Floor Statements

Absolutely. We didn't hear too much about what would be lost in their cuts or repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Representative Garamendi, you are absolutely right, there is much that has been gained by the American population, health consumers across this Nation, with the efforts of the Affordable Care Act, to close the doughnut hole, to make prescription drugs more affordable for our pharmaceutical consumers out there, for seniors who require this medication, their prescription drugs to stay well or to stay alive. Far too many were balancing their household budget by reducing their intake of prescriptions advised by their medical community. That is immoral. It's unnecessary and has been addressed by the Affordable Care Act. So 5.3 million seniors today are drawing $3.7 billion in benefits. That is something that could be taken away if the Republican majority in the House of Representatives had its way.

Now, this is a wellness aspect. This is part of a formula that allows people to be cured, to be healed, to be allowed to live with a quality of life that then addresses their very needs. And so I think it's necessary to point out what would be taken away from the benefits already offered, and there are more to come. But as we know, they're staged. They are rolled into the operations of reform over the next several years. But suffice it to say, the screenings, the annual checkup, flu shots that are made available without cost, no copayment, no coinsurance, no deductible is required here. These are huge benefits to every age demographic that are offered through the Affordable Care Act.

And so we heard about adding to the cost curve of health care. We have heard about repealing the Affordable Care Act. We have heard about taking away the benefits that have just recently arrived at the door steps of health consumers across this great Nation. And why would you want to play politics with the very fabric of quality of life of the people that we represent collectively by undoing progress? This is a recurring theme. They want to undo Social Security that has a 76-year- old history. They want to voucher out Medicare that came to us in the mid-1960s that addressed the economic stability, the predictability of senior households and the quality of life in those households. Why would you want to take that progress away?

It is heart wrenching to listen to some of this insensitive, callous dialogue on the House floor that really renders the public that we are here to serve without benefits that have just recently arrived through the success of the Affordable Care Act.

Representative Garamendi, it is something that I think needs to be echoed out there from this House floor and shared with the constituents of this great Nation in a way that allows them to better understand what is part and parcel of the Affordable Care Act, a monumental piece of success. Is it perfect? No. We aimed for perfection, we struck with progress. But there is many, many a benefit that is part of the Affordable Care Act, and we are witnessing an all-out attempt by the Republican majority to turn that success into failure.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi.

One of the things you talked about with the influence or the focus on women's health care reminds me of the preexisting conditions that are precluded now as a rationale for denying insurance. And ``preexisting'' might mean, in youth, asthma; in our senior population, emphysema or cancer recovery or cancer struggle.

But it can also mean in a gender-related bias--being a woman. That is used as a preexisting condition. Being a woman is a preexisting condition. So the benefits to women, as you outlined in the direct services, the screenings, the mammograms and the like, are a portion. The other portion is just being born a woman can deny you insurance.

So, when you talk about the 30 cents on the dollar that the voucher would carry for the Medicare recipient, and

they're asked to go shop, this is saying that compared to today's standards, it's the senior digging much deeper into her pocket. It's the senior digging into another pocket to be able to afford his Medicare voucher portion. And that's unacceptable. That is playing to a special interest.

That's what I believe the espoused virtue of this deny, this repeal, is about. It's about playing to special interests that don't want to be told that there's a transition here, that there's a new day in America for health care consumers, and that the heart has been poured into this to be more sensitive, to address a moral compass that this Nation has always uniquely embraced, that we are a compassionate society, that we are going to make a difference out there, and that we are solutions bound.

That's what the Affordable Care Act was about: presenting a new approach to health care, providing more freedom and opportunity to our seniors and to our children.

If you're 26 and under, you can stay on your parents' policy. These are the formulae for success that allow us to go forward with much more dignity, much more success, cost containment, affordability, and accessibility. These are the dynamics of reform.

Why would you repeal something here other than to respond to special interests?

Well, if I might ask the gentleman from California if he would yield.

I believe there's a whole lot of political posturing going on with the Medicaid decision by States. We are hearing a lot of talk about, well, we are not going to pay for that portion because, while it may be 100 percent in the near future, it may go to 90 percent into the long- distance future, and they don't want to pay anything for the new installments of the Medicaid plan.

Well, today we are paying. It's not like it's against an absolute that costs nothing. If you have the poor uninsured, underinsured in any given State, there's indigent care. There is bad debt and charity that is addressed in ratepayer dollars for insurance coverage's sake because that is going to be incorporated into the overall actuarial plan, or you're paying it through taxpayer dollars and for a much more inefficient system.

To have the poor, uninsured, and underinsured go to emergency rooms visiting a different doctor team every time they visit that emergency room, or perhaps a different emergency room, to not provide the stable, standardized care, acceptable notions of how to provide a predictable outcome, you're going to pay needlessly and wastefully. This is about networking people to a system that provides a stability, a standard that will enable them to have a clinic, have a contract that will cover them and make certain that all of us are strengthened by it.

And guess what. The business community, we talk about competitiveness. We talk about a sharp competitive edge for America's business communities as they enter into the international sweepstakes on winning contracts. That translates into providing jobs and profitability for our business community. Well, part of their cost of doing business is to have health care for their workers. Many want the health care coverage for their workers but simply cannot afford it.

So the exchange opportunities that are part of the package of the Affordable Care Act enables them to cut their cost. It's taking their experience, their actuarial experience of 10, 15, 20 workers in that small business and putting them in a pool of millions of workers.

That enables them to shave the peaks and enables them to take those catastrophic situations. One person in their plan of 10 impacted by catastrophic situations can cause their premiums as a company and the copayments of their workers to skyrocket. But if they're enabled to join this pooled effort, it provides for a better outcome for everybody.

So there is wisdom and thoughtfulness poured into the reform elements of the Affordable Care Act. And it's done again with that American heart, that spirit, that sense of compassion for the worker, the sensitivity toward the employer, and putting together a package that has everyone responded to in a way that speaks to a long-overdue bit of success. The last industrialized nation, Representative Garamendi, to go toward a guaranteed health plan.

So, long overdue. And now to taste success and have it pulled away from the American health care consumers of this great Nation is a very troubling notion.

My colleague from California just indicated that there would be a favorable deficit outcome because of the Affordable Care Act.

Well, what else reduces the deficit? Putting people to work. Putting people to work, the American Jobs Act. Plain and simple: It's about addressing the deficit and providing for the dignity of work and the enhancement of services that strengthens the fabric of our communities, our States, our Nation. So, the American Jobs Act, according to experts, is a phenomenal plan.

We've heard the Republicans say we have some 30 bills that are about growing the economy and producing jobs when, in fact, when put under the test, when reviewed by some very sound organizations out there and professional economists and analysts, they said it would do precious nothing. That it was not the formula. It's not what the doctor called for, if we can stay on that health-care related theme. But the American Jobs Act, well, listen to some of the experts.

The chief economist at Moody's Analytics--who, by the way, Mark Zandi, was the former economic advisor for Senator John McCain--what does he theorize? That anywhere from 1.9 million to 2 million jobs would be the outcome of the American Jobs Act, something that not only produces the jobs, but would reduce the unemployment rate by at least 1 percentage point. That's a major significant factor.

What also happens is that, when you produce those 2 million jobs, you're addressing the GDP by at least 2 percentage points. Growth in the GDP, reduction in the unemployment, reducing the deficit, putting people to work, strengthening the economy, providing purchasing power at a time when businesses are saying the best thing you can do: Get us customers. A healthy economy, putting people into the work mode creates customers. It creates purchasing power. It creates a strength in the economy. Two million jobs.

How can we walk away from a proposal? Oh, I know why: Because there were those who spoke before cameras reaching all of America saying anything this President offers, we won't do; our goal is to make him a one-term President. My friends, that is putting partisan politics-- petty, partisan politics ahead of the interests, the better interests of the American public.

Where is that American spirit? Where is that sense of patriotism? Where is that sense of responsibility, of leadership in this House and in the U.S. Senate that needs to go forward with the American Jobs Act?

Representative Garamendi, I know we've been joined by another colleague. It is just great to share this hour with you to talk about the progress we can taste that would lift every community in this great Nation.

Yes, they are both significant bits of legislation, so it's good to interlace the American Jobs Act and the Affordable Care Act.

To the 280,000 teachers, I think it's very easy to state that the human infrastructure in our school systems across this Nation are a critical component to quality education, that personal relationship of students to teacher, the exercise of self-discovery--who am I, what are my gifts, what are my talents, what are my passions. That is exercised in the classroom. That is a spirit that prevails. It's a magic that happens in the classroom and that sense of self-discovery.

Part of our goal here is not only to enable these students to understand who they are, to draw forth the soul of the individual; it's to provide the opportunity for our workforce of the future.

That fourth-grader, hypothetically, that was impacted by class size or the lack of a teacher for certain subject areas, that's something that child will never gain again. What you lose in that given year is lost throughout the development. And it is important for us to make certain that every bit of opportunity, every bit of learning experience is granted our children so that they understand where they can best contribute to society, where their gifts can be utilized.

And it's part of that development of the workforce of the future, the workforce of the present, training, retraining dollars, that are part of the American Jobs Act, absolutely a critical piece of the infrastructure.

And the tens of thousands--this chart will say retain thousands of police officers and firefighters. We know it's tens of thousands across this Nation. An element of public safety, a quality-of-life component, making certain that our core communities have the given workforce of firefighters, of police officers that will enable us to respond to public safety measures.

These are a core bit of principle, along with veterans that would be hired with benefits that are significant. That element was done under pressure, under scrutiny, under growing public sentiment. But think of what could happen if we did all of these and did even additional services with our veterans who are returning home and are in need of employment.

These are the factors, these are the dynamics that are introduced through AJA, the American Jobs Act, that would allow for the deficit to be addressed and at the same time to have services responded to, essential services.

