Floor Statements

I thank my friend from Connecticut.

I rise tonight to join all Americans in grieving for the innocent children and brave adults horrifically slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday. What happened in Newtown, Connecticut, is every parent's worst nightmare. Every parent who sends a child off to school each morning takes a leap of faith that he or she will be home that night for a hug, a family dinner, and for a kiss goodnight.

For my wife and me, our three children are the center of our lives. Words cannot express the sorrow that we feel--that all Americans feel-- for the families whose children were so viciously taken away.

Tonight, the American people are united in grief. In the coming days, a national conversation will take place on how to make our Nation just a little bit safer, and we must remain united. Never mind that some will feel threatened by this conversation and others will try to stop it altogether.

This unspeakable crime was driven by unspeakable evil. Yet when it comes to preventing such heinous acts, nothing should stop us from speaking out; but more than that, nothing should stop us from taking action. By preventing another massacre, by stopping this rampaging gun violence, we will honor the memory of every 6- and 7-year-old child and every brave member of the Sandy Hook community we mourn for this evening.

Please, please let us do more than talk. Please let us do more than give speeches. Let us come together to act to make America safer.

Mr. Speaker, exposure to cancer-causing agents increases every American's risk of cancer, and they are found in everyday products and in the environment.

Since only 5 percent of cancer is caused by genetic factors, people can reduce their risk of getting cancer by the other 95 percent of causes by reducing their exposure to carcinogens.

We all know that we can reduce our risk of getting cancer by wearing sunscreen, quitting smoking, and steering clear of asbestos. But what about everyday products? Which makeup has carcinogens? Which pesticides? Which air fresheners, carpet cleaners, flea collars, and yes, food items, increase your family's risk of cancer? Which baby shampoos?

The reality is consumers do not know. Even if our constituents memorized the list of known and probable carcinogens, many substances in consumer products remain hidden. Words like ``fragrance'' and ``artificial flavoring'' are used in place of specific ingredients to protect companies' trade secrets, and they should. But there is no denying that this protection makes it harder for consumers to make fully informed choices.

And even if known carcinogens were not part of a product's ingredient list, certain manufacturing or storage practices can result in the introduction of carcinogens into a product, which then can pass into your body.

Today, along with my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), I am introducing legislation called the ``Carcinogen-Free Label Act.'' Under this bipartisan bill, manufacturers who would like to market their products as being completely free of all known carcinogens would be allowed to seek a ``carcinogen-free'' label. By submitting a confidential application to be evaluated by the agency that regulates its specific product, a manufacturer could provide consumers assurance that the product is free of known carcinogens without having to divulge valuable trade secrets. The voluntary application would protect manufacturers' hard-earned intellectual property and could not be used by any agency of government for any reason other than determining the product's ``carcinogen-free'' status.

The application would simply include a full list of substances and a demonstrated adherence to best carcinogen-avoidance practices in manufacture, storage, and transportation. In addition, this program would not mandate any new bureaucracy to evaluate carcinogens; it simply creates a process for agencies to compare ingredients lists against existing government lists of known and probable carcinogens.

Unlike other well-intentioned efforts to get carcinogens out of consumer products, this legislation would not rely on mandates or bans. If a manufacturer does not choose to apply, there is no penalty. The labeling program is 100 percent voluntary. It would simply harness the power of the free market, enabling consumers to choose safer products for themselves and their families.

I urge my colleagues to pass this market-driven legislation and give consumers and families across America the power to opt-out of cancer- causing substances in everyday products.

Mr. Speaker, in the past 24 hours alone, terrorists along the Gaza Strip have launched more than 250 rockets into southern Israel. That's 250 rockets in 1 day since Hamas began its strikes.

Imagine 250 rockets raining down in 1 day on your community anywhere in the United States. We would expect our government to act to protect our citizens. Israel is acting to protect her citizens. Israel has the right to protect her citizens from terrorist attacks. In the early hours of this morning, three Israeli civilians died when a rocket from Gaza struck the top floor of an apartment building. Later in the day, a rocket hit just 10 miles from Tel Aviv.

