Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Transparency for Lethal Control Act (TLC), legislation requiring the United States Department of Agriculture to publish clear and accessible information on animals killed through the Wildlife Services program of the Animal Health and Inspection Service.

The Wildlife Services program is responsible for intervening in situations when an animal is considered a threat or serious nuisance to humans. In some cases, animals are killed to fulfill this mission.

Efforts to gather adequate information regarding Wildlife Services operations have been difficult. The USDA has not made detailed data available to the public relating to where, why, how, and which animals have been killed. This lack of transparency and public reporting makes oversight impossible. The USDA could be acting inappropriately or recklessly and without this data, we can't know. That is why I am introducing legislation to require the USDA to publish kill data online by state, county (or other similar political subdivision), and municipality.

The killing of animals should not be a routine or reflexive government response. It should only be undertaken, if at all, after careful deliberation and under strict supervision. For that reason, the public and Congress need to have the opportunity for vigorous oversight to ensure that the USDA is acting appropriately and considering all cheaper and more humane alternatives.

Congress must improve oversight of the Wildlife Services program and ensure that the USDA is using tax dollars efficiently and appropriately. I urge passage of the Transparency for Lethal Control Act (TLC).

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House unfortunately passed a tax bill that will raise taxes on 25 million families, including many military families. And that is, in a word, outrageous. We see strenuous objections from the majority to fairly tax the superwealthy; but we don't hear a peep about placing an extra tax burden on our middle class families, including members of our military whose families are actually struggling in this economy.

Under the majority's tax bill, an E-1 sailor in the Navy with 2 years' service with a spouse and three young children at home would see a tax increase of $1,096. A private in the U.S. Army in her first year of service who is married with an infant child would see a $273 tax increase.

As the ranking member of the House Military Personnel Subcommittee, I want to know why we are asking those who have given so much for our country to give even more while we ask the wealthiest Americans to sacrifice nothing. Our military families deserve much better than that, and so do the American people.

Madam Speaker, our democracy flourishes when every citizen who wants to, votes--but just once. And luckily, there's just not much evidence that anyone's voting more than once. Look at Pennsylvania, where one of the Nation's strictest voter ID laws is on trial. The State can offer zero evidence that fraud has been committed. They can offer zero evidence that future fraud is likely.

So why would we require a voter ID when we know one in 10 voters doesn't have ID? Why would we close early voting sites or deny voters an absentee ballot when they can't make it to the polls on election day?

Madam Speaker, the number of people hurt by barriers to voting is clearly higher than the number of illegal votes these methods purport to stop. So let's quit fooling ourselves and let people vote already.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we lost a true hero in Sally Ride. Dr. Ride was a constituent, and I recall my excitement in first meeting her years ago.

At the age of 32, Sally K. Ride broke her first barrier when she flew on the space shuttle Challenger in 1983. She was the first American woman ever to fly in space. But her journey didn't end there. She went back to space in 1984, and later on became director of the California Space Institute at UCSC, as well as a professor of physics.

She was a trailblazer in every sense of the word. She cracked open the door for women to enter the fields of science and engineering and helped inspire countless young girls to follow in her footsteps. I think of what it will mean to my granddaughter Jane to see her in our history books.

Dr. Ride will be missed by all those who knew her and all those whom she touched and will continue to reach with her courage, her determination, and fearless spirit.

Mr. Speaker, here we are debating for the 31st time to repeal health care reform. But again, repeal would be a tragedy for America.

Repeal would mean that children with preexisting conditions would lose their health care coverage.

Repeal would mean that 86 million Americans will no longer have access to free preventative care services.

Repeal would mean seniors would no longer save money on their prescription drugs.

Repeal would mean that 16 million middle class Americans would not get tax credits to pay for their health care.

Repeal would mean that my constituent's sister who had breast cancer would still lose her house due to excessive medical bills because she could not afford health insurance.

Repeal would mean that my constituent who had successful ovarian cancer treatment years ago would still not be able to purchase health insurance because of her preexisting condition.

There are millions of Americans who are fortunate enough to have health insurance they actually like, and they ask me why they should support reform. Well, first, this economic downturn should have taught us all that we are just one pink slip away from losing our health insurance. By allowing the unemployed to purchase affordable insurance, health care reform changes that.

