Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this legislation. The American people are tired of political gimmicks and games. They want to see real efforts to create jobs and grow our economy. This legislation does nothing to advance these goals.

The President has already taken steps to alleviate the burden on small businesses by delaying the employer mandate. This step will ensure small firms have the time, resources, and tools they need to provide coverage to their employees before the mandate kicks in. At best, the legislation before us today is duplicative of that effort. At worst, it amounts to political grandstanding.

Let's be absolutely clear--even if these measures pass the House, we know they will go nowhere in the Senate. If, in some distorted reality, the Senate somehow approves this legislation, it will not be signed into law by the President. So the only real purpose of this bill and the debate is to score cheap political points. Passing this bill will do nothing to help Americans who are struggling to find work, afford rent, or put groceries on the table. Instead, we are bringing up yet another bill to repeal health care reform--the 38th such bill of this Congress--but I forgot: it's the summer, so we're showing reruns.

The Affordable Care Act is already providing valuable benefits to the American people. It was just reported today that New Yorkers will see a 50 percent cut in their insurance premiums thanks to this landmark law. Millions of young adults who are graduating from college can remain on their parents' plans as they enter the job market. Children with life- threatening ailments are no longer denied coverage under preexisting- condition rules. Women are no longer paying

more due to discriminatory insurance company practices.

These are the benefits that our Republican colleagues would deny the American people. Vote ``no.'' This debate is over.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to this mean-spirited farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes food nutrition from those most vulnerable among us, our children.

Is this what compassionate conservatism is all about?

Mr. Chair, millions of people in our country lack basic access to fresh, healthy foods. Three million people in New York City alone live in places where stores that sell fresh produce are few or far away. These people have difficulty accessing fruits and vegetables, cooking meals with unprocessed foods, and getting the nutrients they need to live a healthy lifestyle.

These conditions exacerbate the obesity epidemic in America. More than a third of adults and 17 percent of children are obese, and obesity rates in low-income and minority communities are even higher.

The roots of the problem are structural: without access to fresh foods high in nutrients and low in calories, we can't expect people to keep a healthy diet. And we can't expect their children to learn healthy eating habits.

Recently, there has been progress in connecting urban areas with sources for healthier food, and this Farm Bill makes important progress in that area. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative and other programs will continue to bring supermarkets and farmers' markets to new communities.

But there are also exciting opportunities to use the spaces and resources available to inner-city neighborhoods to grow fresh foods right where they are needed the most and educate the community about the value of these foods. Urban farming can turn abandoned properties or public spaces into community gardens and centers of learning.

For instance, Added Value in New York City, which I have worked to support, has operated five farms in New York City over the past 13 years. Today, it cultivates two farms in Red Hook, employs 40 teenagers through its youth empowerment program, and educates 1,200 students every year about healthy food and farming.

Unfortunately, urban farms face many challenges, from a lack of funding to restrictive zoning rules that limit the spaces available to them. Although USDA has programs in place that can help urban farmers, small organizations often lack the resources to navigate a complicated system and gain access to these programs.

My amendment would open up more opportunities for urban agriculture and assist urban farmers in applying to programs that could benefit them. Reforms like this can help urban farms across the country bring healthy foods into their communities and educate students and families about the value of healthy foods and how to use them at home.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting access to fresh, healthy foods for low-income individuals through the development of urban agriculture. Through careful reforms, we can help urban farms educate Americans about their food choices, fight the obesity epidemic, and turn undeveloped properties in inner-city neighborhoods into valuable community spaces.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this rule. Our Armed Forces face an epidemic that is tearing away this institution's moral credibility. Millions of patriotic young men and women who are considering donning our Nation's uniform, must contend with the fact that our military has become a safe haven for sexual assault and rape.

According to DOD's own estimate, on average, 70 servicemembers are sexually assaulted every day, with 26,000 of these incidents occurring last year alone. That represents a 30 percent increase from just 2 years before.

Keep in mind, this is the Department of Defense data. It is likely this problem is even more widespread than these numbers suggest. Equally troubling, only a sliver of about 3 percent of these cases were prosecuted. The horrifying fact is that tolerance of sexual assault has become part of the Armed Forces' culture. In too many cases, victims are further harmed by a system that protects offenders in the name of the chain of command. This is unacceptable. It must change, and it must change now.

