Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as we hear from Members of this House every day, I thought it would be refreshing to bring the people's voice directly to this floor. So I asked my constituents to send me their thoughts that I could deliver as a 1-minute speech.

The following is from Susan Sigmund of San Diego, who sent me this on the Affordable Care Act to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. She offered: ``Being given the opportunity to speak before you, I wanted to make these 60 seconds witty, timely, and relevant to all. Having failed at that, I will simply discuss my main concern right now. It's the future of the health care law. The Supreme Court could strike it down next year.

``I have a preexisting health condition and will die in about 3 years unless I am able to buy a health insurance policy. I'm sure I am one of many facing this bleak possibility.

``As I understand it, if the mandate section requiring a policy goes, so goes the provision barring preexisting condition discrimination. If the time comes, please do the honorable thing and vote to allow your constituents with preexisting conditions to buy health care insurance. Lives depend on it. Thank you.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mrs. Sigmund for bringing to the House her thoughts on health care.

Mr. Speaker, this is a positive bill for our military families, and when we move to the bill I'm going to take an opportunity to address that. But while we're on the rule, I have to express my immense disappointment that still, to this day, we, as a Congress, will not even bring to the table, we won't even look at the fact that if a military servicewoman is raped and becomes pregnant, she does not have access to an abortion procedure. Mr. Speaker, this is really an outrage.

We say that we want to help our servicewomen. We say that we are finally starting to treat them as the warriors that they are, and yet I ask you: How many women have to fight and die for our country in order to have the same rights as women sitting in Federal prison?

This is a slap in the face to all military women. They volunteer to train, they volunteer to deploy and fight for our country, and we repay them by treating them as less worthy than prisoners.

Honoring women in our military means changing this policy and treating them with respect. Haven't they earned this? It's well past time to show them that they have.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

As the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, I am pleased that this bill includes a number of provisions that continues our commitment to our men and women in uniform as well as their dedicated families.

First, I want to thank my chairman, Joe Wilson, for his support and assistance. I would also like to recognize Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report as it supports our military and their families who have faced the stress and the strains of a decade at war.

The conference report includes a 1.6 percent pay raise for our troops. And it will also require the Department of Defense to enhance suicide prevention programs. It allows servicemembers to designate any individual, regardless of their relationship, to direct how their remains are treated.

This bill will also allow service Secretaries to permit members to participate in an apprenticeship program that provides employment skills training. It makes significant enhancements to the sexual assault and harassment policies of the DOD, such as requiring full-time sexual assault coordinators and victim advocates, ensuring access to legal assistance, and allowing for the consideration of a permanent change of station.

And, finally, H.R. 1540 will ensure future TRICARE prime enrollment fees are tied to increases in military retired pay cost of living adjustments.

The bill before us continues to recognize the sacrifices of those who serve our Nation in uniform. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Human Rights Day.

This past Saturday, I was honored to speak in commemoration of Human Rights Day, a day chosen to honor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration was the world's first bill of rights.

When many from all corners of the globe were fighting for basic freedoms--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, people from fear and repression--the declaration assured them that they were fighting the good fight and they were on the right side of history.

Today I stand to recognize the men and women who are still fighting for these freedoms, including the seven democracy and land rights activists and 15 youth activists who have been illegally detained by the Vietnamese Government.

All individuals deserve the right to peacefully express their concerns. I call on my colleagues to stand side by side with these brave individuals and raise their voice in demanding that the Government of Vietnam release all prisoners of conscience and uphold their commitment to human rights for all.

Mr. Speaker, it's nice to hear the House Majority finally talking about the importance of infrastructure jobs. They claim this bill will create thousands of jobs from one project-- the Keystone Pipeline extension.

However, America has infrastructure needs in all corners of the nation and this bill ignores those needs.

In San Diego County, where my district sits, there has been a 3- percent loss in construction jobs dropping it to 226th out of 337 metro areas. This is according to a report just released by the Associated General Contractors of America.

And San Diego was not alone. The report noted that 145 other metro areas suffered losses in construction jobs.

The reason for this drop in jobs, you may ask? The contractors say it is because Congress is lagging in passing infrastructure and transportation bills.

Despite being touted as a jobs bill, H.R. 3630 fails to address other critical infrastructure projects to rebuild our schools, roads, and bridges.

Mr. Speaker, this House should be debating a real infrastructure bill that will provide needed jobs and meet our infrastructure needs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3463.

It might sound surprising, but right behind jobs, one of the top concerns my constituents contact me about is campaign reform. You'd think that campaign rules would be the very last thing people would think about when they're worried about their livelihoods, their mortgages, and their family's health care. But they know that the electoral process is at the heart of everything their government can do for them.

The American people are frustrated. They are frustrated by what I call super-sized campaigns. It's all too much. It's too slanderous. It's too hard to tell who's paying for what and who's saying what. They feel that big donors, big corporations, and ideological groups are running the show, and they're being left out. But the American people care, and they believe in ``we the people.''

