Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, well, here we go again. Our to-do list continues to pile up and Republican House leadership of this legislative body--if we can even use words like ``leadership'' and ``legislative'' to describe the House anymore--has officially cemented the first session of the 113th Congress as the ``least productive of all time.''

We have not passed a budget, have not passed a farm bill, have not fixed the Voting Rights Act, or done anything in our charge to make the people's voices heard in their Nation's Capital. In fact, if recent reports in the D.C. newspapers are any indication, House leadership seems to be more concerned with planning fund-raisers in New York City than getting anything done here in Washington, D.C.

The leadership of the people's House has continued to govern by sound bites and passing messaging bills that go nowhere--even shutting down the government for more than 2 weeks in the process, a painful exercise and expensive exercise.

But we are about to call it a year and skip town with so much left undone. Our unemployment--or employment--rate is at its lowest point in 5 years. But imagine how much lower it would be today if we would work together and focus on jobs instead of attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act since 2011;

Rolling back sequestration and replacing it with a responsible budget that cuts where we can and invests where we must;

Passing comprehensive immigration reform to expand the American Dream to our friends and neighbors who want so desperately to contribute to the greatest country on the planet;

Updating the Voting Rights Act so that everyone is able to fulfill their basic human right and duty of going to the polls;

Increasing the minimum wage to restore dignity to those who have been forced to work two, and sometimes three, jobs simply to put food on the table;

Passing a farm bill--something that needs to be done and used to be routine--and empowering our Nation's family farms to ensure that our national food supply remains secure and remains plentiful;

Focusing on the clear and present danger that climate change has brought to the Midwest and to our shores along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast.

I could go on and on, but I only have 5 minutes.

Tax reform, certainly commonsense gun reform like expanding background checks, and passing ENDA.

The fact is that there are about 10 to 15 pieces of major legislation that would improve our country and the quality of life for Americans of every race, orientation, political party, and socioeconomic status. But they are not being pushed by this House.

Almost all of these bills, if given a simple up-or-down vote, would pass with a bipartisan majority; but House leadership continues to act in the interest of a few extremists in their own party instead of doing what is right for our American people.

I, like many of my Democratic colleagues, have signed onto a resolution introduced by my good friend Louise Slaughter, which would prevent Congress from adjourning unless the House agrees to a budget by December 13.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution so that we stay in town until we perform at least one of our basic duties before leaving for the holidays. The American people deserve so much more than what we have given them in the past year.

It is my hope that when we gavel in next year, we will do so with a renewed willingness to work together and focus on the top priority for Americans, which is, indeed, putting people back to work. The American public expects and deserves nothing less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here with my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) in support of H.R. 3588.

As we heard, 3 years ago, Congress passed important legislation to reduce lead in drinking water supplies by eliminating a very significant remaining source of lead--our water delivery infrastructure. The Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to address the high levels of lead documented in the drinking water in many communities.

Lead is a very dangerous contaminant, and it is especially dangerous to our children. It is retained in their bodies and leads to a host of chronic problems. We need to remove lead from our drinking water, but we do not need to regulate fire hydrants to achieve this worthy and important goal.

Fire hydrants are rarely used to provide drinking water, and those rare occasions are during emergencies--for instance, the break of a water main. And, when these rare events occur, flushing the hydrant is sufficient to ensure that lead and other contaminants are not conveyed in the water.

As sometimes happens, Mr. Speaker, laws have unintended consequences. When Congress passed the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act 3 years ago, I doubt anyone intended to have EPA regulate fire hydrants.

EPA hosted a webinar on this issue recently. The agency consulted stakeholders from the hydrant manufacturing industry, municipalities from across our country, State and city regulatory agencies, and water supply companies. These sources provided the Agency with information to demonstrate that regulating hydrants would be expensive to implement, and it would deliver virtually no additional public health benefits.

Closer to home, I heard from two municipalities in my district, Latham and Colonie, both in Albany County. Their local leaders were very concerned about the expense of replacing their inventory of fire hydrants and about problems that could arise if they were unable to service and replace hydrants in a timely manner.

As we all know, fire hydrants are a vital part of the safety infrastructure of every community, large or small, across this great country. I am told the average cost is as high as $2,000 per hydrant, if not more. Most communities keep a reserve inventory so hydrants can be replaced as needed. Without this fix, communities across the country would be spending millions to replace inventories of working hydrants.

Not only would communities have to replace their inventory of hydrants, but there is a real question about the availability of lead- free alternatives. The supply of lead-free hydrants is still small, and some newer designs have yet to be tested and certified fully.

Well, we certainly do not need to impose unnecessary costs on our communities across this country. We can fix this problem, and we are moving forward with a sound and effective solution today.

H.R. 3588 adds fire hydrants to the list of plumbing fixtures and other

components of water infrastructure that are exempted from the requirements to reduce lead. H.R. 3588 is a simple, bipartisan bill that provides a straightforward correction to the law. It will save our communities money and time, two very important commodities.

In addition, the bill contains a provision requiring the EPA Administrator to consult with the Drinking Water Advisory Council on options for reducing lead in our drinking water in a cost-effective manner. Hopefully, this dialogue will provide more cost-effective options for achieving a worthy goal: cleaner, safer drinking water.

Again, I want to commend our colleague, Representative Johnson, for his work on this legislation and thank him for working together with me to ensure that communities can concentrate on efforts that will bring true public health improvements to our citizens and avoid unnecessary expenses that achieve no real benefits.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers here on our side.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio; I want to thank Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Ranking Member Waxman of the same committee for expediting this very important bill. Again, I urge all of our colleagues to support this worthy legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the bill that we are addressing before the House simply does not address the problems with pipeline approvals because the committee has not identified any problems with them.

The natural gas pipeline approval process works well. The Government Accountability Office's recent review found that FERC's consideration of the vast majority of these projects is completed within a year of receiving a complete application.

The network of over 2 million miles of gas pipeline spread across this country ensures that natural gas can be delivered where it is needed. We do have some areas where additional infrastructure is required, but the failure to fill those needs is not due to the permit approval process at FERC. It is due to economic decisions being made by those in the private sector.

We do have some problems with pipelines. Accidents resulting in explosions have severely damaged property and, in some cases, claimed lives. We should be doing more to prevent these accidents.