Second, the uninsured, who have no other choice but to use the emergency room as a primary care office, drastically raise hospital rates for the rest of Americans who do have insurance. As a result, the insured are paying substantially higher premiums, and a mere trip to the hospital to rule out an appendicitis costs $5,000. By requiring that everyone who can afford it have health insurance, health care reform changes that.

Small business owners in my district concerned about the new mandates in health care reform ask me why they should support it. These small business owners have always wanted to offer their employees health coverage, but they haven't been able to do so because the cost has been high and unpredictable. Health care reform changes that. Now small businesses have a risk pool for more stable and affordable premiums.

What repeal really means, Mr. Speaker, is that affordable health care, now within reach for so many Americans, would become a distant dream.

Madam Speaker, if you know you're approaching a cliff, wouldn't you take steps to avoid it?

Consumer confidence is flagging. It's flagging in part because some Members of the House have taken to brandishing the debt ceiling as a weapon designed to undercut economic growth. That just isn't responsible.

We have to put our heads together now to find a responsible way to cut spending and increase revenues rather than play the blame game. We cannot allow this year's approaching fiscal crisis to go the way of the budget supercommittee. That means both parties must find common ground. I know that's what San Diegans expect.

It is critical that we deal with our real problems. Those who are underemployed need jobs, doctors facing reimbursement cuts must be paid, and everything cannot be paid for on the backs of the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that an amendment to the rule can be offered.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard about what makes this country great. Well, I think what makes this country great is the education of our people.

We know that having a good education is key to achieving the American Dream and key to keeping our country competitive. We all know that because the folks in this Chamber know the importance of a college education. Most people here have gone to college. But there are millions of young adults who are slowly seeing that opportunity evaporate with tuition skyrocketing.

Students from across my district in San Diego are struggling, and they tell me that every day. Some are doing a delicate balancing act of providing for their families while taking on a full academic course load. And others, quite frankly, are just scraping by each semester. An additional burden of $1,000 in interest payments is no trifling matter for these students. And yet, we see that partisan games have led to gridlock on this issue.

College students know that if they miss deadlines, there are consequences. And for Congress, there should be consequences, too. Well, Mr. Speaker, the clock is running out, and I urge my colleagues, please, support a solution that gives students and families the relief that they desperately need.

Madam Speaker, Justice Brandeis said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Sadly, in Citizens United, the Roberts' Court has turned its back on this wisdom, and it has given corporations the power to influence our government from the shadows.

To say that these are not dark days for our democracy is not an understatement. Millions upon millions of dollars are flowing into our political system through super PACs, but the identities of the donors who supply this money remain hidden.

Let's not fool ourselves. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the identities of these donors are a secret to the politicians whose campaigns are being helped by their money. To ignore the potential for unseemly influence here is truly naive. When one donor can decide the fate of a legislator's reelection, they clearly wield a great deal of power.

We should come together to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which allows the public to see who is making these mega-donations, and together we can let sunlight back into our democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the gentlelady from California in this amendment to increase staffing funding for Customs and Border Protection.

This is a critical issue for our economic competitiveness. If our Nation is going to compete globally, we need to think of ports of entry as strategic assets and real opportunities to expand our economy. Without adequate resources and staffing, wait times at ports of entry grow longer and longer. And every minute, Mr. Chairman, that goods and people sit at the border waiting to cross is an opportunity lost. That's opportunities lost for American businesses, for manufacturers, and workers. In total, these long delays are projected to result in lost output of more than $86 billion over the next 10 years. In this tough economy, I don't think we can afford to lose these precious dollars.

And yet, despite the overwhelming need, increases in staffing in past years represent only a small fraction of what is needed to fully staff our ports of entry, according to the Government Accountability Office. To fully meet this need, we need to ensure that CBP has the resources it needs to get the job done. At a time when we need commerce to be moving full steam ahead to drive an economic recovery, we can't afford understaffing at our ports of entry.

Additional funding provided by this amendment to hire additional CBP officers will allow for faster processing times through ports of entry and allow more goods to flow through our borders. By facilitating trade, we not only support businesses and jobs, but we also add revenue, as CBP is the second largest source of revenue for the Treasury. It is only second to the Internal Revenue Service.

