Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the emergency extension of unemployment benefit passed yesterday for States with high rates of unemployment like my home state of New Jersey. Today's passage of the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 is the final step before it is presented to President Obama for his signature.

As I said in September when we first considered this measure, I hear all the time from central New Jersey residents who are working hard each day to find a new job. Recently, a Mercer County resident wrote me to say his wife had been out of work for 11 months. He wrote to say, ``The jobs are just not available for her to go back to work.'' This bill answers his plea and the pleas of countless other out of work New Jersey residents to extend unemployment benefits while they continue to search for employment.

In tough economic times, Congress and the President have worked together to extend unemployment benefits when needed. The previous extensions of unemployment insurance during this current recession have helped many New Jersey residents keep a roof over their head and food on the table when times were tough. In this tight job market and with the economy just starting to show signs of recovery, there are still six unemployed workers for each job opening and more than 5 million people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months.

The Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009, H.R. 3548, would extend by 14 weeks unemployment benefits for individuals who have exhausted their current benefits in all States and by an additional 6 weeks for individuals who live in States with an unemployment rates above 8.5 percent.

Our Government must help those in need as they seek new work. Morally, it is the right thing to do and the economists tell us that unemployment benefits are one of the most cost-efficient and fast- acting forms of economic stimulus.

The bill does not add to the deficit, by off setting its cost with a 1 year extension of a employment tax that has been in place for 30 years.

Once this bill is signed into law it is estimated that the extension of unemployment benefits will help more than 1.3 million out of work employees.

Mr. Speaker, the question so many are asking is, Can we afford this health care reform? I would say not only can we afford it, we can't afford not to pass it.

Consider where we are today: Businesses, large and small, feel a heavy weight around their necks trying to afford health care for their employees. It hurts our economy. It costs jobs. Businesses and families are paying a hidden tax of over $1,000 each per year for the care of the uninsured. Costs continue to go up because our procedure-based system rewards the ordering of unnecessary and expensive tests that not only don't help the patient, they can be detrimental. Any family, even well-off families who think they have good health coverage, can find themselves in bankruptcy from a bad accident or arbitrary actions of the insurers.

All of this would change under this bill. This bill would reduce costs in a number of ways: By reducing the ranks of the uninsured, whose more expensive care we all pay for; by increasing the insurance competition through the new marketplace with a large interstate risk pool; by removing the antitrust exemption; and by moving toward more efficient record-keeping and by moving toward outcome-based, health outcome-based, patient-centered care.

In addition to all this, the revenues raised by this bill exceed the expenditures, so passing this will reduce the deficit by billions of dollars below what it would be if we do not pass this tonight.

We can't afford not to pass this health care reform. The bill will reduce the costs individuals, families and businesses face and reduce the government deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, legislation that would provide secure and stable health coverage regardless of whether one changes jobs or is between jobs, ensure Americans will never be denied care if they get sick, and extend coverage to those Americans not well served by the current health care system.

This is a historic debate we are having. For the past century, since Teddy Roosevelt ran for President in 1912, our nation has been debating how to ensure that sick Americans can access the care they need. As a U.S. Representative and the husband of a primary care physician, I have heard many stories from hard-working New Jerseyans about the need for reform. Some Americans have access to excellent care, often thanks to the advanced biotechnology and pharmaceutical products created in New Jersey, while others lack even basic care. One of the goals of the health care reform is to help all Americans gain stable access to medical care and life-saving medicines.

At a July roundtable in Trenton, a spouse of a cancer patient told me that when she and her husband came home from the hospital after one extensive treatment, they returned to foot-high stacks of insurance paperwork and $150,000 of out-of-pocket charges for her husband's needed care. A self-employed woman from East Brunswick wrote to me recently to let me know she pays $2,000 a month for her family's coverage and still has to pay out-of-pocket to see many of her physicians. These stories are a reminder that health care reform is about real people who are disserved by the broken health insurance system.

These are not isolated stories. While in the U.S., we will spend over $8,000 per person this year for health care, 16 percent of New Jerseyans lacked insurance in 2007 and family insurance premiums are projected to rise from $14,000 in 2009 to $24,000 in 2019. In a country where we are projected to spend 18 percent of our Gross Domestic Product ($2.6 trillion) this year on health care, we can do better.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act would improve the American health care system for all Americans, regardless of how they currently receive their health coverage. First, the legislation would lead to stable health costs that do not threaten family finances by establishing consumer protections for those purchasing private insurance. The bill would eliminate insurance benefit caps to ensure families do not have to worry about leaving the hospital with bills too big to pay because their benefits have run out. The bill would set an annual cap on out-of-pocket health expenses to eliminate cases where one disease forces a family into bankruptcy.

