Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Oregon, and I thank all of the Members for a thoughtful and important debate.

Mr. Chairman, that is what this is all about. It is about gripping-- taking hold--of the heart and soul of America.

As I said in the Rules Committee, the budget is actually a moral document, a moral compass, of where we want to take this country. I think what needs to be explained to the American public is that, in actuality, we have been making progress.

The deficit has gone down from $1 trillion from the past administration, from the Bush administration, to now $680 billion. We are making progress, from losing 800,000 jobs a month to gaining close to 200,000; yet the document that is on the floor today, the Ryan budget--the Republican budget--chooses not to have the morality and the affection for the American people that is desired.

When you look at their budget, you will see that $3.3 trillion of their budget--69 percent--is cut from programs

for people with low or moderate incomes, from the very people who need a stairstep of opportunity, and they give $200,000 in tax cuts to the top 1 percent.

None of us have any challenge to prosperity and opportunity, but how can you have a budget that hits low-income programs or programs that give opportunity?

How many have gone to school because of Pell grants? $175 million in cuts. How many people have gotten their health care from Medicaid and still do, like children? How many people have needed to have the SNAP program?

I believe that we should have budgets that work for all people. I intend to vote for the CBC budget and for the Democratic budget and ``no'' on this underlying Republican budget. We need to have a standard that respects all people in this country, and this budget does not.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 96, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2015.'' I oppose this irresponsible budget resolution because it continues the reckless approach to fiscal policy that the House majority has championed for years, with disastrous results.

Mr. Chair, the budgeteers on the majority side have a very poor track record when it comes to economic forecasts and projections.

For years, they have based their entire legislative agenda and strategy on their belief that the Affordable Care Act or ``Obamacare'' would be a failure.

The wish was father to the thought. But they were wrong.

Because of Obamacare more than 10 million Americans now know the peace of mind that comes from affordable, quality health insurance that is there when you need it. (7 million through the exchange and 3 million through Medicaid).

House Republicans oppose increasing the minimum wage, claiming that it costs jobs. Wrong again. Every increase in the minimum wage has been accompanied by an expanding economy, especially during the Clinton Administration.

House Republicans opposing comprehensive immigration reform claim that it will lead to lower incomes and lost jobs. Wrong again. Studies conducted by groups as far apart as the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO consistently show that comprehensive immigration reform will grow the Gross Domestic Product by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Given this sorry track record of economic forecasting, I strongly oppose the Republican budget because it favors the wealthy over middle class families and those struggling to enter or remain in the middle class.

I oppose this Republican budget because it asks major sacrifices of seniors who can barely make ends meet, and fundamentally alters the social contract by turning Medicaid and SNAP programs into a block grant and Medicare into a voucher.

I cannot and will not support a resolution that attempts to balance the budget on the backs of working families, seniors, children, the poor, or mortgages the future by failing to make the investments needed to sustain economic growth and opportunity for all Americans.

Mr. Chair, we Democrats have a better way. We understand that we are all in this together and that our current economic situation calls for a balanced approach between increased revenues and responsible reduction in expenditures.

Our plan will protect and strengthen our recovering economy, reduce the deficit in a responsible way, while continuing to invest in the things that make our country strong like education, health care, innovation, and clean energy.

Mr. Chair, this Republican budget is bad for America but it is disastrous for the people from my home state of Texas who sent me here to advocate for their interests. Let me highlight a few examples.

1. If the Republican budget resolution were to become the basis of federal fiscal policy, 3,435,336 Texas seniors would be forced out of traditional Medicare and into a voucher program. Under the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it, Texas seniors will receive a voucher instead of guaranteed benefits under traditional Medicare.

2. For the 3,435,336 Texans aged 45-54, the value of their vouchers would be capped at growth levels that are lower than the projected increases in health care costs. Previous analyses showed that this type of plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, forcing them to spend more out of pocket and diminishing their access to quality care.

3. Additionally, private insurance plans will aggressively pursue the healthiest, least expensive enrollees, thereby allowing Medicare-- currently the lifeline for 3,187,332 Texas seniors--to ``wither on the vine.''

4. If the Republican budget resolution were to be adopted by Congress, 206,304 Texas seniors would pay more for prescription drugs next year.

5. The Republican plan would re-open the ``donut hole,'' forcing seniors to pay the full cost of their prescription drugs if their yearly drug expenses are more than $2,970 for the year.

6. Seniors reaching the prescription drug ``donut hole'' would pay an average of $828 more in prescription drug costs in 2014 and approximately $13,000 more from now through 2022.

7. Under the Republican budget, the 2,445,462 Texas seniors who utilized free preventive services currently covered by Medicare in 2012 will face increased costs in the form of higher deductibles, co- insurance, and copayments for certain services, including even cancer screenings and annual wellness visits.

8. The Republican budget slashes $31.71 billion in nursing home care and other health care services for 754,500 Texas seniors and disabled who currently rely on Medicaid for their long-term care needs.

9. The draconian cuts included in the Republican budget would have a devastating impact on the 1,191 certified nursing homes in Texas that serve 91,717 seniors, with more than half relying on Medicaid as their primary payer. As a result, nursing homes would be forced to slash services, turn away seniors, or close their doors.

Mr. Chair, this budget could have invested in programs that help strengthen the middle class, reduce poverty, and strengthen our economic recovery. Instead, the Republican budget makes deep cuts to the area of the budget helping low-income families put food on the table and make ends meet.

These are families who are already struggling with unemployment, lower wages, and just simply trying to make ends meet.

The House Republican budget will push millions more Americans into poverty and put a large number of low-income children, seniors, and people with disabilities at risk.

It guts Medicare and Medicaid and calls for massive cuts to food assistance, all in order to protect tax breaks for special interests and for multimillionaires who are not even asking for them.

The Republican budget may be characterized in many ways--cruel, irresponsible, short-sighted, reckless--but ``fair and balanced'' is not one of them.

In contrast, the alternative budgets proposed by the Democratic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and Congressional Progressive Caucus, which were made in order by the Rules Committee, are each worthy of support because they fairly balance the need for increased revenues and responsible reductions in expenditures with the imperative of making the necessary investments in human capital required to move our country forward.

Specifically, the Alternative Budgets proposed by the Democratic Caucus, CBC, and CPC:

help create more jobs now;

replace the sequester;

make key education investments;

invest in research and development and clean energy;

invest in long-term infrastructure;

preserve Medicare as we know it;

protect health reform's benefits for seniors;

protect Medicaid for seniors in nursing homes;

preserve Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP);

reduce the deficit through a smart, targeted, and steady approach provides tax relief for working families and ends tax breaks for the wealthy;

take a balanced approach to reducing the long-term deficits and debt; and

put the budget on a sustainable path

Mr. Chair, under the Democratic budget, the deficit would fall from 7 percent of GDP in 2014 to 2.3 percent of GDP in 2024.

The Democratic Budget Alternative will generate at least a million more jobs this year compared to the Republicans' ``austerity first'' plan by making the investments needed to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, create greater upward mobility, and ensure opportunity for our children and future generations.

The Democratic alternative budgets extend Emergency Unemployment Compensation for the long-term unemployed, which provides a lifeline to the 2.37 million jobless workers who have already lost their benefits and the 72,000 persons who stand to lose there benefits each week if Congress does not act.

