Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Suffolk County is home to many fire department

companies that protect and serve our local communities. I rise to honor the Van Guard Hose Company No. 1 in Patchogue, New York and its members, who this year are celebrating the 120th anniversary of its founding.

In the summer of 1890, local residents determined that the Patchogue Fire Department was unable to adequately respond to fire emergencies in the southern section of the Village of Patchogue when Captain G.G. Horton's barn was destroyed by fire. Due to this unfortunate event, these local residents formed the Van Guard Hose Company.

Residents requested the purchase of a hose cart and the fire directors of Patchogue Fire Department granted the purchase of a two- wheeled cart and 500 feet of hose. Chief Edwin Bailey, the department's first chief, was tasked with determining the location to house the new equipment.

Fourteen residents came together to form the present company for its regular meeting on January 13, 1891 at the home of Mrs. Alfred C. Mott, a resident of southern Patchogue. Today, Van Guard Hose Company No. 1, located just down the street from where the company first met, has grown to 63 members who bravely and selflessly serve their community.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great comfort to know that Long Island is still a collection of communities where neighbors look out for one another, as they did back in the 1890s. I'm proud to represent Van Guard Hose Company No. 1 and its members in the House of Representatives. I offer my congratulations on this milestone and wish them well for many years of continued service to the Patchogue Fire District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartfelt congratulations to a dear friend, Rev. Charles L. Currie, S.J., on his retirement from the presidency of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU).

For over four decades, Father Currie has served as a tireless advocate of independent higher education. His passion and dedication have had a tremendous influence on the lives of countless students through his multiple roles as an educator, spiritual leader, and humanitarian. A true renaissance man, Father Currie has personified the AJCU mission of leading a meaningful life of leadership and service.

A product of the Jesuit system, Father Currie earned degrees from Fordham University, Boston College, and Woodstock College, as well as a doctorate in physical chemistry from the Catholic University of America. Following his post-doctoral studies at Cambridge University, Father Currie went on to serve as a noted faculty member at Georgetown University before serving as president of Wheeling College (1972-1982) and Xavier University (1982-1986). At Wheeling and Xavier, his vision and leadership placed an emphasis on the importance of academic quality, effective

planning and management, active involvement and commitment to the community, and strong public-private and ecumenical partnerships.

Following his tenure at Wheeling and Xavier, Father Currie retuned to Georgetown University to direct the University's Bicentennial Celebration, which included over 90 academic, cultural and celebratory events from September of 1988 through September of 1989. Later in 1989, following the assassination of six Jesuit priests and two female coworkers by members of the El Salvadorian military, Father Currie was named special assistant to the President of Georgetown to coordinate the university's response to this tragedy. Working closely with congressional leaders and aides, Father Currie successfully organized a number of educational programs at Georgetown and participated in the extensive Congressional response to block military aid to El Salvador.

In 1997, following several years serving as Rector of the Jesuit Community at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia, Father Currie took the reins as president of the AJCU. Under his leadership, the AJCU has implemented numerous initiatives to increase the free flow of information and communication between the 28 member institutions of the Association. The development of the Jesuit Distance Education Network (JesuitNET) has earned national acclaim, receiving two federal grants and selection by the U.S. Department of Education to participate in the Distance Education Demonstration Program. Similarly, the creation of the AJCU Leadership Development Seminar, the promotion of mission and identity activities, and the concerted effort to promote the education of justice have combined to significantly enhance the coordination of Association goals among member institutions.

Perhaps Father Currie's greatest accomplishment as president of the AJCU arose out of tragedy. In 2005, following the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, Father Currie organized a rapid response from the AJCU members to admit over 1,600 students from Loyola University New Orleans and other affected area universities. By allowing the affected students to continue their studies before returning to the Gulf area in the spring semester, the students were able to maintain uninterrupted instruction and remain on track for timely graduation.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Father Currie for his immeasurable contributions to the cause of higher education and I congratulate him on his well earned retirement following a distinguished career of service and advocacy. In closing, I would be remiss if I did not include the following Ignatian prayer, dedicated to Father Currie and the devoted Jesuit educators like him:

Eternal Word, only begotten Son of God,

Teach me true generosity.

Teach me to serve you as you deserve.

To give without counting the cost,

To fight heedless of wounds,

To labor without seeking rest,

To sacrifice myself without thought of any reward,

Save the knowledge that I have done your will.

Amen.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the

gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) be permitted to control 10 minutes of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that Mr. Baca yielded the balance of his time to me, may I inquire as to how much time we have left on this side?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 872.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in an awkward position here today being asked to urgently vote on a bill where there is no real sense of urgency and where questions of its potential impact on human health and the environment far outweigh the answers.

