Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again that my top priority this session of Congress is to focus on job creation and growing our economy. I think that many, if not all, of my Democratic colleagues share that same goal. However, let me share a few numbers with you here this morning on this new session of Congress. These numbers suggest that perhaps not every Member in this body shares that goal.

Five, the number of weeks that this House has been in session under the new leadership.

Twelve, the number of bills the House has voted on.

Zero, the number of House votes on bills that have been through their respective committees.

Zero, the number of House votes on bills intended to create jobs and address what should be our very top priority.

The most important contest we face today is not between Democrats and Republicans; rather, it's America's contest with competitors across the globe for the jobs and industries of our time. And economic growth is crucial for us to win this global race, not only for the future of our workforce but also as a way to balance our budget and drive down the deficit.

During his State of the Union address, I was happy to hear President Obama reiterate that we share the same top priority--jobs, jobs, and jobs. In fact, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, is sitting before the Budget Committee today. I plan to discuss the economic growth rate and the GDP with the Chairman later this morning.

In June 2010, Chairman Bernanke suggested that the GDP would rise by about 3 percent over the course of the year last year and would likely increase at a slightly higher pace in 2011. In fact, the fourth quarter of 2010 showed a rate of growth at 3.2 percent. Compare that nearly double-digit turnaround to the end of the Bush administration where we saw a 6 percent downturn in GDP.

In addition to that slow but steady growth, we've seen the private sector add 1.2 million jobs, another stark turnaround from the final month of the Bush administration, where we lost more than 8 million jobs.

Though we all acknowledge that job numbers need to grow more, I've been surprised at the enthusiasm for these GDP and private sector growth numbers coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They've been quite enthusiastic, claiming that the growth we've seen in the past few months is, in large part, from their policies. And yet we return to the numbers I mentioned previously--zero, the number of House votes on bills intended to create jobs since the start of this new session of Congress--and now we look to finish the budget for this year and await the budget proposal from President Obama for next year.

We heard a lot in the campaign last year about the other side's job plan to cut and grow. In fact, we've seen that plan come to fruition through the Republican Study Committee. They have proposed $2.5 trillion in discretionary spending cuts over the next 10 years. This plan would put more than 1 million jobs at risk, halt our economic growth, and hurt middle class families. Let me repeat that. This plan would put at risk more than 1 million jobs.

Some of the examples of job losses include small businesses, where some 161,000 jobs would be lost due to $4 billion less in guaranteed loans. Law enforcement officials would lose their jobs where 12,900 jobs would be cut. Approximately 4,000 positions for FBI agents, 800 ATF agents, 1,500 DEA agents, and some 900 U.S. marshals would be lost, as would 5,700 correctional officers in our Federal prisons.

And 27,500 weatherization jobs would be cut. Just imagine, as one of the largest and strongest winter storms of the season just swept across the country, with some areas receiving record snowfall accumulations, temperatures that dropped dozens of degrees below zero, and deadly storms that knocked out power and left people in the cold. We are telling the weakest and neediest amongst us that they simply are not worth our investments.

Americans' top priorities are job creation and deficit reduction, and they demand that we work together to meet these goals. We are committed to deficit reduction, but we are not going to do it in an irresponsible way that will threaten jobs, economic growth, and the security of our middle class.

The budget cannot be slashed at the expense of jobs and investments in transportation, clean energy, innovation, and rebuilding--rebuilding America, not jeopardizing our economic recovery.

I agree with President Obama that we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world, but we cannot risk our economic future by rolling back investments that will help our private sector grow and put people back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

This evening, Mr. Speaker, we will be joined by a number of colleagues in the House to discuss the Clean Air Act and its impact on jobs, on public health, and our national security. It is interesting to note that we've had an outstanding 40-year record on behalf of the improvements that have come via the Clean Air Act, and now there are forces amongst us that would like to repeal important pollution control standards that are part of that Clean Air Act and roll backward the very progress that we have enjoyed, the impact that it has made. And they're being joined now, these forces, by big polluters, people who would choose to have us go backward and undo the tremendous standards that have brought about and enhanced quality of life.

Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and decreased air pollution by some 60 percent, at the same time having grown our economy by some 200 percent. So it is very important to note that there has been a high order of progress associated with the Clean Air Act, which came, by the way, through bipartisan vision that thought we could improve our situation here in America, and those visionaries were absolutely correct.

