Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained attending a funeral on November 1, 2011 and was unable to cast a vote for the Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act, a bill which I strongly endorse. Had I been present, I would have voted for it on rollcall Vote 817.

I strongly support the Peace Corps program. My late husband Paul Tsongas served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Ethiopia from 1962-1964, and as Peace Corps Country Director in the West Indies in 1967 and 1968. He went on to become the first former Peace Corps volunteer to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Our daughter Ashley served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Madagascar.

Peace Corps volunteers brave many challenges during their service. That is why I was proud to be an early supporter of the Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act, which strengthens the Peace Corps and ensures that volunteers have the support and resources they need. Volunteers deserve to be treated with dignity, empowerment, and respect in the event that they are a victim of a crime like sexual assault. And, addressing these challenges will strengthen the Peace Corps as an institution and make it a program in which more Americans will want to participate.

One of the challenges when confronting this crime is that victims of sexual assault often face blame for their victimization. This is one of very few crimes, if not the only crime, where a victim's intentions and actions are scrutinized and questioned following an assault. To address this, the Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act requires the Peace Corps to create a sexual assault response team and guarantees that victims have access to a Victim Advocate. It further requires that volunteers be fully informed of their rights to file a report, for treatment, for a forensic evidence examination, for emergency health treatment, and for legal representation. The Peace Corps has already acted proactively to address many of these issues. This Act further codifies these reforms.

We owe a great debt to anyone who is harmed while serving our country. We may never be able to eradicate crimes in other countries where our volunteers work, but we can change the way our institutions respond to them. These improvements will strengthen the Peace Corps and guarantee its success for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, 10 months ago this week, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Since then, we have not seen one comprehensive jobs bill to help put Americans back to work. Our GOP-led House must show urgency, where now they show indifference, in helping the millions of workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

The American Jobs Act will help create those jobs by investing in infrastructure and incentivizing businesses to hire new workers.

I have also proposed a plan to help put people back to work; and many others in this Chamber, both Republican and Democrat, have other great ideas to support job creation. But the majority has thus far refused to allow any such measures to come to the floor for consideration. They are commonsense and traditionally bipartisan steps that we should take today.

People need jobs, they need them now, and Congress must not delay any further.

Mr. Speaker, last week I hosted a town hall meeting in Lawrence, Massachusetts, to discuss ways to grow our domestic manufacturing base and promote policies that keep jobs in the United States, not overseas. Participating in this town hall were several major employers who have made the often challenging decision to keep their labor force here in the United States.

Among these employers was New Balance, the last athletic shoemaker to make sneakers from first stitch to final product in the United States, and an employer of more than 800 Massachusetts workers. The success of these types of companies demonstrates that manufacturing jobs can still thrive in the United States, but we need to pursue policies at the Federal level that support their efforts.

House Democrats' Make It In America agenda provides the tax incentives, workforce training, and investment in 21st century education that will help keep the production of goods and services here in the United States.

We can't sit back and allow our manufacturing base to be continually eroded. We must pass the Make It In America agenda.

Madam Speaker, recently, I got an email from a constituent from my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts, that read, ``I think Republicans are focusing on the wrong thing. We need jobs.''

Our constituents are pleading with us to focus on jobs; yet here we are again, debating an ideologically driven bill that does nothing for the economy as it endangers women's health. For women to receive the best possible health care, they need--we need--access to all legal and appropriate medical procedures. Decisions about these procedures should be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor and her family.

I believe a woman's right to choose is fundamental to a woman's freedom, but this bill puts the government in the middle of that decision. This bill discriminates against women, and it goes so far as to prevent those who want to buy health plans that cover abortion services with their own money from making that choice. This bill also permits hospitals and hospital workers to choose to deny women care that could save their lives, putting ideology above women's health.

Let's focus on the right thing and vote down this bill.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the Waxman amendment.