Second, the bill would provide stable coverage for those between jobs or the self-employed by creating an insurance marketplace, where they could get insurance at group rates. Most of the policies in this insurance marketplace would be private insurance, while one of the plans would be a non-profit public plan. This public plan would be subject to the same requirements and regulations as the for-profit plans in the marketplace. The public option would be just that--an option in which no one would be forced to enroll. The bill also would eliminate the practice where patients with a pre-existing condition like diabetes or cancer or pregnancy cannot purchase insurance. According to a Congressional committee report, the bill would help 10,000 uninsured individuals in Central New Jersey gain access to affordable health insurance.

Third, the bill would strengthen Medicare by starting to pay physicians for treating the whole patient and by encouraging doctors to coordinate a patient's medical care instead of paying for each test or procedure. The legislation would strengthen the long-term health of the Medicare trust fund by increasing the efficiency of the program, expanding its ability to fight waste, fraud, and abuse, and eliminating wasteful subsidies to private insurance companies.

It is worth repeating: not only would Medicare remain intact under this legislation, it would become better. The legislation would strengthen the Medicare trust fund by increasing the efficiency of the program, expanding its ability to fight waste, fraud, and abuse, and eliminating wasteful subsidies to private insurance companies. No standard Medicare benefits would be cut. In fact, Medicare would be improved by eliminating the ``doughnut hole'' in the prescription drug benefit. Each year in Central New Jersey, 8,300 seniors face the Medicare ``doughnut hole'' and are forced to pay their full drug costs, despite paying for Part D drug coverage every month. H.R. 3962 would provide these seniors with immediate relief by cutting brand name drug costs in the ``doughnut hole'' by 50 percent and ultimately eliminating the ``doughnut hole'' altogether. Further, the legislation would help seniors by eliminating co-payments and deductibles in Medicare for preventative services to ensure that diseases would be treated at their earliest stages and to keep seniors well. The legislation creates new Medicare incentives to encourage physicians and hospitals to coordinate medical care and seek to reduce duplicate tests, x-rays, and labs. These and other provisions are why AARP, among several others, has endorsed this health care reform legislation.

This bill was created from one of the most open and deliberative processes in recent memory. During the past few years, Congressional committees held more than 53 committee hearings, debated and voted on almost 240 amendments, and considered health reform for 167 hours. Many of the amendments reflected concerns raised by constituents and have improved this bill further.

While there are strong humane and moral reasons to pass this health reform bill, the economic reasons are equally strong. Businesses, large and small, feel a heavy weight in trying to afford health care for their employees--hurting the economy and costing jobs. Any family, regardless of their income, can find themselves in bankruptcy from one accident or expensive illness. All of this would change under this reform bill. The bill would lower health costs for families by increasing competition across all states through a new marketplace and eliminating the antitrust exemption. It would reduce costs by promoting coordinated medical care to eliminate duplicative tests, by simplifying insurance paperwork and electronic records. The bill would decrease costs by expanding research on which treatments work best for different patients, helping physicians and nurses provide effective medical care. Long term, the legislation would limit costs by shifting to a focus on health outcomes and rewarding physicians for treating the whole patient.

It would do all this without adding one penny to the debt. Instead, it will lower the debt and, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), produce a $109 billion surplus over a decade. We cannot afford not to pass health care reform and reduce the crippling health costs facing our nation, our businesses, and our families.

Sadly, there is a great deal of misinformation about the proposed health reform bill. I have heard from some the myth that Members of Congress would be exempt from health care reform. It is worth noting that Members of Congress receive their health insurance like any other of the eight million federal employees and we pay premiums just like any other worker. The health insurance reform bill includes several improvements to the overall insurance marketplace, all of which would apply to the federal employee health insurance plans. I welcome the fact that the reform legislation would apply to Members of Congress, just like employees of other large companies.

Opponents of reform also claim that the House health reform bill would encourage euthanasia or insert the government into end-of-life conversations between patients and their physician. This claim is false. The truth is that the legislation would provide doctors with better payment for talking with their patients. This bi-partisan provision would provide payment for a doctor's time if a patient chooses to have a conversation about the care that the patient prefers if he or she becomes very ill, but it does not require anyone to use this benefit. These conversations would not involve any government employee, but would be solely between the patient and his or her physician. As noted by the AARP, ``[t]his measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves but also better ensure that their wishes are followed.''

There is no reasonable basis for concern that seniors' conversations with their doctors on personal requests for end-of-life care would do anything to promote assisted suicide, which is illegal in New Jersey and 47 other states, or euthanasia, which is illegal in all states.