We now are at risk of endangering our children's health simply by attacking the health standards that the Clean Air Act promotes. We're also at risk of promoting ideas that will denounce innovation-- innovation that has moved forward in breaking our gluttonous dependency on oil, oftentimes imported from unfriendly nations to the United States, and where also we will roll back the progress that has come with creating our own sense of innovation as we have responded to these cleanup measures here in the States. This is an important juncture. After a 40-year record, 40 years of success, we're now faced with the forces of big polluters hooking up with our colleagues in the majority in this House looking to roll back progress and denounce policies that have impacted us favorably.

We're joined this evening by a number of colleagues. We're joined by Representative Quigley from the Fifth District of Illinois, who has thoughts that he wants to share with us. We'll be hearing from a number of colleagues from Virginia and Washington State as the hour continues to roll.

Representative Quigley, thank you for joining us this evening on this very important topic and on this very important effort to hold back any efforts made to undo the law and weaken it and put our health standards at risk.

Thank you, Representative Quigley, for presenting your perspective on this important discussion.

I think it's important to note when we talk about the statistics, when we talk about an attack on public health standards, which this is, it's done to enhance the opportunities--for lobbyists, for special interests, for deep pockets of the oil industry, where they want to avoid that sense of accountability and where they want to build their profit column at the expense of the health outcomes that we have generated to the good over the last 40 years. In fact, in 2010 alone, the stat is that some 160,000 lives plus were saved by this legislation, by this law that was produced 40 years ago. And when it comes to children, some 18 million cases over the last 20 years of children's bronchial or respiratory illnesses were prevented. So right there the proof is in the pudding. This is an attack on our public health, and I think it's important to state it for the record so that when these forces of negativity come into play, they're checked for their wanting to roll us backward.

I thank you for joining us this evening, Representative Quigley.

We are joined by Representative Gerry Connolly from the 11th District in Virginia. It is always good to hear from you, also, Gerry.

It is important, I think, that everyone share their perspective here this evening of what damage can be calculated here after 40 years of progress and where there is an attack on our health care standards and on job creation. Because, as we all know, innovation to respond to the efforts of this law, the intent purpose, produces jobs and produces a technical response that is unique and provides for America to dig deep into solutions.

Thank you, Representative Connolly. We will continue to banter here this evening about the merits of the Clean Air Act and the good that it has produced. But when we talk about some of this innovation, how we can drive our energy independence, our self- sufficiency, it goes well beyond the public health efforts that can be secured simply by that kind of work as we reduce the amount of emissions, but it also turns into an issue of national security, where we know sending these over $400 billion a year to foreign sources for our oil importation is actually feeding the treasuries of some very unfriendly nations to the U.S., and then perhaps having those dollars used to train the troops that are fighting our troops in our efforts for peace in the Mideast. It is a never ending cycle of madness that has to be prevented, and I think the Clean Air Act, accompanied by other efforts that we can do to spur jobs and create an innovation economy are very important aspects. They are outcomes of sound progressive legislation that then achieves wonderful results and allows us to address public health standards in a way that is magnanimous.

Right. And produced great benefits for every dollar invested. You, Representative Connolly, and I serve on SEEC, which is a wonderful group of legislators, like-minded in producing a green agenda that reaches to a sustainable energy and environmental outcome. That SEEC coalition is what is driving that agenda here in the House. One of our cochairs is with us this evening, the gentleman from Washington State's First District, Jay Inslee. Representative Jay Inslee is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and is ranker on a subcommittee, I believe, that will have a very important hearing.

Representative Inslee, thank you for joining us this evening to talk about this important topic.

Representative Inslee, you talk about the jobs effect. Obviously, there are those who would suggest that this kills jobs when, in fact, we have data from 2007 that shows the air pollution control equipment industry was generating some $18.3 billion with $3 billion of that in terms of exporting that is done.

So this spurs innovation. It puts into working order the science and tech community that creates sustainable-type jobs that really make an impact on our quality of life and on our public health standards. I think those facts are missing here when those forces of lobbyists, deep pocket sorts, and oil voices join with our partners on the other side of the aisle to kill this legislation.

You know, I think, too, it taps into the pioneer spirit of America--the ingenuity, the creative genius that has always guided us, that is nurtured simply by our open system of government and capitalist style of opportunity. We have been able to go forward with so many advances. In this case, as we address health-threatening, life- threatening situations because of toxic poisoning, it produces jobs that are of a very sustainable quality and that are really tapping into the cerebral power of this country. I don't know why anyone would want to disrupt that progress as there is no higher priority than jobs, jobs, jobs in our society today.