Additionally, the Democratic budget immediately ends the Sequester, which would otherwise cost the economy 750,000 jobs by the end of the year, and replaces it with deficit reduction resulting from a balanced approach combining responsible spending cuts with increased revenues by cutting tax breaks for special interests and wealthy individuals without increasing the tax burden on middle-income Americans.

Mr. Chair, the Democratic alternative budget maintains our commitment to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; expands the EITC for childless workers; extends the tax credits from the American Taxpayer Relief Act due to expire at the end of 2017, and provides $7.6 billion annually for early childhood education.

It is said often, Mr. Chair, but is no less true, that the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the nation's most cherished values. As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said:

``The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.''

For that reason that in evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility. To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.''

The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards. The Democratic alternatives do not. For these compelling reasons, I stand in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 96 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this ill-conceived and unwise measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my sympathies to the families and loved ones of the 239 passengers and crew members of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which departed Kuala Lumpur enroute to Beijing on March 8, 2014, but disappeared somewhere over the Indian Ocean and has yet to be found.

In an age where powerful technology is capable of interconnecting the expanses of our world and able to provide real-time information globally, the haunting question must be asked: How can a sophisticated commercial airliner carrying 12 highly trained crew members and 227 passengers disappear without a trace?

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to families of those who appear to have perished on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 to find answers and to take all necessary measures and make all necessary improvements to ensure that a tragedy like this never happens again.

Modern aircraft are technological marvels, capable of unrivaled aeronautical feats. The advances in aircraft technology have helped make possible many of the smart devices we use daily. But a disaster involving the disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 has revealed glaring weaknesses in aviation technology areas of flight safety, information monitoring, and recovery.

The modern commercial airliner is among the safest machines ever built. Fail-safes, system redundancies, automated controls, and sophisticated radar systems ensure that almost any crisis can be prevented if the best practices of flight are observed. However, if the technology was perfected, disasters like that of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 could be eliminated.

In the case of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the transponders-- devices important to tracking the aircraft via radar--were disabled, effectively eliminating most modern methods for tracking the aircraft. Whether the tracking technology was powered down or disabled as a result of a catastrophic failure is irrelevant to the question of safety. The fact that tracking technology important to the recovery of an aircraft can be manually disabled in the air is a technological flaw that must be corrected.

Design processes that do not adequately exploit engineering technology or that prevent life-saving recovery efforts and lower safety standards need to be fixed immediately. In addition to critical safety measures, advanced methods of aircraft systems information monitoring need to be employed. Radar and tracking systems are as important to aircraft in the air as they are to monitoring systems on the ground.

During the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, experts were required to rely on unreliable ``pings'' from satellites that were only able to provide poor insight as to the location of the aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, monitoring information regarding the status of aircraft systems is vital in understanding whether operator error or system failure is responsible for aircraft disasters. Unfortunately, the majority of this monitoring information is stored internal to the aircraft, in flight data recorders.

In the case of a disappearance like that of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, system status information is essentially lost with the loss of the aircraft, or depends entirely on the recoverability of the aircraft.

Advanced technology can be employed to send real-time information on airborne aircraft to monitoring stations on the ground. If ground operators were able to monitor the system information normally contained in the flight data recorder, recovery operations would be streamlined and yield much more information,

greatly improving future tracking and recovery efforts.

The importance of aircraft recovery is impossible to overstate. Beyond the technological aspect is the human factor. Hundreds of concerned and anxious persons were left in the dark concerning the fate of their friends, family, and loved ones aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, with little hope offered under the current safety, monitoring, and recovery standards.

Additionally, the majority of flight status information, telling to an aircraft's fate, is directly linked to the ability to recover an aircraft. Recovery hinges on a tight timeline--the longer it takes to establish information concerning the route and aircraft system configuration, the longer it will take to recover the aircraft.

The family and loved ones of airline passengers are entitled to receive frequent and reliable status updates just as soon as the information is available.

The availability of that information today is unduly dependent on technology that is in turn dependent upon the recovery of the aircraft but at the same time makes recovery efforts more difficult.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and a former Chair of its Transportation Security Subcommittee, I will continue to work with my colleagues, the Administration, and responsible officials in the aviation industry to ensure that technological weaknesses are corrected and to do all I can to ensure a terrible tragedy like that of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 never happens again. We owe the families and loved ones of the missing passengers and crew members at least that much.

Let me thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, and Mrs. Maloney for their leadership.

I was on the Crime Subcommittee as this bill was introduced. I was eager to see it work its will in that early timeframe in the backdrop of the courage of Debbie Smith. I also recognize Natasha Alexenko, who I understand is a constituent of Mr. Scott. Those were the early days in 2001 when we were finding out all over the Nation that rape kits were actually lost. My city was no different.

This is an important reauthorization because of the grant programs that are provided. In particular, the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act authorizes $151 million in grants for State and local DNA labs to address DNA backlogs. As I indicated, in my own hometown, we were faced with backlogs and lost kits as well.

The DNA training and technical assistance is extremely important, helping law enforcement, courts, and forensic scientists. For DNA training and technical assistance, $30 million is directed to Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner programs.

There is nothing more lonely than to be raped and then, on top of it, not see your case pursued.

I want to thank the Houston Area Women's Center, which involves itself in sexual violence against women, as well as Kathryn Griffin, who has worked with prostitutes and others who have actually been raped.

In Houston, decades-old rape kits that sat untested have identified at least one-third of potential offenders in cases where there was sufficient DNA, according to the Houston Police Department. And I congratulate the city of Houston. Combined with dollars from the Debbie Smith Reauthorization and the city's own investment, we now have a new DNA lab that is open and ready for business to ensure that the victims of crime and sexual assault are not left along the highway of despair. In my district alone, 6,600 rape kits have been cleared as of August 2013. That is an important step forward.

I also look forward to continuing to work on issues dealing with DNA of those who involve themselves in human trafficking in a national database.

I also want to give another reason why this is extremely important. As I left Houston, in my own congressional district, we found that, unfortunately, the State of Texas decided to put 23 violent sexual offenders in a neighborhood in what is called a halfway house. Those individuals are at the back side of their incarceration. Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is a dangerous set of circumstances when these individuals will be among children and women and be without the necessary security in a neighborhood.

And so this DNA for rape kits is one aspect of the need that is being addressed in helping women, again, not feel lonely and left without refuge and the ability to access justice.

I support H.R. 4323. I ask my colleagues to support it, and remember there is a larger and broader picture we must look at in order to address the violence against women.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of both the Judiciary Committee and a co-sponsor, I

rise in strong support of H.R. 4323, the ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2014,'' which reauthorizes three grant programs to address DNA backlogs and provide DNA training and technical assistance on local, state, and federal levels.

It is essential that these programs be reauthorized so that the backlog of unprocessed rape kits can be reduced and then eliminated and perpetrators of sexual assault crimes can be prosecuted and convicted.

There is an ever-present need to continue robust funding for programs such as the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program in order to make sure victims do not fall through the cracks of the system.

Women who have been raped have a right to expect police to thoroughly investigate the case and prosecute the offenders; however, many rape kits across the country are never even tested, and the perpetrators never face justice.

Mr. Speaker, the number of backlogged DNA samples was in excess of 100,000 nationwide as recently as January 2010.

