Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor John Sullivan the House Parliamentarian, who is retiring after serving 28 years. John has dedicated his career to public service. Prior to arriving on Capitol Hill, John served our nation for 10 years in the Air Force.

I have known John for nearly two decades. In that time, I have often been impressed by his in-depth knowledge of House Floor procedure and the legislative process.

John has a calm, knowledgeable, and warm demeanor. It is no small feat to be well-liked by Members of both parties. Debate on the House Floor can be contentious at times; however, it is a positive reflection on John's expertise that he been able to consistently offer his assistance to Members in a manner that balances the rights of Members from both sides of the aisle. John, I hope you enjoy your retirement.

Mr. Chair, today we again are considering H.R. 5, the ``Help Accessible, Efficient, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act.'' This bill is intended to change what some of my colleagues on the right believe to be a broken medical malpractice liability system.

Quite paradoxically, many supporters of H.R. 5 are vocal opponents of the recently passed health-related federal law, the Affordable Care Act, whose anniversary we celebrate here tonight. It must be stated that many Americans celebrate with us and dine in good health--thankful that this Congress came together to pass health care 2 years ago.

Foes of healthcare reform claim that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the Federal Government some authority over states, was abused to pass the healthcare law. Under the rules of this Congress, House sponsors of any bill must explain Congress' constitutional authority to pass it.

Rather ironically, H.R. 5's sponsor, Representative Phil Gingrey (R GA), cites the Commerce Clause as he tries to enact sweeping legislation that would completely overhaul State tort law and undermine hundreds of years of precedent.

Yet, for my colleague, Mr. Gingrey, his statement represents a complete reversal from his position on the Affordable Care Act, which he has called ``the government takeover of our healthcare system.''

Which might explain why my colleague Mr. Woodall from Georgia submitted an 11th hour amendment during the Rules Committee Hearing on the rule for H.R. 5, striking the Commerce Clause mention from this bill.

The Woodall Amendment struck almost two pages from their bill--and reading it I can see why. It reads:

Effect on Interstate Commerce.--Congress finds that the

health care and insurance industries are industries affecting

interstate commerce and the health care liability litigation

systems existing throughout the United States are activities

that affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high

costs of health care and premiums for health care liability

insurance purchased by health care system providers.

This sounds strikingly similar to the arguments being advanced against the Affordable Healthcare Act. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either health care affects interstate commerce or it doesn't. Which is of course the impetus for the amendment offered by my colleague from Georgia. What a dilemma to find oneself in? Trying to gut the Affordable Healthcare Act, but using the precise argument supporting Congress' power to regulate.

While the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations do not identify a constitutional right to health care for those who cannot afford it, Congress has enacted numerous statutes, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, that establish and define specific statutory rights of individuals to receive health care services from the government.

As a major component of many health care entitlement statutes, Congress has provided funding to pay for the health services provided under law.

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.'' The Supreme Court developed an expansive view of the Commerce Clause relatively early in the history of judicial review.

This power has been cited as the constitutional basis for a significant portion of the laws passed by the Congress over the last 50 years, and it currently represents one of the broadest bases for the exercise of congressional powers.

The Supreme Court accords considerable deference to a legislative decision by Congress that a particular health care spending program provides for the general welfare.

If enacted, H.R. 5 would, among other things, cap the noneconomic damages that a plaintiff in a health care lawsuit could recover. It would also preempt existing State laws on proportionate liability, allow courts to reduce contingent fees, and abolish the collateral source rule.

Studies and empirical research have shown that caps diminish access to the courts for low wage earners, like the elderly, children and women. In fact, the American Bar Association has studied this issue for over 30 years.

If economic damages are minor and noneconomic damages are capped, attorneys are less likely to represent these potential plaintiffs. And frankly Mr. Speaker, many of these plaintiffs are not very likely to be able to afford access to legal services. The equal scales of justice would be tipped.

Those affected by caps on damages are the patients who have been most severely injured by the negligence of others. These patients should not be told that, due to an arbitrary limit, they will be deprived of the compensation determined by a fair and impartial jury.

The courts already possess and exercise their powers of remittitur to set aside excessive verdicts, and that is the appropriate solution rather than an arbitrary cap. Let the courts and judges do their jobs and judge.

While the system may need some tweaks to help control ballooning medical malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors, it is imperative that as we make changes, we are careful not to remove incentive for doctors to perform their duties at the highest standard. We must not leave victims of malpractice without viable recourse.

The bill before us today is not new; in fact, it was first introduced in 2005. As written, the HEALTH Act would severely limit the ability of injured patients and their families to hold health care and medical products providers accountable.

The bill is so broadly drafted that it would also limit remedies against the for-profit nursing home, insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and even against doctors who commit intentional torts, such as sexual abuse.

Let's take a look at the collateral source rule which is the common- law rule that allows an injured party to recover damages from the defendant even if he is also entitled to receive them from a third party. Common third parties, that is, collateral sources, include a health insurance company, an employer, or the government.

To abolish the collateral source rule would be to allow or require courts to reduce damages by amounts a plaintiff receives or is entitled to receive from collateral sources.

But there is a reason that the common law adopted it: it is preferable for the victim rather than the wrongdoer to profit from the victim's prudence, for example buying health insurance or the good fortune in having some other collateral source available.

One commentator has also noted that, when the collateral source is the government, and the benefit it provides are future services, such as physical therapy, there is no guarantee that it will provide such services for as long as they are needed, as government programs may be cut back.

Moreover, I don't many people willing to literally give an arm or leg for cash, but accidents happen due to negligence. Awards serve to educate the public but also serve the added purpose of providing a disincentive for bad actors.

There are a number of reasons why this bill is flawed though, and not just the collateral source rule. Its scope is extremely broad and encompasses much more than necessary to simply protect doctors from high insurance premiums. It contains a sweeping preemption of state law. It reduces the statute of limitations on malpractice claims.

It severely restricts contingency fees, discouraging lawyers from taking on malpractices

cases. And it essentially strips victims of the right to bring a claim against drug and medical device manufacturers.

According to a November 2010 study by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services about 1 in 7 patients experience a medical error, 44 percent of which are preventable.

These errors cost Medicare $4.4 billion annually. U.S. Dept. of HHS, Office of the Inspector General, ``Adverse Events in Hospitals: National Incidence Among Medicare Beneficiaries'' (November 2010.)

Amendment: Exemption for Irreversible Injury

Because this bill is so overbroad, I introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee Hearing on H.R. 5, with my colleagues, Congressmen Quigley and Hank Johnson, which would have helped to close the wide gaps created by this bill.

My amendment carved out an exemption for healthcare lawsuits for serious and irreversible injury. This would have exempted victims of malpractice that resulted in irreversible injury, including loss of limbs and loss of reproductive ability, from the $250,000 cap that H.R. 5 imposes on non-economic damages.

As individuals who are blessed to have all of our limbs and use of all of our senses, it is difficult to understand how challenging day- to-day life can be for someone who lacks these things.

However, it is nearly impossible to imagine the stress and challenges faced by someone who has suffered irreversible bodily injury because of the negligence of another.

Imagine going to the hospital for minor pain and leaving with no limbs because of thoughtless mistakes made by the trained experts who are supposed to take care of you.

For Connie Spears, a Texas woman from Judiciary Chairman Smith's district, this exact nightmare is a reality. As a patient who had dealt with blood clots in the past, and had a filter installed in one of her heart's main arteries, Ms. Spears went into a San Antonio hospital complaining of leg pain. She was made to wait, eventually treated, and was discharged.

However, three days later, when her legs were the color of a cabernet and she was delirious, she called 911. When Spears, who was rendered unconscious, was treated at a different hospital, they determined that the filter in her artery was severely clotted and had caused tissue death in her legs, as well as kidney failure. Weeks later, Connie Spears regained consciousness, and learned that doctors had to amputate not one, but both of her legs in order to save her life.

As a result of negligence by the emergency room doctors who initially treated Ms. Spears, she lost her legs, and nearly her life. To make matters worse, when she attempted to seek the aid of a lawyer to handle her case, she was unable to find an attorney to represent her. She was repeatedly told, ``You have a great case, but not in Texas.''

In 2003, state lawmakers in Texas passed tort reform laws, similar to the one proposed today, that make it extremely difficult for patients to win damages in any health care setting, but especially emergency rooms. It caps damages at $250,000, like H.R. 5, and requires patients to prove that emergency room doctors acted with ``willful and wanton'' negligence--a near impossible standard to prove. A plaintiff would essentially have to show the medical professional or company had a vendetta against them to recover.

This nightmare has also become a reality for Jennifer McCreedy, a San Antonio single mother who fell and severely injured her ankle and sought treatment at an emergency room. Despite the severity of the break, the bone in her ankle was never set, a common practice done to prevent excess swelling, and she was not seen by an orthopedic surgeon. She was sent home and told to wait until the swelling went down.

However, the swelling did not go down, and a surgery that should have only taken one hour, took four. Because of the swelling, the surgeon had to slice her Achilles tendon, and wounds that refused to heal required grafts.

To date, Ms. McCreedy has endured five surgeries and has been rendered permanently disabled, curbing her ability to work and provide for her family. As a result of the negligence of those emergency room doctors, Ms. McCreedy went from a hard working, financially secure mother and homeowner, to dodging creditors and nearly losing her home to foreclosure.