As my colleague has stated, the offset for this provision is a cut in funding for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, which was appropriated about $75 million in spite of the fact that the administration did not request these funds. The National Academy of Science is reviewing the security risk of revised design measures right now, and before that risk is fully mitigated, it's premature, I think, premature to appropriate additional funds, especially when funding for FY 2011 and FY 2012 remains unobligated. So this amendment, Mr. Chairman, will put these dollars to better use by promoting our economic growth, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you.

And I want to thank my colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz for having us together to talk about Jewish American Heritage Month this evening. It's important for us to do that.

Whenever we think of perfecting our union--the President spoke about this a little bit today as he hosted a number of individuals in the Jewish community and people from around the country. The thing that I always think about is tikkun olam, because it is part of our tradition to repair the world.

Many Jewish people came to the United States having left a community in which they weren't able to make contributions, and I think that's partly why in bringing some talents and some skills--and, yes, in many cases they weren't skills that were honed very well when they first came to this country, but they developed those. And in developing those skills and making a contribution and becoming treasures for each of their communities, they clearly made a great deal of effort to repair the world. They continue to do that in so many ways.

There is another tradition that we have. It's called tzedakah. It's about caring for others. It's about giving to others. It's about engaging people in that effort. It's about going down to soup kitchens from time to time. It's about bringing homeless people into your synagogue or into your temple during the winter. It's about engaging all the time because we know that that's important to do. That caring of tzedakah goes back to so many of the traditions that we all share. It's about the golden rule. It's about taking care of one another. It's about treating people the way that we want to be treated. That's very much a part of our heritage.

I'm going to share a little story today, and it's a story that I think my colleague is going to be laughing a little bit about because it's not something that I would ordinarily do. But I had a chance to read a little bit about a very special Jewish woman. Her name was Thelma Tiby Eisen, and she was born in 1922 and lives today. I tell this story because she was very famous as a professional athlete in America. Probably people who don't know about Jewish women in athletics or in baseball wouldn't know of her, but those who do would know that name.

I bring that up because my colleague brought me into the first and only bipartisan women's softball team here in the Capitol. I have to share my story because I never played team sports in my life. In fact, I probably picked up a baseball maybe once to hit somebody, but I really don't remember doing that at all.

So when I was asked by my colleague to join with her in this team, which is supporting young survivors of breast cancer, I thought, Well, that's crazy for me to even do this because I can't make a contribution to this team. But I've done it because I've cared about the cause certainly of young survivors who have breast cancer and largely because there are a number of Jewish women who by virtue of their genes have a propensity to develop breast cancer.

Right around the time that I actually had agreed to be on this team-- actually, this even goes back to walking in the 3-day march for breast cancer--I learned that my sister had breast cancer. Fortunately, she has been able to overcome that. But it was something that I knew and I had to take account of in my own life, as well. But I wanted to share this story because I enjoyed reading about Thelma Tiby Eisen. I'm going to share that.

One of the most versatile and talented professional athletes in America was Gertrude Tiby Eisen. She was born in Los Angeles in 1922, and she was a star of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, the only professional women's league in baseball history. The women's hardball league lasted from 1943 until 1954, and she was one of at least four Jewish women in that professional league. As its only Jewish superstar and a pioneer in American women's sports, she was an outstanding athlete in her native Los Angeles. She started playing semipro softball at age 14. When the league was formed in 1943, she won a spot on the Milwaukee team, which was moved the next year to Grand Rapids, Michigan. Her best season was in 1946, when she led the league in triples. She stole 128 bases and made the all-star team.

The part of the story that I particularly like was that Eisen's family was very ambivalent about the career choice that this ``nice Jewish girl'' had made, although she ultimately won all of their respect.

``We played a big charity game in Chicago for a Jewish hospital,'' Eisen recalled in an interview with historian David Spaner. ``My name and picture were in every Jewish newspaper. My uncle, who had said, `You shouldn't be

playing baseball--you'll get a bad reputation, a bad name,' was in the stands bursting with pride that I was there.''

When she retired from professional baseball in 1952, she settled in the Pacific Palisades area and became a star for the Orange Lionette Softball Team, leading them to a world championship in 1993. She helped establish the women's exhibit at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, and she wanted to have all this recorded to keep the baseball league in the limelight:

``It gets pushed into the background,'' she said, ``just as women have been pushed into the background forever. If they knew more about our league, perhaps in the future some women will say, `Hey, maybe we can do it again.' ''

Well, that's probably how all of us feel here in our bipartisan effort in women's softball. We're going to play this game on June 20. We're going to play against all of our women colleagues in the media: TV, radio, and print.

