Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last summer, we all saw the painfully disorganized and ineffective response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The frustration was palpable across our country. During that tragedy, it was clear that BP and the Federal Government had no plan to contain the oil spill and that BP lacked the capacity to respond to a spill of that magnitude.

The amendment that I am offering today is very straightforward and simple, one that seeks to implement the lessons learned from the events of last summer. My amendment would require that all applicants for a drilling permit under a lease sold under H.R. 1231 submit a plan for containment and cleanup of a worst-case scenario oil or gas spill.

This amendment does not limit drilling. It says simply and sensibly that when we drill, we should have a plan in place before an accident occurs. We shouldn't wait until a disaster like last year's 3-month- long spill has already begun. There wasn't a person I spoke to who wasn't horrified by the devastating oil spill in the gulf. I believe that the American people want us to learn from that environmental and economic tragedy, and this amendment helps us accomplish that. When we drill, we should have a plan for dealing with possible disaster.

Some have argued that we don't need a law because initial steps are being taken at the agency level or by oil and gas companies. Some have said that requiring a worst-case-scenario plan is anti-drilling or anti-jobs. We shouldn't get distracted from the simple truth of this amendment: when we drill, we should have a plan. We have seen the consequences of not having a plan, and it was lost jobs.

This amendment is pro-jobs. Requiring oil and gas companies to have a plan in place will not prevent the creation of a single oil and gas job, but it will protect fishing jobs and tourism jobs instead of asking us to put those jobs at risk should a spill occur.

Our constituents deserve to know that we have required oil and gas companies to plan for the worst. Opposing this amendment irresponsibly denies the tragic events of last summer.

For the sake of our economy, our environment, and our coastal jobs, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, simple amendment requiring oil and gas companies to have a plan. Join me in demonstrating to our constituents that we have learned from the events of last summer, and we are taking steps to prevent such a disaster in the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague for bringing this issue up. The June 18 notice to lessees is a great first step toward having worst case scenario containment and cleanup plans. But a notice to lessees is not the same as legislation. It is not intended to set policy, and it is not intended to have the force of law, which is why I am offering this amendment today.

We need Federal laws, not notices, that require companies to submit worst case scenario oil spill containment and cleanup plans to ensure that another spill like the BP spill never happens again. Our constituents deserve to know that we have required oil and gas companies to plan for the worst, or give them an honest reason why we think no such plan is necessary, given the events last summer.

If the majority agrees that we should have a plan, they should support this amendment. It simply requires that oil and gas companies have a plan, nothing more. It is about drilling safely, it protects jobs, oil and gas jobs, tourism and fishing jobs. And again, as I said, if the majority agrees that we should have a plan, they should support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the majority's attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose, a right that is fundamental to a woman's freedom.

H.R. 3 would raise taxes on any American whose employer-sponsored health care plan provides coverage for an abortion. It eliminates Americans' right to use their own funds in health savings accounts for a legal abortion unless they can prove to the IRS that they were victims of rape or incest. This legislation allows a hospital to refuse to perform an emergency abortion, even if a woman would die without it. It would allow doctors to refuse abortion services, even if a pregnancy threatens a woman's health. And this law makes radical changes to the way we treat survivors of rape and even how we define rape.

My colleagues say that they are for no new taxes and for preserving life, but this legislation belies that claim.

Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues have put forth spending proposals that they assert promise savings. But deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and the discretionary budget really just shift those costs onto seniors and children. I have heard from hundreds of constituents urging opposition because, to quote a constituent from my hometown of Lowell, the impact would be ``devastating.'' This dangerous game has already cost private sector jobs in my district as contractors wait for Congress to pass a long-term budget.

Many in this body have proven willing to compromise to solve our debt crisis. We have already enacted $10 billion in spending cuts as a show of good faith. But House Republicans continue to insist upon ideological policy changes that even some Senate Republicans say ``go too far.''

It is time for this body to listen to the American public and reject ideological policies that would destroy Medicare as we know it, eliminate women's health services like breast and cervical cancer screenings, and make it easier for polluters to contaminate our drinking water.

Madam Speaker, last year, I heard from a single father from Haverhill, Massachusetts, who put his life savings into purchasing a home. After a reduction in his salary forced him to modify his mortgage, his servicer stopped returning his phone calls, lost his documents, and refused to provide him with any information to help him modify his loan.

He wrote to me saying, ``My bank told me that they had not received the application documents I had sent at the beginning of the modification process. It was ridiculous, as I have the original documents on file with the fax receipt. Nonetheless, I faxed everything again.''

Over the course of an entire year, he called and re-sent his documents, speaking with multiple people, none of whom could give him an answer or even find that he had a modification in place.