The United States mourns the loss of life at the hands of Hamas terrorists. We will not waver in our support of Israel's right to defend herself against these and other attacks. The right of any nation to defend its citizens can never be called into question. Mr. Speaker, at this challenging time for our great ally, the United States stands with Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember September 11 alongside the City of Coral Springs, Florida as they host a memorial service to honor the victims of September 11th. Though eleven years have passed since this horrific attack on our nation, the attack is no less devastating today.

Each year since the attacks, dedicated members of the Coral Springs community have worked to plan memorial services to remember those lost and honor their memory. It is truly an honor to recognize the community and this important initiative on this day. Seeing communities across the country come together to remember the victims is one of the few bright developments to rise out of this great tragedy.

In collaboration with generous donors and volunteers, members of the Coral Springs community built the September 11th Memorial at the Coral Springs NW Regional Library in 2001. This memorial was dedicated to those lost in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and honors the residents who lost their immediate family members.

I applaud the efforts of the City of Coral Springs in commemorating the September 11th tragedy, and feel blessed to have been able to participate in the 5K Inaugural Walk to Remember in the City of Coral Springs this year. I thank the community for their dedication. My family and I join with the families in Coral Springs and throughout the country to remember those we lost on September 11, 2001.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlelady's amendment to yet another bill that will never become law, another bill that feeds into the biggest problem we have here.

The 112th Congress has actually set a sad new low for our democracy. We all know that President Harry Truman famously dubbed the 80th Congress in 1948 as the ``do-nothing Congress.'' Yet the do-nothing Congress of 1948 has nothing on this one. That Congress passed over 900 laws, while the 112th Congress has passed just over 100.

Among the countless laws blocked by the Republican majority is the American Jobs Act, which economists say

would create over 2\1/2\ million jobs. It's a sad day when the main drag on America's economy is the U.S. House of Representatives.

Most Americans actually have to earn their vacation days, Mr. Chairman. The only thing the Congress has earned are abysmal approval ratings. The 112th Congress puts Harry Truman's do-nothing Congress to shame. At a time when our economy should come first, that, Mr. Chairman, is shameful.

I rise in strong support of the gentlelady's amendment to a bill that prevents us from actually accomplishing the real work the American people expect from us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the polluters' bill of rights.

I understand that my Republican friends are trying to improve the coal industry's outlook, and I imagine that most industries would benefit if Congress simply eliminated their obligation to help keep the public safe.

We hear a lot about the immorality of leaving our children with mountains of debt, and I completely agree with that. I support measures to responsibly reduce the debt. But bills like this one are piling another form of debt on our children. We are leaving them to deal with the consequences of letting coal companies pollute the air that our children breathe and the water that they drink.

Our failure to take comprehensive action on global climate change is already profoundly immoral. It is a disgrace that we refuse to sacrifice on behalf of our grandchildren. I fail to understand the perverse notion that my colleagues on the other side share that somehow global climate change is a laughable matter that we can sweep under the rug instead of an unprecedented threat to the health of our children and to the security of our Nation.

How many more millions of tons of greenhouse gases would my Republican colleagues like in our atmosphere before they're concerned? How much less

polar ice? How many more cases of preventable cancer should American children develop?

I offered an amendment to slow down the bill's assault on America's environmental laws until scientists could verify that what this Congress seeks to accomplish would not increase cases of preventable cancer among our most vulnerable: children, seniors, and those with chronic conditions.

Regrettably, the House will not even have a chance to vote. It must be too inconvenient for my colleagues to have to tell their constituents that they value these coal companies above sick children.

Well, I've got news for my colleagues. Ignoring the consequences of our actions does not make them go away. These rules are in place because the American people demand safe air and water. They expect the electricity that powers their homes is not produced in a way that makes tumors grow in their loved ones.