H.R. 4323 reauthorizes for four years (until the end of fiscal year 2019) the following programs:

1. ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization'' ($151 million/fiscal year): grants for state and local DNA crime laboratories to address DNA backlogs and enhance their capacity.

2. DNA training and technical assistance ($12.5 million/fiscal year): directed to law enforcement, courts, forensic scientists, and corrections.

3. DNA training and technical assistance ($30 million/fiscal year): directed to sexual assault nurse examiner (``SANE'') programs.

In my congressional district, these grant programs have resulted in forensic laboratories being hired to clear much of the Houston Police Department's backlog of untested DNA benefit from this type of legislation.

Just within the past year, decades-old rape kits that sat untested in Houston have identified at least one-third of potential offenders in cases where there was sufficient DNA, according to the Houston Police Department.

In my district more than 6,600 rape kits have been cleared as of August 2013 because of the funding made possible by the grant programs that H.R. 4323 will reauthorize. This record of success highlights the importance and continuing need to provide adequate funding so law enforcement agencies can conduct necessary DNA testing and training.

Mr. Speaker, the DNA Initiative is an invaluable tool for law enforcement today, and it will continue to be a legislative priority of mine. That is why I am pleased to co-sponsor H.R. 4323 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting to approve this critically important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have always viewed the budget document that is produced by this House and the Senate and the President as a moral compass of America's commitment to her people.

That is why I rise with such great disappointment on the Republican Ryan budget in that today, as we speak in the Rules Committee, we are gutting investments in education, scientific research, advanced manufacturing. We are cutting from those vital transportation investments by over $52 billion when we have crumbling highways and crumbling dams and crumbling infrastructure. We are slashing $145 billion from the very heart of our children's opportunity for education out of the Pell grants, providing millionaires with over $200,000 in a tax break, ending Medicare as we know it by vouchering it--almost like the privatization of Social Security--and cutting Medicaid by $732 billion, then ending the opportunity for Americans to have access to affordable health care, preventative health care, so as to be able to allow those who need health care to have it--to avoid being a third world country.

There are 25 million Americans who need access to health care. Let's get a better moral document and reject this present Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, 46 years ago today, one of the greatest leaders in the history of our country was felled by an assassin's bullet in Memphis, Tennessee.

The assassin may have killed the dreamer, but he could not kill the dream because as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said in August 1963, the dream is ``deeply rooted'' in the American Dream.

The life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature.

So it is fitting that we pause to remember the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America.

It is proper that we remember the man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day.

Dr. King knew that it was not enough just to talk the talk, that he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible.

Dr. King walked the walk. He went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others. He knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway.

Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness.

``Life's most persistent and nagging question,'' he said, is ``what are you doing for others?''

And when Dr. King talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life:

I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther

King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said.

``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life .

. . to love and serve humanity.

Above all, Dr. King was always willing to speak truth to power.

When the life of Dr. Martin Luther King was stolen from us, he was a very young 39 years old.

People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few can remember why he was there.

On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers.

The garbage men there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions.

But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and billy clubs.

It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis.

Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse.

Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life.

The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life. That is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action.

It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace. It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled.

I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, who in the present, toil in times of unevenness in our equality.

For without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition.

It is for us, the living, to continue that fight today and forever, in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Let me thank the distinguished ranking member and the manager of this bill.

I want to associate myself with Mr. Van Hollen's analysis and add some other thoughts.

We are on the floor today, April 4, and might I make mention of two points that are not particularly related, but I do want to, again, acknowledge the men and women at Fort Hood, Texas.

I was there in 2009 to mourn with those families. Today, I mourn as well with those families whose loved ones have lost their lives and those who suffer. It is important for us as a Nation to be responsive to their needs. I know that we will do so in a bipartisan manner.

I also want to make mention that today is the date of the assassination of one of the greatest peacemakers in the world, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Besides his concern for those who did not have equal rights, he was also an economist, to the extent that his advocacy was to extinguish poverty.

The last days of his life were spent planning the Poor People's March in 1968 to raise incomes and the quality of life of men and women across America.

So I raise the question of where we are in 2014. This is not a conversation that we easily engage with our friends on the other side of the aisle.

As you are passing the budget resolution, the process that you are in, to my knowledge, there was no effort to include an increase to the minimum wage.

There was no effort to ensure that 164,000 persons in the State of Texas would get an unemployment insurance extension, thereby ceasing them from losing their homes or being evicted from their rental properties or literally not being able to support their families.

Now, we have on the floor of the House legislation that simply exacerbates the circumstance of those who are aspiring to be in the middle class. It is a push toward dynamic scoring.

Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the microeconomic effects of policy changes before they happen and continue to pop up everywhere. In fact, it was even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the supercommittee, which, by the way, with no condemnation, did not work. It could not get a common ground.

You would wonder why Republicans are pushing this dynamic scoring bill. It is because they claim the traditional cost estimates prepared by the CBO are not enough, when we have used the Congressional Budget Office for decades, and it has been an effective tool to balance between revenue and tax.

So you wonder why the dynamic scoring comes in because it breaks the backs of poor people and the middle class.

We believe that it is simply an attempt to force Congress and the CBO to accept this concept of dynamic scoring and promote the efforts of the Republicans to, again, give more tax cuts.

We know that tax cuts did not work. In the good intentions of the Bush administration, those tax cuts put us in the predicament we are in, after leaving the Clinton administration with a billion-dollar surplus and the ability to invest in infrastructure.

I remember the smiles on those citizens during that timeframe that the economy was turning.

In the context of this particular legislation, a budget bill led by Mr. Ryan has now given a $200,000 tax cut already to those who hold most of the wealth, but yet cutting Medicaid and cutting food stamps to give an opportunity for soldiers' families to be able to eat.

I am against this bill because I think CBO has an effective structure to give

us the information we need, and cutting taxes is not going to move America forward to be the greatest Nation in the world with research, with infrastructure rebuild, education, and good health care.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 1874, The Pro-Growth Budget Act of 2013.

My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as part of their macroeconomic analysis, estimates of the potential impact, if any, on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act.

My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUBZones, as defined in the Small Business Act.

In all actuality, Mr. Chairman, this bill could very well be entitled the Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Champions Act, because that's in essence what's going on here.

Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the macroeconomic effects of policy changes before they happen, and continues to pop up everywhere; in fact, even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the Super Committee.

Dynamic scoring finds its roots in the anti-tax movement. Dynamic scoring is problematic for the agencies that score and estimate the cost of legislation, and has been soundly rejected.

It is clear from the bill's language and approach that it is designed to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts.

The bill requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the economic impact of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach that involves more uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules.

None other than Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ``generally have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping. That has been part of the challenge of moving to something called dynamic scoring is that we have not found anything that was any more accurate than the current way.''

Believers in dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for themselves, generally by spurring so much economic growth, to the extent that revenues will actually increase. If I didn't know any better, Mr. Chairman, I'd think they were talking to us about trickle-down economics.

Mr. Chairman, where have we heard that before?

I recall that the Bush administration attempted to impose the use of dynamic scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves, sort of a trickle-down form of budgeting.

Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, but instead caused our national debt to explode. My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUBZones, as defined in the Small Business Act.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUBZone program.

The HUBZone program is a small business federal contracting assistance program ``whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities.''

