Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an environmental leader from Southeastern Michigan, Dan Keifer, as he retires from the Clinton River Watershed Council after 10 years of dedicated service to the Clinton River watershed.

Those of us who represent urban watersheds know that the health of the waterways that flow through our communities are often measured in terms of specific indicators. A recovering river has fewer beach closings, declining e-coli pollution counts, and less bank erosion and sedimentation. A recovering river also shows restoration of native riparian vegetation, improved habitat, healthier stream flows, and the return of a wide variety of fish and other aquatic organisms. All of these watershed characteristics are measurable.

Another quality of recovering waterways is harder to directly measure, but is no less essential. Recovering rivers and streams invariably have people who take the time and trouble to care for them and work on their behalf. Without such public advocates, water quality improvements simply don't happen. Dan Keifer has been a powerful advocate and force for good in the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair watersheds. He has been an invaluable asset to the Watershed Council's mission to protect, enhance, and celebrate the Clinton River, its watershed, and Lake St. Clair.

Dan joined the Clinton River Watershed Council staff in 2002 and has served as that organization's Development Director and, later, as the Community Outreach Coordinator. Along the way, Dan has coordinated countless projects, meetings, and outreach efforts in support of water quality in our area. In 2008, Dan was awarded the National Distinguished Service Award for Trout Unlimited for his work in coordinating the Watershed Council's Coldwater Conservation Project.

Dan has also been an important part of my own office's water quality work, including efforts to support the new Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and deploy resources from that program in the watershed. He has worked with my office on everything from grants, to efforts to battle the invasive Asian carp, to the emerging partnership to carry out the recommendations of the Lake St. Clair Management Plan. Through it all, Dan has been an invaluable resource to my office.

Over the years, Dan has traveled the length and breadth of the watershed to speak to groups and relate the 10,000-year history of the Clinton River Watershed, telling the story about the progress that has been made from the days when the Clinton River was one of

the most polluted rivers in Michigan to today when the trout and salmon have returned. He speaks of what is needed going forward to fully restore the Clinton River and address the challenges confronting this urban waterway. This is an important story. In the truest sense, Dan has been the voice for the Clinton River.

Dan and his wife Heidi are moving to the Washington area to take up their responsibilities as grandparents. On behalf of myself, my staff, and everyone who has benefitted from his work, I am so pleased to join with the entire community in paying tribute to his achievements and thank him for his years of service to the watershed.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the three oil drilling bills reported by the Republican Majority on the House Resources Committee, including the one before the House today. I urge the House to defeat them.

One year after the largest oil spill in U.S. history revealed huge safety and enforcement problems with ultra-deep offshore drilling, gas prices are going through the ceiling and the oil companies are raking in profits hand-over-fist. Exxon Mobil just posted a first-quarter profit of $10.7 billion, a 69 percent gain from the previous year. BP reported a first-quarter profit of $7.1 billion, a 17 percent increase. Royal Dutch Shell earned $6.3 billion, up 30 percent. Chevron's profit grew to $6.2 billion, a 36 percent increase. Conoco Phillips reported a first-quarter profit of $3 billion, up 44 percent.

What is the Republican Majority's response? They want to reward the oil companies with additional offshore leases and reduce the ability of the Interior Department to review offshore oil drilling applications for safety.

Proponents of this bill would have us believe that gas prices will go down if we only open up more coastal areas to ultra-deepwater drilling and reduce safety oversight of the oil companies. This is not true. None of these bills will do anything at all to reduce gasoline prices. Even if we threw caution to the wind and opened up these new offshore areas tomorrow, it would take years for them to produce any oil.

Before opening up new offshore areas, it's fair to ask what the industry is doing with the leases they already have. A new report by the Department of Interior reveals that more than two-thirds of existing offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico and more than half of onshore leases on federal lands are unused. Tens of millions of acres that have already been leased to industry sit idle. The industry should either use the leases they have or give them up.