Discussions between the sick or the elderly and their doctors about end-of-life care have long been an accepted part of modern patient care as a way to ensure that the patient's wishes are carried out. In 2003, under the Bush administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a report outlining a five-part process for physicians to discuss end-of-life care with their patients. Unfortunately, doctors are not paid for such discussions and thus are not encouraged to have them. According to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, which supports this provision, the bill simply would allow for counseling on decisions that require time and consideration.

Another myth is that health reform would provide federal benefits for undocumented aliens. Undocumented immigrants currently may not receive any federal benefits except in specific emergency medical situations. There are no provisions in the House health reform bill that would change this policy. In fact, the legislation explicitly states that federal funds for insurance would not be available to any individual who is not lawfully present in the United States.

I have heard from many constituents concerned about the inclusion or exclusion of family planning services in health insurance reform. The legislation would exclude federal funding of abortion, and maintain existing federal laws protecting conscience rights in health care. In fact, the amendment adopted tonight, which I believe is in error, would go further than existing law and even prevent women from using their personal funds from purchasing coverage for family planning services. I hope the conferees will revisit this issue to ensure women have the freedom to purchase the policy that best serves their needs and conscience.

I am pleased that health reform will help small businesses. According to a report issued from the Council of Economic Advisors in July 2009, the current health care system places a heavy burden on small businesses through high premiums, fixed administrative costs, adverse selection, and comparative disadvantage with larger businesses in America and with businesses in other countries. This is why small businesses pay up to 18 percent more per worker for the same health insurance plan than a large firm. The House legislation would help small business employees purchase insurance at group rates through an insurance marketplace, and by providing a tax credit to help small businesses that purchase insurance. Almost 18,000 small businesses in Central New Jersey would receive this tax credit.

The bill further recognizes the constraints facing small businesses and exempts many small employers from the shared responsibility requirement to provide insurance for their employees. The Congressional Budget Office and respected Massachusetts Institute of Technology health care economist Jonathan Gruber have pointed out that for the large majority of small businesses, the reform legislation would be a great improvement and would provide real savings.

For years, small businesses have asked me and other Members of Congress to allow them to get better rates by pooling their employees in large numbers, which is currently available to only larger companies. The newly-created marketplace would allow insurance plans to pool the health risks of millions of people and thus get lower rates. In addition to the marketplace for small businesses created by the House health reform bill, I worked with my colleagues Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) and Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) to include language in this legislation that would allow affiliated small businesses to join together to purchase insurance. This proposal for helping small businesses was brought to me by a small businessman in my district.

I also was pleased to write a section of the bill that would create an online job training programs for health care workers, modeled after a successful program originating at Rutgers University. This program is needed to help meet the increasing need for health care workers, which was indicated by a July report by the Council on Economic Advisors. The demand for health workers soon will exceed the supply with 48 percent growth in health support occupations such as medical record, clinical laboratory, and health information technicians. My amendment, included in H.R. 3962, would provide new training opportunities to meet this additional demand for health professionals.

While I support the Affordable Health Care for America Act, I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this bill as the legislative process moves forward. I have heard from home care and hospice providers in my district and across New Jersey who are concerned about the reductions in Medicare home health payments. I have spent time with home care organizations and with individual patients at home and have gained a deep understanding of the challenges and successes that occur each day. I fear that additional cuts to home health would make it harder to do the essential job that home care and hospice workers perform each day. I also am concerned that several provisions of the bill may impede biomedical research and innovation, as this research has improved patient care

and fostered a successful life sciences industry in New Jersey.

While the bill we are considering is strong, I know this bill will continue to improve as we move through the legislative process. Today's vote in the House of Representatives marks an important step in this process and is the furthest we have come toward providing affordable and quality health coverage to all Americans. I look forward to working to the completion of meaningful health care reform legislation and sending it to the President for his signature.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill to reform our nation's health insurance system and improve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, H.R. 3548. This emergency extension of unemployment benefits for states with high rates of unemployment is important for my home state of New Jersey and I urge this body to pass this legislation and the President to sign it expeditiously.

With over 15 million Americans currently out of work it is essential that this body take action to preserve jobs by helping companies

that are struggling in these uncertain economic times. More and more companies are falling into the position where their losses exceed their income. Businesses are being forced to close their doors, lay off employees and cut operating costs.

As American employers continue to struggle to stay afloat in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, Congress must fully utilize the tax code to provide timely and targeted relief for American entrepreneurs. Current tax law allows ``net operating loss carrybacks'' to help companies recoup their losses by offsetting taxable income from the two previous tax years. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Congress extended the period that small businesses could write off their net operating losses for 2008 and 2009 from two years to five years; enacting H.R. 3548 will extend to this all companies that have suffered losses during this recession.