We've talked about the belt-tightening, addressing waste and inefficiency and outmoded programs and fraud. And after we capture those savings from that exercise, it's important, I believe, to slide that into an investment zone so that the result is cut where you can, so as to invest where we must.

The investment, absolutely critical. The investment in jobs, the investment in teachers, firefighters, public safety elements, our police officers, our veterans community, and items like an infrastructure bank bill, an infrastructure that we'll talk about in the remaining minutes of this Special Order.

I think it's interesting too because we're talking about the jobs created that impact the unemployment rate, that impact the reduction of the deficit.

In contrast, the Ryan budget, which we've talked about many times, the Republican plan for this House, that's been adopted by Republicans that are in leadership and running for President, would, in contrast, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the cuts in services would result in a reduction of 1.3 million jobs in the first year and 2.8 million jobs in the second year.

So when you contrast that, that cut in jobs, the cuts that would be part of the Republican budget plan, adopted by this House, would grow the deficit because if we're arguing that employment reduces the deficit, unemployment, in contrast to the American Jobs Act, would drive up the deficit. It's going back to the failed policies of the past.

We've fought two wars that were never put on budget. We offered trillions in tax cuts that we couldn't afford, and we avoided talking about paying for the war. Did we think there wasn't going to be a crash?

Did we think that that behavior wouldn't come with a price?

Of course it had to extract a price from the American society, and it was the loss of 8.2 million jobs; it was the loss of as many as 800,000 jobs a month. It was about bringing America's economy to its knees and draining trillions of dollars from households that trusted that their investment with the private sector, with the financial industry was going to return them lucrative dividends.

We saw the failure of those policies. Why would we go back down that road, which seems to be what the Republican plan, the Republican budget, is all about?

Earlier, I think you had made mention of modernizing our schools and that part of the American Jobs Act includes the investment in the revitalizing of our schools, some 35,000 schools across this Nation. The statistics are there. People document, historically, what investments in refurbishing our schools have meant. For every $1 billion of investment, we can grow some 9,000 to 10,000 jobs. That's the start of the story. So what we have here, the modernization of schools, would create some 250,000 jobs. As I said, that's just the start of the story.

What happens after that?

Maintenance costs and operating costs are reduced because you might have energy efficiency embraced in that restructuring. You'll have better, more efficient weather-type situations,

more comfortable situations for students in which to learn, which is important.

They're typical danger zones with ceilings falling and poorly upheld infrastructure.

The jobs--the absolute jobs of a 250,000 count--would benefit, again, the economy. These operating costs are reduced, and they theorize that it could be in the neighborhood of $100,000 a year. Now, think of what you can do locally with that. That might mean two teachers, or it might mean 200 more computers, or it might mean 5,000 textbooks. It's a way to invest by balancing those savings with the investment in children-- in our future and our present--because our children represent our future and our present. It is a respect toward our children.

These are, I think, in keeping with the old American spirit--the pioneer spirit--to enable us to dream bold dreams and to encourage our youngsters to pursue these career paths and to develop, again, the workforce of the new millennium, in which we are going to be asked to compete in a global marketplace where there are investments going on around the world. Now is not the time to cut our commitment to our children and to our society and our competitiveness as a business community. So it all comes together in a very structured sense, in a very comprehensive plan.

A couple of things come to mind legislatively.

What about investing, as the AJA does, in community colleges--the campus of choice across this Nation? The associate degree is a very important, valuable bit of material to have in one's hand. We are going to rely heavily on those associate degrees, and community colleges need our assistance. They are also there as the operational center of training and retraining programs.

What about investments in technology? investments in research? investments in alternative energy supplies that give us an opportunity to grow independent?

Absolutely.

I was energy chair at the State assembly for the last 15 of my 25 years in the legislature, but then went over as president and CEO with NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. We made it our goal to advance research, to make certain that we would incubate these ideas--these innovations, the cutting-edge technology-- that translate into jobs. Research equals jobs.

I have advanced legislation that would slide subsidies that are given to the historically profit-rich in the tenure of capitalism--our goal here is to not feed the profit margin of our oil companies--over to cutting-edge technology, renewables, providing for consumer behavioral transitioning that enables us to grow American independence in the energy generation business.

Why are we sending tens and hundreds of billions of dollars over to unfriendly nations to the United States for our dependency on fossil- based fuels when, in fact, we can encourage renewables here and energy efficiency, utilizing that as our fuel of choice to make certain that we reduce demand that then reduces bills that then allows the competitiveness of our businesses to be all the sharper? Those are the sorts of things in which we want to invest, and it's the going forward from that point.

How about our infrastructure bank bill that would leverage public and private monies and that would stretch our opportunities to respond to that deficient infrastructure of which you spoke? These are important measures. This is the sort of cutting-edge opportunity--the investment, the pioneer spirit again.

We can learn from our American story. There have been those golden moments when we have hit bottom. There were those golden moments when we were tremendously challenged and when we rose to the occasion in tough times, primarily tough times, by responding with a tough agenda that said, look, true grit here will get us to the finish line--and it happened. It happened with Medicare. It happened with the Erie Canal, of which we often speak.

Again, Social Security. You're absolutely right.

The President lifted this Nation, and he made certain that all families would have at least a foundation upon which they could grow, upon which they could live in this society. It addressed the dignity factor, which has made us unique as an American society: caring about our fellow man, caring about the men and women of this great Nation in a way that created an American society, a sense of community--we the people--talking of us in a community sense, a neighborliness, neighborhoods and societies speaking in a compassionate way, caring about one another. That's when we're at our best.

Yes, we're down to our last 4 minutes.

I always find these discussions to be interesting because there's all this rhetoric out there about 30 bills that have been advanced by the majority in the House and that it's the salvation that's going to produce jobs and get America working again.

Major analysts have reviewed that legislative agenda and said it doesn't do what they contend it will do. It doesn't produce the results. We would love that to be the case, but it doesn't produce the result. They said that we are really in need of legislation that will advance jobs.

Tonight, this discussion about providing the tools, putting additional tools into the kit that makes American industry competitive, speaks to our humble beginnings. So many people travel to these shores. Their journey was about the dream, a noble dream, an American Dream that they were going to make it here. That was our humble beginning, and we enabled people to experience the rags-to-riches scenario. We allowed for generations to continue to grow and prosper and build upon the success that preceded them.

Today, sadly, our middle class is weakening household income-wise. The next generation may be the first to go backward. The President is trying to move us forward, with great resistance in this House to reject progressive policies.

We say: Let's build upon the success of the past. Let's reach to those shining moments when we were challenged as a nation and produce the best outcomes. That can happen again here if we open up to what's best for America and not resort to petty partisan politics that want to deny a Presidency, that want to deny opposition that comes forward with constructive qualities to do it in a better way, to build the consensus.

We need to move forward on behalf of the nobleness of the American Dream. With heart and soul poured into the efforts here in this House, we can achieve and grow that middle class, purchasing power enhanced for the middle class, opportunities for our middle class. A strong middle class means a strong America. Let's go forward.

Representative Garamendi, thank you for leading us in this hour.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the FY13 Defense appropriations bill.

My amendment is a modest, straightforward reform to fix the current cap

on Federal salaries paid to government contractor executives. This is part of a bipartisan reform that I and our colleague, the gentlewoman from California, have been working on for the past 2 years; and despite significant bipartisan progress in the Senate, this issue has never once been allowed so much as a vote in the House. I expect today will be no different.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chair, it was once my understanding that the highest individual salary funded by the American taxpayer was that of the President of the United States at a total of $400,000; but it turns out that the leader of the free world isn't actually the highest paid executive on the taxpayers' payroll. The highest Federal Government salaries are actually earned by private sector executives who can be paid nearly $770,000 in taxpayer dollars under current law. That's nearly twice the salary of the Commander in Chief and more than three times the salary of the Secretary of Defense. In fact, gaping loopholes in the law mean that many can earn far more. Let me emphasize that these are federally funded salaries for private sector executives-- funded 100 percent by the American taxpayer.

You won't find these exorbitant pay rates on government pay schedules, and they certainly aren't subject to the pay and hiring freeze. In fact, just weeks ago, top government contractors got a $70,000 raise on the taxpayers' dime for no reason other than the current law demanded it. That raise alone, $70,000, is more than the salary of most Federal employees. That raise brought the current cap on Federal reimbursements for contractor compensation up to nearly $770,000, an incredible 10 percent raise for the top echelons of the contractor workforce that is estimated to outnumber Federal civilian and military personnel by more than 2-1.

To put that delta into perspective, compare the 10 percent contractor increase to the 1.7 percent raise that this bill proposes for our women and men in uniform. Compare it to the total pay freeze under which our civilian personnel are operating. If you believe that reining in personnel costs is a smart way to reduce the deficit, then you cannot possibly argue that we should maintain a blank check for the estimated 7 million contractors on the Federal Government payroll.

This problem started in the late 1990s with a law that created the current, deeply flawed formula to reimburse government contractors for the pay of their top executives. The so-called ``cap'' under this law has grown by leaps and bounds each year, increasing by more than 75 percent in just the last 8 years. That is an unsustainable and unjustifiable trend that must be put to a stop. In a year where we can agree on so little, I have found that many of us can agree on this.

From 2001 to 2010, spending on service contractors rose by 137 percent, making it one of the Pentagon's largest cost drivers. Given the rampant growth in contract spending, the Army estimated earlier this year that limiting contractor compensation to even the salary of the President--that's $400,000--would have saved the taxpayers $6 billion in fiscal year 2011 alone, or a savings of approximately 15 percent in contract services. Six billion dollars--that's only for the Army, and that's only in 1 year. Imagine what we could be saving government-wide.

Our amendment is a modest, bipartisan proposal that reins in the most excessive government salaries by revising the cap to a set level of $230,700--or the salary of the Vice President of the United States. The cap would apply to all defense contractors and subcontractors. However, it also reaffirms the authority of the Secretary of Defense to create exceptions to the cap in certain circumstances.

