Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, all things are subject to interpretation, but as Nietzsche once said:

Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is often

more a function of power and not truth.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office came out with a report evaluating the economic impacts of the Affordable Care Act. Since then, there are those who have used the power they have to frame a false narrative. Rather than talking about what the report actually says, they have spent the last week talking about what they would like it to say. Their false interpretation of the ObamaCare act is that it will cost the American economy 2.5 million jobs; but the truth is that the much-misrepresented CBO study didn't say that at all because, as The Wall Street Journal accurately reported, reducing the total number of hours Americans have to work is very different than eliminating jobs.

One of the reasons we passed the Affordable Care Act in the first place was to fix the pitfalls of this country's employer-based health care system. Before the ACA, people with preexisting conditions were often forced to stay in their jobs to avoid losing their health care coverage. Even if they wanted to leave their jobs to reduce their hours, retire early, change careers, or to spend more time with their families, they couldn't because doing so would risk their ability to provide affordable health insurance for their families.

What the Affordable Care Act did was right this wrong. By broadening access to health insurance, the ACA has increased personal freedom and market choice. Now Americans can choose jobs based on what they want to be doing instead of staying where they are unhappy just to keep their insurance.

The expansion of Medicaid eligibility and the subsidies available in the exchanges will give Americans the flexibility they need to raise their families, not encourage workers to seek less employment, which was one of the most misleading claims made after the report was released.

The idea that hardworking Americans will modify their employment just to be eligible for social safety net programs is both ludicrous and offensive. Nobody wants to live in a situation that makes you eligible for Medicaid or other social safety net programs, but too many hardworking Americans are forced to.

In Illinois, a family of four must exist on less than $32,500 per year to qualify for these programs. In the Chicago area, the cost of living is high and families struggle to make ends meet.

Measures like Medicaid and SNAP are meant to help people lift themselves from poverty. Claiming that poor people want to be poor to rely more on the government is misguided and just flat out wrong.

I have said from the beginning that the ACA is far from perfect and that we should work together to improve it, but arguing that at-risk and low-income Americans will actively choose to work less, reducing their own incomes and jeopardizing their family's economic future just to ``game the system,'' is not a legitimate issue and speaks volumes about the extreme views that are dividing our government and preventing real reform from occurring.

By focusing on false interpretations, we are forgetting the economic benefits contained in the law. To quote the CBO report:

If some people seek to work less, other applicants will be

readily available to fill those positions and the overall

effect on employment will be muted.

At a time when long-term employment is at its highest since World War II, there are more than enough workers willing and able to take these jobs. That is why the director of the CBO recently testified about the likelihood of the ACA creating jobs, not eliminating them.

The report also acknowledged that insurance premiums under the law are 15 percent lower than originally forecast, that ``the slowdown in Medicare cost growth'' is ``broad and persistent,''

and that enrollments will increase over time to where they would have been if not for the Web site's issues.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans can now access affordable health insurance. With a focus on personal responsibility, preventive care, consumer protections, and increased choices, the Affordable Care Act has helped empower Americans to lead healthier lives.

Let's put aside the punditry and focus on the facts.

Mr. Speaker, how quickly some forget. When Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we did so on behalf of every constituent unfairly defrauded during the financial crisis.

As a Cook County commissioner in 2007, I remember the financial crisis and the damage it did to Chicago's community. I remember when your credit card rate was about how well you could read fine print, not how regularly you paid your bill. I remember when auto loan financing could be based on a whim, not on your credit history, and when home buyers were pushed into loans no one could ever expect them to repay. I remember when it was open season on our veterans, when a whole industry was made out of defrauding our returning sons and daughters.

I also remember how many of my colleagues characterized the creation of the CFPB, calling it a bureaucratic behemoth that would devastate credit markets and make lending impossible. Yet here we are today, with a growing economy and a vibrant credit market. Only now, we do it with fair practices, protecting American consumers and treating them with dignity.