Extending the net operating loss provision will help businesses free up funds and prevent further job loss, which is critical for our economic security. This bill will provide essential tax relief that gives owners and entrepreneurs better means to make payroll and invest in new equipment, put people back to work, and create new jobs when they can.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight the recent increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. The Fiscal Year 2010 Interior Appropriations bill, which President Obama has signed into law, contains $167.5 million in funding for both agencies, an increase of $12.5 million over last year's level. This is on top of the $50 million that the NEA received in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to preserve jobs in the arts. As a member of both the Arts and Humanities Caucuses, I want to thank Representatives Slaughter, Platts, Price (NC), and Petri, as well as Chairman Dicks, for their hard work in pushing for these funding increases.

The arts and humanities play a crucial role in our society: they enhance our creativity, promote critical aspects of education, and provide Americans with the opportunity to view works of beauty and personal expression. Through exposure to the arts and humanities, our children are inspired to explore their own creativity and encouraged towards positive development in the course of their educational careers. There are also economic benefits of local arts in our communities, not just for those employed in theaters or museums, but also for tourism and economic revitalization programs. The downturn in philanthropic giving, brought on by the economic collapse, has constrained or even closed cultural institutions and, in turn, the restaurants, hotels, and construction industries that rely on their success. This is just one more reason that these funding increases are needed.

I also want to recognize President Obama for understanding the important role that the arts and humanities play in enriching our lives and strengthening our economy. The President has appointed two exceptionally qualified individuals to head the NEA and NEH. Jim Leach, our former colleague, has a distinguished academic background, including his recent service as Visiting Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He brings to the NEH a first-hand understanding of the needs of educators, historians, curators, researchers, archivists and scholars. Rocco Landesman, the Director of the NEA, has a long and varied career in the performing arts, and has brought an energy and focus to the job that will help foster a vibrant artistic landscape.

Again, I rise to celebrate these important funding increases, and I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues to strengthen support for the arts and humanities.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, which would establish earlier effective dates for various consumer protections established by the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, Credit CARD Act, enacted earlier this year. I commend Chairman Frank and Ms. Maloney for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.

To be clear, my strong support does not stem from any concern that the implementation deadlines set forth in the Credit CARD Act as enacted were ill-conceived or too lax. Indeed, I assume we all thought they were reasonable, and most of us probably still do. What was unreasonable was the punitive, abusive, and--frankly--shameful behavior of some credit card issuers in the wake of enactment of the Credit CARD Act. I have been besieged with letters from outraged constituents, and I'd like to share some of those with you:

Chase Bank . . . [just increased my interest rate] from

9.99% to 16.24% a 62.5% increase. They are making it harder

and harder for Americans to pay-back our loans during this

economic downturn. I have never missed a payment! . . .

Please help!!!

I just received a letter from my Citi Bank Master Card

(which my husband and I always pay on time) stating that my

interest rate is being raised to 29.99%. My research shows

that Citi Bank is slipping this rate increase in before the

new Credit Card Act takes effect. This is an outrage to so

many people like myself.

Most of the major banks have hiked interest rates on

customers' balances, increased penalty fees or doubled

minimum payments since the bill was passed in May. . . . The

banks are using this lag time before the implementation date

to sneak in as many rate hikes and new fees as possible, and

countless good customers who pay on time each month are

suffering.

I think a reality check is in order. The reality is that many credit card issuers have been abusing their customers. Had they been treating them fairly, there would have been no need for, and no call for, legislation to reign in and prohibit those abusive practices. Another reality is that many of those same credit card issuers behaved recklessly and imprudently, as a result of which they put their own survival in jeopardy and had to come to the American taxpayers hat in hand just to stay afloat. Had those financial institutions managed their own affairs responsibly, they wouldn't have had to rely on the good graces of hard working Americans to stay in business. So where does that leave us? They abused their customers, they compromised their own financial stability, they took their customers' charity to regain that stability, then they retaliated against their customers when the government stepped in told them they had to stop abusing their customers. The whole situation is just plain astounding.

Even so, it is always important to tailor one's response carefully to the actual facts and circumstances. For example, not all credit card issuers abused their customers in the first place. And not all credit card issuers retaliated against them in the wake of enactment of the Credit CARD Act. And as I noted previously, the original implementation deadlines

for the bill were reasonable--we would not have passed it that way if they weren't.