The men and women who serve our Nation sacrifice enough. They should not have to worry about sexual assault at the hands of superiors and colleagues.

It is time for real steps that end this permissive culture, hold sexual offenders accountable, and restore trust in our Armed Forces.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling upholding the health care bill was a historic win for this Nation's small businesses and their employees. In fact, 62 percent of all small businesses didn't have access to health insurance for themselves, their employees, and their families. That ruling proved that the Affordable Care Act was a good law.

The benefits small businesses are already seeing reiterate this fact, and yet we find ourselves voting again on repealing this landmark law. Once more we must vote on a bill that will not help a single small business invest, hire, or secure a loan. If you want to help small businesses, put people back to work.

In addition to the small business health care tax credit, which has already helped 360,000 small businesses providing health insurance to up to 2 million workers in this country, the medical loss ratio has ensured that businesses of all sizes were getting the most out of their premium dollars, saving them nearly $321 million--money that they could put back into their companies.

The future of health reform holds more promise. Banning denials for preexisting conditions reduces ``job lock'' and encourages more than 1.6 million prospective entrepreneurs to launch new companies.

At a small business hearing last month, Ms. Louisa McQueeney credited the ACA with providing her company ``better coverage and greater peace of mind.'' The ACA will soon prohibit insurers from hiking rates on small firms without justification and end discrimination based on gender. So, I agree with Ms. McQueeney when she says, ``Frankly, it can't come soon enough.''

Contrary to beliefs, the ACA gives small businesses better access to quality coverage. Passage of today's bill would strip new protections that provide bargaining power to small companies. That is why I will continue to oppose any efforts repealing a law that is beneficial to millions of small firms, and I urge our colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, if we are to fairly resolve the issue of Puerto Rico's status, we must find a framework for true self- determination. The ``Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act'' being introduced today fails that test in every aspect: it denies Puerto Ricans a true vehicle for self-determination and fabricates a superficial majority in favor of statehood.

I think it is critical that my colleagues understand how flawed the process was for the plebiscite held in November of 2012. By rigging the process, architects of this vote effectively ensured that the outcome would be a result they desired.

It should be recognized that votes cast in favor of statehood did not exceed 44 percent--a number that has remained relatively flat for two decades. It is important to note that 26 percent of voters cast blank ballots during this part of the vote. These votes should be considered votes against statehood as casting a blank ballot is part of traditional form of objecting to an unfair process in Puerto Rican political history. Indeed, during this referendum, the Commonwealth Party adopted a resolution asking voters to protest the process by casting blank ballots. In short, even with this unfair and flawed process, 55 percent of Puerto Rican voters cast ballots unsupportive of statehood.

Despite these numbers, the bill being proposed today continues to perpetuate this unfair political gamesmanship, seeking to promote statehood at the exclusion of other potential political solutions.

Mr. Speaker, rather than inserting ourselves into the political status debate for Puerto Rico, Congress should be exploring ways to raise the quality of life for the 3.6 million American citizens who reside in Puerto Rico. By fostering economic development there, encouraging outside investment and spurring economic opportunity, we can help all Puerto Ricans enjoy a better life--while enhancing the economy of the mainland United States. Investments in education and infrastructure can make Puerto Rico a better place to live, while providing a solid foundation for future generations. Preserving the islands' natural beauty and addressing environmental justice issues is also vitally important.

These are the issues we should be tackling, rather than requiring Puerto Ricans to participate in a flawed process aimed at promoting the political goals of a minority of voters. The ultimate solution for Puerto Rico's future will be realized by creating economic opportunity and justice, investing in growth and infrastructure, not through unfair processes that seek to foreclose one option in favor of statehood.

I submit a Concurrent Resolution recently considered by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record opposing the GOP's reprehensible Mother's Day gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the ``GOP's Mothers'' Day Gift: More Work, Less Pay.''

This misnamed ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' only offers greater flexibility to employers and lower wages to workers. Under this measure, workers will not get paid for hours that exceed 40 hours per week. That compensation will instead go into a fund controlled by their employer.

Employers would be allowed to refuse a worker time off to deal with a family member or attend a parent-teacher conference. This is not real flexibility for workers. This proposal is simply another assault on working families and it should be defeated.