So I reject this attempt today to undermine the CFPB and the progress we have made. We simply cannot afford to return to the free-for-all that existed pre-crisis. H.R. 3193 is either a bad case of congressional amnesia or an attack on the most important financial reform of a generation. Either way, it is ill-sighted, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on my colleagues to join in the effort to pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act and raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

Fifty years ago, 200,000 Americans marched on Washington. Appealing to the soul of the Nation, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his fellow speakers charted out the long journey for equality and justice ahead. In the pamphlet promoting the March on Washington, they listed 10 specific legislative demands. A number of these demands would go on to become some of the most significant achievements of the Federal Government in the postwar era: comprehensive civil rights legislation, desegregation of all school districts, an end to discrimination in Federal housing programs.

It is clear that we have made progress on many of these issues, but for many of us here, the fight for these goals remains unfinished. Let us not forget, though, that the March on Washington was actually called the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

Let us remember number eight on that list of demands: ``A national minimum wage act that will give all Americans a decent standard of living. Government surveys show that anything less than $2 an hour fails to do this.''

On whole, the American economy has made tremendous strides in the last half century. Many in this Congress have been benefactors of that growth, but the American worker has been left behind. The $2 an hour that Dr. King and his colleagues called for would be nearly $15 per hour today when adjusted for inflation.

Despite this fact, many of my colleagues will call the demand for a $10.10 Federal minimum wage unreasonable. Many will even say this demand for a reasonable wage is rooted in partisan politics. Mr. Speaker, this reasonable demand is rooted in the belief that American workers deserve more.

President Truman said that minimum wage legislation was ``founded on the belief that full human dignity requires at least a minimum level of economic sufficiency and security.'' The call for a raise in the minimum wage is based on the fact that while a single parent making minimum wage earns $15,080 annually, that is still more than $400 below the Federal poverty rate.

The call for a raise in the minimum wage is based on the fact that working 40-hour weeks 52 weeks a year, a parent still struggles to feed their family. Think about that during your next paid vacation.

The call for a raise in the minimum wage is based on the fact that a single parent is overwhelmingly likely to be a single mother. Because, while women make up 47 percent of our workforce, they represent nearly two-thirds of minimum wage earners.

Finally, the call for a raise in the minimum wage is based on good economics. I know full well that those opposed to a raise in the minimum wage say that any raise will reduce employment, and at a certain point, it could, but a modest raise to $10 an hour is nowhere near this theoretical tipping point, and more than six dozen economists agree.

In a recent letter to Congress, they explicitly said:

Increases in the minimum wage have little to no impact on

the employment of minimum wage workers, even during times of

weakness in the labor market.

The economic recovery has been a very long, slow road for low-wage American workers, and a raise in the minimum wage is the jolt our economy needs. Higher wages quickly turn into increased spending. Increased spending quickly turns into growth.

But minimum wage legislation, like unemployment insurance, is merely the minimum we should be doing for the American worker. Let's remember that, during the March on Washington, the demand directly preceding the call for an increase in the minimum wage was demand number 7:

A massive Federal program to train and place . . . workers

. . . on meaningful and dignified jobs at decent wages.

This body needs to turn its focus on advancing legislation that will create more American jobs and policies that matter to American workers. I urge my colleagues to support the American worker. Join me in calling for jobs legislation and a reasonable raise of the Federal minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Bera once said, ``It's deja vu all over again.''

How many times can we have the same argument?

Forty-one years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's constitutional right to choose. Yet, four decades later, this Chamber will vote yet again to rob women of their right to control their own bodies.

Today, the Hyde amendment prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion services. While I oppose this restriction, it is important to emphasize that this statute is already the law. It was passed in 1976. Yet the legislation we are considering today would take that restriction even further.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are no longer content with simply banning Federal funding for abortions. Now even private funding for this constitutional right is up for debate. A vote in favor of this bill will authorize for the first time penalties for private insurance companies that offer plans that cover abortion services. Let me say that again. This bill will allow the Federal Government to use tax policy to punish private companies that even offer coverage for abortion as part of their insurance plans.

And the penalties don't stop at insurance companies. This bill also goes after consumers, penalizing those who choose insurance plans in the Federal exchange that include coverage for abortion services by removing their eligibility for income-based subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy is staggering.