This story represents just one of the many that I have heard from constituents. We should be doing far more to ensure that these lenders are playing by the rules.

Instead, my Republican colleagues have sought to terminate every step taken by the Federal Government to help homeowners like my constituent, leaving them at the mercy of unscrupulous lenders such as these.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill.

I was an early and strong supporter of the President's bipartisan commission on the debt; and while I do not agree with all of the commission's recommendations, I recognize that their report to the President offered an important starting point for debate on an issue that affects the lives of every American, as well as future generations.

In the report, the commission warns against disrupting our fragile economic recovery: ``We need a comprehensive plan now to reduce the debt over the long term. But budget cuts should start gradually so they don't interfere with the ongoing economic recovery. Growth is essential to restoring fiscal strength and balance. We should cut red tape and unproductive government spending that hinders job creation and growth. But at the same time we must invest in education, infrastructure, and high-value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for businesses to create jobs.''

The bill before us fails to heed this sound advice, making shortsighted decisions that will sabotage our short-term recovery and undermine our long-term competitiveness. The reckless decisions made in this bill will lead to lost jobs in my district and throughout the Nation.

Some of these job losses are obvious. Deep cuts to COPS and SAFER funding will ensure that we will lose thousands of police officers and firefighters protecting our communities nationwide; but other losses may be less obvious but just as painful.

For instance, this legislation imposes deep cuts on the food Food and Drug Administration. Every single drug, vaccine, biologic and medical device must be approved by the FDA before it can ever be offered to patients. This means that not only do patients rely on the FDA but also American pharmaceutical and medical device companies that need an efficient and effective FDA to ensure that they can continue to innovate, grow, and create jobs.

We are lucky to have a medical device industry in this country that is on the cutting edge of technological advances in medicine. What we should be doing is modernizing the FDA to make it more efficient, transparent, predictable, and rigorous; and to do that, we need to ensure that the FDA has all the necessary resources to conduct proper and speedy review of life-saving devices that not only benefit patients but our innovative businesses so that many of them can get to work putting people to work.

For these private sector firms, cutting FDA resources means slowing down their approval process, driving some of them overseas, and losing many jobs here in our country as well. Likewise, cuts to local funding included in this bill will harm communities I represent, particularly the deep cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program. When I have asked leaders in the cities I represent how we can best help their recovery efforts, the answer has been unhesitating and unequivocal: CDBG funding.

Last week, the city manager in my hometown of Lowell wrote, saying, ``This is probably the most valuable tool that the Federal Government offers cities to address economic development, infrastructure, and community needs.''

What is most discouraging about the attack on CDBG funding is that it does just what my colleagues say they support: it provides local flexibility, allowing stakeholders to decide what makes sense for their communities, while ensuring an extremely efficient use of funds. For example, last year in the city of Lowell, every $1 in CDBG funding generated more than $16 in additional funding.

Over the years, Lowell has successfully used CDBG funds to redevelop a historic building into a much-needed senior center, turning a blight into a landmark and prompting the entry of private businesses nearby. It has used funds to spur the development of a mixed-use development that is bringing in millions of dollars in private development and restoring architectural treasures key to the city's identity. And it has provided seed money to nonprofits like the United Teen Equality Center, recognized nationally for the revolutionary work they're doing every day to curb gang violence in the city of Lowell.

All of these actions have improved the quality of life and created jobs for Lowell residents, and none might have been made possible without this modest Federal investment.

So I do not support the underlying bill, and I encourage its rejection.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to withdraw, however reluctantly, the amendment. But I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for giving me this opportunity to discuss what I believe is a critically important issue for our democracy.

My amendment is straightforward. Entities that received Federal funds may not use those funds, be they bailouts, earmarks, grants, or payments for contracts, toward the election or defeat of a Presidential candidate.

I understand what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle hope to accomplish with the underlying bill today. They want to protect taxpayer dollars. Saving taxpayer dollars is a noble goal, particularly in these tough economic times.

Unfortunately, this bill eliminates the voluntary fund that taxpayers elect to put toward campaign financing and does nothing about the much larger share of taxpayer dollars that can now go to campaign financing with no say from taxpayers. If we are truly serious about protecting taxpayer dollars, it is these dollars we should be concerned with. We should ensure that corporations and other entities receiving taxpayer money cannot turn around and use that same money to finance Presidential campaigns.

