Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the managers of this legislation, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for their leadership and for their commitment, as I acknowledge the other body as well.

This morning, a bright announcement came from Mr. Putin that he was drawing Russians to a program of exercise in the name of labor and defense. Someone said it is reminiscent of past history, when other despots drew their Nation together in massive public exercises to show the world that they were not going to be part of the world order.

I believe in peace. I believe that we should be engaged, that diplomacy is right. I also don't believe in condemnation of a Nation purely for its ideological disagreement.

In this instance, it is important for the United States to make a public stand. As a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Exchange, meeting with Europeans over the years, I know that they are proud of the democracy that they have maintained since the horrors of World War II.

Today, the United States, with the passage of this legislation, and ultimately hopefully the signing by the President, will tell the world that the United States stands firmly with its own democratic principles. But the people of Ukraine, those in Kiev and places around, will still have the knowledge that America stands by it economically, with loan guarantees, but it also stands against a despot who has illegally moved into a sovereign Nation, with no provocation, undermining the military base of Ukraine. So I would ask my colleagues to join against a despot and for a people and support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4278, the ``Ukraine Support Act.'' I support this legislation because I stand in solidarity with the freedom loving people of Ukraine, who are under siege from Russian encroachment.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4278 authorizes $70 million in aid to Ukraine, including $50 million for democracy and civil society efforts.

The bill also codifies and expands sanctions imposed this month by the Obama Administration against certain Russian officials and calls on President Obama to sanction Russian officials, corporations and those engaged in the Russian arms sector who have undermined the Ukrainian government or committed human rights abuses. The President is also authorized to examine whether Russia has violated a 1988 arms treaty and permits him to freeze assets and deny visas.

Specifically, the bill authorizes $50 million for the President to provide assistance to support democracy and strengthen civil society in Ukraine. This assistance is to be used to improve transparency, rule of law, and anti-corruption efforts; strengthen political organizations; and protect independent media as Ukraine prepares for free and fair elections in May.

Additionally, up to $10 million is authorized for Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty and Voice of America to increase broadcasts into eastern Ukraine (including Crimea), Moldova and other nearby ethnic Russian communities. The broadcasts should, in particular, counter misinformation from Russia-supported news outlets.

In addition to this direct aid, the bill also supports the people of Ukraine in the following ways:

1. Encourages the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to prioritize investments in Ukraine;

2. Authorizes $8 million to help Ukraine develop an independent judiciary and eliminate human rights abuses by law enforcement authorities;

3. Encourages increased U.S. security cooperation among NATO states in Central and Eastern Europe through military training, exercises and the exchange of defense articles, and directs the Secretary of State to report to Congress within 30 days of enactment with a review of U.S. security assistance to that country;

4. Expresses the sense of Congress that the administration should provide expedited assistance to the Ukrainian government to identify and recover assets stolen from the government or linked to corruption by former officials, including former President Viktor Yanukovych; and

5. Offsets the cost of assistance to Ukraine by reducing the $1.5 billion authorized for Pakistan in the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 by $70 million.

That is why I strongly support the codification of three Presidential executive orders issued in March sanctioning individuals involved in the violence in Ukraine or who undermine the independence, sovereignty, or territorial or economic integrity of Ukraine. Such sanctions could include the seizure of financial assets, the denial of visas, and other penalties.

The sanctions could be ended if the President certifies to Congress that Ukrainian sovereignty, independence or territorial integrity is not being violated by Russia or any other state actor, or after Jan. 1, 2020, if the President certifies that their termination is in the national security interest of the United States.

Finally, the bill requires the President, within 30 days of enactment and within 180 days thereafter for at least two years, to report to Congress on senior Russian political figures who are engaged in such activity.

It also requires the President, along identical timelines, to report to Congress on foreign financial institutions (especially Russian banks) to determine whether they are involved in the confiscation of Ukrainian assets; money laundering, terrorist or proliferation financing, or actively helping to skirt sanctions; or helping to annex Crimea.

The bill expresses the sense of Congress that the President should expand the list of Russian officials--currently at 18--sanctioned for gross human rights violations under the Magnitsky Act of 2012.

Mr. Speaker, it is right that the civilized world, led by the United States, opposes aggression and the violation of territorial sovereignty by the Putin regime.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4278.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemeorate the 27th observance of National Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month.

Developmental disabilities may be visible or invisible and range from physical impairment that involves vision or mobility to those conditions that affect cognitive functions related to how the brain processes information or how someone learns.

Developmental disabilities include: autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other developmental delays have increased, requiring more health and education services.

Everyone is on a continuum that moves us from ability to disability in one aspect or another. Through age, accidents, or illness, the healthy can become disabled.

Developmental disabilities are a group of conditions due to impairment in physical, learning, language, or behavior areas that are recognized in children from birth until age 22.

The effects of development disabilities will last a lifetime.

From birth to 5 years, a child should reach milestones in how they play, learn, speak, act and move.