For victims of malpractice who have suffered irreversible injury, like Connie Spears and Jennifer McCreedy, it is impossible to put a price tag on the stress and pain and suffering they have already endured.

Furthermore, it is outrageous that we would attempt to pass a law that puts a cap on the future challenges they are sure to face. It is inhuman to neglect the emotional price paid by victims of egregious acts that result in such serious, irreparable harm.

We should not deprive patients who have suffered injury as a result of one of these drugs or devices of the right to receive compensation from the manufacturer or distributor of such.

As we strive to become a healthier, more competitive nation, we need all the outstanding doctors, nurses and other health care providers we can get. They must be unconstrained by excessive health care liability premiums. We also need our nation's students to be excited and encouraged to enter the life sciences without the fear of being crushed under the weight of excessive liability premiums.

Placing caps on medical liability recovery does not necessarily lead to lower liability insurance premiums for doctors and health care providers. In fact, there is evidence that insurance companies have raised premiums in states like my home State of Texas and in California which use medical liability caps to reap an unearned profit at a time when health care lawsuits and the damages from those lawsuits were declining.

If it is the intention of this House to pass legislation that will reform the system of medical malpractice liability in a sensible manner, then it is imperative that we strongly consider the amendments offered by myself and my Democratic colleagues last night.

Let's not send a flawed bill to the Senate.

Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their work on these bills--though I hold out hope that Members of the Judiciary Committee and this body could come together for the good of the American people.

I thank the cochair of the Progressive Caucus for once again reminding America of America's greatness. That's why over 90-plus Members join together to be members of the Progressive Caucus. We have a sense of optimism that reflects our commitment to investing in human capital.

Earlier today, I had the opportunity of listening to a discourse about the transportation bill, and I will point to what we've done with infrastructure. There was the representation by the majority leader that we're living in hard times, we don't have money, that we can't be looking, for example, at the Senate bill and we can't move forward. And I just listened as our minority whip spoke about the urgency of moving forward on an infrastructure bill.

What I think is important, and really the theme that I wanted to focus on as I listened to you in my office--I just left about 12 constituents who are the beneficiaries of community health clinics, one of the items that we've supported as a Progressive Caucus for a very long time and championed along with the Tri-Caucus, to put in the Affordable Care Act, which, by the way, the 2-year anniversary is tomorrow.

The point is that we have optimism. We have the sense that America can get it done. You've just put up a very telling poster that when our Republican friends begin to talk, we're headed toward a pathway of devastation: no Medicare, no Medicaid, allowing reckless investments or speculation to occur, jobs overseas, and not focusing on our recovery.

By the way, we understand a balanced budget. We are using war savings for the people of the United States of America. Our troops come home, and we realign our national security focus. I think most Americans will understand that, even national security experts will tell us that it is probably a challenge to think we will have a ground war invasion like we've had years past ever again, that we're now fighting a war on terrorism or acts of terrorism.

Certainly, as we look to tell others to, in essence, become unnuclearized, we too must join the world's family because it's only one-upmanship.

I would just say that we do not disarm our Nation. We believe in defending our Nation, but we believe in doing it in a smart way. What we have done is that we have these words, ``comprehensive economic recovery,'' but I'd like to say this is a smiley-faced optimistic pathway for Americans.

Don't you think young people who are now sophomores, juniors, and seniors in college looking for their bright day--does anyone remember as we come upon May how exciting it was to look forward to a college graduation, a trade school graduation? You were just tickled pink. You were making sure your invitations were out. You were hoping that all relatives could make sure they had no conflicts. You really

wanted Grandma there or your aunt there or your favorite brother there or Mom and Dad there or family there. This was an exciting time. The Progressive Caucus budget speaks to that excitement and optimism and hopefulness.

Our budget has an infrastructure bank that allows the private sector to come together and effectively bring about infrastructure projects in all manner of areas, from the hamlets that are so small, to the villages, to the county governments, to the city governments and State governments.

I introduced a surface transportation bill that has been slowed, another bill that would generate income and transportation security and recognize that we must secure our surface transportation. In this bill, we proposed a 6-year $556 billion reauthorization bill that, over 10 years, would lead to a $213 billion increase in transportation funding. What it would also do is create many jobs that provide for small contractors, minority-owned contractors, women-owned contractors. It would create work. It's an optimistic view.

The making work pay tax credit from 2013 2015 is about let's let folks who are working, let those get a benefit that makes sense. Then we have more than $2 trillion in domestic investment packaging.

Just let me mention the idea of when you work with emergency jobs to restore the American Dream, getting people out where improvement is needed--student improvement, park improvement, student jobs, neighborhood heroes, community health clinics, federally qualified clinics, and child care corps--getting folks to work.

In my town, Mr. Ellison, in the Southwest as you well know, we had a great drought in the last year. Volunteers are trying to plant trees, but I tell you we could stand for a Heroes Corps, we could stand for a Community Corps to get out there and help us re-seed America, if you will. We know that. We know the Job Corps. But this is a concept that gets folks out working.

I also want to congratulate the University of Houston-Downtown that is heavily minority that just won the distinguished honor roll recognition for the largest amount of community service done by a campus across the Nation, cited by the Department of Education. That means people are ready to put that to work.

Tax credits for investment in advanced energy. I've got a company right in my community that's been awarded for its new, innovative work on energy, manufacturing, capital access for entrepreneurs of small business.

Now, let me just say this. I am excited about the 3 million Apple 3s that were sold because I think that is optimistic, and it employs the genius of America and it goes against the sad, deflated concept.

Now, let me be very clear. I am not ignoring the unemployed Americans. I want to be very clear on that. I don't think the Progressive Caucus has for a moment. We did a job tour. We're going back out again. We have no reason to dismiss the person who is now sitting unemployed.

What I want to say is there is some optimism. We've got to get all of those folks to be part of this new surge of optimism which this Progressive Caucus budget, if passed, would generate.

But I want to just say this to my good friends at Apple. Bring the jobs home. You are manufacturing Apple 3 in China. I certainly believe in an international framework. I know that everything can't be made in America, made at home. But I do know that aspects of the talent that you're using in China can be found here in the United States. And the cost of shipment--I can tell you you can save some dollars. Let's put our thinking caps on for companies like Apple and find a way that you can balance those resources.

I'm just going to cite General Electric. I know that we had put a real heavy heat on General Electric. I am told by their employees they are bringing jobs home. I met with some employees in my district who have indicated that they have been bringing them on home. I looked at them. They were real. They were alive. So, they have jobs, and they said they work for General Electric. Let's have a number of companies looking that way.

Let me quickly just mention because this is all exciting, and I think people need to hear about excitement and opportunity.

We already talked about the manufacturing community's tax credit, tax credit for the production of advanced technology vehicles. Again, everybody is saying we're slow on the hybrid, we're slow on the electric car. But all of that can create opportunity, tax credits for alternative fuel commercial vehicles, which is very possible. Double the amount of expense startup expenditures. So that means that if you've got a startup, we're going to double what you can expense. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Young people are the ones that are always starting startups. We need to encourage that. Enhance and make permanent the research and experimentation tax credit. That is right in the line of the Texas Medical Center. Many of our medical research hospitals, MD Anderson in the 18th Congressional District, while it's our neighbor, is working on new technology. This fits an optimistic view on how we can cure the worst of the worst.

Let me also say that I want to make mention that we are dealing with tax brackets, and we are looking, I think, at sensible policies dealing with capital gains and State policy. What I would say to people who are listening to us: Get on our Web site and give us your input. We're interested in what you have to say.

As well, let me just put in a pitch that no one likes the season when April 15 comes around. But we've tried to make our tax reform palatable. As far as I can see, we have left alone the charitable tax exemption. I tell you there are those who are very concerned that we leave little room for those who have that on the table, have everything on the table; that they would attack the charitable tax exemption and not go to some of the ones that the Progressive Caucus has focused on, because this nonprofit, this foundation, said they would be stopped in their tracks.

I had one foundation, one nonprofit talk to me today and say how challenging it is to get funding for the disadvantaged and programs that deal with intercity. So I want you to know that the Progressive Caucus recognizes the value of the charitable tax deduction, and you don't find that on our table.

I want to say something to Mr. Ellison. I wanted to mention, for a moment, Trayvon Martin.

He is certainly a lawyer who's practiced law, but I have met Mr. Ellison's wonderful family of youth and young people, a young man. That's what happens. People don't realize that we have families on both sides of the aisle. Good Republican friends who've been with our families. So whatever you see us saying here on the floor of the House, we are particularly sensitive and warm toward Members' families because we are, in essence, despite our policy debates, we are a family here.

So I simply wanted to indicate first to give good wishes to Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who is now with her constituents in a major protest in Florida on this sad and tragic incident. I wanted to say that we will gather on Tuesday to present an opportunity for the case to be heard on this issue and the Federal Government's responsibility or authority.

One of the things that in this budget we are very keenly sensitive to are the needs of the Department of Justice. Again, an optimistic budget, because the Department of Justice is the armor in many instances that will come in and help a community when they cannot get help locally.

Mr. Martin was killed on February 26. He was buried on March 1. Today is March 22. It was only when his parents came out or used their grief that they're still grieving to start asking why, law-abiding citizens who were waiting for the city attorney and waiting on the chief of police, waiting on the Governor of the State of Florida to say something. Nothing was said.

So, as the voices began to raise and the astonishment and outrage began to percolate, Mr. Ellison, it was not isolated to Florida or Sanford. If you listen to the various media outlets, parents, no matter what their background,

were calling and asking, What about my child?