At a time when our constituents are feeling the pain of rising gas prices, it is unjustifiable that our tax code subsidizes Big Oil to the tune of billions of dollars a year. The Big Five oil companies reported a combined profit of $32 billion in the first quarter of 2011 alone. Repealing the three largest tax breaks for the Big Five oil companies would save taxpayers billions of dollars a year. Instead of rewarding the oil companies, we should at last end these unwarranted subsidies to Big Oil.

Mr. Speaker, this week, we honor a highly distinguished citizen of the State of Michigan and recognize his service to the people of the United States--Gerald Ford.

Gerald Ford is a Michigan legacy and a model for those called to public service. He served with distinction in World War II aboard the U.S.S. Monterrey. In 1948, he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served with integrity for twenty-five years. And in 1974, during one of the darkest moments in U.S. history, Gerald Ford served as the 38th President of the United States, unifying the Nation during a notable time of divisiveness and uncertainty. Now, it is especially fitting that we honor President Ford's legacy.

On behalf of the people of the United States, we accept from the citizens of Michigan a statue of President Ford for placement in the U.S. Capitol. From this day forward, countless visitors from around the globe will come to the Nation's Capitol each year and be reminded of President Ford's courage and strength--those characteristics which helped to heal a divided Nation and bring us together. The statue will be displayed as part of the prestigious and historic national Statuary Hall collection for years to come.

President Ford has left us a rich legacy. As we accept President Ford's statue in the U.S. Capitol on behalf of the citizens of the United States, I hope all of us here will honor him by reflecting upon his legacy.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

We here need to talk straight to the American people. This bill does not codify the Hyde amendment. It goes well beyond it. We don't need to codify the Hyde amendment. It's the law of the land. The purpose of this bill is to go beyond it, and that's what you should acknowledge.

In doing so, you cross a very, very important line. This bill is going nowhere in the Senate. Where it can go is everywhere in interfering with a person's access to health care, or with the use of their own money for their own purposes as they choose. The logic here, if it becomes precedent, could be used, for example, to prevent a health policy falling under the Tax Code if the procedure relates to a development that occurred because of stem cell research. We should not be doing that. It takes away the ability to use an itemized deduction. We should not do that.

Where does this stop? Where does it stop? It crosses a line for the first time. It does not codify. It threatens crossing a line we should not in terms of the ability of people to provide health care and use their own resources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

It is now my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Thank you for your efforts.

I have been listening to the debate here, and the majority, I would describe it this way: You're so single-minded about the health care reform that you really have become mindless. You come here and talk about Federal control, but essentially what this bill would do would be to increase it. CBO says, Pass this bill and you will have more Federal control--not less--and less State control. It makes no sense. It's mindless. And you come here and say there's one governor who says something about his exchange. But every State but one has applied for and received a grant for their exchange. It's mindless, your position.

My State has already received the grant, the State of Michigan; and they have used it to bring everybody to the table, including private industry, including consumers, hospitals, et cetera, to develop a plan that's right for our State. It's mindless for you to come here and say you want to pass a bill that withdraws from our States the ability to plan for the health care for our citizens in a way that is helpful to our State. So maybe there will be a mindless ``yes'' vote here. It's happened before. Where are the jobs bills?

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.

This bill is a retreat from a core value: to care for our children. Instead of cutting construction for these school-based health centers, we should be building more clinics to help those in need.

These centers work. They keep our children healthy. I see it at the two school-based clinics in my district in the Hazel Park and the Fitzgerald Public School systems.

For instance, Melissa, the nurse practitioner at the Fitzgerald Clinic, helps those who can't get care in any other place because their families can't afford insurance or can't afford doctor's fees.

Just this past Friday, she saw a 16-year-old boy who didn't have any insurance because his parents' employer doesn't offer a plan, they can't afford private premiums but earn too much for CHIP or Medicaid. He was desperately ill, with a high fever and nausea. Melissa was able to diagnose and treat his strep throat on the spot. He asked her, ``How much do I owe you?'' Melissa responded ``Nothing.'' The young man burst into tears because he had been so worried that his family wouldn't be able to pay her.