Tracking a child's development for signs that they are not reaching key milestones in development is critical for early diagnosis and interventions that can help children.

People with developmental disabilities have problems with language, mobility, learning, self-help, and independent living.

About one in six children in the U.S. have one or more developmental disabilities or other developmental delays.

A Center for Disease Control study of 119,367 children aged 3-17 found that boys had a higher prevalence for a certain developmental disabilities when compared with girls.

In the CDC study, parents or legal guardians were asked if their child had: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), autism, blindness, cerebral palsy, moderate to profound hearing loss, intellectual disability, learning disorders, seizures, stuttering/ stammering, and other developmental delay.

Hispanic children had the lowest prevalence of developmental disabilities when compared with non-Hispanic white and black children.

Prevalence of any developmental disability increased from 12.84 percent to 15.04 percent over the past 12 years. Autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other developmental delays increased, whereas hearing loss showed a significant decline.

When developmental disabilities go misdiagnosed, undiagnosed, or untreated the capacity of our nation's children to reach their full potential is undermined.

The prevalence of any Developmental Disability in 1997-2008 was 13.87 percent. Prevalence of learning disabilities was 7.66 percent; prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was 6.69 percent; prevalence of other developmental delay was 3.65 percent; and, prevalence of autism was 0.47 percent.

Over the last 12 years: Developmental Disabilities has increased 17.1 percent--that's about 1.8 million more children with DDs in 2006- 2008 compared to a decade earlier; prevalence of autism increased 289.5 percent; prevalence of ADHD increased 33.0 percent; and, prevalence of hearing loss decreased 30.9 percent.

In addition, data from this study showed that: Males had twice the prevalence of any Developmental Disabilities than females and more specifically had higher prevalence of ADHD, autism, learning disabilities, stuttering/stammering and other Developmental Disabilities; Hispanic children had lower prevalence of several disorders compared to non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black children, including ADHD and learning disabilities; Non-Hispanic black children had higher prevalence of stuttering/stammering than non- Hispanic white children; and Children from families with income below the federal poverty level had a higher prevalence of Developmental Disorders.

Mr. Speaker, much progress has been made in the 27 years since President Ronald Reagan first proclaimed March as National Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month.

But there is still much work to be done to ensure our fellow citizens with such disabilities have the resources and opportunities they need to lead productive lives and to achieve their full potential.

To my colleagues, I say good morning.

Madam Speaker, it is good to be an American, and it is good to have the opportunity to celebrate the greatest democracy in the world. That is why I stand today and join my Democratic colleagues as they appear on the east steps in calling all colleagues to stand under the bright shining Sun to celebrate that democracy, for, today, Democrats will stand united, calling upon our Republican friends to push for a vote on comprehensive, reasonable, sensible immigration reform.

I stand with these icons:

Remember always that all of us--that you and I especially--

are descendants from immigrants and revolutionists--President

Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The land flourished because it was fed from so many

sources, because it was nourished by so many cultures and

traditions and people--President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the

fabric of American life--President John F. Kennedy.

He never strayed away from his strong Irish heritage. Then, of course, in Women's History Month:

I am a beneficiary of the American people's generosity, and

I hope we can have comprehensive immigration legislation that

allows this country to continue to be enriched by those who

were not born here--former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine

Albright.

Sheila Jackson Lee, a descendant of Jamaican immigrants. My grandmother and grandfather came by way of the Panama Canal. Today, I can go to the Panama Canal and see my grandfather's name X'd there, for he worked with his hands to build the Panama Canal. Then the family traveled with small suitcases to South Carolina and, ultimately, made a life in this great Nation. What a privilege it is to serve in this body as a descendant, as someone who has recent immigrant grandparents who came to this Nation for opportunity.

Finally, let me offer these thoughts through this quote:

This issue has been around for too long. A comprehensive

approach is long overdue, and I am confident that the

President, myself, and others can find the common ground to

take care of this issue once and for all--House Speaker John

Boehner.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you today to stand with those eloquent and important Americans, Presidents and Secretaries of State who have indicated that we are better for the immigrant opportunities that we have been given. Mr. Boehner, we want a vote now.

As you look, you will see a picture of Leader Pelosi and of myself and of my colleague from Alabama (Ms. Sewell). We are not important, but the children are who are here, who are diverse in their understanding of cultural diversity. Madam Speaker, these children speak Chinese and Spanish. They are 2 years old and 3 years old and 4 years old. They are in the Barbara Jordan International Child Care Center. We know we need child care, and they understand the richness of what happens with diversity.

Let me share with you very briefly that there are 16.4 percent of Texans who are foreign born: 42 percent are Latino or Asian; 87 percent of children with immigrant parents are U.S. citizens, and 75 percent of those children are English fluent. These are individuals who want to contribute to America. Asian-owned businesses in Texas create $40.2 billion in revenue, and Latino-owned create $61.9 billion in revenue from their businesses.