Every day on the floor, my colleagues lecture about their mission to keep the Federal Government out of the daily lives of the American people, but apparently those principles don't extend to a doctor's office or to the most private and intimate choices a woman can make about her own body. A woman who makes the choice to end her pregnancy should not have her motives questioned. It is a choice no one wants to make, but the unfortunate reality is that many people have to. If my colleagues are looking to end abortion, let's take actions that will actually reduce the number of abortions instead of making policies that embarrass and demonize women.

Here are a few suggestions:

Let's invest in family planning programs that help men and women have more control over when and how they start their families; let's support comprehensive sex education so that teenagers know how to be safe and prevent unintended pregnancies; let's make adoption easier for loving families so that no child is left spending his entire youth as a ward of the State.

Mr. Speaker, I know that many of us will never agree on the very personal and emotional issue of abortion, but instead of rehashing the same fights, let's focus on things we can agree on. Let's reconsider the definition of ``pro-life'' to include efforts that improve the quality of life for people in America. Being pro-life should mean supporting programs like Head Start and school lunches, which help our young people succeed. Being pro-life should mean supporting investments in job training programs to help people find well-paying jobs so they can provide for their families. Being pro-life should mean supporting a raise in the minimum wage so a single mother who is working 40 hours a week isn't living below the poverty line. Being pro-life should mean supporting SNAP benefits so that working families don't have to choose between feeding their children and paying their rent.

The list of things this Congress can do to support the lives of Americans whom we represent is endless. It is a shame we waste so much time having the same old arguments. I am afraid we have lost sight of what our constituents sent us here to do. Let's stop attacking women's health, and instead let's focus on making investments in our future that will help Americans realize their full potential and live the American Dream.

Madam Speaker, today, Ukraine faces a pivotal moment in its history. The Ukrainian people are making their demand for freedom and economic growth loud and clear, protesting President Yanukovych's refusal to sign accords with the European Union. Ukrainian police forces have met protesters with intimidation, and the escalating violence has resulted in the death of protesters. The use of excessive force to silence peaceful voices undermines the country's democratic future.

The United States and Ukraine share an ideal of democracy in which citizens may live free of oppression and may elect their own leaders. When those leaders break their promises, it is even more important that citizens can freely express their discontent.

We all must closely watch the negotiations between the current administration and the opposition. The United States should continue to stand with the Ukrainian people in their desire for economic growth and a free republic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Catholic Schools Week and honor the accomplishments of America's Catholic schools. This year is the 40th anniversary of National Catholic Schools Week, an annual celebration of Catholic education.

With more than two million students enrolled nationwide, Catholic schools equip children with the knowledge and skills that will serve them for the rest of their lives. Catholic schools are pillars of academic excellence, graduating 99 percent of high school students and sending 85 percent on to college.

But these institutions go beyond merely providing a quality education. They also strive to instill values of faith and a commitment to social justice and service that grow today's students into tomorrow's leaders.

Catholic schools extend those same values to their local neighborhoods and communities. Beyond the classroom, schools encourage their students to give back and work together to improve the world around them. This dedication is on display every day in Illinois' 5th Congressional District at schools like Guerin College Prep High School in River Grove, Immaculate Conception High School in Elmhurst, St. Andrew School and Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Academy in Chicago and many more.

Finally, Catholic schools demonstrate an admirable spirit of diversity and acceptance. Nearly 20 percent of attendees practice other faiths and more racial and ethnic minorities continue to enroll in Catholic institutions.

Catholic schools have a rich tradition of providing exceptional educations to our nation's youth. Today, I honor their many contributions and thank them for their service to our students and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, next week, we will commemorate the life and accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

A revolutionary civil rights leader, Dr. King's movement combated the systematic discrimination against African Americans, but Dr. King fought hard not only for equal rights for African Americans. He fought equally hard for equality for all in this great Nation.

So it is altogether fitting and appropriate that we honor him and his extraordinary life, but it is equally appropriate to honor him by ending what is still legal discrimination in this country-- discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community--because denying civil rights to someone based on a person's orientation is equally inherently wrong.

We are all Americans, regardless of whom we love. Why does someone's orientation affect his or her legal status in this country? Every day that we continue allowing discrimination against the LGBT community is another day that justice is delayed.

I am reminded that when Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, he said that four score and 7 years ago we formed a Nation based on the notion that all were created equal, and they were in a war to determine whether a Nation so conceived could long endure. But I think what we can take from that is the realization that we have to ask ourselves every so often, did we really mean it back then when we said that all were created equal?