I think it is important that we show this young man. It could be any of our family members. Can we imagine our youngsters wearing the clothing of the day--hoodies, sneakers, jeans. Do I need to remind you that Mr. Trayvon Martin was simply getting some Skittles, on the phone with his girlfriend, walking back to where his father was and going to look at some games. In this instance, it was basketball.

I come from local government. You come from State government. We know about Neighborhood Watch. We champion Neighborhood Watch. We have this Community Night Out, Police Night Out, whatever it is, and all of us have gone to it. We tell neighbors to watch out for each other. It's important for it to be said this was not watching out for each other.

The basic 911 tape, if you frame it, the call came in, that's the right thing to do. The description I may not adhere to, some of the words in the description, but so be it, you described this individual as such. But it came back and asked the specific question, ``Are you following him?'' ``Yes.'' ``Do not do that.''

This youngster, football player, babysitter--likes to babysit, eating Skittles--a fun food to eat with a basketball game--was on the sidewalk. Not coming out of a window, not knocking on a door, not standing in front of a door, not on a lawn--walking on a sidewalk, which the Progressive Caucus has stood many times on that First Amendment right, we've stood many times. He was walking, and we are now in an abyss of darkness in terms of what next happened, but the description is, this young boy was shot point-blank in the chest.

We have to call upon the Federal resources. We've called for a Federal investigation. We've been joined by many colleagues. We have tapes of witnesses, meaning people inside their homes, saying they heard shouting and crying for help. We've heard people ask the question: Why didn't the neighborhood watcher stand down in the car? Move away? We've also heard the author of the ``stand your ground'' bill--which, by the way, is in 20 or so States--a Republican State representative, articulate in newspaper clips that it is not a pursue and attack. It is that you can stand your ground upon someone coming, but it is not a pursue and attack.

I just wanted to indicate that it is important for Members of Congress--and I believe there is a sense of outrage. We are not taking this to the level that does not respect the family that is mourning. We're not creating hysteria. We are only begging for the relief of others whose names have not come up. There are people calling in and telling us about cases from the west coast to the east coast, to the North and the South. So I wanted to indicate that we will be joining as Members of Congress in hearing the circumstances, as much as we can, on the theory of the Federal Government's responsibility or authority. I think that is the more appropriate approach to take.

I want to thank the gentleman for letting me articulate, I think, just the sheer horror of having our kids leave our home--for innocence--and not come back. As a mother, I believe that, and as one who sees this, I believe we owe that family a response.

He was a boy.

That's right.

You're speaking as a parent, and I think everyone can appreciate that. You really highlighted it. In this instance, of course, we have to look and see whether there was a hate crime or if his civil rights were violated.

But you're absolutely right. We had nothing to go on. We had a person walking. We have the police, themselves, and so many of us have worked to ensure that the guns on these streets don't go after our law enforcement officers because, obviously, there are many who believe the more guns the better off we are--guns, guns, guns. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It's just guns, guns, guns. So he has a concealed weapon. I'm not here to cast any aspersions, but as the reports are coming out, he has some challenges--meaning Mr. Zimmerman-- to his record. He has some challenges.

With that in and of itself, the officer should have brought him in, but there is no evidence of that. Maybe they did, but there is no evidence of that, and they should have done, as you indicated, the normal police work. He has a defense, so be it--that of a concealed weapon permit and ``stand your ground.'' But you have a dead person, and you have no witnesses, at least not that the police have offered to say Mrs. Jones, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Gonzalez said that they were in a knockdown, drag-out. There is not any glimmer of information that has come out. The young man happened to be a person of color. We have placed to a bipartisan vote both hate crimes laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and other bills that have been voted on in a bipartisan manner simply because we don't want America to violate those very precious rights.

I want to just share with you, because, as I said to you, I've got a neighborhood watch, The Washington Post says, Experts say neighborhood watches shouldn't be police.

That is correct.

What I don't understand, and what we will be, if you will, perusing is, where did this case go wrong and the fact that the Federal Government has to come in when things go wrong.

Someone said to me in my office that this case has riveted like Emmett Till's case riveted.

And you're right. There are cases across America. Members have raised cases in conversations that we've had, and we need to have all of that in an inventory so we can, out of this tragedy, say to those parents: Trayvon counts. We care. Young people count. Children count. Your community counts and our communities count.

I wanted to share that. I'm not going to let this go. As for the Judiciary Committee; the Congressional Black Caucus; the Tri-Caucus, which involves the Asian Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus; letters that have been written by a number of Members of Congress; the work of Congresswoman Brown--and the Progressive Caucus, I know, is a willing partner when it comes to issues of justice--we are not going to let this rest without finding some relief and rest for this family.

And I thank the chairman for his personal story. I met the young man, and we've all traveled together, our family, at the Dem caucus events where families come together.

I will just conclude by simply holding up, again, this picture. And for those who don't know the terminology, let me just show. He is in football attire here; and we don't know what college he would have gone to or what football team, if that had been his choice, that he would have played on.

Let me just put this up. If you can see it, this is an innocent face. But he is wearing a hoody. And if anyone needs to know, I have a hoody. It's my local college's paraphernalia that you buy, and you wear it to the game, and it has a hoody. And it's something that I think everybody has seen in this country. I see nothing on here that says: Bad guy. Criminal. Shoot me. That's not what we do in America. I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to share and to say that we will find some resolution to this.

I will simply conclude by saying that I do believe in an optimistic America. Revealing my pain about this young man is pain for all those whose names we have not called. But in believing in an optimistic America, I want to be a problem solver. I want to solve this problem or answer this problem with respect to Trayvon Martin.

I want to say that as I perceive this product that has been produced, this Budget for All, I am so grateful that over 90-plus members of the Progressive Caucus saw that the right route to take was the optimistic upturn, positive, open opportunity budget to give to all of America. That's what we should be supporting, not the downturn, the ``no way out,'' but really that there is a new day for America.

I yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 119 on H. Res. 591, the Rule on H.R. 5, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on H. Res. 591, roll call vote 119, I was detained on official business, and I would like to indicate that I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 591, the rule to H.R. 5.

Let me thank the ranking member and also the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the leadership for giving us the opportunity to celebrate, as we debate H.R. 5, the Affordable Care Act, which is 2 years in the making.

Clearly, it speaks to where we are today. So in celebration of the Affordable Care Act, let me first of all wish it a happy anniversary.

Before I start on the Affordable Care Act, let me indicate to my good friend from Georgia and the Physicians Caucus that many of us do not take a back seat to our support for physicians. How can I help myself, coming from a community where the Texas Medical Center is fighting for a permanent doctor fix, which we've not been able to secure from this Congress, and as well, being a champion of physician-owned hospitals. Because I do believe that physicians have a high level, an acuteness of their concern for their patient. Maybe it is also because in the last decade I've had to tend to ailing parents, both of whom I lost, and have seen doctors up close and personal dealing with one of the most difficult times in any child's life.

This is not about a fight of one side or another regarding doctors, and my constituents have been kind enough to give me time here to have gone through these debates over and over again. Let me just say very quickly: I am glad the Affordable Care Act is in place, because what we're celebrating today, as we talk about H.R. 5, is that women will not be dropped from insurance when they get sick or pregnant; insurance companies will not require women to obtain preauthorization for referral for access to an OB/GYN; millions of older women with chronic conditions will not be banned from care; 279,000 constituents in the 18th Congressional District will have improved employee health care; 187,000 uninsured in the 18th Congressional District will now have access to health care; and my hospitals, my public hospitals, my Texas Children's Hospital, St. Luke's, Methodist, Ben Taub, M.D. Anderson will be able to secure compensation in uncompensated care. I celebrate the Affordable Care Act.

But today we're discussing legislation that has already received a veto notice from the President, but we're here on the floor of the House discussing H.R. 5 and ignoring the fact that the Affordable Care Act has already confirmed health care is vital to America, and we in the Congress must protect it.

By the way, the Affordable Care Act is a preserver of Medicare and strengthens Medicare.

But let me tell you what we are facing with this legislation that is anchored with the component dealing with medical malpractice. We have

seen documentation across States that, in fact, medical malpractice is an insurance issue. And even when there is an attempt to, in essence, dumb down the recovery, we have seen that the insurance companies do not, in essence, reward the physicians. Insurance premiums are still high, high, high, high, high. How do I know? You can go to the State of Texas and ask physicians are their insurance premiums such that they're celebrating today. Yes, there were some measured declines, but they are paying high insurance premiums.

Now, in the findings of H.R. 5, our friends cite the Commerce Clause and indicate that Congress has a right to write this bill on health care because of the Commerce Clause. As I understand it, many are pursuing the challenge of the Affordable Care Act, suggesting we had no authority. But in their own bill, the findings cite interstate commerce as the basis of writing this bill. But there are some friends over there that just caught it, and one of the amendments from another gentleman from Georgia strikes the findings. This is a case of ``have your cake and eat it too'' because they know that tort law has, for a long time, been the prerogative of States.

So to cite President Reagan when he gave this seminal talk on tort law in 1986, his words:

So over the years, tort law has helped us drive the

negligent out of the marketplace. This, in turn, has

permitted legitimate economic innovation to take its course

and raise living standards throughout the Nation.

So the President agrees that tort law drives the negligent out of the arena. He then goes on to say, as he put together this task force:

To be sure, much tort law would remain to be reformed by

the 50 States, not the Federal Government. And in our Federal

system of government, this is only right.

