Floor Statements

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong support of the Schock-Boren-Waters-Sensenbrenner-Franks-Kaptur amendment to strike section 18. For years, the too-big-to-fail banks have attempted to eliminate their patent infringement liabilities to smaller companies and inventors that have patented financial services- related business method patents. They are now coming to Congress in hopes that you will help them steal a specific type of innovation and legislatively take other financial services-related business method patents referenced in H.R. 1249, section 18. This is simply wrong.

Elected Members of Congress should not allow the banks to use us to steal legally issued and valid patents. Financial services-related business method patents have saved financial services companies billions of dollars. But that's not enough for the banks. Because the banks have failed at every attempt to void these patents, they're attempting to use their power to write into law what they could not achieve at PTO or in the courts.

Don't be tricked, don't be fooled, and don't be used. I urge my colleagues to listen to the floor debates.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding Abortion bill. This bill prevents women who have private insurance plans from receiving comprehensive sexual health coverage even in cases when their health is in danger.

It is extremely clear that Republicans are waging a war against women's rights by pushing a radical agenda that will primarily hurt poor and low-income women. An agenda like this only further proves that the Republicans are not interested in jobs and repairing our economy but instead more interested in divisive social issues that will not move this economy forward.

Women and families need affordable and accessible health care more than ever before. This blatant assault on women's health needs to stop. As elected officials, it is our duty to ensure that all rights, including women's rights, are not violated through policies that only further limit access. We have to stand up and fight for the preservation of the rights for all women by defeating this bill.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for agreeing to offer my amendment en bloc to H.R. 2055-- Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. My amendment simply removes funding from the VA Medical Support and Compliance Account and replaces it back in the very same account. My intent in doing this is to highlight an issue for my colleagues and for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

I believe that the VA needs to comprehensively examine its wait times for processing requests for mental health services from veterans and that the VA should submit a report to Congress no later than January 1 of 2012 on changes they intend to make to ensure that veterans needing mental health services receive those services in a timely and efficacious manner.

Veterans in my district often wait years for a resolution of their cases with the VA. My office works closely with veterans, assisting

many of them in expediting their requests for the benefits to which they are entitled, including mental health benefits. Unfortunately, many of these veterans still wait years for a resolution of their cases. This is simply unacceptable. These men and women have sacrificed their health, well-being, and, in some cases, their livelihoods, for this country.

The excessively long wait times at the VA are unjust and un-American. The wait times for veterans who are suicidal or suffering from mental health illnesses, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), are especially troubling.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support timely mental health services for our veterans by voting ``yes'' on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2112, the Republican Appropriations bill for Agriculture, Food Safety and Nutrition Programs for the coming fiscal year. This bill drastically underfunds critical nutrition programs for hungry people throughout the United States.

This bill is yet another chapter in the Republican attack on working families.

First, the Republicans tried to cut benefits for seniors who rely on Medicare.

Then, they went after low-income families who rely on Medicaid.

They tried to dismantle health care reform and leave people with pre- existing conditions at the mercy of profit-hungry insurance companies.

Now, they're coming after hungry people who rely on food assistance.

The bill cuts funding for the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, nutrition program by more than $650 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. The WIC program provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy eating habits, and health care referrals to about 9 million low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children under five. WIC is an effective program with a long history of bipartisan support. For the past 15 years, Congresses and Administrations of both parties have always provided enough funds for WIC to serve all women, infants and children who qualify--until now. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the funding cut in this bill would force WIC to turn away between 200,000 and 350,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year, including 32,000 to 56,000 women and children in my home state of California.

This bill also cuts funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food program, CSFP, by 22 percent below this year's funding level. CSFP is an agricultural commodity program that provides nutritious food packages to about 604,000 low-income people each month, 96 percent of whom are senior citizens who earn less than 130 percent of the federal poverty level. The Republicans' proposed funding cuts would result in loss of food for at least 130,000 low-income seniors.

The bill cuts funding to The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, by $51 million and cuts TEFAP administrative funding for food storage and distribution by 23 percent. TEFAP provides nutritious food commodities to low-income Americans in need of short-term hunger relief. TEFAP commodities are distributed by organizations like soup kitchens, food banks, homeless shelters, and faith-based food pantries at churches, mosques and synagogues. These cuts would force many local organizations to turn away hungry people.

Finally, the bill underfunds the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. SNAP provides monthly benefits to 44 million low-income Americans using a grocery debit card. The Administration requested a $5 billion reserve fund for SNAP to assure that there would be adequate resources to help needy people in the event of continuing high unemployment or unexpected increases in demand from events like natural disasters. The Republicans cut the reserve fund by $2 billion.