Here are the results of deporting rather than putting forward comprehensive immigration reform legislation, not for people who want to do you harm but who want to do you good. I am glad that H.R. 1417 is in the bill that we want to vote on. That is the bipartisan Homeland Security bill that I helped write that came out in a bipartisan manner, but this is what America will do to herself without comprehensive immigration reform:

We will lose, in wages, $33.2 billion if you deport every person who is nonstatus. In tax revenue, you will lose $14.5 billion. In jobs creation, you will lose $77.7 billion in the decrease of gross State product. This is from the State of Texas alone.

So, in actuality, comprehensive immigration reform creates jobs, and it creates opportunities. But do you know what? It is the right thing to do.

As a young child, I looked to the Statue of Liberty for such inspiration. I remember school trips of my going to the Statue of Liberty, and I am reminded of that extending arm that said it welcomes those who are worn and those who are forlorn. It welcomes them to the greatest democracy in the world.

Give us a vote right now. We want to vote for comprehensive immigration reform. We want these children to grow up in a democracy that is befitting of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during a vote on H.R. 2824, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act, on Lowenthal amendment No. 1. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

In addition, Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 3370, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, I was unavoidably detained with my constituents in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted a resounding ``yes,'' for this legislation will bring much-needed relief to our constituents on the gulf coast.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 27th observance of the National Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month and to add my respect and understanding that developmental disabilities may be visible or invisible and range from physical impairment that involves vision or mobility to those conditions that affect cognitive functions related to how the brain processes information and how someone learns. I am also actively involved in the Dyslexia Caucus in efforts to shine the light on dyslexia.

Developmental disabilities, which include autism, deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other developmental delays, have increased, requiring more health and education services.

I want to reemphasize the need for access to education services but also to work. It is not a respect of age. Sometimes it comes because of accident or of illness that people can become disabled, but they are still deserving of the opportunity to work, and they also deserve the opportunity to access the various assets that this country has.

It is important that we focus on language, focus on mobility, and we provide the resources necessary. My salute to those who are supporting the improvement of access for those suffering from developmental disabilities or experiencing it. We look forward to working together.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to take a few moments to share thoughts with my colleagues on a number of items that I believe we should be focused on.

Before I do that, I want to join my friends and colleagues from the great State of Washington to express my concern and my sympathy for the people of Darrington and Oso on Highway 530 that have experienced this terrible devastation of a mudslide. To the families of those who lost their loved ones, we mourn and pray for you; and to those who are still missing, we thank the first responders and pray for their accuracy in discerning and finding those that are alive.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, and as we have a hearing this morning on emergency preparedness, I am asking that all of the resources that the delegation from Washington request, and, as well, the Governor of that State, that all of us will embrace them, stand as Americans, unite behind them and provide the resources as we do for our fellow brothers and sisters in this country because it is the American way that we never leave a lonely person along the highway of despair. We always provide for them. And I want those people in Darrington and the city of Oso to know that we will not leave you along the highway of despair.

I want to now challenge this Congress, the other body, as they proceed to move on what actions should be taken in Ukraine. We know that Americans are war-weary, but if we have principles of democracy, if we believe there is an international world order, we cannot sit idly by and not act. So I am grateful that the President has strongly denounced Russia's actions and has begun to move on strong sanctions. I would argue that there should be more.

We should ensure that the new Ukrainian Government that wants to cling to aspects of democracy and

wants to associate with a democratic Europe, that they be allowed to strengthen themselves. We cannot have a timidness on behalf of Europe, so busy worrying about their pocketbook that they will stamp on their principles. Some European countries are now wavering about sanctions. I would suggest to them that they are dangerously providing an opportunity for Russia to continue its aggressive and illegal acts.

You must have principles. You must provide the strength to sanction. One can travel through the years of history in the 20th century and be reminded of those who get one step of aggression and watch as they march across Europe. I am very glad that there will be no meeting of G8 in Sochi, and I would ask that we continue to isolate Russia. Russia violates the human rights of its own people. It does not even recognize the LGBT community, and they are persecuted. What more do we have to hear from Russia and its head of government to not know that they must suffer the consequences of their acts.

I stand with the people of Ukraine because I believe in democracy, I believe in peace and human dignity, and I believe America has those values that we can ensure through the world family that Russia understands that they are not part of the world order of democracy and the freedom of people.

I might also add, Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, all of us have watched, some with intenseness the Malaysian aircraft. With great disappointment and sadness, we are told, without all of the facts, not knowing what the recent announcements have been, that this aircraft, this airliner may be lost. But it opens our eyes to the crisis of airline security and technology.

I call upon the aviation industry to stop hiding behind costs and how much it costs and start ensuring that our pilots and our customers, our flying public are safe. Why do we have the capacity to dismantle the transponders? Why wasn't the emergency call already in place that automatically signals when an aircraft goes off its designated destination as relates to its flight pattern? Why does it have to be done manually? The mysterious turn. Homeland Security will be having a hearing on the false passport.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is overdue for us to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and I will continue that discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a question that the American people have been raising for more than a decade: When will we address the question of human dignity of so many who are in our country who desire the status of citizenship? When will we pass a sensible, reasonable immigration reform legislation or package? Will we combine our concern for national security with border security, along with human dignity?