So my friends cannot deny that H.R. 5 implodes State law. It takes away the authority of States. And removing it by some late amendment is not going to make it right. You are going to violate the rights of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Texas, and West Virginia that have enacted their own medical malpractice damage caps. You are going to implode the rights of Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee that have expressly chosen not to limit. And in this bill, if you have not limited it, then you are capped. In this bill, you rid the rights of those States that have not capped, and the flexibility only comes if you have capped and it is higher than what we have, and you obliterate constitutional State law that has its own caps.

So this is not as black-and-white as my good friends would like to make it. We are riding in on the high horse, and we are not?

For example, in my State of Texas, on May 29, 2010, Connie Spears went to a hospital reporting excruciating leg pain. This was all too familiar due to her previous blood clots. The emergency room doctor ran tests and discharged her with a bilateral leg pain. But what really happened is that she had blood clots around a vein filter. She got kidney failure. She went unconscious. To save her life, two legs were amputated. There was definitive negligence. And it is important to note that she sits today with no legs.

What we are suggesting is that we are now intruding into State law, that this individual now, under Federal law, loses noneconomic damages for pain and suffering and the extent of the negligence that was promoted and, as well, faces a Federal hard hat to prevent her from having relief. Now, this is in the State of Texas, and we have tort law reform that many oppose, but it is a State decision.

I offered an amendment that would have carved out an exemption for health care lawsuits for serious and irreversible injury, supported by two of my colleagues, Congressman Hank Johnson and Mr. Quigley. It exempted victims of malpractice that resulted in irreversible injury, including loss of limbs and loss of reproductive ability, from the $250,000 cap. This was not accepted.

What we say today is people like Connie Spears, children, seniors who are limited in their noneconomic damages, now have no basis for punishing those who were blatant in their negligence, no way of dealing in a punitive manner to prevent these kinds of acts from happening and recognizing the loss of limbs of someone who may have been unemployed.

My friends cannot have it both ways, that is, challenging the Affordable Care Act because they say that interstate commerce does not allow us to do good, but yet coming back in their findings to suggest they have the upper hand.

Well, I'm going to join my friend on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Johnson, on states' rights. Today, on H.R. 5, you literally quash and extinguish states' rights; and in the course of doing so, you quash the rights of injured patients, for those that Ronald Reagan said to get negligence out of the marketplace, out of the way of those who need care so that the good can rise up.

So I would make the argument that we're now debating in a conflicted manner. I don't know what the positions of Republicans are. They want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, which was premised on interstate commerce, the authority of Congress. They come right back at our 2-year anniversary, celebrating people who are living because of the Affordable Care Act, and now want to place their hat on doing this on interstate commerce. I want to know where all the states' rights advocates are and why you are abolishing and eliminating constitutional State law, why you are eliminating statutory law where individual States have expressed their will.

I believe this bill, along with the component that wants to dash the Affordable Care Act, is a bill destined for the President's veto. But more importantly, let me try to understand how we can have our good friends on the other side of the aisle have their cake and eat it too.

I'm celebrating with the celebratory cake of the Affordable Care Act. I don't mind celebrating this Congress' right to help save lives.

How do you put a bill on the floor of the House where you have argued that there is no right for us to be involved in health care, and now you want to dash the rights of those who have been injured through interstate commerce and the Congress of the United States of America? Frankly, the complexity of your argument is such that it makes no sense; and, frankly, I hope that my colleagues will join me and applaud the Affordable Care Act, celebrate the expanded life that we have provided, and also recognize that those individuals who seek remedy in the marketplace, who have been injured by negligence and acts that have been dastardly, are compensated in a fair and just manner. That is all we ask under the Constitution: due process and the rights of all Americans.

Will the gentleman yield?

Dr. Gingrey, thank you for your kindness and your kind words. I would say that rather than being wrong, we disagree.

But what I would say is, if you do not have a cap, then this bill will supersede the laws in States that say they have no caps. And the only thing I would conclude on is that your bill is premised, even though you're citing the individual mandate--and we can quarrel about that as to whether or not it is a forced-upon mandate or whether there are options of that individual having employer-based insurance, et cetera--but it is premised on interstate commerce. And therefore you have an amendment being offered by one of your members to strike that.

I thank the gentleman.

The premise of this bill is interstate commerce, which in the initial arguments being made by my friends on the other side of the aisle, they argued vigorously that we couldn't even do health care under this premise, even though we have Medicare. The premise you have in this bill is under interstate commerce. But you have an amendment that is seeking to strike your findings because you were caught with a conflict between dealing with this question congressionally, which we're saying is legitimate from the perspective of the Affordable Care Act--you're trying to use it now--but you realize that there are Members who are now arguing the question of states' rights.

We have existing State law on tort reform--hundreds of years of tort reform--and you're trying to abolish it, and with this added legislation on medical malpractice you're now trying to supersede existing State law.

Where the amounts of moneys are not capped, where there are no caps, this bill places the $250,000 in. If there are no caps. That is an overriding of State law. No matter how you cut it, it's an overriding of State law enforcement. And you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I'm willing to celebrate the Affordable Care Act and eat the cake because it saves lives. But what you're doing here now is not. You're overriding State laws. Many States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning on a number of issues that I think are enormously important, and I am delighted to join initially my colleague from Texas to again emphasize and truthfully tell the story about the Affordable Care Act that is now 2 years old. But as a founder and the cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, and because our children are our presents and our tomorrows, I think it's important to ask the question: Do we want healthy children? And should health care be a question of wealth and status? Or should it be open to all of our beautiful and precious children and youth?

The Affordable Care Act allows our young college students to remain on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26. The Affordable Care Act allows a baby that has a proclivity to asthma as a preexisting condition to be able to be covered by insurance. It provides an opportunity for extensive research into some of the unsolved childhood diseases, such as pediatric cancer. And, of course, it provides greater access to health care by expanding what we call community health clinics, something that I have been a proponent of since coming to Congress and throughout the Bush administration, when I asked President Bush directly about the number of community health clinics not only in the Nation but in my State of Texas, where we have the highest number of uninsured persons.

So I don't know why our Republican Presidential candidates and many think that the rising pathway to victory is to condemn an opportunity for our children. I find that curious, at best. And I would applaud and celebrate President Obama and his administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Sebelius, and all of those who are contributing to the implementing of this legislation. I can tell you, in Texas today, as I stand, women are being denied access to health care. Thank God for the Affordable Care Act for its constitutional or its Federal premise of providing access to health care for all Americans. At least we have something that we can use to question the denial of access to health care to women in the State of Texas.

I indicated that I chair the Congressional Children's Caucus, so I rise

today to applaud the Justice Department decision to investigate the death, the murder, of Mr. Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. A youngster, the child of two loving parents, minding his own business, wearing the attire of youthful people, hoodies, sneakers. I understand that he had his earphones in his ear and may have been bopping along to a little music.

I support Neighborhood Watch. I come from local government. Neighbors should watch out for each other but not a neighborhood vigilante. If the 911 call said to that individual, Mr. Zimmerman, ``Don't follow him,'' then get in your car and sit quiet. The police are on the way.

Every one of us, as parents--I have a son--this is not an issue that should strike us as color. It should be anyone that has a teenager, bopping along with a hoody on and sneakers and earphones in his ear, just going to get candy, to be able to sit in front of the all-star game, and he winds up with a gunshot to the chest that kills him dead in his tracks.

Thank you Justice Department for recognizing that the harsh law in the State of Florida that says that you can stand your ground and defend yourself, this man should have retreated. He should have never been out there after that boy. That boy was not found coming out of a window, going through a door. He was on a sidewalk. And it is an outrage. Thank you to President Obama's Justice Department for recognizing that his civil rights are now in question of having been violated. And the Federal law preempts Florida's law, which is the harshest law in this Nation. Every parent should think at least that if their child is just being a child, just being a teenager, a youngster who liked to babysit and play football, that he still had life ahead of him.

I also want to say that I support moving the ``R'' status from the bullying bill. I held a major hearing in my district. Bullying is an epidemic. And I have introduced major legislation, H.R. 83, and I am encouraging the Judiciary Committee to pass this legislation dealing with bullying. It is an epidemic. We can reauthorize the block grant to give money for best practices to help parents, to help schools, to help children learn about bullying. I believe in our children. I want this Congress to believe in our children, and this Nation to believe in our children.

Mr. Speaker, how much longer can we continue to watch the bloodshed and slaughter in Syria without demanding the United Nations' collaborative action providing those rebels, along with states out of the Arab League, the weapons that they need? We know that there is a hesitation to begin air attacks; but when you see the slaughter, the loss of life of women and children, it is outrageous.

We learned today that Russia joined the Red Cross in calling for a daily truce in Syria for humanitarian needs. That is not enough. Russia and China should stop their blocking of the United Nations and the Security Council of providing some aid to save the lives of innocent women and children.

This is a humanitarian crisis and it calls for a quick response. Yes, the Red Cross and humanitarian aid should be allowed in, but we should provide for those who are trying to defend themselves against oppression the kind of support on the ground that is necessary.

Where is the Arab League? Where is the collaborative effort of the United Nations? Where is the outcry for the bloodshed in Syria?

I thank the gentlelady for her kindness.