It provides participating small businesses located in areas with low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of ``set-asides,'' sole-source awards, and price-evaluation preferences.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY2010, the federal government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded through the HUBZone program.

Mr. Chairman, that's the gist of my amendment--job creation--because that's what we should be talking about in this Committee today.

The Budget Committee has held hearings on the general topic of budget process reform and the recommendations crossed party lines. Former Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness, testified that, ``It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the tools are not even being used.''

Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that ``My main message is that most of the tools that you need to solve the budget problems faced by the country are already in your toolbox. If the goal is to deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, the most important thing to do is to make use of them, not search for more tools.''

Mr. Chairman, dynamic scoring is the wrong tool at the wrong time-- though--in the interest of fairness to the small businesses in distressed communities around this country, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, even though I have serious reservations about dynamic scoring.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise with the spirit of cooperation and recognition that there are definitive distinctions and differences of opinion on the underlying legislation. I am trying to make this bill better.

My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as part of their macroeconomic analysis, if this bill passes, estimates of the potential impact, if any, on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act. My amendment only seeks to look at the effects, should this measure pass, on HUBZones as defined in the Small Business Act.

In all actuality, Mr. Chairman, this bill could be entitled the ``Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Act.'' If that is the essence of the bill, we need to find the impact of it.

Dynamic scoring is an attempt measure that macroeconomic effects of policy changes before they happen. We want to know in the defined areas that deal with underserved areas all around America, in everyone's State, whether or not there is an impact on these important areas.

I believe that dynamic scoring has an impact on the outreach and the funding that we have to support the concept of a HUBZone, and therefore, my amendment is clear in its effort to make sure that those particular areas are in fact impacted.

The Small Business Administration administers several programs that support small businesses, including the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUBZone.

I recall that the Bush administration tried to use dynamic scoring to estimate the cost their tax cuts--asserting that tax cuts would increase revenue in sort of a trickle-down budgeting, but the question is, these smaller businesses that are attempting to thrive and impacted by Small Business Administration programs, how would this type of structure impact them.

The HUBZone program is a small business Federal contracting assistance program whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities.

That is an important responsibility, and it is an important goal for this Nation because we know that small businesses can help generate any number of jobs; and the assistance, I know, personally, to small business has been effective and productive.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 1874, The Pro-Growth Budget Act of 2013.

My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as part of their macroeconomic analysis, estimates of the potential impact, if any, on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act.

My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUB Zones, as defined in the Small Business Act.

In all actuality, Mr. Chair, this bill could very well be entitled the, Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Champions Act, because that's in essence what's going on here.

Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the macroeconomic effects of policy changes before they happen, and continues to pop up everywhere; in fact, even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the Super Committee.

Dynamic scoring finds its roots in the anti-tax movement. Dynamic scoring is problematic for the agencies that score and estimate the cost of legislation, and has been soundly rejected.

It is clear from the bill's language and approach that it is designed to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts.

The bill requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the economic impact of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach that involves more uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules.

None other than Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ``generally have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping.

That has been part of the challenge of moving to something called dynamic scoring is that we have not found anything that was any more accurate than the current way.''

Believers in dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for themselves, generally by spurring so much economic growth, to the extent that revenues will actually increase. If I didn't know any better Mr. Chair, I'd think they were talking to us about trickle-down economics.

Mr. Chair, where have we heard that before?

I recall that the Bush administration attempted to impose the use of dynamic scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves, sort of a trickle-down form of budgeting.

Unfortunately Mr. Chair, the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, but instead caused our national debt to explode. My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUBZones, as defined in the Small Business Act.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUBZone program.

The HUBZone program is a small business federal contracting assistance program

``whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities.''

It provides participating small businesses located in areas with low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of ``set-asides,'' sole-source awards, and price-evaluation preferences.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY2010, the Federal Government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded through the HUBZone program.

Mr. Chair, that's the gist of my amendment--job creation--because that's what we should be talking about in this Committee today.

The Budget Committee has held hearings on the general topic of budget process reform and the recommendations crossed party lines. Former Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness, testified that, ``It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the tools are not even being used.''

Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that, ``My main message is that most of the tools that you need to solve the budget problems faced by the country are already in your toolbox. If the goal is to deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, the most important thing to do is to make use of them, not search for more tools.''

Mr. Chair, dynamic scoring is the wrong tool at the wrong time-- though--in the interest of fairness to the small businesses in distressed communities around this country, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, even though I have serious reservations about dynamic scoring.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the full Budget Committee and thank him again for his leadership.

I thank the gentleman for his astute comments and build on the comments made by the ranking member.

Let me put into the record that the Congressional Research Service, in FY2010, the Federal Government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded through the HUBZone program. That is an investment in small business. That is the creation of jobs.

Mr. Chairman, the gist of my amendment is jobs and what will be the impact of this type of budget structuring on the HUBZones. Why wouldn't we want that information?

Let me quote former Budget chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness who testified:

It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not

be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the

fact that the tools are not even being used.

If you are going to add more responsibilities to the CBO, give them additional tools to assess who the job-creating small businesses are going to be impacted by this bill.

Dr. Philip Joyce, former CBO staff member, said:

My main message is that most of the tools that you need to

solve the budget problems faced by the country are already in

your toolbox.

Therefore, I am saying if we are putting another tool in the toolbox, if this bill passes, then give them the ability to make sure that we are not killing small businesses that are impacted by the HUBZone funding and assistance.

We already see that small businesses create jobs. I would make the argument to my colleagues, and I thank Dr. Price for his earlier kind words about the gist of this legislation, and I would ask for his reconsideration. This is a good amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support it. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Jackson Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to not only recognize but also honor Ms. Lauryn Williams for her extraordinary Olympic achievements and leadership.

Lauryn Williams is one of the greatest athletes in the history of track and field; a three-time Olympian, the Silver Medalist in the 100 meters at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens and a member of the team that won the Gold Medal in the 4 100 meters relay at 2012 Olympic Games in London.

As a collegian at the University of Miami from which she graduated with a B.A. in Finance, Lauryn Williams won the 100 meters at the 2004 NCAA Championship and followed that performance the next year by winning the Gold Medal in the 100 meters at the 2005 World Championship Games in Helsinki, Finland.

She solidified her place at the top of her sport in 2006 by winning Silver medals in the 6o meters at both the World Indoor Championships and the U.S. Championship.

In 2004, Lauryn Williams ran the fastest legal-wind time and the second fastest time in the world that year. She was named the 2004 Big East Most Outstanding Performer and honored as the 2004 Athlete of the Year by the Sports Council.

In 2007, at the World Championships in Osaka, Lauryn Williams once again showed that she is one the best. Using great form and her will to succeed, she took the Silver medal in one of the closest finishes ever seen in the history of track and field.

Lauryn Williams is one of only five persons in history to medal in both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games.

In December 2013, Lauryn Williams embarked upon the World Cup Race Circuit and won 2 silver and 1 gold medal in the four races.

In January 2014, she was named to the USA Olympic Bobsled Team representing the United States with just six (6) total months of participation in the sport.

Paired with Elana Meyers in the BMW USA-1 sled, Lauryn Williams won the Silver medal at the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia, missing out on winning the Gold Medal by a mere 0.10 second.

As a three-time Olympian, Lauryn Williams knows the hard work and dedication required to take bobsled to the next level and bring home a medal; she has a work ethic matched by few.

