Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 244, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, in the past few weeks we have seen the devastating images of the massive earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

As someone who lived in Japan, it is hard to believe entire towns and cities in this beautiful country have been destroyed, and I am heartsick for the more than 9,800 lives that have been lost. I can only imagine the grief and shock felt by the families and friends of the victims, and my heart goes out to them.

I am grateful that San Diego's own USS Reagan departed for Japan on March 11 to help with relief efforts. With the more than 17,500 people still missing and more than 245,000 people in evacuation centers, daunting challenges lie ahead.

Madam Speaker, I urge this body to stand in solidarity with the Japanese people and reassure our ally that America is ready and committed to giving our partner the support needed to cope with this horrible disaster.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is our office is being flooded by calls from people who are saying, I thought you all were working on creating jobs for the American people, on making sure that working class families can support their families. And, instead, we're de-funding Federal funding of National Public Radio. And that seems like just a terrible distraction to the calls that we're getting.

For many people in the San Diego region, we have KPBS radio, it's an NPR station; and it's a way to connect people to local community issues and world events. Where else can you find that kind of in-depth reporting? I don't think we can point to other stations that do that.

So I'm not up here just to defend NPR, but my colleague said it's not a treasure. Well, to a lot of people that participate, yes, they will continue to fund it with their own dollars. But there is a consistency, there is a continuity, there is an expectation that this is something that is important to our communities. And it would endanger over 9,000 jobs at local radio stations if this funding goes away.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, I missed the following votes due to illness.

Had I been present, I would have voted:

``Yea'' on rollcall No. 163.

``Yea'' on rollcall No. 164.

Mr. Speaker, it's hard not to get angry when watching the news or reading the newspaper about Wisconsin.

We are trying to recover from the biggest financial crisis since the Depression, and who is getting the blame for our Nation's fiscal problems? Teachers. Teachers certainly aren't the people who caused the Great Recession. It was a group of Wall Street executives who brought about the financial crisis which led to the budget shortfalls in the States.

Blaming teachers or cutting their pay is wrong. Working to strip them of the basic American right to collectively bargain because some greedy Wall Street executives made huge mistakes and went too far, well, that's absolutely also wrong. Of course, Wall Street executives have gone back to collecting big bonuses while teachers and public workers are collecting the ridicule.

It's time to quit blaming hardworking and dedicated teachers and let them get back to focusing on their students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Home Loan Refinance Opportunity Act of 2011. This bipartisan legislation improves the federal Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds (QVMB) program to allow eligible states to use tax-free bond proceeds to refinance the home mortgages of our military veterans.

This legislation is necessary during our troubled economic times. QVMB home loan financing was not available to newly discharged veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan until passage of the Heroes Earning Assistance Relief Tax Act of 2008 (H.R. 6081) in the 110th Congress.

Prior to 2008, some veterans may have taken out adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM) to purchase a home during the real estate boom earlier in the decade. It is only fair to them that they have the same opportunity as newly discharged veterans to take advantage of the low- interest, fixed rate mortgages available through QVMB financing.

For some veterans with a costly ARM or interest-only mortgage, this legislation could prevent a foreclosure.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation includes an inflation index to ensure the QVMB veterans home loan program remains viable in the future.

I urge passage of the Veterans Home Loan Refinance Opportunity Act.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this bill's elimination of funding for Title X family planning services.

This extremely successful program helps both men and women access lifesaving preventative healthcare, including breast exams, cancer screenings, and HIV tests.

The proposed cuts in H.R. 1 would eliminate these, which is unconscionable.

If my colleagues across the aisle really want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, they should support Title X funding which helps prevent unintended pregnancies through education and access to contraception.

In my home state of California, Title X helps more than 200,000 women avoid unintended pregnancies.

The birth rate among California teenagers has decreased by more than half since 1992. Without Title X funding it would be 37 percent higher!

Eliminating the $2.2 million in Title X funds that San Diego County receives every year will mean taking away care in a state already struggling with limited resources.

I will not let San Diego families lose these valuable health services.

When women have better access to family planning, it leads to healthier outcomes for both mother and child.

