowledge her today as the City of Sonoma's Alcaldessa for 2011.

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

I too rise in support of Mr. Flake's amendment. I see it as a small beginning, a very small beginning, to cutting wasteful Pentagon spending. But Mr. Chair, this entire continuing resolution is bad for the economy and bad for this country. It's all a part of the Republican no jobs for America agenda.

The majority has no interest in doing anything whatsoever to help the 9 percent of Americans who are out of work. They've controlled the House for just about 6 weeks, and they've not brought up a single bill that would create a single job. They've brought up a bill that would continue to shred our civil liberties. They've brought up a bill that will infuse our campaigns with even more corrupting special interest money. They've brought up a bill that would take away guaranteed affordable health care. But nothing to address persistent joblessness. Nothing at all to fix the devastating recession that they caused in the first place.

Their mindless cuts don't do anything to strengthen America. They're not cutting spending; they're cutting jobs. Their agenda means cutting jobs for nurses, cutting jobs for teachers, police officers, small businesses, the very people who form the backbone of the middle class of the United States of America. The Speaker of the House himself said this morning that if some jobs are lost as a result of their cuts, ``so be it.'' He might as well have added, ``Let them eat cake.''

The best way to reduce the deficit is to put Americans back to work, Mr. Chairman, but the Republicans' no-jobs plan is all about cutting the very spending that sustains middle class families. When they say they want to cut costs, what they really mean is they want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid right out of existence, and on top of cutting their hard-earned benefits, the Republicans want to make the middle class pay--pay for Big Oil's big subsidies, pay for higher drug prices, pay for astronomical CEO salaries, for higher taxes to start a small business.

The chairman of the House Budget Committee said yesterday, and I quote him, ``What we're doing here is we're having a great debate in Congress about how much spending we should cut. I mean, how cool is that?'' Well, I'd like to tell him it's not cool at all, Mr. Chairman, not when you're asking struggling families to shoulder the sacrifice. Giving a sweetheart deal to corporate special interests and asking the middle class to pay for it--not cool at all.

The Republicans' continuing resolution and no-jobs agenda--bad for America, totally uncool.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment before this one, Congressman Gutierrez's amendment, to reduce funding for the V-22 Osprey.

This program has been highly troubled since its inception. In fact, it was almost canceled several times. As my friend Mr. Gutierrez noted, former Defense Secretary Cheney actually called for its cancellation several times. During its testing, the V-22 killed 30 people; and in April 2010, a V-22 crashed in Afghanistan, killing four more people. The GAO has noted that this plane has trouble flying over 8,000 feet or in extreme heat.

You know what? There's more.

This plane has a problem carrying troops, transporting cargo, and operating off naval vessels. No wonder the Pentagon wants to cancel the program in its entirety.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is my understanding of what the Pentagon wanted to do, but I yield to your wisdom.

I do believe that canceling the V-22 and saving $10 billion to $12 billion over 10 years would be real fiscal savings.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 413: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 491: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 189: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 190: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 191: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, instead of working to rebuild our country and create jobs, this House of Representatives is engaged in a debate on a measure that offers neither. For 10 hours and 2 days, the House of Representatives' time is tied up on a motion telling our committees to perform their constitutional duties.

We understand that vigorous oversight and rooting out inefficiencies and waste are absolutely essential, and they are our duties and we must perform them on behalf of the taxpayer. That's not a question. We know that. In fact, on January 15, the Education and Workforce Committees unanimously approved an oversight plan. That plan calls for review of regulations. This resolution calls for review of regulations.

Today's debate is duplicative. It is duplicative of our oversight plans. It is unnecessary and a total waste of taxpayers' dollars. Worse yet, we are taking away valuable time when we could be rolling up our sleeves, getting the number one priority of the American people in front of us: creating jobs.

For instance, the Education and Workforce Committee could be responding to the very real skills crisis that our Nation's workers and businesses are facing. A recent article in the Washington Post found that, in November, there were an estimated 3.2 million job opportunities across the country. However, businesses interviewed by the Washington Post with ``help wanted'' signs were struggling to find workers with sufficient skills. This is in the United States of America. This has crippled their ability to keep the line running and keep their doors open. This is a major disconnect, Madam Speaker, a disconnect that must be explored and it must be quickly addressed.

Certain sectors, such as health care and technology, are projected to grow considerably over the next decade. These sectors actually require more skilled workers, not fewer. That's why our committees should be back in our committee rooms right now looking to ensure the connection between employers that want to hire and workers can be fulfilled. That means looking at training and education programs that connect to the jobs available today and in the future.

At a time when jobs are important, this shortfall means lost economic opportunity for millions of Americans. It means a shortfall of businesses that

want to make it in America, with American workers.

Now, when it comes to reviewing regulations, I have heard some disturbing views from the other side of the aisle recently. I refuse to accept the argument that our Nation's health and safety protections need to be reduced to the level of China's in order to compete.

There is a reason why the law of the land ensures basic health and safety protections on the job, and that reason is too often written in the blood of dead workers.

Rolling back protections to satisfy powerful special interests at the expense of worker safety is a fool's errand. Relying on faulty one- sided studies that exaggerate the cost of worker safety regulations while excluding any of the benefits, such as the life of a family's breadwinner, leads to a dishonest debate.