As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, the cochair and founder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, and a member of the Health Care Task Force, it is now time to commemorate--even to celebrate--2 years of the Affordable Care Act, particularly coming from an area that embraces the Texas Medical Center, where so much research has benefited from the passage of the Affordable Care Act and the added commitment to research for any number of diseases that we are still confronted with. So I am baffled by the opposition to this bill and the usage that it has seemingly come upon during the Republican Presidential debates. For, in actuality, if they would read the bill and look at its basic premises, they would take up the cause of saying that it is a very important element of making Americans more healthy.

And I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for her leadership on health care issues and, of course, for leading this Special Order and, as well, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for making sure that we are focused on how this impacts our community.

Children, in particular, won't lose their coverage just because they were born with preexisting conditions like asthma. And American families are seeing how reform is saving lives and saving money. Medicare is now stronger for seniors, and women can now get lifesaving mammograms at no extra cost. In eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities, which we worked on continuously and, as a caucus, submitted this language to the Affordable Care Act, we find that it would have reduced direct medical care expenditures by $229.4 billion for the years 2003 to 2006. This bill was passed after that. And even though all the language that the CBC wanted to include in that bill was not included, large steps were made in terms of the elements of that bill.

This bill protects and provides for the fact that if you have an illness that is chronic, you do not have lifetime caps. Eighty-six million Americans receive free preventative care; that means they get lifesaving cancer screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies, and soon women can have their contraceptives covered without paying a copay or deductible. They are living healthier lives.

There is evidence, unfortunately, that over the years has shown that for infant mortality rates of mothers age 20-plus, race, ethnicity, and education makes a difference. For mothers with less than high school, it is high among all populations, including white women. High school, it is almost equally as high: 13.4 African Americans per 1,000 births; 9.2 American Indians per 1,000 births; 6.5 white/non-Hispanic; 5.6 Asian/Pacific Islander; and 5.3 Hispanic.

It is shameful that we lose our newborns because of lack of health care and education. The Affordable Care Act will change that because it will create greater opportunities for access to health care. 180 million are now protected against the worst insurance abuses, like denying health care to the sick, excessive premium increases, and lifetime caps. An additional 2.5 million young adults now have insurance. That's because the Affordable Care Act allows families, parents, to keep their children on insurance until age 26. I have personally spoken to families who have said, Thank you. And lives have been saved.

What is the Affordable Care Act? It is saving lives. Forty-seven million Americans now benefit from a stronger Medicare program. The solvency of the program has been extended by 8 years. New prescription drug discounts have saved 3.6 million seniors on Medicare an average of $600, and seniors understand that in just a few years to come, the doughnut hole will be completely closed. The worst Medicare reform we ever saw--and it was not reformed. It was actually a blight on Medicare to have something called the prescription drug part D with a big fat doughnut hole, which most seniors fell in and almost drowned. Thank goodness we are ending that aspect of it.

But let me tell you why it's important to have the Affordable Care Act. Coming from the State that I do and having experienced this past week, over the last 10 days, as we've been fighting this--and it is galvanizing--as Planned Parenthood has gone around the State of Texas, and as we watch various State laws infringe upon women's health care and access to health care--if you can imagine, a sonogram that forces a woman to look at a sonogram along with her physician. This should be a prayerful and private moment where laws do not intrude on a private decision. Or the law that says that you have to tell your employer what reason you are using contraception for. These are outrageous aspects. Or Planned Parenthood affiliates that have nothing to do with abortion in the State of Texas now are eliminated from receiving precious Medicaid dollars in the State of Texas, which has the highest number of uninsured, mostly among young women and single women with children.

They are denying them access to health care because they are claiming that affiliates are performing abortions. They know that is not true. We're going to fight it, we're going to fight it, and we're going to fight it. One of the reasons is because the Affordable Care Act provides equal opportunity to access health care. It is shameful that the State of Texas is turning away some $30 million to $40 million to help women have access to health care. It is shameful that they've already cut $76.9 million.

So I want to thank Representative Garnet Coleman, Representative Sylvester Turner, Representative Alma Allen, Representative Carol Alvarado, and a number of others who recognize that the State should take a different position and are working with me to turn the clock forward and not backwards in terms of health care for women in the State of Texas. We need all the help we can get. And the Affordable Care Act, a reasoned response to good health care, is providing that legitimate law to say that all Americans deserve access to good health care.

For my district, it improves employer-based coverage for 279,000 residents. That is the 18th Congressional District in the State of Texas. It provides credits to help pay for coverage for up to 186,000 households; improves Medicare for 70,000 beneficiaries--seniors-- including closing the prescription drug doughnut hole for 5,300 seniors. It allows 16,600 small businesses to obtain affordable health care.

If we say we care about small businesses--I hear that all the time-- then why are you condemning the Affordable Care Act that helps small business provide tax credits to help reduce health care insurance for up to 14,600 small businesses in the 18th Congressional District in Texas? Multiply that by 435 districts. There are millions of small businesses being helped.

It provides coverage for 187,000 uninsured residents. Remember, I said Texas is the State with the highest number of uninsured persons without

health care. It protects up to 500 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs. And when we were dealing with bankruptcies in the Judiciary Committee, one of the single most difficult elements of bankruptcy was catastrophic illnesses. It provides better health care coverage for the insured. Approximately 41 percent of the district's population of 279,000 will receive coverage from their employer.

There are many other aspects of what this insurance reform, Affordable Care Act, good health care does for Americans. And so I am happy to celebrate the Affordable Care Act because I believe that lives have been saved. Children with diabetes or children with preexisting diseases that would not have access to health care, other than the emergency room, now can get good coverage and good care.

Finally, I would say something that we collectively supported that has been an asset in my congressional district is that a health clinic has received millions of dollars through the stimulus pursuant to our commitment to community health clinics and now has 20 patient rooms, increased jobs, and is providing good health care in that community. Community health clinics have become first-line responders to providing access to all people.

So I thank the gentlelady for allowing me to share these thoughts, but in particular I thank her for helping me acknowledge the fight we have in Texas, where women's access to health care foolishly has been denied. And incorrectly, I believe, labeling Planned Parenthood and its affiliates--in particular the affiliates, who have over the years through the Bush administration when President Bush was in office--this bill was passed in the State of Texas--but the affiliates were allowed to continue to give good health care, and no question was ever raised that they were mixing Federal dollars in their clinics that might have provided for abortions. It is against the law.

Why we are denying women in the State of Texas their health care, their lifeline, baffles all of us. But we're going to fight to the end, and look forward to working with Health and Human Services to ensure that we can fight for good health care for all Americans and the women of the State of Texas.

I rise today to celebrate the 2nd anniversary of the Affordable Health Care Act. After years of trying to ensure that all Americans will have access to health care, we passed a measure which is a step in the right direction to one day guaranteeing that every American will have access to affordable care. In March 2010, we passed and President Obama signed into law historic health care reform legislation, the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

As the founding Member of the Children's Caucus and Active Member of the Women's Caucus I am keenly aware that having access to affordable health care will result in healthier families. As a Representative from the State of Texas I realize the importance of the ACA. Texas has the highest rate of uninsured individuals in the U.S. including the working uninsured or under insured.

Because of the ACA millions of Americans are already benefitting from this law: insurers are no longer allowed to discriminate against children and others who are sick; small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage for their employees; and seniors are saving money on prescription drugs and receiving free preventive care through Medicare.

In the 2 years since the President signed his health reforms into law, millions of Americans have already experienced firsthand its important benefits and the economic security it provides.

Medicare is now stronger for seniors, and women can now get life- saving mammograms at no extra cost.

Children won't lose their coverage just because they were born with pre-existing conditions like asthma--and American families are seeing how reform is saving lives and saving money.

Since we passed reform almost 2 years ago, Americans have seen its positive impact:

Eighty-six million Americans received free preventive care. That means they got live-saving cancer screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies, and soon women can have their contraception covered without paying a co-pay or deductible. They're living healthier lives while saving money at the same time.

One hundred eighty million are now protected against the worst insurance abuses, like denying health care to the sick, excessive premium increases and lifetime caps on the amount of care a patient can receive, and soon will be protected against gender discrimination.

An additional 2.5 million young adults now have insurance. That's because President Obama's health reform made sure they could stay on parents' plans as they enter the workforce, until they turn 26.

Forty-seven million Americans now benefit from a stronger Medicare program. The solvency of the program has been extended by 8 years, and new prescription drug discounts have saved 3.6 million people with Medicare an average of $600.

That's just the beginning. As the law continues to phase in over the coming months, so will more of its benefits. New reforms will lower costs and raise the quality of care. Seniors will see their Medicare coverage continue to improve, and see the doughnut hole completely close.

And in 2 years, every single American, regardless of their circumstances--whether they want to change jobs, start a business or retire early, or even if they lose their job--will have access to affordable, quality health insurance. Presidents have been trying to make that happen for 70 years. President Obama got it done.

Since March 23, 2010, every family with insurance has gained important new protections, and by 2014 the law will make sure all Americans have access to affordable health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, rise to discuss Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and to support the Multiple Sclerosis MS150 Bike Ride from Houston to Austin occurring this weekend. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society has sponsored this and many other events over the course of last 32 years.

Multiple Sclerosis (MS), itself, is an unpredictable disease of the central nervous system which disrupts communication between the brain and other parts of the body.

Sadly, there is no known cure for multiple sclerosis at this time. However, there are therapies that may slow the disease. The goal of treatment is to control symptoms and help you maintain a normal quality of life. Most people experience their first symptoms of MS between the ages of 20 and 40; the initial symptom of MS is often blurred or double vision, red-green color distortion, or even blindness in one eye.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects women more than men. 75% of the people diagnosed with MS are female. The disease is most commonly diagnosed between ages 20 and 40, but can be seen at any age.