The 10 percent of project approvals that are not completed within a 1-year period are those that are more complex. They extend for many miles, traverse densely populated areas, and cross sensitive or valuable resources such as farm lands or water bodies.

A project with these characteristics may need more than 1 year to ensure that the pipeline that is ultimately constructed is not going to place people, their communities, other businesses or valuable resources at risk.

Whenever a regulatory agency is poised to act under the law to defend the health and safety of our citizens, there is a hue and cry about the necessity of doing extensive analyses of all aspects of the proposed regulation to determine its potential impact on businesses and the economy.

Many of these analyses take years and delay commonsense protections that will, indeed, save thousands of our citizens from illnesses or death.

Apparently, protecting public health or the environment can wait, but the oil and gas companies cannot.

We need energy, but we need other things also. FERC's process weighs all these considerations before approving pipelines, and that is how it should be.

Pipeline projects should be evaluated in a timely fashion; but the imposition of a hard, 12-month deadline for all projects, regardless of their length or complexity, is bad policy. We should devote our time to solving problems, not creating them.

H.R. 1900 should be rejected. It will do nothing to improve the pipeline approval process.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1900 attempts to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist.

The bill seeks to change FERC's process even though the pipeline companies have testified that the permitting process is ``generally very good.'' Thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines are being approved under the current system. We have real energy challenges in this country and should be seeking real solutions to these challenges, not spending our time on problems that don't exist.

My amendment addresses a real problem--the dangers of climate change and the contributions of natural gas infrastructure to this growing threat--and it prevents waste by ensuring that we use it and don't lose it.

Climate change is the most urgent energy challenge that we face today. If the global average temperature continues to increase, we will face even more serious impacts, including flooding of coastal cities, increased risks to our food supply, unprecedented heat waves, exacerbated water scarcity in many regions, increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones such as Hurricane Sandy and the recent supertyphoon in the Philippines, and an irreversible loss of plants and animals that share this planet with us.

Our behavior is driving these changes. We must take responsibility for the situation and work to halt it. We should not leave this task to our children and grandchildren and condemn them to a more uncertain and unsafe world.

Many hope that natural gas, or methane, will serve as a critical bridge fuel as we work to reduce our carbon pollution, but natural gas poses its own challenges. Although natural gas emits less carbon dioxide than coal or oil when burned, the development and transportation of natural gas results in releases of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas 25 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide. This is a serious concern.

According to a study by the World Resources Institute, leaks from natural gas systems ``represent a significant source of global warming pollution in the U.S.'' The study further found that methane leaks occur at every stage of the natural gas life cycle--at the wellhead, from compression facilities, and from pipelines. These fugitive methane emissions can reduce or even negate the net climate benefits of using natural gas as a substitute for coal and oil.

The good news is that we can reduce methane emissions by applying proven, cost-effective technologies throughout the natural gas system. My amendment will ensure that new pipelines incorporate designs, systems, and practices that minimize leaks, thereby conserving gas and reducing pollution. We will still need to address problems with existing infrastructure and other sources within the natural gas system, but this would be a very important start. It is precisely what we should expect and require of energy infrastructure that will be around for decades.

By including this requirement in the law, the applicants are informed before they begin their application of the requirement for this information and would have ample time to include it in permit applications. Encouraging the prevention and monitoring of leaks would have the added benefit of increasing pipeline safety.

The language does not require an applicant to wait for the development of something new. These technologies exist today and only need to be applied ``to the extent applicable.'' This makes both economic and environmental sense. By reducing pipeline leaks, the amendment ensures that more of our domestic energy resources will be used and fewer of these resources will be wasted.

The amendment doesn't fix the core problems with H.R. 1900, including the bill's arbitrary and harmful deadlines, but it does ensure that the bill addresses an energy problem that actually exists.

If we are going to revisit the law governing the permitting of natural gas pipelines, this is the kind of commonsense step that we should be discussing.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this week, it was reported that House Republicans are looking for a legislative plan to close out the year and to move forward into 2014 and, as such, passed out a blank sheet of paper as their agenda--a blank sheet.

Each month, polls put congressional approval rates at new lows, and more independent organizations rank the 113th Congress as one of the least--if not the least--productive of all time.

In response, leadership of the people's House has continued to govern by sound bites and pass messaging bills that simply go nowhere--even painfully shutting down the government for more than 2 weeks in the process.

If House leadership is looking for an agenda, they need only to look across the aisle to their friends. We have some suggestions, and chief among them is putting Americans back to work.

During our August work period, I participated in some 166 events, meeting with constituents each and every time. At nearly every stop, my friends and neighbors wanted to know what was being done in Washington to help the private sector create jobs.

My district is extraordinary, but not in this regard. I have to believe that the people of Albany and Schenectady and Saratoga Springs, New York, my hometown of Amsterdam, New York, in the 20th Congressional District, are thinking what America is thinking. They are asking what myself and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are doing to grow the economy.

House Democrats stand ready to work with Republicans to address the real challenges that face this great Nation of ours.

Sequestration-related cuts are estimated to cost our economy some 1.6 million jobs through 2014. Let's work together to save jobs and pass a budget that invests by growing in a justified way, in a fair way, revenues and belt tightening so that we cut as we can, so that we then invest as we must.

Our family farms deserve the certainty that a 5-year reauthorization of the farm bill has brought them for decades upon decades. Our parties clearly don't see eye-to-eye on cutting such items as hunger assistance, hunger assistance for millions of veterans, millions of frail people, millions of elderly, millions of children.

If we work together on jobs, we will help the private sector put people into jobs and cut poverty and reduce the need for hunger programs. Now, isn't that a humane approach?

We see middle class America experiencing pain at the gas pump, and we worry that our foreign policy is dictated by our dangerous dependency, our gluttonous thirst for fossil-based fuels. Yet, we stand today without a clear and definitive clean energy agenda that would make our Nation a safer place and create tens of thousands of jobs in the short- term, boosting an American green-collar economy. It can be done.

A report just last week on solar panels was interesting. If we would use just simply 5 percent of available rooftops in Los Angeles County, we would be able to create 29,000 jobs in that effort.