It is particularly ironic that House Republicans would offer this legislation in the week leading up to Mother's Day. As working women and mothers in New York and throughout the nation struggle with a tough economy, this ill-conceived measure would pull the rug out from under them, making them work more for less compensation.

It is time to focus on real solutions that help working families prosper. Vote down this bill so we can focus on creating jobs, speeding our economic recovery and addressing challenges faced by working men and women.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived budget. For working families this project could mean a tax hit of $2,000, making it harder for families to afford rent and put food on the table.

The GOP plan also shortchanges seniors, ending Medicare in 10 years. Equally problematic, the Affordable Care Act would be repealed, reducing health care assistance to 176,000 families in my district and preventing 68,000 young people in my part of New York from staying on their parents' insurance.

We can also expect our economy to take a hit with 2 million jobs vanishing next year alone. Is this what we need to get this economy growing again? And for small businesses, this budget will mean losses. Sixteen thousand small firms in my district will lose tax assistance when purchasing health care, and thousands of would-be entrepreneurs around the country will see technical assistance and other services dry up, preventing the creation of new startups and blocking job creation.

Mr. Chairman, budgets should be about priorities. The American people rejected these flawed priorities last year when they voted to reelect President Obama. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can approve a budget that is balanced, that is fair, that will create jobs, and that will move our Nation forward, together.

I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, twice in two decades Members of both parties have crossed party lines to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Yet this week we are considering a partisan bill that excludes some victims based on sexual orientation or immigration status. Does abuse not ``count'' if the victim happens to be a gay man or a lesbian? What if the victim is an undocumented worker?

Here are some facts my GOP colleagues may be unaware of: 40 percent of gay men experience domestic abuse, as do 50 percent of lesbian women. For undocumented women, abuse rates are slightly higher than the rest of the population, but go unreported for fear of deportation. Those are millions of people and thousands of New Yorkers who are being hurt. This legislation adds insult to their injury by basically saying because of who you are, we won't help you.

I hope my Republican colleagues agree that that is not the message we want to send. Vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill so we can approve a real Violence Against Women Act that protects all victims equally. Shame on us. This should not be a partisan issue.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to engage the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy and intend to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Hurricane Sandy has left a lasting impact on New York and its residents. The storm surge engulfed low-lying housing-- including the Redhook development in my district--floating basements, common areas, and apartments. These areas remained submerged for days, cutting off essential services. After the water receded, toxic mold spread quickly in damaged areas.

Mold and mildew infestation can pose serious health risks if not addressed in a timely manner. If left untreated, residents and workers are at risk of developing respiratory illnesses or infection. Without providing emergency funding specifically for this purpose, there is serious concern among city residents that calls for more remediation will go unanswered.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that going forward we can work together to ensure that the final bill addresses mold contamination in public housing.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I'm very grateful to the chairman.

The success of our response to this tragedy hinges on helping residents rehabilitate the structures they call home.

It is essential that the resources necessary to provide secure housing for New Yorkers and other residents in New Jersey and Connecticut are made available.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, from the Revolutionary War to the war in Afghanistan, we owe a great debt to our servicemen and -women. One way that we honor them is through their internment in national veteran cemeteries, which gives them a dignified and honorable final resting place.

As anyone who has walked through the rows of tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery knows, these cemeteries are hallowed ground. They allow us not only to pay our great respect to these great men and women, but to reflect on the cost of defending the very freedoms we enjoy in our daily lives. Unfortunately, these burial grounds were not left unscathed by Hurricane Sandy. In fact, the Cypress Hills National Cemetery--New York City's only such cemetery--was heavily damaged by the storm.

As the final resting place for more than 20,000 soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, Korea, and

Vietnam, it spans our Nation's military history and is a poignant reminder of the sacrifices made to defend democracy.

At Cypress Hills National Cemetery, trees were downed, areas were flooded, and many important monuments were jeopardized. Headstones were also damaged, with some pulled out of the ground due to trees falling on them. To honor those veterans buried there, the cemetery must be well maintained, and making these repairs and protecting these structures should be a priority for all Americans. To do this, the underlying legislation provides $1.1 million to make repairs and renovations.