I would personally like to thank the National Multiple Sclerosis Society for spreading awareness about MS and for organizing the National Multiple Sclerosis Society's 2012 X Event/ Bike Ride from Houston to Austin.

In additions, I would like to thank all the participants who are biking and supporting those who are participating in this meaningful bike riding.

Their efforts have raised funds and hopes not only in support of researching a cure for Multiple Sclerosis, but also providing programs for people affected by the disease to address their daily challenges.

Multiple Sclerosis is known to be one of the most debilitative chronic diseases. It is a terrible affliction that interrupts the flow of information from the brain to the body. Every single day, over 400,000 people battling with the physical, mental and emotional challenges of this disease.

It is an unpredictable disease that affects each person differently. Symptoms can be mild, such as some numbness in the limbs. Or, they can be severe, such as paralysis or loss of vision. The progress, severity, and specific symptoms of MS are erratic and vary from one person to another.

Thanks to organizations like the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, however, today new treatments and advances in research are giving new hope to people affected by the disease.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Congratulating Joe Quattrone

I was very happy to yield to the gentleman, and I indicated to you in the spirit of bipartisanship, although I've not had the privilege of having Joe cut my hair, let me congratulate Joe the Barber because he is the epitome of a public servant. He has worked for this august institution for 42 years, and I'm very proud to say that he can claim that he has cut the hair of all of our Speakers. And I don't think our Speaker, who has outstanding Italian heritage, our former Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, would in any way shy away from congratulating this distinguished gentleman who came to this country and literally is a walking, if you will, American Dream.

So I want to congratulate you, Joe the Barber, on behalf of a bipartisan Congress and join my colleague, Mr. Burton, in congratulating you for your service. You are truly a public servant, an inspiration to all of your family members, and we wish you a long life.

Again, congratulations for 42 years to Joe the Barber.

With that, I will continue my remarks and thank the Speaker.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I look forward to addressing these very important issues to you, and certainly we want to make sure that we address questions.

In the coming weeks, we will be discussing the attributes of the Affordable Care Act, and I will look forward to coming to the floor of the House and again acknowledging how much money the Affordable Care Act, the health care act, has in fact saved this Nation: how it has preserved Medicare, how we focus on medical education, medical school education, medical providers' education, how we have talked about issues dealing with health care disparities, and in particular how we have expanded the community health clinics that have saved lives, how we have worked on issues dealing with children's health care, how we have provided access to health care for many, many people.

That allows me, or calls upon me, to again follow up to again distinguish the Georgetown law student who spoke before Members of Congress who got in the crosshairs of a commentary that was not very flattering. I just want to distinguish the commentary that came against the Georgetown law student from comments that will be made by entertainers and others across the Nation in the course of their comedic work.

The question about the Georgetown law student, Madam Speaker, was that she was called before Members of Congress to speak. She was not speaking on a television program or an interview. She was actually called by Members of Congress to testify to the question of access of health care to women.

And I will tell you that right now documentation shows that women who are 24 years old and above, their health plans today cost 84 percent more than a male similarly situated. So we know without health insurance how devastating it would be for women not to have health insurance.

Many of the Planned Parenthood family clinics and others are focused on health care. We want to have a firewall, as Planned Parenthood has, and that is that the firewall is that access to health care is a distinguishable factor of their service, and that's what this young woman was speaking about, the importance of access to health care.

It was in the course of that testimony that made her a victim of public ridicule. That's why I believe President Obama appropriately acknowledged the right of a citizen to petition his or her government and that if they do so, they should not be subject to public ridicule. There lies the basis of the President of the United States calling this Georgetown law school student. And I applaud that because no matter how high you are, the highest office in

the land, the Commander in Chief, isn't it appropriate, isn't it befitting of an individual who represents all of the people of the United States to have the humanity to be able to call people, citizens, families, when they are at their lowest ebb, when they have been in the course of public service or they have been in a position of presenting their public case to the United States Congress or even to the President of the United States of America.

I hope that we, no matter what our position and station in life, particularly those of us who hold roles in the most powerful lawmaking body of the world, the United States Congress--the highest office is considered the Commander in Chief, also the leader of the free world-- that we would have the capacity to offer an apology to someone who has felt offended.

I want to move into an apology that I want to offer, and that is to the families in my district whose loved ones have been buried in our veterans' cemetery in Houston, off of Veterans' Memorial, who have now faced this tragic circumstance of having headstones misplaced or moved. I don't think there should be any tolerance for that. I believe that when an individual takes an oath to serve in the United States military, for those who, through God's grace, are able to return from battlefields, who are able to retire out of the military as veterans, that we owe them a great deal of respect for their benefits. And then to those families who experience a fallen loved one, either in battle or that they ultimately die as a veteran of the United States military, they should expect that the sacredness of their burial be respected.

I will be visiting our cemetery in Houston, Texas, and asking, Can we not get it right? Can we not fix the problem that moves headstones, that has misplaced headstones and mislabeled headstones? I frankly believe that our men and women in the United States military deserve better, and I'm going to ask for better and insist on that.

I have been working over the last couple of weeks meeting with a very prominent Syrian American in my district, having met with him and others in months past on this whole question of Syria. Just last week, I presented a letter to the representative of the Syrian Embassy demanding that President Assad resign and step down from office, demanding that the Red Cross be allowed, at that time, to come in and provide humanitarian relief, demanding that women and children be protected and taken to safe places so they could receive health care and food, and, at that time, asking for the respectful removal of the deceased, the bodies of the two fallen Western reporters and the others that have been wounded.

Some progress has been made. In the immediate hours of that visit, we saw that the Red Cross and the Red Crescent were able to come in, or the International Red Cross. Then shortly thereafter we saw that Syrian forces were bombing the humanitarian relief efforts. And we heard an interview from one of the Western reporters that clearly indicated that the two reporters that died were actually murdered, because the Syrian forces actually targeted the location where they were, where journalists were. Everyone knows that there is an effort to maintain a firewall or respect for journalists no matter where they are, on a battlefield or in the area. It's known where they are allegedly trying to be in a safe place, and then you directly bomb that area, then you know that there's certainly basis for someone, an interview that took place on CNN that indicated that they thought it was direct murder. However we define it, we know that there is enormous loss of life.

I want to just say that having had the privilege of serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, now a ranking member on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, having served on that committee for a number of years since 9/11, the tragedy of 9/11, having gone to a number of war zones, from Bosnia to Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, having gone to Mumbai right after the horrific terrorist bombing, and knowing what conflicts around the world mean in terms of either sending our military personnel, or even after we engage. If you look at the NATO engagement, which included the United States and Libya, there are many who will say right now, look at the confusion. But I think it's important to understand that the intent of the NATO allies was to stop the brutality.

The aftermath we would want to be better. We would want there to not be the conflict that is going on, the tribal conflict, the instability of the Libyan Government as we speak. To be very truthful with you, of course we don't want that to be happening. But no one took to the NATO alliance or took to the air to bomb Libya in agreement in a coalition to create confusion afterward. The call and the response was to stop what was the apparent slaughter and the killing of Libyan citizens en masse.

We know it is not perfect now. Iraq is not perfect, frankly, and we made it worse by going into Iraq because at that time there was not that kind of immediate conflict. But that was the basis for Libya.

Now we have a situation where the argument is that Syria is too complicated, in the region that it's in, the impact of a direct hit is too complicated. Today, I am calling upon the very body that was established at the very end of the 1940s after we ended World War II, another horrific and heinous world conflict which we did not expect, based upon historical perspectives when many argued that World War I was the ``War to End All Wars,'' and, of course, that did not happen, and we've had conflicts and wars since.

But right now, the brutality of violence against the Syrian people, the desperation of killing children in the streets, of slaughtering babies and of not allowing the wounded to get health care, calls upon the world to respond. And I think it is very clear that it is complex enough that a direct attack by the United States, as the administration has acknowledged, would not be appropriate. A direct attack, a direct hit by the United States may not get the results that we would like. But there is no doubt that we cannot leave in good conscience this Congress without someone calling for an immediate response and relief from the United Nations, which was organized to draw together world support.

Whether it is appropriate for U.N. peacekeepers, whether it is appropriate for the U.N., working with some of the Arab States out of the Arab League, it is absolutely ludicrous, tragic, disastrous, and heinous for us to watch night after night the violence that is going on against the Syrian people.

One may argue that there is violence everywhere. But it is a call upon our humanitarian position in the world to be able to call out for assistance. So, today, I am calling for actions by the United Nations in establishing or reaching out for a coalition that would provide military response. What does that mean? Providing weapons, if you will, so that those individuals who are defending themselves against slaughter--let's be very clear. These individuals are trying to defend themselves against slaughter, one city after another is under direct attack by the Syrian national forces, ordered by President Assad, who refuses to leave, and no one has been able to make him leave. The violence and the bloodshed continues on and on and on and on.

So I don't think that we can stand and do nothing. I have already indicated I fully understand that a direct hit by the United States would not be the appropriate direction to take. But that does not leave us helpless, and it does not leave the United Nations helpless. And as a Member of Congress who has supported the United Nations over and over again for the value of its presence in terms of a world force, to insist upon some coming together of nations to the Secretary-General-- don't shame yourself with inaction. Don't shame the United Nations with inaction by not calling upon those who have resources in the region to be able to prevent those rebels, or those who are defending themselves, or those men and young boys who are defending themselves, who are picking up sticks and whatever they are using, from being slaughtered in the streets, from having amputated legs, from having no ability to be able to attend to the wounded.