In the past week, we have seen major severe weather events wreak havoc on the Philippines and across 12 States within the Midwest of our country. Even if you choose to ignore fact-based science that really proves climate change to be real and here, we can all agree that our aging infrastructure needs our assistance, it needs to be upgraded, it needs to be improved and replaced, so that we are taking a proactive approach to the soundness of infrastructure, which grows jobs. Instead, we are allowing storms of the century to impact our communities and then have a reactive process that simply isn't the best way to do business.

I could go on and on, but I only have 5 minutes here.

Immigration reform, updating the Voting Rights Act, tax reform, expanding background checks for gun owners, or passing ENDA--there is more than enough for us to tackle that translates into jobs. The vast majority of these policies would pass in a bipartisan fashion, as the government shutdown was avoided by a bipartisan vote with a

unanimous vote from the Democrats with a minority of votes from the Republicans. We could get things done if we would allow votes to be taken up on this floor, a simple up or down vote, but get it done and grow jobs.

This week, we solemnly observe the 50th anniversary of the death of one of the greatest leaders our Nation has known, President John F. Kennedy, a man who once said:

Never before has man had such capacity to control his own

environment, to end thirst and hunger, to conquer poverty and

disease, to banish illiteracy and massive human misery. We

have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in

the history of the world--or to make it the last.

To act is both in our power and our duty. We must tackle these problems. I implore this House to take up a jobs agenda. Let's put America to work.

Mr. Speaker, in the past week, we have seen yet another devastating storm claim the lives and communities of thousands of people in the Philippines as well as a string of tornadoes that cut through 12 States, from New York to Tennessee. These powerful storms last for a matter of days, while recovery from their destruction takes years.

Hurricane Irene began as a tropical storm on August 20, 2011. By the time it completed its path on August 29, it had wreaked havoc from Puerto Rico to New England, becoming the seventh most costly hurricane in our Nation's history, while taking 56 lives. The storm lasted a mere 10 days, no more than 36 hours in any one spot; but in my district and other affected areas, people are still recovering more than 2 years later. Infrastructure still needs to be repaired or replaced or improved upon. Businesses have not fully recovered, and many families are still struggling to rebuild their homes and their lives.

The costs continue to mount. We have denied our responsibility to deal with climate change for far too long. The time to act is now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Representative Polis, for bringing us together for what I believe is very thoughtful discussion about immigration reform, for we are by definition a Nation of immigrants.

I believe that the passion that is the luring card to America is that American Dream. People for decades and centuries throughout the history of this Nation have pursued that American Dream with the opportunity to climb those economic ladders, those opportunities that present themselves in this country, where we are emboldened by immigrants; and certainly the military is no exception.

Tonight, we will be talking about the empowerment that comes with

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman from Colorado speaks of the tremendous support of the American public to do immigration reform. I think it is very easy to understand. It is explained by the deep-routed sense of heritage in this Nation for everyone. Many of us can identify with immigrant roots. I believe that is what drives the desire to have this reform put into play. We talk about the overwhelming polls for support for this effort, and we are halfway through this battle because the Senate has made a major statement with the measure that they have brought forth, and so we can meet that opportunity here in the House of Representatives.

Earlier, the gentleman from Colorado talked about the military strength that comes with immigrants, and cited many of the facts that really speak favorably to the shot in the arm that they give the military. We think of some of those unique skills that they bring to the military as the immigrant servicemembers. We talk about the opportunity to draw upon their second language proficiency. That is very important in service to the military. Certainly their greater cultural understanding, which is again a benefit that is borne by the military because of immigrants or those looking in some way at some time to be naturalized. They could join the military and provide that strength. We have a long history of decorated service, with 20 percent of all Medal of Honor recipients having been immigrant servicemembers. The list goes on and on. There is a lower attrition rate. There is proven data that are available.

So this is a powerful statement, and when we think about the heritage of this Nation, when we think about that American quilt, there are so many patches brought together under one common banner of different cultures, of races, of nationalities, that really make a statement of who we are. So this is just a natural move forward to have an immigration reform policy developed here this year in Congress.

We have had many, many requests to move with immigration reform. It is one of the greatest bits of requests that we get.

It is much more.

You are absolutely right. These are very legitimate, justified issues to talk about, but when it comes to immigration reform, people are saying: Look, let's get this done. We have many people who are developing great intellectual skills, they are getting great higher ed opportunities, and we are not taking advantage of that. We are not incorporating them into the American peoplescape. We

have people who are assisting the agricultural industry, the engineering industry, the technical industry, the innovation economy, the medical health care industry, people need to fill these efforts with this immigrant power that is available.

It is great to join you on the floor. I know there are many who want to speak their voice here, and rightfully so, because this is a very pertinent issue right now. Reform is very much required, and let's get it done.

Thank you, Representative Polis.

Earlier tonight when we started this hour, I made mention of how proud I am of my grandfather, who was an immigrant from Poland. He added, along with his military colleagues, to the muscle of the military might of this Nation, and together, they were able to help serve this Nation so as to proclaim victory in the war that was to end all wars. But we know that that wasn't the case.

Nonetheless, with that contribution to this country behind him, he returned home. He returned to build a life. He returned to build a family. He returned to build a community. He returned, like all of our veterans, to build a Nation. Why would we want to stop this pathway to progress? Why would we want to stop this pathway to economic vitality? Why would we want to stop this pathway to citizenship?

You know, it is no wonder that so many from various perspectives have come forth, imploring us in this House, imploring the Republican leadership, to set an agenda that includes immigration reform. For everyone from the Chamber of Commerce to the Farm Bureau, from labor to the farm community to the working families of this Nation to so many of the businesses that have asked for sound immigration reform, let's not stand in the way of progress. We only ask the Republican majority in this House to set the tone, open to the discussion, because if it is brought to the floor, I am convinced that we will recognize, as Representatives, as leaders of this Nation, the true definition of this Nation, a land of immigrants.

With that, I yield back to Representative Polis and thank him for leading us in this very important discussion here this evening.

Mr. Speaker, on this evening of October 29, we commemorate the 1-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy, which devastated the east coast. Many are still recovering from that tragic storm, and it certainly was a major force to be reckoned with.

That force of nature was, at one point, nearly 1,000 miles wide over the ocean front, and when it landed in southern Jersey, it was nearly 900

miles wide. It impacted so many States; 24 States, in number, felt the impact of that superstorm.