We should focus on building a Nation, a secure economic future in this Nation. That means investing in clean energy industries instead of catering to special interests.

Moving forward with clean energy is the least we can do. Passing this bill is the worst thing we can do. I urge my colleagues to reject the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to reserve my time if my friend, Mr. Rigell, would like to speak first.

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

I rise in strong support of this amended form of H.R. 4212, the Contaminated Drywall Safety Act of 2012.

My friend Mr. Rigell is correct: when we have an opportunity to do something for the families in America who are really suffering and when we can do it in a commonsense and bipartisan way, we have every responsibility to take that action. That's what this bill is about, and that's what this evening is about.

In the wake of the 2005 and 2006 hurricane seasons, a domestic shortage of drywall developed in our country, drywall for rebuilding homes and businesses. To make up for this shortage, builders began importing several million tons of drywall from China; but it was not until 2009 that reports started

to surface that, unbeknownst to the builders or to the consumers, much of the drywall coming from China emitted high levels of corrosive sulfur.

Currently, thousands of homeowners in 42 States, as well as in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and American Samoa, have been enduring an emergency situation in which contaminated drywall from China has been causing ever worsening destruction and damage to their homes. It has also caused serious health problems for the families living in those homes. Like my friend from Virginia, in having the opportunity to visit with families and listen to them share their stories about the illnesses that come one after another after another to their children, ultimately forcing them to move from their homes, one can't be helped but be moved to action.

The problematic drywall corrodes copper piping and wiring in homes, which causes the failure of air-conditioning systems, telecommunications wiring, wiring for lighting and other household appliances. Such corrosion poses both potential fire and safety hazards in homes, and it causes undue financial hardship for homeowners who are constantly forced to repair or replace essential appliances.

The damage to the housing structures and the detrimental health impact on family members caused by contaminated Chinese drywall renders many of these homes simply uninhabitable. Such a situation forces some families to find alternate housing while also having to maintain the mortgages on their homes that are uninhabitable. In these difficult economic times, tremendous strain is being placed on limited family finances to constantly replace or make repairs to essential home appliances or to pay for other housing options while maintaining that mortgage on an uninhabitable home with Chinese drywall. These families have been and are in desperate need of assistance.

This bill seeks to provide assistance to homeowners who have contaminated drywall in their homes and to prevent contaminated drywall from entering the country in the future.

Our bill will assist homeowners who are victims of this problematic Chinese drywall by urging the Secretary of Commerce to insist that the Chinese Government facilitate a meeting between the companies that manufacture the contaminated drywall and the representatives of the U.S. Government to help remedy homeowners who have the contaminated drywall in their homes. In addition, the bill urges the Secretary of Commerce to insist that the Chinese Government direct the companies that manufactured this contaminated drywall and exported it to this country to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States Federal courts and to comply with any decisions issued by those courts on behalf of the homeowners with this contaminated drywall.

The bill will ensure that similar problematic drywall is not imported into this country in the future. It would require that each sheet of drywall that is imported for use in the U.S. be labeled with the name of the manufacturer and the month and year of manufacture. In addition, the bill requires that the Consumer Product Safety Commission ensure that future drywall manufactured or imported for use in the U.S. contain sulfur limits that do not cause elevated rates of corrosion in the home. The bill also requires the CPSC to revise their remediation guidance for homes with contaminated drywall to include a provision that contaminated drywall removed from homes should not be used in the production of new drywall.

This bill is a product of bipartisan negotiations, and it demonstrates how this House works best when both sides work together to get something done for the American people.

I really do want to express my sincere appreciation to my cochair of the Congressional Contaminated Drywall Caucus, Congressman Rigell, for all of his hard work and leadership on this issue.

I also want to thank the Energy and Commerce Committee, particularly Chairman Upton and Chairwoman Bono Mack, for their help as well as the help of Ranking Member Waxman and of the ranking member on the subcommittee, Congressman Butterfield.