Another boy couldn't afford to go to an emergency room, but Melissa was able to treat a foot infection that could have resulted in an amputation.

I could give you example after example because the team at the Fitzgerald school does it all. She makes sure that students have the vaccinations they need to stay healthy--300 visits this year--and provides the physicals 200 children will need to play sports. They provide counseling for teens coping with their parents' unemployment and groups for those dealing with alcoholism and family violence.

The bottom line is that these clinics work and we need more of them.

I urge Members to vote no on these irresponsible cuts.

Mr. Speaker, today, as we conclude legislative business for the month of April in Washington, D.C., it is appropriate that we mark an important milestone in Ukraine: On April 26th, 2011, we recognize the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

On this date in 1986, Reactor Four at the Soviet-designed Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in northern Ukraine exploded, releasing more than 100 tons of lethally radioactive material into the environment. The human cost of this disaster is staggering. It is unlikely we will ever know how many deaths can be directly attributed to the Chernobyl disaster, but the loss of life of even one life is truly a tragedy.

Twenty-five years later, the consequences of the world's worst nuclear accident continue to plague Eastern Europe. Ukraine has been especially impacted. The World Health Organization estimates that over 6,000 people have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer from the radioactive materials in the atmosphere. The concrete and steel sarcophagus that encases the ruined Nuclear Reactor Four is deteriorating and in need of replacement. In addition, the loss of Chernobyl's generating capacity exacerbates an already difficult energy shortage in Ukraine, which depends heavily on energy imports, especially during harsh winters.

We must be mindful that Chernobyl's legacy remains a heavy burden for the people of Ukraine. The fatally flawed nuclear technology that built Chernobyl resulted in lasting harm to Ukraine's people and the environment. The sole consolation is that we can yet hope to redress the damage.

We must continue to support U.S. and international efforts to address the lingering health, social, and economic consequences from the disaster, including the permanent encasement of the damaged nuclear Reactor Four in Chernobyl. I call on every Member of the House to join with me in remembering the victims of this tragedy and to support these efforts. Let us resolve to do our part to help Ukraine build a better future.

We've heard your last prayer, Father Dan. We wish you the best. You have served us very well.

Mr. Speaker, I was on the floor last night, and I heard the debate. Clearly, there is a massive misinformation mission on the part of the Republicans.

I heard repeatedly that they want to save Medicare. No. They want to end it with a voucher, costing seniors in the future at least $6,000 a year. They say they want to preserve the safety net. No. They want to shred it.

According to nonpartisan analysis, their proposal calls for spending on items other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--but including defense--to fall from 12 percent of GDP last year to 6 percent in 2022 and just 3.5 percent of GDP in the long run. We are not going to shred defense. What their proposal means in shredding the safety net is that they have become radicals instead of conservatives.

We do not need to tear up what America has built in the past in order to build for the future. We should not confront present and future problems, including the Nation's deficit, as we must, by repealing America's past. The Republican budget tries to tear up and repeal 75 years of American experience, and the supreme example is Medicare. It tears it up. It repeals it. And contrary to what we've heard today, they would not save Medicare, but end it. They would not change it, but they would end it. Our Nation would be a different Nation without it. Millions today would be less healthy without Medicare.

One of my constituents wrote to me recently to say Medicare saved her life and her life savings when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, and there are tens of thousands of people like her in this country.

What the Republicans want to do is to give seniors a voucher for health care, an underfunded voucher, for 10 years. It would double health care costs for seniors, a voucher that in 20 years would pay only a third of senior health care costs.

There is no place to hide for anyone who votes for the Republican budget.

And what happens with the savings? Tax cuts for the wealthy. The average income of the bottom 90 percent of the families in America have fallen in the last decade.

The opposite is true for the wealthy. The top 1 percent have seen their incomes climb by more than a quarter of a million dollars.

In my district alone, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans means giving 182 households that earn more than $1 million annual tax cuts averaging $103,000. At the same time, future seniors would be paying $6,000 more in health costs.