It was devastation to property; it was devastation to lives: 162 people in the United States lost their lives. And the fact that the storm surged to some record proportions reminds us of the impact of climate change.

Now as a member of the New York delegation in this House, my area received some mild impact from that superstorm. But ironically, the year before, Hurricanes Irene and Lee impacted the upstate region of New York and, again, devastated our area with loss of life, certainly of valuable farm land that was eroded, and damage to communities, businesses, and farms across the upstate region.

These are issues that are brought to mind this evening as we commemorate that 1-year anniversary, as many continue to struggle to recover from the ravages of Mother Nature.

The cost of climate inaction is severe. Climate change is an issue of science. It is certainly an issue of public health. And most definitely, it is an issue of economics, economic vitality.

Earlier, the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition, which is a growing number--56, to be exact--of Democrats in the House looking to bring about significant policy reforms that speak to the environmental and energy needs of this Nation, began to provide a laser-sharp focus on the cost of climate change to our economy.

In 2011 and 2012, there were some 25 extreme weather events that caused at least $1 billion each or more in damages. Total estimated economic damages were approaching $200 billion, and the cost to taxpayers, some $136 billion. The cost to individual taxpayers totaled $1.61 billion. So we know that there is a tremendous impact here that has been realized by the lack of a focus on climate change and global warming.

As we continue to look at recovery--even from Irene and Lee in the upstate New York portion--as we look at the impact, the damage that came with Superstorm Sandy, as we look at the damage recently to Colorado, and if we look at the other extreme--not rainfall and flooding, but certainly drought and looking at the wildfires that have consumed some States in our country, there is definitely economic consequence that comes with climate change.

In my territory, in my area that is part of the 20th Congressional District, it becomes very apparent that we need to do more than just replace. If data compiled are telling us that extreme rainfall has been part of the last decade or two, then wise, effective government will not merely replace but reevaluate how to reconfigure, for instance, a bridge that may cross, traverse one of the creeks. I know that that is the case in many locations.

Looking at electric utilities, looking at what withstood the pressures of the storm; combined heat and power systems that we will talk about during this hour that apparently withstood greater pressure than some of the traditional systems, so we go forward with not just merely replacement, but we go forward with a renewal, a revision of how to take that area that was affected and make it work again. That is sound government. That is effective government.

Tonight we are joined by several colleagues. We are joined by Representative Rush Holt from the State of New Jersey, and we are joined by Representative Scott Peters from the State of California. We may be visited by other colleagues this evening. We are going to talk about impacts they have seen perhaps in their region and talk about the science and economics related to climate change.

I believe we, through SEEC, through the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition, have brought about the discussion, have developed the dialogue, have encouraged moving forward, if you will, on this very important dynamic, understanding it full well so that we can move into prevention because the question asked here by a growing number of colleagues is, how long can we afford to go without a plan of action before we understand that the cost of replacement or renewal or transformation is going to drain the taxpayers, is going to drain the individuals and families impacted, the businesses impacted? No one wins in that scenario.

So, Representative Rush Holt, if you would like to share some thoughts this evening as we begin our hour, we welcome you.

Thank you very much, Representative Holt. Certainly your State, my home State suffered economic consequences to the nth degree. It is a stark reminder that the cost of inaction here is painfully borne by taxpayers into the future also.

So I am proud of the SEEC organization, the coalition raising the consciousness of the House as to the importance of this issue.

We are joined by Representative Scott Peters from California. Representative Peters has worked in the environmental arena and has contributed greatly in that regard. We are proud to have you join us this evening, Representative.

Thank you, Representative Peters.

We are also joined by Representative Denny Heck from Washington State, who is a freshman but has brought a very strong voice of advocacy for the environment to this Chamber. We are proud to have him join us this evening and raise again the dialogue that is so essential about climate change, global warming, and the economic impact that every region across this country is experiencing.

So, welcome, Representative Heck, and thank you for being such an outstanding advocate.

Thank you, Representative Heck.

We have also been joined by yet another freshman of the House, from the State of Pennsylvania, another strong friend of the environment and a person who has spent much of his career defending the environment. Representative Matt Cartwright joins us this evening.

Welcome. Thank you for participating with the SEEC coalition.

The Representative talks about the growing acknowledgment by agencies and various elements of government, and I can tell you also a personal experience of watching the constituents in our area understand more starkly and painfully the impact of global warming in the aftermath of Irene and Lee.

Representative Peters has long promoted the awareness concept-- wanting people to understand the awareness of global warming and climate change.

Your thoughts on that.

Thank you very much, Representative Peters.

The gentleman makes mention of awareness and of the many visuals out there that strike awareness even a coast away.

Representative Holt, I just noticed recently in the news the reopening of the boardwalk--of the very famous, traditional boardwalk in your home State--as you continue to recover from the damages of Superstorm Sandy. The awareness is an amazing piece of the action here, and something as visible and understandable as that boardwalk brings it home for many people far removed from New Jersey.

In every measurement that we make, there is a huge impact that climate change calculates to the negative. You talked about the impact worldwide. It is the sightings of a perfect storm, with less available land as it erodes with these floodings and with a growing population worldwide. That is the formation of a perfect storm.

But when we look closer to home, in these United States, you and I are part of the delegations that represent coastal States. The coastal erosion and the erosion of valuable farmland in my district are realities, and it is measurable already. The forewarnings are out there to take action to prevent further erosion. When you think of that impact, it comes in several dimensions, perhaps agricultural in nature as it is a major sector of our economy in this country, or in tourism. One of the bits of erosion that I saw--one of the impacts that came-- was with tourism infrastructure, with very valuable historic sites that were nearly ruined and that are along the beds of creeks and rivers that are tourism destinations but that now are shut for business as they get repaired. Some of these elements are extremely delicate, and part of our fabric as a Nation is to be able to share our sense of history with either other people of the United States or with visitors who travel to this land, so there are impacts that come.

I would also talk about the infrastructure impacts on the energy side. We witnessed situations in which some fared better than others, and I was proud of our SEEC organization. Now, you and I are longtime charter members of SEEC, and I am proud of the fact that we called upon the Sandy Rebuilding Task Force to help communities rebuild stronger and smarter by having the task force issue guidance for combined heat and power, CHP systems. Those systems fared well in areas ravaged by these superstorms.