Therefore, although I heartily support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same, I also offered an amendment to make it stronger, and to fine-tune its application. My amendment would have given credit card issuers the ability to opt out of the expedited implementation schedule set forth in this bill, and win back the right to comply with the bill in accordance with the reasonable schedule we set forth originally, under one of two circumstances.

Any creditor that could have demonstrated that it did not implement detrimental account changes against its customers on or after the date the Credit CARD Act was enacted would have been entitled to implement the bill in accordance with its original implementation schedule. This would insulate the well-behaved credit card issuers from the penalty this bill imposes, because the penalty is only being imposed in response to the bad behavior of other credit card issuers. This is not only fair, it is better for the economy. Expediting application of the implementation deadlines is going to cause disruptions in service and interruptions in the extension of credit, at precisely the same moment we go into the busiest shopping period in the annual cycle. Therefore, any credit card issuers that can justifiably be spared the requirement that they comply with the Credit CARD Act much more rapidly than originally intended, should have been spared.

With respect to credit card issuers that already penalized their customers, preventing them from penalizing any others does not do anything to help the ones they already penalized. Therefore, my amendment would have allowed those institutions to ``buy back'' the right to implement the bill in accordance with its original deadlines if they could demonstrate that they reversed all of the penalties they imposed in the wake of enactment of the Credit CARD Act. Because they will have a fresh record of the interest rates, minimum payments, and penalty fees they just got through increasing, they should expeditiously have been able to reverse those and restore their customers to their pre-Credit CARD Act terms and conditions. Only an actual roll-back can help the consumers whose terms and conditions were already detrimentally changed, and only a strong incentive such as re- applying the original deadline structure would have incentivized any bank to agree to it. But to the extent they would have, this too would have been a boon to the economy, because all customers whose minimum monthly payments go back down would have that much more to spend as we go into the holiday season.

My amendment simply created options. Any institution that fits one of the foregoing descriptions could have availed itself of the option. If they did, well-behaved banks would have been protected, injured consumers would have been restored to their pre-injury terms and conditions, and in each case the economy would have been stimulated. In addition, in each case, my amendment would have provided that implementing any detrimental changes to customer accounts after the exemption was awarded but before the bill is fully implemented would result in immediate revocation of the exemption. I believe the amendment would have made the bill stronger, and applied it more deftly and equitably to the circumstances. But without it, the banks will implement the bill as of December 1, and consumers will be provided the protections we enacted for them last spring that much sooner.

I commend Chairman Frank and my colleague Mrs. Maloney again for offering this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chair, Chairman Dicks may hesitate to blow his own horn, so I will say it. This is the best Interior appropriations bill we have seen.

Where do I begin praising it--$453 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, more than a third up from last year, doubles the State matching grants. LWCF is an issue I have worked on since I first came to Congress. This robust funding for Federal agencies and States to preserve open space is critically important.

The bill's $385 million for climate change mitigation, a large increase over the last year, including $17 million for establishing a national greenhouse gas registry that my colleagues Representative Baldwin, Representative Inslee and I have advocated.

It includes a good increase for our national parks to preserve these national treasures for the enjoyment of future generations.

It includes a real increase for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The arts and humanities play a crucial role in our society in enhancing creativity, quality of life and, yes, improving local economies. I could go on--EPA, land management, Native Americans and more.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in these delaying tactics that we see from the other side, let's not lose track of the big picture. The health care reform legislation taking shape recognizes the different ways that Americans get their health care and helps each one. Those who get their health coverage through their employment will find that insurance companies cannot yank them around, or cut them off if their health treatment becomes expensive, or discriminate against them for preexisting conditions.

Those who get their health care through Medicare will keep the Medicare they know and love; only it will be better. Closing the gap in the coverage of prescription medicine, the so-called doughnut hole, and moving toward a more patient-based, less procedure-based system. And those not well served by today's existing system, small businesses, employees and employers, people between jobs, individual contractors and consultants, can get their coverage at lower group rates and can get assistance in paying those premiums. And overall, this will hold down the rising cost of health care in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 1793, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act.

We all know the troubling statistics. Since its inception, AIDS has claimed almost 600,000 lives in the United States. Over 1 million Americans are living with HIV/AIDS today. Recent data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that HIV diagnoses are increasing, by as much as 15 percent in three years. As the AIDS crisis has continued year after year, it has become more and more difficult for anyone to claim that AIDS is someone else's problem.

Since 1990, the Ryan White program has helped establish a comprehensive, community-based continuum of care for uninsured and under-insured people living with HIV and AIDS, including access to primary medical care, pharmaceuticals, and other services. In New Jersey, Ryan White funding helps support the state's AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which in 2008 provided almost 5,000 patients with needed HIV medications.