Leadership proposes these cuts under the guise of being ``fiscally responsible,'' but that is far from reality, particularly for states that are in budget crises like California.

The contraceptive and other reproductive health services provided at Title X--supported centers in my state saved $581,890,000 in public funds in 2008 alone.

Cutting family planning is fiscally irresponsible.

Eliminating it doesn't save taxpayers any money; in fact, it puts their health and potentially their lives at risk. That is a cost we cannot afford.

Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman's interest in the issues before NOAA.

But I will have to oppose this effort.

Representative Hall's amendment sends the wrong message about the need to meet the growing demands of our nation's businesses and communities for reliable and relevant climate information.

Some of us might disagree on the extent climate change is taking place.

But to discourage research is a big mistake.

Regardless of your opinion, timely and relevant climate information benefits communities, local governments, and businesses.

A significant portion of the success of the U.S. economy depends on accurate weather and climate information.

Local governments in my home region of San Diego are planning for future trends or changes to sea levels--and NOAA' s research is critical to their work.

This amendment also sets poor precedent and policy.

NOAA is implementing an internal, budget-neutral organizational structure with the Climate Service office.

Using a budget CR to restructure an agency without input or sufficient debate is questionable.

Major restructuring efforts should be well thought out and involve study.

Let the scientists and the researchers decide what's worthy of their attention.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'll bet the American people are really surprised tonight because we are debating a continuing resolution when they are facing tremendous challenges. We should be thinking about them and about the challenges they face. We should be talking, as my colleague has said, about how to save money and about how to create jobs. Instead, we are debating an amendment that will do neither. It will undermine women's health.

This amendment denies women access to reproductive care, and it attacks the health providers that they rely on in their communities. These are health providers that are serving the underserved, and we are spending the evening attacking them.

Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in our Nation's health care system. We know that. These clinics help over 3 million Americans every year. More than 90 percent of the care they provide is preventative.

``Preventative.'' What does that mean? We have many physicians here. What does that mean, ``preventative care''? ``Preventative care'' means that men and women do not have to go through more costly procedures and even that their lives can be saved.

One in five American women has been to a Planned Parenthood health center for services like breast cancer screenings and cervical cancer screenings. We talked about all of that this evening.

I cannot let San Diego families lose these valuable services. I will not let that happen, because I know that, when women have better access to these services, it leads to healthier outcomes for both the women and their children. But this amendment proposes to cut these services under the guise somehow of being fiscally responsible. That's not true. What I know about my State of California is that title X-supported centers saved $581,890,000 in public funds in 2008 alone.

So let's talk about saving money. Let's talk about creating jobs. Let's not talk about constricting women's access to health care. Vote ``no'' on the Pence amendment.

Mr. Speaker, America has always been at the forefront of medical innovation--with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) making us the leader at creating life-saving technology.

Millions of Americans live healthier, more productive lives as a result of our medical research funding

The innovative and cutting-edge research funded by the NIH has also given the United States thousands of good jobs and contributed to creating a strong middle class.

Now we're voting on a budget that will cut over $1.5 billion from one of the key engines of American innovation.

H.R. 1 is a set back to medical research and a set back to our economic recovery.

Vote for amendment number 213 to preserve critical NIH funding.

Mr. Speaker, my mother always told me that if you have your health, you have everything, which is why I have always believed every American should have access to the care they need to be healthy.

Now my colleagues want to repeal health care without an alternative. Well, it is easy to say you are against something, but it is much harder to come up with solutions. Americans deserve to know how my colleagues' plan will protect patients.

Specifically, women shouldn't get denied care based on gender or have to pay hundreds more in insurance premiums than men, nor should they need a permission slip to see an OB-GYN.

The 32 million Americans without insurance need access to coverage.

Insurers shouldn't deny children coverage because they have been sick.

Medicare must be kept solvent over the long term, and seniors should have access to affordable prescriptions. Americans shouldn't face outrageous annual premium hikes, such as the 59 percent increase many of my own constituents are looking at today.