We certainly hope that we're going to bring back a victory here.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just highlight a few people, really my contemporaries in San Diego, who have made such a contribution because they're well known in our community and certainly when we think of Jewish American Heritage Month, we can't help but think of these individuals who today are continuing to make a contribution. Two of them have passed on.

One, of course, is Jonas Salk that we all know very well. The Salk Institute of San Diego continues to educate our scientists for our country and really for the world, globally. I've had an opportunity to meet with a number of young scientists there from time to time, and their enthusiasm and their desire to really cure diseases in our country are just always inspiring, and I think of them often when I think of the Salk Institute.

The other person who I wanted to highlight very briefly is a gentleman named Sol Price. Sol Price was the founder of Price Club, he and his family. Whenever you think of ingenuity, innovation, entrepreneurs, he was great, great at this. He also founded an organization that I had an opportunity to be the executive director of in its early years, the Aaron Price Fellows Program, educating a very, very diverse group of young people to repair the world, to find in civic life as a student and then as they go on as adults, to find a way to really make a contribution to their community. It's a wonderful program and the young people come here to Washington every year.

Finally, to just say, in regard to great contributors in our community and across, across the world today, Dr. Irwin and Joan Jacobs. Dr. Jacobs is the founder of Qualcomm along with Doctor Vitebi in San Diego, who have made such extraordinary, extraordinary contributions and continue to do that every day. It's a real honor to be in a community where their philanthropy is so well known.

Finally, we have a very active group of Jewish war veterans in San Diego, and I just wanted to thank Alan Milefsky, who has been the Veteran of the Year in San Diego and continues to reach out and make a great contribution and remind everybody of his extraordinary story as a Jewish war veteran.

Thank you very much to my colleague for bringing us together today, and it's been my honor to have an opportunity to speak about Jewish American Heritage Month.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with great concern over our defense budget. Our crushing national debt looms, yet we continue to ignore the issue.

The National Defense Authorization Act came in at $8 billion over the Budget Control Act because the committee put back high-cost items that the Pentagon had not listed as their highest priority. How is that responsible spending? When the issue arises as to what to cut, what must make up that difference to make the numbers work, what will come first? Will our military personnel accounts be under the knife?

I do not believe that this is smart legislating, when we choose to ignore the current fiscal environment. And when we raised concerns on the plans to build a missile defense site on the east coast with money we do not have, the Rules Committee would not even allow it up for debate.

Shouldn't we be discussing these issues so that we can move forward, so that we can come to an agreement on how the Department of Defense and our servicemembers are best served?

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

I understand his belief that anyone who qualifies, regardless of age, should be able to serve. However, serving in the United States military is a difficult and challenging profession, especially as one gets older in years. The Department of Defense does not support this amendment. Current law allows enlistments up to age 42; however, all of the services' current policies have restricted enlistment to a lesser age, with the Army at the maximum age of 35.

Mr. Chairman, we are currently drawing down the force and recruiting conditions do not require this proposal. Even during the most difficult recruiting environment at the peak of national emergency, only the Army exercised the authority and raised its age limit to 42. This policy was only in place for a few years, and the Army has since reinstated its old policy of a maximum of 35 years of age because the risks and the challenges of training older recruits outweigh the minimum gain.

What the Army found was that older-level recruits tend to have greater health and physical illness, especially when deployed. And once injured, these individuals face a longer period of recuperation.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not needed and counterproductive to recruiting young men and women in the Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck, who is a medical doctor in the Army Reserve and is also a member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise today to oppose H.R. 4970. Under current law, a woman who is married to a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident and is a victim of spousal abuse can file a self- petition for legal permanent residency in order to leave that abusive relationship.

This provision has helped women like Maria, whose husband physically abused her and threatened to kill her two children. Without his knowledge, she started a VAWA self-petition process, meeting with an attorney at the laundromat on her usual laundry day and hiding her paperwork.

What this bill does is exposes women like Maria. It strips confidentiality protections and allows government officials to contact the spouse. Why would we do that? For these women, tipping off abusive spouses is nothing short of putting them in harm's way. It's a shame.