From an early age, her parents stressed the importance of education and the message stuck. While succeeding on the track, she also succeeded and excelled in the classroom.

She received her Bachelor of Science in Finance from the University of Miami in 2004, and even gave the commencement address at her own graduation. She also obtained a Florida Real Estate Sale Associate license in 2006.

Additionally, during the 2008 Olympic year, while training full time to make the Olympic team, she also managed to simultaneously work on a Master of Business Administration degree, which she received from the University of Phoenix, AZ in 2009.

Recently, Lauryn Williams was struck with a passion for empowering athletes with financial literacy and stability so she completed the course work for Certified Financial Planning and will soon take the exam for CFP certification.

After Lauryn Williams returned home from the Sochi Olympic Games, she turned her focus to working with Olympians and other athletes to improve their financial literacy and stability in an effort to continue making a difference in the sporting world.

Lauryn's inspiring story of hard work, dedication and perseverance will motivate and inspire people of all ages.

Mr. Speaker, Lauryn Williams has been the recipient of many honors, including: Pennsylvania Sportswoman of the Decade 2009; member Iron Arrow Honor Society, highest honor attainable at The University of Miami; Jefferson Award for Public Service Dream Team 2009; Miami Alumni Association William R. Butler Community Service Award 2008; Women in Sports Foundation honoree 2007; Visa Humanitarian 2006; Dapper Dan Sports woman of the year 2005; Runner's World-Hero of Running 2005; University of Miami Athletic Department Community Service Award 2002- 2003.

Mr. Speaker, as an athlete Lauryn Williams represented our country with skill and grace and excellence and has earned the respect and affection of millions around the world. I take pride in saluting the remarkable achievements of this remarkable woman and world class athlete.

Mr. Speaker, all across America and around the world, the men and women in the United States military serve us and serve us well.

Would you wonder whether or not their families back home would be eligible for an increase in the minimum wage?

Their families may be blue-collar workers or workers in the service industries, and here they are, willing to sacrifice their lives, and we here in the United States Congress won't raise the minimum wage to $10.10. What an outrage. Even the possible compromise that is percolating around has the audacity to suggest that $7.25 is okay, that we will raise it just a little bit. But you don't understand the facts: $10.10 is over a 3-year period.

Then today, on the floor of the House, a brilliant idea. H.R. 2575, I believe is the name. This one wants to eliminate the opportunity of those who are working 30 hours a week to get health care. Across the way, in the Budget hearing, the Republican budget is cutting trillions of dollars in social services and Medicaid.

Raise the minimum wage. Take the American people off of social needs, social assistance. Stop the tomfoolery of turning this country backwards.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2575, the so-called ``Save American Workers Act of 2014,'' which represents the 52nd attempt by House Republicans to impede the Affordable Care Act and deny Americans the security that comes from having access to affordable, high-quality health care.

I oppose this bill because its effect would be to deny employer provided health insurance to hard working employees who work more than 30 hours but less than 40 hours per week.

If this bill were to become law in its current form, the health security of 10.2 percent of the workforce, or approximately 19.8 million workers, would be placed at risk.

I offered two amendments to H.R. 2575 that would prevent this travesty but regrettably neither was made in order by the Rules Committee.

Jackson Lee Amendment #1 would have improved this bad bill by amending the bill's 40 hour work week definition to include the employee's average commuting time in the computation of hours worked for purposes of determining ``full-time employment.''

Commuting time has become a major issue for those who work hourly wage jobs because their workday is much longer.

According to the Bureau of the Census nearly 8.1% of American workers commute 60 minutes or longer.

In 2011, almost 600,000 full-time workers had ``mega-commutes'' of at least 90 minutes and travel 50 miles or more from their homes. The daily average one-way travel to work for employees nationally is 25.5 minutes, and 1 out of 4 workers cross county lines to reach their jobs.

Jackson Lee Amendment #2 would have amended the bill by delaying the effective date of the bill until the first month after there has been two consecutive quarters in which the national unemployment rate is below 5 percent, which would indicate the nation has reached a full employment economy.

Our nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that health insurance is a personal responsibility with the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. The law did not automatically enroll all citizens into the program because it was specifically designed to be an opt-in process.

This week all over the nation, over 4 millions of Americans took the first step toward taking control of their lives by purchasing their first personal or family health insurance policy.

Over the course of the sign-up process for the Affordable Care Act tens of thousands of visitors each day shopped the website and over 7.1 million people were added to private insurance roles as customers or have enrolled into Medicaid.

Despite problems with the initial rollout of the online health insurance registration process, people were patient and persistent about getting coverage for themselves and their families.

I have held many events in my District to inform and connect people with Navigators and Community Health Centers to support the message that it was time to get health insurance for yourself and your family.

Why with 60 legislative days remaining in the Second Session of the 113th Congress before the end of the 2014 fiscal year, we are still seeing attempts to end the Affordable Care Act is a mystery to the American public who are voting with their own healthcare dollars for Obamacare.

H.R. 2575 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code by redefining a full time employee for purposes of providing health insurance to only those workers who work a 40-hour workweek.

Mr. Speaker, few hourly workers in low-wage jobs work a 40-hour work week. These employees often rely on government assistance, which amounts to a hidden tax break to employers.

Low wageworkers often rely upon public housing assistance, SNAP, WIC or Medicaid to make ends meet.

Health insurance should not be used as a status symbol, but a basic right for people who live in the world's most prosperous nation.

I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause havoc on the nation's health care system, but it is not the ACA that is causing havoc--it is a small vocal minority within the majority part that is causing headaches and heartaches to doctors and their patients.

I ask that my colleagues to join me in protecting workers by voting down this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his leadership and years of service and his understanding of this issue.

I heard his debate on the floor of the House, which would drive many of us as Members of Congress to come and join you because of the literalness and the straightforwardness of your argument.

Frankly, I think that is the challenge we have this afternoon, wondering how many Americans even understand what we are doing because it is a numbers game. I have heard the stories of my colleagues, and I am absolutely empathetic, and I am sympathetic.

All of us have young people working, single parents working, husband and wife working. Maybe there are two working in a grocery store.

I think the problem with this legislation is that we are giving a pass to businesses who, in actuality, we are providing them with an opportunity to provide enhanced benefits to their hardworking workers.

This is a threshold question. The Affordable Care Act defined a full- time job as 30 hours. So it means that if you have 50 employees that are at 30 hours or above, you provide them with health insurance. But let me remind you, it is the Affordable Care Act. That means that these individuals, if you don't provide them, you have the opportunity to get into a pool or you can find insurance that fits that level of 50 workers. This does not apply if you have one worker; it doesn't apply if you have two workers. It is a threshold.

So what my friends are telling me is that, if you can afford 50 workers, you are dead broke. Then you have to take that 50th worker and drive him or her into the ground and leave them crawling out of your business at 29\1/2\ or 28 simply because you don't want to do the right thing. That is why this bill is so baffling.

In the Rules Committee, I offered two amendments to try to make it better to indicate that commuting time would be included as part of your 40 hours, or that we should delay this bill until we fully appreciate and understand the overall impact of whether or not it, in fact, undermines hardworking Americans who are in hardworking businesses. We are just passing this bill and have no clue as to whether or not this is going to be something that undermines businesses that have 50 employees.

