Floor Statements

In the last 24 hours, we heard of the devastating attack in Pakistan and the words of the Taliban saying that it's in retaliation for the capture and demise of Osama bin Laden.

Earlier this week, I introduced H. Res. 240 to acknowledge all of those who sacrificed their lives to be able to go into battle to find Osama bin Laden, the intelligence community, President Obama, President Clinton, President Bush, with President Obama directing this very, very, very difficult mission and, as well, the brave men and women who participated and the Navy SEALs who went in and came out alive.

But we must realize that we live in a very difficult time, and that time is a time of attack and retaliation. We will not be daunted, and we will stand in place to be able to celebrate those who are brave enough to fight this war on terror.

To the people of Pakistan, we offer our sympathy. We will continue to work together for the betterment of those who believe in democratic values.

Mr. Hastings, thank you for your service years on the Intelligence Committee, and I thank the ranking member and the members who are on the floor.

I rise to support the underlying bill and the rule, recognizing that human intelligence and the resources that provide a safety net for the American people are crucial--the CIA, the Department of Defense and other intelligence civilian agencies, along with the United States military.

I introduced H. Res. 240 to chronicle the successful apprehension and demise of Osama bin Laden, to actually emphasize, when combined together, the brawn and intellect of the United States military. The human intelligence over the years and the work of President Clinton, President Bush and President Obama in the strategic decision that had to be made by the civilian minds, in working with the military minds, has emphasized the constitutional values of this country that civilians, in working with the military, can, in fact, provide the armor protection of the United States of America. I am very grateful for that genius, and I want to thank them. Our legislation had over 50 cosponsors.

As well, I believe now that we can actually say in good conscience: Bring the troops home from Afghanistan. Our mission is accomplished. We realize that human intelligence can help us target those who want to do us harm, and we have the constitutional fabric, along with the United States military, the likes of JSOC and many others in the intelligence community, who work on behalf of the American people. We can bring home the men and women--over 100,000--who are based now in Afghanistan.

Do you know what? Mother's Day was this past weekend, and sadly, soldiers fell in battle on Mother's Day. Let us not have another Mother's Day when some mother in America, somewhere, loses a child to the battle in Afghanistan, not when we can use smart power and use intelligence and use a minimum of force.

It is time now for America to welcome home her heroes with honor and, as well, to thank those who dedicated the brawn and the intellect that could make good on a promise that, yes, you will come to justice if you do harm to the American people.

I ask support for the underlying legislation and the rule.

I thank the gentleman from California.

If it were allowed on the floor, I would say, ``Yippee,'' but I will try to adhere to protocol or take a lariat and circle it around out of excitement.

Thank you very much for the years of tenure and leadership that you brought from the legislature in the State of California. You brought it here with a sense of action, and we thank you. I am delighted that our Democratic whip has been at the forefront of this issue. And the gentleman from Rhode Island--I know others may be coming--is a mayor, a former mayor who understands the importance of jobs.

Let me just say, to add to your comment, both President Clinton and President Reagan have quotes that suggest that if you build infrastructure, it is an investment that will continue to give and give and give. Since 9/11, my good friend, I have been on the Homeland Security Committee, and

the attention of the United States, rightly so, has been on securing the homeland and national security. And just one moment so I can transfer into this discussion, 70 percent of the American people now with the capture and demise of Osama bin Laden still are concerned about our security but, in actuality, believe that our troops can come home completely. I hope that we can move in that direction. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. Seventy percent of the American people frankly believe our troops have done an enormous tribute to themselves and to the American people.

What does that mean? It means bright young men and women are going to be coming home. And let it be known that they will not just come home in need of health services. They will come home eager to participate in the American Dream. And, frankly, I want to make sure they can do that, and I want to make sure we end the war in Afghanistan.

But I believe we have, as you have mentioned, the tools of the trade. I see this word ``trade,'' and some of us get a little nervous about that. But let me tell you how I explain trade. I want every item that can be sold overseas to someone else from the United States to be sold. I have taken to inventorying the manufacturers in the 18th Congressional District in Texas. And if I might, if you are listening, call (713) 655-0050 and let our office know you exist, that you make something in the 18th Congressional District in Texas. And I would venture to say that my colleagues will tell you call them or get on their Web site, because we want you to be able to sell it overseas.

Make It in America is to recognize the validity of the product you have made. We want to make sure that there are taxes that are fair to manufacturers. I am in the Manufacturing Caucus. We want to generate it. Energy means all kinds of energy, and I will dwell on that very lightly. But I am a person who is an equal opportunity welcomer of solar and biofuels and a number of other energy types to join in energy.

Labor, I have already said to you, I am trying to bring our soldiers home. But there are young people graduating from college in 2011. They were at my town hall meeting, to my distinguished friend, and they asked me about work. And I said to them that we in this Congress are working to provide jobs for the talented young people that will walk across those various stadiums and auditoriums getting their diplomas, doing what we asked them to do. Can we put them to work?

And then, of course, if you reinvest in America, I will tell the State of Texas--I don't want to get into anyone else's business--that we don't have to close schools. We don't have to lay off teachers. We can educate the workforce. And some of the workforce can be those with their hands, vocational trades, learning to manufacture, building the high-speed rails that I am so excited about that I am trying to find some land in the 18th Congressional District or somewhere in Texas and say, Come one, come all.

By the way, I serve on the Intellectual Property Committee on Judiciary, and every time I have a hearing in that committee, I say that this is the work of the 21st century, protecting the genius of America, and it's a lot of them. It's unbelievable the inventors who are here. I want them to know that there is some value of first to file to protect their product.

And lastly, what you have been talking about, the idea of redoing our infrastructure. A good friend of ours who served as the chairman of the Transportation Committee was such a leader, a distinguished gentleman from Minnesota. He, in the course of his service in the last couple of years, had a bridge collapse in that State. He kept saying over and over again, Build infrastructure and you'll put America to work.

I wanted to capture these words as a mandate, as an instructive vision that the Democrats have captured. And the only thing we need are partners. The President has already shown his proudness and his ability to put dollars to make jobs and to build infrastructure. I have seen public housing go up. I have seen roads being improved, dams, bridges, and of course, light rail and high-speed rail. So we've got the right thinking.