Public financing gives the voice back to the middle class. The Election Assistance Commission can help election officials better the process for voters. Neither of these is perfect right now. We acknowledge that, but we should be improving rather than eliminating them. Throwing away what public financing we have, what financing worked for every President from 1976 to 2004 and making it harder to bring election improvements together is a step in the wrong direction.

Rather than making it even harder for the average voter to make a difference, Congress should be improving access to democracy by expanding public financing, assisting election officials, and increasing voting opportunities for all Americans.

Our people are our strength, and we have no business shutting them out. The supporters of this bill say it will save us money. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, it will mean our democracy is up for sale.

Madam Speaker, there is a strange thing that is going to be happening on this floor in just a little while. We should be focusing like a laser on jobs and strengthening the middle class. But instead, the majority is bringing forth a measure, the Protect Life Act. It's a measure coming before this body which, quite honestly, Members have had a chance to express themselves on numerous times. This does not create jobs. And what's ironic about it is this Protect Life Act is actually putting the lives of women at risk.

I really don't think that the American people feel that right now, today, that this is the highest priority for our country. Our highest priority is finding jobs for people in our country, not taking away lifesaving care from women.

Since my colleague on the other side of the aisle did not yield to my colleague from Colorado, I want to yield to her.

I thank my colleague for clarifying that.

Madam Speaker, we have had this discussion many times on the floor. That's why my colleagues and I want to get back to the issues at hand today, which is jobs and enhancing and supporting the middle class in this country.

But I want remind us all that what we were talking about here is denying millions of women from purchasing comprehensive coverage with their own private funds. This would upend the promise of health care reform for many, many women across this country. We need to put a stop to these attacks on women's health. I urge my colleagues to join me as well in strong opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011--a bill that will give our servicemembers equal access to the United States Supreme Court.

We all know that when American men and women decide to serve their nation in the Armed Forces, they make many sacrifices--from lost time with their families to irreplaceable losses of lives and limbs.

However, most Americans are not aware that active-duty servicemembers also sacrifice one of the fundamental legal rights that all civilian Americans enjoy.

Under current law, members of the military who are convicted of offenses under the military justice system do not have the legal right to appeal their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is unjust to deny the members of our Armed Forces access to our system of justice as they fight for our freedom around the world.

They deserve better.

As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, a long-time advocate for servicemembers, and a representative of San Diego, one of the largest military communities in the nation, I feel an obligation to fight to ensure that the members of our military are treated fairly.

Current law weights the playing field in favor of the government, granting the automatic right to Supreme Court review to the Department of Defense whenever a servicemember wins his or her case, but denying servicemembers that same right when the government wins a conviction against them in almost all situations. This is just unfair.

I believe strongly that it is fundamentally unjust to deny those who serve on behalf of our country in the military one of the basic rights afforded to all other Americans.

I hope that you will stand with me in support of this legislation to attain equal treatment for those who fight for us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of our servicemembers and their families. For the last 10 years, our all-volunteer force has graciously and without complaint done all we have asked for them. They have deployed, many more than once, leaving their friends and families here at home to go fight on foreign soil.

And today, during this time of budget constraints and upcoming cuts, we must remember the sacrifice our service men and women, as well as their families, have made. We cannot balance our budget by cutting the benefits they have earned and deserve.

I agree that all aspects of government spending must be looked at and considered for possible cuts. In this era, where our budget is so out of balance, no one entity can be spared. However, we have to make smart cuts and ensure that our fighting men and women are taken care of. We need to look at weapons programs that no longer meet our needs, redundancies that can be streamlined and other programs that should be more efficient.

I encourage my colleagues on the supercommittee to fight for our brave men and women by protecting the benefits they so rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, my staff have spent countless hours fighting off wrongful foreclosures. A number of my constituents have submitted the same paperwork to banks five different times and had their short sales denied three times. Other constituents were given 24 hours to return a package of 60 documents to a bank that has had those documents for 6 months already.

Mr. Speaker, this is just not acceptable. An important step to fixing this economy is to solve this housing crisis. People cannot spend if they are living under the crushing weight of a mortgage payment worth more than their home.

Three years ago the average consumer spent $100 a day. Now the average consumer spends about $68 a day. We need programs to help the 14 million people whose homes are underwater.

I ask the majority, what have you done today to help the middle class afford to keep a roof over their heads?

Madam Chair, on rollcall Nos. 747, 748, and 749, I was unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted on 747--``yes,'' on 748--``yes,'' and on 749--``yes.''

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

Mr. Speaker, the supercommittee begins its work this week with the goal of setting a course for fiscal stability. We absolutely need to reduce the debt and deficit, but we need to do it in a responsible and balanced manner that supports and rebuilds the middle class.