This authority was established in last year's defense authorization to preserve flexibility for our military in maintaining access to individuals--particularly scientists and engineers--who possess unique skills and capabilities critical to the United States' national security.

To reiterate, this amendment does not grant new authority to the Secretary of Defense. It is not legislating in an appropriations bill. It merely reaffirms the current authority of the Secretary codified in title 10. To be clear, this amendment deals exclusively with taxpayer dollars spent to reimburse contractors.

There you go. Always a pleasure to join you on this House floor. And thank you for leading us in a very important discussion this evening here on the floor.

It's important for us to recognize that for our business community to compete, and compete effectively, they need to be able to contain costs; they need to be able to have predictability and stability in their day-to-day routine. And I think that the Affordable Care Act takes us toward those goals. It is a predictable outcome. It enables our small business community to have a sound and well workforce.

I know that that is in the ether of the mind-set of our business community in that they know a productive workforce begins with the soundness of a health care plan. We are the last industrialized nation to come to the table to begin to resolve that dilemma, and it has held back our business community. What we will have with this important Affordable Care Act is the opportunity for exchanges to be developed, either along the State line or in a national setting, that enables us to provide for the opportunities for business and to do it in a way that is vastly improved over present situations. Status quo, just about everyone agrees, will not cut it. It is unsustainable to continue with a system of health care delivery that we currently operate under.

This, I believe, will be welcome news for our business community. They will have the opportunity to address this dilemma which has found the business community, the small business community, to be paying anywhere from 18 to 20 percent more than industrial settings and getting reduced services, or a smaller bit of service package, than the industrial setting would get. This allows for better services at reduced premiums that will enable them to have that affordability factor addressed. To go to the marketplace with that operational motif is going to be, I think, a very strong enhancer for the competitive edge of the American business community.

So underpinning, supporting the small business community, is important because, as we know, it is the driver; it is producing the great majority of new jobs in the private sector in America today. If we can take that outcome and enhance it by addressing an Affordable Care Act that impacts soundly and progressively and positively the small business community, then we are doing something to increase America's growth in jobs. We do it also by having the ability to provide for various tax credits that go toward the small business community, especially for those that have 50 and fewer employees.

We have seen what an economic engine the small business community is. Since time beginning for this Nation, the small business community has been that pulse of American enterprise. It has been that predictor of soundness, of job creation, and of economic recovery. If we treat the small business community with the respect and the dignity and the assuredness that it requires, we have done something. We will be doing something.

So, Representative Garamendi, I think it is important to understand and to outline that the Affordable Care Act is the beginning of providing that foundation for the small business community to have a sound workforce, which is essential in this very competitive sweepstakes for jobs and landing contracts in that international scenario where we all compete for the right to serve the general public.

I was going to say, too, that many people will say, well, if the option is made available, which it is, why would they choose that? Why would they want to spend even if there is a tax credit made available?

Think about it. The sound business community leader is going to want to recruit, and when you recruit and get the best employees, you offer the best package, and you have, as a result, a soundness in your workforce.

So the management style is driving that sort of benefit so that you will reach to the program so as to recruit and retain quality workers. I think that driving element will influence it more than anything, and then the tax credits will become part and parcel to that package, which, as you suggest, can be as great as 50 percent. This is a huge cost savings and a sound policy to which they're attaching. So I think it's a benefit.

If I might add, I know that we want to get into the talk of job creation, but if I might add some of the dialogue that has been developed in the district I represent--and I'm sure it's not unique to the 21st District of New York.

Again, there is this proliferation of small business that has been the driving force and that has really built our economic recovery from this painful recession. What you will hear time and time again is, if I'm a small operation of 10, 15, 20 people, one person--just one person--in that workforce impacted by a catastrophic illness will throw the actuarial science into a frenzy. That means that your premiums will be adjusted in a way that makes it difficult as the employer to continue to afford that insurance or to have the copayments from the employees.

So, as you're suggesting, if you enter this large collection called an ``exchange,'' in which many more numbers than 10, 15, or 20 work in this concept together, it shaves those peaks, and the shock--the premium rate shock--that is dulled is a good thing.

Representative Garamendi, you cite a very awkward dynamic that can be used as a preexisting condition: age. How about gender? There are more and more small business startups that are women-owned businesses, women working in a small business situation as the employer. A preexisting condition is being a woman. It is gender penalizing.

There are many aspects, and the preexisting condition is something that's getting more and more attention, especially in the weeks that accompanied the decision of the Supreme Court. There was a lot of recognition of what was in the Affordable Care Act, and preexisting conditions are now being denounced and not being allowed as a reason, a rationale for denying insurance. That's a prime aspect of the progress made here.

As I've said in my district: Is it perfect? No. We aimed for perfection, and we achieved success. We will continue to work on this order of health care in a way that will continue to build the progressive nature of the outcome.

I just wanted to speak to the issue that Representative Altmire raised with the doughnut hole--such a sweet label thrown onto a hidden attack on our senior community, asking them to dig into their pockets when they hit the threshold of $2,930 and up till they hit the threshold of $4,700.

I can tell you painful, heart-wrenching stories that many of the seniors I represent--and again, I have a huge proportion of seniors in my home county of Montgomery County, New York. Many will reach that threshold early in any fiscal year. It's a phenomenon with the prescription drugs. Those prescription drugs are their connection to quality of life. It's not only keeping them well and healthy; it may be keeping them alive. There are far too many heart-wrenching stories of people who will cut their prescription or their pills in half so that they can balance their budget. That is not the way to respond to their medical needs. They are told by their physician what that prescription drug intake is to look like for their wellness or their getting well. We ought not cause them to be pushed to the brink where they actually adjust their intake of prescription drugs just to meet a budget.

This closing of this doughnut hole, making prescription drugs more affordable, where we finally in 2020 close it completely--I mean, people have realized already billions of dollars of savings. There have been 5.3 million seniors that have received $3.7 billion in savings.

Is that something you want to take away? So when this House, with the majority, the three of us obviously said no, but when the majority said repeal, why? What's the replacement? We didn't hear replace, we heard repeal, and it left many stunned in this Chamber because the progress just begun to be tasted was attempted to be pulled away, and it's regrettable.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi. Let me also thank our military, our active forces out there as we speak who are defending us in some

very far-off places, deserted deserts and mountains that extract great courage and commitment to this Nation and her cause.

You know, again, so many veterans returning are looking for work. There ought not be a battlefield in their homeland to find a job, and it's why the American Jobs Act makes it possible for businesses to realize benefits when they hire our veterans, when they hire the active military that are returning, and that's a commitment that ought to be understood by all of us. That's a commitment that should be part and parcel to unanimity in this House. Let's go forward with something like the American Jobs Act.

But the full package could have been done, which allows for even more opportunity for our veterans if we're hiring police officers and firefighters and educators, teachers. We're building the fabric of the Nation and the infrastructure, the human infrastructure that's required to educate our young, protect our neighborhoods, make certain that we're there in response efforts when tragedy hits. These are the things that can also in a broader sense affect positively the employment factors for our veterans. That full package offered the greatest hope.

The fact that we would nitpick and that we would be pushed to pressure points and finally acknowledge the work getting done is not the way to achieve what we know has to happen out there. We've seen the growth, Representative Garamendi, of private sector jobs, 29 consecutive months of private sector job growth, well beyond 4 million jobs.

It is a wonderful number, but still a lot of work to do when we think of the Bush recession and the loss of 8.2 million jobs. Now people want to take us back to those failed policies that saw us losing as many as 800,000 jobs a month and say that's the way to move forward. That's moving backward. We need to move forward with efforts like the American Jobs Act.

Yes. We are, in fact, very proud of their efforts and very proud of the training they endure to be able to be the greatest force on the globe, and so we thank them for that.

Representative Garamendi, you're offering a very powerful statement, a powerful challenge, the what-if.

When you take that statement and failure to commit to our Nation's children and then contrast that with what's happening in competitor nations, where they're investing in education, investing in higher education, investing in research, investing in advanced manufacturing, these are the challenges that are facing us as a government, as a body, as a House of Representatives.

And if we do not respond accordingly, we're holding back the Nation. We're actually pushing us backward. This discussion here in this House ought to be about moving us forward--moving us forward with progressive policy and investments of human infrastructure.

Representative Garamendi, as you're speaking, I'm thinking of those ``golden moments'' in our history replete with those statements made by the Nation--this Nation--of investing, especially in tough times.

You know my district. I've described it several times. It's the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers and the donor area to the eastern portions of the Erie Canal. In very tough times, Governor DeWitt Clinton proposed--

Right. He proposed a canal system, in tough times, saying we need to invest our way through this. There's a way to grow a port out of this town called New York. And there's a way perhaps that there will be a ripple effect, which there was, with the birthing of mill towns, a necklace of mill towns that became the epicenters of invention and innovation. And it drove a westward movement so that it headed toward California. It drove an industrial revolution, sparking all sorts of opportunity and activity, driven by a pioneer spirit that is unique to this Nation.

And our collection of stories of journeys to this Nation with people embracing nothing but this noble dream--an American Dream--that transitioned a rags-to-riches scenario, that's what it's all about. It's us in our finest moments. And why not today, as we have these inordinate needs to invest in the people, invest in jobs, understanding the dignity of work, underpinned by the effervescence of the pioneer spirit that is, I think, part and parcel of our DNA. It is within our fabric as a Nation to have that pioneer spirit. We're denying it. We're denying that spirit.

The reach that we ought to make to our history, to let it to speak to us, the reach we ought to make to the boldness that we embraced in times that preceded us ought to speak to us, ought to feed our soul, ought to feed our mindset. The courageous steps that we were asked to take that we took together as a Nation, committed to a cause, this is the sort of leadership that I think is required. The President is asking us to respond in very challenging times to these orders of investment.