I would also like to thank Congresswoman and Chair Ileana Ros- Lehtinen from the Foreign Affairs Committee for all of her hard work, together with that of Ranking Member Berman, in the commitment to finding a compromise to permit this bill to move forward.

Finally, I would like to recognize my friend Congressman Mario Diaz- Balart for his tireless work on this issue from the time the first reports of contaminated drywall surfaced and for providing much-needed assistance to those victims of contaminated Chinese drywall.

For all of these reasons and for all of the people who have been affected, I urge my colleagues this evening to support the passage of

Madam Speaker, the south Florida community recently lost a hero when World War II veteran William Kling passed away at the age of 84.

Bill Kling, a native New Yorker, served in the Navy during World War II. Throughout his life, he was an active member of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Jewish War Veterans, and the Disabled American Veterans. For me, he was an inspiration and a friend.

However, Bill is best known for his role as the president of the Broward County Veterans Council for 27 years. Bill's activism led to building of an outpatient VA clinic in Broward County, a veterans nursing home in Pembroke Pines, and the opening of the South Florida National Cemetery in 2007.

So even as we mourn the loss of an incredible advocate, we know that Bill Kling's contributions live on in every veteran cared for at the outpatient clinic he helped to build, in every family who visits an elderly veteran residing at the nursing home he helped to establish, and in every prayer spoken at the national cemetery that he helped make possible.

I join with Bill's family in mourning his loss; but on this anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I express the gratitude of our entire south Florida community that will long benefit from Bill Kling's tireless efforts to honor those who so bravely served our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

I rise today to urge passage of H.R. 4305, the Child and Elderly Missing Alert Program Act of 2012.

This bill, which I had the pleasure of introducing with my friend, Mr. Chabot of Ohio, will help law enforcement agencies nationwide safely recover missing children and elderly adults.

As Mr. Chabot highlighted, every 40 seconds a child goes missing in America, with over 800,000 children reported each and every year. The panic that takes over when a child cannot be found is a feeling that every parent hopes and prays they will never have to experience.

We know that every second is precious. In fact, in tragic cases involving abducted and murdered children, research supported by the Department of Justice shows that 74 percent were slain within the first 3 hours. Likewise, the families of adults suffering from Alzheimer's disease or another form of dementia feel that same anxiety when a loved one goes missing. They're not just in danger of injury, but of going too long without medications that they rely on. In fact, half of elderly adults who wander from their residences suffer serious injuries or death if not located within 24 hours.

Though the Amber Alert and Silver Alert programs are invaluable tools for law enforcement to alert communities of missing persons, too often they're not activated until precious time has passed. Whether young or old, we know that the ability to locate missing persons within the first few hours of their disappearance is vital.

By passing H.R. 4305, we can help law enforcement agencies nationwide employ technology pioneered by Sherry Friedlander, a south Florida woman who started an organization called A Child is Missing. A Child is Missing helps police and rescue teams get the word out fast. It is the only organization that assists in all types of missing cases, including abductions, runaways, or individuals that lose their way.

When a person is reported missing to law enforcement, A Child is Missing utilizes the latest satellite technology to place 1,000 emergency phone calls every 60 seconds to residents and businesses in the area where the person was last seen. In fact, just this year, A Child is Missing marked its 1,000th successfully assisted recovery. This proven technology works, and it saves lives. By passing this legislation, we can help law enforcement successfully recover missing persons nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to recognize Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Howard Berman for their extraordinary leadership and their tireless work to bring forward a bipartisan and bicameral bill. I thank you for working with me to include several of my provisions in this legislation, including the Iran Transparency and Accountability Act, a measure that will, for the first time, require companies to disclose their business with Iran on SEC filings and for the first time create a public listing of these disclosures to clearly and definitively let the American people know which companies continue to support the illicit nuclear weapons program of Iran.