I am also concerned that, in our effort to address concerns on implementation of two Federal statutes, we are neglecting a rational analysis of the best way to protect human health and the environment from the potential adverse effects of pesticides.

Finally, I stand in opposition to this legislation because it appears that the push to vote today on this bill is so great that it has stretched the bounds of traditional Member-to-Member commitments to resolve legitimate differences on issues of critical importance to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, let me state from the outset that I agree pesticides provide a valuable tool in controlling unwanted pests, whether they be mosquitoes in my home county of Suffolk County, New York, or corn borers in the Midwest. This bill is not about whether pesticides should or should not be used. However, what this bill does call into question is the best way to balance the use of pesticides with the protection of water quality, human health, and the environment, and the economic benefits associated with them.

On this point, I am not convinced that the current efforts to protect human health and the environment, which this bill seeks to maintain, are sufficient. If they were, pesticides would not continually show up in the urban and rural water bodies throughout the Nation. As States and the U.S. Geological Survey have told us, pesticides are frequently detected in streams and groundwater throughout the Nation, and literally thousands of streams and bays and lakes are currently impaired or threatened by pesticides. In the State of California alone, pesticides are listed as the number one source of water quality impairment in the State.

It is also telling that many States continue to find waters impaired by pesticides that have been banned in the United States for decades. In my view, this shows how the decisions we make today will have long- term impacts on human health, on our environment, and create long- lasting implications

and potential increased costs for generations to come.

According to the EPA, the potential human health implications of pesticide exposure depend on the type of pesticide and the pathway, concentration, and duration of exposure, and can range from minor skin irritations to developmental concerns to being linked to cancer. One potentially significant source of exposure comes from consuming pesticide-contaminated drinking water. Both the USGS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have verified the presence of pesticides and pesticide byproducts in drinking water sources throughout the Nation.

While in the majority of these cases pesticide protection levels were below existing human health benchmarks for those pesticides that have standards, USGS found a number of instances where pesticide detection levels were above acceptable levels. Similarly, even in those instances where detection levels are below acceptable levels, there is still legitimate concern on long-term, low-level exposure to pesticides, especially to the health of children, pregnant women, and the elderly.

In my view, the combination of these factors, plus the uncertainty created by increased detection of pesticide-chemical mixtures and the fact that modern drinking water treatment technologies are not designed to detect or remove pesticides, compels me to move cautiously on any proposal that would permanently eliminate options for controlling the amount of pesticides being released into the Nation's waters.

In light of these concerns, and in light of the fact that the legislation before us provides for a permanent Clean Water Act exemption for pesticide use, during the markup of this bill in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I offered a simple, commonsense amendment to require Congress to revisit this issue in 5 years when we have a clearer picture on whether FIFRA is sufficiently protective of human health and water quality from pesticide contamination. If, in 5 years' time, we were to see progress in reducing pesticide contamination in surface and groundwaters, then we would have more information to justify a permanent Clean Water Act exemption for pesticide use. In my view, we simply do not have this critical information before us today.

This simple concept was echoed by a former Bush administration official who was recently quoted as saying that, when it comes to enacting statutory exemptions from environmental regulatory requirements, it is appropriate to periodically review whether the exemption continues to be supported by data and science.

Based on a commitment from the chairman of the full committee to work with me on this issue before this bill was to come to the floor, I withdrew my amendment and voted ``yes'' in the markup. Unfortunately, to date, my concerns remain unaddressed, and yet here we are today considering this bill under the suspension of the rules, where there is no opportunity to debate the issues I and several of my colleagues raised at the committee markup.

It seems that the push to vote today on this bill is so great that it has stretched the bounds of traditional Member-to-Member commitments to resolve legitimate differences on issues of critical importance to us all, especially related to the protection of human health and the environment.

I am aware that many of my colleagues and several constituencies have pushed for immediate consideration of this bill to respond to the looming court-ordered deadline for Clean Water Act permitting on April 9. I agree that concerns expressed by States and pesticide applicators on how they could be expected to comply with a yet-unreleased pesticide general permit by the April deadline were legitimate. However, that deadline has now been extended by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals until October 31, 2011. It appears, therefore, that we have additional time to work on this issue and to resolve some of the concerns expressed by several members of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe a more prudent course would be to take the time necessary and work together to address the concerns of both sides in a manner that minimizes regulatory duplication, makes sense for pesticide applicators and the States, and addresses the concerns related to public health and water quality.