Now, this is the backdrop of what they are doing. I even offered the point, Mr. Rangel, of why not a tax incentive so that these businesses with 50 employees can keep the 50 employees at 30 hours and get a benefit for providing them with health insurance; and when I say that, one that is pointed to the fact that you have 50 employees and you are willing to give insurance. As it is now, we know that the individual employees will get tax relief.

But 7 million people have enrolled, Mr. Speaker. The fact that we had a record-breaking access to the Affordable Care Act, or interest, this bill seems to be the complete wrong direction to go. It is wrongheaded. I would ask my colleagues to vote against the bill that destroys the working people of America and puts them on their knees to work less hours.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2575, the so-called ``Save American Workers Act of 2014.''

This bill represents the 52nd time that House Republicans have tried to scuttle or impede the Affordable Care Act and deny Americans the security that comes from having access to affordable, high-quality health care.

Their record to date is 0-51.

The Affordable Care Act, which has been passed by both the House and Senate, signed by President, upheld by the Supreme Court, and ratified by the voters in the 2012 presidential election, is here to stay.

It is long past time that House Republicans abandon their quixotic quest to derail a law that is bring so much peace of mind to millions of Americans and will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion.

The Affordable Care Act is working. For example, in my State of Texas:

1. 5,198,000 individuals on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In the first eleven months of 2013 alone, an additional 1,683,800 people with Medicare have received at least one preventive service at no out of pocket cost.

2. The up to 10,695,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children-- will no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history.

3. Approximately 5,189,000 Texans have gained expanded mental health and substance use disorder benefits and/or federal parity protections.

4. 4,889,000 uninsured Texans will have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the Marketplace.

5. As a result of new policies that make sure premium dollars work for the consumer, not just the insurer, in the past year insurance companies have sent rebates averaging $95 per family to approximately 726,200 consumers.

6. In the first ten months of 2013, 233,100 seniors and people with disabilities have saved on average $866 on prescription medications as the health care law closes Medicare's so-called ``donut hole.''

7. 357,000 young adults have gained health insurance because they can now stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.

8. Individuals no longer have to worry about having their health benefits cut off after they reach a lifetime limit on benefits, and since in January, 7,536,000 Texans will no longer have had to worry about annual limits, either.

9. Health centers have received $293,038,000 to provide primary care, establish new sites, and renovate existing centers to expand access to quality health care. Texas has approximately 400 health center sites, which served about 1,079,000 individuals in 2012.

I oppose this bill because its effect would be to deny employer provided health insurance to hard working employees who work more than 30 hours but less than 40 hours per week.

If this bill were to become law in its current form, the health security of 10.2 percent of the workforce, or approximately 19.8 million workers, would be placed at risk.

I offered two amendments to H.R. 2575 that would prevent this travesty but regrettably neither was made in order by the Rules Committee.

Jackson Lee Amendment #1 would have improved this bad bill by amending the bill's 40-hour work week definition to include the employee's average commuting time in the computation of hours worked for purposes of determining ``full-time employment.''

Commuting time has become a major issue for those who work hourly wage jobs because their workday is much longer.

According to the Bureau of the Census nearly 8.1 percent of American workers commute 60 minutes or longer.

In 2011, almost 600,000 full-time workers had ``mega-commutes'' of at least 90 minutes and travel 50 miles or more from their homes. The daily average one-way travel to work for employees nationally is 25.5 minutes, and 1 out of 4 workers cross county lines to reach their jobs.

Jackson Lee Amendment #2 would have amended the bill by delaying the effective date of the bill until the first month after there has been two consecutive quarters in which the national unemployment rate is below 5 percent, which would indicate the Nation has reached a full employment economy.

Our Nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that health insurance is a personal responsibility with the enactment of

the Affordable Care Act. The law did not automatically enroll all citizens into the program because it was specifically designed to be an opt-in process.

This week all over the Nation, over 4 millions of Americans took the first step toward taking control of their lives by purchasing their first personal or family health insurance policy.

Over the course of the sign-up process for the Affordable Care Act tens of thousands of visitors each day shopped the website and over 7.1 million people were added to private insurance roles as customers or have enrolled into Medicaid.

Despite problems with the initial rollout of the online health insurance registration process, people were patient and persistent about getting coverage for themselves and their families.

I have held many events in my District to inform and connect people with Navigators and Community Health Centers to support the message that it was time to get health insurance for yourself and your family.

Why with 60 legislative days remaining in the Second Session of the 113th Congress before the end of the 2014 fiscal year, we are still seeing attempts to end the Affordable Care Act is a mystery to the American public who are voting with their own healthcare dollars for Obamacare.

H.R. 2575 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code by redefining a full-time employee for purposes of providing health insurance to only those workers who work a 40-hour work week.

Mr. Speaker, few hourly workers in low-wage jobs work a 40-hour work week. These employees often rely on government assistance, which amounts to a hidden tax break to employers.

Low wageworkers often rely upon public housing assistance, SNAP, WIC, or Medicaid to make ends meet.

Health insurance should not be used as a status symbol, but a basic right for people who live in the world's most prosperous nation.

I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause havoc on the Nation's health care system, but it is not the ACA that is causing havoc--it is a small vocal minority within the majority party that is causing headaches and heartaches to doctors and their patients.

I ask that my colleagues to join me in protecting workers by voting down this rule and the underlying bill.

Let me thank the convener of this Special Order and the colleagues I have heard since I have come to the floor, like Congresswoman Sanchez.

Congressman Castro, thank you very much. Coming from similar territory--the State of Texas--I just hope that you will allow me, just for a moment, to juxtapose the present pending bill on the floor.

I heard you speak of the bill, H.R. 2575, as well, and with all due respect to the proponent of the bill, it is confusing. It is confusing in the backdrop of the number that you have standing alongside of you, 7 million Americans and growing.

Because there were many Americans who were in the queue--in the line, when March 31 came, and because of President Obama, they will now have extended the opportunity to finish the work, and I was with a lot of navigators and people enrolling over the weekend. They were excited about being able to finish the task.

In Texas alone, that was the epicenter of unemployed. I keep saying, ``unemployed.'' Certainly, it has unemployed persons as well. There are 164,000 without unemployment insurance, which really is what baffles me about this effort at repeal and this effort of determining that, with 30 hours of hard work, you can't get health insurance.

In the State of Texas, 5.198 million individuals on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one preventative health care service, such as mammograms, birth control, and immunizations. That is for people with private insurance.

Also, 10.695 million individuals with preexisting conditions like asthma, cancer, or diabetes, including 1.6 children, will no longer have to be worried about being denied coverage in our own State alone.

As well, 5.189 million Texans have gained expanded mental health and substance abuse or use disorder benefits, and 4 million-plus uninsured Texans will have new health insurance options through the idea of going into the marketplace.

Also, 233,000 seniors and people with disabilities have saved $866 in prescription medications, and 357,000 young adults have gained health insurance, and 7 million Texans will no longer have to worry about annual limits. That is, of course, those who are uninsured and who can access the new Affordable Care Act insurance.

The other point is that, over these last 2 days, we have seen the reality of Americans clamoring for health insurance, with 4 million people accessing the healthcare.gov Web site.

And let me make this as breaking news--because this is what we were hearing from those opposing it--80 to 85 percent of those who have enrolled have paid their first premium. This is not a story of I have enrolled and you never hear from me again; this is a story of serious decisions being made by serious persons.