This is one of those times when we have to ask ourselves, is everyone in this country equal?

Mr. Speaker, we can end workplace discrimination against gay men and women today. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act has 200 bipartisan cosponsors, and identical legislation has passed already in the Senate. Yes, our colleagues in the other Chamber have already taken this small, but important, step.

When will this body step up and defend the rights of the LGBT community? When will the House majority join us in the fight against inequality? Dr. King said:

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward

justice.

Yes, the journey may be long, but I believe we can accomplish true equality for all in this country. I ask my colleagues to find the courage to stand on the right side of history. Mr. Speaker, bring ENDA to the floor and allow a vote on equality for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, 7 months ago, the Senate passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill, and for 7 months we have waited.

We have taken over 600 votes in the House of Representatives this Congress: finding the time to vote 46 times to overturn Obama administration; finding the time to pass nine bills that harm our environment; finding the time to twice pass bills that weaken our education system; finding the time to rename 40 post offices. But we haven't taken one vote, not a single vote, to advance immigration reform. We simply haven't found the time.

This despite the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans. This despite the support of interests as varied as labor unions and the Chamber of Commerce, high-tech companies, and faith leaders. This despite the CBO reporting that immigration reform will provide a much- needed jolt to the American economy.

With over half of the 113th Congress behind us, we have ignored one of the signature issues that the American people sent us here to solve. Sure, we have talked about immigration reform. We have even had our Gang of Eight on this side of the Capitol; but the old saying goes: talk is cheap.

Months of discussions by this Congress on one of the most important and complex issues in a generation have yielded only one point and one point only.

The only thing we have decided so far is that if we take on this issue, if we pass immigration reform, we will do it piece by piece. That is it. That is the only progress this body has made on this critical issue. We have made no substantive decisions about the fate of over 11 million people currently living their lives in legal limbo in this country--no substantive decision about whether their children, many of whom know no other country than this, will be sent thousands of miles away to live in a foreign country, separated from their families, denied the American Dream they fought so hard for, or even whether LGBT families will be torn apart.

The only progress we can point to at this time is instead of one large bill, we have decided on several small bills. If that is not definitive of a do-nothing Congress, I don't know what is.

But, okay, Mr. Speaker, you have convinced the President. If piecemeal is the only way we are going to pass immigration reform, then piecemeal it is. Here is the most important point. Where are the pieces? See, here is the thing: even if you are going to do something on a piecemeal basis, you still have got to do the first piece.

The second problem with a piecemeal approach is that you run the risk of cherry-picking, pushing through issues like increased border security, high-tech visas, while ignoring the harder decisions like providing a path to citizenship for the millions living in the shadows.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have introduced several immigration bills this Congress, with a few of them even passing out of committee; but not one bill has been offered that comes close to offering a pathway to citizenship.

While we may accept the piecemeal approach for the sake of getting something done, what we cannot accept--what we will not accept--is an approach that leaves a pathway to citizenship on the sidelines, because the pathway to citizenship remains the cornerstone of any serious immigration reform plan. The rest of the immigration reform structure is built around that piece. Without it, immigration reform will not stand. Without it, our system will remain broken.

The American people have called on us to fix our broken immigration system. At the very least, we owe it to them to give it a try. The window is still open; the opportunity is still there. We simply need to find the courage to complete the task.

Mr. Speaker, the United States finds itself in a period of great uncertainty in the face of a new short-term deal with Iran.

The fact that Iran has finally come to the negotiating table is only proof that sanctions are working. The strength of our sanctions has severely devalued Iran's currency, crippled its economy, and forced it to finally consider curbing its nuclear program.

While we are hopeful for a broader deal, it is imperative that the United States and the international community remain vigilant. A nuclear Iran is the most pressing national security threat not only for the United States, but also for our allies in the Middle East, especially Israel.

As talks move forward, our security and the security of our allies in the region must remain our number one priority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the House to consider and pass emergency unemployment benefits for the 1.3 million long-term unemployed American workers.

On December 28, 82,000 Illinois workers' unemployment insurance expired--38,000 of those workers in Cook County and 5,000 more in DuPage. The Senate has agreed on a bipartisan basis to extend emergency unemployment insurance, and the House should act today to do the same.