We have seen the deadly results of failing to properly regulate. We have seen what happens when you rely on self-certification, voluntary compliance, and inadequate protections. Eleven workers die when an oil rig blows up in the Gulf of Mexico. Workers die over and over again on massive construction projects on the Las Vegas Strip. Fourteen workers die in a sugar refinery outside Savannah, Georgia, because there are no protections covering combustible dust.

There are 700 workers losing their jobs in North Carolina because loopholes in OSHA regulations allow a massive factory explosion to happen. The explosion killed three and injured more than 50 workers; and that factory is now relocating rather than rebuilding, dealing this community a double tragedy.

Madam Speaker, without proper regulation and enforcement, workers are misclassified as independent contractors, robbing them of benefits, robbing our Nation's Treasury, and putting law breakers at an unfair advantage over law-abiding employers. And workers' hard-earned pensions are gambled away.

We have the best workers in the world, and these workers deserve basic protections. Our Nation's workers also deserve a Congress devoted to growing and strengthening the middle class, not meaningless debate like today's.

I urge this Congress, get to the business of the American people without delay. The business of this Congress should be about jobs, and the business of this Congress should be about rebuilding our Nation's competitiveness, and that business should begin now. We cannot afford any further delays or distractions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we need to talk more about what real regulations are that we should be focusing on, not the regulations for oversight that we have already determined we are going to handle committee by committee, particularly this committee, and we always have.

USA Today had an article about the sugar blast victims in Savannah, Georgia, and one of the victims is quoted in that article, because his brother was killed and he was injured. He says, ``I've been thinking about my brother,'' who was burned over almost half his body, and ``I know it could've been prevented.''

Now, I am going to say, with the right regulations, it could have been prevented.

Then the article goes on to say, ``Despite the outcry after the blast,'' the blast that I said had killed 14 people and injured 40 others, ``the United States still lacks Federal regulations requiring industrial plants to prevent the buildup of fine dust particles that can form explosive clouds in confined areas.''

The regulations that OSHA has to work with are so outdated that they

don't include sugar refineries or other industries that would benefit from having dust regulations.

The article went on to say that ``Federal regulators concluded that the explosion and fire at the refinery in Port Wentworth, just west of Savannah, was caused by a spark that ignited sugar dust like gunpowder.

``The blast set off secondary dust explosions that turned the packaging plant where Butler worked with his 35-year-old brother, John Calvin Butler, into fiery rubble.

``Last summer, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed $8.7 million in fines against Imperial Sugar and cited the company for 211 safety violations at its two refineries here in coastal Georgia and in Gramercy, Louisiana.

``OSHA has a dust regulation from,'' as I told you earlier, ``the 1980s covering grain and plant silos. But another Federal agency says that's not enough because food processors,'' yes, ``wood manufacturers,'' yes, ``and other industries face the same risks.''

Why are they not covered? Where are the regulations? Why are we not bringing OSHA into the 21st century, instead of having a debate today that has nothing to do with jobs and protecting our workers, and instead talking about oversight regulations that we are already committed to deal with on our committee.

Madam Speaker, ``In 2006,'' the USA Today article goes on to say, ``the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, which investigates industrial accidents, called on OSHA to close that gap by adopting a new combustible dust regulation. Over the past three decades, the board says, about 300 dust explosions have killed more than 120 workers nationwide.''

Those are the regulations we should be dealing with. Those are the debates we should be having. Those are the steps we should be taking to bring OSHA into the 21st century, not keeping it back in the dark ages.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

So we have had 10\1/2\ hours, 2 days of debate on regulations, oversight regulations, that our committee and other committees have already agreed they are going to deal with. This, to me, shows that the Republicans are truly in disarray. We are not discussing jobs, the most important issue in the United States of America for our people, and at the same time, in their disarray, the Republicans are pushing an irresponsible and dangerous spending bill that will threaten jobs.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the world's first official airmail delivery, completed by Fred Wiseman on February 17-18, 1911. The private airman's pioneering voyage took him from Petaluma to Santa Rosa, California, a distance of only 14 miles, but a momentous step forward in the history of aviation and the United States Postal Service.

Wiseman was born on a ranch in rural Sonoma County on November 10, 1875, and he grew up fascinated by the mechanics of transportation-- bicycles, racecars, and of course airplanes. In the spring of 1910, less than seven years after the Wright Brothers built the world's first successful airplane, one of Wiseman's own projects was already taking to the air. The Wiseman-Peters, as his final pusher biplane design was eventually known, was a local collaboration between Wiseman and a group of fellow aviation aficionados, as well as one of the first planes built in California to fly.

Throughout 1910 and early 1911, Wiseman practiced his flying, even taking part in an early 1911 air race in San Francisco. Then, on February 17, 1911, Wiseman loaded his plane with three letters, 50 copies of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, and a bag of groceries, and he set out on his flight across Sonoma County. Total flight time was less than 20 minutes, but the journey included two forced landings and ultimately spanned two days. Wiseman's plane flew roughly 100 feet off the ground, reportedly at speeds of up to 70 mph.

Although Wiseman did not continue making airmail deliveries, he did go on to fly in several other air shows in 1911, and his Wiseman-Peters would be redesigned for use in future exhibition flights. In September 1911, the U.S. Postal Service would eventually hire its first official airmail pilot in New York.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the centennial of the world's first airmail delivery. Fred Wiseman's independent spirit and passion for adventure live on in Sonoma County, and we are proud to mark this milestone in our history.