Let me offer, as well, some of the tragedies over the years--and I am very pleased to have cast that vote for the Affordable Care Act. I have been to any number of townhall meetings to share it with my constituents, some of whom who did not understand or agree.

In the course of the hearings, I have heard of so many stories that we don't repeat anymore, like the little girl that had leukemia. Her parents took her over and over again to the insurance company to get the opportunity for her to be covered. She had a preexisting disease. She had no coverage. She ultimately lost her life.

I believe--I don't want to call up facts that are not accurate--they even took her to the insurance company's office to plead for her to be covered. It was at that point near the end of her life, which she shortly thereafter lost.

We have the mother who came to us and said yes, her son had a difficult history. He was a trained lawyer. He was doing pro bono work. He was in Atlanta, Georgia. Frankly, he had gotten hepatitis. Because he had no health care, the only coverage he could get was from going into an emergency room. He had waited too long.

He was going into the emergency room, being the only source of health care. If he had had the ability to go to a doctor, in spite of his history of drug abuse at that time--a trained lawyer--he would have been able to maintain his life.

My last one is the issue of a young resident who took a summer position in Atlanta, Georgia, but his health care was in a 25-mile perimeter around Washington, D.C.

He fell ill with kidney disease during that summer. His father was a doctor. He was a student. He didn't have the ability to stay on his parents' insurance. His insurance was a school-based insurance that said it could only be around the school.

Congressman, his father had to drive hours to pick him up and put him in his car and pray for his survival and get him back into the perimeter of his health insurance.

This is what we lived with before the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and before the President ultimately signed it, and so I am baffled as to why, for the 52nd time, there is an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act with H.R. 2575.

Let me just say that the importance of this Special Order is to emphasize whose side Members are on. I am on

the side of those who are clamoring for good health care and who have children who need good health care. I am on the side of those who need the expanded Medicaid and ask the State of Texas to do it.

As I close, just on this bill, H.R. 2575, I am still trying to understand what it means to tell someone who works full time, 30 hours a week, in a company that has 50 employees, that you cannot get health care.

So to the employers out there, frankly, I believe that some people are speaking for you that may not be really speaking for you. Because when you pay your employees and they get health care, they have more cash to buy your goods.

More people have income to come back to the grocery store, come back to the restaurant, come to the small clothing store, or to buy flowers.

Why would you deny employees health care so that they can get sick, go to the emergency room, and have days off? It doesn't make sense.

I think this bill is way before its time. There is no evidence that we need to reduce the hours of working Americans. There is evidence that we should pass unemployment insurance for those who are chronically unemployed. We need to do that.

There is evidence to raise the minimum wage, but there is no evidence that this is a problem of catastrophic moment that we are debating it for 4 hours on the floor.

So I want to congratulate the gentleman for his leadership on this question.

Thank you.

If I could just make one final point. First of all, I am excited about the embracing by new Members like yourself who came out of State legislatures and knew how difficult it was to provide health insurance for our fellow Texans. But the embrace that you are now offering is one that gives us confidence that it will not be repealed, even though this is the 52nd time that it has been offered to repeal.

I just want to leave these facts for you as you continue your debate. This is a values question. This is a fairness question.

As you stand on the floor right now, the Budget Committee is meeting, with a budget as its underpinning, the underlying bill, that will give millionaires a $200,000 tax cut, and yet we have a bill here on the floor that wants to take the living substance from under the feet of workers working 30 hours a week, that gives them the stability and the confidence that they have health insurance for companies that are 50 and above, 50 persons and above. That is not a small company. I can tell you, I would ask that employer: Are you going to get rid of Mrs. Smith, who has given you 10 years of hard work, and put her at 29 hours because you don't want to give Mrs. Smith health insurance?

I think we are on the right side of the issue on this. The Affordable Care Act has helped seniors, it has helped single parents, it has helped individuals with preexisting disease, and it has helped young people who have surged into buying it. We should continue to embrace it and recognize that it has a value and it is going to turn lives.

My message to our Governor, if I can end on this note: Governor Perry, it is time to opt into the expanded Medicaid, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, which will give millions of others in the State of Texas their opportunity to benefit from good health care-- being healthy and being able to work.

That is our challenge, and I look forward to working with you on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding, and I thank the manager of this legislation.

I rise with an appreciation for this legislation and also a concern. I think this legislation would have been important to have been referred and for the waiver not to be exercised to the Homeland Security Committee.

I serve as the ranking member on the Border Security and Maritime Security Committee, and it is known that the Coast Guard has a responsibility for defending the Nation's maritime borders. It is charged with port waterway and coastal security.

With that in mind, it would be appropriate to address those questions of Homeland Security. I notice that this bill limits and reduces the number of commissioned officers, alters the mission of Coast Guard centers, and did not come before our committee.

At a hearing on the oil spill in Houston, which has an impact on America's waterways, particularly around the gulf region and has an impact on security, it was clear that the Coast Guard were the first responders. They were the first responders in terms of the potential rescue. They were the first responders in terms of being the cops of the waterway, to ensure that all of those who needed to use that waterway and the ports were able do so. They were the ones that protected the individuals that were on cruise lines that were left offshore, and they were, of course, taking care of commerce. This is clearly part of the responsibility of Homeland Security.

As I indicated, we are very proud of the Coast Guard. I am always reminded of the great service they rendered during Hurricane Katrina, saving over 1,000 persons.

I rise today to hope that we will have an opportunity to address the questions dealing with security. As I do so, however, I want to commend Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., who is a commandant now of the United States Coast Guard, 24th United States Coast Guard Commandant and has served 39 years. Let us salute this great American.

Commandant Papp is a great American. He has been a friend to not only those of us in the United States Congress who are on the responsible committees, but he has been a friend to his men and women that serve in the United States Coast Guard.

Commandant Papp, we salute you for your grand service and look forward to your continued service to America, but more importantly, we owe you a great deal of respect and honor. Thank you so very much.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak with reservations regarding the consideration of H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act under a suspension because the bill establishes appropriations limits; reduces the number of commissioned officers; alters the mission of Coast Guard Centers; and did not come before the Homeland Security Committee under a sequential referral.

The bill before the House accomplishes several goals that may have been shared by the House Transportation Committee and the House Committee on Homeland Security, but it also addresses areas that should have had more deliberation before coming to the House Floor for a vote with no opportunity to amend the legislation.

On February 11, 2014, as Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I joined Ranking Member of the Full Homeland Security Committee Bennie Thompson in writing to urge a sequential referral of H.R. 4005, the ``Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014.''

We were disappointed with the decision of the Homeland Security's Chair and Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security to waive the Committee's right to a sequential referral of this important homeland security legislation.

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is charged with port, waterway, and coastal security, putting them on the forefront of defending the Nation's maritime borders.

On March 25, 2014, I participated in the hearing held by the Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communication when FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate testified.

One of the provisions of H.R. 4005 would prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from making a determination that a waterway is navigable for purposes of the Coast Guard's jurisdiction without conducting a rulemaking under appropriate administrative procedures.

This provision of H.R. 4005 could have huge repercussions in an emergency related to a waterway's safety.

I raised the issue with Administrator Fugate regarding the critical role of the Coast Guard in making sure that our ports and waterways are navigable because of the 168,000 gallons of oil spilled due to a tugboat accident into the Port of Houston which led to a shutdown.