Today, we are taking up yet another bill that continues the GOP majority's ongoing attack on public health. This bill seeks to gut EPA rules requiring reductions in emissions of toxic air pollutants, including mercury, from industrial boilers and incinerators. Industrial boilers and incinerators are among the largest sources of mercury pollution in the country, a potent brain poison that can cause severe developmental problems in children and toddlers.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, even in low doses, mercury can tragically affect a child's development, delaying walking and talking, and causing learning disabilities. Children suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach their full potential. This is simply unacceptable, especially when we have the technology to address it.

The Waxman amendment is straightforward. It says that the bill cannot stop the EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants that are damaging to children's developing brains.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and to stand up for the health of our children and grandchildren.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the end of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. For 18 years, it forced thousands of servicemen and -women from our Armed Forces and discouraged countless other patriotic Americans from enlisting. The policy weakened our military by removing highly skilled, trained, and capable servicemembers from the ranks at a time when we were sending our men and women in uniform on multiple deployments to fight two wars.

Today, our country is stronger because we all benefit from a military that takes advantage of all the talents our Nation has to offer.

This policy ended because of the work of many, including my predecessor, Congressman Marty Meehan, who introduced the first bill in the House of Representatives to repeal this policy.

Our servicemen and -women are, first and foremost, Americans protecting freedom throughout the world. Today, at last, all these brave people no longer have to hide who they are in order to serve their country.

Madam Speaker, we need to put people back to work, and it is past time that this issue is finally getting the national attention necessary to get something done. As we work to finally enact a jobs plan, we should be investing not only in our workforce, but also in our future competitiveness, which is why we should invest in the next revolution--clean energy technologies. We export billions of dollars each year to import the energy that powers our country. If we can harness the power of clean, renewable energy, we will not only create high-paying jobs but we can begin to address the real threat of climate change as well.

By investing in clean energy technologies, such as wind and solar, we can begin to replace many of the manufacturing, construction, and high- tech jobs lost during the recession. We should take advantage of this unique opportunity to immediately create good jobs here in America while safeguarding the future of our children and grandchildren at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I recently heard from a long-term care facility in my district that is set to build an additional location, creating over 100 construction jobs and increasing the number of seniors able to receive quality care. The financing was in place. But when my constituent met with his bank this week about moving forward, the bank put the deal on hold. With the threat of a U.S. default unresolved, the bank was concerned that the facility's payments from Medicare and Medicaid would stop, leaving them unable to repay their loan.

A 6-month extension, like the one being proposed, won't help my constituent reassure his bank or create the kind of long-term certainty needed in this still-fragile economy. I urge my colleagues to reject short-term proposals that push us to the brink of default again and again and call on the House to pass a plan that reduces the deficit while providing real long-term economic certainty to our financial markets, to our small businesses, and to the American people who need the jobs these businesses create.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2584, and am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using this appropriations process to put at risk the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health.

For example, this bill would dismantle the Clean Water Act, which

would not only undermine our constituents' access to clean and healthy waterways but also would mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

My district, the Fifth District of Massachusetts, is home to dozens of remarkable rivers and streams which are a key part of the history, culture, economy, and natural beauty of the Fifth District. Most of our rivers have excellent water quality; and it is common on warm days to see people swimming, fishing, and paddling. But our rivers were not always so hospitable. There was a time when the Merrimack River, one of the largest watersheds in New England and the river that flows through my hometown of Lowell, was a depository for waste and pollution. For 150 years, the Merrimack River was one of the 10 most polluted rivers in the country. It was the Clean Water Act enforcement of the early 1970s that changed the future of our rivers. Because of the act, and the enforcement authority it afforded the EPA, a cleanup plan was put in place and polluters and violators were held responsible. Slowly, the Merrimack and surrounding rivers were monitored and improved to meet the clean water standards we take for granted today. This is just one unfortunate example, but replicated all across our country, to our great good fortune and that of our children and grandchildren.

While some States may adequately protect their waters on their own, not all do. That is why Congress has given the EPA the authority to protect our waterways under the Clean Water Act. We must continue to strengthen safeguards for rivers and streams to ensure that all across the country Americans enjoy the benefit of clean, safe water.