I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 872 under suspension of the rules so that I may continue to work with my colleagues on improving this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of points. There does appear to be strong bipartisan agreement. I know it passed out of the Ag Committee on unanimous vote. There was a very heavy vote in the T&I Committee. My reservations are rooted in the fact that I believe that we are rushing to a judgment in terms of making this statute permanent. I believe we have ample evidence to suggest that we don't know enough about pesticide impairment of water bodies, both surface and groundwater, to determine whether or not it is prudent for us to make a permanent exemption to the Clean Water Act.

So when I offered the amendment, which I then withdrew, for a 5-year sunset so we could assess whether or not this action is the correct one, I believe that I was acting in a very prudent and defensible way. And I am very disappointed, again, that this was an issue that we rushed to the floor in a form that we were unable to amend so that we could get this bill passed.

Now, the urgency of time has become much less pronounced because of the court ruling that was just announced this past Monday with respect to delaying the implementation of the court ruling until the end of October.

Second point. I know it's very popular to talk about the Environmental Protection Agency as if they are in some ways the source of all evil in this world. This is an issue--it's important to clarify--this is not an issue that the EPA saw. We are here today because of a court ruling. And, in fact, for years, decades, FIFRA has been the controlling legislation with respect to pesticide application, and the Clean Water Act has not been invoked.

And, in fact, the EPA, in 2006, took a position that they would not engage in a process that would supersede FIFRA. It was that decision that was overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court.

We all want to come up with a way to handle this. We all recognize that pesticide application is something that is very important. I represent the largest agricultural county in the State of New York, and this is an issue that's very important to my farmers. But my farmers also recognize that they want to see to it that Federal policy is, in fact, consistent with their best interest.

There are no better environmentalists in this country than our farmers. They need clean air. They need clean water in order for them to do their jobs.

So as I say, I am opposed, reluctantly so, and I very much hope that as this goes forward and is considered by the Senate, if it, in fact, is considered by the Senate, that we will take our time, we will craft legislation that we can all support, and that we will particularly have legislation that has a sunset period so that we can evaluate whether or not we are right in taking this action today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pride, but overwhelming grief, that I take to the floor today to honor one of my constituents who was taken from us far before his time, Officer Geoffrey Breitkopf.

When there is danger, there are two types of people. There are the majority of people who run from it, and then there are those brave few who run towards it. Officer Breitkopf was one of those brave few.

He served as a Nassau County Police Officer for more than 12 years, the majority of that time was spent serving in the elite Bureau of Special Operations. Always hard working, Officer Breitkopf earned a spot in the BSO in approximately half the time it normally takes. He was highly decorated for his various acts of bravery, including five Command Recognition Awards, four Meritorious Police Service Awards and one Medal of Commendation.

Despite having a family and an incredibly demanding job, Officer Breitkopf also found time to serve his community. He was a member of the Selden Fire Department for the past 15 years and served in the heavy rescue company, which handles search and rescue, house fires and extricating people from cars.

Tragically, Officer Breitkopf died in the line of duty, doing the job he loved so much and excelled at so well. My thoughts and prayers are with his fellow officers and his family, especially his wife, Paula, and their two sons Connor and Owen.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent a true hero like Officer Geoffrey Breitkopf and ask that we take a moment to reflect on his service to Long Island.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question and against the rule. Not only is the majority passing up another opportunity to finally put forward a bill to create jobs; they are using the underlying bills to make it even tougher on American families, in particular, tougher on middle class homeowners. Further, it is clear, as the gentleman from New Jersey suggested, that Republicans have no plan for rapidly soaring gas prices, another threat to middle class families and to our economy.

The Department of Energy forecasts gas prices could spike to a national average of more than $4 a gallon for regular this summer-- about 50 cents higher per gallon than Tuesday's national average of $3.50. In my district of eastern Long Island, regular unleaded has already surged by 34 cents in the last

month alone and now averages $3.74 a gallon. In the east end of my district, it's already well over $4 a gallon. And AAA projects gas prices could reach 50 cents higher per gallon by Memorial Day.

The Republican response: silence. Instead, we will vote today to kill a mortgage assistance program for the struggling homeowners and the recently unemployed. That is why my colleagues, Congressmen McNerney, Walz and McIntyre, and I have joined in introducing the Federal Price Gouging Act to take on this new threat to our economy. Our legislation gives the FTC the authority to investigate, enforce, and then to punish price gouging and market manipulation.