At the same time, if we can create stronger public health standards-- as you said, address women of senior age varieties and children of all types and working middle-aged couples around this country--everyone in every age demographic will be protected and helped by the Clean Air Act. There is 40 years of documented success that ought to guide us here and tell us this is a move in the wrong direction.

We are so happy that so many people are offering their thoughts here this evening in this Special Order, in this 1-hour's worth of info exchange. We are joined by a great Representative from New Jersey, who is, again, a very thoughtful scientist of types--a physicist, I believe--from New Jersey's 12th Congressional District, Representative Rush Holt.

Thank you so much, Representative Holt, for joining us this evening.

Absolutely. And you know, I think that our goal, gentlemen, should be to strengthen the public health standards. When we think of the reduced amount of impacts on children, for instance, those 18 million cases that were prevented of respiratory diseases for children, those are important steps. That ought to drive us.

But you know, Representative Holt talked about the cost of the program and the associated benefits. Well, right now the average has been for every dollar of investment there is a $13 benefit. That's a tremendous, powerful outcome. Why would we not want to continue that sort of benefit that befalls the American public and produces jobs at the same time? This whole session of Congress that preceded this 112th and now this Congress, this session of Congress to date is all about jobs, and why would we walk away from the jobs potential and the public health improvements for the sake of politics? And by the way, those benefits are projected by the year 2020 to rise to $20 trillion, which is a 30:1 ratio. For every dollar invested, $30 of benefits will be produced. This is an awesome track record, and one that really, again, speaks to the well-being, the general health of the American public and produces jobs.

By the way, the American manufacturing teams that work on air pollution reduction technology are the kingpins in that global market. They are producing and exporting. Now, everywhere we go we're looking for American industry to be bolstered, for manufacturing to come back. We in this House have adopted the mantra, Make it in America, Make it in America again. Here we are, we're achieving and exporting, exporting, which is the goal here, so that we can bulk up the American economy, and getting good results from it.

Absolutely.

There's a point that comes to mind, Representative Holt, when you talk about building it here and developing the technology and having that think-tank quality in this country. That also has to be nurtured by the next generation of workers. We have to pull from the students in the classroom today their experience or their awareness of science, technology, engineering, and math. We must enable them to explore those areas as a career path.

What sort of message are we offering out there? What is the message that resonates from this sort of approach? If I'm a youngster in a classroom, I'm thinking science and technology has no value in our society. We're able to clean up, but we don't want to clean up. We're able to produce jobs through air pollution reduction technology that requires some sort of research and development concept--we don't care about that.

We're sending a message to young people that these careers don't matter, and oh, by the way, your health doesn't matter because all of those young people, say from asthma or say from some sort of respiratory ailment, just don't matter. That is a terrible statement to offer our young people, I would think. And Representative Inslee, you have something to say?

Just following on the heels of----

Just following on the heels of the President saying right from the podium, right in the State of the Union, it's time to celebrate the science bowl as much as we celebrate the Super Bowl. Here he is trying to draw the innovation economy into the classroom to give students a sense of vision, partake in a creative venture out there that will make the world better, and now we're rolling back technology. What a terrible message to leave our young people.

Representative Inslee.

And people have asked, they said, Well, what are these emissions? What are these particulates that may be harmful to us or our children? And when you start talking, Representative Inslee, about mercury poisoning, when you start talking about carbon emission, when there is the talk about arsenic and lead poisoning, people begin to see it as something very real, something they've heard of, that they know people have been impacted by. So of course people want to protect their children. They are our most sacred commodity. They are a precious commodity. And with so much track record here, 40 years of success, of strong public health standards, it's very difficult to imagine that someone wants to take that backward.

I think of the innovation that I saw when I served as the leader of NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which was my last workstation before entering the House. I saw what R&D and basic research, research and development can mean in the new shelf opportunities that come our way that are science and tech associated. You know, people said when you went to the catalytic converter for automobiles, it was going to kill the auto industry, and we're going to have no jobs here. It didn't happen. People understood that this catalytic converter can now clean us of that pollution, that emission.

You know, we were told of all sorts of things that would happen when we were addressing the emissions in some smokestacks. People came about and found ways to make it happen. The industries many times are painted--many out there that are part of this concern--have really come forward and said, This is a reasonable approach. Many have said that. They want predictability. They want some sort of plan, and they'll engage their operation into that plan and its outcome. There are many groups, like Entergy, Constellation Energy, NextEra Energy, National Grid, PSE&G, and one in my home base, the New York State Power Authority, all of whom have said that this is a reasonable approach, that they are willing to be those partners out there to make the world, the environment, the air that we breathe a better quality.