If what we have built in our Nation needs to be adjusted, fix it, don't destroy it. We must address the deficit without deepening deficits in the availability for our citizens of jobs, health care, and education.

The choice today could not be more decisive. A vote against the Republican budget is a vote for basic American values. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the legislation before the House, which would weaken the Clean Air Act and the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect public health and the environment from carbon pollution.

The scientific community has been telling us for years, with growing urgency, that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to changes in the climate and that the impact of these changes will be overwhelmingly negative going forward. There is a lot of room for a constructive debate on what the U.S. response should be to the buildup of heat- trapping gases in the atmosphere. Our response cannot be to simply deny the existence of the problem.

But that is exactly what the bill before the House does. This legislation rejects the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and overturns EPA's scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers public health and the environment. In a word, this bill would take a fundamentally anti-science dogma and enshrine it into public law. It is the legislative equivalent of sticking our heads in the sand.

We've heard a lot of overheated rhetoric by the proponents of this bill that protecting the American people from carbon pollution amounts to some kind of job-killing tax increase that will make gasoline and electricity cost more. In fact, the rules EPA is developing seek to curb carbon pollution by the very largest emitters in this country over a period of many years. We're talking about facilities that emit more than 75,000 tons of carbon into the air each year. In most cases, the new rules will simply require these facilities to make energy efficiency improvements. As we've seen in so many other areas, investments in energy efficiency often pay for themselves and actually create jobs.

H.R. 910 is opposed by scientists, public health groups, environmentalists, sporting organizations like Trout Unlimited, as well as the UAW and the Blue/Green Alliance. This legislation should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Sterling Heights Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry in recognition of their 50th anniversary.

Beginning in 1961 as a small, localized Chamber, the Sterling Heights Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry has grown over the last 50 years to become a leading business organization in Macomb County with more than 1,600 members and sixth-largest in the State of Michigan.

The organization started out as the ``Greater Utica Chamber of Commerce,'' becoming the

``Shelby-Utica-Sterling Chamber of Commerce'' in 1967, and in 1972 the ``Utica Area Chamber of Commerce,'' 1977 ``Northwest Macomb Chamber of Commerce,'' 1986 ``Sterling Heights Area Chamber of Commerce,'' and in 2009 the ``Sterling Heights Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry.'' The Chamber's ``Heritage Communities'' of Sterling Heights, Utica, and Shelby Twp. are still home to almost 50 percent of the Chamber's membership, and the Chamber now has members in every Macomb County community.

As a testament to the Chamber's ability to evolve and strengthen with time, in 2010 they partnered with the Anchor Bay Area Chamber of Commerce and formed a collaborative relationship that capitalizes on the strengths of both Chambers.

The Chamber's mission over the last 50 years has been simple: To bring features, benefits and value to their members, and each and every day strive to bring a Return on Investment (ROI) to their members, and to make their Chamber the best business organization possible.

I have witnessed firsthand the success the Chamber has with accomplishing this goal. As we have all worked together to move Macomb County forward, the Chamber has been on the forefront working with multiple partners across the community toward common goals for the betterment of the businesses, communities and residents they serve.

In addition, I came to personally know longtime former Executive Director Lil Adams whom I was pleased to work with on a number of vital local transportation projects, and current President Wayne Oehmke. Each has provided the Chamber with active, dedicated leadership in the promotion of its mission.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Sterling Heights Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry in recognition of their 50th anniversary and wishing them many more years of effective service to the Macomb County business community.

I yield myself as much time as I shall consume.

Let's be clear what the issue is today. The issue is not repeal of this provision, of 1099. We on this side not only favor repeal, but all of us who were here last session voted for it. We voted to repeal it. It failed because only two people on the minority, then minority side, voted for the bill. They didn't like the pay-for.

Mr. Camp mentions the NFIB. They supported our effort last year to repeal 1099.

So, again, the issue is not repeal. We have made that clear in the past, while the effort to repeal was blocked on the Republican side last session. The reason they did not vote ``yes,'' they said, was because they did not like the pay-for.