Opponents of extending emergency unemployment insurance may say isn't the emergency over? While the economy on the whole has improved, there is still an emergency, a jobs emergency.

There are 2.9 unemployed workers for every available job. Long-term unemployment is still at the highest rate we have seen in this country since World War II. Opponents of extending emergency unemployment insurance criticize the long-term unemployed, belittling their efforts to find work in this economy. For the worker out of a job for 27 weeks or longer, you have just a 12 percent chance of finding a new job within the month. These numbers continue to fall with each passing week. These workers face challenges to their health, to their mental well-being, and they often struggle with family relationships.

I left Chicago yesterday, where Illinois has the fourth highest unemployment rate in the country. Yet I come to Washington to inaction on unemployment insurance and jobs legislation. Instead of blaming workers, let us as Members of Congress look in the mirror. What have we done to address the issue of long-term unemployment?

Last year, we took dozens of votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but we have done little to create jobs. We have done nothing to advance immigration reform, which will infuse over $1 trillion in our economy over the next 20 years and create jobs. We have done little to address the Nation's long-term transportation needs by investing in infrastructure, which will create jobs. We have done little to invest in research and education, which will grow our economy and make us more globally competitive, all of which create jobs.

Instead of playing politics, let us take it upon ourselves to pass meaningful jobs legislation, and let us extend benefits to these workers in their time of need.

Madam Speaker, every day nearly 2,500 flights land and take off at O'Hare International Airport at the western edge of the Fifth Congressional District. More than 66 million passengers boarded or deplaned at O'Hare in 2012.

On a recent morning, FAA traffic controllers kept tabs on 7,300 flights in the immediate area. By any measure, O'Hare is integral to the Nation's commercial air traffic network; and just as it shapes the Nation's air traffic system, O'Hare plays a major role in the local and regional economies. O'Hare currently generates 450,000 jobs and $38 billion in economic activity for Chicago and the State of Illinois. And when the $9 billion effort to modernize O'Hare is completed in 2020, it will mean the creation of 195,000 more jobs and an additional $18 billion in annual economic activity.

In my district alone, more than 12,000 constituents have jobs tied to the airport, but O'Hare's success comes at a price. Since the October 17 opening of a new runway at O'Hare, many constituents have experienced a dramatic rise in flights--and noise--over their homes. Some residents are now dealing with hundreds more flights over their homes--all day, every day. It is not just the new runway that is causing the increase in noise pollution. Because of a dramatic reconfiguration of airspace over O'Hare, a majority of flights, either arriving or departing O'Hare, now traverse the skies of the Fifth District.

I understand and support the need to modernize O'Hare. The new parallel runway configuration means safer, more efficient operations and fewer delays; but I also understand the importance of livable neighborhoods. The two are not mutually exclusive.

We are a region of distinctive neighborhoods where hardworking people

have built their lives and invested much of their earnings into their homes in Forest Glen, Sauganash, North Park, and Harwood Heights. My constituents worry that their peace of mind and property values are being eroded in the name of profits and air traveler convenience.

As one constituent told me:

We can no longer open our windows, enjoy eating outside on

our new front porch, or gardening.

Madam Speaker, I agree. Neighbors should not be exiled from backyards and gardens because of the ceaseless din of commercial aircraft. I also believe that if we take the right steps, maintaining a vibrant neighborhood won't be incompatible with a safe and efficient O'Hare.

Since O'Hare became part of my district in January, I have pushed for important changes that can bring relief to residents in the near term. I have advocated that O'Hare continue to use all available runways to mitigate the increase in air traffic, and I have called for expanding the practice of routing aircraft over industrial parks, interstates, and forest preserves, not over residents' backyards.

But we need to do more. The Federal Aviation Administration needs to overhaul the metric it uses to determine how much noise around airports is acceptable. The FAA's current measurement--the so-called 65 DNL--is outdated and woefully incomplete at measuring the impact of unabated noise overhead. I know the FAA has been studying and reviewing the 65 DNL metric for years. It is time to stop studying this 30-year-old relic and take action.