Now, I can tell you in my district, the birthplace of the Erie Canal, mill towns that have achieved and changed the quality of life of peoples around the world, we're watching nanotechnology, semiconductor science, advanced battery manufacturing, chips manufacturing, a growth area happening within the capital region of New York, all built upon, I think, a public-private sector partnership, government inserted in a way that provides for the priming of the pump that goes where you absorb risk which, perhaps, the private sector won't take. And we're now seen as a global center of operations in certain areas. And it's growing and it's expanding. Now is not the time to walk away from that progress. Now is the time to invest in these dreams--these American dreams that people have always seen as the nobleness of the American saga.

Absolutely. And I see the order of progress, Representative Garamendi, that we've achieved in that private sector that you just outlined. And it's regrettable that the solution for which the President is calling to provide for the public sector side, which would speak to greater numbers of employment, because we've taken that 4 million-plus in the private sector and reduced the overall results by losing some public sector opportunities which speak to soundness of community, public safety, educating the young, and providing for public protection out there. These are important aspects of quality of life. They ought to be embraced.

So we've denied part of the President's agenda. We've recognized the success and strength part of his plan, but there's been this partisan divide, there's been this holding back on progress because perish the thought if the White House should look good in this comeback from a recession.

Well, you need to place--we need to place the public good, the Nation's good, ahead of partisan divide. It is absolutely essential. And to then criticize the President by restraining some of the progress that he's been trying to cultivate and saying he's not cleaning up the mess quick enough, well, there was a huge mess delivered just before he assumed office--8.2 million jobs is a tough situation from which to walk forward from. And I think that there is a solution there, and we ought to work and put America first, the needs of this Nation first so as to be able to continue to walk forward and not negate any of the progress that we're achieving.

Let me tell you, that is welcome news to my manufacturing base. I hear it all the time. They support the efforts of the President to reward those who produce jobs here in the U.S. and where we provide benefits for returning jobs, onshoring them as you suggest. That is welcome news. That is welcome news to the manufacturing base, as is the call for action by the President for investments in advance manufacturing. And I know that's compete and compete effectively, and to allow for job growth to come via the private sector base.

We need to invest in that new day of manufacturing. It is not dead. I refuse to submit to this notion that manufacturing is dead in this country. It is alive, it is well, and it needs to be retrofitted so as to be advanced in nature and in character. Let's get moving forward, and let's, again, reward those job creators, not paying people to offshore or send out of this Nation. Our hugest export was jobs in the decade preceding this administration.

Let me do this quickly, Representative Garamendi. We're the greatest nation in the world. I believe our greatest days lie ahead of us. Let us take our golden moments in history when we were faced with heavy challenges, where we responded accordingly with the belief in the worker, belief in the American way, the pioneer spirit, and did it in an order of investment.

Let those solutions-oriented moments speak to us today. We need the soundest of solutions, we need the respect for the American worker, and our greatest days lie ahead. It's a spirit of optimism that we should embrace, a history that ought to challenge, feed us, and inspire us. With that, I thank you for yielding this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 39 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 18, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My amendment is very simple. It replaces the overly broad definition in H.R. 4402 with a definition that truly address the materials identified in the title of the bill: critical and strategic materials.

Since the realization that China was restricting exports of rare Earth metals in 2010, the issue of critical and strategic materials has reemerged as a concern. This isn't the first time Congress has considered our potential vulnerability to resource shortages. Just before World War II, Congress passed the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act of 1939 to address our Nation's requirement for materials needed for national defense. We have expanded our notion of strategic and critical materials since that time to include civilian and economic needs for materials. But there is no precedent for the broad definition included in H.R. 4402. The military's current definition of strategic and critical materials in the U.S. Code is far narrower than the definition in this bill.

Nine of the ten bills introduced in this Congress dealing with strategic and critical minerals rely on definitions or specific lists of minerals that would conform to the definition in my amendment--not to the one in H.R. 4402. The definition in H.R. 4402 would include virtually all minerals and materials no matter how available they are. No other legislation proposes a definition that would consider sand and gravel ``critical'' materials.

The National Academy of Science panel looked at this issue in 2008. The panel specified two factors that define a mineral as critical: It is essential in use and subject to the risk of supply restriction. H.R. 4402's definition captures only the first factor that the Academy considered. The panel recognized that the list of critical materials was likely to change over time due to technological developments, usage patterns, changes in mineral reserves, and many other factors.

They developed a matrix that could be used to evaluate substances and used this matrix to examine a group of minerals that are in current high demand. Two dozen minerals were identified as critical in the NAS report. The rare Earth metals, the platinum metals, and several other minerals were included in their list. Oddly enough, sand, gravel, iron, copper--all useful materials, to be sure--did not make it to the list. The current definition in H.R. 4402 is unnecessary if the purpose is to secure additional critical minerals.

H.R. 4402 undermines the protection of our public lands and elevates mining above all other public land uses. If H.R. 4402 is truly a bill to address potential shortages of critical minerals, then my amendment should be adopted. Let's concentrate on the problem at hand: Securing additional rare Earth minerals and other truly critical minerals.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate that.

I just want to state clearly that the amendment itself embraces flexibility. It understands that if there are changes in time that are requiring the list to be adjusted, we would have the academy adjust that so that the flexibility is there recognizing that if, in the course of time, the change needs to be made, if we need to further extend the list, so be it. But the flexibility is contained in the amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

I rise in opposition to this rule. There is no reason we could not have an open rule on this legislation--well, unless there are amendments the majority does not want the Members to vote on. Obviously, my colleague, Representative Holt, has offered one such amendment. The Rules Committee did not make his amendment to require companies that earn a profit mining on public lands to disclose their public donations in order. Why not? Vast amounts of secret money are ruining our democracy.

It is the ultimate irony that free speech now has such a high cost. Our democracy has truly become the best that secret money can buy. That's not good news for the average voters who do not have tens of thousands of dollars to shower on their preferred candidates.

Representative Holt's amendment would shine some light on this practice and ensure that the entities profiting from public resources are accountable to the electorate. The public, I believe, has a right to know, a right to know who is funding our elections. Apparently, under this rule, they don't even have the right to know where Members of this House stand on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the deep cuts proposed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The SNAP program provides low-income families, our disableds, and our elderly essential access to healthy foods. We should not ask our most vulnerable citizens to go hungry to balance the Federal budget. A cut of $16 billion in SNAP benefits will not achieve that balanced budget.

SNAP benefits not only provide needed nutritional support to recipients; they support local economies and our farm operations by boosting sales of fresh fruit and vegetables at farmers markets and local grocery stores. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers produce high- quality abundant foods in a system that is the envy of the world.

There is no reason for anyone to go hungry in the United States. Let's produce a food and farm bill that each day gives farmers a fair deal and ensures all of our citizens nutritious meals.

This evening we are going to address for the coming hour with a couple of our colleagues the issues of affordable health care and the fact that we see a pattern here that's established by the House that seems to walk away from the needs of a middle class, a working class in this society. Our country depends upon a thriving middle class, one that is given the respect and the dignity it so much deserves. And with the attacks on Social Security with its 76-year old history and the efforts to privatize Social Security, we understand that that would put at risk a number of people.

Not a single cent of Social Security was lost to its recipients during the very painful recession. And likewise, in the mid-sixties we saw the emergence of Medicare, which allowed for, again, the dignity factor to be presented and found in the midst of our senior households where, at that point in time, prior to Medicare, those who would retire would anticipate a decline in their income and their economic security simply because of the impact that their health care costs would have on their retirement years. Since then, not only have we seen a stronger sense of security and stability in those senior households, but we have seen a strengthening of the response to the health care needs of our seniors because of the stability that Medicare produced and the quality of the care that has been part and parcel to the Medicare history.

And so now, in its infancy, the Affordable Care Act is under threats with the repeal measure that was just taken on this House floor to undo the progress that was achieved for, again, America's health care consumers. It is a troubling notion, at best. This hour of discussion will be dedicated to the concerns that we have for the economic ripple effects that befall the middle class, which needs to be a thriving middle class, and the impact of several of these attacks that seem to undermine the very foundations upon which security is provided to America's great populations.

So we're concerned. We're concerned about that repeal and what it means, what is removed from the equation of success that was brought about a couple of years ago as we worked in a bipartisan, bicameral way with the White House to make certain that a growing need out there that found this country as the only industrialized nation to not have a universal health care program, when that is put at risk again because of the efforts to repeal.

We are joined by my colleague from California, Representative John Garamendi.

John, you witnessed this vote just now to repeal health care. The Affordable Care Act was providing hope and opportunity and promise to all generations in this American mosaic. It is a tragic moment.

Absolutely. We, I know, are joined by some of our colleagues. But if you want to go through your chart.

And interestingly, Representative Garamendi, we've been reminded I think by the general public that the legislature, the legislative body here, Congress, took up the bill. They passed it. It went over to the President. He signed it. The highest court in the land, a conservative-leaning court, reviewed it, made their decision and rendered a decision that said it met with constitutionality.

People are saying go forward. Move on. Get to the issues that now have got to be resolved, and that is the economy, creating the jobs, producing the post-recession responsiveness that people so much require and deserve, and that's where they're at.

We've been joined by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton who has joined us.

Representative, thank you for joining us in the Special Order.

Thank you, Representative Holmes Norton.

You know, you talk about the struggle and the move to repeal. It obviously didn't place consumers first and foremost in that thought process. It was probably listening to those deep pockets of interest that did not want to be pulled to the table to provide better outcomes for our consumers.

Look at the benefits of the health care law for our seniors: 5.1 million seniors receiving savings on their prescription drugs. Actually, I've seen this number as high as 5.3 million, and probably climbing in the short order of time. What an important, significant savings. I hear it all the time from seniors in my district who are always reaching into their pockets after that doughnut hole is hit, and they get the benefit for a while until they hit a certain threshold. As we all know, many, in a short order of months, are digging into their own pockets. These are medications that are required to stay well, and in many cases to stay alive.