Today, March 8, it is imperative that you begin to assess the violent situation and you stop this slaughter now.

As we leave to work in the districts, I will be pushing back on this issue,

continuing to push back to the United Nations, asking the Arab League for their help through different states to provide this care.

How do I put a backdrop on this? This happens to be the week in which we commemorate what we call, in this Nation, Bloody Sunday. For many who don't understand that date, it was yesterday. It was the day that those individuals who were pleading for the right to vote in this country--similar to the concept of democracy and freedom, in a different way, in a different era, the Syrians are saying that they are oppressed by this regime. But in the day that we were in the midst of civil rights, there were regions and places and people that could not vote in this country; and so citizens from all backgrounds took to Selma, Alabama, and proceeded nonviolently after being violently pushed back and, in essence, bloodied, came back and walked peaceably over that bridge in Selma, Alabama, which was commemorated last Sunday, but the actual date was this Wednesday. I will be commemorating it Houston, Texas, on this Sunday, March 11.

But the concept simply was, when people felt that they were oppressed, in this Nation they found a way to find relief through a nonviolent approach. Ultimately, as those who are historians will know, we passed, in a bipartisan way, with the signature of President Lyndon Baines Johnson, both the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which I maintain today is a protector of every citizen's right to vote no matter what your racial background, where you live. The Voting Rights Act simply says: One person, one vote. We protect you. We protect America. We believe in voting.

We have since tried to expand that to ensure that there are election laws that don't stop people or oppress people from voting, and any number of things, like voter IDs, when there is no fraud. Where people have a registration card and have lived in the community, we should be allowing citizens to vote.

But I put that in the context, because now this is 2012, and I think Americans feel with some, if you will--how shall I call it?--some mishaps and laws that probably don't work, that we can vote. Well, just think of a society that feels that they can't speak, that they cannot act upon a free government. Just think of that kind of society. And then you want to petition your government, and what happens? What happens, you're slaughtered. You're slaughtered.

There is no peaceable marching, because if you studied Syria, you will know that they started peaceably marching. What happened? The Syrian forces came and attacked them with weaponry and with violence. They killed them, plain and simple, when they were marching for freedom.

So I would ask that we, again, not allow this to happen. I will proceed with my petitioning to the United Nations. I will be prayerful as well, because as we stand here today, I will assure you that there are those in Syria that are dying as I am on this floor today, that there are those that are losing their lives, that they are being attacked by the Syrian national forces who are killing people in the street. I don't think that we can allow that to occur anymore in this month when we celebrate Women's History Month and the fact that we've celebrated some of the women peacemakers. Right now, today, women are being wounded, women are being hurt, their children are being hurt in Syria.

I want to thank the Speaker for yielding this time and allowing me to call upon the good graces of the international family to be able to lift up the souls and the spirits and the lives of the Syrian people.

As you reflect on this, let me just say, when you thought there was no hope--and you can look at the Arab Spring, although governments are not perfect and we are struggling for these governments, such as Egypt and others, to establish themselves, who would have ever thought that individuals could have brought about a change in Egypt and Tunisia and Libya? Who would have ever thought that democracy would be raising its head? As difficult as it is, don't give up on the Syrian people. Don't give up on those children, those babies, those young men, those men and those families. Don't give up on Syria, and don't stand by idly while bloodshed continues and Syrians are slaughtered in the street.

I look forward to a final relief and a lifting of our humanitarian spirit as we, as a Nation, celebrate the democracy and the freedom in which we are able to live.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 9, 2012, at 11 a.m.

This is a month that we note as celebrating women and women's history as a major component of the wonderful history of the greatest Nation in the world. How proud we are of a Nation that supports people's rights no matter your walk of life or religious background or ethnic background; and how proud we are now in 2012 to note that there are men and women on the front lines, on the battlefields defending America's freedom.

So I rise today to continue my advocacy for women's rights. I note that I have been a proponent of women's rights from the earliest part of my career as a lawyer, as a civic participant, as a civilian in my hometown of Houston, as a mother, certainly as a wife, and as a public servant now as a Member of the United States Congress.

I am delighted to acknowledge the Congressional Women's Caucus and to note that the mission of the Women's Caucus is to improve the lives of women and their families. Since 1977, the caucus has focused on issues that are pertinent to women--from fair credit to child support, equitable pay, retirement income, preventing domestic violence at home and internationally, and of course preventing sexual assault.

So I rise today with a degree of consternation and a resounding stand against the siege and onslaught of women's access to health care. Let me be very clear: women's access to health care is not a battle about a woman's choice or the utilization of contraceptives or family planning. It is, simply, women's access to health care. The issue of birth control is an issue of women's health care. Let me give you a recent study's commentary by the National Women's Law Center:

It found that 25-year-old women have been charged up to 84 percent more than their male contemporaries for individual health plans that specifically exclude maternity coverage. Let me be very clear: 84 percent higher than a male's plan to allow a woman to have access to health care. Therein lies the purpose of the Affordable Care Act--not individual mandates but to be able to even the playing field for women's health care. Therefore, let me indicate that using or not using birth control or family planning is an individual matter, but you cannot obtain those without a prescription. It should be a decision between a woman, her conscience, her doctor, and certainly her faith. So I wish to address the recent tenor of the debate on birth control.

A young law student, Sandra Fluke, came before this body, before the Members of Congress, and testified regarding coverage for family planning and contraceptives. She was then publicly derailed as being a slut and a prostitute. I would hope the days of derogatory terms to silence women's opinions are over forever, particularly when they speak about truth. She recounted the story of a young friend who lost an ovary.

Let me repeat: she, Ms. Fluke, recounted a story of a young friend who lost an ovary due to polycystic ovarian fibroids, which can be managed by contraceptives through prescription. Unfortunately, that young woman could not afford contraceptives and had to endure terrible pain. As a result of asking for help to address female law students' health concerns, Ms. Fluke, in coming to this body as an American citizen, as is her right to petition and speak to the Members of Congress, was called a slut and a prostitute by an entertainment talk- show host.

Calling women these sorts of names is no more than vile, underhanded and a way of defeating one's right to speak. I don't deny the right of entertainers and talk-show entertainers and flamboyant conversationalists to speak all day, but there has to be a defining moment of dignity and respect to anyone's disagreement. So I hope more and more advertisers will recognize that a woman's power is greater than the individual entertainer's power. Drop off of that show. Drop off one by one, day by day. Leave them to the old-fashioned medicine of the 1800s--the pills that will cure all. Let the old doc medicine be their advertisers. That's about the level that they should be at.

Women's health is so very important; and at some point, reproductive health is very much a part of it. Polycystic ovarian syndrome is helped by contraceptives. Mr. Speaker, all of these--endometriosis, the lack of menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, premenstrual syndrome--are helped by treatment and access to women's health.

Let me finally say in conclusion that when you cut Medicaid, you cut poor women's access to health care. I will stand and fight for women's access to health care and their own decisions because it is part of the American way. So let us stand together, united as a Nation, being fair and open to all opinions, but never denying a woman, along with every other American, access to health care.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Let me acknowledge, first of all, the combined efforts that have generated this approach to putting Americans back to work. Let me acknowledge the manager that is on the floor, Congresswoman Waters, for her enormous leadership on many of these issues, as well as the ranking member of the full committee; Mr. Frank, who certainly has served and exercised his willingness to deal with questions of these markets; and, of course, my friend from Texas who is managing this and is, again, I hope working with us in a bipartisan way on some very serious matters.

Again, let me emphasize that the most effective way to reduce our deficit is to put Americans back to work. My amendment in this legislation deals with acknowledging that the emerging companies under this legislation--provides for 5 years from the date of the EGC's initial public offering; 2, the date an EGC has $1 billion in annual growth; and then the date the EGC becomes ``a large accelerated filer,'' which is defined by the Securities and Exchange; a number of provisions to, in essence, help small businesses. This is an important principle. But my amendment adds a requirement that a company would not be considered an emerging growth company, an EGC, if it has issued more than $1 billion in nonconvertible debt over the prior 3 years.

Let me suggest that we are doing better than many of us might think. Many aspects of this bill, for example, will help community banks, which will help other small businesses. But if we look to the economy as we speak, the private sector unemployment has grown for 23 straight months, the economy has grown for 10 straight quarters, overall business investment is going up, corporate profits are up, as are investments in equipment and software, and exports have been a source of growth.

But emerging growth of small businesses needs the extra push, because when you think of the backbone of America, you think of small businesses. As a matter of fact, it is not uncommon for a company to be financed with debt as opposed to equity, and that while $1 billion is not what it used to be, it is still a pretty substantial sum of money.

So what I am saying is I want to help small businesses, but I also want to ensure that we do not expand this legislation where it is not actually helping those smaller emergent growth companies that truly are in need. For years, both Wall Street and big banks lacked the requisite government and oversight

accountability, and I believe that it is important to ensure continued oversight but continued help for these particular companies.

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

I thank the gentleman.

I like the concept of emerging growth, and I think the concept is to build these businesses up, to give them greater opportunities. What I am suggesting is that, the amendment suggests that if you have issued more than a billion dollars, you have grown sufficiently to have an additional standard or a different standard. This particular amendment suggests that we have a framework for emerging growth.