Nobody is more patriotic and nobody knows more about sacrifice than brave

Americans who serve their Nation in the military. A retired Navy pilot who flew 215 missions during his career wrote to my office to stress that every American should contribute to a solution, especially those in his income bracket. The retired pilot now makes over $250,000 a year in the private sector and is eager to do whatever he can to help put the Nation back on track fiscally.

The debt crisis impacts every American, and every American should contribute to the solution. We are all in this together. It is the wrong approach to put the entire burden on those struggling the most in the economic downturn, such as the middle class, the unemployed, or seniors.

I urge the committee members to adopt a balanced approach to solving our fiscal crisis.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply stresses the need to constantly seek ways to improve and find innovative ways to teach our students in the public education system.

Given the state of the economy, we need to encourage economic and job growth from every angle. We need to do whatever is possible to compete in the global economy. The best way to stay on the cutting edge is to build a workforce that can compete against the best and the brightest in the world. We need schools to find new and innovative ways to teach our students, particularly in the key subjects of math, science, and engineering.

One example of an innovative school is the High Tech High charter school in San Diego, which has the goal of bringing highly skilled employees into the workforce.

With the support of technology companies such as Qualcomm and Microsoft, High Tech High has taken innovation in its curriculum to a new level. Since 2003, the result has been that 100 percent of High Tech High's graduates have gone on to attend college at such universities as NYU, MIT, and Yale.

High Tech High has successfully found innovative ways to teach innovation. And what does innovation in education mean? It means teachers and principals who find ways to inspire and get students excited to learn. It can mean teaching students and children how to think, how to work together, how to think across disciplines, and, most importantly, how to act on their knowledge. It will take innovation to meet these goals to consistently improve instruction in the classroom.

Steve Jobs, as we know, led Apple to become one of the largest and most successful technology companies in history. His visions led to such products as the iPod, the Mac computer, and, recently, the iPad.

Mr. Jobs once said Apple's success is not just about how much money it invests in research and development; it's about the people and creative vision. ``It's about the people you have, how you're led, and how much you get it,'' Mr. Jobs told Fortune magazine in 1998.

``People,'' Mr. Chairman, ``people'' is the key word. With better and more innovative schools, we will have more creative people entering our workforce.

Unfortunately, the World Economic Forum just announced that the United States dropped to fifth place in the world's most competitive economies behind nations such as Switzerland and Singapore. Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the wrong direction and we need to turn it around.

If America is going to reach its potential, we need schools that cultivate entrepreneurs and visionaries. We need more companies such as Apple that can compete globally.

Please join me in stressing the need to support innovation, beginning with our approach to education. I applaud the efforts of our bipartisan team here that's worked so hard on this underlying bill and the amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike last word.

Thank you.

The majority has been saying how concerned they are about future generations, that we shouldn't be overburdening them with our debt. I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I'm disappointed that, instead of addressing the urgent debt crisis, we are on the floor debating a bill that will gut pollution controls and public health protections in order to boost profits, the profits of America's biggest polluters, the last people who probably need a hand right now.

This bill does a number of things, Mr. Chairman. It blocks even modest pollution control standards that could mitigate climate change; the bill also erases 40 years of Federal laws that protect clean air, water, lands and wildlife; and it cripples the budgets of the Federal agencies we've charged with protecting our constituents.

As a mother and grandmother, I'm appalled that this bill signals a willingness to leave our families a more unhealthy environment than we have today. Isn't the idea always to leave things better than we found them?

Instead of protecting our citizens and shorelines, this bill exempts oil companies from complying with the Clean Air Act for offshore drilling.

Instead of protecting our drinking water and waterways, it cuts nearly $1 billion in funding for the clean water State revolving funds and will, if enacted, compromise the ability to address urban stormwater runoff, one of San Diego's greatest environmental threats.

And instead of supporting a cleaner, more efficient auto industry, it blocks an improved fuel efficiency standard, jeopardizing a process projected to create up to 700,000 new green jobs, cut fuel costs and save 2.4 million barrels of oil every day by 2030.

It's alarming, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues who speak so passionately about giving the next generations a clean financial slate would so carelessly leave them a dirty planet. I suspect that the grandchildren of some oil company executives can always jet off to pristine resorts, but quite frankly that's not the situation for most of my constituents. The grandchildren of the 85 percent of Americans who just told The Washington Post/ABC News poll that they are, quote, just getting by or falling behind will be stuck paying high gas prices and worrying about their jobs and worrying about their health.

We should be leaving our children and our grandchildren a chance at the American Dream of middle class prosperity and a legacy of environmental responsibility and stewardship, not one of reckless disregard.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and getting back to bridging the debt divide so our constituents can focus on their own jobs rather than being concerned about whether we're doing ours.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was absent from the House Floor during rollcall vote 601 and rollcall vote 602 on July 18, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 601 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 602.