And I don't want to stop without just adding this point: There's not one of us that does not have the consciousness and the sense to recognize that we must have responsible spending and responsible reduction. I take great offense to anyone who suggests that I am opening the treasure chest and throwing money to the wind. I believe that education is valuable. Infrastructure is valuable. But there are ways that we can reasonably, down the road, as Mark Zandi has said, begin our belt tightening. But we have to recognize that the debt ceiling is not for the State of Texas or California--it is to help this Nation--but we do it sensibly. I hope we can do a clean one, by the way. But the point is that Make It in America is an engine of job creation.

And I just want to thank the gentlemen for constantly bringing us to the floor, giving us the opportunity, of course, to do as the Boy Scouts may have done and to recite these words: Trade, taxes, energy, labor, education, intellectual property, and infrastructure, and go around to our constituents in telling them we are not going to forget you. And I believe that we're going to create some jobs and watch America continue to have its economy not only make baby steps, but it's going to be spinning. It's going to be humming, and people are going to be back to work. I am grateful for this philosophy and this mission.

We have had a very challenging week, Madam Speaker, and I thank you for the time.

It is a time of great patriotism and great respect for the institutions of democracy that this country represents. It is a statement that says that we will not be an offender, but we will be a defender. We will defend our values; we will defend our soil; we will defend the people of the United States.

I have served on the Homeland Security Committee as the dust was rising from the site of 9/11. When I traveled to New York, I walked along sidewalks where there were walls of letters and pictures of loved ones who had not been designated as being lost and people were trying to see if loved ones were in hospitals. I saw the pain. And so the capturing and the demise of Osama bin Laden is the finishing of an era and a story. And we are to commend the President of the United States, the Navy SEALs, the JSOC and intelligence communities, and the United States military and persons around this Nation who are part of this great effort.

Well, we live in a different world now. As the facts are unfolding in Pakistan, as evidence has been reviewed by the various tapes, we know that terrorism and al Qaeda is an active entity around the world. The United States is not the only target, but we are and will continue to be in the eye of the storm.

As we have heard representations from terrorists and to-be leaders and wanna-bes about what they intend to do to retaliate, it is important for us to be responsible with the resources that we have. And so for over a year I have introduced H.R. 71, the FAMS Augmentation bill, the Federal Air Marshal. And I call on, today, for the administration and the Congress to work together to increase the number of air marshals on domestic flights, on long-distance flights, and to increase the numbers of air marshals traveling on inbound flights to the United States. What more do we need?

Over the last couple of days, any series of incidents that have occurred, and thanks to the brave passengers now well aware since 9/11 and flight attendants for whom I have fought consistently to get more training, unarmed, obviously, and many without training, are now being confronted with individuals who are charging now reinforced pilot doors, some going to the exit doors, over the last 4 days a series of incidents that no one knows whether or not they will stop.

Now, we know that some allegations have been that individuals are suffering from mental challenges, and we understand that. We also know that, to date, no one had a weapon, and so the Transportation Security Administration is doing its job. But this is happening. That is what air marshals are for: to protect the traveling public, flying more than they have ever flown, paying higher prices for bags and food, and now we expect them not to be safe and secure. It is time now to augment and to pass H.R. 71 and to increase the number of air marshals.

Now, we have an issue of a deficit and a debt. My question is, as someone would say: Are we going to be penny-wise and pound-foolish? Are we going to not safeguard the American people because there happens to be the mantra on this side of the aisle, Republicans, who don't want to spend a dime for anything? Well, my friends, we have to invest in the American public. We have got to be able to build infrastructure, and at the same time we have got to be responsible spenders.

But I will tell you this. I will take spending for national security any day with bringing home the troops from Afghanistan, because that mission is complete. Now we must invest in American people. And I'm angry about this, that we would be so cheap that we would not provide the resources to give us new and additional trained Federal air marshals, many of whom come from the United States military. Many of these soldiers coming home would make excellent air marshals.

Many of them come from the U.S. Marshals Service and many other marshals services.

What is more precious than the mother and father and children and relatives that are traveling to visit loved ones or for business, and they are coming home to the United States and we are putting them in jeopardy because we do not have the air marshals to protect them against these unknown threats?

So my challenge today is stop being cheap, stop nickel-and-diming security, stop not understanding that we have the responsibility to go ahead and secure the American public. Today I call for more air marshals on the Nation's airplanes, and I call for it now. H.R. 71 should be passed immediately.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1231. I had offered amendments because I believe in responsible increase in offshore drilling. I offered amendments to improve upon this bill that would have provided for revenue sharing with coastal states and a study and report back to Congress to ensure that the Department of Interior has proper funding for staffing and training and technical engineers and such other personnel as is necessary to responsibly increase offshore drilling.

As a Representative from an oil and gas producing District and state, I am aware that offshore drilling is an important component of the nation's energy supply and provides many Gulf communities with significant jobs and income.

My state supplies 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one- third of the nation's natural gas production; a quarter of the nation's refining capacity and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical manufacturing.

The Texas energy and petrochemical clusters employ 600,000 people, which represent 70 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of the total U.S. workforce in those industries.

Houston is home to some of the world's largest oil, gas, and petrochemical facilities.

As the fourth most populous city in the United States, and the greater Houston area remains a diversified regional economy, with the energy industry contributing 50 percent of our economic base for employment. Even so there is no denying the importance of the energy industry for creating jobs in Houston and across our Nation.

We have consistently led the nation in petroleum production since the early 10th century and we have one-fourth of total U.S. oil reserves.

As a coastal state we provide the resources and the mechanisms to support the offshore drilling industry and we also bare the highest risk to our natural resources. Its stands to reason that we should also have access to revenue generated from Offshore leases.

Federal Revenues from offshore leases were estimated at $18.0 billion in FY 2008 by the Department of the Interior. During the previous 10 years (1998-2007), revenues from federal OCS leases reached as high as $7.6 billion in FY 2006. Higher prices for oil and gas are the most significant factors in the revenue swings. Of the $18.0 billion offshore revenue in FY 2008, $8.3 billion was from royalties and $9.5 billion came from bonus bids. Coastal states can use that money to further support the industry that utilizes our highways and waterways.

A significant portion of oil and gas produced from Gulf Outer Continental Shelf leases is transported to those refineries for processing via offshore pipeline through state waters.

Providing coastal states with additional access to revenue will enable these states to protect their natural resources and advance the transport of oil, gas, and petrochemicals across the United States.

Coastal States like Texas with energy development off their shores in federal waters have been seeking additional federal revenues generated off our shores.

We particularly want more assistance for coastal areas that may be most affected by onshore and near-shore activities that support offshore energy development.

Currently, the affected states receive revenue indirectly from offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters. This is in contrast to the direct revenues to states that have onshore federal leases within their boundaries.

Coastal states bear the greatest risks if there is a disaster. Because of the current and wind patterns in the Gulf of Mexico, Texas' coastal natural resources are most at risk for environmental damage in the event of an oil spill from an offshore production platform or pipeline. In addition, a substantial portion of federal Outer Continental Shelf production is refined in Texas and then transported via state highways or pipeline located in the state.

A significant amount of the infrastructure that will be used to explore and develop the resources in these new lease sales will be constructed in Texas and transported through state waters. The same might be said for other coastal states whose shores and resources are dedicated to offshore drilling.

Annual rental rates are $5-$9.50 per acre, with lease sizes generally ranging from 2,500-5,760 acres. However, annual rental rates for the March 2009 sale in the Central Gulf of Mexico begins at $11.00 per acre for lease in water depths over 200 meters. Initial lease terms of 5-10 years are standard, and leases continue as long as commercial quantities of hydrocarbons are being produced.

Demand for petroleum products in the U.S. remains strong. In 2005, each of the estimated 296 million people in the U.S. used an average of almost three gallons of petroleum every day. In 1978, the average American used 3.5 gallons per day.

In 2006, crude oil imports totaled 10.1 million barrels per day (MBD), two-thirds of the total U.S. supply of 15.2 MBD, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). After several additions of other petroleum products by refiners and fuel blenders, total petroleum consumption came to 20.6 MBD for 2006.

The oil and gas industry supports job growth in my state of Texas and across our nation.

In Texas, the oil and gas industry supports 1.7 million jobs and approximately 25 percent of the state's economy, whereas nationwide the industry supports 9.2 million jobs and 7.5 percent of our nation's economy.

We should focus our attention on providing the Department of Interior with funding and resources it needs to provide for training and staffing of technical engineers and other such necessary personnel to review drilling permit applications and determine future offshore lease sale areas.

The Department of Interior must be properly funded and staffed with technical engineers to review permits, examine lease sales, and ensure that each application is afforded proper consideration

For these reasons, I urge the Members as they vote on this important measure which certainly relates to job creation and national energy independence, that they consider a fair and balance approach as we aim to protect the environment and determine the most responsible measures to provide for the energy our nation requires.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1231. This bill will ensure that our federal offshore oil and natural gas resources are accessible to us. This is essential for America's energy security.

For years, I have supported bills that would increase funding to research and development projects dealing with new and cleaner energy sources as well as provide financial incentives to produce energy from wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, for consumers to purchase fuel efficient vehicles, increase energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, and promote public transit efforts. I will continue to support programs and projects seeking to create cleaner energy technologies because we all benefit from a cleaner environment.

Finally, coming from Texas, which is the nation's leader in renewable energy production and a pioneer in developing its own state portfolio standard, I support efforts to promote renewable energy production that meets the unique circumstances and resources of each state.

But even with these increases in renewable energy, the Energy Information Administration found that oil, natural gas, and coal will continue to make up the large majority of U.S. energy use in 2030 and beyond. As our nation's energy demand continues to increase, reasonable access and exploration of our offshore resources is a key component of our nation's energy security.

It is our job to provide affordable and reliable supplies of energy to American consumers, and this bill will help in our effort.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I rise to ask in particular that we have a reasoned debate on this question.

I come from the gulf region and was appalled at the horror of the BP oil spill. My constituents are still suffering from that spill. I recognize that we have a dual responsibility, and that is to ensure that those individuals are made whole--and I might add that a better compensation system needs to be in place--but also that we restore jobs.

A civil discussion is what is needed. As an oil and gas lawyer and also a member of the Homeland Security Committee which addresses the question of our own safety and security, we have to find a way to restore offshore deepwater drilling in a safe and secure manner.

I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not take an amendment that I offered that would have modified the processing procedures of H.R. 1229, to restart that leasing process to extend the time for the Department of the Interior to review safely and securely and to eliminate the deemed provision, though I am supporting the Holt amendment and, of course, the Moran amendment.

But, frankly, I think the issue is, energy at this time is multitasking, from nuclear energy to solar, to wind, to biofuels and fossil fuels (oil and gas). If we are in agreement with Brazil to do offshore deepwater drilling off the coast of Brazil, we need to restart that deepwater drilling here in the United States, safely and securely. As relates to the expanded lease sales, the question has to be whether States are prepared for that offshore drilling and whether or not we have secured the kind of technology that will allow us to do it safely and securely. I believe new containment processes are being put in place to help deepwater drilling to lower costs for the America people.

Energy companies have organized something called a containment group to develop that new technology. What I would say is that this discussion should not be captured by special interests where we try the ``get you'' politics for the Department of the Interior or ``get you'' politics for President Obama. This is the time to get the best politics for the American people, to bring down gasoline prices, invest in energy which includes deepwater drilling and oil and gas, and let's get going on helping the American people to boost energy resource and to create jobs.

I ask for a reasoned discussion on this important issue.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1230, ``Restarting American Offshore Leasing now Act'' which will require four specific offshore oil and gas lease sales within the next year. Three of these lease sales will be for locations in the Gulf of Mexico and one will be off the Coast of Virginia.

Although I have reservations about certain aspects of this bill, I nevertheless support it as a step in the right direction for America in our efforts to achieve energy independence. The central issue is promoting oil and gas related American jobs in the Gulf Coasts and to fill our Nation's oil and gas needs as we search for alternative energy sources.

Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to examine H.R. 3, ``the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' a bill which is claimed to simply codify what is already law. However, H.R. 3 is by far more restrictive than any current law, or interpretation thereof.

My colleagues across the aisle claim that this bill is simply about limiting federal funding for abortions. If that were truly the case, then there would be no purpose for H.R. 3, because Federal funding has not been available for abortions since passage of the Hyde amendment in 1977.

The effect of H.R. 3 is, in fact, to so drastically limit access to abortions that they will essentially become unavailable, even when paid for with an individual's own funds. In its attempt to make abortions unavailable, H.R. 3 will have a detrimental impact on women's health, and moreover, attacks a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.

Twice, first in the Judiciary Committee Markup and secondly when H.R. 3 was being considered in the Rules Committee, I have attempted to offer to amendments to this bill that help to protect both the constitutionally protected rights of women, and their health. In both instances, my amendments were not accepted by the Republican majority on the Rules Committee.

My first amendment would have required the Attorney General to certify to Congress that H.R. 3 does not violate any constitutionally protected right before allowing this bill to take effect. The sponsor's of this bill have been perfectly clear that their goal with H.R. 3 is to create so many barriers and obstacles to abortion that it essentially becomes unavailable. The law is clear that while the government may regulate, it cannot impose an undue burden on a constitutionally protected right. The effect of H.R. 3 would be to impose such an insurmountable burden on a woman's fundamental right to make decisions about pregnancy that it could very likely be considered unconstitutional.

The second amendment I attempted to offer would have created an exception to protect women from severe long lasting health damage. This amendment is supported by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Every year, 10-15 million women suffer severe or long- lasting damage to their health during pregnancy, including but not limited to lung disease, heart disease diabetes, and loss of reproductive ability. H.R. 3 only considered a woman's health when she is faced with death, but provides no protection for women who face serious health consequences from continuing a pregnancy. Congress should not be in the business of interfering with a woman's health, nor should we ever single out women who choose not to endure long-lasting health defects or diseases due to a pregnancy.

H.R. 3 would impose a great burden on a women like Tamara, a mother of 3 who had been diagnosed with cervical cancer and found out she was pregnant. She was faced with the difficult choice of carrying the pregnancy to term and risking her own health or terminating the pregnancy to receive treatment for her cancer.

H.R. 3 would impose a great burden on women like Holly from my state of Texas, a mother of two who suffered from a serious illness affecting her liver. Treatment for her liver would pose a threat to her pregnancy.

H.R. 3 goes to new lengths by effectively using the tax code to impede upon a woman's right to choose and essentially penalize individuals for even carrying health insurance that covers abortions.

It imposes an unprecedented penalty on anyone who spends their own money to pay for abortion, or in many cases, those who use their own money for insurance that will cover abortion if needed.

H.R. 3 will actually impose a tax increase on many Americans--across all races, all classes, and all socioeconomic levels. It increases taxes on women, families, and businesses by denying them the normal tax exemptions and credits for health insurance if they choose a policy that provides abortion coverage. This unprecedented penalty is a radical restriction on a lawful and constitutionally protected medical procedure. It will result in a tax increase on anyone who uses their own money to pay for abortion or, in many cases, insurance that would cover abortion.

Furthermore, the Bill puts the IRS into the middle of private and personal decisions by families. The result of this bill would also be that the IRS would be required to use the tools currently available as part of its tax enforcement duties, including the IRS's ability to audit taxpayers, to determine whether tax benefits had properly or improperly been claimed with respect to expenses related to abortion services. Family planning decisions, which are amongst the most personal and private decisions many people face, are subject to scrutiny by the IRS for tax purposes.

H.R. 3 does not merely codify existing protections for so-called rights of conscience. H.R. 3 rejects the even-handed approach taken since 1973 in the Church Amendment, which protects the religious or moral beliefs of those who provide, or refuse to provide, abortion services.

Furthermore, it takes the more-recent Weldon Amendment approach, which allows a large universe of entities to refuse abortion services for any--or no reason whatsoever. Unlike the Church Amendment approach, H.R. 3 protects only those who refuse to provide abortion services, and makes that one-sided protection permanent for all laws by providing a completely new private cause of action. It does nothing to protect those entities that do offer abortions.

The conscience rights of those who provide services, and not just those who refuse, deserve equal respect and recognition. Americans rights of conscience should not be protected only if they accord with the views of the Members of Congress; they should be protected regardless of what lawmakers' personal beliefs are.

Instead of Bringing Up Bills to Create Jobs, Republicans Are Pursuing An Extreme and Divisive Agenda. Today, the House will consider H.R. 3, Restricting Women's Access to Full Range of Health Care Services. Americans want us to work together to create jobs and move the country forward. This bill would do exactly the opposite--move our country backwards in an attempt to re-litigate a divisive issue.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from California, and would say to him what a contributor he has been to really improving the lives of all Americans. I have enjoyed coming to the floor and engaging in important discussions on behalf of our colleagues. Really, we are speaking to our colleagues. And we hope that all of those that are represented by the many colleagues here would realize, when we are on the floor, we are trying to help set policy to improve the lives of Americans.

We traveled just 2 or 3 days ago to another exciting venture, and that was of course the set time for Endeavor to launch into space. And I think it connects very well. I enjoyed meeting your wife and having discussions about how great America is, and as well knowing that our dear friend and colleague was able to travel, Congresswoman Giffords, and that a Texan, her husband, was going to be the commander of Endeavor. We looked forward to it going.

But I mention that because of course many of the astronauts are military personnel. And I could imagine when President Kennedy challenged us to go into space, into outer space, which seems like a fiction but was real, no later than 1969 we landed on the Moon. This is a great country, and we have the ability to be resilient and persistent.

As all of us reflect on where we were on 9/11, and I know that you could say where you were. We were right in this place. We were meeting and huddled around issues. I remember it as clear as day. Small Business. We were not on the floor, but we were huddled in a room right underneath this Chamber discussing how do we help small businesses. And all of a sudden we heard such a sound, such a shrill, ``Get out of here.'' It was something we had never heard before.

But I say that only that you would have thought in that experience, a 21st century experience, that America would have been brought to her knees. That was the intent. It was to put us in such panic and such intense depression that we can never rise again. And many of us who have flown into New York over the years always remember the very special view of the two towers.

So come now almost 10 years later, 2011, and as each President talked about making sure that they would find Osama bin Laden, even as President Clinton experienced the first World Trade towers bombing in 1993 and he responded, and even as President Bush made the comment of going to get him, we are so grateful that in all of those disappointments of not finding Osama bin Laden, that America never gave up.

So today I am delighted to join you to salute and honor all of the principals that were involved: President Barack Obama, his national security team, the Joint Special Operations Command, JSOC, the Navy SEALs, and all of the courageous men and women of the United States military as we were detailed this very intricate and very, very difficult and dangerous mission, how proud we were to understand the willingness of the Navy SEALs to sacrifice or to stand up and say, ``Let me be counted.''

I am hoping that we will have an opportunity to debate a resolution on the floor of the House. I am hoping that we will be able to do it in a bipartisan manner. I have introduced H. Res. 240 with 50 Members of Congress now joining in and asking for what might be a waiver this one time to allow us on this historic opportunity to debate on the floor of the House as our friends have in the other body.

But even as we speak tonight, and I want to thank our leader Congresswoman Pelosi for having the insight knowing that Members wanted to come and to express themselves. So let me just quickly say these words as I come to a close.

I like this comment. ``The world is safer without bin Laden,'' says Obama. President Obama. And then this other comment that I think is so very important speaking about this Nation and recognizing how we have never given up, the President has indicated that this is a country that is continuously resilient. And as we are resilient even in the face of obstacles and the continued threat from the USS Cole that happened, from the bombing in Africa, the embassies that were bombed, all of those incidents, and we never gave up.

And it is important for America to know that there were voices who opposed decisions that were made. And not in any way to be negative, but they doubted what was being presented. This was not an easy decision. This was a courageous decision. This could have been a calamity. This could have been the worst decision that anyone ever made. But, fortunately, there was a President who had a team who came together. And on behalf of the American people they acted bravely, courageously with sensitivity, astuteness, talent, genius. And I am so very proud to stand on the floor today to offer to the American public my outpouring of congratulations to each and every one.

I close with this. I don't know all of the facts, but I understand that one of those actors, one of those military personnel may have been the child of an immigrant family, a recent immigrant family. How great it is to be able to take those young people who love this country and let them serve this country.

Mr. President, in finality, never give up, never give in, and never give out. You are serving the American people, and as Commander in Chief we salute you.

To all of those who worked, the military, the national security team, the intelligence community, JSOC, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and others not named, we thank you, because we realize that you stand in the shoes of those men and women that are forever brave. To their families I say thank you, and to this leadership I say thank you.

I would like to congratulate President Obama, his National Security team, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the Navy SEALs, and all of the courageous men and women of the armed forces and intelligence agencies that contributed to the successful implementation of the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden. I would also like to congratulate President Obama on his successful policies on the war on terror and in homeland security.

President Obama's leadership, resolve, and perseverance led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, the man and symbol of evil behind the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The death of Osama bin Laden has been a crowning moment in our Nation's war against terrorism and has sent a clear and significant message to terrorists around the world that the United States will not cease in our pursuit of justice for those terrorists who seek to do harm to this Nation and its citizens.

Following the death of Osama bin Laden, the family and friends who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks on September 11 are able to achieve a greater sense of comfort and closure.

After months of meetings with the National Security Council and intelligence officials, led by President Obama who directed intelligence officials to zero in on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts, intelligence officials devised and carried out a clandestine operation which had frequently been rehearsed in an effort to minimize casualties, both civilian and military.

As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama gave the final authorization to commence the

operation to capture or kill the most wanted terrorist in a manner that would provide proof that the right man was captured or killed.

The highly trained and brave members of the Navy SEAL Team and intelligence officials that entered the compound did so under the highest levels of patriotism and service to the United States of America, and they were successfully able to identify and kill Osama bin Laden with no military losses and minimal civilian casualties.

Upon hearing the news of Osama bin Laden's death, there was an incredible outpouring of unity and defiance of the terrorists who still seek to destroy our free way of life, and there was an impressive show of unity amongst lawmakers regardless of party affiliation.

President Bill Clinton led the Nation during the terrorists' attacks on the USS Cole, United States embassies, and the first attack on the World Trade Center and President George W. Bush led the Nation during the September 11 terrorist attacks, and both leaders pledged to defend freedom and seek justice for the horrendous attacks on the United States of America, and President Obama had the strength and wherewithal to see that pledge through to fulfillment.

Osama bin Laden was the symbol and inspiration for terrorism which resulted in acts of violence around the world. His actions resulted in the murder of thousands of America civilians and the men and women of the United States military. I believe that the strategic, successful operation which led to his death should be commended along with the important leadership of President Obama, who worked with his national security team and ultimately authorized this mission. Further, I want to honor and recognize all of the men and women of the military and the intelligence agencies that contributed to the successful implementation of this mission.

This completed mission shows the resilience of the American people and the American government to find the man that caused such death and brutality. Now, we hope that our ideals of democracy, justice, and freedom will prevail so that peace can come to the world.

Bill Summary and Status

h. res. 240

Latest Title: Commending President Barack Obama and the men

and women of the military and intelligence agencies for the

successful completion of the operation that led to the death

of Osama bin Laden.

Sponsor: Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (introduced 5/3/

2011) Cosponsors: 40

Committees: House Armed Services; House Intelligence

(Permanent Select); House Homeland Security

Latest Major Action: 5/3/2011 Referred to House committee.

Status: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in

addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent

Select), and Homeland Security, for a period to be

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for

consideration of such provisions as fall within the

jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

COSPONSORS, ALPHABETICAL [*= original cosponsor]:

Cosponsor Statistics: 40 current (includes 40 original)

Rep Barrow, John [D-GA-12]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Bass, Karen [D-CA-33]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Berkley Shelley [D-NV-1]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [D-GA-2]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Boren, Dan [D-OK-2]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [D-IA-3]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Chandler, Ben [D-KY-6]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Dicks, Norman D. [D-WA-6]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [D-TX-20]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [D-TX-15]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Kingston, Jack [R-GA-1]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Lance, Leonard [R-NJ-7]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Larson, John B. [D-CT-1]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Lewis, John [D-GA-5]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Lipinski, Daniel [D-IL-3]-5/3/2011 *

Rep Loebsack, David [D-IA-2]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-9]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-14]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Matheson, Jim [D-UT-2]--5/3/2011 *

Rep McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Rangel, Charles B. [D-NY-15]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Reyes, Silvestre [D-TX-16]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Richardson, Laura [D-CA-37]--5/3/2011*

Rep Ross Mike [D-AR-4]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [D-MD-2]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Schmidt, Jean [R-OH-2]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Serrano, Jose E. [D-NY-16]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Shuler, Heath [D-NC-1 1]- 5/3/2011 *

Rep Smith, Adam [D-WA-9]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Tierney, John F. [D-MA-6]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-12]--5/3/2011 *

Rep West, Allen B. [R-FL-22]--5/3/2011 *

Rep Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]--5/3/2011 *

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)

Rep. Jim Himes (CT-4)

Rep. David Cicilline (RI-1)

Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-14)

Rep. James Moran (VA-8)

Rep. Adam Smith (WA-9)

Rep. Jim Costa (CA-20)

Rep. Alyson Schwartz (PA-13)

Rep. Joe Courtney (CT-2)

Rep. Madeleine Bordallo (GU)

Mr. Speaker, this is an open dialogue with the American people through their Members of Congress.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I thank the manager of the majority, but this is an open dialogue.

To my good friend from Tennessee, who may not have read the bill the Affordable Health Care Act and who may have missed the fact that Health Savings Accounts are allowed, no one is blocking anyone, and the accounts are considered ``sufficient'' under that bill. So, if you desire to have a Health Savings Account, so be it, but those savings accounts really adhere to those who are more wealthy and who are more endowed with finances.

What these repeal bills will do, both H.R. 1213 and H.R. 1214--and I was hoping the Rules Committee would have voided these bills and not allow them to go forward, but they did not. I thank them for the amendment that they gave me and the respect they gave me in the time that we were before that committee.

But the fact is that the exchanges are to allow those who do not have means to get into an open market, the same thing that our Republican friends have been talking about, to allow people to go across State lines to buy the cheapest State policy or the policy that they can for families that have the sickest of the sick, children that are disabled, others that are in need who heretofore have been blocked.

By the way, the Affordable Care Act takes away the bar of anyone who has a preexisting condition, such as pregnancy, from not being able to get insurance. What is wrong with that?

By the way, the Congressional Budget Office, an independent budget office, says that if we repeal these provisions, the exchange, the premiums of the American people, the farmer, the small business will go up and not down. Go up. What more common sense can you have as a reason for voting against these bills and voting against the rule?

H.R. 1214 has to do with school-based clinics. That is an innovative concept. In fact, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, we have begun to think of schools as a site for individuals if they are built in this new structure, the way they are funded, to be able to be designed in a way to ensure that they are secure as a site for evacuation, a place to go when there is a disaster. That means that a school-based clinic that can be part of the community health system will be available in times of emergencies. What sense does it make to eliminate the opportunity to improve a community's safety and security in these times of trouble and questioning about terrorism, finding a place where the community could go?

I don't know whether there are structures in Alabama that could have withstood these horrible tornados, but we are trying to build schools now to be

more safe and secure. So both of these bills make no common sense. Some 1,900 school-based clinics serve our children and their extended families. Do we want a community and a Nation that is healthier, or do we want to have a Nation of sick people?

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his kindness.

This is what these two bills will allow us to become: One, to ignore those who don't have the resources for a health savings account, are not packing big wads of money in their pocket, to be able to say I can independently go out and get insurance based upon the monies that I am going to put into some kind of account.

Fine for those who can do it. But I can assure you, the Nation's farmers and small businesses are glad to be able to know that their employees can go into an exchange. They are also glad to know there are tax incentives just for them in this bill.

And, finally, I would say the Nation's parents, single parents, parents that are making ends meet are glad for school-based clinics.

Vote against the rule and the underlying bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his correction.

My point would be, is it not okay then for your patients to use the health savings account but also okay for those who still may not have the resources to go into an exchange? Aren't we trying to do the same thing, which is to make sure everyone of all means available can in fact have insurance?

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

Mr. Chairman, listening to the general debate, I would have to say that I am concerned and not supportive of this legislation and would hope that we would vote against the underlying bill.

But I have an amendment that I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would appreciate, and it's very simple. This amendment will provide the public with important information about mandatory funding to States for health benefit exchanges that will no longer be available for the public and small businesses to use in order to obtain competitive health coverage for their necessary health care, post the moneys that are rescinded, and let the public judge for themselves: Good health care or not.

This particular amendment deals directly with the concern that we don't have the ability to move forward on health exchanges that will help the vast numbers of Americans. For example, the American health benefit exchanges make it easier for small businesses and the public to obtain competitive health insurance on the basis of price quality rather than to be subject to the abuses of insurance companies who would charge exorbitant, prohibitive rates. The health care exchange program is a key element of the Affordable Care Act, aimed at providing coverage to the uninsured.

There are 6.2 million residents in my home State of Texas that do not have health care insurance. Of the 26 percent of the Texas population that is uninsured, 18 percent are children. Insurance exchanges would also be available to small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Texas is home to nearly 400,000 small businesses employing less than 500 people and nearly 2 million self-employed entrepreneurs. Letting everyone know that we are making a good dent in the deficit, which we can do in many, many other ways, will also show them why I don't have good health care. Meaning, why don't small businesses and farmers?

So at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleagues support an amendment that is transparent to let you know what the savings are. But what's the question? What's happening to the accelerating rate of health care and the sick people who are getting sicker?

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. But he well knows that we have had mandatory appropriations, and it is not difficult to indicate what money you are allegedly saving. So if the American public can juxtapose those so-called savings on the backs of the elderly, losing Medicare of course, on the backs of sick families and sick children, and to see how we can stop the normal primary medical care that you would get for children that are in need that these health exchanges would provide, and as well neonatal care for children who are born prematurely, this is what the Republicans would like us to do as we eliminate our health exchanges.

Frankly, he should look at what has already happened. Forty-nine States, including the State of Dr. Burgess and myself, the State of Texas, have applied for funding for health exchanges. And so to stop in the middle and suggest that you are now impacting the deficit--no, you are killing and losing and indicating that you want to close down the good health care that we are trying to promote. Insurance exchanges would also be available again to small businesses, and Texas is home to nearly 400,000 of them. The Kaiser Foundation says 23 percent of the Texas population lives in poverty. They would be able to participate in these exchanges. I would make the argument that it's good to put how much money you are allegedly saving so you can see how much you are losing by all the sick people who would not have care.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my good friend from Texas, and he has made my argument because the Secretary of Health and Human Services can explicitly state the funding that might be used. In addition, isn't it interesting that this is being repealed on the basis of savings, and yet the Republicans can't explain whether there are going to be any savings or not.

At the same time, sick people are going to get sicker. And in my State, 444 people out of every 100,000 have cancer. Of the population, 9.3 percent are diabetic, 32 percent are overweight; and they will not be able to have the coverage. I am going to ask my colleagues to vote on a sensible amendment. Show us what you are going to save. Let it be put on the Web site. Let the American people see it. And explain why you would rather put these dollars on while you raise the cost in an unbelievable way. And because of the fact that people will not have insurance, they will get sicker and sicker and sicker and sicker. God forbid if we take out Medicare and all the seniors will wind up being sick and lose their lives as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that, if H.R. 1213 passes, it will severely harm cash-strapped States who cannot afford to establish the health benefit exchanges which, by the way, will help people of all backgrounds, and particularly our small businesses, our farmers and, yes, the children that you've seen on these posters.

I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment. Show your cards. If we're saving money, let it be on the Web site, and let us compare those savings against the thousands and millions of individuals who will be blocked from having health exchange opportunities. While some of us will have savings accounts, others will have nothing, absolutely zero.

Vote for the Jackson Lee amendment to really show the cards of what happens when you cut out and repeal health care coverage for America.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to state my clear position that I am adamantly opposed to H.R. 1213 and its Repeal of the Mandatory Funding Provided to States to Establish American Health Benefit Exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. The funding for American health benefit exchanges curbs insurance company abuses, saves lives and saves money.

If H.R. 1213 to Repeal Mandatory Funding Provided to States to Establish American Health Benefit Exchanges Provided under Section 1311(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is enacted into law:

i. what my amendment does is

Requires the Department of Health and Human Services to post public notice on its official website that the funds from Section 1311(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that will be rescinded including the amount of the funds rescinded.

This amendment will provide the public with important information about mandatory funding to States for health benefit exchanges that will no longer be available for the public and small businesses to use in order to obtain competitive health coverage for their necessary health care.

This amendment also assists my Republican colleagues by permitting them to easily and transparently show the American public that they are cutting government spending, by how much they are cutting spending, and where they are cutting government spending. So I expect that my Republican colleagues will fully support this amendment.

ii. purpose of the mandatory funding to states for American health

benefit exchanges created under the affordable care act (section

1311(a) of the affordable care act)

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and the President signed it into law, the Department of Health and Human Services was mandated to provide funding by making Grants to States for the purpose of establishing ``American Health Benefit Exchanges,'' so to make it easier for small businesses and the public to obtain competitive health insurance on the basis of ``Price & Quality'' rather than be subject to the abuses of insurance companies who would charge exorbitant, prohibitive rates for coverage. This was already a cost cutting measure. This is sorely needed insurance reform.

The health insurance exchange program is a key element of the Affordable Care Act aimed at providing coverage to the uninsured. Six million two hundred thousand residents in my home state of Texas do not have health care coverage. Of the 26 percent of the Texan population that is uninsured, 18 percent are children.

Insurance exchanges would also be available to small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Texas is home to nearly 400,000 small businesses employing less than 500 people, and nearly 2 million self- employed entrepreneurs who would certainly benefit from a health insurance exchange.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 23 percent of Texas' population lives in poverty. Health insurance exchange programs would provide relief to those living at less than 133 percent of the poverty level, about $14,484 dollars annually, by making them eligible for Medicaid in all states. More than 30 percent of impoverished Texans would be eligible for Medicaid under this provision.

The Health Benefit Exchange Programs were championed as a means for people to get affordable health care and now they are opposing that very principle in H.R. 1213.

If H.R. 1213 passes, it will severely harm cash-strapped states who cannot afford to establish the health benefit exchanges on their own.

The Affordable Care Act requires all State Health Benefit Exchanges to be self-sustaining by Year 2015 and no further Federal grants will be made to states for health benefit exchanges after January 1, 2015. This sounds like the State's rights that my Republican colleagues have been championing on this Floor for a very long time in the course of debating health care reform. Now, they are opposed to the very State's rights contained in the Affordable Care Act that pertain to health benefit exchanges.

This bill takes away the ability of States to provide cost-saving health coverage through Health Benefit Exchanges.

This bill deals a severe blow to America's middle class and small businesses who simply seek to obtain affordable health insurance so they can do their part to help keep America healthy and contribute to our continued national economic growth.

I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 1213 to facilitate transparency in government spending cuts and notice of funding that will no longer be available to them.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I appreciate very much my friend and colleague from Texas, and I believe that this is an amendment that Republicans and Democrats can join on, maybe for different reasons.

I have indicated that I believe the repealing of the support for school-based health clinics and construction thereof is an unfortunate act on behalf of America's children.

My amendment is very simple. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services to post public notice on its official Web site that the mandated funds from Section 410(1)(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the amounts of the funds, will be rescinded. It explains to the American public just what we are doing and it gives them a line-by-line, dollar-by-dollar impact of what happens when they take money away that is already being invested, that will be invested, to help build a health care infrastructure in their neighborhood, so that children like this young man and many others who may not have access to health care can have a school-based clinic. The amendment will provide the public with important information about mandatory school-based health center funding that will no longer be available for them to receive these preventative care services.

This amendment also assists my good friends on the other side of the aisle by permitting them to easily show the American public that they are cutting public spending. But yet we must weigh the balance--cutting spending, or alleging that you are going to benefit from these cut funds, and undermining the health care system of America.

When the Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and the President signed it into law, the Department of Health and Human Services was given a mandate to provide funding for expanded and sustained national health investment in school-based health center construction programs to improve clinical preventive services and help restrain the growth in private and public health costs. Nearly every State has school-based health centers. There are about 2,000. It provides mandatory funds for building and improving school-based health centers. There are now 350 applications for 46 States with shovel-ready projects. It couldn't be all bad.

If H.R. 1214 is passed, it will kill those funds. It will repeal it. And yet this particular amendment will point out Sophie's choices--not really good choices--to take away from our children good health care under the pretense of cutting the deficit. The majority of the funding that is being cut by my friends is from discretionary services, few dollars that represent only a small portion of the Nation's budget, appropriations, and deficit.

And so I ask that we support this amendment because truth is in the pudding. Let's see what they're doing and how you can get good health care and cut school-based clinics.