I urge my colleagues to join us in standing up to the oil companies and show hardworking Americans that we are in their corner. Vote against the previous question which, if defeated, would allow the House to consider this important price gouging measure. Now is the time that we must act to prove that their interests are paramount, not the oil companies' or the bankers'.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the long and distinguished career of a good friend and public servant of this House, Mrs. Maura ``Pat'' Kelly. Pat's roots in our home state of New York run as deep as the mark she leaves on this institution after fifty-three years of service. I was honored to attend Pat's retirement ceremony last month and at which our distinguished chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, delivered the following prayer that I proudly submit on his behalf.

Prayer for Pat Kelly's Reception

Tuesday, February 15, 2011, Rev. Daniel P. Coughlin

Holy Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with all the

angels and saints we praise You, with all the Irish legends

and leprechauns we stand before You.

As we celebrate the life and service of Maura ``Pat'' Kelly

this day, we do so with honor and humor, memories and best

wishes. To this noble institution throughout the years she

has always brought a feminine touch, a New York touch, and a

touch of the Irish.

We thank You, Lord, for giving her years of health and

happiness, work and colleagues, bosses and crosses, as well

as love of this institution of Congress inherited from her

mother, ever changing through the years and never fully

understood or appreciated by the American people she served.

May the daily public service hardly noticed, now be duly

rewarded. Grant her energy and peace, friendship and

satisfaction for years to come.

As she takes leave of us, may she find even greater love

and faith around every bend in the road ahead. As long as she

keeps smiling the world will smile back at her. And she shall

never be forgotten or walk alone, Lord. For Your smile will

forever call her upward and onward even though she has stolen

from us all, Lord. As the old tune tells it: her Irish eyes

have stolen our hearts away.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

My amendment is very simple and very straightforward. It would simply append to the end of the bill a requirement that not later than 90 days after

the enactment of H.R. 1, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics shall jointly conduct a study that would illustrate the effect that this act will have on job levels and, second, that these effects will be reported on a monthly basis to the American people on the first Friday of each month.

We have competing visions of what the effect of H.R. 1 will be. We have the Economic Policy Institute, which has estimated that the implications of H.R. 1 will be a job loss of over 800,000. We have the Center for American Progress saying that the result of passing H.R. 1 will be a job loss of 650,000 jobs directly and 325,000 indirect jobs lost.

And then we have Speaker Boehner. Speaker Boehner says, and I'm quoting him exactly, he says that if we reduce spending, we'll create a better environment for job creation in America.

And so very simply put, what my amendment does is it finds out who's right. Is the Economic Policy Institute right? Is the Center for American Progress right? Or is Speaker Boehner and others who believe that this will in fact create jobs?

And let me say why I am so focused on this.

H.R. 1 cuts funding for the Office of Science by 20 percent, $1.1 billion; and it cuts funding by 40 percent for the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. These are the two programs that support a Department of Energy lab in my district. That is the second largest employer in my district.

And so I asked the administrators of the lab to tell me what the implications would be. So this is one set of cuts in one district on one facility. And what the implications will be would be a layoff of a third of the workforce and the shutdown of two very important analytical pieces of equipment that attract 3,300 scientists from all over the world.

So we would lay off a third of my constituents, and we would reduce the number of scientists who use this facility by 3,300. So that's 3,300 people not staying in our hotels, not renting our cars, not eating in our restaurants, not buying their coffee in our delis.

That's just one district, one facility, one decision.

Let us find out whether or not this bill, H.R. 1, will in fact be the engine of job creation that the majority has presented it to be, or will it destroy jobs as we believe it will and as the Center for Academic Progress believes that it will.

With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Chairman, I am prepared to accept your ruling on the point of order, but I would like to make this comment.

And the comment is, Why would you not want to have the information that this amendment would elicit? It's very important information. We all know that our actions have consequences. We all know that the Republican leadership promised us the most transparent Congress in history.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

My amendment is very straightforward. It would simply stipulate that none of the funds available in this act may be used to further the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas, commonly referred to as NBAF.

NBAF, in my view, is a government boondoggle that anyone concerned about fiscally responsible behavior should want to be stopped. Anyone who is concerned about fiscally responsible behavior should be supporting my amendment.

Here are the facts:

NBAF was originally estimated to cost $451 million. Current estimates are that the cost will be in excess of $915 million.

The Department of Homeland Security has consistently stated that the sale of Plum Island in my district would cover the cost of NBAF. This is not even remotely accurate. Any reasonable estimate of the cost of Plum Island will be no better than $80 million.

Why should the American taxpayer invest $1 billion in this project with hardly any offset for a project that is essentially redundant?

Now my friends from Kansas--and I certainly understand their interest--have criticized this amendment as constituting parochial politics. And I would say, with respect to my friends, that I don't see anything parochial about trying to shield the American taxpayer from an investment of $1 billion in a facility that we do not need.