CHP, as many know, is an innovative sort of concept, an energy- efficient method for generating electricity and harnessing heat, the thermal energy that accompanies that. In CHP systems, heat that normally is wasted--allowed to escape--is captured and recovered as useful energy, and that allows us to require and to, perhaps, promote this integrated concept approach far more efficient than conventional power generation would be. Conventional methods have a typical combined efficiency of 45 percent, while CHP can operate as high as 80 percent. This technology is not only efficient; it also has demonstrated resiliency to extreme weather events. I can cite South Oaks Hospital on Long Island, which is a hospital facility that includes an acute psychiatric hospital, a nursing home and an assisted living center. During the storm and its aftermath, the hospital maintained full power through the use of its 1.3 megawatt CHP system.

Again, lessons, hopefully, will be learned. So, as we go to replace, we also have to transition some of our thinking and make certain that we are building systems that will be able to endure these storms into the future. Certainly amongst our priorities has got to be this all-out effort to combat global warming, climate change, to make certain that we do all of our preventative measures. Then when we rebuild, we do it in a way that is efficient so that sound government, smart government, is the tool that is reached to rather than awkwardly replacing in a sort of rush order to get us back into a working progressive outcome, but where we haven't addressed some of the dynamics of the ravages of weather, which is teaching us several lessons as we go through these many storms.

So you are absolutely right. The people are the most impacted here. We have to keep them front and center in our thinking, but all of these services that either provide jobs for people or provide economic opportunities, economic growth, or that meet their public safety needs or their energy needs or their household needs or their business needs have got to be brought into this calculus that is adjusting concepts

based on the theory of climate change, and where we, again, underscore the importance of prevention.

I think it is very important for us to recognize, too, that here this evening you and several of our colleagues and I have shared thoughts about painful consequences in our given regions, or we have talked about not only flooding but drought situations and wildfires. We have talked about the economic impact of climate change with these associated storms. We have talked about the recovery efforts. We have talked about Superstorm Sandy on this 1-year commemoration date, still finding its neighborhoods, its communities, its people, its businesses, its farming communities still struggling to recover. We have talked about all of this, and now I think we need to close, in the remaining minutes we have in this hour, and talk about a plan of action.

Now, SEEC, the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition, has a growing number of representatives--56 strong as we speak. Individuals are talking about the consciousness, raising the consciousness, talking about awareness out there in the community. But there is also a requirement for legislative action. Absent that, we move to an executive order, and some have expressed concern about that.

Leaving no other option available, the Chief Executive, the President, has moved to resolve some of these concerns through organizations and agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency. So I think there needs to be this dialogue here and in the United States Senate, working with the President, with the White House, and the administration to develop a sound package of legislation that allows us to go forward.

It is apparent after the number of stories heard here just this evening and the personal anecdotes that you shared, Representative Holt, about people from New Jersey and the pain that they endured. That should motivate us to move forward with a plan of action, understanding that the cost of inaction is very, very heavy. Many have placed threshold dates out there. They are not that far into the future--2017, 2020 some say at the latest.

It is our stewardship that is called upon. We inherited this environment, this Earth, from ancestors who preceded us. Now it is our challenge, I believe, to hand that to next generations unborn in even better working order with the growth worldwide of population, with the industrialization of many Third World nations, the reach to automobiles being put on the highways around the world, the development of power supplies around the world, causing this huge growth of challenge in terms of carbon emission and eventually methane that will destroy antibodies out there.

So the challenge is before us. I think we need to go forward with a very focused effort of policy development that can be done in the very near future here in the House.

Avoiding that, walking away from it, denying it ought to be revisited by those who have suffered heavily from the damages of these storms. Certainly as we focus on Superstorm Sandy this evening, on that one storm here, it has brought to mind many, many situations where people are still suffering--blocks destroyed by fires in Superstorm Sandy that destroyed neighborhoods.

We have a challenge before us, Representative Holt.

Thank you, Representative Holt.

I will close by just focusing in on this graphic, which showed the enormity, the immense breadth and depth of this Superstorm Sandy.

Many didn't relate that storm to a huge tide coming in. For any of us who have jumped into the ocean, we know the power of a tide. But to have the highest storm surge ever measured recorded at Kings Point, New York, the highest ever recorded at 14.38 feet, tells a story. The fact that the water level at Battery Park in Lower Manhattan reached 9.1 feet above the average high tide line. Think of it--1 inch, 2 inches, a foot of water additional that comes into a flood zone calculates that much more damage.

Here, what we had with the situation were records beyond 9 feet, approaching 10 feet, a storm surge of 14.38 feet. We are talking monumental damage. We are talking about a force that swept away lives, a force that sparked fires in neighborhoods, a force that wiped out businesses and found neighborhoods still vacant, a silence that has befallen these given communities because of the ravages of Mother Nature that can be prevented if we put our minds and hearts and efforts into that concept of being better stewards of the environment.

This is a place where a plan of action can take hold. In these Halls of government, leadership is called upon. A moral compass points in the direction of us being sounder friends of the environment and protectionists when it comes to getting things done so as to avoid the high scale of economic destruction that has gripped our communities.

I still see it in the aftermath of Irene and Lee in the 20th Congressional District of New York. Damage done in 2011 is still causing hardship in 2013, impacted by all sorts of weather events that are atypical of our region--tropic storms, hurricanes, tornados--that wiped through the area and required all

sorts of volunteerism to enter in, and certainly dollars that were shared from private sector sources and from FEMA at the Federal level and various other programs at the Federal Government. It will be an exhausting situation that will continue to drain the taxpayers as we move forward if we don't take action.

On this very solemn day of commemoration, as we call to mind all of the destruction that came into 24 States a year ago this evening, should be all the call to action that is required of us. Since then, it has been followed by devastation in Colorado, wildfires in the Southwest, and predictions that more and more damage will be part and parcel to a future that is allowed to go forward without the soundness of stewardship of the environment that ought to be a high priority in this House, in the United States Senate, and certainly across this Nation.

Sound leadership begins with the acknowledgement that there is a challenge out there and that the challenge is then met with accurate and detailed and information exchange that builds a dialogue that creates a package of response that indicates that we are a compassionate, caring, loving people in this Nation that through the Halls of this House can provide hope for this environment and hope to families who have suffered the consequences and hope to generations unborn as we pass to them a stronger sense of stewardship of this Earth.