The question is being asked by constituents from my 18th Congressional District in Houston. It is being asked by the American Jewish Committee. It is being asked by Cardinal DiNardo in the most eloquent and passionate way as they met last week to hear from voices of those who have not heard the answer. Or the 139 who showed up at a press conference some weeks ago, standing with me, demanding that people be given their human dignity. Or the leadership from Ireland who was here at a St. Patrick's Day luncheon who stood up and asked the Speaker, When are we going to put comprehensive immigration reform on the floor of the House.

This is a multicultural challenge to America. This is an economic challenge. This is from the Irish. This is from South Asians, from Asians. This is from people from Bangladesh, from Poland. It is all over America. Let's pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2824, the so-called ``Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act.''

I oppose the bill because it would misdirect limited resources and limit State discretion in regulating industries within their borders.

The bill would require State surface coal mining regulatory agencies to implement the discredited 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule--promulgated by the Bush Administration--for a mandatory implementation period, which inadequately protects drinking water and watersheds from strip mining.

H.R. 2824 replaces sensible Reagan-era protections for streams and communities in Appalachia from mountaintop mining with the flawed 2008 Bush rule that has been rejected by a federal court, most states, and the Administration.

The bill puts families at risk by stopping the current updating of federal rules, wasting time and money, while delaying development of a responsible stream protection rule for years.

The bill allows big coal companies--many of whom export their coal-- to reap larger profits, while families in Appalachia pay the price through with degraded water, flooding, and health impacts.

In opposing this misguided legislation I stand with a broad range of conservation and environmental groups, including American Rivers, Environment America, Clean Water Action, League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, and Sierra Club.

Mr. Chair, waste from mountaintop removal coal mining has buried over 2,000 miles of streams throughout Appalachia. This practice destroys wildlife habitat, contaminates surface and drinking water, and leads to flooding.

As a number of new studies show, there is an increased incidence of cancer, birth defects, lung disease, and heart disease for those living and working near these mines.

In December 2008, the Bush Administration finalized a last-minute rule that weakened Reagan-era protections for streams from the impacts of mountaintop removal mining. The Bush rule was challenged in court and in February 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the rule, finding that the Bush Administration's refusal to consider the impacts of stream fills on threatened or endangered species in drafting the rule had been illegal.

The bill before us seeks to write the midnight Bush rule into law and require all states to incorporate it into their state mining regulations.

Mr. Chair, it makes no sense to require the states to adopt a vacated rule that has already been vacated by a federal court, especially when the Obama Administration is in the process of finalizing a new stream protection rule providing for responsible development while protecting our communities and environment.

This new rule will reflect the significant technological and scientific advances in mining practices that avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental damage from coal mining.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment offered by Congressman Lowenthal that would keep in place implementation of the Reagan Administration rule. I also support the amendment offered by Congressman Cartwright that would ensure that states retain the ability to issue their own stream buffer rules.

But I do not support the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2824 and reject this misguided, irresponsible, and harmful legislation.

Then let us finally get to work on the issues the American people care about.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues with the Congressional Black Caucus in this Special Order in recognition of Women's History Month.

I want to offer a special mention for the U.S. House of Representatives women firsts:

Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin of Montana who was the first elected woman member of the House of Representatives;

Congresswoman Patsy Mink of Hawaii was the first woman of color and the first Asian American woman elected to Congress;

Congresswoman Shirley Anita Chisholm of New York who was the first African-American Congresswoman member of the House of Representatives; and

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen whom we have the honor of working with is the first Hispanic woman elected to serve in Congress.

National Women's History Month's roots go back to March 8, 1857, when women from New York City factories staged a protest over working conditions.

International Women's Day was first observed in 1909.

In 1981, Congress passed a law authorizing the President to proclaim March 7, 1982 as ``Women's History Week.'' It was a modest beginning, but very significant to women because it started a societal and cultural change in how women--and especially young girls saw themselves within the American story.

In 1987, Congress expanded the week to a month. Every year since, Congress has passed a resolution for Women's History Month, and the President has issued a proclamation.

This month we recognize Women's History Month by noting the fundamental role women have played in shaping America's history. But I say to you that a month is not enough to make known the significant contributions of women to the success of the United States of America.

We taught our girls about Rosie the Riveter who represented the millions of American women who went to work on assembly lines to manufacture tanks, planes, and weapons for the defense of this nation during World War II.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 863, the National Women's History Commission Act.

The bill would establish a Commission to study the potential for creating a National Women's History Museum and submit to the President and Congress a report containing recommendations on a plan of action for the establishment and maintenance of a National Women's History Museum in Washington, DC.