Mr. Speaker, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act significantly expands sanctions against the Iranian regime and those who, in the face of united international opposition, continue to contribute to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

This bill sends one clear message to the entire world: if you do virtually any business in the Iranian energy sector--the financial lifeline of this regime's nuclear program--you will be subject to sanctions.

Today, the United States Congress takes U.S. sanctions policy to an unprecedented level. By sending this legislation to the President's desk, Congress can initiate an unprecedented crackdown on the Iranian regime. But our work does not end here. These punishing sanctions are a means to an end; and we cannot, for one moment, take our eye off the endgame--halting Iran's march toward a nuclear weapon.

Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Now is the time to stand for human rights in Iran and Syria. Now is the time. Now is the time to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker, even for a Republican House with a record of attacking women's rights, bringing up this bill under suspension that disregards the United States Constitution, is beyond brazen. It is time that my colleagues come clean with the American people and admit these arbitrary limitations on a woman's constitutional right to choose are part of a broader effort. Tonight, it's the District of Columbia. Tonight, 20 weeks is the threshold for turning a constitutional right into a crime. What is tomorrow--10 weeks, 10 days? Where does it end?

Mr. Speaker, when they talk about competing rights, they are intent on granting, even to a newly fertilized egg, the constitutional rights of American women. They want to put the rights of a zygote ahead of the rights of a woman exercising autonomy over her own body.

My colleagues say this bill is limited in scope; but their intentions, Mr. Speaker, are not limited in scope. Right now in this Congress and across the country, the rights of women are under attack.

Mr. Speaker, right now in this Congress and across the country, the rights of American women are under attack. It is sad that we must fight to defend these rights. But fight, Mr. Speaker, we will.

Mr. Speaker, exposure to cancer-causing agents increases every American's risk of cancer, and they are found in everyday products and in the environment.

Since only 5% of cancer is caused by genetic factors, people can reduce their risk of getting cancer by the other 95% of causes by reducing their exposure to carcinogens.

We all know that we can reduce our risk of getting cancer by wearing sunscreen, quitting smoking, and steering clear of asbestos. But what about everyday products? Which makeup has carcinogens? Which pesticides? Which air fresheners, carpet cleaners, flea collars, and yes, food items, increase your family's risk of cancer? Which baby shampoos?

The reality is consumers do not know. Even if our constituents memorized the list of known and probable carcinogens, many substances in consumer products remain hidden. Words like ``fragrance'' and ``artificial flavoring'' are used in place of specific ingredients to protect companies' trade secrets, and they should. But there is no denying that this protection makes it harder for consumers to make fully informed choices.

And even if known carcinogens were not part of a product's ingredient list, certain manufacturing or storage practices can result in the introduction of carcinogens into a product, which then can pass into your body.

Today, I am introducing legislation called the ``Cancer-Free Label Act.'' Under this bill, manufacturers who would like to market their products as being completely free of all known carcinogens would be allowed to seek a ``cancer-free'' label. By submitting a confidential application to be evaluated by the agency that regulates their specific product, a manufacturer could provide consumers assurance that the product is free of known carcinogens without having to divulge valuable trade secrets. The voluntary application would protect manufacturers' hard-earned intellectual property and could not be used by any agency of government for any reason other than determining the product's ``cancer-free'' status.

The application would simply include a full list of substances and a demonstrated adherence to best carcinogen-avoidance practices in manufacture, storage, and transportation. In addition, this program would not mandate any new bureaucracy to evaluate carcinogens; it simply creates a process for agencies to compare ingredients lists against existing government lists of known and probable carcinogens.

Unlike other well-intentioned efforts to get carcinogens out of consumer products, this legislation would not rely on mandates or bans. If a manufacturer does not choose to apply, there is no penalty. The labeling program is 100% voluntary. It would simply harness the power of the free market, enabling consumers to choose safer products for themselves and their families. We all remember the most recent example of this--it was consumer selection, not government intervention, that got BPA out of baby products.