There are 32.5 million seniors receiving free preventative services-- health care screenings, the annual checkup, flu shots--items that are brought to their benefit in order to, again, underscore the value added of wellness. Strengthening consumer protections for seniors in the part D program, something I heard a lot of favorable review about, and 85 percent of Medicare Advantage plan revenues going toward senior medical care rather than profits for the insurance industry.

So these are big changes. These are changes that were welcomed by the senior community. I can tell you, if you close that doughnut hole by the year 2020, as the Affordable Care Act is to do, you're providing a major benefit for seniors, with the advancement of pharmaceuticals that speak to all sorts of illnesses. This is a wonderful opportunity for them to understand the attachment that is essential.

I heard of far too many people adjusting their dosages of medications to balance their family's budgets. That is not the best outcome for health care. This advances sound decisionmaking, efficiencies, the best use, the wisest use of resources and, again, speaking to the dignity factor of our country's senior citizens.

Representative Marcy Kaptur from Ohio, a great Representative, a strong voice for consumers in this House, thank you for joining Representative Garamendi and me. It's great to have you here. I know that you're hearing a lot in the State of Ohio.

Thank you, Representative Kaptur. Please feel free to share more information with us. The anecdotal evidence that you provide from your region alone speaks to the empowerment that is part of this transition, this progressive policy.

And to now attempt to repeal, just as you've given people the sense of hope that there will be a doable outcome, that they won't have to cut medication in half so that they could have enough money to do all the other items that are required of them, to pay utility bills, or to afford to eat for that given month--the fact that they would cut their medication in half is not a sound thing. They're spending money, and it's probably ineffective.

And so tethering people to a system that is sound and secure. You know, when people say, well, I don't want to pay for someone's insurance, I don't want to pay for this health care program. You're paying today through premiums and through taxes. You're paying for the worst sort of outcome by putting people into emergency rooms and having them visit with a different doctor each time they visit and not having the stability and the standardized outcome that is predictable and effective and efficient.

These are the dynamics that are driven by the soundness of a policy like this, that, yes, will take investment, but will get far greater bang for the buck than what we're getting today with a haphazard sort of response that does not provide continuity or direction or standardization or predictability and certainty. We will be far better off and a much more compassionate response is rendered.

From a taxpayer perspective, from a consumer perspective, it's a far greater, stronger, more intelligent outcome; and it speaks to, I think, the core fabric of this wonderful country that we do truly care. And this is a way to show it and still be economically sounder in our attempts.

Thank you for sharing the anecdotal evidence.

Representative Garamendi, you and I have done a number of these Special Orders on this House floor, and I find it fascinating to see what the response is out there from the public, who always call to engage and get more information. And so the fact that we can provide more information on what is included in the Affordable Care Act, I think, is a good opportunity here.

And I know you always have a lot to say and a lot to share, and your walk in your professional life as insurance commissioner was an important bit of strength for all of us in the caucus.

The gentleman from California speaks of the Medicare Advantage programs. Obviously, they came about because there were those who suggested they could do it cheaper. Give us a special model out there and launch it as a pilot, and we'll show you how we can do this special programming and give us a return.

After reviewing now what is the history of all of that, it was deemed that there were overpayments of anywhere from 10 to 14 percent. So the dollars were slid over to programs like filling the doughnut hole and providing for screenings for our seniors, not taking it away from a category of health care consumers--in this case, an age demographic of seniors--but taking those savings, as we sweep those savings, and then reinvesting them in a way that provides balance and more sensitivity for the consumer rather than having record profits developed for an industry. To me, that was progressive policy. And for people to then take those savings and use them in their own budget presentations for other purposes was disingenuous.

Now, when you talk about the efforts today of the Affordable Care Act to include an exchange, what I think is oftentimes lost, Representative Garamendi, is people see this as some sort of public exchange that is going to be run by the government. In fact, when we set up an exchange and when private sector sources come to the table, if they're willing to abide by the rules, if they're going to govern themselves by the parameters that have been established in the legislation, they can then offer services through the exchange. So it's a private sector solution but with new caveats of parameters that are established so as to provide benefit for the consumer.

When you think of it, if there are firms that hire 10 people and one of those 10 becomes catastrophically ill, the actuarial impact of that one individual circumstance can drive premiums up for that small business in very high order. That kind of impact is unacceptable for the small business community that today pays some 18 percent more for its insurance and oftentimes gets weaker coverage.

With the benefits of an exchange that is private sector-driven, you now have the opportunities that people can have that actuarial measurement made in a pool of perhaps millions so that the unsteady and unpredictable kind of outcome for small business is now rendered more efficient and more sensitive by shaving the peaks that may occur in a universe as small as 10 people.

So there is a science to this. There is thoughtfulness that has been pumped into the discussion; and by inserting that thoughtfulness, we have come up with reforms that really speak to a wiser use of this country's health care dollars. It was a folding in of progress over the course of several years that was initiated with its passage a couple of years ago that needed time to work. To then move to repeal before a number of these programs are even implemented and for people to just play politics with the lives of individuals, with the health care quality of individuals, is regrettable, and then for us to be asked to visit for the 31st time a repeal exercise in some 19 consecutive months.

We used this week of session in Congress to debate for hours, to message for hours, to come to the floor for votes. These were session days that were used up for the repeat of an exercise that time and time and time again has been conducted just to politically posture when, in fact, the American public is saying, Look, you voted on this. Look, the President signed it into law. Look, the Supreme Court--the highest law in the land, the conservative-leaning Court--has ruled constitutionality.

They want us to move forward with job creation, with responding to the cures this economy needs. We started with a terrible pit of a recession: 8.2 million jobs lost and 800,000 jobs being lost per month as this administration started and, ironically, when I started my service in the House of Representatives. We were in a dark, deep hole. To come out of that with 29 consecutive months of private sector job growth and to come out of that with over 4 million jobs created in the private sector and to go forward with an effort to reform our health care system in a way that extends greater opportunity and beacons of hope to families, individuals, those who are catastrophically ill, those denied because of preexisting conditions, pharmaceuticals unaffordable for many seniors, to have all that turned around and to have all of this progress of the comeback trail from the recessionary period that was far too long and far too deep and far too painful than anyone ever forecasted--to strike that kind of progress and then have it met with 31 consecutive efforts to repeal the situation is regrettable. It's regrettable.

Representative Garamendi, you've been here for those 31 efforts. Has anything changed? It's the same old, same old that is being expressed out there that does not, I think, meet the concerns of individuals out there from coast to coast.

Representative Garamendi, I couldn't agree more with the need to exchange statistics here, the real stats on what is happening. We only have a short history, but already it's a powerful statement.

When you look at healthy pregnancies, that front-end life investment which this embraces, what a soundness to the rationale for progressive policy.

When you think of the dignity factor for those senior years so that people aren't chopping a pill in half so as to meet their family budget and take care of half of their medical needs, this is an exercise of foolishness to repeal at a time when we've just started the engine of recovery and transformation and transition and reform.

We also know that--and I hear it from my constituents all the time-- repeal. What's the replacement? There is no hint of a replacement because you took it halfway and said, We're just going to repeal this. That's the political posturing that is so painful, because you have now delivered to society a new opportunity to better steward our resources, to better provide for the dignity in the equation so that people can have that comfort zone, knowing that if they get impacted by some sort of catastrophic illness--and we've seen it in our communities, in our neighborhoods, in our families where peoples' lives are turned around in an instant. To those who you suggested might not buy the insurance, who then bears the burden if there is a catastrophic outcome?

They're saying, Oh, you're asking them to pay a tax if they don't want insurance.

If they don't have insurance and they get a catastrophic illness, they fall into some sort of huge accident, who's going to pay? You're right, Representative Garamendi, there are those that get in charity situations where premiums cover it, taxpayers cover it.

This has been thought out in a very meaningful way. We talk about a global competitiveness. We talk about our industries going to the marketplace, international marketplace, wind contracts, produce in America, and grow jobs. Part of the price that they have to calculate is the cost of health care. If we're providing a benefit to our business community, if we're having a smarter approach taken to the health care dollars being utilized in best fashion, there's a corresponding benefit that befalls the economic recovery opportunities because our businesses will be able to have the benefit of the soundness of that universal health care system to more effectively compete in the international marketplace, to secure those contracts that then translate into jobs.

There is an interconnectedness here that goes well beyond health care policy. It falls into the realm of economic recovery and business creation and all sorts of quality-of-life issues that market our neighborhoods, our States, and our Nation for jobs.

We know what's happening in other Nations. They have taken the bull by the horns, and they have put together a good, sound system, and we were comfortable to have status quo be our rule, our guiding light. It was the boldness of those leaders that came forward and said: There is a better way to use those dollars out there. There are better ways to reach people. There is a need for preventive and wellness programs, for screenings and for those annual checkups, making certain that pharmaceutical needs are something that are within the grasp of our senior community and our middle-income community and our middle-aged community.

To cite scenarios like that of your staffer and his child, to provide that hope in the middle of despair where people have abandoned the hope for a better tomorrow for their children because of lack of affordability, to cover those health care situations, that's what this is about.

This is the old American spirit coming forward. It's about speaking as a community, not as individuals disconnected from one another. It's about thinking as a society, of a greatness of America at her best: compassionate, resolved to make a difference, determined to use our resources in a way that is most effective, most efficient, most smart. It is America at a great, shining moment. And to denounce all of that progress and to move for repeal speaks volumes about greed and about injustice and the desire to turn progress around.

Representative Garamendi, we close in the next minute or two. Any closing thoughts from you? I thank you for joining us this evening.

Thank you.

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

Thank you to my fellow New Yorker.

I rise today opposed to the 31st edition of this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Just what are we doing here today on the floor of this House? Are we passing jobs bills that will help the middle class? No. Are we working together to help America recover from the recession? No. Are we passing a bill that has any chance of being signed into law? No. So what exactly are we doing?