Congressional action is needed to be sure that when the story of our nation is told that the role of women is represented in the narrative of our nation.

I along with my colleagues participating in this special order are urging passage of H.R. 863, to study the potential creation of a National Women's History Museum in Washington, DC, on or near the National Mall.

The Shriver Report, ``A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink: Some Recommended Steps for Government, Businesses, and Women'' reported on the economic health of the average American woman.

Today, women make up half the U.S. workforce, but the average full time working woman earns only 77 percent of what the average full time working man makes.

There are many women in the State of Texas and in the city of Houston who have made significant contributions to the American story:

Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas was the first African-American woman elected to the House of Representatives;

Kathryn ``Kathy'' Whitmire was the first woman elected to serve in Houston City government; and

Mae Carol Jemison was the first African-American woman astronaut.

These many accomplishments do not mean there is not more that needs to be done. There is still a long way for women to go according to the Shriver Report.

Women are more than 50 percent of the population and more than 50 percent of the votes.

A woman working full time, all year at a minimum-wage job, or a job close to the minimum wage, will not be able to bring her family above the poverty line. Families need an income closer to 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold to escape the brink.

In the Shriver Report's survey:

73 percent of Americans said that in order to raise the incomes of working women and their families, they strongly favor the government ensuring that women get equal pay for equal work;

79 percent of Americans said the government should expand access to high-quality, affordable childcare for working families;

Almost 60 percent of Americans said women raising children on their own face tremendous challenges and should be helped financially by government, employers, and communities; and

If we are going to win the war on poverty we must wage and win the war of discrimination of women in the workforce.

Pay inequality is not just a women's issue--it is a family income equality issue.

Texas Low Wage Worker Bureau of Labor Statistics

In 2012, Texas ranked second among the 50 states with workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 6.1 million workers are paid hourly rates in Texas in 2012,

In Texas 282,000 earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, while 170,000 earned less.

From 2011 to 2012, the number of Texas workers who earned at or below the federal minimum wage was 7.5 percent. The percentage of workers earning less than the federal minimum in 2012 was 2.8 percent, while the share earning exactly the minimum wage was 4.7 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to help celebrate Women's History Month by becoming cosponsors of H.R. 863.

By the Numbers

161 million: The number of females in the U.S. as of December 2013. The number of males was 156.1 million.

2 to 1: At 85 and older, the approximate ratio by which women outnumbered men in 2012 (3.9 million to 2.0 million).

Jobs

74.8 million: The number of females 16 and older who participated in the civilian labor force in 2012. Women comprised 47.4 percent of the civilian labor force in 2012.

41.6%: Percent of employed females 16 and over in 2012 (annual average) who worked in management, professional and related occupations, compared with 34.7 percent of employed males in the same year (annual average).

Military

1.6 million: Number of female veterans in the United States in 2012.

Earnings

$37,791: The median annual earnings of women 15 or older who worked year-round, full time in 2012. In comparison, the median annual earnings of men were $49,398.

77 cents: The amount that female year-round, full time workers earned in 2012 for every dollar their male counterparts earned. This ratio was statistically unchanged from 2011.

Education

11.3 million: Number of women college students in fall 2012. Women comprised 56.8 percent of all college students.

31.4: Percent of women 25 and older who had obtained a bachelor's degree or more as of 2012.

25%: Percentage of women 18 and older with an alternative educational credential--such as professional certifications, licenses and educational--not statistically different from men. However, women had higher rates of alternative credentials than men at the bachelor's degree and advanced degree levels.

15%: Among people with advanced degrees, the percentage of women who held educational certificates compared with 12 percent of men; 51 percent of women held professional certifications or licenses compared with 43 percent of men.

Voting

63.7%: Percentage of female citizens 18 and older who reported voting in the 2012 presidential election, in comparison to 59.7 percent of their male counterparts.

Motherhood

85.4 million: Estimated number of mothers in the U.S. in 2009.

1.9: Average number of children that women 40 to 44 had given birth to as of 2010, down from 3.1 children in 1976, the year the Census Bureau began collecting such data. The percentage of women in this age group who had given birth was 81 percent in 2010, down from 90 percent in 1976.

Marriage

66 million: Number of married women 18 and older (including those who were separated or had an absent spouse) in 2013.

5.2 million: Number of stay-at-home mothers nationwide in 2013; compared with 214,000 stay-at-home fathers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act of 2014 because of the passage of the Rule to this bill.

I am not alone in opposing this irresponsible measure. I am joined by AARP, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, American Osteopathic Association, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., Families USA, Medicare Rights Center, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and the National Council on Aging.

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

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.

As with any business, medical clinics and physician offices have payrolls to meet, bills to pay, and expenses to meet as they become due. If revenues are not sufficient to cover costs, the business will not long survive.

Thus, it is critical that we not disrupt timely and adequate payment to Medicare providers, but that is exactly what will happen at the end of this month if the SGR is not approved by the House and the Senate and signed into law by President Obama.