Meanwhile, the Republican budget extends the Bush-era tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2012 and cuts the top individual tax rate down to 25 percent from 35 percent. According to the Center for Tax Justice, the Republican budget cuts taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans by 15 percent while raising taxes for the lowest income 20 percent of Americans by 12 percent.

Madam Chair, if we got rid of the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week, we could pay for the entire WIC program for a year.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for working families--not millionaires and billionaires! Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment by Representative DeLauro to H.R. 2112, the FY 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which would fully fund the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). By gutting funding for the CFTC, the underlying bill would fulfill the Republican agenda of dismantling the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, I am very concerned that in the absence of this amendment, we will continue to see the same unregulated, unchecked, and unmitigated speculation in the derivatives market that led to the financial collapse, the impacts of which included:

Over $10 trillion in household wealth destruction, with the average household losing 23 percent of its stored wealth;

Nearly 10 million lost jobs;

Wage losses of approximately $3,250 per household;

12 million expected foreclosures; and

A 30 percent peak to trough decline in home prices.

Moreover, by underfunding the CFTC, this bill would contribute to the high gas prices that are already harming our economy and our constituents. The CFTC wants to set position limits on speculative trading, including speculation on gasoline. Without adequate funding, the CFTC will not be able to do this.

We know that consumers felt the pain of runaway speculation at the pump. According to a recent poll by the Associated Press, 71 percent of Americans said rising prices will cause some hardship for them and their families, including 41 percent who called it a serious hardship. While gasoline prices have recently declined--several weeks ago the average cost of a gallon of gasoline in Los Angeles was $4.27--if speculation on gasoline rises to the levels it was several weeks ago, gasoline prices will shoot back up.

According to Goldman Sachs, speculation on gasoline alone added $20 to the price of a barrel of oil. The CFTC has a proposed rule that would prevent this type of abuse. But by underfunding the CFTC, H.R. 2112 would stop that rule, an action that will ensure that our constituents continue to feel pain at the pump.

As you can see, Mr. Chair, it is our constituents who suffer the consequences of unregulated derivatives. Underfunding the CFTC is not only irresponsible, it is a slap in the face to the taxpaying Americans that bailed out the institutions that cost them their retirement funds, their jobs, and their homes.

This is why I support the amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut. If her amendment is not adopted, passage today of H.R. 2112 will come at the expense of these Americans, who will see higher oil prices as a direct result of this bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, No. 29, which is being offered en bloc by the House Armed Services Committee.

My amendment to H.R. 1540 provides a preference for potential Department of Defense contractors that carry out certain investment and philanthropic activities to bolster education, training, and employment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, all of the STEM disciplines.

My amendment is intended to promote enhanced public and private partnerships, civic, and investment activities to strengthen our Nation's STEM pipeline and ensure that the United States continues to produce highly skilled STEM professionals that are both diverse and innovative.

Waters amendment No. 29 will signal to potential contractors that the Federal Government is serious about improving STEM education and creating a pipeline that will protect the Nation's economic future.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 1216, which would undermine the teaching health centers program, which trains primary care physicians.

Madam Chairman and members, this is just one more trick by Republicans to dismantle health care reform. They are going after the training of primary doctors. We need more primary doctors, even if there was no health care reform. There are many communities throughout this country that have no primary health care physicians.

Our Nation is facing a serious shortage of primary care physicians. Primary care physicians are an essential part of a successful health care system. They are the first point of contact for people of all ages who need basic health care services, whether they are working people with the employer-provided health insurance, low-income children on Medicaid, or seniors on Medicare.

The Republicans have made it clear that they are not concerned about access to basic health care services. The Republican budget for fiscal year 2012 turns Medicare into a voucher program, slashes Medicaid by more than $700 billion over the next decade, and cancels the expansion of health insurance coverage, which was included in the The Affordable Care Act last year.

The Republican budget cuts to Medicare are especially detrimental to current and future Medicare recipients. Under the Republican budget, individuals who are 54 and younger will not get government-paid Medicare benefits like their parents and grandparents. Instead, they will receive a voucher-like payment to purchase health insurance from a private insurance company.

There will be no oversight to these private programs. We will not be able to contain the cost. We will not be able to mandate what the basic services should be. As a matter of fact, we know the stories about the HMOs and the fact that they had accountants who determined what care you could get, not physicians who had the knowledge and the ability to determine what you need.

When the first of these seniors retire in 2022, they will receive an average of $8,000 to buy a private insurance plan. That is much less than the amount of the subsidy Members of Congress receive for our health plans today.

The coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug program will continue indefinitely. Under the Affordable Care Act, this so-called doughnut hole is scheduled to be phased out. The Republican budget will allow seniors to continue to pay exorbitant prices for their prescriptions when they reach the doughnut hole. The Republican budget also gradually increases the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67 years of age.

Madam Chairman, the Republican budget is also detrimental to Americans who depend again on Medicaid, including low-income children, disabled Americans, and seniors in nursing homes. The budget converts Medicaid into a block grant program and allows States to reduce benefits, cut payments to doctors, even freeze enrollment. Medicaid funding is slashed by more than $700 billion over the next decade.

That is over one-third of the program's funding.

Meanwhile, the Republican budget extends the Bush-era tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2012 and cuts the top individual tax rate down to 25 percent from 35 percent. According to the Center for Tax Justice, the Republican budget cuts taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans by 15 percent while raising taxes for the lowest income 20 percent of Americans by 12 percent.

The national shortage of primary care doctors is not a problem for multimillionaires. They will always be able to find a doctor who will treat them and pay them whatever they ask for. But most American seniors need well-trained primary care physicians and Medicare benefits that they can rely on.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill, oppose the drastic cuts to Medicaid, and oppose the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare. They're trying to dismantle health care reform piece by piece, inch by inch. Today it's an attack on training needed by primary care physicians. What is it tomorrow?

We know that they have a strategy that includes hundreds of bills that would dismantle, again, piece by piece Medicare reform. It's not fair, Madam Chair and Members. Health care reform

so that all Americans are covered is something that we should all support.

I thank the gentleman.

My amendment requires the inspector general of the intelligence community to report to Congress on racial and ethnic diversity in the intelligence community.

A diverse workforce is essential to intelligence work. People from a variety of backgrounds bring a variety of perspectives to the table to understand the world in which we live. A diverse workforce provides intelligence agencies critical insights into different cultures around the world, where information about potential threats to our national security is being collected and analyzed.

Many leading intelligence officials understand the importance of a diverse workforce. The Web site of the Central Intelligence Agency includes the following statement:

``In order for the CIA to meet our mission of protecting our national security interests, we need to employ a workforce as diverse as America itself, the most diverse Nation on Earth. Diversity reflects the unique ways we vary as intelligence officers. Our nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, culture, sexual orientation, education, values, beliefs, abilities, and disabilities. These assorted attributes create different demographic, functional, and intellectual views which are so vital to our innovation, agility, collection, and analysis.''

And I really do think that says it all.

Unfortunately, there is virtually no data available to Congress and the public regarding the degree of racial and ethnic diversity in the intelligence community. The most recent publicly available report that discusses this subject is a 1996 report by the Government Accountability Office on personnel practices at intelligence agencies, which focused on equal employment opportunity practices.

The report concluded that intelligence agencies have workforce diversity programs, but results lag far behind other Federal agencies. This report was written more than 5 years before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and 15 years before the death of Osama bin Laden. Needless to say, both the intelligence community and the world in which it operates have changed tremendously since then.

My amendment states that, within 180 days after the enactment of the bill, the inspector general shall submit to Congress a report on the degree to which racial and ethnic minorities in the United States are employed in professional positions in the intelligence community and barriers to the recruitment and retention of additional racial and ethnic minorities in these position. The amendment requires that the report be submitted in unclassified form, but allows the inspector general to include a classified annex.

It is long past time for Congress to reevaluate the diversity of the intelligence community workforce, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Again, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Ruppersberger, for yielding.

I would like to thank the gentlelady from Florida for extending time to me to rise in support of this bill.

I am now--and have been for many years--a big supporter of the people of Haiti. I am the proud author of H.R. 4573, the Haiti Debt Relief and Earthquake Recovery Act. It was that bill that freed up $828 million that they would have had to have paid out for their debts, money that can now go toward helping with the earthquake response.

Immediately following the earthquake, there was an outpouring of sympathy from people in the United States and around the world; and I am very appreciative for what our government did and for what the people of this country did--individuals, churches. We've not always had our politics right in Haiti, but we sure rose to the occasion with regard to this devastating earthquake that hit Haiti.

The international community pledged a total of $9.9 billion in reconstruction funds, including $5.3 billion for the first 2 years. Yet, more than 1 year later, little, if any, of the money has reached the people of Haiti. According to the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, 680,000 displaced people are still living in tent camps, and the conditions in many of these camps are appalling. There is a critical need for food, clean water, and sanitation facilities. A deadly outbreak of cholera has already killed more than 4,800 people and has infected more than 280,000 people. The effects of the epidemic were exacerbated by the lack of clean water and sanitation infrastructure. Foreign aid without transparency will accomplish nothing.