So, too, must the city of Chicago and the airlines. The city has told us it will not revisit its Fly Quiet program, which adjusts runway usage at night, until the O'Hare modernization is completed in 2020. There may be obstacles to reviewing this program, but the city needs to be more nimble in addressing the needs of these residents.

The airlines, too, must help. They will save millions in lower operating costs as delays at O'Hare decrease. A portion of these savings should be earmarked for neighborhood soundproofing efforts. The airlines must also get quieter quicker. That is why I just introduced the Silent Skies bill, which will accelerate the airlines' use of newer, quieter aircraft.

Madam Speaker, I know the O'Hare modernization plan is here to stay; and I know air traffic noise, like noise from expressways or the ``el'' is a fact of life in our metropolitan area. But it is also a fact that neighborhoods, not noisy aircraft, make life in Chicago and its suburbs special. We all need to work together to ensure the vitality of our neighborhoods isn't drowned out in a roar of aircraft overhead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember those who tragically lost their lives this week in Illinois. Last weekend, tornados ripped across my State and six people were killed.

Extreme weather events are sadly becoming the norm across the country; 2012 was the second most extreme weather year to date, with 11 extreme weather events across our country.

Last year, Illinois experienced a total of 113 broken heat records, two broken snow records, 36 broken precipitation records, and one large wildfire. Clearly, this year looks to be no different.

The reality is this: stronger, more destructive storms are pounding our region with distressing regularity and with huge costs to our State, our residents, and our economy.

Our task is to aid those devastated by these events, as well as addressing the underlying cause of their increased severity and frequency--climate change.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do more to protect our environment, not less.

Last month, for the first time in six years, the House passed a water infrastructure bill. For the first time in six years, Congress authorized crucial investments in our ports and inland waterways. And for the first time in six years, we addressed flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and environmental restoration.

The Water Resource Reform and Development Act will strengthen our national water transportation network to improve our competitiveness, create more jobs, and grow our economy. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it came at a cost.

This vital legislation coupled investments in our nation's aging infrastructure with the further weakening of one of this nation's most important environmental protections: The National Environmental Policy Act.

For more than four decades, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, has provided the foundation for countless improvements in our environmental laws. It gives us cleaner water, cleaner air, and a safer and healthier environment. It provides critical checks and balances on federal planning and decision making, requiring the federal government to consider environmental impacts. And it gives the public the opportunity to voice their concerns about the impact of federal actions on their health, safety, environment, and community.

This collaborative review process engages millions of Americans along with federal and state agencies, and forces the federal government to think outside the box and consider better alternatives.

Over the years, NEPA has saved money, time, and resources. It has also protected endangered species, public lands and historical sites, all while producing better projects with more public support. For example, when the Army Corps of Engineers planned to repair existing breakwaters and replace the lock gates of Chicago's harbor, NEPA revealed a better method of repairing and extending the life of the breakwaters at a fraction of the cost. NEPA has proven that it's possible to protect the environment and save the taxpayer money at the same time.

Unfortunately, misperceptions about this foundational environmental law are driving congressional attempts to chip it away. NEPA is frequently blamed as the leading cause of project delays when, in reality, lack of funding is actually to blame. We fault NEPA, when we should be blaming ourselves.

We continue to slash funding for Army Corps construction despite the American Society of Civil Engineers' D-minus rating of our nation's inland waterways. We can eliminate project delays and protect the environment at the same time, but a more serious investment in our infrastructure is needed to do so.

Instead the WRRDA bill passed last week alters the NEPA process, weakening environmental protections at a time when they are needed the most. This WRRDA has made it more difficult for the public to comment on environmental impacts by limiting the comment period to as little as 60 or 30 days, depending on the type of project. Environmental review statements are often hundreds of pages long and full of critical scientific research.

Many critics argue this is barely enough time to read and understand a review, let alone consult experts and submit informed public comments. These new arbitrary and unreasonably short deadlines hurt community voices in speaking out against harmful projects and penalize agencies for fulfilling their responsibility to fully deliberate on important environmental issues.

Good science takes time, and the proposed changes to the environmental review process give experts little time to adequately evaluate the impacts of a project. Environmental reviews are a crucial tool for improving transportation projects and safeguarding the environment.