As we debate health care reform, it is important that we keep the needs of HIV/AIDS patients in mind. I have spoken out in favor of reforming Medicare Part D to work seamlessly with state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs and to ensure these patients have continuous access to their needed anti-retroviral prescriptions. These provisions are currently included in America's Affordable Health Choices Act, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen these policies for HIV/AIDS patients.

By passing S. 1793 today, Madam Speaker, we will affirm our commitment to people living with HIV/AIDS and their families. We also will be affirming our dedication to sound public policy. By reauthorizing the Ryan White Act, we will give hope and a real chance for a better life to thousands of HIV/AIDS victims.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act.

The United States is currently the world's leader in solar power technologies. However, countries like China, Germany, and Spain are making major investments in this field, unless we increase our investment in research, development and demonstration, RD&D, into new solar technologies our global competitiveness will be at risk.

The Solar Technology Roadmap Act would provide this much needed funding and create a comprehensive program to strengthen and coordinate the development and improvement of our Nation's solar energy technologies. The bill creates a Solar Energy Roadmap Committee comprised of representatives from industry, academia, and government researchers responsible for developing a long-term roadmap to guide solar energy research. The Roadmap Committee would identify the RD&D activities needed to improve the performance and reliability of solar technologies, decrease cost, and reduce water use. This research plan would guide the awarding of funds for solar energy RD&D by the Department of Energy and would help commercialize new solar technologies and create new public-private partnerships to make this clean, renewable energy source more affordable and accessible for all Americans.

Unfortunately, the House Committee on Rules did not make in order two amendments

that I offered. One of my amendments would have allowed the Secretary of Energy to use a portion of the $2 billion authorized for solar energy to study the factors affecting whether consumers choose to adopt and use solar power. Unless we understand these factors it will be difficult to understand how best to encourage the widespread utilization of solar energy. I also offered an amendment that would have required small businesses to be given preference when distributing the RD&D authorized in this act. I am sorry that these amendments were not debated today.

My home State of New Jersey has made a strong investment into the deployment of solar energy. Through its Renewable Energy Incentive Program, REIP, New Jersey has encouraged the installation of over 4,300 solar electricity systems in our State's businesses, homes, and public institutions. We have more solar installations per mile than any other State in the Union, and are the second largest solar market in the country. Our solar companies, including several located within my congressional district, are conducting innovative RD&D into cutting edge solar technologies and our solar installers, dealers, and project developers have created hundreds of clean energy jobs. Supporting an increased Federal investment into RD&D would help to continue this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 793, supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week. I commend the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Reyes, for his continued support of this important celebration of chemistry.

This year marks the 22nd anniversary of National Chemistry Week, which is sponsored by the American Chemical Society. The event features outreach programs created by schools and businesses to educate communities and schoolchildren on the importance of chemistry in their everyday lives. The theme of this year's National Chemistry Week is ``Chemistry--It's Elemental,'' which emphasizes the role that elements play in every aspect of our lives, from the air we breath to the cars we drive to the food we eat.

I applaud the ACS for their commitment to chemistry education at the elementary and secondary level. To maintain our nation's role as a leader in innovation in an increasingly globalized world, our young people will need to excel in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Training a new generation of chemists will also be essential for solving the world's most pressing issues, from fighting global warming to discovering vaccines for emerging diseases. This is why I am pleased that this year's event includes a national chemistry competition, the distribution of 10,000 Merck Indexes to science educators, and a website with biographies of chemists and online activities to inspire students to choose a career path in chemistry.

As important as this resolution is though, we need to do more in Congress right now to improve STEM education. A recent National Assessment of Education Progress showed that, for the first time since 1980, 4th graders made no progress in math performance between 2007 and 2009. Study after study highlights the need to strengthen math and science education so that our nation's students do not continue to lag behind others in developing the skills critical for global competitiveness.

Again, I commend Mr. Reyes and the ACS for their commitment to promoting a greater understanding of chemistry, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome and introduce to my colleagues the Reverend Darrell L. Armstrong, pastor of Shiloh Baptist Church, in Trenton, New Jersey.

Rev. Armstrong, a native of Los Angeles, California, moved to New Jersey in 1995 to pursue ministerial training at the Princeton Theological Seminary. In 2000, he was elected by near unanimous vote to serve as pastor of the acclaimed Shiloh Baptist Church, which was founded in 1893. As only the third pastor to lead this church over the past 100 years, Rev. Armstrong has helped to double its membership to over 1,800 congregants, and he has solidified Shiloh Baptist's reputation as a thriving and respected church in central New Jersey.