The Port of Houston is critical infrastructure:

According to the Department of Commerce in 2012, Texas exports totaled $265 billion.

The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2012 ship channel-related businesses contribute 1,026,820 jobs and generate more than $178.5 billion in statewide economic impact.

For the past 11 consecutive years, Texas has outpaced the rest of the country in exports.

First ranked U.S. port in foreign tonnage;

Second ranked U.S. port in total tonnage;

Seventh ranked U.S. container port by total TEUs in 2012;

Largest Texas port with 46 percent of market share by tonnage;

Largest Texas container port with 96 percent market share in containers by total TEUs in 2012;

Largest Gulf Coast container port, handling 67 percent of U.S. Gulf Coast container traffic in 2012;

Second ranked U.S. port in terms of cargo value (based on CBP Customs port definitions).

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), reports that this port, and its waterways, and vessels are part of an economic engine handling more than $700 billion in merchandise annually.

The Port of Houston houses approximately 100 steamship lines offering services that link Houston with 1,053 ports in 203 countries.

The Port of Houston has $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest worldwide.

The bill does establish rules for the Coast Guard engaging in ice patrol agreements with other nations and the need to establish reimbursement agreements prior to the commitment of resources in ice patrols.

The bill provides for compensation of ship owners and operators who provide necessary support to seafarers paroled into the United States to facilitate investigations, reporting, documentation, or adjudications.

The bill also addresses the definition of ``high-risk waters,'' for the purpose of determining when owners and operators of U.S. vessels carrying government-impelled cargo are to be reimbursed for the cost of providing armed on-board safety personnel.

Since being established as a standing committee in the 109th Congress, the Homeland Security Committee has failed to receive a referral of a bill authorizing the Coast Guard only during periods of Republican control of the House of Representatives.

In contrast, during the 110th and 111th Congresses, during our time in the Majority, we insisted that both bills authorizing the Coast Guard be referred to the Committee.

Given the critical role the Coast Guard plays in ensuring the security of our ports and maritime system the Homeland Security Committee should never waive its right to consider legislation directly related to homeland security. The Committee on Homeland Security had no chance to provide valuable input in the drafting of H.R. 4005.

H.R. 4005, is an important bill that should have had the attention of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and if not members should have had an opportunity to offer amendments during full House Consideration of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 92, which authorizes the use of the Capitol grounds for the National Peace Officers Memorial Service and the National Honor Guard and Pipe Band Exhibition. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this.

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial is the nation's monument to law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty.

Dedicated on October 15, 1991, the Memorial honors federal, state and local law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety and protection of our nation and its people. Carved on its walls are the names of 19,981 officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history, dating back to the first known death in 1791.

Enshrined on the Memorial Wall of Honor are the names of 1,653 fallen peace officers from the state of Texas, the most of any state, including 114 members of the Houston Police Department who gave their lives to keep their city safe. I ask unanimous consent to include a list of these fallen heroes from Houston, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, today there are more than 900,000 law enforcement personnel serving the people of our country, the highest amount ever. About 12 percent of them are female.

These brave men and women risk their lives to keep the peace and keep us safe but they are too often taken by the violence they are working to prevent. Every year, a law enforcement officer is killed somewhere in the United States every 57 hours, and there are also 58,261 assaults against our law officers each year, resulting in 15,658 injuries.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Law Enforcement Caucus I am proud to represent the people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas in paying tribute to the 321 fallen heroes who will be joining the 19,981 gallant men and women who gave the last full measure of devotion to the communities they took an oath to protect and serve.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence in memory of the officers whose names will be added to the National Peace Officers Memorial Wall of Honor.

Mr. Speaker, they said it couldn't be done, but as of yesterday and early this morning, 7,000,041 individuals here in the United States accessed and enrolled in the Affordable Care Act.

Is it working? Do people want health care? Yes, they do. Do they want access to the Affordable Care Act? Yes, they do. These numbers will probably grow when the State exchanges begin to report their various individuals that enrolled under their system.

In the State of Texas, going all the way from last week until the lines around Reliant Stadium, to individuals staying until 10 o'clock at the Community of Faith Church, which I was at with Bishop James Dixon, to the Harris County Department of Education and 500 or 600 there, yes, we want affordable care and the Affordable Care Act to give health care to all Americans.

Now, we need to tell the States that you have left out millions of those who could benefit from the expanded Medicaid. I ask Governor Perry of the State of Texas to stop denying the millions of Texans who would be eligible under the expanded Medicaid to have health insurance. Stop denying them health insurance. This is a celebration. More will come, and it is good to know that the work that was done is benefiting Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 4302, the so-called ``Protecting Access to Medicare Act,'' which extends current Medicare physician reimbursement rates for one year.

I strongly support providing adequate compensation to our physicians who serve Medicare patients. Medicare patients in every state make up 10% or more of those who have health insurance.

I oppose H.R. 4302 because it does not provide a long-term fix for Medicare payments to physicians, and the misvalued services under the physician payment system has not been addressed.

The core purpose of the bill is found in its name, the ``Sustainable Growth Rate,'' but that purpose is not being met because the reimbursement rate to physicians is not sustainable for a robust medical care safety net for our nation's seniors.

CMS has made changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and other Medicare payment policies to improve efficiency and accuracy in Medicare payment and the quality of care for our beneficiaries.

CMS has improved payment for primary care services, while enhancing efforts to address payment for misvalued services under the physician payment system.

CMS has begun to implement important delivery system reforms included in the Affordable Care Act, which includes the value-based payment modifier that provides incentives for physicians and physician groups to furnish high-quality, efficient care.

Congress needs to do its part in implementing a reimbursement rate that reflects the reality of providing the care our nation's seniors need and expect.

Medicare patients and the medical payments made to their physicians and medical service providers' is critical to our nation's health care economy.

It is important for our seniors to know that Medicare will be there when they need it. But it is equally important that there are physicians who are willing to attend to them without going broke.

That is why we have a Sustainable Growth Rate or ``SGR.'' Medicare reimbursement enables rural physicians and hospitals to remain open for business.

This bill should not impose another round of arbitrary provider payment reductions to maintain a dysfunctional policy that many member of this House knows should be ended.

This bill undermines the future passage of the framework that was part of the original bipartisan SGR bill that the House had the chance to vote on earlier this month.

We should return to that bill and pass it without any gimmicks so that the modernization of the Medicare health care delivery and payment innovations that can strengthen the program can be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I have always strongly supported providing adequate compensation to our physicians who serve Medicare patients because it is important for our seniors to know that Medicare will be there when they need it.

Thus, it is critical that we not disrupt timely and adequate payment to Medicare providers.

The bill before us will provide payment certainty for one year, but only for one year. This is not acceptable--if we do not press the issue of reform now--when will it be addressed?

This is better than nothing but what must really be done to provide our seniors and physicians the certainty and security they deserve is to reach an agreement on a permanent replacement for the SGR that is fair, responsible, and fiscally sustainable.

Instead of wasting time trying to repeal, impede, or undermine the Affordable Care Act, or making it more difficult for physicians who care for the elderly we should be working together to reach an agreement on a permanent replacement for the SGR and the $138 billion in offsets needed to pay for that legislation.

That is what the American people sent us here to do.