I urge my colleagues to reject the shortsighted proposal to undercut the Clean Water Act and help protect America's clean water legacy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, unless this Congress takes action on August 2, our Nation will stop paying our bills because we refuse to come together and take shared responsibility. These bills pay for policies already purchased, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2003 prescription drug benefit, tax cuts, and emergency measures to save our economy.

Yesterday, House Republicans passed a bill that asked for sacrifices from seniors, veterans, and children but exempted corporations from giving up even their most egregious tax loopholes, like those that encourage shipping jobs overseas. That bill also all but guarantees a default by requiring a two-thirds vote from both Chambers before we can pay our bills. To return to the balanced budgets of the 1990s will require a long-term commitment from the entire country, a commitment that will only come if everyone contributes.

We do not need to end Social Security and Medicare, as some would do. We can and must reduce the deficit in a balanced way that ensures the well-being of every American.

Mr. Speaker, next week marks the 37th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Cyprus by Turkish armed forces. The lengthy duration of this occupation, which consumes nearly 37 percent of Cyprus' territory, is particularly disappointing given the number of multilateral organizations--the U.N., NATO and the EU--who have a vested interest in this dispute and who should work in concert to bring about a peaceful resolution. While some progress has been made, there is still much work to be done. Greek Cypriots have been evicted from their property, and cultural and religious desecration has been widespread. The Turkish government cannot maintain this occupation and hope to ever achieve membership in the EU.

Respect for international law and calls for self-representation must be answered with regard to Cyprus. Turkey must live up to its international responsibilities and return all of Cyprus to the Cypriots. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have supported a variety of initiatives in support of this outcome including sending letters to President Obama and Secretary Clinton applauding the administration's commitment to exercise U.S. leadership in the negotiation for a just solution on Cyprus. We agree that a solution to the Cyprus problem should result in a single, sovereign country within a bi-zonal, bi- communal federation. Thirty-seven years of discord is long enough; Cypriots deserve a government for them and by them.

Since his election in February 2008, President Demetris Christofias has followed through on his promise to make the solution of the Cyprus problem his top priority and principal concern. In September of 2008, he embarked on negotiations with the then-leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr. Mehmet Ali Talat, under the auspices of the United Nations with U.S. support. The negotiations are now continuing with the new leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr. Dervis Eroglu.

The solution must reunite the island and safeguard the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots and the withdrawal of Turkish forces from Cyprus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Yesterday, I was proud to join 158 of my House colleagues--women and men--in cosponsoring this simple constitutional guarantee that ``equality of rights'' shall not be denied or abridged on account of one's gender. The ERA was passed by Congress in 1972, and won approval from 35 States before falling just three short of ratification. Since then, women have gained significant protections in society, in the workplace and at home; but it is clear that much more must be done.

Earlier this year, a sitting member of the U.S. Supreme Court stated his view that the Constitution does not prohibit ``discrimination on the basis of sex.'' While many legal scholars were quick to disagree, his words illustrate clearly the need for explicit constitutional protections. Without them, Congress has--and has already attempted to-- roll back these gains.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the ERA and in standing up for the constitutional protection for women and families.

Madam Chair, I missed votes on the day of June 16, 2011, because I traveled back to my district to attend the funeral service for a Marine killed in combat, Corporal William Woitowicz. Had I been present, I would have voted for amendments to the FY 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Act that encourage local and regional food systems and fund programs that support the work of minority and socially disadvantaged farmers. I also would have supported amendments that protect taxpayer funds by implementing modest restrictions on excessive farm subsidy payments.

I would have voted against amendments that seek to delay the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's efforts to enforce commonsense rules on risky derivative swaps and other financial transactions, prevent the Department of Agriculture from implementing their climate change adaption policy, or propose deeper cuts to the FDA that would hinder the agency's ability to protect our nation's food supply from food-borne illnesses.