The problem with H.R. 4015 is what happened when the Rule for this bill passed the House.

The rule for H.R. 4015 added language that would delay the Affordable Care Act's implementation of the individual mandate.

I oppose the bill for two reasons:

It corrupts what was a strongly supported bipartisan bill to sustain physician reimbursement rates for medical services approved under Medicare, and

It is another attempt by the Republicans to mislead the public regarding the Affordable Care Act.

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 the 50 desperate but futile attempts by the Tea Party to scuttle a law that has been passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court.

The most threatening actions to our nation's healthcare system by Tea Party Republicans are their attacks on Medicare.

In 2014, according to the Kaiser Foundation 16 percent of the nation's people have medical insurance under Medicare:

Texas has 12 percent of its residents insured under Medicare;

Arkansas, Florida and Vermont have 19 percent of their residents insured under Medicare;

West Virginia and Maine have 21 percent of their residents insured under Medicare; and

Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon have 18 percent of their residents insured under Medicare.

Every state has more than 10 percent of their residents insured by Medicare.

The uncertainly created by the majority regarding Medicare reimbursement over the last several years has forced physicians to reevaluate continuing their medical practice and frustrated hospitals working to make budget projections over several years into the future-- this is critical to business decision making.

Because of uncertainty created by Medicare physician reimbursement-- physicians and hospitals have been forced to close their offices, reduce services, or merge.

When patients find they cannot keep their physician or that their options for health care are being affected--it is not because of the Affordable Care Act.

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

There are tens of thousands of visitors each day to the website and despite problems with the initial rollout of the online health insurance registration process, millions have enrolled and experience the peace of mind that comes from having affordable, high quality health insurance that is there when you need it.

So it is puzzling that with less than 70 legislative days remaining in the Second Session of the 113th Congress, we are still seeing attempts to end the Affordable Care Act.

It is very troubling that a bill critical to the provision of payments to physicians that treat Medicare patients is not safe from the partisan political games of the House of Republicans.

The House should be considering legislation to address the most pressing needs of the American people. Today, we should be debating legislation to extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits. The House should be debating a jobs creation bill to put Americans who are seeking employment back to work.

We know that for every person who gets a job--three others are still searching for employment.

This is another attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Instead of trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans are now seeking ways to impede or frustrate its implementation.

After shutting down the federal government last year in an attempt to end the Affordable Care Act, they have resorted to their latest gimmick of attaching to a critically needed piece of legislation to make sure our nation's seniors continue to have access to physicians and hospitals an attempt to harm Obamacare.

I ask my colleagues to support Medicare patients and their physicians by rejecting the bill.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago the eyes of the world were looking at the people of Russia, and all of the world gathered together at the international Olympics, athletes of varying backgrounds harmoniously competing in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. Certainly those of us in the United States watched with great pride our athletes represent our Nation and their own special talent. It is unfortunate today that President Putin has undermined and destroyed all of that goodwill.

I believe it is important that the United States continue to engage with Ukraine, a sovereign nation, and continues to encourage Secretary Kerry, as the President is doing, for diplomatic resolution. A couple of days from now there will be a vote to cede away from Ukraine, a sovereign nation. President Putin has boots on the ground on soil that is not his, and the world must stand up in a manner that collaborates and embraces. No, I am not calling for military action by the United States, collaboration with NATO. But they are people who desire democracy, and we are a democracy and we should be there and stand alongside of them.

Mr. Speaker, this morning we are now in the midst of Women's History Month. I want to associate myself with the women's history Special Order that was on the floor last evening. I look forward through the rest of the month of March to continue or to acknowledge women from my own congressional district.

This morning, however, I wish to comment on a woman who has loomed large in our political eyes, and I thought out of fairness to give the record of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a fair shot. The reason I chose to do that, Mr. Speaker, is over the weekend, as many occurrences occur, political meetings abound in this Nation, and the Conservative Political Action Conference met.

Interestingly enough in the reporting, the newspaper noted that Hillary Rodham Clinton had a presence at the Nation's largest gathering of conservative activists. Interestingly enough, former Secretary Clinton was not there, obviously not invited. I think it is important to take note of some of the comments that were made that really require some kind of addressing.

One comment was that women should not be used. Another came from the former Speaker and charged that if Secretary Clinton decided to run for President, it would be like a prison guard for the past. Words I think that may be political rhetoric but really do a great disservice to a woman with a very strong historical record.

Early in her life, former Secretary Clinton met Dr. Martin Luther King, born in Chicago to parents whose political beliefs, or part of their political beliefs, were different from Secretary Clinton's today. She was an active young woman and through her church had the opportunity to meet Dr. Martin Luther King. You can imagine her thoughts a few years later when Dr. King was assassinated. It may have had a major impact on her belief in serving her country and helping America.

Hillary Clinton is a graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School. She worked on migrant worker issues for Walter Mondale's staff. Also, she was on the law editorial board--I would suggest, at that time, certainly one of the pioneering women at Yale Law School.