Are we politically posturing during an election year? Yes. Are we voting to repeal a law that more Americans support than oppose without any hint of a plan for replacement? Yes. Are we voting to deny 6.6 million young adults health benefits under their parents' insurance? Yes. Are we voting to raise costs for some 5.3 million seniors who pay for their prescription drugs? Yes. Are we voting to deny 17 million children with preexisting health conditions the opportunity for coverage? Yes. Are we voting to take away free screening and preventative checkups? Yes.

So, Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this. Mr. Speaker, we must do better than this.

The Supreme Court--the highest court in the land, a conservative- leaning court--has ruled, and the debate has ended over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Instead of repealing the health care bill for the 31st time in 19 straight months in a Congress that has done absolutely nothing to create jobs, isn't it time to move on to something--anything--that will help our struggling middle class?

Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of the games played on this floor. Let's end this debate and get back to work--work that will find us passing bills, that will help grow jobs, work that will find us working together to inspire a thriving middle class.

Madam Speaker, for a great number of hours today in this Chamber, there has been a great debate on whether or not to repeal the Affordable Care Act when we know fully that the chances are slim to move forward and the measure would not be signed into law. Is it political posturing? I believe it is, of a grand style.

There's a pattern being established here. There's been an attack-- outright attack--on Social Security, attempts to privatize the system. It's been under attack for the last 76 years. It's been the underpinning that provides stability for working families across this great Nation. It has been a security piece that has enabled many to have at least assurances that there would be some support in family budgets as they move month to month. We know that that measure, Social Security, has been dealing with its enemies for a long time--since before it was made a law.

Likewise, Medicare, which came to us in the mid-sixties, enabled our senior community to have its health care needs met, provided predictability and stability for retired households, enabled people to enjoy a quality of life, a better quality of health care. We know that before Medicare, many of those who had retired expected to see their economic security dip south because of the expected cost of providing health care when they, perhaps, could not get that coverage in an insurance context.

So Medicare, as we know it today, would be undone by the Republican majority in this House. They would prefer to privatize Social Security, allow us to reach to the financial sector to, perhaps, see a repeat of what happened to so many individuals and families out there with this past recession, where they saw their lifetime savings wiped away, trillions lost in the American economy, pain and suffering endured by families across this land. They'd rather see a voucher system for Medicare, handing it over to the insurance companies, to leave seniors digging deeper into their pockets.

So the pattern has been established here, and now a repeal of the Affordable Care Act before its full implementation, before given a chance as we arrive as the last industrialized Nation in the world to provide a universal health care coverage program. Unacceptable. Progress is struck. A decision is rendered by the highest court in the land, a conservative-leaning Court. Before the ink is dry on that decision, a move to repeal. The Court spoke. It has spoken to America and said the litmus test for constitutionality was debated and a decision rendered that said, yes, in fact, it meets the constitutionality test.

And so this evening, on the eve of the attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act as it stands, is a very telling moment. It is one that suggests to us that there is this outright attempt to undo programs that serve our middle class so very well. And without a thriving middle class, our Nation is not prosperous. Without that thriving middle class, there's not purchasing power strong enough to provide the recovery of our economy. Without a strengthening of our middle class, there is not a confidence in the economy, a confidence that is needed so as to grow more customers for our business base.

And so the Affordable Care Act is offering promise and hope to millions, tens of millions, of Americans across this land. Whether you're insured, underinsured, uninsured, all categories will see strengthening because of this measure.

Think of it. I represent a large proportion of senior citizens who are concerned about their pharmaceutical costs. Many dealing with that doughnut hole have reached that threshold that requires them to dig into their pockets. We close that doughnut hole. We make more affordable the prescriptions that are required for people to stay well and, in some cases, to have the medications that keep them alive. We deny that opportunity to our Nation's seniors.

We deny the respect that we offer. We deny the dignity in the equation that speaks to affordable outcomes for the pharmaceuticals that our senior community requires. That doughnut hole would have been closed by 2020.

Further, at the other end of the age spectrum, many young adults, finding it difficult in this recession--and now the recovery period--to gain a job as they perhaps leave high school or college, are given the opportunity with the Affordable Care Act to remain on their family's policy until the age of 26. Therein lies a strong benefit for some 6.6 million young adults, denied with the repeal measure, denying access and affordability to health care situations. How many cases of young adults impacted by catastrophic illness or accidents will it require to turn the hearts and the minds in a positive direction, that would not forego this opportunity for our Nation's young adults? A strong benefit associated with this package.

What about those who have a preexisting condition? Some 17 million children in that category. And that's not to account for the many adults who would be denied because of preexisting conditions. Asthma in children, diabetes in our senior community, being a woman, utilized as a preexisting condition, an opportunity to deny coverage and the basic core need that we should consider to be truly American. Another benefit lost to the greedy notion of repealing success that was achieved in this House and the United States Senate and signed into law by this President.

What about the efforts to deny lifetime benefits as a threshold? Cutting people off of an insurance coverage at perhaps a very demanding time in their lives. Games played with people and their lives and their recovery; hope pulled from working families across this Nation because of an insensitivity of this Congress. A deplorable situation.

Assistance to our small business community. Now, if we profess our small business community to be the economic engine that is part and parcel of our economic comeback, our economic springboard, then would we not want to provide assistance in that basic core need area? Would we not want to allow tax credits to come the way of our small business community? Many, a majority of those businesses will remind all of us as Representatives that they want to provide for their employees.

They want a productive workforce. That means a strong and well workforce. And so they see it as a strong investment; one, however, that they could not afford in recent years because of the escalating costs, 18 percent larger bill than industry and perhaps weaker coverage.

They wanted that turned around. They wanted a smart approach, a businesslike approach, a sensitive response. They got it with the Affordable Care Act.

Progress denied, the small business engine weakened by this sort of neglect that could be advanced in this cited pattern of undoing Social Security, privatizing Social Security, changing Medicare as we know it forever, now repealing the Affordable Care Act. We see the pattern. We see the gross neglect, the disrespect for America's middle class, her working families.

So we go forward and we understand that, with the opportunities of an exchange, small employers, our small

business community understands that if they're unable to enter into an exchange where all the private sector participants agree to play by the rules, to sharpen their pencils, roll up their sleeves, provide the service, live within the parameters, and allow for the many to enter into a common exchange to provide corresponding benefits.

Think of it. If 1 of 10 in that employee firm of 20 were to be impacted with catastrophic illness, it's devastating, an actuarial impact that hits that small business owner hard in the pocketbook because of the premium increase for that 1 person of the 10 you employ.

If those same 10 employees were allowed to enter the exchange, a better outcome, a different outcome, a stronger outcome for the economic recovery of this Nation because the gross majority of jobs being produced in this comeback are being done by our small business community.

And so, you know, the formula is quite obvious. We want a comeback. We want that strongest response here from Washington for that kick that we endured from a recession that drained us of 8.2 million jobs.

The best way to do it, first of three principles, small business. Provide for the strengthening of small business, which the Affordable Care Act does, because that small business community has forever been the pulse of American enterprise.

Secondly, invest in that entrepreneur, the dreamer, the mover, the shaker. It always stretched us, since our days of pioneer spirit with the Industrial Revolution and the westward movement, very familiar to the district I represent, which is the donor area to the Erie Canal in upstate New York in the capital region, Mohawk Valley. That pioneer spirit exists in our fabric today. It's our DNA. Invest in the entrepreneur. To be the ideas economy kingpin, we rely on these wizards to build us, sustain us, stretch us, empower us.

And then finally, invest in a thriving middle class, which the Affordable Care Act does. It enables us, as a middle class community, to be bolstered by the confidence, the security, the stability that has come with this success story in guaranteeing access and affordability to quality health care that will underscore the value of wellness and not just deal with illness, that will put together efforts to cost contain, that will bring people into a structured program so that we can monitor their activities and connect them to a system.

You know, you'll hear from some on the floor, we don't want to pay for this. It's going to cost us too much.

We're paying today for the neglect, for the consequences of a not-so- perfect system. Status quo will not cut it, and so we need to go forward with progressive policies, with the soundness of reform, with the boldness of transition, with the confidence we can instill, with the progressiveness of policies that we can draft.

And so it is a sad note here echoed in this Chamber, that would attempt to unravel, dilute, destroy, deny the promise we can make to America.

As I look at this effort for a comeback, the containment of health care costs is just one of those areas that we need to help control. Create that better environment in which to grow jobs, cultivate a prosperity. It's important. It's important for us to understand that it is part of an economic recovery equation.

But there's also the wisdom of investing in education, in higher education, again, under attack by a system that does not always profess the strength of research and education and patents and discovery.

We understand that we are in the midst of a global race on innovation, clean energy and ideas and high tech. To be outstanding competitors, to arrive at that race ready to conquer, we will need to be strong and fit in order to be the winning agent on that global scene.

We saw that order of passion. We saw that order of investment in the global race on space just decades ago. This Nation, impacted by a Sputnik moment, dusted off its backside and said, Never again. Never again.

And what was the result?

Together, a Nation grew in its commitment to winning the global race on space. We are going to be that agent, that Nation, that proud people that would stake the American flag on the Moon. And we won that race because of a commitment, because of investment in the soundness of the people of this great country and her business community. We embraced research. We embraced science. We believed in our strength as a people, and the confidence exuded was the elixir that brought us to the victory.

Where is that like passion today? Where is that leadership?

A rather youthful President that led us in the sixties and challenged us, in almost replication today, finds us, interestingly, to be challenged by a rather youthful President asking us to enter into the global sweepstakes, committing with passion to the cause.

And so we need that investment in education, in higher education and research. Just today, in Schenectady, New York, in the 21st Congressional District of New York that I'm proud to represent, we announced formally the creation of the advanced battery manufacturing center at that facility of GE.