So the proof is in the pudding here. There is an outstanding 40-year track record. There are children who breathe freely, and there are lives that have been saved. Just 160,000, if that matters, last year alone. But people need to look at the facts here and not be so connected to those deep pockets, special interests, friends from the oil industry that want to come here and partner with colleagues in the House and say, We're going to undo this, and we're going to kill jobs. Job-killing, life-threatening, health-threatening, toxic poisoning that can take place if we allow it to. And we will stop this, I'm convinced.

Well, I can't help but think too of the Citizens United case, where special interests now are able to open the corporate checkbook and just write sizable checks. The sky is the limit, according to the Supreme Court decision. And that can bring about special interest flavor into campaigns that are waged and into candidates that are produced into the House. And when we look at special interests like that, we then begin to see what the real agenda is, and it's counterproductive. It is kicking back progress that has been achieved for 40 years, celebrations of life that were allowed to breathe freely because of this legislation. And the introduction of innovation and technology.

So these deep-rooted power plays are perhaps going to be more prevalent as we go forward in time, and I think that it's setting a dangerous precedent. I think that what we have here is an opportunity to say ``yes'' to sound public health standards, ``yes'' to job creation, ``yes'' to innovation. I know that from the work that's being done--even in the auto industry, GE is putting together an advanced battery manufacturing facility that will be available for heavy fleets. We have those who are working on all sorts of alternative fuels. We are looking at renewables to cut the kind of pollution that has been allowed to continue because of our gluttonous dependency on oil imported from unfriendly nations to the U.S. And 60 percent of that demand is met simply by those oil imports. So there is an awful lot of progressive perspective that is associated with what the Clean Air Act has achieved. We have to go forward with this one.

Thank you, Representative Inslee.

You know, the efforts made here tonight were to inform people as to the impact that could be felt if we rolled back the progress of the Clean Air Act, one that has had this 40-year record of achievement, one that has given a big boost to innovation in our economy. Our President, this President, President Obama, has indicated that this is the sort of sustainable restructuring of our economy that can drive us forward.

If we invest in the intellect of this great American society, if we encourage education and higher education to be pronounced in the lives of individuals, if we can pull from them their interests in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, we can then have this hopeful opportunity of job creation that comes simply through ideas, ideas that are produced perhaps in that education experience that we can provide for our young people and by public policy that drives initiatives, that drives a series of goals to in this case clean the air quality that has enabled us to go forward with the soundness in the manufacturing sector that has retrofitted, has modernized, has adjusted, retooled that industry, those industries in the manufacturing realm to respond in a way that is much more sensitive to public health standards. This is the sort of progress that we can achieve in this country simply by moving forward with soundness of policy.

And so, I thank all of our colleagues this evening who have joined us in the efforts to speak to the soundness of clean air, what it means not only in public health standards but certainly in the efforts to create jobs and to sustain the economy in a way that will continue to strive to build on the progress that we have achieved over these last four decades, and continue to explore new eras of job creation that will provide the soundness in our economy that will be the strength of this country in many, many decades and generations to come.

Yes, I will yield.

Well, Representative Faleomavaega, thank you for joining us this evening.

But during the course of this hour we have all talked about innovation that we see happening right in our very own districts. I have a global center on renewables that is conducted through the auspices of GE. We talked about their advanced battery manufacturing facility. I talked about the nanoscience that has been promoted in the 21st Congressional District of New York. We witness every day the semiconductor work that is done and work in the biotech and infotech and nanotech communities, all of which are critically important to providing the workforce of the future and the workplace of the future. This is what I think policy like this can initiate.

And I'm certain within the realm of your own district or in the region that you represent or the State that you call home, within that whole context there are those stories of success and innovation. And that, I think, is the outcome here that we want to preserve, and not only preserve but enhance, so that we can continue to grow those

jobs and provide a better quality of life for the people that we represent.

Built on 40 years of success then, we want to defend people of all ages from the most young to the most senior in our society. They have experienced and lived the benefits of soundness of policy that came via the Clean Air Act, a bipartisan effort that was initiated by a Republican President. And so it defies logic to move forward with a plan that will take us backward. So we have to thwart that effort and call it for what it is, check it at the door and say, Look, it is a life-threatening, health-threatening, toxic-poisoning situation that would reduce jobs, denounce innovation in our society, in our economy, and really take us backward.