Of course many of us know that she worked for the Children's Legal Defense Fund and really honed her skills of concern about making children our number one priority. I would offer to say that when I came to the United States Congress, former Secretary Clinton was First Lady. At that time I organized and founded the Congressional Children's Caucus. During the 1990s it was very clear that the First Lady at that time was very concerned still with children's issues and held one of the first conferences on 0 to 3 months, and how a baby could learn and how we should be nurturing that infant. It was a very major conference to focus our legislative agenda on that issue. It was during that time that Marian Wright Edelman continued to work with the former Secretary of State on the issues of dealing with the whole comprehensive child, what a child needs from 0 on to adulthood. Even today I would argue that we do not have a children's agenda.

I will soon be offering a briefing promoting a children's budget that came out of the efforts and collaboration with the former Secretary of State during her tenure in the White House as First Lady. As First Lady she traveled to emphasize the importance of freedom for women around the world. She was not yet Secretary. One of the first acts that we remember, among the acts that we remember, is her going to China and declaring that women's rights are human rights.

I would venture to say that the words at the CPAC convention do not in any way characterize the leadership of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Certainly she has gone on to many other successes, which include her leadership as Secretary of State, the constant work of freeing women, women's rights. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that she is a fine example of a mother, a wife, a leading national figure, a historic figure who represents Women's History Month.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Might I make a March plea in this March madness?

Can't we all get along and work together on important items such as water rights and the SGR?

I rise, first of all, to make it very clear that I am a strong supporter of providing adequate compensation to our physicians who serve Medicare patients. 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.

Let it be very clear that I believe my record has been extremely strong on the idea of making sure the benefits for seniors are not cut.

The misrepresentation that the Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare benefits is not true. Now we have the sustainable growth rate, which we had bipartisan support for, and all of a sudden we have a poison pill of a self-executing rule, which was challenged in the Rules Committee, to take money from the Affordable Care Act to allegedly help the doctors.

Every doctor I speak to wants a permanent fix for the SGR. There are a number of suggestions made in the other body, somewhat unpleasant, but we were willing to look at those particular suggestions.

As with any business, medical clinics and physician offices have payrolls to meet, bills to pay, and expenses to meet as they become due. Why are we playing with them when, in essence, we know that this is not going anywhere? Why are we not taking care of these physicians who spend 8 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to work to gain a degree because they are healers, they believe in it, they want to serve the public. Now, rather than have a bipartisan bill--in the spirit of St. Patrick's Day--and be able to come together and work together, no, we have a bill that poses a serious problem.

I oppose the rule because it corrupts what would otherwise be a strongly supported bipartisan bill to sustain physician reimbursement rates, and it is another attempt, again by our friends on the other side, to disregard and mislead the public about the Affordable Care Act.

Let me clearly say that 11 groups representing the Nation's seniors-- doctors and advocates--sent a letter to congressional leaders urging the House to reject the Republicans' toxic doc fix, the GOP's 51st vote to repeal.

From the letter:

The undersigned organizations representing Medicare

beneficiaries and providers appreciate the bipartisan,

bicameral work done to repeal the Sustainable Growth Rate,

SGR, and reform the Medicare reimbursement system. The

current effort to link, however, SGR reform with changes to

the Affordable Care Act injects partisan politics in

bipartisan legislation.

Access to health care for more than 50 million Americans with Medicare is a serious matter. We should not schedule a vote that does not take seriously the idea of making sure our doctors get sufficient compensation.

The other wrongheaded approach to this is there are no amendments being allowed. No amendments, Mr. Speaker. A closed rule. I just saw some documentation of how many closed rules we have had in this House.

I thank the gentleman.

The Jackson Lee amendment that was not allowed would have ensured that, notwithstanding any provision of this act, no delay in the application of any provision of the Affordable Care Act would have occurred. It would have called for some studies about Medicare providers. It would have given us real information.

Jackson Lee amendment No. 2 would have required the Secretary to submit a report on cost savings.

The real point is, between skewing the water rights of people and the SGR, this rule should be opposed. We should get back to the drawing board.

Can't we all get along and work together on the right kind of legislation for water rights? More importantly, Mr. Speaker, our doctors deserve better, and I will say to them, you will get better from us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong opposition to the Rule for H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act of 2014.

Let me say first that I am a strong supporter of providing adequate compensation to our physicians who serve Medicare patients. 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.

As with any business, medical clinics and physician offices have payrolls to meet, bills to pay, and expenses to meet as they become due. If revenues are not sufficient to cover costs, the business will not long survive.

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

The problem with H.R. 4015 is what happened in the Rules Committee.

The Rules Committee, on a party line vote, added language to the Rule for H.R. 4015 that would delay the Affordable Care Act's implementation of the individual mandate.

I oppose the Rule for two reasons:

It corrupts what would otherwise be a strongly supported bipartisan bill to sustain physician reimbursement rates for medical services approved under Medicare, and

It is another attempt by the Republicans to mislead the public regarding the Affordable Care Act.