He is the proud husband of Melanie Pinkey and the father of two children, Amaris Kayla and Daniel LaRue.

Rev. Armstrong is one of more than 70 central New Jersey religious leaders here today for meetings with Members of Congress, administration officials, and outside groups. I know that his inspiring prayer this morning will help to guide not only today's session of the House, but also our meetings throughout the day.

Madam Speaker, On Wednesday October 14, 2009 I was unavoidably detained and missed one vote.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 768, a resolution expressing support for the designation of the month of October as ``National Work and Family Month (Rollcall 775).

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2010 continues to fund a series of important public safety and disaster preparedness initiatives. To help us better protect our borders, the bill provides $3.587 billion, $86 million above 2009, to fully support 20,163 Border Patrol agents--which has expanded by 6,000 since 2006. The bill also provides $373.7 million, $73.7 million above 2009, for the US-VISIT program. US-VISIT uses biometrics to track the entry of visitors to the United States. The bill directs that a total of $50 million be used to implement a biometric air exit capability so that we can determine if individuals have overstayed their visas.

Ensuring that 100 percent of air cargo is screened for explosives is essential to our efforts to thwart future terrorist attacks. To that end, the bill provides $122.8 million, including $3.5 million above the budget request for 50 additional inspectors to ensure compliance with the 100 percent screening mandate set for August 2010 in the 9/11 Act. Regarding rail security, the bill builds on my previous work by providing $300 million to protect critical transit infrastructure, including freight rail, Amtrak and ferry systems in high-threat areas. I remain very concerned that Amtrak in particular has been extremely slow to make the kind of security upgrades that are necessary to make the system less vulnerable to the kinds of attacks that killed so many in Madrid, London, and Mubai over the last 5 years, and I will continue to press Amtrak officials to quickly implement security improvements for the system.

I am also pleased that some key needs in my district are being met in this bill. The Township of Old Bridge will receive $500,000 to upgrade its emergency communications system, and the City of Trenton will receive $300,000 to help protect its water filtration plant from periodic Delaware River floods. Even as we take measures to protect our country and communities from potential terrorist attacks, it's important to remember that the most common calamities that strike our towns come from nature and other sources. We must ensure that our communities are prepared to meet the full range of threats they may face.

I am disappointed that this bill allows the Secretary of Defense to withhold indefinitely from public release photographs of potential detainee abuse by U.S. government personnel. The assumption underlying this provision is that the release of the photographs would lead to increased violence against U.S. government personnel (civilian and military) overseas in the Middle East and southwest Asia. I would respectfully submit that our repeated mistargeting of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, along with our continuing and expanding military presence in Afghanistan, provide our enemies with far better recruiting tools than the photographs in question might ever provide.

I regret that the conferees did not direct the Attorney General to review the photos to determine if any do in fact show evidence of violations of either domestic or international law

with respect to the treatment of detainees. Using one law to shield from disclosure information that might be prosecutable under another law undermines the very foundation of our legal system and sends a clear signal to the world that we will cast aside our obligations under international law if it is politically expedient for us to do so. The best way we can protect our soldiers and civilians working overseas is to show that we will not tolerate the abuse of other human beings in our custody and that we will not hide our complicity in such acts behind politically expedient legal contortionisms.

Despite this serious flaw in the bill, I will support it and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and supporter of H.R. 1327, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. The apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons capability by the Government of Iran cannot be met with silence. Iran's history of concealing its nuclear facilities and programs has rightfully alarmed the international community about Iranian Government's ambitions. The revelation last month of a previously undisclosed uranium enrichment facility under construction near Qom adds to a growing list of deeply troubling actions by the Iranian regime. President Obama stated clearly that this new facility does not appear to be configured for the production of fuel for nuclear power reactors. Iran has a responsibility to fully comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and to definitively clarify the status and nature of the Qom site.

Unfortunately, the mistrust and skepticism surrounding the Iranian nuclear issue are a result of more than Iran's covert efforts. The provocative and threatening rhetoric that we have come to expect from the President of Iran is cause for great concern both for our allies, such as Israel, and for our own interests in the region. In addition, we have witnessed the Iranian regime carry out brutal acts of violence against Iranian citizens as they gathered peacefully to express their political beliefs. The United States cannot ignore this violation of basic human rights, but neither can we ignore the stark reminder about the potential consequences of a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that expresses such disregard for the lives and liberties of its own citizens.

Taken together, the Iranian Government's actions are inconsistent with those of a nation seeking peaceful nuclear energy technology. It is incumbent upon the Government of Iran to demonstrate unequivocally to the international community that it is not attempting to cultivate nuclear weapons.