I think this House ought to be about moving us forward, creating jobs, enhancing the public health standards and embracing the quality of innovation in our society that really builds the magic in our economy, that digs deep into the pioneer spirit that is uniquely American. And we can make it happen simply by saying ``no'' to those agents that want to roll back progress and defeat us with their dirty air act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back and thank you for the opportunity for all of us to express our concerns about those who are advancing a dirty air act.

Well, you know, it's great to represent Schenectady, which is dubbed The City that Lights and Hauls the World. It was the birthplace of an energy revolution over a century ago. And to have the President visit just the other day, on Friday, to tout the efforts at GE, where he speaks to the vibrancy of American manufacturing. You know, we lost a third of manufacturing jobs during the decade that preceded this administration. I think it was through neglect.

Right, and I think it was through neglect on manufacturing. They focused on the service sector, primarily the financial services. They ignored agriculture, they ignored manufacturing, and now we are paying the price. Even though we lost a third of the manufacturing jobs in this country, we are still perched as number one in the global race. However, if we are to allow that neglect to continue, we would eventually fall out of the number one position.

So the 4.6 million jobs lost, manufacturing jobs lost due to that neglect, that trend has to be turned around, and I was so delighted to hear the President speak to a progressive agenda, a proactive quality, to the tone he was establishing at that center with his speech. He talked about the strength of America's manufacturing and how we can impose a strong uplift for the middle class of this country.

You know, 66 percent of the wealth that was generated, of the recovery during 2001 and 2007, went to 1 percent, of the top 1 percent of wealth in this country. So they accumulated all that wealth, and it's middle class America that needs to get that clout now. We can do that because the investment in R&D, the investment in basic research that transforms into jobs that allows us to be more productive in our starter-up small businesses and in our big industries like GE.

If we introduce a soundness of basic research in R&D that then equates into jobs that translates into an empowerment of the middle class. I think that's an important message that was shared by this President, and the Nation accepted that speech. It was shared across this country, and it was emanating from GE, from the floor, from the factory floor where innovation and invention were coming from the working class on the assembly line.

It was their ideas, their creative genius that allowed us to have all the mills in that Erie Canal corridor that I so proudly represent become the epicenters of innovation and invention in their heyday. That is still within our DNA. That is our pioneer spirit that is uniquely American. The President wants to tap into that spirit, and he wants us to be that innovation economy.

You know, the other day, many of us on this floor here shared in the fiftieth anniversary celebration of JFK, that remarkably strong and powerful and inspirational inaugural address. And so many people highlighted many of the challenges that President Kennedy issued in that address, amongst them, exploring the heavens, exploring the heavens.

And what it did was empower us, just the tone he established, enabled us as a nation to embrace with a great degree of passion a resolve to win that race. And we entered that global race in space to win it. And we won it, and we unleashed untold, untold amounts of technology, science and technology that has strengthened every dynamic of life.

Here, fast forward some 40 years later, some 40-plus years later, a rather youthful President is challenging a nation to enter a global race, this time on the clean energy economy, the innovation economy. We should have within us the fortitude to go forward and invest in a way that allows us to empower our working families, the middle class of this country, through investment, in soundness of manufacturing that enables us to build it in America, make it in America again and be proud of that.

So, Representative Garamendi, thank you for bringing us together this evening to voice our support for the President's vision, for the vision that we share as a caucus in this House, I think it's the empowering vision that enables us to go forward with a Make It in America mantra that enables us to promote the correct policy and the resources associated with that policy to truly make a difference.

We flew up from Washington on Air Force One and then returned with the President because we had our jobs conference in Maryland.

We are charged up. We are fired up.

Absolutely. Thank you, Representative Pallone. The importance I think of hosting an event like that which the President joined is that we can showcase that there are great things happening. I for one am not going to submit to this notion that manufacturing is dead in America. I cannot, with a pioneer spirit that I detect all the time, for one, for any moment submit to that logic or that thinking. As the President was hosted by GE, specifically by its CEO, Jeff Immelt, he and so many others believe in the workforce and in the creative genius, leaders, labor leaders like the late Joe Battaglino who was a union voice for GE workers, Helen Corinne in the past, all of whom fought for the dignity of the worker because that worker was providing the intellect to take us to the next plateau.