CEO Jeff Immelt traveled for the celebration, came to town to announce this wonderful, wonderful addition. That is America at work with her genius activity. That's America determined to win the global race on ideas.

Advanced battery manufacturing, the battery, the linchpin to so much potential out there, to grow domestic supplies of energy, to grow jobs as we grow our energy future, to reduce the gluttonous dependency on fossil-based fuels, oftentimes imported from some of the most unfriendly nations to the United States, sending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to those foreign treasuries that are then used to train troops to fight against our own daughters and sons on the battlefield.

Unacceptable. There is a better way, and this Congress knows it.

We invest in jobs. We invest in health care. We invest in education. We invest in research. We do it in a way that promises our best attempt as a Nation to generations yet unborn. Someone was there for us, and we need to be there for future generations of Americans to provide the sort of cutting-edge opportunity that will spell America at her best. I look at that opportunity for not only battery manufacturing but nanotechnology and semiconductor signs, chip manufacturing.

The newly designed 20th Congressional District in New York that comprises a good portion of the now existing 21st District that I represent is probably one of the most technology invested-in congressional districts in the country. It is happening because there is this belief in the worker, a belief in the entrepreneur, a belief in the small business community, a belief in the industrial context of the district, and knowing full well that America's needs--be they for the environment or energy's sake or business creation, job creation, business opportunity--are inspiring this remarkable progress.

It requires our moving forward with a plan. It requires our moving forward academically with the soundness of policy and with the corresponding resource advocacy that will yield lucrative dividends. I see it all the time. I see it in energy-efficiency programs that produce jobs, that enable us to capture waste heat. That is part of the energy process, enabling us to be much more efficient. Efforts that enable us to create more and more patents in a world that has grown much more competitive, much more sophisticated we can ill afford to weaken in our attempts to be the kingmakers of the international economy.

The old American spirit, the history of this Nation replete with those rags to riches scenarios, that became the reason and the inspiration for the compilation of journeys made by our ancestors to these shores, because the opportunity called the ``American Dream'' became the prize for which they searched. I see it in my own roots. The proudest label I carry in life is as the grandson of immigrants. Their journey gave me great opportunity, and it gave my family great opportunity. Those journeys chased after the American Dream.

We need, beginning in this House Chamber, to reignite the American Dream, to go back to the core essence of who we are as a people, to reach into that American heart and soul that has

forever relied on its passion that we can achieve because we have opportunity, and that we will not deny that opportunity, that we will strengthen the boldness of those dreams and enable us to respond to the needs of the moments and the future and to write our legacy as a generation of Americans.

Let us not fail in that attempt. Let us continue to reach deep into that American spirit. At a time when we were challenged and our economy was brought to its knees by failed policies that did not manage well, that did not provide for the stewardship of our resources, and when we tripped and fell, let it be known that, in the recovery, we were stronger than ever before. Because of that belief that our best days lay ahead of us, the belief that those best days were in the future, we moved forward, and we dug deep into that American spirit to respond with the respect for America's middle class. Our middle class--all of us in that middle class--have always understood if you play hard, if you abide by the rules, if you roll up your sleeves and do your best, you could rightfully anticipate the taste of success.

That is America in her most shining moments, and that is an economy that we can produce. It begins with the soundness of a strong and productive workforce that went through training and retraining, that got to taste the potential for success by that self discovery that comes with education, and to then understand our gifts so that we could share them in the most profound way, and then to provide for the wellness of that workforce so it could be most productive, so that the conditioning that came with that sort of commitment and that order of respect and that potion of dignity could then allow for us to speak to a Nation that was humbled by its own beginnings, where the rightful stories of so many who made it their journey were written by a Nation that believed in her people.

So, tonight, on this eve of an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, let us understand that our budget here in Washington, our actions with legislation, our responsiveness to the needs of the American people are an establishment of our priorities--a prescription of what we see our future to be--a reaching into the heart to say that we are a truly caring lot. That's what separates us from other nations. It is the uniqueness of America and her greatness. The Affordable Care Act is a measurement of not only sound policy; it is a statement of a compassionate society that understands it's not about oneself, that it's about neighbors, that it's about community, that it's about The Great Society.

It has been the history through the decades, through the vintages of time, that has enabled us to reach to the greatness of our government, to reach to the soundness of ideas and innovation, to respond to the challenges that have enabled us to build upon those who preceded us, always anticipating that the next generation would be made stronger.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren and generations yet unborn. Let them look at this moment in history, American history, knowing that America was challenged, that she stepped up to the plate and said ``yes'' to her people and truly made a difference, and allowed people to understand full well that the best days of this great Nation lie ahead of us.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 11, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw our colleagues' attention to the OP-ED that appeared in Roll Call's online issue on June 20 authored by Tim Warfield, the Executive Director of the National Association for State Community Services Programs. The OP-ED, which I have included below, addresses the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), our nation's largest residential energy efficiency program. Energy efficiency represents one of our greatest opportunities to reduce energy expenditures for industry, government, and for individual citizens. Dollars we do not have to spend to heat or cool homes and buildings are dollars that can be invested elsewhere. Reducing energy use extends the years we can use non-renewable energy sources and brings us closer to achieving the goal of energy independence. Buildings represent a significant proportion of our energy use and heating and cooling expenditures are a significant portion of household budgets. At a time when we want to create jobs and lower energy costs for our constituents, programs like WAP should receive our full support.

I am disappointed that the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that we passed earlier did not maintain funding for this important

program. As Mr. Warfield's editorial points out, the funding level in the House bill will not sustain this important program through 2013. I hope our colleagues in the other body will do better.

[Special to Roll Call; June 20, 2012]

Warfield: Weatherization Is Effective Investment

(By Tim Warfield)

The Weatherization Assistance Program employs workers in

every state and county in America and has weatherized more

than 7.1 million homes over the past 35 years. Weatherization

has proved its value and is a highly successful and effective

investment in the American workforce--weatherization

improvements funded by the 2009 stimulus law alone created

14,000 new jobs, according to the White House Recovery.gov

website.

Weatherization reduces household energy use by almost 35

percent in the typical weatherized home, allowing families to

use their limited funds for other necessities. The reduction

in energy demand also reduces our nation's reliance on

foreign oil.

The success of a program that brings the threefold benefit

of jobs, household savings and energy conservation is a

powerful argument to sustain and fully fund the program, yet

it still has its opponents on Capitol Hill, where two

Republican House Members have introduced bills to abolish it.

Unfortunately, much of the information that has been

presented as an argument to cut funding is a disingenuous

misrepresentation of facts. Opponents have created the false

impression that remaining stimulus funds will allow the

program to serve just as many households in 2013 as it did

before the program expansion under the 2009 law. This

misstatement occurred again during floor debate recently on

the House Energy and water development appropriations bill.

The argument about ``available funds'' would seem to

demonstrate that the Weatherization Assistance Program can

absorb proposed cuts and still maintain services at a fiscal

2010 level. This characterization is entirely wrong.

Program opponents in the House are taking advantage of the

confusion that arises because the ``program year'' is not the

same as the federal fiscal year. The program year was set

later in the year at the Weatherization Assistance Program's

inception so it wouldn't suffer the disruptive and costly

effects of funding gaps that might result from prolonged

federal budget negotiations.

In most states, the new program year begins in April, and

by that time almost all stimulus funding will be spent.

Nominal amounts will remain in three states, but in the vast

majority the ``available funds'' that program opponents

propose to use for the 2013 program year will already be used

up. Additionally, regular appropriations are similarly

depleted, with the $68 million provided for 2012 being far

below a sustainable level. States have already begun slowing

down operations and eliminating jobs.

The funding levels debated on the Hill threaten the

nationwide network and many states will be hard pressed to

operate a program at all in fiscal 2013. For example, at the

$54 million level in the House-passed bill, Arizona, Hawaii

and Delaware could weatherize about a dozen homes each in

2013, effectively forcing them to halt services. The ripple

effect will disperse a well-trained workforce, reduce

purchases from vendors that provide supplies, leave the

government investment in equipment and vehicles unused, and

leave many families to struggle financially because of high

utility bills.

Rather than dismantling a beneficial and cost-effective

operation that has been successful for 35 years, Congress

should allocate funds to sustain the program at its true pre-

stimulus level of $220 million to $240 million.

We are mindful of the difficult budget choices that face

Congress, but these choices should be made based on facts.

The facts show that the Weatherization Assistance Program

performs a vital role in reducing the burden of high energy

prices on low-income families. The program creates jobs and

strengthens the economy through the purchase of materials and

equipment from the private sector. Each dollar is multiplied

as it flows through our communities.

Congress must restore the program to pre-stimulus levels to

maintain an effective commitment to weatherization, maintain

the trained workforce and provide a much needed economic

boost to a fragile economy. Don't allow distortions of the

facts to put the truly effective 35-year effort that is the

Weatherization Assistance Program in peril.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4480, which I heard my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Markey, refer to as the ``Deja Preview Act'' or the ``Big Oil Drain Act.''

Any student of history will tell you that the Congress was not designed to be efficient--while there were some good reasons for that-- but deliberately celebrating that particular design of Congress with yet another partisan, short-sighted piece of legislation that moves United States energy policy backward is truly disappointing.

H.R. 4480 leaves our energy policy stuck somewhere in the 1950s. While other nations are making serious investments to diversify their energy supplies, support new clean energy businesses, and become less dependent on traditional fossil fuels, we are marching in place.

H.R. 4480, with its gag order on renewables and energy efficiency, is another missed opportunity and a waste of time. H.R. 4480 is nothing more than a wish list for Big Oil companies at a time when these companies are making record profits on the backs of America's taxpayers and her middle class.

Our energy crisis isn't that we need to drill for more oil. In fact, we're actually quite good at it as we saw in Representative Markey's presentation. This bill will only make us more dependent on a limited resource that is priced on the global market and enjoys a century-old taxpayer giveaway while making record profits on the backs of our middle class.