The health care reform bill addresses each of these problems and many more. It is irresponsible to repeal without a plan to fix the issues in our health care system. Further, thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger's efforts before leaving office, California is leading the way in implementing reforms already authorizing health insurance exchange marketplaces to buy affordable insurance. Repeal will cripple health reform efforts in my State and leave it without direction going forward.

I can't support legislation that does not offer solutions and goes backward. Let's focus on creating jobs and not taking away health care from patients.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this concurrent resolution to allow for the use of the rotunda in recognition of the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's inaugural address.

You may have read this morning's Washington Post front page story, declaring that 82 percent of Americans think the tone of our Nation's political discourse is negative. At a time when the majority of Americans holds our political discourse in such low regard, there couldn't be a more timely or necessary opportunity to revisit the inaugural address that inspired our country 50 years ago.

The speech called for unity, for respect of opposing views and for commitment to public service, all at a time of great change and challenge for the United States. It was a call for everyone to work together, to do their part in making America and the world a better place.

The words that were spoken on January 20, 1961, still ring true to this day.

In the words of President Kennedy: ``So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.

``Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.

``Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.''

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, the President's inaugural address sought to challenge our country and its leaders, and it set standards that still must guide our political discourse and ourselves, particularly with its closing lines:

``Ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you.

``With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love.''

I hope all of my colleagues will continue to work together to answer President Kennedy's call, and I urge all Members to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill in the form now before the House. It certainly bothers me to see multiple copies of bills in our office's recycling bins every day. Too many bill copies waste time, trees, and taxpayer dollars.

The gentleman is right to examine this matter and try to effect a reduction if appropriate. This amended bill represents a vast improvement from the original version. Concerns were raised about the original bill's possible adverse effect on the Clerk's staff and others who labor in support positions inside the House and Senate, so I commend the gentleman for listening to concerns and making sensible changes.

As we consider this bill, we must remember that our democracy doesn't work well without transparency in government. Nobody wants to disrupt the legislative process inadvertently or to make it harder for any Americans to read the bills.

Although we can't forget that while many Americans still do not have adequate access to the Internet, all congressional offices certainly have the ability to obtain their own bill copies when they need to. So this bill rightly maintains public access to important documents while saving the people's money.

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I come here today shaken by an act of horrific proportions and yet heartened by bountiful acts of the human spirit. We are comforted that in these times, the pain and the shock can be lightened, if only temporarily, by knowing that the good overwhelms the bad. I think that is how Gabby would want us to reflect today.

We grieve for the losses and the pain felt in the community of Tucson for ordinary people who we learned are quite extraordinary.

We know the tireless efforts of our own staff who come to work every day with one goal in mind--to help people. That's why we mourn the loss of Gabe Zimmerman.

But most of all, I come here today to send, in the most public way I can, my love and Mi Shebeirach--a Hebrew prayer for the sick which celebrates the spirit of healing to those recovering from their wounds, and particularly to my dear friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

People beyond Gabby's district are learning about the political acumen of this talented and engaging leader. As public servants, we do our jobs by listening to the American people--by looking constituents in the eye, assuring them that we want to help, letting them know that we understand with a nod, a handshake, and most often a hug, as Gabby frequently was known to do. To have that important connection so shaken by the attempted assassination of our colleague and friend is devastating.

But Gabby, of all people, was an example of what it means to be connected to your district. I know she wouldn't stand for this kind of violence, but she also wouldn't stand for allowing it to stop us from our service.

Whenever she talked about her constituents, she prefaced it with, ``I really understand where they are coming from, and we need to solve this problem.''

Her constituents are fortunate to have such a representative with such energy and skill who cares about them so deeply.

She cares about their concerns, fears, and hopes and knows how to work with people from all political persuasions.

My heart goes out to everyone affected by this massacre, and the shock from it reverberates throughout my community and our country.

So I am listening to my constituents that hope that this tragedy will engage us anew in serious and civil discourse on how we can leave a better world for our children and our grandchildren. That is what Gabby strived to do daily. It is what she would want us to be doing right now.

``If any such bill shall not be returned by the President within 10 days, Sundays excepted, after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law

in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.''