I urge my colleagues to pass this market-driven legislation and give consumers and families across America the power to opt-out of cancer- causing substances in everyday products.

Madam Speaker, we all know that wearing sunscreen, quitting smoking, or steering clear of asbestos can reduce our cancer risk. Yet, carcinogens are all around us, and exposure to these cancer- causing agents can be found in everyday products and in the food we eat.

For the most part, consumers are kept in the dark with no way to know for sure whether the makeup they use or the food they eat contains known carcinogens. It's time to help consumers choose safer products for themselves and for their loved ones. That's why today I'm introducing the Cancer Free Label Act. My bill will give companies the chance to market to consumers the fact that the products that they make are free of carcinogens.

Just as consumers refused to buy baby products laden with BPA and nearly wiped this chemical from the shelves, the Cancer Free Label Act will use market-driven forces to drive change. By passing the Cancer Free Label Act, we can give families across America the opportunity to avoid cancer-causing agents. And by promoting healthier choices, we will even be able to save lives.

Madam Speaker, it's clear that my Republican colleagues cherish the many tax loopholes that funnel billions to oil companies, outsourcers, and operators bent on repealing Wall Street reform. That's why they've killed the DISCLOSE Act, which would close loopholes used by special interests to secretly spend unlimited sums of corporate cash in our elections.

As terrible as Citizens United was, it did not include a right to buy elections anonymously. No, it is the Republican Congress that protects the identities of those writing these multimillion-dollar checks. They want a battle of bank accounts, Madam Speaker, because they know that they can't win a battle of ideas. They can't run on deregulating Wall Street when America's financial security is still at risk. They can't run on cutting taxes for billionaires when they block every effort to create middle class jobs. And they can't run on cut, cap, and balance when the only thing that they cut is our seniors' health care.

If my Republican colleagues believe they are worthy of competing in the great battle of ideas that is our democracy, they should put their mouths where their money is and pass the DISCLOSE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in cautious support of S. 1959, the Haqqani Network Terrorist Designation Act.

Despite its name, this bill does not require the U.S. Department of State to formally designate the Haqqani Network as a terrorist organization. Rather, it imposes a one-time reporting requirement on the State Department to explain whether the Haqqani Network meets the statutory requirements for that designation. More importantly, the bill preserves the authority of the State Department to make this determination without congressional interference.

Let's be clear: the Haqqani Network is a dangerous organization and sworn enemy of the United States. From its base along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border, the network of insurgents led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his family has, for years, fought U.S. and allied forces in eastern Afghanistan. The Haqqanis are responsible for several high-profile acts of terror--including an attack on the United States Embassy on September 13, 2011, that left 16 Afghans dead.

One tool--one tool out of many--for fighting an organization like the Haqqani Network is to designate the group a terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Once a group receives that formal designation, the full weight of the Federal Government is brought to bear, including criminal penalties for the provision of material support to the organization, restrictions on travel, and seizure of assets. Designating an organization a terrorist organization is often an appropriate tool when the circumstances are unambiguous.

But the circumstances in eastern Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan are anything but unambiguous. The United States is engaged in delicate negotiations with the Government of Pakistan as it prepares to draw down troops and end the war in Afghanistan. In just the last few weeks, our diplomatic corps has achieved the monumental task of reopening our lines of communication with the Pakistani Government. It

may be that, in this context, there is a diplomatic or strategic benefit to holding back on the formal designation of the Haqqani Network as a terrorist organization--perhaps just for the time being.

The State Department has already designated several individuals in the Haqqani Network as terrorists. If there's a reason that Secretary of State Clinton has not yet formally designated the entire network, then we ought to defer to her judgment.

Still, a modest reporting requirement as to some of the legal reasoning behind that decision is a fair request. Even if the Haqqani Network meets the statutory criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization--even if that tool is available to us--Secretary Clinton will make that decision when she determines that it is useful and appropriate to do so.

I thank the Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.