I'd tell my good friend, it is not 3 years.

I thought that was an appropriate framework for a billion dollars. If you spread it out over a period of time, that's $300 million to $400 million a year.

Let me just say that I think the concept is so important, to my friend from Texas, that a friendly modification would be welcomed in the timeframe. But I think the billion dollars is an appropriate standard, if you will, for trying to ensure that we really do boost and give latitude to emerging growth companies.

Let me just conclude my remarks, and if I might, let me yield to the gentleman, because I did not hear him clearly. Let me yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I'd like to raise the question, I did not hear your support or opposition to this initiative.

I'm hoping for a good bipartisan effort here, but I am yielding to the gentleman.

The gentleman is very kind.

So let me just say, as my leader on the floor was trying to get an inquiry about it--and you always take a gift quickly and you say ``thank you''--I think that this will add to the confidence of this legislation.

And as I indicated, though this is not specifically to this point, I want to make sure that we're helping community banks provide more lending and access to small businesses. I want to make sure that we, under the definition of this bill, help emerging growth companies, as well, be stronger and, as well, to be part of the creation of jobs putting Americans back to work.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment No. 4 to H.R. 3606 ``The Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act of 2011.'' My amendment would create a five-year ``on-ramp'' for smaller companies to comply with certain provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank.

In the bill, Emerging Growth Companies are exempted from certain regulatory requirements until the earliest of three dates: (1) five years from the date of the EGC's initial public offering; (2) the date an EGC has $1 billion in annual gross revenue; or (3) the date an EGC becomes a ``large accelerated filer, which is defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a company that has a worldwide public float of $700 million or more.

H.R. 3606 thus provides temporary regulatory relief to small companies, which encourages them to go public, yet ensures their eventual compliance with regulatory requirements as they grow larger.

I agree in principle that it is important to modernize and improve the ability of a company to raise capital in today's environment, but I am concerned H.R. 3606 goes beyond what is necessary at the expense of protecting the investor.

My amendment adds a requirement that a company would NOT be considered an ``emerging growth company'' (EGC) if it has issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt over the prior three years.

As a matter of fact, it is not uncommon for a company to be financed with debt as opposed to equity, and that while $1 billion dollars is not what it used to be---it is still a pretty substantial sum of money. Frankly, Mr. Chair, a company that size needs to have some oversight to protect the public.

For years, both Wall Street and big banks lacked the requisite government oversight and accountability. Relying on Wall Street and big banks to police themselves resulted in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the loss of 8 million jobs, failed businesses, a drop in housing prices, and wiped out personal savings.

We must restore responsibility and accountability in our financial system to give Americans confidence that there is a system in place that works for and protects them. We must create a sound foundation to grow the economy and create jobs.

To wit--this debt financing might be tax deductible, whereas the equity financing typically is not--which gives debt financing a distinct advantage.

H.R. 3606 encourages emerging growth companies (EGCs) to access the public capital markets by temporarily exempting EGCs from some registration procedures, prohibitions on initial public offering (IPO) communications, and independent audits of internal controls over financial reporting, among other exemptions.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment to H.R. 3606 that adds a requirement that a company not be considered to be as an ``emerging growth company,'' if it has issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt over the prior three years.

Mr. Chair, let's continue to protect the investing public.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the chairman very much.

I started my earlier discussion with a previous amendment by suggesting that our underlying premise or the goal should be to reduce the deficit and to put America back to work. This concept of emerging growth opportunities or emerging growth companies is, in fact, I believe, a viable step of doing so.

I do want to remind my colleagues again that overall business investment is growing, corporate profits are up, as are investments in equipment and software. Exports have been a source of strength. We're working very hard to ensure that we reinvigorate manufacturing. We want to make it in America. We want to bring companies back home, and certainly we want to encourage investment. Private sector employment has grown for 23 months, and the economy has grown for 10 straight quarters.

My amendment is to discuss the fine distinctions between those who are very sophisticated and those who are not. My amendment narrows the permissible exemption to allow oral or written communications with potential investors who are qualified institutional investors, but it omits accredited investors from this exemption in the name of investor protection. That is simply to say that we know that the accredited investors are less, if you will, able with the information that they have to compete with what we have classified as qualified institutional investors.

The idea of this amendment is to ensure that an accredited investor would not be considered a qualified investor and therefore be taken advantage of. Under the bill, the commonly known test-the-waters provision would amend the Securities Act of 1933 to expand the range of permissible prefiling communication to sophisticated institutional investors to allow emerging growth companies to determine whether qualified institutional or accredited investors might have an interest in a contemplated securities offering.

Mine is an amendment simply being concerned about the accredited investors and whether or not there is the equal playing field alongside of the qualified institutional investors, which you would expect would have far more sophistication in making determinations about investments. It is simply an effort to provide extra protection for those who will now be out in the marketplace under these emerging growth concepts.

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

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, let me just maintain that this is a simple premise of protecting the less sophisticated investor, and I have no desire to not see jobs being created or the opportunity for emerging growth entities to have access to opportunities for investment. It is quite clear that qualified institutional investors are far more sophisticated than the accredited investors' status, and so I can't get clearer than that, trying to make sure that we protect those.

And as we noted for the Democrats who served on the Financial Services Committee, they made certain statements, if you would, to ensure that we have the greatest amount of protection for those who we want to see having greater opportunities.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I happily yield back my time and ask my colleagues to support this very simple amendment that seeks to protect accredited investors.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment # 7 to H.R. 3606 ``The Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act of 2011.'' This amendment strikes language in the bill that allows an emerging growth company or its underwriter to communicate with ``institutions that are accredited investors.''

H.R. 3606 would exempt certain regulatory requirements until the earliest of three dates: (1) five years from the date of the EGC's initial public offering; (2) the date an EGC has $1 billion in annual gross revenue; or (3) the date an EGC becomes a ``large accelerated filer, which is defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a company that has a worldwide public float of $700 million or more.

The bill thus provides temporary regulatory relief to small companies, which encourages them to go public, yet ensures their eventual compliance with regulatory requirements as they grow larger.

My amendment narrows the permissible exemption to allow oral or written communications with potential investors who are ``qualified institutional investors,'' but omits ``accredited investors from this exemption, in the name of investor protection.''

For example, this amendment would ensure that an accredited investor would not be considered a qualified institutional investor and therefore would not be able to engage in certain types of investments.

Under the bill, the commonly known ``test the waters provision,'' would amend the Securities Act of 1933 to expand the range of permissible pre-filing communications to sophisticated institutional investors to allow Emerging Growth Companies (EGCs) to determine whether qualified institutional or accredited investors might have an interest in a contemplated securities offering.

I believe that while many Accredited Investors are sophisticated and prosperous, and meet the brokerage firm requirements for alternative investments.

My amendment is merely a continuation of the investor protection theme of Dodd-Frank. Specifically, investors that lack the necessary capital to absorb the losses that can arise when investing in an Emerging Growth Company.

Moreover, I would note that many qualified institutional investors have a minimum of $1 billion to invest, which simply may not be the case with accredited investors. My sentiments are similar to those expressed by my Democratic colleagues on the Financial Services Committee: that they and Republicans share the desire to create an accessible, robust and efficient capital market for the benefit of small businesses and investors, alike.

I too, expect that as H.R. 3606 moves forward, further refinements will be adopted to ensure that investor protections are not sacrificed.

Again, as my Democratic colleagues on the Financial Services Committee stated:

H.R. 3606 encourages emerging growth companies (EGCs) to

access the public capital markets by temporarily exempting

EGCs from some registration procedures, prohibitions on

initial public offering (IPO) communications, and independent

audits of internal controls over financial reporting, among

other exemptions.

Democrats agree in principle that it is important to

modernize and improve the ability of a company to raise

capital in today's environment, but are concerned H.R. 3606

goes beyond what is necessary at the expense of protecting

the investor.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this consumer and investor- friendly amendment.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Let me say to my good friend from Texas, I'm going to look forward to working with him on the previous amendment that simply was misconstrued, and we certainly want to respect those who have a million dollars outside their window, but we also want to ensure that we have protection for those less sophisticated investors.

The amendment that I have before me, likewise, has an intent to allow the SEC not to be plagued by frivolous filings. But I want to work with the committee going forward, and so I will not pursue this amendment. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment No. 8 at this time.

I will conclude by saying I like batting .500, and I will continue to work with this committee on these important issues.

Madam Speaker, I have a headline here this morning that indicates, ``Women Wait as Politicians Debate Their Care.''

This is not a story about accusations or calling college coeds prostitutes and, if you will, sluts and other negative words. This is about women's access to health care, and I'm sad to even say those words, but we see them broadcast across America's Federal airwaves by talk show entertainers like Rush Limbaugh. This young woman's name is Kimberly Moore, who is caught in a conflict in the State of Texas with the Women's Health Program that is funded by Medicaid and the decision of the State of Texas to evict Planned Parenthood from caring for women like Kimberly, a single mother working part time, who can't afford health care.

Between judges who want to accuse our President of dastardly things through jokes and the idea of keeping women away from access to health care, that should not resolve around their choice of contraceptives, but plain old health care, it's time for us to stand with the women of America and the decent people of America, to stand with this President, to stand with the idea of providing women health care, and to stand against those who are in States where they want to reject Planned Parenthood for simply giving health care access to women and to stand against divisive corrosive language.