It has been our pleasure in this hour to have shared many of our ideas, many of our concerns, many of the anecdotal bits that personalize a given situation for far too many, and we are thankful for the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, oceans cover 70 percent of our Earth's surface. They are home to a vast number of organisms that form an intricate food web--one that the world has relied on for high-quality protein and steady employment for generations. If we continue on our current path, we will face a serious decline in these essential resources.

The oceans have been absorbing nearly one-fourth of the carbon emissions we release every day. We think of the oceans as too big to fail, but we are altering their physical, chemical, and biological characteristics at an increasing pace. Our oceans are warming, current patterns are changing, and salinity and acidity are changing. Sea levels are rising, and many fisheries are being overexploited.

It is long past time for us to address climate change--to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and manage our coastal waters and the oceans in a more sustainable way. Oceans have sustained life on this planet for thousands of years. We should act now to ensure that they continue to do so for thousands more.

Mr. Speaker, as we slug through the second week of the government shutdown, American families and small businesses are hurting. Every day of the last 10 days I have been contacted by constituents who cannot operate their stores, pay tribute to their loved ones at a Federal memorial, or secure a small business loan.

These unnecessary hardships damage our economy, and could have been

avoided if House Republicans were not obsessed with taking away health care benefits from the public we serve.

Government has the duty to keep its doors open, provide vital services, and pay its bills. These items should not be considered a Democratic Party wish list. They are basic functions of government and should not be used as an opportunity to secure political points or hold America's economy hostage.

It is well past time to vote to end the government shutdown, pay our bills, get the Nation back to work, and grow our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to conference on a budget so that we end this Republican government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to highlight just one of the stories that comes in here each and every day from my congressional district highlighting the unnecessary hardship the Republican government shutdown has brought upon the American people.

One of my constituents, who works in business aviation, contacted my office just this week to tell me about the burden the shutdown has had on his business and his family's bottom line.

During the government shutdown, aviation components cannot be produced, financed, bought, sold, inspected, or registered without the Federal workers that are currently furloughed. Today, large parts of this industry--and our economy at large--simply cannot function. Stories like this will continue until the House brings up the Senate CR, which funds our government at the level House Republicans fought for.

Stories like these are not isolated to upstate New York. This is happening in countless corners of our Nation and across all regions and all of our districts back home.

A piecemeal approach that picks winners and losers in our Federal agencies is no way to run the country. Bring up the Senate CR. Take ``yes'' for an answer. Let's get this Nation back to work.

My pleasure. I appreciate the gentleman from California bringing us together tonight in thoughtful discussion about what is chaos here in the Nation's Capitol. So, Representative Garamendi, thank you for bringing us together with Representatives from New Jersey and from Connecticut and from Pennsylvania, and others who will probably join us that will speak to the unnecessary pain that has trickled into the lives of far too many working families across this country and impacting so many small businesses from coast to coast with the ill effects of a government shutdown--a Republican government shutdown simply because, as you just heard the gentleman from California indicate, we need to vote on a CR, a continuing resolution, a bill that allows for the budget to continue into a date certain as mentioned in that bill, most likely 2 months--8 weeks--as an extender into perhaps mid-December.

Why do we need to do that? So that we can bring stability into the process, allow government to be funded, allow for the doors to be opened, allow for the lights to go on and reopen government. That's the first step in the sequence.

Secondly, another cornerstone bit of legislation coming quickly upon us, giving the green light to America to pay her bills. America's working families understand what that's about.

They know that they play by the rules. They roll up their sleeves. They work hard. They expect to taste success. They pay their bills on time, and they expect their beloved country to do the same thing. Our second step in the process.

Then thirdly, buying this 8 weeks of time allows us to immediately name those individuals who will be the representatives for the majority and minority parties in each of the Houses of Congress to sit down and nail down a budget in those ensuing 8 weeks to make certain that stability again is the outcome. That's what we're asking for.

Mr. Speaker, you are the Speaker not only to the Tea Party, not only to the Republican Conference, but to the entire House, the United States House of Representatives. Let all of us vote on what is a clean CR, which has been approved by the United States Senate--and, by the way, in negotiations to date, accepts your number, the lowest number in the process. We're not happy with that number, but we're going to cave to your request to allow for government to be refunded, to be reopened, and for us to move forward. That's what it's about.

We're asking for dignity to be expressed for America's working families. We're allowing for certainty to be the outcome for our small business community so that we can grow our economy, allow for the climate that produces both public and private sector job growth that allows us to move forward with a sense of hope. That's what the request is here.

Why don't you let us vote on a clean CR? Are you fearful that it might pass? Are you fearful that you don't get your way? Because you know, in the 45 votes that have been taken on a debt ceiling limit vote since the days of President Ronald Reagan, those 45 measures have been approved 38 times without any bells and whistles--and certainly unprecedented to have attached to the vote some sort of clutter that deals with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Never have we reached to that sort of negotiated outcome where we are repealing the law of the land--in this case, the law of the land that is 3 years old, was approved by a majority in the House of Representatives, was approved by a supermajority in the United States Senate, was tested, because of your concern, before the highest Court of the land, and the Supreme Court gave it thumbs-up in meeting the constitutionality test. What more do we need to do to convince you?

Let me just say this, Representative Garamendi, quickly so we can get to our colleagues. I want to share with you some of the results in these few 8 days already--but painful 8 days for far too many.

By the end of this month, food pantries like the one in my district in Cohoes, New York, may not have the money to stay open. That is the situation with many of our food pantries. This is a facility that helps feed 215 hungry families in the capital region of New York State.

Projections are that one of the providers of electronics for our fighter jets, our submarines, and our helicopters in Saratoga Springs, New York, in the 20th Congressional District that I represent, have grinded to a halt as inspectors can't complete contracts and new orders cannot come in.

We also have impacting us a forensic meteorology business in Niskayuna, New York--again, in the 20th Congressional District of New York--that works each and every day with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that helps bring benefits to all of us from the devastation of Mother Nature. These are jobs that are meaningful-- meaningful to the quality of life of people across this country, that are meaningful to working families who are now without jobs, people who are not getting paid and showing up to work. These are devastating consequences to the economy.