It's a shame that this so-called Violence Against Women bill could actually cause violence to women. Mr. Speaker, this bill is outright dangerous, and I urge my colleagues to say ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my remarks in opposition to a Republican bill that weakens protections for violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed by the direction the House Majority has taken with this version of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

VAWA is a landmark piece of legislation that has dramatically reduced violence against women and provided states and local communities with additional resources to address crimes against women.

As such, VAWA reauthorization has in past Congresses gained overwhelming bipartisan support. No matter what side of the aisle we're on, members of Congress have long understood the need to strengthen protections for victims of abuse. Just last month, the Senate passed its own version of VAWA, which garnered a bipartisan vote of 68 31.

And yet here we are today debating a partisan bill that weakens critical protections and fails to protect underserved communities like LGBT victims and Native American women.

A diverse coalition of 164 immigration, faith, labor, civil rights, human rights, and community groups have come together in strong opposition to H.R. 4970, even with the manager's amendments. Their message is clear: H.R. 4970 will set us back years in fighting domestic violence.

At a time when we need to modernize the VAWA to build upon our efforts, this bill would instead roll back existing protections.

This bill would make it much harder for battered immigrant women to leave their abusive relationship by adding unnecessary layers of bureaucracy.

Strong immigrant victim protections have helped countless women, including Maria, who's husband physically abused her and threatened to kill her two children. Without his knowledge, she started a VAWA self- petition process, meeting with an attorney at the Laundromat on her usual laundry day and hiding her paperwork. Repealing immigrant protections and adding red-tape and onerous requirements will endanger the safety of battered immigrants like Maria.

H.R. 4970 would also weaken the U visa program, which has encouraged immigrant victims of crime to report and help prosecute serious criminal activity.

Current law allows U visa recipients to apply to become permanent residents. This bill removes the opportunity of most victims to apply to become permanent residents, thereby discouraging victims from cooperating with local law enforcement as it could lead to deportation.

Strong protections in this area have helped countless immigrant women escape the cycle of domestic abuse and rebuild their lives.

Now, we should have a conversation about how to update VAWA so that MORE women can be served.

We've learned in the past years that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims experience domestic violence at the same rate as the general population. Yet, they do not receive the same protections and services they need because of discrimination and lack of training by law enforcement and service providers.

The Senate bill includes important provisions that ensure that services to LGBT victims are explicitly included in VAWA grant problems, as well as bans discrimination against victims based on their sexual orientation.

We have to ask the question as to why these key measures were not included in this regressive bill brought by the House majority.

As a mother and a grandmother, I can not stand by as we roll back decades of progress in protecting women from emotional, physical and sexual abuse.

It is time that we stop playing politics, reject this partisan proposal, and move forward with a bipartisan bill that ensures that all victims of violence are protected.

I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership, and Chairman Wilson for making our subcommittee work a bipartisan effort. I also want to thank the staff for producing this important piece of legislation.

I am pleased the bill includes provisions that are important to our men and women in uniform, such as a 1.7 percent pay raise, improvements and additional efforts to combat sexual assault, transition assistance for members leaving the service, and Impact Aid funding for our military children.

However, I am concerned because the majority on this committee adopted several amendments that distract from the wonderful work that we have done. Two provisions deal with gays in the military. The first would prohibit same-sex marriage ceremonies from being performed on military installations.

Mr. Chairman, we already had this debate, and the American people support gays and lesbians openly serving in our military. Denying a servicemember the ability to use a military facility to hold a ceremony that others have access to is wrong and it's discriminatory. But most importantly, that ceremony would not be in violation of DOMA because DOMA only states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It literally does not say anything else.

The second provision that was passed in committee is even more troubling to me. This provision would seek to protect the religious beliefs of chaplains and servicemembers. The issue of protecting the religious beliefs of chaplains was already addressed last year, and the law on this is very clear:

A military chaplain who, as a matter of conscience or moral principle, does not wish to perform a marriage may not be required to do so.

So this really comes down to protecting discriminatory acts against gays and lesbians in uniform, which is contrary to the military core values of good order and discipline. I hope we can resolve this issue in a way that does not allow discrimination against a group of servicemembers based solely on their sexual orientation.

The other issue I want to raise--and several of my colleagues have raised this already--is the fact that this bill is $8 billion over the Budget Control Act. While we made a number of decisions to restore cuts from the President's budget, we will need to resolve this difference at some point, and this means that programs will need to be cut. My hope is that the pay and benefits of our brave men and women will not be the bill-payer when we must reduce spending in this bill.