An informed public engagement process produces ideas, information and even solutions the government might otherwise have overlooked. Streamlining current NEPA provisions carelessly hurts our ability to make better decisions that protect our health, our homes and our environment.

Meeting our transportation needs and protecting our environment are not mutually exclusive objectives.

NEPA, Mr. Speaker, is the solution, not the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Ukraine's man-made famine and genocide.

The ``Great Man-made Famine'' was executed under Joseph Stalin's Communist rule in an effort to eradicate Ukrainian culture, education, and social institutions. Under Stalin's regime, the Ukrainian people were stripped of their land and grain and were herded onto collective farms where they were eventually left to starve to death. What was once the ``breadbasket of Europe'' became home to a forced famine that ultimately took the lives of over 6 million innocent men, women, and children.

But Stalin's attempt to squelch the spirit and history of the Ukrainian people failed.

This Friday, the Ukrainian National Museum in Chicago will remember those whose lives were taken by this man-made genocide. The museum will also, justifiably, celebrate the strong and vibrant people in the nation of Ukraine that thrives today.

Mr. Speaker, this body has attempted to repeal the health care law 41 times. The act's repeal or delay is being used as leverage in the current budget fight, but I just want to take a few minutes to remind people why we passed the health reform law in the first place.

Let's remember the situation before ObamaCare became law. Clearly the status quo was not sustainable. The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States was medical costs, and 60 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had insurance. Forty-seven million Americans were without health care. Premiums were rising three times faster than wages, eating up more of our paychecks and bottom lines.

The average family was already paying a hidden health care tax of over $1,000 annually in premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the cost of the uninsured. Small businesses were paying 18 percent more than larger employers for health insurance. People with preexisting conditions were denied coverage or thrown off their coverage when they got sick and needed it most. Senior citizens fell into the doughnut hole and had to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket for their prescriptions.

We cannot go back. We cannot repeal this essential law. We must move forward together and fix the very real problems with health care reform; but before we do that, we have to stop spreading falsehoods and set the record straight about what is in the law and what is not.

Myth number one: Members of Congress and their staffs are somehow exempt from the law. Not only are Members and their staff not exempt from the law, but they are actually subject to extra requirements. Insurance marketplaces that Members and staff must now join were actually designed for people who currently do not have insurance or get it on the individual market. People who already have insurance through their employers, like Members and their staff, don't need to get insurance through the marketplace because they already have coverage. Still, due to a messaging amendment in the ACA, Members and their staff were required to get their insurance through the marketplace and they will.

Myth number two: the Affordable Care Act is a job killer. First of all, 97 percent of small employers are exempt from the requirements to provide insurance. Second, most large employers who are required to provide coverage already do so. Aside from reporting requirements, the ACA will only require about 1 percent of businesses to do anything differently. Some on the other side of this aisle often cite a Congressional Budget Office report which said the ACA would lead to a reduction in the amount of labor in the economy by one-half of one percent. What the critics failed to add is that the same report noted that the small reduction in labor would come primarily from people choosing to work less.

There are legitimate concerns from small restaurants and hospitality entities that are worried about affording affordable coverage for their part-time employees. These concerns are real and should be addressed; but exaggerating claims that the ACA is a job killer and trying to repeal or defund it rather than remedy it does nothing to help those businesses with real concerns.

Myth number three: the Affordable Care Act is driving up premiums. Some historical context is important here. Premiums grew 119 percent between 1999 and the year 2008. Over the last 2 years, premiums have only increased an average of 4 percent. On the individual level, because insurance companies can no longer charge older individuals significantly more than younger folks, this will shift some costs to younger Americans. However, the insurance subsidies provided by the law will significantly blunt those potential cost increases. Those who are uninsured with preexisting conditions who previously could not get coverage will likely pay less. Finally, those with employer-provided coverage, the majority of Americans, will see little change.

We need to do more to hold down the cost of health care; but rather than talking about real cost reduction reforms, opponents of the law are simply trying to repeal it--41 times. This Nation's health care system faces real

challenges, and we need real solutions. If critics of the law spent as much energy on developing legitimate solutions as they do on perpetuating falsehoods about the ACA, we might make some progress. Let's stop the fear-mongering, come together and have a real conversation about improving our health care system.