We implore the leadership of this House, we implore the Speaker to call for a vote on a clean continuing resolution that embraces your number, the lowest number in negotiations that we will settle upon. We will offer our votes for that kind of measure, only give us that chance so that America can have her government funded, we can move forward to advance the debt ceiling limit bill vote that will allow for America to pay her bills, and then finally move to that conference table, where representation from both parties in each of the Houses will nail down a budget in the ensuing 8 weeks.

That will bring stability to the economy and will bring economic and social justice to the people of this great country. Let's move forward with that sense of fairness.

Right.

Sure. Well, the gentleman from Texas gave a great rundown of the dynamics that have brought us to this moment.

It's a sad day in this House with a government shutdown. The Republican shutdown of government is something that I think bears great consequences. And we've seen it and heard about it already. I wasn't here for the last such episode, which is about 17 years old in duration, but I do know that hearing from constituents already about concerns for vital services, about furloughing, about the impact on family budgets for our many, many Federal workers is real.

So we need to move forward, I think, in a way that allows us to address a clean CR. People say, Well, what is a clean CR? What is a CR? A continuing resolution allows for a short-term continuation of a Federal budget, absent a negotiated budget.

And I think that we find ourselves in this situation where we require a CR. Hopefully it will be a clean one. No bells and whistles, no attachments. And the desire to attach the Affordable Care Act and to call it on this floor in those discussions, in those debates ``a bill'' is disingenuous. It's an act. It is a law that was signed into place by the President and that was given constitutional approval when reviewed by the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court. So let's call it what it is. It's a law.

This is unprecedented in trying to take a law and repeal it as part of a negotiating process to move a budget forward. A budget should be about the math of that budget, about upward/downward adjustments of programs and putting together a blueprint for whatever--a 3-month, 4- month scenario that will enable the government to be funded and continue to operate. And quickly coming upon the heels of that is a debt ceiling bill that needs, again, approval from Congress to have America pay her bills.

So these are basic fundamental processes that ought not be tainted by political whim and disagreement and discontent with an outcome that is 3 years old now and that found a great threshold date today, October 1, as many people are now allowed to enroll across the country for the purposes of health care coverage--affordable, accessible, quality health care for individuals and families. That was the thematic. That was the mission statement. That was the goal. So we need to go forward. We need to now get out of this shutdown and not enable it to continue for any longer in duration. And we need to make certain that we understand that the need for a CR, a continuing resolution, is because we don't have a budget.

Now when the United States Senate approved its version of a budget, when the House of Representatives--this body--approved its version of a budget, and when the President and his administration offered their fiscal blueprint for the fiscal year, we should have moved forward.

Many of us--yourself, myself--aggressively encouraged the leadership to name the panelists at the conference table. Name the ``conferees,'' as they're dubbed, to the process so that we can put together a budget--balanced, bold--that allows us to do the sort of creative qualities that would reduce the deficit, grow the economy, create a climate for growing jobs, and produce revenues where they're essential so that we cut where we can in order to invest where we must, especially in this innovation economy.

That should have been the order of business for the day. This whole debate, this whole shutdown, the Republican shutdown that happened to become reality this morning at midnight could have been avoided if we had gone forward, named the conferees, named the panelists to the conference table to negotiate out a settlement, recommend to the two houses, get the work done. This economy, this Nation requires that. The individuals, families members across this Nation deserve that sort of certainty, as does the small business community.

That's the business that should have been accomplished; but, instead, we find ourselves requiring a CR. And now, in this painful moment of allowing for the budget to be funded, or a CR to be done, we attach bells and whistles like the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Unnecessary, immoral, in a sense, to hold back a process like this.

And the leader of the minority has named the conferees for the Democrats in the House. So you're right, just about everyone named those individuals that will be part of the team at the conference table, getting work done.

Right. And, again, every effort has been made to advance letters, to speak from the floor, to notice the leadership of our request, our urging, our challenge to name these people. That's the way the business gets done.

It was avoided, for whatever reason, perhaps not believing in your own budget that you put together as a House. Otherwise, why would you not bring it forward?

Why would you not vote on your own budget in a way that would have us at the conference table?

I will just make mention of this, that I think the muddying up, if you will, of a CR, a continuing resolution, first, calling it a bill on the floor several times over is disingenuous. People place trust in us. You should honor that trust, and not, nomenclature-wise, change the outcome here.

We have an act of Congress that was signed into law. This is a law of the land, in this case, to provide for affordable, accessible, quality health care. If you didn't like that result, there were opportunities to change it.

Candidate Romney, Governor Romney, Representative Ryan, as the Vice President, they ran to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The people of this great Nation decided in that Presidential election for the re- election effort of President Obama, that they were going to stay with the President. So that statement was made.

The highest court in the land reviewed it for constitutionality. They approved that, gave it a thumbs-up.

Why are we still dwelling on this situation?

Why are we bogging down the process, where you either defund, deny, repeal, whatever the course may be. We have seen it over and over again, so that 45, 46, 47 votes in a row to repeal were all denied.

When you do the same thing over and over and over again, expecting different results, people have defined that as insanity.

So we have not provided the sort of integrity this process needs. We have not shown the respect to the individuals and families that are automatically showing today, with the very aggressive, very involved activism today to sign up with the Affordable Care Act. We are disregarding that. We're disrespecting that.

And I think the polling that was done, I saw a poll today that said 71 percent of the American public does not believe we should hold up and fold the government, shut down the government because of an effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. So the public is speaking. They're telling us, do it better.

And thank you, Representative Garamendi, for the opportunity to join you.

Mr. Speaker, I have one basic question: What are we doing here? I mean just that. What are we really doing here?

Each day we talk about problems, problems, the real problems that face our country that are fixable with compromise and clearheaded solutions. Each day, this Chamber does nothing to overcome those challenges in front of us. Each day, the American people think we can't sink any lower or be any more dysfunctional.

Right now, there's talk about passing a 1-week budget to simply provide the time for elected officials--people charged with running the government of this great Nation of ours--to get along for enough time to pass yet another extension. Say it isn't so. One week. There are lemonade stands with better budgeting practices than what we have seen in this body in the past 2 years.