We owe it to the Haitian people and the American people to find out how much of this money has actually been delivered to Haiti and where that money went. That is why I strongly support this bill, which requires the President to report on the status of post-earthquake relief, recovery, reconstruction, and development efforts in Haiti. The report must evaluate coordination among various international agencies and donors, the extent to which U.S. and international efforts are in line with the priorities of the Government of Haiti, and mechanisms for Haitian civil society to participate in recovery efforts.

I am in awe of the strength and resiliency of the Haitian people. We owe it to them to assist them in their time of need. We also owe it to them to make certain our assistance reaches the people who need it the most.

As I said, we've not always had our act together in Haiti. Well, there has been a new election, and they've elected a President. There was a lot of turmoil and disorder around this election, but it's over now; it has been done, and we want to work with the new government to make sure that there is transparency and that we do know what happened to this money. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit to Congress a report on the extent to which States are expected to have difficulties establishing health benefit exchanges without the Federal assistance repealed by this bill.

The Affordable Care Act requires the establishment of health benefit exchanges in every State. These exchanges will be a marketplace where individuals, families, and small businesses can purchase health insurance. The exchanges will feature a variety of health plans offered by different insurance companies, all of which must offer a comprehensive set of essential health benefits at affordable prices. The purpose of these exchanges is to enable American consumers to compare premiums, out-of-pocket expenses and benefits, and make informed choices among competing health plans.

The Affordable Care Act places an emphasis on State-based health reform. The Affordable Care Act allows States to set up their own health benefit exchanges and offers grants to States to assist them in doing so. A total of 49 States, the District of Columbia, and four territories have already applied for these exchange grants. These States and territories are working hard to determine what type of health insurance marketplace will be best for their families and businesses.

Without Federal funding, some States could have difficulty establishing exchanges in a timely manner. This could lead to poor management of the exchanges, fewer health plans included on the exchanges, and years of delay in getting the exchanges up and running.

Some States might simply refuse to establish exchanges at all in the absence of Federal assistance. This would result in greater costs for the Federal Government because the Affordable Care Act requires the Federal Government to set up health exchanges in those States that do not set up their own exchanges.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, States that attempt to set up health exchanges without Federal funding may face challenges in making their exchanges fully operational by 2014, as the law requires. These challenges could limit the desirability of the exchanges for consumers and reduce the capacity of some exchanges to process enrollment. As a result, CBO estimates that by 2015, there will be almost 2 million fewer people enrolled in State exchanges.

Many States are already facing declining revenues and budget pressures as a result of the Great Recession. Some States were forced to make painful choices, increasing taxes or cutting spending in order to make ends meet. Budget pressures have forced States to consider closing public health facilities, postpone transportation and infrastructure projects, and lay off teachers, law enforcement officers and other public employees. If the Federal Government expects States to set up health exchanges without any assistance, it will only compound their budgetary problems.

My amendment requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress, within 6 months of enactment, on the difficulties States will encounter while trying to set up these exchanges without Federal help. If Congress is going to deny States the funding that was mandated for them to set up their health exchanges, Congress needs to know the extent of the difficulties States will face without these funds.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 4: In section 1, add at the end the

following:

(c) Effective Date.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not take

effect if the Secretary of Health and Human Services

certifies that a significant number of public school children

do not have health insurance.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 5: In section 1, add at the end the

following:

(c) Effective Date.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not take

effect if the Secretary of Health and Human Services

certifies that a significant number of public school children

do not have access to primary health care facilities or

services outside of school.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 6: In section 1, add at the end the

following:

(c) Effective Date.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not take

effect if the Secretary of Education certifies that existing

school-based health centers have a demonstrable and positive

impact on the educational performance or development of

students.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 7: In section 1, add at the end the

following:

(c) Report on Number of Children in Public Schools Who Do

Not Have Health Insurance.--Not later than 6 months after the

date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health

and Human Services shall submit to the Congress a report on

the number of children in public schools who do not have

health insurance.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 8: In section 1, add at the end the

following:

(c) Report on Extent to Which Children in Public Schools

Are Able to Access Primary Health Care Facilities and

Services in Their Communities.--Not later than 6 months after

the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of

Health and Human Services shall submit to the Congress a

report on the extent to which children in public schools are

able to access primary health care facilities and services in

the communities in which they live.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 9: In section 1, add at the end the

following:

(c) Report on Impact of School-based Health Centers on

Student Achievement.--Not later than 6 months after the date

of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education

shall submit to the Congress a report on the impact of

school-based health centers on student achievement.