The pay-for closed tax loopholes, closed tax loopholes, and they stood up and said, no, we can't vote for the bill because of that. Ironically, most of the loopholes closed in that effort have now become law. So that effort last year to block repeal essentially was to block the loophole effort that has now become the law of this land. That should be clear. The issue is not repeal. The issue is how you pay for that repeal.

The Senate has now voted to repeal 1099 and apparently the now majority does not like the pay-for in the Senate bill.

What does this bill provide? Well, in very simple terms, in clear terms, in unmistakable terms, the pay-for is an increase on middle- income families. It increases how much they will have to pay to the IRS if their income increases over what was projected when they would have obtained health insurance.

Let me be very clear, the people were playing by the rules once the law became effective. It wasn't that they were ineligible. They were eligible, period. So no one should say they were not eligible, that somehow they misled,

that somehow they misrepresented. Now, these are middle-income families who would have become eligible playing by the rules.

So this is a tax increase, if this bill becomes effective, on middle- income families in future years. Mostly, it will be on families with incomes between $80,000 and $110,000. These are estimates.

It can well be that a small increase in income beyond what was anticipated can lead to an increase by as much as $12,000. That's the amount that could be required in a check from the taxpayer to the IRS, and Joint Tax projects that the average increase will be about $3,000.

Well, it's been said, it was said in our committee and then before the Rules Committee yesterday, that it's not a tax increase. So let me be clear by reading the language that's in the bill:

If the advance payments to a taxpayer exceed the credit allowed by this section, the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year shall be increased.

It is in clear simple English. So let no one stand up here and say it's not a tax increase when it is.

Let me also, if I might, read from the Statement of Administration Policy that was issued yesterday.

``Specifically, H.R. 4 would result in tax increases on certain middle class families that incur unexpected tax liabilities, in many cases totaling thousands of dollars, notwithstanding that they followed the rules.''

I want to read it again.

``Specifically, H.R. 4 would result in tax increases on certain middle class families that incur unexpected tax liabilities, in many cases totaling thousands of dollars, notwithstanding that they followed the rules.''

Now, it was said yesterday at the Rules Committee that this is not a tax increase because it would become effective at a later date, 2014, when the subsidies under the health reform bill become effective.

Well, if you use that logic, we could, this year, increase taxes for everybody by, say, 5 percent, and that would not be a tax increase because it would be for a later year.

In a word, if this bill would become law, it would mean a tax increase for hundreds of thousands of middle income taxpayers.

Also, according to Joint Tax, it would have this effect, that about 266,000 people would not be covered with health insurance because of the provisions in this bill.

So, in a few words, what this bill would do would be to saddle middle income taxpayers in future years, pure and simple. What we should do is to go back and find a responsible way to pay for the repeal of 1099.

And I close by the following paragraph from the Statement of Administration Policy, ``The administration looks forward to continuing to work with the Congress on the repeal of the information reporting requirements in the course of the legislative process, including finding an acceptable offset for the cost of the repeal.''

What this bill would do would be to provide an unacceptable offset, one that would burden hundreds of thousands of middle income taxpayers in our country. We should not do that, period.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to someone who has been leading the effort to repeal 1099 in a responsible way for the middle-income families of America, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There has been a reference here to taxpayers who did not honestly report their income. I must say that's an egregious misstatement. The way this works, or will work, is people will report their income honestly, and they do so based on their taxable income of a particular year.

The problem with this bill is if the income often unexpectedly goes up in a subsequent year, how much will the taxpayer be required to pay to the IRS. That's what the issue is. And as Mr. Crowley said, there are other programs where people report their income. They report it honestly, and then there is a change and the question is whether they should have to later pay some income tax to the IRS and, if so, how much.

What this bill does in its present form is to recreate a ``cliff'' which we smoothed out in previous legislation, and the cliff is 400 percent of poverty. And if unexpectedly you go over that amount in a subsequent year, essentially what this provision would say is that the middle-income taxpayer would have to pay far, far more in taxes in that subsequent year. And the burden would essentially be on middle-income taxpayers. That's undeniable. It would be on income from people who are honest, who are middle-income taxpayers.