Finally, I would have opposed passage of the overall FY 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Act because of the bill's drastic and indefensible cuts to the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, program, which provides vital aid for our nation's most vulnerable pregnant women, infants and children. In the last year, WIC provided nutritious food, counseling on healthy eating, and health care referrals to thousands of women and children in my state. Additionally, the underlying bill undermines commonsense financial rules, choosing to protect Wall Street speculators that are driving up gas prices over the American taxpayer. Likewise, I cannot support the deep cuts in FDA funding included in the bill that will severely undermine food safety efforts and increase the risk of food-borne illnesses.

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on the evening of June 13, 2011 because of pressing matters in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted for the LaTourette Amendment to the FY 2012 Military Construction and VA Appropriations bill to remove language from the bill which rolls back worker protections by discouraging the use of Project Labor Agreements. In this fragile fiscal climate, Congress should be defending our skilled laborers, whose essential work contributes to our economic recovery. Restricting existing policies which permit the establishment of basic terms and conditions on complex, large scale construction projects is harmful for workers and a distraction from the important programs which are funded in the underlying bill.

Additionally, I would have voted against the Amash Amendment, which would have prohibited compliance with the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law. The Davis-Bacon Act has been a cornerstone of labor protection for 80 years, and I would have proudly voted to uphold it.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 1216, and to the ongoing efforts by my colleagues across the aisle to undermine our constituents' access to affordable health care.

I recently heard from my constituent from Haverhill, Massachusetts, named Phil Gelinas, who relies on Medicare for his health coverage. His wife's diabetes treatment and prescription drugs are also covered through Medicare, and they have both paid into Medicare all their lives through payroll deductions. He remarked to my office that there was no way that they could meet the cost of health care today without Medicare.

He and his wife are not alone. Each day, thousands of seniors like the Gelinases use Medicare to cover the costs of doctors' appointments, prescription drugs, as well as routine tests and treatments.

Under the budget that House Republicans passed in April and that the Senate is set to consider this week, the Medicare program that seniors have relied on for more than 50 years to meet their medical needs and expenses would be eliminated. In its place would be a voucher system that pays a small lump sum to private insurers to cover seniors. Any costs not covered by that payment would fall to seniors to pay or forego coverage.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that elimination of Medicare is needed to help reduce the deficit, and that the same benefits that seniors now enjoy under Medicare will be replicated in the private insurance market. Not so. In reality, their plan will result in a far lower standard of care for seniors, while trillions of dollars continue to be added to the national debt. Rather than taking steps to reduce the underlying increases in health care costs, which in turn drive up the cost of Medicare, their plan simply shifts those costs to seniors.

The value of the vouchers that would replace Medicare would not keep pace with rising health care costs, so seniors will be increasingly required to make up the difference. Just 8 years after the program starts, a voucher will cover less than one-third of the cost of a private health insurance package with the same benefits as Medicare currently provides, leaving seniors to cover the rest.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the average senior will end up spending nearly twice as much of their income on health care than under the current Medicare system. That is why AARP released a statement warning that the budget ``would result in a large cost shift to future and current retirees. The Republican proposal, rather than tackling skyrocketing health care costs, would simply shift those costs onto the backs of people in Medicare.''

Instead of focusing on cost control measures that would bring down the cost of Medicare, the budget claims cost savings but only by passing those costs directly on to our seniors.

Furthermore, because costs have typically grown faster in the private market than in Medicare, the costs faced by seniors under the Republican plan will be much higher than the costs faced by the Federal Government now.

My colleagues have argued that seniors won't be affected by these costs for years to come, but this is simply not true. For example, the House budget immediately reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole for current seniors that was fixed with passage of last year's health reform law. It also significantly increases costs for seniors now residing in nursing homes and for their adult children who may not be able to afford their parents' care.

Despite being presented as a solution for our deficits, the budget proposal

would still add $8 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. These new debts are incurred in part because their budget proposal also slashes taxes for the wealthiest Americans while continuing to provide billions in tax breaks for oil companies and other preferred industries.

Real deficit reduction will require a blend of spending reductions, new revenue, and additional reforms to control rising health care costs. But simply shifting those costs onto seniors by eliminating Medicare will prove as unsustainable for our Nation's well-being as the current budget crisis we face.