This amendment would provide another $1 million for this purpose and enable those affected veteran cemeteries to take steps to protect this sacred ground from future disasters. This could include installing measures to prevent the destruction of grave sites, regrading areas prone to flooding, and reinforcing critical structures that honor our veterans. Such an investment will make sure that future generations can visit this memorial and understand the sacrifices of those that came before them. Making certain that this memorial stands the test of time is the least we can do for those that gave their lives in service to our Nation.

Ultimately, a Nation is truly measured by how it honors its veterans, and this amendment does just that, while ensuring that we truly leave no man and no woman behind.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

I thank the gentlelady, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, Hurricane Sandy has devastated New York, and thousands and thousands of my constituents lost their homes and their businesses. It is a shame--an embarrassment for this institution--that the House Republican leadership continues playing games with this essential assistance more than 2 months after the storm struck.

It is indefensible that as Americans continue to suffer from Sandy's impact, that the House majority could not get their act together to bring the entire aid, Senate-passed package to a vote. Talk about ``fiddling while New York City burns.''

This is also the case with today's legislation. While I fully support providing FEMA with additional funding, it is just another sign of the majority's dysfunction. With FEMA just days away from being unable to pay flood claims, the Republicans argue among themselves about what to do. That is a sad situation.

So today we're talking about flood insurance.

The job creators in our community are getting nothing. We, as an institution, come together when there are natural disasters across this Nation. My constituents deserve nothing less.

Hurricane Sandy has devastated New York and it is a shame--an embarrassment for this institution--that the House Republican leadership continues playing games with this essential assistance more than two months after the storm struck. It is indefensible that as Americans continue to suffer from Sandy's impact that the House majority could not get their act together to bring the entire aid Senate-passed package to a vote. Talk about ``fiddling while New York City burns.''

And this is also the case with today's legislation. While I fully support providing FEMA with additional funding for the National Funding Insurance Program, it is just another sign of the majority's dysfunction. With FEMA just days away from being unable to pay flood claims, the Republicans argued among themselves about what to do. This is a sad situation for those Americans that count on their government to have their backs after a disaster.

While this bill will help homeowners insured through the Flood Insurance program, it does nothing for our small businesses and infrastructure needs. Providing this broader assistance is so overdue that it is a disgrace, and even more so now, we are in the dawn of the 113th Congress, and about to vote on just a sliver of what was promised. To many who are already suffering from the impact of Sandy, this feels like a punch to the gut. And while I would have rather voted earlier this week on the entire $60 billion package approved by the Senate, the House majority has given us no choice. I hope that the additional funding to help our residents and small businesses--and to repair our infrastructure--will be brought to a vote as quickly as possible.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. This measure punishes working families just to deliver more tax breaks for the wealthy.

Under this legislation, those making over $1 million a year will receive an average tax cut of $50,000. That is not the 1 percent. It is the top one-third of the 1 percent. Meanwhile, 25 million working families will pay an average of $1,000 more in taxes.

For those families that are struggling to find work in this difficult economy, this bill is equally bad. Two million Americans will lose unemployment benefits next month, pushing them out into the cold.

Retirees and seniors will also be hurt. With a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments, 50 million seniors will see their health care endangered.

Mr. Speaker, what the American people are watching right here right now

is a tragic comedy, because the other side knows quite well that, even if this legislation passes the House today, it is going nowhere. So here we are, with time running out, rather than coming up with real compromise, we are playing another game of political charades. That is not what the American people want us to do.

I urge my colleagues, reject this bill so we can come up with a solution that becomes law, addresses our fiscal challenges while protecting working families.

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

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work on this issue.

Since 1958, the SBIC program has been an integral part of SBA's mission to provide small businesses with capital and create jobs. To date, the program has invested approximately $63 billion in more than 110,000 U.S. companies. In fact, some of the Nation's most successful corporations, including Apple, FedEx, and Costco, received early-stage financing from SBICs. The key to the program's success is leveraging Federal funds to increase the amount of private capital invested in promising start-up companies.

Access to capital is the lifeblood of every small business. After the 2008 financial crisis froze traditional credit markets, many firms sought out alternative providers of financing, particularly SBICs. Demand quickly outpaced the program's capacity, requiring a significant increase in the leverage caps to keep up. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the leverage cap on an SBIC family of funds nearly doubled to $225 million.