So I hope no one will use the term ``ineligible'' or use the term ``dishonest.'' That's selling short the people of this country, the middle-income taxpayers.

And, indeed, the effort of 1099 was to make sure that smaller businesses and others reported accurately their income. That was its purpose. Now, it is clear that the way it was devised created all kinds of problems in terms of management of the small business, and so we moved to repeal it. But it is ironic that if essentially 1099 is now used by repealing it, when the effort was to have people honestly report their income, it would essentially penalize people, middle- income taxpayers, who honestly reported their income and became eligible for a tax credit.

Let me just in that respect read from Families USA: ``Unfortunately, H.R. 4 proposes paying for the repeal of the 1099 reporting requirement with a provision that would disproportionately harm middle class Americans. The Affordable Care Act protects individuals

and families who run the risk of having income that may bump them up over the eligibility limits for premium credits by capping the tax penalty they will owe if the monthly premium credit received during the year exceeds the amount of credit due based on unexpected changes in income or family status. This legislation would eliminate the safe harbor for middle-income families and would increase the cap for lower- income families by $500.''

And it closes, and again I'm quoting: ``Although we recognize that Congress needs to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement so that it is no longer a distraction from the way the Affordable Care Act benefits millions of small businesses, funds intended to help America's middle class families should not be used as a piggy bank to mend this legislative problem. We urge you to find an alternative and more responsible offset for this legislation that does not increase taxes on America's hardworking middle class families.''

Undeniably, that is what this legislation would do. It is middle class families who honestly reported their income, period.

There is a fraud provision in the act, which is a very stringent one, that covers the case of anybody who is dishonest; but what you're doing is penalizing middle-income families who were honest, honest, honest.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I just want to say three quick things.

It is such a misstatement for someone to come here and say ``even if they did not qualify.'' That is not correct. They qualified. So don't come here and say they didn't qualify. Essentially what you're saying is middle income taxpayers came and defrauded when the truth is they told the truth. And indeed there's a provision relating to fraud if someone were guilty of that. It allows for full repayment in cases of fraud, and there's a provision that imposes a civil penalty up to $25,000.

The last thing before I yield, I want to make clear, last December, we fixed, Mr. Camp, the cliff. You voted for it. It was 409-2. I don't think you were one of the ``2.'' This resurrects the cliff, purely and simply, and catches hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in the future, middle income taxpayers.

I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), an active member of our committee.

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Blumenauer, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman who just spoke voted ``no'' on repeal last July, as did the gentleman from California who spoke before him. You both had a chance to vote ``no,'' and you failed to do so. You didn't like a pay- for that closed a tax loophole.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), an active member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Ohio mentioned jobs, jobs, jobs. In a colloquial sense, this bill would do a ``job'' on middle-income taxpayers.

I now yield 3 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

Madam Speaker, how much time is there on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

One of the speakers on the majority side said that this was an effort to repeal health care piece by piece. That is clearly their misguided motivation. Here what they're trying to do is on the backs of the middle class of America. They don't defend the pay-for except by misrepresentation.

A tax increase is a tax increase is a tax increase on the middle class, on the middle class, on the middle class.

I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California was addressing the point of order. I think he should be allowed to do so.

I urge the gentleman from Michigan to let him----

The gentleman wishes to proceed. The gentleman from California wishes to proceed.

And he says he is doing so. He is saying he is doing so.

Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard.

Yes, I do.

Madam Speaker, the rules of the House, as crafted by the majority, do make it difficult for us to craft motions to recommit that are germane.

I submit this is, and I think you should listen to us before you make a ruling. You are the Speaker of the House, acting in that capacity.

This motion would cut taxes, would end oil subsidies, and ensure more Americans have health insurance. It is germane. The Republicans should not try to gag us.

I urge that the Speaker rule this in order.

Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard.