The Supreme Court, in Citizens United, allowed corporations to have unlimited influence in elections. It removed longstanding protections that prevented corporations from making large contributions to candidates and drowning out the voices of everyday Americans trying to participate in our democracy. In the wake of Citizens United, public financing of Presidential elections is all the more important to ensure a level playing field for candidates running for office and to preserve the voice of the American taxpayer. By eliminating the Presidential Campaign Fund, my colleagues across the aisle would increase the influence of special interests in the elections, leaving Presidential candidates beholden to large, private contributions.

If my colleagues insist on eliminating this important and completely voluntary fund, let us at least make sure that corporations receiving taxpayer money through bailouts, earmarks, and other Federal funds are not able to then use these taxpayer funds towards influencing Presidential elections. Let us level the playing field and protect all American voters by ensuring that these large, private contributions to political candidates aren't funded using taxpayer money.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Ms. Tsongas

Amendment No. 4: Add at the end the following:

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my deep sympathy for the victims of the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, this past Saturday. Like all of us, I mourn for the grievous harm that came to those who attended Congresswoman Giffords' Congress on Your Corner; for our colleague, Gabby, a courageous and conscientious lawmaker whose recovery and good health we all yearn for today; for a 9-year-old child bursting with innocent enthusiasm and great promise; for a respected jurist engaged in a simple act of friendship; for a kind and accomplished staffer; for a loving husband who instinctively shielded his wife from the rain of bullets, and for a husband, also lovingly protective, who was unable to stave them off; and, finally, a widowed retiree still giving to her community, all so abruptly and violently losing their lives; and for those who are thankfully recovering, all engaged in the abiding promise of democracy, coming to talk with their Congresswoman, gathering in the parking lot of a local supermarket on a Saturday morning.

This horrific incident has raised many serious questions about appropriately identifying and caring for those who suffer from mental illness, about the accessibility of violent weapons, about the tone and language of our politics today, and about the solemn obligations of elected office in a democratic society--of those serving, of their staff, and of constituents eager to participate and be heard.

But today we honor with our words those who tragically lost their lives and those harmed by this senseless act of violence. We pray for Gabby and all those still recovering; and we remember their families and loved ones now struggling with the immensity of their losses. In the days ahead, however, we must honor and remember them with our actions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule to consider legislation to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Don't Ask, Don't Tell remains the only Federal statute mandating a person be fired based on their sexual orientation. Since this policy became law, thousands of dedicated, honorable Americans have suffered discrimination while thousands more have been discouraged from even considering the military.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell removes highly skilled, trained, and capable servicemembers out of the military at a time when we need them for multiple deployments to fight two wars. The Pentagon's study of Don't Ask, Don't Tell confirms that lifting the ban on gay and lesbian soldiers serving openly in our Armed Forces would not adversely affect our military's readiness or strain unit cohesion. This report comes months after nearly a year of careful study, which included thousands of conversations with enlisted personnel, officers, and military commanders. The results of this study showed that there is no longer any remaining justification to continue a policy that prevents some of the best and brightest from honorably serving in our Armed Forces.

All our servicemen and -women are first and foremost Americans, protecting freedom throughout the world. We cannot with any true moral standing discriminate against distinguished and courageous members of our own military for the simple act of living an authentic life.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on the following rollcall votes: Rollcall 581 to designate the Lance Corporal Alexander Scott Arredondo, United States Marine Corps Post Office Building; rollcall 582 to support the goals and ideals of a National Mesothelioma Awareness Day; rollcall 584 for the Claims Resolution Act 2010; rollcall 585 to honor and recognize the exemplary service of the 60th Air Mobility Wing, the 349th Air Mobility Wing, the 15th Expeditionary Mobility Task Force, and the 615th Contingency Response Wing civilians and families serving at Travis Air Force Base, California; rollcall 586 to honor and recognize the National Guard on the occasion of its 374th anniversary.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for all votes. I am a cosponsor of the Lance Corporal Arredondo Post Office legislation and the resolution honoring the National Guard, and I have consistently voted to recognize and honor the service and sacrifices of our nation's servicemembers and military families. I commend the National Guard, which has served our nation with distinction and honor for 374 years and deserves the greatest respect and gratitude.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos from the Fifth District of Massachusetts for his exemplary service to the citizens of the City of Lowell and the towns of Tyngsboro, Westford, Groton, Dunstable and Pepperell as a Massachusetts State Representative and Senator.

Senator Panagiotakos was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate in 1996. Prior to that Senator Panagiotakos served two terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and two terms as a member of the Lowell School Committee. Rising through the ranks to become Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, Senator Panagiotakos was charged with the oversight to develop and guide the Commonwealth's budget through one of the worst fiscal crises since the Great Depression.