The answer to our energy crisis is to diversify our supply, support new clean energy businesses, become less dependent on fossil fuels--to focus on the demand side of the energy equation as much as we do our supply side.

While we consider this bill, policies that would provide modest assistance to companies that are working on solar, wind, fuel cells, combined heat and power, geothermal and energy efficiency, to name a few, are languishing in committee.

These are the technologies that will take us into the future, a bold future. True, they are not yet ready to provide all the energy we need, but that is all the more reason for us to help them move forward aggressively.

Jobs in the industries I've mentioned, good-paying jobs, are at risk

due to our failure to renew the production tax credit, the 1603 program, and the research and development tax credit. We are stifling job growth and innovation with this act.

Eventually, traditional fossil fuels will run out. Already, the human health and environmental costs of extracting and using these fuels have risen tremendously. We choose to ignore this at our peril, or at least at the peril of the next generation and generations to come.

Over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has shown we can have both clean air and a vibrant economy. Since 1960, air pollution has decreased by more than 70 percent, while the economy has grown by more than 200 percent.

But this bill is likely to eliminate jobs, while making the air we breathe more toxic. But that doesn't seem to matter to the majority in the House. It does so by eliminating standards for cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels, likely costing nearly 25,000 jobs a year for 3 years. Yet more backward motion.

The public lands policy put forward today and in yesterday's legislation is an insult to the previous generations whose foresight and concern for future generations granted us a rich inheritance of natural resources in our wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and national parks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore my colleagues to abandon their my-way-or-the-highway approach to the job-creating highway bill currently in conference. We cannot afford to kick the can down the road again.

During the recent recession, 1.9 million jobs were lost in the construction sector. There are still about 1.4 million unemployed construction workers. But reauthorizing a long-term highway bill, as is encouraged by the President, would begin to fix this problem.

In my district alone, 25 years ago, on April 5, 1987, the Thruway bridge collapsed at 10:50 a.m. on a Sunday morning near Fort Hunter, New York. Ten people died. They included three men

returning from a bowling tournament, a mother and a daughter heading to a baby shower, two Shriners, a married couple driving to Texas, and a truck driver heading to Wisconsin. The cause was failure to properly maintain the bridge.

No price can be put on the lives that were suddenly ended that very tragic day, but their memory should serve as a stark reminder that our failure here has real, painful, life-taking consequences.

Let's move forward and invest in America's infrastructure--to put construction workers back on the job, to help businesses grow, and to keep our drivers and truckers safe.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin Act of 2012, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out projects and conduct research on water resources in the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin. The bill also establishes a river basin commission to unify the five States and five sub-basins that comprise the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin--the Nation's most densely populated river basin--to manage the vital water resources that bind together the communities, economies, and heritage of the northeast region in an integrated, holistic manner.

For too long, the five sub-basins of this basin have been addressed as independent entities. There is no overarching organization to facilitate coordination and collaboration of the many efforts underway within each of these areas. The landscape, however, operates differently. It functions as a whole. These

sub-basins are intimately connected to each other by the waters that course through their streams and tributaries to eventually reach the New York-New Jersey Harbor. Actions taken by individual entities within each sub-basin have impacts that extend beyond local borders. Years of progress in environmental sciences inform us that ecosystem-based management and watershed-level planning will result in the most sustainable outcomes. A river basin commission would provide the forum to facilitate a whole-basin view.

Our country has a long experience of using commissions to bring different jurisdictions together to promote sound management of common resources. In the West, there was early recognition that the seven basin States of the Colorado River needed to work together to ensure equitable access and proper management of the Colorado River. In the East, the Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac River Basin Commissions and the Appalachian Regional Commission have guided cooperative efforts of neighboring States to develop and manage important common resources for the benefit of the region. The Hudson-Mohawk River Basin deserves similar attention.

A 2007 study by Canadian authors Dalton, Dalton, and McLean documented the current management regime in the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin. The findings are staggering, including over 2,000 distinct governmental organizations: 12 federal agencies, 67 State agencies, 66 county agencies, and over 1,700 municipal agencies with some jurisdiction over land and water use. There are also over 200 non- profit organizations that focus on issues related to land and water management throughout the Basin. These statistics are indicative of the intense interest that residents and communities in the Basin have in its resources and their management.

The New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council created in 2006 was an important step forward recognizing the need to manage New York State's coastal areas through ecosystem-based management. The Council plays a vital coordinating role for State agencies and for the many local governments, non-profit groups, businesses, and citizens who depend upon our coastal ecosystems. These systems are influenced by the waters that flow into them and connect them through the Hudson, Mohawk, Passaic, and Raritan Rivers.

The sheer number and diversity of organizations operating within these five basin States present a significant challenge to considering projects and policies that impact the basin in a holistic manner. Despite these hurdles, these many entities have provided tremendous vision, stewardship and creativity for many years. A commission would be in a position to build upon their work and provide the five States of the basin a single forum for working together with the Federal Government to coordinate and encourage cooperation among the many interested parties who have a stake in the basin. Development of a basin-wide plan that places the individual on-going efforts into a whole-basin context would facilitate our ability to apply ecosystem- based management principles in a consistent and efficient manner.

The Mohawk and Upper Hudson sub-basins contribute over half of the flow of water to the lower Hudson River. Water quality in these basins directly impacts quality in the Lower Hudson. Yet, in comparison to the Lower Hudson, these two areas have far less institutional infrastructure and have received far less attention in the ongoing effort to restore the health of the Hudson River and its estuary. The Lower Hudson is a great success story--one that I would like to see repeated for the Mohawk and Upper Hudson. The locally-spawned efforts of dedicated citizens to embrace the Lower Hudson, advocate for its stewardship, and work to improve its floodplain served as the impetus for State government to become more involved. The goal of this legislation is to create a basin commission in order to assist these communities further and to engage the other sub-basins to accelerate development of their water resource programs by imitating successful programs of the Lower Hudson. The organizational infrastructure of the Lower Hudson Sub-basin provides an excellent foundation for building similar organizational strength in the Mohawk and Upper Hudson Sub- basins. Stronger partnerships among communities in the Upper Hudson and Mohawk Sub-basins will enable these regions to redesign and rebuild infrastructure to promote economic development, provide better flood protection, and improve water quality that will complement the efforts of downstream communities and improve conditions not only in the immediate area but also in the Lower Hudson and the Harbor.

The Raritan and Passaic River Sub-basins have, for too long, been viewed as mature industrial corridors rather than as sources of community revitalization and economic opportunity. Through the efforts of the State of New Jersey in partnership with the Federal Government and many dedicated non-profit organizations like the Raritan Headwaters Association and the Passaic River Coalition, water quality of these mighty rivers has improved in recent decades. However, more effort is needed if these watersheds and the marshes and bays of the New York-New Jersey Harbor are to be restored to ecological health and the New York Bight is to reach its full environmental and economic potential. The excellent work being done by the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program and Hudson River Estuary Program--the latter of which was recently expanded to Troy, NY--would be aided greatly by improvements in the water quality of the rivers that eventually flow into the Harbor. EPA and other agencies acknowledge the importance of a holistic approach, and I believe that formation of a whole basin plan will afford us the opportunity to build upon the successes achieved in each of the Sub-basins and to magnify their impacts throughout the Basin. In addition, the comprehensive plan developed by the commission through an inspired, collaborative process with the public would provide the framework for additional Federal resources for the region.

My legislation is modeled on other successful regional programs and river basin commissions. The Governors of each of the five basin States would serve on the commission along with the Secretary of the Interior as a representative of the Federal Government. The Commission is charged with planning and implementing projects and policies that govern the use of water resources in the basin. The Commission would adopt an annual budget including information about individual projects and their costs, along with identifying the appropriate financing. The bill provides the Secretary of the Interior with $25 million per year to fund projects that are consistent with the comprehensive plan and spelled out in more detail in the water resources program.

The Commission's plan, developed in consultation with the member States, Federal agencies, local governments, non-governmental organizations, and all other water users, will tie together the many organizations and interests throughout the basin to tackle large-scale projects. The plan must be developed in collaboration with citizens and local communities. It would provide a unifying vision for the basin and its water resources. And, as I have indicated above, the plan developed through a collaborative process will build a basin-wide organizational structure that will give basin states and communities the framework to compete for additional resources for the region.

The natural and historic resources of the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin are fundamental building blocks that we can use to re-invigorate local communities throughout the Basin. The devastating flood events that occurred in many communities in the Basin last year compel us to re- think our connection to the rivers and tributaries throughout the Basin. Our interconnectedness was visible to the naked eye. We need to better adapt our infrastructure to be more resilient to floods. But more than that, if we integrate improvements in water quality and wildlife habitats into plans for the redevelopment of waterfronts, we will reconnect citizens and communities to the river to yield recreational, community, and economic benefits. As communities are drawn together through the public planning process authorized in the bill, they will be able to work on common priorities and launch a new chapter of prosperity in the history of the Basin.

The Hudson-Mohawk River Basin, together with the Erie Canal, connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. The Hudson-Mohawk River Basin is the cradle of our American democracy. The footprints of the earliest North American civilization and the early development of our modern Nation are replete and scattered throughout this entire region. The waters of the Hudson, Mohawk, Raritan, and Passaic Rivers formed our early transportation networks and provided the food and power that enabled us to forge the Nation and initiate the early westward expansion of the country we know today. Essentially, the water of the Hudson-Mohawk Basin is the ink that wrote our early history. This important common heritage should be revered and celebrated. It has been more than 400 years since the first European settlements were established in the watersheds of the Hudson, Mohawk, Raritan and Passaic Rivers. We should keep faith with those early pioneers and ensure a bright future for our children and generations to follow by working together to maintain the health and beauty of these mighty waterways and promoting economic development compatible with these great environmental assets. I believe the establishment of a Hudson- Mohawk River Basin program with a river basin commission to guide this effort will help us to accomplish these worthy goals.