This is unacceptable, this is absurd, and it certainly is not what the American people deserve from any layer of government, especially their Federal Government. Let's get this done. Let's pass a budget, a budget that cuts where

we can, that invests where we must, that grows jobs, and ends the painful consequences of sequestration.

The absolute misery here is that all of this dysfunction could have been avoided. We could have avoided the reach to yet another kicking of the can down the road if we would come together at the conference table and do a real budget. We could reach through a budget process; we could reach to regular order.

With many of my colleagues, I have urged them that the leadership in the House resort to naming the panelists who will sit at that conference table to realize regular order through a budget process, a real budget process. That request has been turned down time and time again. The statements made in the past were, Well, the Senate hasn't moved on a budget, or We haven't heard from this entity about what their plans are.

Well, the truth be told, this year, the United States Senate passed its version of a budget. This House passed its version of a budget. The President and his administration have advanced their fiscal blueprint for the coming fiscal year.

The entities have spoken. The process needs to be addressed and respected. We need to bring those panelists to the conference table-- those who will represent Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate--to come to terms, to develop the compromise in the spirit by which our Founding Parents developed this wonderful blueprint of a Republic, guided by the democracy.

Why are we rejecting that opportunity?

A sound budget could allow us to escape the terrible consequences of sequestration.

I have witnessed what that sequestration has meant in my own district. During our 5\1/2\-week district work period, I visited with many of those Head Start programs, with Early Intervention, with nutrition programs, with food banks that address the nutrition needs of the people of this great Nation. I have worked with the small business community to understand more fully what the impact of sequestration might mean to them--cuts to research, to programs that have furloughed my Federal employees if given the opportunity to serve this Nation through their workforce.

All of that consequential damage could be avoided if we would resort to the soundness of the tool called the ``budget.'' The sequestration issue is painful. It's a hidden attack. It's mindless, thoughtless, and it has pervaded itself into the fabric of our communities--into the quality of life of the people who place within us the trust to be their voice in Washington.

So we need to do better than this paralysis that has stalled the process that finds us at the midnight hour, searching for answers in the most unusual format that will resort to yet another kicking of the can down the road, that would use the smoke and mirrors to balance a budget for some uncertain period of time, that doesn't provide the predictability to the business community or to the working families of this Nation. The partnership with their government should be real. It should be stated in terms that allow for the respect of businesses to invest and hire and be productive.

We have had a plan in this House coming from the Democrats. Representative Van Hollen has introduced a plan that will reduce the deficit in greater fashion and will avoid the painful consequences of sequestration.

Thank you, Representative Ryan. Thank you for expressing the tone of harshness that has prevailed in this Chamber.

I don't know if I can remember when a law, a standing law in this country, was used as a reason to avoid paying our bills or keeping government running. I find it regrettable that we go after the law of the land, in this case the Affordable Care Act. They'll reference it as ObamaCare, and we will see how long that label stands when the program proves successful. It might be removed immediately.

But, nonetheless, the harshness here is driven after a season, season's worth of activity on the Affordable Care Act.

We have voted for it in both Houses of the Congress and with bipartisan support in the Senate. The President stood for reelection, and was reelected amidst immense arguments and debates about repeal and replace by the opposition, by the candidate for President of the other major party. So the people have spoken. Then, when they elected Members to the House of Representatives, the cumulative total of votes for the Members of this House was, in the majority, calling for Democrats. The people have stated they support this. As Senator McCain indicated on the floor just this week, there are consequences to elections.

It's not sinking in--or perhaps it has, but they refuse to allow their behavior to end. It's putting themselves first as political forces rather than the people, rather than what's in the best interest of the people. I'm convinced that this is driven by the fear that this ObamaCare, as they call it, will be successful and that this is their last effort possible to end the opportunity to provide affordable, accessible, quality health care for all. We know it. We see it in our States. We see it in Ohio. We see it in California. We see it in Florida. We are joined by our friend from Texas, who just visited my district this week in Albany, New York, Representative Castro from Texas. We see it in our home States. People have a need out there.

In my case, I can cite some of the stats: 36,000 young people with preexisting conditions will not be biased against in having insurance. Take it away, why don't you. Take it away, and then put us at risk of defaulting with our credit rating. Take it away. Be harsh. We look at the 12,000-plus seniors who are receiving discounts for their pharmaceutical needs. Take it away, why don't you.

It's unfair. It's un-American--immoral--to take it away, but we are going to use it as a pawn in a device here called ``negotiating'' on whether or not the government will continue to run or on whether we will keep the doors open and the lights or on whether or not we are going to pay our bills. Come on. Working families in this country understand it. They roll up their sleeves. They play by the rules. They work hard. They expect to taste success. They pay their bills on time, and they expect their government to do likewise.

They don't expect us to put a roadblock in the way that says the law of the land--constitutionally tested in the highest Court of the land, in the Supreme Court, and that has been given the green light--we're going to put that in as a roadblock to stop progress because we know the October 1 starting date is quickly arriving. This is grossly unfair to the people of this country.

When I look at the 124,000 seniors who are receiving free preventative services, I'm not ready to give that up. Repeal is not an answer--improving is an answer, and I will work with you--but we don't use this vehicle as a reason to stop government from running or as a vehicle from stopping us from paying America's bills. It goes on and on. There are 6,200 young people who now qualify to stay on their parents' policies for their health care coverage. This is a vast improvement. This is allowing the tens of millions of people who have been uninsured--and the many who are underinsured--to finally have access, connection, to a system.

Aren't we in this business to respond to the needs of people? Are we in the business to take the facts, twist them, present them in a way that offers confusion, and only serve for political, partisan purposes?

I think we can do better than that in this Chamber. We are going to work, and we are going to get to that finish line. I am convinced, Representative Garamendi, that we are going to stand for justice, for what is fairness in our society. Health care is a right. We should see it as an American right--the moral compass points in that direction-- and we ought not use it as a pawn in a political theater that allows for us to not have government funded or that allows for us not to pay our bills. Let's get on with business.

What's happening in this Chamber? Are we so insensitive to the needs of people? What could be more important than responding to the health care needs of the people of this great country? Let's stop the brinksmanship. Let's get it done. Let's get business done here.

I thank you for leading us in this discussion and for having served with our all of colleagues here.