As a result, the program experienced unprecedented growth, setting a record in 2012 with over $2.5 billion in equity financings made, an 85 percent increase from 2010. This success has pushed many SBIC licensees against the new leverage caps, reducing the flow of capital to worthy small businesses.

As you know, the goal of the SBIC program is to fill the gap between the availability of venture capital and the needs of small businesses in start-up and growth situations. Although this bill only addresses the needs of some in the SBIC community, it will still get additional equity capital flowing. As the economy continues its recovery, every dollar invested in small businesses will be important.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I don't have any additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this partisan legislation. Rather than simply creating a program that offers visas for students graduating in fields we need, this legislation picks ``winners and losers'' among our Nation's immigrants. Rather than tackling the tough issues surrounding immigration reform by building consensus, once again our Republican colleagues are pushing divisive legislation that punishes certain immigrant groups and rewards others.

We have another option. My Democratic colleagues have put forth a straightforward STEM proposal that would offer visas to graduates fields like science, mathematics and engineering. Instead, we are debating a measure that would reduce overall immigration levels and create a series of false choices.

All of us recognize the value of bringing more immigrants with certain skills and educational backgrounds. Where we seem to disagree is this--those of us on our side of the aisle also recognize that we should not be penalizing other hardworking immigrants from more humble backgrounds.

I say to my colleagues--reject this bill. Let us instead focus on real immigration reform that is based on consensus and focuses on making our system fairer and better.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, while I was in the well trying to get the Speaker's attention, rollcall vote 613 was gaveled before I was able to vote. I would have voted ``nay.''

Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, if Hurricane Sandy taught us anything, it is the importance of infrastructure to New York City and our Nation.

Right now, New Yorkers are struggling with day-to-day challenges, many of them without power. In certain parts of the metropolitan area, gasoline shortages continue presenting enormous difficulties. But even as New Yorkers work to rebuild and recover for the short term, we cannot ignore long-term problems.

In many ways, the city of New York took a number of prudent steps that reduced damage and sped up recovery time. However, it is painfully clear that more must be done in the future to ensure our Nation's infrastructure can withstand assaults from Mother Nature.

As Governor Cuomo said, ``We have a new reality, and old infrastructures and old systems.'' We can start by protecting low-lying areas near the ocean, like Brooklyn and Manhattan in my district, with seawalls, bulkheads, and floodgates. In other areas, soft infrastructure investments such as sand dunes and embankments can minimize flooding. Our electrical system needs to be hardened and protected. Other energy sources must also be safeguarded. Ensuring refineries and petroleum supplies do not fall victims to floods can prevent future fuel shortages.

Just as with ensuring automobiles have fuel after disasters, other vital transportation arteries must be protected. Raising entryways to New York's subways could minimize flood damage to our subway system, ensuring our city gets back on its feet faster after the next storm.

Constructing a storm surge barrier and implementing infrastructure changes like this, as you said, will not be cheap. It has been estimated costs could run as high as $20 billion just for New York City. But let's remember, in this one storm alone, New York City suffered $26 billion in economic damage and losses--and lives that were lost.

Sadly, the question is not if there will be future storms, but when. By investing in our infrastructure now, we can prevent future economic damage, to say nothing of protecting our citizens from danger.

Not only will these investments protect our city from disaster down the road, but they can provide a much-needed employment boost. New Yorkers are ready to go to work. Not only strengthening our city for the long haul, making this investment now can create good-paying jobs in the short term and reduce damage from future disasters over the long term.

In New York, we're ready to go to work, investing not only in New York's infrastructure but also in our entire Nation's.

For New York City?

Correct. Just for New York City.

That's correct.

In the long haul, not only do we protect our citizens, but the economy will not suffer.

Look at New York. It came to a standstill. Our transportation infrastructure was totally paralyzed. Transportation in terms of bringing gasoline into New York, we couldn't do it.

This is the right thing to do in order for our Nation to protect its citizens, but also it could improve the economic conditions of our entire Nation by creating many high-paying jobs at this time when the economy continues to struggle.

Definitely.

When it comes to transportation and infrastructure, a lot of the businesses are small businesses, and they are the backbone of our economy. They will be the ones creating the jobs that are so much needed in our local communities.