I just want to read from the bill:

``If the advance payments to a taxpayer exceed the credit allowed by this section, the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year shall be increased.''

If this amendment would become part of the CR, there will be no CR, and that will be your responsibility, your responsibility.

This is an effort to repeal by paralysis, paralyzing the provisions that have gone into effect--preexisting conditions for children being covered, children under 26 having the ability to get insurance. It would paralyze the efforts to begin to implement the 2014 benefits.

Instead of searching for common ground, this amendment intensifies warfare. Instead of collaboration, this amendment would mean chaos.

The Republicans have become a wrecking crew, led by Paul Ryan and wrecking Medicare. This amendment is a deeply dangerous prescription for Americans' health. This prescription needs to be rejected.

I yield myself as much time as I shall consume.

This is about oversight, and what the majority is doing is losing sight of the needs of tens of thousands of workers in this country. What they are doing is overlooking the needs of the workers of this country.

Our committee has jurisdiction over trade adjustment, and what's happened this week regarding trade adjustment assistance is really incomprehensible and, I think, disgraceful. This Congress is going to leave town tomorrow. On Saturday, the extension of TAA expires, the 2009 extension. And what's going to happen? Tens of thousands of people, who will be laid off because of trade, will no longer be able to be certified--tens of thousands. They will be out of luck when they hit bad luck through no fault of their own.

We've received all kinds of communications from people in my State, and I'm sure there are people like this in every single State. We heard from a machinist laid off, qualified for TAA, and is now pursuing a career as a technician. He's in a program that goes on for a few years. Before TAA was overhauled in 2009, States could not have approved training of that length nor have approved the prerequisite training.

We heard of another worker, a service worker in the State of Michigan, laid off, qualified for TAA, and is now pursuing an associate's degree. She's planning to complete her program in June of 2012. Before the TAA reforms of 2009, service workers were not even eligible for TAA.

We also know of another person who was laid off, a die helper, who's qualified for TAA to continue training on a part-time basis. Only because of the extensions of 2009, the changes, the improvements, could this person have been in that training.

And then another worker in Michigan--and you know, workers throughout the country are like this--who learned that she would be laid off, petitioned for TAA and began pursuing an M.A. degree before she actually lost her job.

There are thousands of people who are going to be in this position, and because the majority in this House have failed to act, there are going to be tens of thousands of people who will have no place to turn in terms of training.

Since the 2009 improvements, about 177,000 people have been able to receive training--170,000--and now, beginning Monday, tens of thousands will not be able to be certified for help.

Now, this isn't only in the State of Michigan. It's not only in the State of Ohio. It's not only in the State of Indiana. It's not only in Pennsylvania. This is true throughout the country--true throughout the country--and essentially, the majority here is leaving, turning their backs on the people of this country.

So what happened this week was the following: that a few groups outside of this institution decided they did not want to support the 2009 expansion of benefits; and a group within this House, the Republican Study Committee, issued a document urging Republicans not to support the extension. There are many, or some, Republicans in this House who were ready to support it, but they pulled back the bill,

and the document from the study committee has this as one of the reasons why we should not step up to the plate.

They said, under TAA programs, the government picks winners and losers because TAA favorably discriminates towards workers who lost their job due to trade. Well, picking winners and losers, what TAA does is to fill in gaps that were not filled in previously and often gaps that were increased because of the inaction of the now-majority of this House.

And talking about winners and losers, the losers are going to be the unemployed people of this country, unemployed through no fault of their own, unemployed, looking for work, who will not be able to be certified for TAA. This is a disgrace. And there are some people who will continue to be eligible for TAA who are going to have to now pay more for their health care if they can afford it.

When we put this together a few years ago, this is what Senator Grassley said about the reforms, and I quote, Today's achievement is the result of the dedication, hard work, and commitment of many individuals. It is the culmination of years of effort, and I am confident that the result will serve to benefit American workers in Iowa and across the United States for years to come, end of quote.