Until the Iranian regime fulfills this responsibility, Iran will face the consequences of noncompliance with this internationally recognized obligation. The provisions of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act should be part of those consequences. This bill would authorize state and local governments to divest their assets from, and prohibit investment in, any company

that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. It also protects from legal action any asset managers who choose to divest assets from, or avoid investing in, persons or companies with the same level of financial ties with Iran's energy sector. These are common sense measures that enable state and local governments or individual U.S. citizens to choose not to allow their financial investments to support companies or persons that contribute to the prosperity and strength of the current Iranian government.

I firmly believe that the United States must do everything in its power to prevent Iran from further destabilizing the Middle East by obtaining a nuclear weapon, and I am encouraged by the Obama administration's vigorous diplomatic efforts to achieve that end. The Iranians should be given credit for their recent tentative agreements to meet international expectations, but these words must be matched with sincere and transparent actions that convince the international community of Iran's peaceful intentions. To that end, I note that the provisions of H.R. 1327 would terminate upon certification by the President that Iran is no longer designated a state sponsor of terrorism and has ceased the pursuit of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is my hope that this sunset clause serves as a potent reminder to the Iranian government that while all actions have consequences, the United States always stands ready to match positive actions with positive consequences. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act.

On February 12, 2009, 50 lives were lost when Continental Flight 3407 crashed outside of Buffalo, New York. This was truly a national tragedy, one that has raised serious concerns about the safety and oversight of our nation's aviation system.

I would like to take a moment to honor the lives of three of the passengers on Flight 3407 from New Jersey's 12th Congressional District, which I have the privilege to represent in Congress. I have spoken with and heard from their families and friends, and my thoughts and prayers go out to them as they cope with the loss of these outstanding individuals. As they mourn, they have been vigilant in working to ensure that we address the serious safety concerns that led to this crash.

Lorin Maurer from Princeton was a fundraiser for the athletics division of Princeton University. According to her coworkers she was a bright and rising star. She was also a dedicated volunteer for the Greater Princeton Junior League. According to her fellow volunteers she was ``an enthusiastic woman who not only had great ideas for improving our community, but took the actions necessary to achieve our goals.'' I would like to thank Lorin's boyfriend Kevin Kuwik for his hard work on behalf of the families of Flight 3407.

Ron Gonzalez of North Brunswick was a tireless advocate for his community. According to his sister he was a true advocate for life. His humanitarian efforts included running the New York City Marathon, and volunteering for the New York State Healthy Heart Program, HIV AIDS Community Services, and the New York State Prevention Planning Group. Ron worked at New Brunswick Tomorrow where he managed a school based program for at-risk children within New Brunswick Public Schools. During Ron's tenure with New Brunswick Tomorrow, he worked hard to save children who were in crisis due to domestic violence, drugs, gangs, and other social ills. His passing is a great loss to our community.

Coleman Mellett from East Brunswick was a talented jazz guitarist. Coleman's talent was evident from a young age. He came in second at the scholarship competition at the East Coast Jazz Festival while he was still in high school. Coleman played with a number of talented musicians including Chuck Mangione's band. He also released the solo album Natural High in 2007 which demonstrated the depth of his talent. I can only imagine the music that we have lost with Coleman's passing.

Many of the family members of the victims of Flight 3407 are at the Capitol today to remind us that we in Congress need to take action to prevent another tragedy of this scale.

A series of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hearings exposed the disturbing fact that this tragedy was preventable. The pilots had received inadequate training on how to recover from a stall and how to proceed in

icing conditions. Severe pilot fatigue also was identified as the cause of the crash. The NTSB found that regional carriers are held to lower safety standards than national carriers despite regional airlines' accounting for one-half of all scheduled flights in the United States. As a result, five of the last seven fatal commercial plane crashes involved regional carriers.

As more Americans rely on commuter airlines for air service, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must take aggressive action to ensure that there is no difference in the level of safety provided by different air carriers. However, the NTSB hearings also made clear that the FAA has failed to issue regulations based on previous NTSB recommendations to establish uniform standards for training and performance. We owe it to the families and friends of the victims of the Flight 3407 to take action to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Earlier this year I joined my colleagues from upstate New York, Christopher Lee and Brian Higgins in introducing the One Level of Safety Act. Our legislation would require regional carriers to meet the same training and safety standards of national carriers. Additionally, it would require the FAA to implement the unfulfilled NTSB recommendations that were found to be responsible for this crash. I would like to thank Chairman Costello for including a number of these provisions in the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act that we are considering today. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.