Senator Panagiotakos has exhibited a lifelong commitment to the City of Lowell and the communities he represents. Known for his leadership style of compromise with Democrats and Republicans, he was able to help secure funding for local projects such as the

Hamilton Canal District, the Emerging Technology Center at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, the redevelopment of the Lawrence Mills and the Julian D. Steele public housing project.

Senator Panagiotakos and his wife, Christine, along with their two daughters, Giana and Alexandria, live in the Highlands neighborhood in Lowell, just two streets over from his childhood home. As Senator Panagiotakos said it best, ``The thing that made me the most proud was not being called `Senator' or `Mr. Chairman,' but when they said `Steve Panagiotakos, from Lowell.'''

Upon his retirement, I wish to thank him for his friendship, recognize him for his unyielding leadership in the Massachusetts Senate, and congratulate him for his distinguished career.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Senator Susan Tucker from the Fifth District of Massachusetts for her exemplary service to the citizens of the City of Lawrence and the towns of Andover, Dracut, and Tewksbury as a Massachusetts State Representative and Senator.

Senator Tucker was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1982 and to the Massachusetts Senate in 1992. While in the Senate, she served as Chair of the Joint Committee on Housing, Vice-Chair of the Joint Committee on Telecommunication, and as member of the Committees on Education, Ways and Means, Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, Financial Services and Revenue.

Senator Tucker has exhibited a lifelong commitment to advocacy and community service, and earned a reputation as an innovative and responsive leader. Known for her willingness to take on any challenge, she worked tirelessly to eliminate auto insurance fraud and address the foreclosure crisis in Massachusetts. Senator Tucker has received numerous leadership awards from state-wide groups recognizing her contributions to the betterment of life for citizens of the Commonwealth. In 2008, she was awarded the Pioneer Institute's Better Government Award for taking on auto insurance fraud, and in 2009 she was named Legislator of the Year by the Massachusetts Association for Families for her dedication to improving the lives of foster and adopted children.

Senator Tucker and her husband, Mike, reside in Andover and have two grown sons, as well as the loves of her life, granddaughters, Secoya and Autumn.

Upon her retirement, I wish to thank her for her friendship, recognize her for her inspiring leadership in the Massachusetts Senate, and congratulate her for her distinguished career.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in recognizing the 75th anniversary of Social Security. Social Security has provided basic economic security for generations of Americans.

A woman from Tewksbury, Massachusetts, a city that I represent, recently wrote me to say, ``I am retired and dependent on Social Security to survive. Please protect the benefits I've worked so hard for for many years.''

Over the years, Democrats have fought to improve and strengthen Social Security. As a result, the Social Security Trust Fund has reserves of $2.6 trillion, which will continue to earn interest and pay benefits until 2037.

But imagine if Social Security benefits had been invested in the stock market during the recent Wall Street crisis. Seniors would have lost billions of dollars in Social Security income, along with any retirement savings they had when the economy collapsed.

Despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would argue, subjecting Social Security to the whims of Wall Street is not the answer. We must be committed to strengthening Social Security so that our contract with American workers endures for generations.

Madam Speaker, today marks the thirty-sixth anniversary of the Turkish invasion and subsequent occupation of Cyprus. Since the late 1970s, the UN, with US support, has promoted negotiations aimed at reuniting the island. Despite high hopes for reconciliation in 2008, and despite some progress in that direction, the normalization process appears stalled.

We have a moral and ethical obligation to stand with Cypriots to reunify their island as a single sovereignty, with a single citizenship based on human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms. It is time to acknowledge and rectify abuses against Greek Cypriots whose rights have been ignored or violated over these many years. It is time to find common ground and help Cyprus build a unified economy. According to the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, a successful federalist settlement could lead to an additional ten percent GDP growth within seven years.

I have spoken out on this issue before, and will continue to press for the day in which we have a reunified and prosperous Cyprus where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace, security and stability, free from foreign aggression and intervention.

Mr. Speaker, 2.5 million Americans have lost their unemployment benefits--more than 33,000 of them in my home State of Massachusetts. I have heard from many of these struggling families.

From Chelmsford: ``My UI benefits have just run out. A UI check is food and other necessities while I draw down savings to keep my house.''

From Lowell: ``I have always had a very good job. I work hard, pay taxes, and I certainly have not been living in excess. Last July, my company had to cut staff, and my entire team was let go. I have never had a problem finding a job, but this search has been extremely difficult. Unemployment benefits helped me to stay on track with life's basic necessities, such as food, gas and insurance. Losing them has caused desperate action on my part.''

From Westford: ``Please extend unemployment benefits for all Americans. I know many solid citizens who are actively and vigorously job hunting to no avail, including my wife. Help.''

I urge my Senate colleagues to pass this desperately needed extension.