And so what they talked about here was the fact that not only are American workers producing a high-quality turbine, but were also exporting to places like India.

And as the President said in his speech, we have bought many a Chinese good in this country. It is time for China to buy our products. And I think he is setting a good tone so that there is this fairness that is associated with the trade out there and that we as a Nation not only need to make it in America, but we have to put an emphasis on exporting. And when those emphases are put into play, we will then prosper as a Nation.

You talk about the turbine and the manufacturing going on at GE, but the President was also updated with right next door and the activity right next door which is an advanced battery manufacturing center. And it's not the traditional lithium ion of which many people speak as the cutting-edge battery.

This one that GE is creating can deal with heavy fleets, specifically helping that niche of battery application. It can be used for energy generation. And then perhaps one of its greatest functions, it can be used to store intermittent power. So if we reach to the sun, the soil, and the wind to produce our energy needs, and it has an intermittent nature to it, we then put value added into that supply of energy because of the storage potential of this new battery.

And then they also have, across the street from this plant, GE's global renewable energy center. And what they're doing there is doing this global strategy on renewables. And so the turbine blades that are manufactured there, all of this is that cutting-edge technology that enables us not only to create jobs, made in America, exporting around the world, but also growing our own energy independence and our energy self-sufficiency, which to me is a strategic bit of policy.

So this should not be about Republicans fighting Democrats or Democrats competing with Republicans. This should be America moving forward with a progressive plan, with a laser-sharp focus joined with the message of the President to make certain that we compete not with each other but with other nations. Is it robust? Probably. Is it very hard-fought? Most likely. But we've got to be in it, and we have to have the passionate resolve to make a difference by investing in those key functions like education, higher education, basic research, R&D and modernization of our manufacturing centers.

People will tell me when they hear this manufacturing thing, they said we can't compete. Other nations will do it cheaper. We don't have to do it cheapest. We need to do it smartest--smartest. And when we do it smartest, we win. We sharpen our competitiveness, and we can win on the global scale.

I again thank the gentleman from California.

Look, I am ecstatic about the President's choice of Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE, to be the chair of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. We can probably remove a lot of the struggle that occurs on this House floor by listening to the business minds out there, who will advise us about the strength we can provide to create jobs through invention and innovation.

Here is a voice that's highly respected; he is tremendously strong in his beliefs in American manufacturing again. And so we must let those voices speak and resonate in this discussion, in this dialogue on where we go and how we build our economy.

The President made it very clear: he spent his first couple of years stopping the bleeding of the recession. We were losing 750,000 to 800,000 jobs a month, 8.2 million jobs lost to this economy. Now our assignment is to plan strategically the growth of jobs, what is sustainable.

What is sustainable? Manufacturing, because it incorporates from the trades people over to the Ph.Ds. Everyone has a shot at that economy. It's the muscle we need, it's the American know-how, it's the American intellect. And I thank you again for bringing us together this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to repealing health care reform. The reason is simple: It does not create jobs, it does not protect the middle class, and it balloons the deficit.

Since March of 2010, the economy has created a total of 1.1 million new private-sector jobs. Over 200,000 of these jobs were in the health care sector alone. Health care reform is helping to create jobs, not take them away. Health care reform helps the middle class. In my district alone, 439,000 individuals who currently have health insurance now have protections and benefits that they did not have before the reform. 113,000 of my senior constituents are able to access preventive care and screenings for free because of reform. Tax credits are available for up to 14,500 small businesses in the capital region of New York.

These are real changes that benefit real people. Repeal would eliminate all of them, thoughtlessly and with great harm to the middle class of my district. Finally, repeal would increase the debt by trillions of dollars. In fact, 20 years from now, repeal would cost us more than $1.2 trillion, ballooning the deficit and severely threatening our Nation's debt.

Mr. Speaker, I am committed to working with my colleagues to create jobs. But here we are, debating repeal of health care reform instead of focusing on job creation. In fact, health care reform was a good start. Since enactment in March of 2010, private-sector job growth has grown by some 1.1 million jobs. Among those, over 200,000 jobs were created in the health care sector alone. That is why my top priority remains job creation and growing our economy--not obsessing on repealing a bill that is working.

If my friends on the other side of the aisle are successful, then seniors, young people, and small businesses in the capital region of New York would be hurt. Take my constituent Tim from Albany, New York, for example. Tim is forced to dig into his pocket to pay for prescription drugs even though he is a retired pharmacist on Medicare. However, health care reform provides Tim extra assistance in paying for his prescriptions and ensures that the so-called doughnut hole payment will be no more in the very near future.