The failure of the Republicans to bring this bill to the floor this week means that what Senator Grassley said will serve to benefit American workers in Iowa and across the United States for years to come, that's going to end on Monday, because Saturday is a weekend. People who are laid off because of trade are going to hit a wall, a wall.

So we are in favor of oversight. We made that clear earlier. We are also sure we should not be shortsighted about the needs of productive people who want to work and cannot find a job.

The person speaking on behalf of the Republicans, my distinguished colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, talked about those who are out of work through no fault of their own. You mentioned 9 million. There's a record number of people in this country who have been unemployed for a longer period of time than has been true in the past, and now all they ask for, unemployment comp in many cases--they're looking for work--and a chance to be retrained. On Monday, for thousands that chance will be gone.

That should not have happened.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) manage the balance of the time on the Democratic side.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, health care reform is an American family law. Repealing it would hurt families all across our Nation. Repeal would mean rescission, taking away benefits from millions of Americans, giving power back to health insurance.

Let's be clear: This law is working. Repealing it would have real- life consequences for millions of Americans.

As many as 19 million kids in our country have health problems considered preexisting conditions. In the past it could have led health insurance companies to drop their coverage. This new law changed that. One example--there are millions: One mother in my district, Felicia Tisdale, said she has been anxious about her daughter's health insurance since she was diagnosed with diabetes at age 3. Ms. Tisdale and others like her no longer have to worry about their children being denied coverage.

More than 1 million young adults are already benefiting from the provision that allows them to stay on their parents' plan until they turn 26. Just one example: A constituent, Sean McCarthy, an auto worker, told me in a letter that his two children, ages 19 and 23, could not afford to stay in college, but he was grateful that the new law at least enabled them to get health insurance by joining his plan.

And then seniors, millions, millions have seen their out-of-pocket drug costs go down under this new law. Nearly 3 million Medicare recipients have received a reimbursement check in the mail in the last year relating to the doughnut hole.

One gentleman who I represent, Harry Wimble of Warren, Michigan, wrote to me, thankfully, that his wife received $250 that she otherwise would not have. He said his wife paid thousands of dollars out of pocket in 2010 because of the doughnut hole.

Repeal would mean releasing insurance companies once again to impose unreasonable premium increases, to deny insurance to whomever they please whenever they please, to set annual lifetime benefit limits, to discriminate against women through higher rates and arbitrary definitions of preexisting conditions. Repeal would mean retreat, retreat, from moving America ahead.

We will fight that retreat. It will not happen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

I yield myself 10 seconds.

Almost 50 million people have no health insurance. For most of them, there is no freedom to choose. There's no ability to obtain it.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a fighter for health care for many, many decades, Mr. Stark of California.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another long- time fighter for health care for Americans, Mr. McDermott of Washington.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I am disappointed that this diatribe about socialism comes to the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I yield now for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), another fighter for what matters to Americans.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield myself 5 seconds.

The truth is we moved to repeal 1099. It was opposed by the now majority.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of our committee.

Could I ask you, Madam Speaker, how much time there is remaining on each side of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

What the reform did was to make sure that the doctor-patient relationship was maintained and that there would be millions more patients in the United States of America.

I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a joyful member of our committee, Mr. Pascrell.

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a valued member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

It is my special privilege to yield 1 minute to our very distinguished leader, the gentlewoman from the State of California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an active former member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another distinguished former member of our committee, Ms. Sanchez of California.

Could you please tell us, Madam Speaker, the time remaining on each side for our committee?

It is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

It is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Ms. Edwards from Maryland.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a former, very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

It is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

I yield for the purpose of making an unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides for Ways and Means?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

I regret this bill is being brought up today, but there are at least two silver linings.

Number one, this bill will not become law. Health care reform remains the law of this land. And, secondly, and most importantly, it gives us Democrats a further chance to talk sense with the American people.

We on this side are on the offensive on this issue. We are going everywhere. We are an American truth squad. There will be a vote today on this bill. It may well pass. It will not prevail.

More Than 200 Organizations Opposed to H.R. 2, Patients' Rights Repeal

Act