The Jackson Lee Amendments offered to the Rules Committee for H.R. 4015 would have improved the bill by removing the uncertainty that physicians would not keep the reimbursement rates they now have for treating patients under Medicare.

Jackson Lee Amendment #1 would have ensured that notwithstanding any provision of this Act, no delay in the application of any provisions of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate can take effect before January 21, 2017.

Jackson Lee Amendment #2 would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress on the impact of the Medicare provider payments on the diversity and availability of physicians and hospitals to underserved rural and urban communities.

Jackson Lee Amendment #3 would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress on the cost savings associated with people no longer using emergency rooms or acute care facilities as their primary means of obtaining health care.

Jackson Lee Amendment #4 would ensure that the bill cannot be construed or interpreted to permit or require a delay in the application of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.

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 the 50 desperate but futile attempts by the Tea Party to scuttle a law that has been passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court.

The most threatening actions to our nation's healthcare system by Tea Party Republicans are their attacks on Medicare.

In 2014, according to the Kaiser Foundation 16% of the nation's people have medical insurance under Medicare:

Texas has 12% of its residents insured under Medicare;

Arkansas, Florida and Vermont have 19% of their residents insured under Medicare; and

West Virginia and Main have 21% of their residents insured under Medicare.

Kentucky; Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon have 18% of their residents insured under Medicare.

Every state has more than 10% of their residents insured by Medicare.

The uncertainly created by the majority regarding Medicare reimbursement over the last several years has forced physicians to reevaluate continuing their medical practice and frustrated hospitals working to make budget projections over several years into the future-- this is critical to business decision making.

Because of uncertainty created by Medicare physician reimbursement-- physicians and hospitals have been forced to close their offices, reduce services, or merge.

When patients find they cannot keep their physician or that their options for health care are being affected--it is not because of the Affordable Care Act.

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

There are tens of thousands of visitors each day to the website and despite problems with the initial rollout of the online health insurance registration process, millions have enrolled and experience the peace of mind that comes from having affordable, high quality health insurance that is there when you need it.

I have held many events in my District to inform and connect people with Navigators and Community Health Centers and send a strong message to my constituents encouraging them that now is the time for them to obtain affordable, accessible, and high quality health insurance for themselves and their families.

So it is puzzling that with less than 70 legislative days remaining in the Second Session of the 113th Congress, we are still seeing attempts to end the Affordable Care Act.

The fact that a bill that is critical to the provision of payments to physicians that treat Medicare patients is not safe from the politics of the moment is troubling.

I ask my colleagues to support Medicare patients and their physicians by rejecting this Rule.

Mr. Speaker, this happens to be Women's History Month. I will continue to salute the dynamic women of this Nation.

I rise today as a founder and cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and indicate to my colleagues that I believe we are overdue for naming children as our number one priority. Working with First Focus, I intend to introduce a children's budget for the needs of our children. We have left children behind. Many times, the issues around children are discussed in a partisan way. Who wants early childhood education? Who wants universal pre-K or around-the-clock child care?

In actuality, the consumers and beneficiaries of funding for those very important issues are our children. We should give them the security, protection, and resources to prevent child abuse and for bringing families together and providing intervention for families that are troubled that result in not only child abuse, but violence against these children.

What about the best education they can have? What about the best health care they can have?

Mr. Speaker, children are our number one priority. I truly believe that a children's budget in the United States of America is long overdue.

Join me on the children's budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R 4138, The ENFORCE The Law Act of 2014 and the underlying bill.

H.R. 4138 purports to provide a mechanism for one House of Congress to enforce the ``take care'' clause in article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution, which requires the President to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.''

The bill authorizes either chamber of Congress to bring a civil action against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute existing laws.

My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the president from exceeding his constitutional authority,

But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the president's powers under the Constitution.

That is why I offered an amendment to the bill that simply protects the ability of the Executive Branch to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws.

It is hard to believe that I would even need an amendment which instructs the Executive Branch that it is okay to--ENFORCE THE LAW.

If separation-of-powers principles require anything, it is that each branch must respect its constitutional role.

When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a federal law, the other branches must abide by the decision.

The Executive Branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by Congress pursuant to this bill.

Basic respect for separation of powers requires adoption of this amendment.

In our constitutional democracy, taking care that the laws are executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion.

And it is a well-settled principle that our Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress' legislative authority, so that the faithful execution of the Laws may present occasions where the President declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land.

Additionally, H.R. 4138, The ENFORCE Act, has problems with standing, separation of powers, and allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due process.

The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to faithfully execute the law. Any such decision would be reviewable only by the Supreme Court.

These are critical problems. First, Congress is unlikely to be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, which the Supreme Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally injured by the challenged conduct.

In the wide array of circumstances in which the bill would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president, that House would not has suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of ay legislator's votes.

I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation.