Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, Congressman Paul Ryan's budget goes beyond what is necessary to restore fiscal solvency. It unfairly targets our nation's low income communities and senior citizens, while protecting the interests of the wealthiest Americans.

My colleague's budget, which has been embraced by his party returns to the ``trickle down'' economics that contributed to the recent recession by cutting the tax rate for the wealthiest individuals and corporations from 35 to 25%.

This ten percent decrease represents $800 billion dollars in new tax cuts for the wealthiest among us at a time when so many are struggling. The $800 billion in tax cuts represents $115 billion dollars cut from healthcare, $119 billion from income security, $223 billion from education, job training and social services, and $276 billion dollars in cuts to transportation initiatives that provide jobs.

There is absolutely no justification for these huge tax cuts. The wealthiest tax brackets should not profit at the expense of programs keeping struggling families from poverty.

The Economic Policy Institute states that ``A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity [Republican Budget Plan] will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade.'' This is an overwhelmingly presumptuous estimation.

Unemployment fell to 4% for only one relatively brief episode in recent memory, and that was after nearly a decade of strong economic growth. So the Heritage Center's claim is very bold.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the unemployment rate will be 5.9% in 2015. The Heritage Center's forecasts for the Ryan plan are even bolder in the out years: It predicts unemployment will fall to an unprecedented 2.8% by 2021. Simply put, this is incredible and wholly unrealistic.

The Economic Policy Institute calls ``the Ryan budget a job killer,'' and goes on to say, ``The chances that this plan would drive the U.S. economy to 2.8% unemployment are near zero, but the chances of it repeating the mistakes of the Bush tax cuts and driving the economy into a ditch are very real.''

The Republican's 2012 budget cuts $2 trillion dollars more than President Obama's Debt Commission advised, and those cuts come from vital social services and safety nets for low income families, children and seniors.

Since 1965, Americans have relied on the Federal government to provide healthcare security. The changes and cuts to Medicare proposed in this budget deeply threaten the security of our senior citizens. The proposed repeal of guaranteed eligibility means that Americans who are 54 years old today will not be guaranteed to receive Medicare when they turn 65.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these changes to Medicare will triple the cost for new beneficiaries by 2030 and increase costs for current recipients, including the 2.9 million people in Texas who received Medicare in 2010.

The Republican proposal will enact damaging changes to Medicaid, threatening healthcare resources for the 60 million people, half of them children that rely on this program to stay healthy. A block grant for funding or a cap on federal Medicaid spending would increase the cost for states and the low income families who benefit from the program.

Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare under this budget.

Changes to Medicaid advocated by Republicans would be devastating to senior citizens who rely on the Medicaid safety net for long term care and nursing home costs not covered by Medicare. The AARP estimates cutting this safety net would put 54,000 Texas nursing home residents in jeopardy.

The Majority party's budget cuts do not just impact those who rely on Medicaid and Medicare; they also prevent 32 million Americans from obtaining health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. By inserting a repeal of this historic legislation into a budget, Republicans threaten millions seeking insurance, including the 6.2 million Texans who do not have health care coverage.

Underserved and low income Americans will see deep cuts to the programs that keep them safe and healthy, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to 44.3 million people, would be transferred to a block grant under the Republican plan. Shifting the cost to the states would force them to cut benefits to current recipients or create a waiting list of families that can't afford food on their own. This

would certainly harm the 554,000 people in Harris County receiving SNAP benefits in December of 2010.

This legislation would cut Federal housing aid, and impose unfair work or job training requirements that give no consideration to job market diversity or extenuating circumstances. It will also deeply reduce the LIHEAP contingency fund will affect the 500,000 low income households in Houston that were receiving heating and energy discounts last year.

Republicans may be willing to pass a budget that reduces Pell Grants by 60%. They may be comfortable eliminating $75 million dollars to provide housing and other services to homeless veterans, but I cannot support a budget that leaves so many Americans behind.

In order to move America forward, we must give all citizens equal opportunity for success. We must invest in future generations by funding education and job training programs, not cutting this funding by $250 billion dollars. We need to invest in clean energy, and environmentally sound technology that will foster job growth, and continue to improve our infrastructure.

My heart pains me for this day and this

budget for America. Some of us might feel as the President does, that it's a question of whether or not we are saying to the American people that they are not understanding, or that we who are fighting simply are stupid.

It's a time when you want to reflect on how great a country we live in, and it hurts my heart when I see individuals putting on the floor of the House a budget that unfairly targets low-income communities and senior citizens while protecting the wealthiest Americans, Americans who I care about, and simply eliminating any sense of responsibility for working and middle class Americans.

The people's budget saves Medicare. Those are working Americans. Those are Americans that are middle class. And then, of course, what about our disabled persons? Do you think that they are only classified as low-income? These are individuals who become seniors or disabled who need to have the kind of sacrifice. Look what happens. The people's budget protects those who cannot protect themselves.

Finally, I ask the individuals, is there any shared sacrifice that you can see in the Republican budget. The Republican budget fails to help all those who are in need? This is a good budget. Support the people's budget.

Recommendation from CPC:

Every Member mentions the first talking point below re: deficits. Then Members can address the remaining TPs below, as they feel comfortable.

Deficit: Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit by 2021.

We eliminate the deficit by 2021. Instead of eroding America's hard- earned retirement plan and social safety net, our budget targets the true drivers of deficits in the next decade: the Bush Tax Cuts, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession.

Jobs: Our Budget Puts America Back to Work & Restores America's Competitiveness.

We rebuild America and make it competitive again. We make smart investments. We put America back to work. You can't grow the economy by slashing programs. Our plan will spark new job growth, improve education, accelerate clean energy development and modernize the nation's infrastructure.

Taxes: Our Budget Implements a Fair Tax System.

We ask the richest and most fortunate Americans to contribute more. We stop giving handouts and huge tax giveaways to corporate special interests. The ``People's Budget'' implements a fair tax system, based on the notion that fairness and equality are integral to our society. Our budget restores fairness to a system that unfairly benefits a few while hurting the majority of Americans.

Defense: Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home.

We bring the troops back home. We ensure that our country's defense spending does not continue to contribute significantly to our current fiscal burden. It's time to stop bankrupting the country fighting unwinnable wars. We end these wars not simply to save massive amounts of money or because the majority of Americans favors it, but because these wars are making America less safe, reduce our standing in the world, and do nothing to reduce America's burgeoning energy security crisis.

Health: Our Budget Keeps Americans Healthy.

We allow real competition in health care. We will never see health care costs decrease until the government can compete and use its bargaining power to strike a better deal for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 48 hours, this House engaged in its constitutional right of creating a pathway for revenue for the United States of America. Sadly, we ended just a few minutes ago on a Republican budget that cannot claim that it will, in essence, reduce the deficit or create a surplus in any given year.

I am delighted to have supported the Democratic budget that reduces the deficit and reaches a primary balance by 2018. But more importantly, I think I am very delighted that the American people will see a heart in this budget: that we will not destroy Medicare; that we will not burden on seniors the extra $12,000 that seniors will have to pay--that is right, $12,000--in the Medicare program under the Republican plan; and that young people will not be prevented at the doors of colleges from going to school, and that Head Start will end and Medicaid for the disabled and seniors will end.

I do have faith in this country, and I believe we will get a budget that is both merciful and balanced the right way for the American people, not the wrong way. Today, unfortunately, we made a wrong step, but I believe together we will make it right.

Mr. Chairman, unlike the gentleman from Wisconsin who just doesn't know what to do and seems to be confused on his side of the aisle as to what his budget is all about, I will say that I am getting unconfused because his budget is a destruction of the fabric and the way of life of all Americans.

Do you want to know what the Republican budget does? It cuts food assistance for struggling families; it takes away affordable health care coverage for working families; and, of course, it dismantles the health care safety net. But also, it deals with the education of our children.

As the cochair and founder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, let me show you what happens when we don't educate our children. We can see the numbers of individuals who are unemployed who have not had a high school degree. Our friends and the Republican budget are going to cut education, and they're going to wind up with increasing unemployment because you can see that less of our Americans are being able to go to college, and, therefore, without college, without a high school education, we just undermine a growing child's opportunity.

Let me tell you what else we do. We go from children to their grandparents. I remember standing on the floor of this House trying to prevent the doughnut hole from coming about, but Republicans again established a doughnut hole that millions of seniors have fallen through. In fact, the Republican budget causes seniors to pay some $12,000 on their Medicare. Listen to me clearly, seniors, you will be paying an extra $12,000 with the Republican budget plan. And of course we will open up the doughnut hole again, the very doughnut hole that has been taken care of by the Affordable Care Act.

On the other hand, the Democratic budget balances the budget, and of course it recognizes the value of a shared sacrifice. I just visited Texas soldiers, National Guard. They understand about shared sacrifice; they support each other. But this is a suicidal budget. It has no shared sacrifice, and all of the cuts come from the most vulnerable.

The Republican plan is all about turning back the clock and throwing the poor people over the bridge. That is what it's all about. It is a disgrace. Vote for the Democratic Budget.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Republican Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 and beyond. Unlike the proposed Democratic Budget, the Republican Budget purports to reduce our nation's deficit by making disturbingly deep cuts to important programs and will have an adverse affect on our nation's families, children, and the health of women.

The Republican Budget:

Guts Food Assistance for Struggling Families. The budget resolution calls for $127 billion in cuts to SNAP (formerly called food stamps) in a six-year period (2015 through 2021). This proposal to block-grant and reduce funding represents a cut of 25 percent in food benefits for some of the most vulnerable Americans. States will be forced to cut benefits to some households or create waiting lists for needy families.

Takes Away Affordable Health Coverage for Millions of Working Families. The majority's budget resolution calls for $1.4 trillion in savings from repealing coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which Congress enacted a year ago to hold insurance companies accountable and extend health coverage to more than 30 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. This would mean repealing $777 billion in tax credits to help low- and middle-income families afford health insurance coverage.

Dismantles Health Care Safety Net for Vulnerable Populations. The majority's budget devastates health security for 28 million poor children, 5 million seniors, and 10 million disabled individuals who rely on Medicaid for a basic safety net of health care.

To protect tax cuts for the wealthy, the budget includes the absurd idea to dismantle the Medicaid program and to let the chips fall where they may, no matter who might get hurt. The real hard choices are left to others: state governors, who will decide which populations or health services to drop; health care providers, whose Medicaid payments might get cut so low they will have to decide whether they can afford to continue providing services to Medicaid beneficiaries; low-income families, who may have to decide between buying groceries and taking a sick child to a doctor; and adults with aging parents, who may have to decide between sending a child to college or paying for their parents' long-term care.

The Democratic Budget:

Democratic budget reduces the deficit responsibly, reaches primary balance by 2018. The Democratic budget reduces the deficit by $1.2 trillion more than the President's budget over ten years.

Includes Pell grant and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) initiatives. The Democratic budget includes two mandatory initiatives that are fully paid for with spending reductions. First, it includes the President's proposed mandatory funding to sustain the maximum Pell grant award at $5,550, in contrast to the Republican budget, which cuts Pell grant funding substantially.

The Democratic Budget protects Medicaid and the Medicare guarantee for seniors. The Democratic budget protects Medicare's guarantee of health care coverage for seniors and disabled workers. It also preserves the existing structure of Medicaid that provides a health care safety net for vulnerable children, families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. In contrast, the Republican budget dismantles Medicaid and ends Medicare by converting it into an inadequate voucher for the purchase of private insurance.

I would urge all Members of Congress to oppose the Republican Budget and instead support the Democratic Budget to responsibly cut spending and give America's families, women and children a chance.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding to the CBC.

The CBC budget saves $325 billion in interest over 10 years which the Republican budget does not. I am glad to stand here and talk about ports and public transit, but I am even more glad to talk about the $5 billion that goes into general sciences, space and technology, and the $5 billion for community development.

The reason I want to say that is for all of the tax cuts to the wealthy, $800 billion, the CBC budget understands that they can invest in health, income security, education, and transportation.

In addition, may I say to you that this is the face of what we are trying to fight for: a hardworking nurse and a beautiful child. This is what America is all about. And I would just say to my good friends, the CBC budget does not engage in slash-onomics. It does not engage in losing jobs, jobs, jobs. We create jobs through community block grants, through space, science, and technology, through transportation. And all the bill for the Republicans will do to America is slash jobs; slash- onomics. Vote for the CBC budget.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget for Fiscal Year 2012. The CBC Alternative Budget provides a far superior alternative to the Republican Budget in general and especially in the areas of job creating area of transportation and infrastructure.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida, and I carefully and enthusiastically associate myself with his response.

We are all colleagues here. We call each other ``distinguished colleagues,'' and I call my good friend from North Carolina ``distinguished colleague,'' with whom I disagree with wide and well- versed opposition.

First of all, as we approach a sacred holiday for many of us in this country, it is one of sacrifice, and as we move into the month of May, we begin to look at how mothers sacrifice to take care of their children and not themselves. Many of us during this time frame will be fasting because we find that this draconian road that our Republican friends are on, with the minutest and the smallest of a majority that voted in this low voting election in 2010, is frightening. We need prayer, and we need to fast because this is truly the road to ruin. I just hope that my colleagues who communicate to the American people will tell the truth. The budget, the repeal of the Prevention and Public Health, the CR, all of them are the road to ruin.

Whether you agree with our President or not, he has it right: the country we can believe in.

With regard to the CR, when you have The Washington Post or any newspaper saying that more than half of the $38 billion in cuts that are used in this CR for tomorrow are taken out of education, labor and health programs while those at the top 2 percent or 1 percent of the tax bracket keep going on and on--many of whom said we are willing to sacrifice, that we are willing to offer to be able to help this country--and then when they want to repeal the Prevention and Public Health bill so that the brunt of the people going in for medical care will be in the emergency rooms because they will not have had cholesterol checks or high blood pressure checks or checks for sickle cell or diabetes--they won't have any of that. They'll go into the emergency rooms, laying out in comas--that's what the repeal of this legislation is all about.

The question you ask the Republicans is: What is the dream or the vision of America for them? It is a road to ruin, and the budget is an absurd ridiculousness that wants to cut Medicare and wants to cut Medicaid.

In going back to the CR, how can you tell the District of Columbia citizens, who pay taxes, that they cannot take their own money and use it for the dictates of their elected body?

How can you tell them that?

The gentleman is enormously kind.

I sat and listened to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton who has lost a vote on this floor that she had, and the citizens of that community, the Mayor and the city council could do nothing but take to the streets to protest, How can you dictate what we do with our own dollars? And so over the next 48 hours, you will see the reason why many Americans are fasting, because they see that this country is going down the road of no return.

And it hurts my heart to think that we're going to rescind $16 billion that can be used to make a healthier country, to make a country where children can have access to health care, where a little 10-year- old doesn't die because he has an abscess.

I ask my colleagues to vote against all these rules and stop this from going down the road to ruin.

Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey and let me thank the chairman of the committee as well.

Madam Chairwoman, we just have a disagreement. I would venture to say that the bulk of sick people in America and others who every day struggle to maintain their health so they can provide for their families would vigorously disagree as well.

I think there are two points that I would like to make, and that is that what we lose when we repeal this Affordable Care Act and the funding of it is more than the glory that we get from going home and bragging that we have undermined America's health care system, or some would say that we have taken away ObamaCare. Preventative care is an unbelievable plus that this bill has generated.

I went to one of my emergency centers, a new one, that is crafted under the public health system. It is to take the load off the emergency centers, the emergency centers that ambulances go to. What an amazing sight, of people coming with broken toes and fingers and feet and bruises, maybe the beginning of heart disease and other problems. But it was a lower level emergency room, not particularly preventative care but the kind of intervention that can save millions of dollars.

I want to go even lower than that--and I don't use that terminology-- but I want people to be able to go and check on their cholesterol, check on their high blood pressure, understand whether they have sickle cell, understand what stage of diabetes they are in or understand what stage of heart disease they are in in a preventative care cycle. And everyone knows that economists document how many billions of dollar that will save. How can we vote against that?

And then secondarily, there are two elements that the Affordable Care Act provides that is being repealed; research and training for health professionals that we absolutely need--whether you're in the private care system or not--and then of course protecting our most precious resource, and that is our children. If you can raise a

child in a healthy manner in terms of nutrition, in terms of immunization, in terms of regular doctor visits, then you are able to save billions of dollars.

This is wrong, headed in a wrong direction. Many of us are fasting. I said on this floor, we must pray because this is the wrong direction to go.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1217, which would repeal the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (``Affordable Care Act'') that established the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a fund which serves as a great stride toward turning our ``sick-care'' system, where we focus on treating the injured and ill, into a true ``healthcare'' system that puts focus on keeping the population well.

It is because of all that the Prevention and Public Heath Fund accomplished in its first year, the overwhelming support the Fund has received from hundreds of organizations, and how essential prevention is to reducing the overall cost of healthcare for the American people, that I oppose the repeal of this Fund.

Despite my general opposition to this bill, yesterday in the Rules Committee meeting, I offered amendments to H.R. 1217, in order to remind this chamber and emphasize to the American people the importance and benefits of preventative care for the American public.

My amendments reaffirm to the American people that we as lawmakers understand the importance of preventative care by stating that it is the sense of Congress that prevention of disease and injury is overwhelmingly effective in improving our healthcare system and keeping that system affordable. Furthermore, preventative health care is an effective means for detecting and treating illnesses before they become serious and life threatening.

My amendments also make us as lawmakers accountable to the American people who have been and would be benefitting from the services and support provided through this fund. It gives notice to the public, through the Department of Health and Human Services' website, of the rescission of funds and the amount rescinded, increasing government's accountability.

I think most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree with me, as evidenced by the intense debate at the end of last week, when I say that we must address our nation's spending and growing deficit. However, it is of great concern to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to do so by cutting cost-saving programs that are also essential to the health and wellbeing of Americans. This attempt, through H.R. 1217, to defund this essential program which was created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is of particular concern.

Today's youth may be the first generation to live shorter and less healthy lives than that of their parents, and this is largely due to increased rates of diseases and conditions which are preventable with proper and consistent healthcare. 75% of our country's healthcare costs are attributed to treatment of chronic diseases, most of which are preventable. However, less than 5% of our healthcare

spending goes towards preventing these diseases. Loss of productivity in the workforce attributed to chronic disease is estimated to cost the United States over $1 trillion each year.

With that being said, the 111th Congress, with the intent of seeing these grim statistics changes, appropriated $16.5 billion to be used, over the next ten years to support preventative care and research. Since its establishment the Fund has already begun to strengthen the infrastructure of our healthcare system on the state and national level.

The Prevention and Public Health fund, though it has only been in existence for one year, has already been used for:

Programs to promote tobacco control and implement tobacco cessation services and campaigns;

Obesity prevention which directly decreases risk for Diabetes;

Improving nutrition and access to fresh fruits and vegetables;

Increasing opportunities for recreational and physical activity;

HIV prevention;

Support of clinical and community-based disease prevention; and

Bolstering the health workforce by increasing health care personnel.

Money towards finding health solutions, rather than treating health problems, comes back to society in terms of increasing productivity, creating jobs, and reducing Medicare, Medicaid, and overall healthcare costs. With just a $10 per person investment towards improving community based activity, nutrition, and other preventative measures would create a return of $56 per person within only 5 years. That translates to a savings of $5.60 for every $1 invested in preventative health care. Most importantly, cost benefits extend beyond government to both American businesses and families; providing savings and an improved quality of life.

As a result of the Prevention and Public Health Fund, Texas received $6 million last year that went towards creating committees, testing facilities, laboratories, and training centers which brought over $2 million to the health prevention capacity of Houston alone.

Congress must maintain that the prevention of illness, the saving of lives, and the securing of a healthy public are top priorities, and that prevention is an undeniably effective means to achieve these ends. My amendments will do just that.

The total loss of $16 billion of funding for prevention efforts, an effective total eradication of our country's prevention program, will be unfortunate, and thus I urge my colleagues not to lose sight of importance of the Prevention and Public Health Fund's accomplishments and goals. Including:

The improvement of state and local health departments, giving them the capacity to respond to infections, natural disasters, and terrorist threats;

Creating a strong and healthy workforce that will be competitive in the global market; and

Saving families, businesses, and the government money, opposed to simply cutting costs.

While I do not support what H.R. 1217 purports to do, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of these essential changes to H.R. 1217 to acknowledge the need for preventative care and hold ourselves accountable for what would most certainly be a great loss to the public.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I know sometimes in the rush of legislating, many Members are faced with any number of challenges in understanding legislation, but I do know that the majority has come with their own roadmap. And I do want to respect the different viewpoints, and I don't say this in any way to malign.

First of all, I'm grateful that this amendment was made in order, but I wish it wasn't because I understand that all legislation that passes needs to have in fact--or often has those who agree with it and those who do not. And that's fair enough.

And the process that we usually use to handle that is to amend, not repeal. There are some sections here that I have looked at and have concern with. And many have heard me on the floor of the House discussing a number of issues regarding my local hospitals. But I will say to you that the repeal of this bill is putting us on the road to ruin.

And my amendment is simple. It asks the HHS to place on its Web site the moneys rescinded so that the American people can see. For some it may be to see the great success of taking away money. For others, it may be to see what has happened to the resources that they need to take care of themselves.

Very quickly, this amendment requires for fiscal years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 to list the amount of money that is being taken away from good health care. But, Madam Chair, it will also hopefully point people to what they're losing.

For example, look at this beautiful baby here. We will not have, under the repeal of this Affordable Care Act, the bounty of preventative care. For those with chronic diseases, Americans who are subject to chronic disease such as heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes, their only care will be the emergency room, high-priced emergency room when they're in a diabetic coma or they're in a stroke or they have a heart attack, rather than be able to go to their doctors.

But we start early on with this little baby being able to go to wellness clinics or to their community health clinics. That's what the money that is being rescinded is going to do to you.

In addition, you will find that chronic diseases resulted in $75.3 billion loss in productivity in the State of Texas alone. This is going to be across America.

The rescissions will also impact all of the States. I have a list of almost 50 States that have begun to receive dollars from the Affordable Care Act--from Alabama, to Alaska, to Pennsylvania, to Massachusetts, to Michigan, to Rhode Island, and South Carolina, and Tennessee, and Texas. All of the States that my good friends come from, they are receiving money right now.

In addition to this issue of taking away money, Prevention for Healthy America concluded that investing $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs that increased physical activity, for example, improved nutrition, and prevents smoking and other tobacco could save the country more than $16 billion annually within 5 years.

When you see how much money was taken away, just realize that you multiply that. If it's a total of $16 billion, you're going to lose $16 billion a year because there will not be any wellness program. Community and clinical prevention, which is about $2 million. And so you will take away money from HIV

prevention, and that is a very costly proposal.

You'll take away from public health infrastructure; you'll take away from primary care residential expansion programs training residents and doctors. You'll take away from other medical assistance programs, expansion of physician assistant training. You'll take away from public health departments where they link people to needed health care. You'll take away childhood and adult immunizations and protecting the water we drink and the food we eat.

Let me just say to you that my amendment is to shine the light on what will be happening to the health care of Americans. I want my colleagues to tell their constituents, not those that are already focused on negative aspects of what we're trying to do here, but those who are just simply hardworking mothers and fathers who are trying to make a living and who need this health care.

Madam Chair, I would first like to state my clear position that I am adamantly opposed to H.R. 1217 and its repeal of the important Prevention and Public Health Fund created under the Affordable Care Act. The Fund saves lives and saves money.

If H.R. 1217 to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund provided under section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is enacted into law:

What my amendment does is: Requires the Department of Health and Human Services to post public notice on its official website of the Unobligated Funds from section 4002 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 Preventive Health Care 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 Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002 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 power to administer the program to provide for expanded and sustained national health investment in prevention and public health programs to improve public health programs and help restrain the growth in private and public health costs. This was already a cost cutting measure.

Nearly 11.7 million cases of seven common chronic diseases--cancers, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental disorders, and pulmonary conditions--were reported in Texas in 2003.

The cost of treating those with chronic disease in Texas totaled about $17.2 billion.

Chronic diseases resulted in $75.3 billion in lost productivity and economic costs to Texas.

A new focus on prevention will offer Texas and the rest of our nation the opportunity to not only improve the health of Americans, but also control health care spending. A report from Trust for America's Health entitled Prevention for a Healthier America concluded that investing $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs that increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save the country more than $16 billion annually within 5 years. This is a return of $5.60 for every $1 spent on preventive health care.

How the Fund Improves Wellness and Prevention for Texans

Since enactment of the Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services has awarded approximately $17.63 million in grants to organizations in Texas through the Prevention and Public Health Fund to help improve wellness and prevention efforts, including:

Community and Clinical Prevention ($2,956,000): This funding supports prevention activities that have been shown to be effective in reducing health care costs and promoting health and wellness.

Primary and Behavioral Health Integration ($495,000). Assists communities with the integration of primary care services into community-based mental & behavioral health settings.

HIV Prevention ($2,359,000). Focuses on HIV prevention in high risk populations and communities by increasing HIV testing opportunities, linking HIV-infected persons with appropriate services, and filling critical gaps in data and understanding of the HIV epidemic.

Tobacco Cessation ($102,000). Strengthens Texas's ability to move towards implementing a plan to reduce tobacco use. It also enhances and expands the national network of tobacco cessation quitlines to significantly increase the number of tobacco users who quit each year.

Public Health Infrastructure ($2,084,000): These grants strengthen state and local capacity to prepare health departments to meet 21st century public health challenges and support the training of existing and next generation public health professionals.

Public Health Infrastructure ($800,000). Supports state, local, and tribal public health infrastructure to improve information technology, workforce training, and policy development.

Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity ($634,000). Builds state and local capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks.

Public Health Training Centers ($650,000). Improve the public health system by enhancing skills of the current and future public health workforce.

Primary Care Training ($12,586,000): These funds support the expansion of the primary care workforce.

Primary Care Residency Expansion Program ($7,680,000). Increases the number of residents trained in family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics.

Advanced Nursing Education Expansion Program ($1,426,000). Increases the number of primary care nurse practitioners and nurse midwives who graduate by expanding class sizes and accelerating graduation rates for part-time students.

Expansion of Physician Assistant Training ($1,980,000). Improves access to primary care by funding the training of primary care physician assistants and expanding the primary care workforce.

Nurse-Managed Health Clinics ($1,500,000). Provide primary care and wellness services to underserved and vulnerable populations through clinics that are managed by advanced practice nurses and provide valuable clinical training sites for primary care nurse practitioners.

If the Prevention and Public Health Fund is cut and its Unobligated Funds Rescinded our health care costs will soar and the results will be catastrophic. The Fund saves lives and saves money.

if the funds are rescinded

America's local health departments need the Prevention and Public Health Fund to help prevent diseases and protect health in ways that health insurance companies or medical care providers cannot.

Local health departments:

Link people who need healthcare with ways to get it.

Detect and stop outbreaks of disease.

Help people make healthier choices in diet, exercise, and tobacco use to prevent and reduce chronic disease.

Provide childhood and adult immunizations.

Protect the water we drink and the food we eat.

Help new parents give babies a healthy start at home.

Inspect schools and day care centers for health and safety.

Conduct screenings for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, childhood lead poisoning, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is critically needed to stabilize the ability of local health departments to protect their communities from health threats and help individuals and families lead productive and healthy lives. Please oppose this attempt by H.R. 1217 to eliminate funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund. A healthy future depends on it.

If H.R. 1217 passes this Chamber and is enacted into law, it is important for the American People to have notice of the rescission of funds for the Prevention and Public Health Fund program. Since the Department of Health and Human Services administers the Fund, it is only appropriate that public notice be given on the official HHS website and include the amount of funds rescinded. In this way, the American public will know that the public funding they rely upon has been cancelled for preventive health care and the Transparency of Spending Cuts will be further promoted in a manner that my Republican Colleagues will also appreciate.

I would urge all Members of Congress to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this morning we pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States. What a privilege and an honor. I think it conveys upon this body to tell the truth.

And so this morning I raise a question of my friend's comments about holding the troops hostage. We're not holding them hostage. We were able to provide them with their paychecks, but we wanted to be concerned about their grandmothers and wives and children that were being abandoned by the Republican budget.

And, yes, can you imagine holding up the paying of the bills of the United States because you're against women's health care and family planning and you want to condemn and take away resources to family planning and to Planned Parenthood?

Can you imagine reciting the pledge to the flag and yet not telling the truth? Telling the truth about the fact that we had a provision that would allow our troops to be paid. But in actuality what we're standing against is eliminating of early childhood education, nutrition programs, housing programs, teacher compensation.

Yes, there has to be a moral standard for the budget. We're standing on high moral ground. You can pay our troops and you can have family planning.

Let's do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 37 which disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices.

As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet we have held hearings to examine the importance of so-called ``Net Neutrality''; the principal that everyone should have equal access to the Internet and its lawful content. It gives me great pause whenever I see legislation that frankly looks like an attempt to restrict access to information and limit the right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment of the Constitution. In practical terms, this bill affects the rights of the people to provide and receive information in the form of Internet content as regulated by the FCC.

Make no mistake, access to information contained on the Internet and through broadband connectivity provides vital resources for individuals, families and businesses in the 18th congressional district of Texas, in remote and underserved locations, and all across this great nation every day. Through an open Internet, families, large businesses, small businesses, minority and women owned businesses can access the critical personal, health, medical, news, public safety, educational, financial and business information they need to lead more productive lives and contribute to the continued growth of our national economy. We cannot stifle the innovation that emanates from Internet based activity and drives greater equality in participating in our nation's economic growth!

Census information indicates that small businesses and minority owned businesses are some of the most significant contributors to job growth in America. Minority-owned and small businesses heavily depend on access to information on the Internet as a cost effective means of allowing them to compete. These minority-owned businesses and small businesses would be particularly hard hit and devastated by prohibiting the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks. We cannot allow this to happen; we must oppose this bill.

Open access to the Internet and its content has become an important part of our everyday lives. I must express reservations about efforts to enact legislation that seeks to limit open access to the informational content on the Internet. This legislation seeks to divest the FCC of its power to regulate the Internet and broadband to ensure equal access for all Americans. While there is so much talk in this Chamber about shutting down the federal government for reasons that have nothing to do with fiscally responsibility, what we should be doing is shutting down attempts like these to limit our access to information. So as for this bill is concerned, ``Shut it down!''

This bill would disapprove the rule adopted by the FCC on December 21, 2010, that is intended to preserve the Internet as an open network. Report and Order FCC 10-201 establishes rules that would bar broadband providers from blocking lawful content and discriminating in transmitting lawful traffic on the network. The rule also would require broadband providers to disclose to the public information about network management practices, performance, and terms of service. H.J. Res. 37 would invoke a legislative process established by the Congressional Review Act ``CRA'' (Public Law 104-121) to disapprove the open Internet rule. If H.J. Res. 37 is enacted, the published rule would have no force or effect. This is unacceptable in an open, democratic society with freedom of expression!

The Obama administration strongly opposes House passage of H.J. Res. 37, which would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation's Internet and innovation strategy--an enforceable and effective policy for keeping the Internet free and open. Since the development of the Internet, Federal policy has ensured that this medium is kept open and facilitates innovation and investment, protects consumer choice, and enables free speech. The rule at issue resulted from a process that brought together parties on all sides of this issue--from consumer groups to technology companies to broadband providers--to enable their voices to be heard.

Notably, the Federal Communications Commission's rule reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation. Disapproval of the rule would threaten those values and raise questions as to whether innovation on the Internet will be allowed to flourish, consumers will be protected from abuses, and the democratic spirit of the Internet will remain intact.

If the President is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the resolution.

In short, H.J. Res. 37 is impermissibly harmful:

This Bill uses A Rigid ``Congressional Review Act'' Disapproval Process to Address FCC Open Internet Rule.

By Overturning FCC Open Internet Rule, Republicans Undermine Job Creation and Stifle Innovation.

By Overturning FCC Open Internet Rule, Republicans Hurt Small Business (20,000 small businesses operate on the Internet and over 600,000 Americans have part- or full-time businesses on eBay alone. Small businesses were responsible for nearly 65 percent of new jobs over the last 15 years).

Bringing Up a CRA Disapproval Resolution Imposes a Straitjacket on Congress, Preventing Amendments.

This Straitjacket CRA Disapproval Resolution, Which Prevents Amendments, Overturns Even Consensus Provisions of the FCC Open Internet Rule.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me and the cross-section of the great many voices of forward thinking people and organizations all across America, and oppose H.J. Res. 37.

I thank the ranking member, and I thank the Members on this floor today.

I believe that this is one of the most serious debates that we will have in the history of this Congress. It is whether or not America belongs to all people and not special interests.

Coming from the State of Texas, I can tell you that statistics will say that we probably have the highest number of men and women serving in the United States military, a large number of bases, a large number of veterans; and we well know the values of those men and women who sacrifice and leave their families and go overseas.

But I said yesterday on the floor of the House, we have values. As my colleagues have said, can we say it one more time? We will support a clean CR to pay our troops, to pay their families, to keep the doors of our hospitals open, to provide Medicare for our seniors and Medicaid and education for our children.

But, no, friends on the other side are strangled by special interests, picket signs and loud shouts about ``shut it down.'' The President has already said he will veto this silly legislative initiative.

Why are we in the midst of a serious budget debate? By the way, the Ryan budget that has been put out by the Republicans will deny 66 percent of citizens, of seniors, off of Medicare. They will be off. We will not balance the budget under the Ryan budget until 2040. It will cause $8 trillion more debt.

It's hard for America to understand this complicated process. It seems so confusing, but, my friends, we're talking about last year where people have already committed, making commitments to pay their bills like you would make commitments.

And then in the middle, you would be shortchanged or cut off. Where is the heart on the other side? Yes, yesterday I said shut the government down if you have no heart because we're not going to compromise our values.

This is wrongheaded and misdirected. I ask you to vote it down and vote with the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1363, the Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011. While I support our men and women in the armed forces and our need to ensure our national security, I cannot with clear conscience support another continuing resolution that does not allow vital programs to be fully funded.

We must consider the consequence of passing another continuing resolution. Funding the government for a week at a time cripples agencies, rendering them unable to look to the future and focus on how to best serve the American people in the coming fiscal year.

The funding cuts in this particular continuing resolution are harmful to countless Americans and many of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District. We cannot continue to cut services for children, senior citizens, and the underserved. We cannot allow budgets to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, while ignoring the needs of less advantaged citizens. This bill will cut funding that keeps Americans safe and healthy.

The Department of Health and Human Services will suffer deep funding cuts under this proposal. Programs such as hospital preparedness grants, which allocated 28 million dollars to hospitals in Texas last year, will see its budget cut by $185 million dollars, money that could be used to prepare communities and hospitals for public health emergencies.

The Centers for Disease Control's Immunization and Respiratory Disease Center will lose $156 million dollars. Cuts to this vital program will surely impact the millions of dollars in grant money to purchase and administer vaccines that Houston has received from the Immunization and Respiratory Disease Center. These cuts will certainly harm infants and children of low income families who rely on money appropriated for vaccinations to prevent disease and death.

The proposed cut of $390 million from the LIHEAP contingency fund will affect the 500,000 low-income households in Houston that were receiving heating and energy discounts last year.

I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be hurt by these cuts. I urge my colleagues to consider the ramifications for the nation by cutting $495 million dollars in FEMA First Responders grants, and the impact that cutting $192 million from the Department of Energy's Environmental Clean Up Program will have on future generations.

My Republican colleagues who support the passage of this continuing resolution seem more concerned with placing controversial issues like the right to choose in the text of the bill. Instead of placing irrelevant ideological issues into a continuing resolution, we must take this time to pass a responsible budget that reduces spending without cutting programs essential to the well being of the American people.

This bill contains many large and dangerous cuts in its one week of CR government funding, including $2 billion in cuts to investments in infrastructure projects that are needed for our nation's continued economic growth. The bill makes reprehensible cuts to the most needy in our elementary and secondary education system by rescinding some $186,500,000 from funds already made available for the Department of Education's Education for the Disadvantaged program.

The bill shamelessly resorts to the use of highly offensive, inflammatory and controversial policy riders highlighted by the Red Herring issue and attack on women embodied in prohibiting the District of Columbia from using Federal funding and the District of Columbia's own funds for abortions even when the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

President Obama found the one week CR and its policy riders so objectionable that he declared his clear intention to veto the bill and issued a call for Congress to work together to produce a responsible appropriations measure to fund the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and avoid a devastating government shutdown.

I join the President in his call for a responsible appropriations measure to fund the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and avoid a devastating government shutdown. By using this bill with its attached one week CR, the Republicans are engaging in a high stakes masquerade with dire stakes for the American people and business across the country that rely on having a functioning Federal government. The Republicans mask and hide their shame by putting reprehensible and destructive funding cuts in H.R. 1363 which is supposed to provide for a year of funding for our brave men and women serving in the armed services. Shame on them for doing so and shame on them for bringing this nation perilously close to a government shutdown.

Instead of this meager attempt to pass another fake, short-term CR that does not address the issues facing the American people who are counting on Congress to get this right, we need a Clean CR that does not have outrageous Draconian cuts or hold our Veterans and the men and women serving our country honorably as hostages for the sake of Partisan point scoring. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill and calling for a proper CR which responsibly funds the Federal government through fiscal year 2011.

Well, since, like Peter, I spent 6 or 7 hours on the floor of the House some years ago, Peter, I guess the 1990s, when we were fighting against the inevitable doughnut hole, we held the vote open--I shouldn't say ``we.'' The Republicans held the vote open for at least 6 or 7 hours. I think we voted at 5 a.m. when the last arm was twisted. I think someone had a broken arm in order to ensure the doughnut hole was in.

We, of course, have come back, Democrats, and created the Affordable Care Act. And I tell you, every senior center I have gone through since the famous passage of the Affordable Care Act, seniors have said, ``Thank you. Thank you.'' If anyone has an 84-year-old mother--I just lost my mother, but our conversations centered around the enormous cost of prescription drugs and how relieved she was to, at that time, to have had some relief from the doughnut hole.

Now, as we watched our friends just a few, maybe about an hour or so ago, I hope there was some camera view of the glee that was shown when there was a suggestion that we would shut the government down and, in essence, implode, if I can use that on the floor of the House, any budgeting conversation that makes sense, such as the fact that what we are doing now with the CR is dated and old, it is passe, it is cutting into funding for a present year. What it's doing tomorrow, which is what the groundwork is being laid, is literally destroying the systems as we know it. Sixty-six percent of the seniors don't like this plan.

But I want to throw something out. Let me let them understand what the plan is. The plan is block grants, block grants given to disparate State governments, of which we have no control over, to be able to manipulate and play with Medicare. What sense does that make? Block grants that will in fact be able to be used for whatever we want to use.

The State of Texas, for example, received $3.2 billion in education funds through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Where is it my good friend? It is in the rainy day fund, never used for schools. Can you imagine block grants for Medicare? Can you imagine the nursing homes that will be closed through Medicaid, and then, of course, seniors getting Medicare? And then they shout for joy not only for shutting down the government over the next 2 days, but they shout for joy for the kind of budget that they believe they will be able to--they whet their appetite that they will be able to do for 2012. They will implode this country as we know it.

We want budget cuts. We don't want to see the government shut down. But there is a morality and a character and an integrity, and there is called a heart. And I like what you are saying there. The Republican budget would destroy Medicare. And I just want to say this. We have been around this block before. I heard one Republican leadership say some years ago, ``Over my cold dead body.'' The opposition to my President, who was a great hero of Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson, even when he tried Medicare, there were those who said how it would destroy America, how it was going to undermine America. And look where we are today. How many lives have we saved because seniors had Medicare?

I see that there is this effort to bury this program that has kept the grandmothers and granddads of America's children alive for them to be able to see their grandchildren grow up because they have had good health care. Where is the morality?

If you could yield for a moment, I want to thank the gentleman for the clarification, for separating out. I want to add something. Medicare is a program that is going to be wholly privatized and income driven without any basis in substance; meaning, plainly, if you are more wealthy, this has nothing do with how you would do Medicare today, as someone suggested that you staggered the amounts on income. This has to do with, if you can even get Medicare, it will be because you have enough money to get Medicare because it will be in that system.

Then, of course, there is some little secret backroom corner where they throw something out about a public system that is not even defined.

But you make a very good point about nursing homes, which I have a lot in my district. In fact, we are always hearing from them regarding maintaining their status. And certainly we are very keen to make sure that these nursing homes meet their own standards. But they provide refuge and rest, if you will, for not only the seniors, but the frail and the disabled.

And I just want to paint this picture for you, Mr. Garamendi. I just want to paint the picture for you of no room at the inn, lights out, doors wide open, and the drumbeat playing as people are being rolled out of nursing homes in wheelchairs, with crutches, some on beds. Maybe we can just imagine the tragic scenes of Hurricane Katrina, when nursing home residents were pouring out of nursing homes in the wake of the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. Well, let me tell you, we've got Hurricane Ryan, and there is a disaster coming. And, frankly, with all good intentions of our good friends on the other side of the aisle, if we had sat down at the table of compromise and projected how we can best serve America by reducing the deficit, the debt, and recognizing that we have morality and we have values that will help this country.

Might I just say that we are talking about seniors, but don't forget there are many, many families that take their children to pediatricians on Medicaid, and that's their primary care provider just like Medicare.

So I would just simply add this word that I am not ready to bury Medicare

now; and I believe there is a rejuvenation, there is a rebirth coming, and that is the American people saying, no, not on my watch. This is a non-starter, and I am glad to be standing with you today.

I believe if we stand committed to educating the American public, it should not happen.

Madam Speaker, our soldiers on the front lines all over this world understand what a fight is about. If you have ever visited them in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have values. They know about their grandmothers and grandfathers, and they know about their families back home with their children. They know what they are fighting for. They will understand that we are here fighting for values.

This government shutdown is not the blame or the fault of the President of the United States or the Democrats in the House or in the Senate. There has been an offer of $73 billion. It is a question of whether or not you want to solve this problem on the backs of grandmothers and granddads, on the backs of the families of the military persons who are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do you want to throw college students right out on their rear that are right in the middle of their school term by canceling their Pell Grants? Do you want to tell mothers taking their children to the clinic that there is no more Medicaid for them? Do you want to turn the lights out and close the door and say: America, we don't have any more values.

I do not want to shut this government down. You are not going to shut it down on my watch, if we can work together. I am going to stand and fight for values, and we're going to pull together. We will stand and we will survive. However, let them shut the government down, if the Republicans refuse to compromise. Shut it down. Shut it down. But the Democrats are going to stand for the values of protecting the most vulnerable in America, and we will win.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I want to thank the ranking member of the

full committee for reading a very important letter into the Record that the EPA has no intention to manipulate or to utilize cap-and-trade as part of their responsibilities. This is not a cap-and-trade initiative or legislation. It has nothing to do with cap-and-trade.

In fact, I think the whole concept of this Energy Tax Prevention Act is muddled and befuddled. I don't understand it. I practiced oil and gas law for almost 15 or 20 years. I come from Houston, and I recognize the difficulties that we have in the industry and understanding the industry. But I also am cognizant that this majority, my good friend on the other side that represents that, they are interested in adhering to the Constitution.

And I don't know why they have not studied the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts versus EPA that clearly indicates, even though this was motor vehicle emissions that they were talking about, but it held that greenhouse gases, widely viewed as contributing to climate change, constitute air pollutants, and therefore that phrase as utilized under the Clean Air Act and the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate under the Clean Air Act.

I assume what we are doing is trying to bash a long-standing process rather than coming up with better ideas. I think my amendment brings about a better idea, because energy is a national security issue. And what my amendment poses to do is to ask serious questions about the impact of eliminating the EPA authority, finding a way to work through this question: What would be the long-term impact? Because the legislation that is now written by my friends on the other side of the aisle is telling the United States of America, in conflict with the United States Supreme Court decision--and let me just hold up a visual, the Constitution, which is what this majority says that they are basing their whole legislative agenda on.

Well, we have constitutional authority. And they are now telling us that we should not regulate water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and any other substance. I don't hear a scream and cry of the industry. I do hear the idea that there are burdens that will come upon the industry that we should address.

So the amendment that I have that I am asking for real consideration on the basis of a national security question, How will we provide for resources that will provide for the engine economy of this Nation, the long-term impact of the Environmental Protection Agency having no authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases? Also, if there are alternatives to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, if you have a better alternative. And best practices with respect to greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme Court decision clearly dictates that it has the authority to regulate it. But we need to collaborate and cooperate and understand how we balance the needs of an energy policy.

Might I also say that energy recognizes all forms of energy. And energy companies that are in oil and gas are looking at alternatives. They have whole sections that are addressing the question of alternative fuels. Why are we raising a bill that has no sense of direction in what it is trying to do and to eliminate an oversight that is protecting the American public in their quality of life and also doesn't speak to how we work with the industry to actually make sure that we check these emissions but as well provide the opportunity for domestic growth and domestic energy growth?

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask the remaining time.

I yield 30 seconds to my good friend from California (Mr. Waxman).

I thank the distinguished gentleman for all of his work.

I come as a peacemaker, Madam Chair. Houston, by the American Lung Association, is the seventh most ozone-polluted city in the Nation. The Supreme Court clearly said under the Clean Air Act that it authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as it makes a judgment that it impacts on climate change. At the same time there are industries that happen to be oil and gas that can sit down and benefit from a real study that will talk about best practices and also have the engagement that we need to have.

It is reckless to talk about what scientists have said. The Members are not scientists, and I believe you cannot rid the EPA of its jurisdiction.

I would ask my colleagues to be thoughtful, along with the industry, and let's have a reasonable study. This impacts national security.

I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 910, ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely eliminates the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would require an assessment of the industry by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure accurate consideration of how proposed regulations would affect energy production levels, feasibility of implementation on the industry, as well as the adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation of proposed regulations. My amendment would also ensure the Environmental Protection Agency retains its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the authority provided by the Clean House Act.

I cannot envision any American living in a polluted area wanting to support a permanent ban on the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases. The potential negative impact of greenhouse gases is supported by the scientific community. The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2010: ``Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for-- and in many cases already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems.'' It is clear that quality of our air impacts the quality of our health. The Clean Air Scientific Advisor Committee, EPA's independent science advisors, reviewed evidence from roughly 1,700 studies in the scientific research of the health impact of ozone. They unanimously concluded that the EPA needs ozone standards. This would ensure an adequate margin of safety for the public as required by law. This is about protecting our nation's health, industry, and our environment.

As a Houstonian the affects of H.R. 910 are of particular concern to me. A study conducted by the American Lung Association ranked Houston as the 7th most ozone-polluted city in the country. Children, teens, senior citizens, and people with lung diseases like asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and others are particularly vulnerable to poor air quality and are at risk for developing irreversible lung damage. A rise in poor air quality has the potential to increase emergency room visits and hospital admissions for respitory problems which increases the cost of healthcare to tax payers.

In Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX, over a million children under the age of 18 will be negatively impacted if air quality continues to decline. Children exposed to air pollution suffer stunted long growth, as well as development of asthma, and increased respitory infections.

According to the American Lung Association, researchers have also concluded that prenatal exposure to air pollution harms children, and increase the risk of babies being born with low birth weight.

We owe it to our children to provide clean, healthy air. We have an agency that is charged with regulating our air quality. My amendment would ensure the EPA can continue to protect our nation's health by regulating green house emissions.

This amendment will ensure that the EPA reports to Congress its findings on the long term negative impacts of greenhouse gases. Findings from a recent EPA study titled ``Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.W. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone'' suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to: increase drought; more heavy downpours and flooding, and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildfire and ecosystems.''

Not only would the deregulation of greenhouse gases impact the health of our citizens, it will also, have a negative impact on our ability to maintain and create new jobs. Poor health and low air quality only discourages industries from coming to an area. New industries will not be willing to move into areas that are polluted which negatively impacts job growth in those communities.

Currently there are programs in Houston such as the Energy Efficiency Incentive Program which aims to significantly reduce Houston's emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air pollutants. The oil and gas industry is also investing alternative energy sources and improving air quality standards; such initiatives look towards the future, ensures job creation, and protects our nation's health.

I believe the Environmental Protection Agency plays an essential role in providing appropriate and balanced guidance to the industry, which in turn encourages them to have a workable timeframe to determine the appropriate measures to improve our nation's air quality. The EPA ensures that energy industries have a reasonable standard to base their operations.

My amendment requires the EPA to carefully study this issue and to determine the long term impact on health, the industry and the environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support a reasonable, fair and measured response to addressing regulation of greenhouse gases.

Under current law, The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the authority to take steps that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gas, constitute ``air pollutants'' as the phrased is used in the Clean Air Act. Such pollutants may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. As a result, the government has the legal authority to issue standards for greenhouse gas emissions. As the Clean Air Act falls under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, it is therefore legitimate for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. My amendment ensures compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. As written, H.R. 910 would overturn Massachusetts v. EPA. As written H.R. 910 would overturns a ruling by the Supreme Court. Such an action is too extreme when there are other more tenable solutions available.

We cannot allow a total eradication/elimination of the responsibilities of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. This would impact the health of our nation, negatively impact industries, and overturns a Supreme Court ruling. The present version of H.R. 910, without amendment fails to provide a studied and measured approach when trying to find a balance between the need for our nation to maintain quality air levels and the need for our nation to continue job growth. This bill takes a sledge hammer approach that is too extreme.

The purpose behind my amendment is to reach a compromise. To ensure that fair and reasonable regulations can be implemented without adverse effects to our nation's air and our nations industry.

Madam Chair, I believe it is very important to provide the EPA with the opportunity to carefully study this matter and report back to Congress within 60 days and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Houston Mayor's Task Force on the Health Effects of Air Pollution

Thousands of tons of potentially harmful chemicals are

discharged each day into Houston's atmosphere as a result of

human activities, substances, and technologies. Consequently,

people living in Houston are exposed routinely to a myriad of

pollutants in the air they breathe. Estimated and/or measured

concentrations of some of these airborne chemicals in ambient

air are high enough to cause illness or injury in exposed

individuals, especially those in our society who are most

vulnerable, such as children and seniors. Although the

available data are incomplete and uneven, the Task Force

surveyed information on 179 air pollutants and identified 12

substances in Houston's air that are definite risks to human

health, 9 that are probable risks, and 24 that are possible

risks. Sixteen substances were found to be unlikely risks to

Houstonians at current ambient levels, and 118 substances

were labeled uncertain risks because there was inadequate or

insufficient information to determine whether they presently

pose a health threat to Houston residents.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I am going to take a slightly different perspective and ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Again, I am hoping, I know there are a lot of letters that my good friend from Michigan says that he has, and any time you put forward legislation that trade groups send word out to membership and say, this is going to save you a bucket full of money, and you better jump on the bandwagon, and there is no alternative or there is no basis of understanding the underpinnings of what we are doing, then you get that kind of praise.

I hope that many people who are with the industry, having practiced the law, and I have seen some of the mountains that all industries have to climb, I think we can find a reasonable way of functioning.

I just want to put in the Record that the industry, which is part of the drive of my friends on the other side, the oil and gas industry does generate 9.237 million jobs, $1 trillion contributed to the economy, $178 billion paid to the U.S. Treasury or to the government in royalties and bonus payments, and $95.6 billion in taxes, income taxes, $194 billion invested to improve the environmental performance of its products, and $58.4 billion invested in low- and zero-carbon emission technologies from 2000 to 2008.

I encourage them to keep going. But the way that you keep going is not to eliminate the oversight body, but you work with it. And my amendment is very clear. I create a pathway for the industry to be engaged on any rulemaking. It shall provide a notice period of no less than 30 days specifically to the affected greenhouse gas producers--and this is a sort of pipeline for the industry--proposed to be regulated and allow industry-specific comments to be submitted to the administrator separate and apart from the public comment period and to discuss the economic impact of the proposed regulation; provide for an opportunity for the regulated industry to request and receive a 60-day extension. And we should take into consideration the effect of the proposed regulation on greenhouse gas emissions.

These companies have employees living in our community. And it is noted that Houston, the Houston area to Huntsville has some of the largest pollutants in the air. We should also consider the effect of the proposed regulation has on energy production, the feasibility of the implementation of the regulation on the entities being regulated, the effect of the proposed regulation on the availability of energy to consumers, and the adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation of the proposed regulation.

It allows a discussion that may not be at the level that we would like it today. I can't imagine, and I guess my friend on the other side of the aisle will come up and show me all the letters that he's saying that are supporting legislation that completely obliterates the opportunity for any governmental oversight. I disagree. I want to know the question of whether or not we have had the kinds of discussions that warrant a deliberative process and to bring

about a concept of listening to industry and industry listening on the question of air pollutants.

I hold up the mayor's task force on the health effectiveness. It talks about Houston. But I'm not going to narrow this to Houston. Wherever there are companies that are refineries, as they so discussed, we are not trying to undermine that work. But does anyone want to live in China with the air pollutants that they have?

Let me just say that what we are addressing is a question of balance. My amendment provides input by the industry and by the EPA collaborating on how this will impact going forward. I would like you to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 15 seconds to the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I thank the gentleman.

My friend from Illinois, have I got an amendment for you. I'm answering your concern.

My amendment says it requires, before finalizing emission regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the EPA must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least 30 days. The provision would also allow for industry input, encouraging collaboration between EPA and energy providers during the regulation process.

Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time requirement. It also gives another 60-day extension. This is about national security because air pollutants and then no energy, bad on one side and bad on the other. Let's get together. Because we can't dismiss any of these energy sources, but they need to be better. And how can we, since this is supposed to be the Supreme Court Constitution side, how can you dismiss the constitutional right that EPA has to regulate?

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is an amendment for them.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment No. 37 to H.R. 910, ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely eliminates the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would protect our national security by considering industry specific energy providers that are uniquely connected to our national security. This measure would expand the opportunity to garner industry input during the rulemaking process, and would provide the Environmental Protection Agency with a timeframe to engage with the industry during the process.

Madam Chair, this amendment requires that before finalizing emissions regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least 30 days. This provision would also allow for industry input, encouraging collaboration between the EPA and energy providers during the regulation process. Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time requirement.

By mandating industry engagement during the rule making process We will ensure that the proposed regulations do not negatively impact industry jobs and domestic energy. This amendment would force a discussion between the government and the industry during We rule making process so that jobs can be maintained, U.S. dependence on foreign oil can be decrease, and the Supreme Court's confirmed responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency will not be extinguished by short sighted legislation.

As the Representative for Houston, the nation's energy capital, I am committed to finding a balance that will support continued growth in the energy industry while protecting the environment.

My amendment to H.R. 910 provides emissions producers in the energy industry the ability to engage in discussions and studies with the EPA. The provisions in this amendment will encourage communication between

the EPA and energy providers throughout the regulation process.

Americans should not have to risk living with highly polluted air. We must not shy away from the importance of the Clean Air Act and the role of the Environmental Protection Agency. This country needs energy. We utilize on and off shore drilling exploration. We must ensure that the industries impacted are engaged in the process while simultaneously regulating the affects of green house gas. This is crucial to the daily lives of Americans.

The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the authority to regulate emissions reduction. This authority was upheld by the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Any attempt to strip the EPA of this responsibility would undermine the Clean Air Act and exacerbate global warming.

The EPA must be allowed to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. The climate change caused by these emissions affects temperature, causes extreme weather and dramatically reduces air quality, resulting in asthma, respiratory disease and lung cancer. The EPA projects that continued improvements in air quality under the Clean Air Act will save more than a trillion dollars by 2020, and prevent 230,000 deaths per year. By allowing the EPA to protect our environment now, we provide security for future generations.

Prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions to ensure clean air and slow the rate of climate change will have lasting consequences. We must, however, also consider the consequence to the energy industry.

H.R. 910 simply takes the wrong approach. Instead of focusing on developing standards upon which both the Environmental Protection Agency and the affected industries agree, it attempts to remove the Environmental Protection Agency from the process. Thereby baring the industry from developing standards upon which they can all agree. It is a matter of fairness. The EPA would ensure that industries would have a minimum standard to follow. This measure would ensure the industry would be involved when determining the best practices to ensure that reasonableness of those regulations.

Madam Chair, my amendment is essential to provide greater consideration to this sensitive issue by affording an opportunity for energy providers to state the impact that the proposed rule would have on their industry. This amendment will forge important compromises between the EPA and the energy industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today the nation takes pause to observe the 43rd anniversary of the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As a Member of the Select Committee on Assassinations that reinvestigated the murder of Dr. King, this day reminds me of that horrible day in 1968. Forty-three years ago today, the man who dreamed of a ``more perfect union'' was gunned down by American terrorist in Memphis, Tennessee, but his dream continues to become reality today. One cannot observe this day without reflecting on the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. This anniversary reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature.

The story of Dr. King is pressed upon me. I am reminded of my work with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and hearing Dr. King's inspiring words fill a great void in our Nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. Yet, Dr. King knew that it wasn't enough just to talk the talk, that he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible. And so we remember this man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day.

We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway.

Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. Life's most persistent and nagging question, he said, is `what are you doing for others?' ''

And when Dr. King talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life. ``I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said. ``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity.''

Mr. Speaker, these words were spoken by Dr. King two months to the day before his death. Thus it is 43 years after his death, Dr. King continues to teach us all.

Mr. Speaker, during these difficult days as we observe violence throughout the world, all should take pause to the message of non- violence and speak as Dr. King spoke truth to power.

Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality, his ultimate dream was one of human equality. There is no doubt that Dr. King supported freedom and justice for every individual in America. We continue that fight today and forever, in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for being here and remembering Dr. King's dream and for all that has been done to keep his dream alive.

Mr. Speaker, I was detained in my congressional district, therefore I could not be present for the vote today on Monday, April 4, 2011. If I were present I would have voted ``yea'' for the following bill: H.R. 1246--To reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and reproduction.

Madam Speaker, I quarrel with the understanding of the gentleman on the other side of the aisle about the Constitution. There are three branches--the judiciary, the legislature, and the President. Thank God there are because that means that we have the ability to be reasonable and practical, recognizing we have a responsibility to reduce the debt but not killing off seniors and those in classrooms.

I just came from speaking to Spelman College, a group of women in a Historically Black College. Women who are ready to go out and serve America, and they realize that their education is a gift. But they want to give back to America. This ridiculous $61 billion in cuts wants to make sure that we don't have the American Dream.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I sit and listen to those voting the war of drug cartels on the border, but $400 million is going to be cut out of the Homeland Security funding so that it impacts ICE agents, it impacts Border Patrol agents, it impacts intelligence gathering. These kinds of nonpractical ways are undermining America and America's dream; 700,000 jobs is just the beginning. It's the floor, not the limit.

For those of you who seek a single tunnel view of how we run this country, have mercy on those who are in need. This is the wrong direction. Sit down at the bargaining table. Let's reassess what we need to do and stop putting your ideas on the back of Americans who need to be able to have the American Dream.