Let me quickly say this. We're trying to make sure that we have places in neighborhoods for people to evacuate to--schools that are secure enough and strong enough that you could run or you could evacuate or you could be safe in place. School-based clinics, health clinics, provide places to take the wounded from a hurricane or tornado or a disaster unforeseen--or a manmade disaster.

So I would ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment, to support this amendment, because it shows the light of what we should and should not be doing.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

And I am trying to reserve my time.

Let me make the point that in earlier debate today, the Chair allowed me to reserve, and so I take issue with the ruling. And what is the basis of the ruling?

Can I have an explanation as to why I was allowed to do so previously?

So to my parliamentary inquiry, the answer is that we're under the 5-minute rule?

Let me just indicate that school-based clinics

represent a source of homeland security, and in fact what we will find is we will stop States in their tracks for trying to provide the kind of health care not only for the children going to school every day to be able to protect them, but also in a long-range effort.

Does anyone remember H1N1? I do, because I went to my schools where there was an epidemic of H1N1. And we had it all across the Nation. We were panicked. I will tell you that school-based clinics can be a source of relief for children either coming to school with infections or some devastation coming about.

I would ask my colleagues to support this very simple amendment which gives to the American public the reason why we shouldn't cut these funds. Cutting funds, killing health care. Cutting funds, killing health care. Support this very thoughtful amendment that provides you with the reason for us being able to support school-based health clinics, for homeland security, for the ability to evacuate and be secure in times of disaster and, yes, to take care of the millions of children and respond to the States that are not Democratic or Republican who have 350 applications on the record. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to state my clear position that I am adamantly opposed to H.R. 1214 and its repeal of the important mandatory funding for School-Based Health Center Construction Prevention and Public Health Fund created under the Affordable Care Act. The funding saves lives and saves money.

If H.R. 1214 to repeal mandatory funding for School-Based Health Center Construction provided under Section 4101(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is enacted into law:

what my amendment does

Requires the Department of Health and Human Services to post public notice on its official web site that the Mandated Funds from Section 4101(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act including the amount of the funds that will be rescinded.

This Amendment will provide the public with important information about Mandatory School-Based Health Center Funding that will no longer be available for them to receive necessary preventive health care services.

This Amendment also assists my Republican Colleagues by permitting them to easily show the American Public that they are cutting government spending, by how much they are cutting spending, and where they are cutting government spending. So I expect that my Republican Colleagues will fully support this Amendment.

Purpose of the Mandatory Funding for School-Based Health Center Construction Prevention and Public Health Fund Created under the Affordable Care Act. (Section 4101 of the Affordable Care Act)

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and the President signed it into law, the Department of Health of Human Services was given the mandate to provide funding for expanded and sustained national health investment in School-based Health Center construction programs to improve access to Clinical Preventive Services and help restrain the growth in private and public health costs. This was already a cost cutting measure.

Nearly every State has School-based health centers (there are about 2,000 of these)

Provides mandatory funds for building and improving school-based health centers.

There are 350 Applications for 46 States with shovel--ready projects.

If H.R. 1214 is passed it will repeal these funds and kill jobs.

According to the Texas Department of Health Services there are approximately 8 to 10 people employed at the 85 existing health centers. More than 20 of these health centers are currently in Houston.

A study conducted by John Hopkins University found that school-based health centers reduced inappropriate emergency room use among regular users or school-based health centers

A national multi-site study conducted by Mathmatica Policy Research Institute found a significant increase in health care access by students who used school-based health centers: 71 percent of students reported having a health care visit in past year compared to 59 percent of students who did not have access to a school-based health center.

This program has been attributed to a reduction in Medicaid expenditures related to inpatient, drug and emergency department use to use of school-based health centers.

I just rise to thank the gentleman from Texas for accepting this amendment. I think it shows that though we may have positions that differ on the underlying legislation, this is an initiative for transparency, and it will help explain to the American people.

Let me also conclude by saying that it should be very clear that this funding is not used for health care, in particular, on personnel. But it is to build the structures that will provide and protect children to be able to have these clinics, more access to health care for communities, and a source and site to be able to protect people who are impacted by natural or manmade disaster.

With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to be on the floor for such an important issue and joined by my colleagues.

I am holding the time until the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) arrives. But let me just indicate that this is an enormous crisis when nine of our soldiers are killed in the way that they were killed in Afghanistan. And for many of us who are concerned about the continuing conflict and the next steps, it is important to be able to offer our sympathy to their families and, as well, to be able to ask for an investigation as to the basis of their loss.

So it is important tonight that we educate our colleagues about the challenges that those brave soldiers faced, the conditions under which they lost their lives, and to say to their families that we will not rest until we have the opportunity to secure all of the facts

and to be able to establish a reaction or a basis on seeking a response from the Afghan Government and certainly from those who are in supervision of the Armed Forces in the region, in the theater.

With that in mind, as we offer our sympathy and express our desire for a full understanding and story as to what happened, Mr. Chairman, let me just say I look forward to a full airing of this unfortunate circumstance, and I hope that we will continue to seek information for these families and on behalf of these brave soldiers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for those of us who were here on 9/11 in this humble place and saw the building smoke, we know what today and the last 24 hours have meant. Thank you to the Navy SEALs for their bravery, for their strategic genius, for providing a safety net to bring them all out, to make sure that the women and children were protected.

Thank you to President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, the continuing chain of those who experienced terrorism who worked together. Thank you, President Obama. And, again, to the families of the victims, no one knows the story, those who were victims whose family members died at the USS Cole or in Africa or on 9/11 or in 1993.

So I ask us not to move forward in this country as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans, not as conservative radio talk show listeners who seemingly cannot find a glistening of hope. But come together as Americans. Osama bin Laden is dead, and we have the opportunity to thank the Navy SEALs and the United States military. And we have the ability to move forward as Americans, to move forward for peace and democracy and to be able to thank those who have laid down their lives, who sacrifice so that our flag can fly and justice can prevail in our Nation and around the world.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 1: In section 1, add at the end the

following:

(c) Notice of Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Not later

than 10 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

Secretary of Health and Human Services shall post on the

public website of the Department of Health and Human Services

a notice of--

(1) the rescission, pursuant to subsection (b), of the

unobligated balance of funds made available by section

4101(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42

U.S.C. 280h-4(a)); and

(2) the amount of such funds so rescinded.