Thank you, Representative Welch, for bringing to us the kind of focus that we need to have here on this floor. It is a pleasure to join with our colleagues from Virginia and Connecticut and Texas and Vermont, my neighbor to the immediate east. So thank you for your outstanding work in this capacity.

There's nothing more powerful than the faces that put a real life meaning into the work that we've done here.

Let me talk about a constituent, actually a family of constituents from Albany, New York. Ellena Young is a very young mom and has a 1- year-old son, Liev, and she's a three-time cancer survivor. There's a history of cancer in her family. And in the latter half of 2009, her husband, Bill, testified at our health care forum because his wife was having complications with her pregnancy and required bed rest.

Well, as you can imagine with preexisting conditions, she was in and out of insurance coverage and very often was struggling to find ways that they could get the family covered. Her preexisting condition complicated that severely.

The way she found health care coverage was as a Ph.D. student hooking herself and her family to the university plan.

They were thrilled about the news of the pregnancy. She was in remission. They had all of this hope going for them.

She then developed complications with her pregnancy--situations with malnutrition, severe iron deficiency, and, yes, even blood clots--all of which were life threatening.

Well, you talk about the pharmaceutical needs. She was given prescriptions for 10 different medications, all of which were very important. Representative Welch, she had to choose five of the 10. She tried to pick the five most important, and even then it was an out-of- pocket expenditure of a thousand dollars a month so that she could stay well and stay alive during this pregnancy. And what made it very difficult, as she was working through all of this, was that because of the complications of this pregnancy, her doctors told her that she would need to undergo a C-section.

So now the family is faced with a decision: Do I quit at school where I was earning an income and keep my coverage, or what is my other choice? Because in order to have the surgery, which was going to save her pregnancy and her life, she had to take time off from school, so fell out of the ranks of the insured.

Now, let me just quote from Ellena. As she and her husband debated applying for more student loans or a new credit card, she had this to say: I needed a procedure to save both my life and the life of my baby, and I was choosing between interest rates.

Is that not a powerful statement?

And this is what this reform is all about and why it is so aggravating to see the repeal voted on here in this Chamber today, because the hope that was brought by our bill applied to a case like that of the Young family is a very, very powerful statement.

The Affordable Care Act bans both annual and lifetime expenditure caps. And that health coverage that is limited annually or lifetime is very disrupting and can deny, when you most need health care, it can deny the coverage.

And so with all of this outcome, here's a real-life example where this family, with their 1-year-old child, had to struggle to find the insurance coverage.

But why are we putting people through this sort of difficulty?

And this is not unusual. It's a powerful story. But there are countless episodes, anecdotes that are brought to everyone's attention on this floor. And we're here to be leaders that provide hope and opportunity for the people that we represent. And then to repeal progress just as it begins to reach the very households that we have addressed across this land is a very sad statement. And we have to continue to work to make certain that the beneficiaries, the millions of people who prospered from this sort of activity, are not let down.

I think this is a very important time in our Nation's history for us to use our resources wisely, to respond to the constituents with compassion, and to understand that these real-life stories are exactly that--real and profound and deep and meaningful. And they ought to help us decipher what the best policies are.

And I really thank Ellena and Bill and Liev for the opportunity to share their story. It's a painful story, and

they're very generous to allow us to share it here on this floor.

And I thank you again for bringing us together.

The preexisting conditions, the annual and lifetime caps, the filling the doughnut hole for our Nation's seniors so that they can, you know, move forward and live comfortably and maybe even save their lives with the appropriate medication and affordability and accessibility, these are all of the dynamics for which we have fought. And it's a shame that they're being taken away or attempted to be taken away at a time when they're just beginning to have their presence felt.

I thank you for bringing us together tonight.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to repealing health care reform. I am committed to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to create jobs and improve our Nation's economy. We need to focus on jobs right now, not repealing health care reform.

In fact, last year the private sector created some 1.1 million jobs. That is more private-sector job growth created in 2010 alone than during all of the Bush administration. Fully 200,000 of those jobs, or one out of every five, were in the health care industry.

In the Capital Region alone, repeal would strip benefits from some 439,000 individuals with health insurance and 113,000 seniors on Medicare. My constituents would lose guaranteed coverage for their preexisting conditions, coverage for young adults, lower drug prices for seniors, and free preventive care for people with insurance coverage and Medicare.

Madam Speaker, repealing health care reform to return to the old status quo, where insurance companies run amok and put profits over people, is irresponsible and reckless for our Nation and our economy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, the injured, those who lost their lives and all of their families and loved ones--all of whom remain in our thoughts and prayers following this past Saturday's horrible and tragic event. Having the opportunity to serve with Gabby on the Science and Technology Committee in Congress has truly been a blessing as she embraces the human spirit in all her work.

Gabby is not a weathervane politician--she takes courageous votes that are supported by her keen intellect and engaging personality. Her quick wittedness and joy in providing service through her work as a Representative stands as testimony to us all.

She is one of our Nation's brightest young leaders--intelligent, dedicated, effective and fair.

I wish her and all the other injured victims in this senseless tragedy a quick and speedy recovery.

I rise today in support of the America COMPETES Act, a debate that has continued for many months, and negotiations have followed, and we are finally one step away from this bipartisan victory. This legislation will create prosperity through science and innovation, reassert our economic and technological leadership throughout the world, and give future generations greater opportunity to achieve the American dream for decades to come.

I have seen firsthand the impact science and innovation can have on our communities. Recently, the Albany, New York, area in my district was named the third fastest high-tech job market in the country. This growth, coupled with today's legislation, is vital if the capital region of New York and the rest of our Nation are to continue on a path toward an innovation economy that, quote, ``Makes It In America.''

We must also educate the next generation of mathematicians and scientists. This bill does that by providing opportunities for STEM students to participate in hands-on scientific research.

Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Gordon for his leadership on this issue. Without his tireless work and that of the committee staff, along with Ranking Member Hall, we would not be here today.

Mr. Chair, you and your leadership will be sorely missed, and I wish you all the best.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 659, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today proud to represent the third fastest growing high-tech job market in the country, that being Albany and the capital district of New York.

According to a new Tech America Foundation report, Albany grew its high-tech positions last year by 1.6 percent. While this is good news, there is also bad news. Nationwide, the number of high-tech jobs shrank by 3.2 percent. Albany's success is at least partially due to the resources available at the University at Albany's College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering. These jobs were not created by a government handout to millionaires or massive estates. They were created by investing in the local infrastructure and economy to create jobs.

While Albany added 900 high-tech jobs over the past couple of years, with an average wage nearing $80,000, we must do more to lay the groundwork for our national economy and job market to grow the high- tech outcome. Those investments yield great returns and produce jobs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This bill is a bad deal for the middle class. If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be rewarded; however, today's bill ignores this. It lines the pockets of the mega-rich at the expense of everyone else.

Our top priority right now should be job creation. We tried the tax cuts proposed today for the last decade under the illusion that they would create jobs. And so I ask, Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs? This recession wasn't an act of nature; it was man-made. Shame on us if we do the same thing again and expect different results.

I will continue to fight to strengthen the middle class, and I will continue to fight to extend unemployment benefits for the millions who are out of work through no fault of their own. I have voted in favor of both in recent weeks. However, we should not support a giveaway to millionaires and billionaires at the expense of future generations.

Mr. Chairman, this bill needs more jobs and less debt.

I rise today to share a passage from Proverbs 31:8-9: ``If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.''

Madam Speaker, let us heed that cry. I encourage my colleagues to open our ears today during this holiday season and hear the compassionate cry of the working poor and middle income families back home. In my congressional district alone, some 6,400 people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own will be without their earned unemployment lifeline by the end of this month, unless we act. At the same time, my colleagues in this Chamber are worried about people that own estates or make millions and billions of dollars each and every year.

Let us show compassion for our neighbors and family members by standing up for the working poor and our middle income families. We should continue to provide tax cuts for the middle class community and extend unemployment insurance.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said over and over again that cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires will create jobs. It simply has not.

Albert Einstein once described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That is why I rise today to ask, where are the jobs? Where are they? It is time we restore sanity to the discussion on tax cuts.

Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires do not create jobs. They are also not supported by the general public. In fact, according to a CBS poll from last week, only 26 percent of Americans support millionaire tax breaks and only 46 percent of Republicans support millionaire tax breaks.

So I ask, who are my Republican friends listening to? Is it the average family or small business in their district, or is it Wall Street CEOs and an army of special interest lobbyists?

The trickle-down effect has not worked. As any farmer will tell you, you fertilize a plant from bottom up, not top down, because if its roots are strong, the plant will be strong. Our country's roots are the middle class, and it's time we give them nutrients to thrive.