So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I would urge my colleagues who are concerned about spending--and every one of us in this Chamber is concerned about spending--here's an opportunity to cut spending that we simply do not need.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman form North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and, more importantly, in opposition to the underlying legislation.

I think we all recognize that we must make painful cuts, we must make difficult cuts, but I think it is important to recognize that there is a real difference between painful cuts and difficult cuts and cuts that are destructive, and I want to focus on an area where I think the cuts will be particularly destructive. They will be destructive to ambition, destructive to aspiration, and destructive to our ability to maintain a vibrant economy, and those are the cuts maintained in this legislation that would take $6.5 billion, $6.5 billion in one year, out of the student financial aid program, cutting Pell Grants by $5.6 billion, almost $5.7 billion, and cutting SEOG, a program that has been in existence since the late 1960s, completely eliminating it to the tune of $800 million a year. These cuts are destructive.

The most powerful tool that we have to put our economy back on track is an educated workforce, and the most powerful tool we have to bring about the fiscal stability that we need in this country is a growing economy. That is not possible unless we have an educated workforce.

Sixty-three percent of the jobs that will be created over the next 6 years will require post-secondary education. Ninety percent of the jobs that are expected to be the highest growing areas--science, technology, math, health care--require a post-secondary education. And yet the response of the current leadership of this Congress to that is to cut funding that allows students to go on to college. It is wrong-headed and, frankly, it is destructive of our future, and I would urge that my colleagues vote against it.

I will make one last point. The gentleman from New Jersey just said the Democrats did not listen to the American people last year. That is a continuing refrain. Well, the American

people have spoken loudly and clearly about education cuts. Sixty-one percent of them believe that the Federal Government should spend more on education and only 11 percent believe that we should cut education.

Offered By: Mr. Bishop of New York

Amendment No. 414: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Bishop of New York

Amendment No. 336: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Indeed, I am.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the everyday heroes who make up Long Island's first responder community for the service they give us every day.

In the aftermath of disasters, we often ask the same questions: What went wrong? How could this have been averted? Who is to blame?

Yet, in the early hours of January 1, 2011, a host of heroic first responders demonstrated how well-trained and dedicated experts could avert disaster and save lives. In this instance, the system worked. Mastic Fire Department Chief Dwight Blankenship and Assistant Chief Jim Mickert were the first to arrive on the scene of a gas leak and their immediate actions undoubtedly saved lives and property.

Upon seeing a gas leak spewing from out of the ground, Chief Blankenship immediately recognized the gravity of the situation and the need to act. First, he took action to prevent any action that could create a spark and ignite the gas. After taking action to secure the scene, he made a series of calls to coordinate the largest response Suffolk County has seen since the Pine Barrens fires of 1995.

Chief Blankenship's calls for assistance were answered by first responders from throughout Long Island. There are too many heroes to name, but the members of the Mastic Fire Department and the Mastic Volunteer Ambulance Company did so much to ensure the safety of the public. In all, more than 80 fire trucks and dozens of various departments joined in the effort.

While New Yorkers are loath to admit that anything good can come from across the river, we owe a debt of gratitude to John Stearns and his team with Industrial Propane and Reclamation of Sussex, New Jersey, for their quick and effective response.

I also want to highlight the Brookhaven Fire Marshals who responded to this potential disaster. Not only did the Town Fire Marshals ensure the safety of the public on January 1, but within three days of the incident they had completed their investigation and produced a comprehensive report about what had happened and how to avert a similar disaster.

Every day, our first responders train and take time away from their families, for that one call. On January 1, we are all so grateful that Chief Blankenship answered the call, because the difference is literally a matter of life and death. I am proud to represent so many dedicated first responders like Chief Dwight Blankenship and thank them for their continued service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time that this Congress does what President Obama called on Americans to do last week: approach our debates and our differences with civility and honesty.

We appear to be doing reasonably well with regard to civility, but less so with honesty. Once again, we tackle health care, and the debate is sliding back to one-line attacks and misrepresentation instead of the new health care law's merits or its actual impact on real Americans.

The Affordable Care Act has been referred to as a ``job-crushing law.'' This is simply not honest as my colleagues across the aisle disregard the fact that, since it was signed into law last March, over 1 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy, with 207,000 of those jobs coming from the health care sector.

Some speak of the repeal as if eliminating health care reform would have no meaningful fiscal consequences. This, too, is not honest. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated full repeal would increase the deficit by $230 billion over 10 years and another $1.2 trillion in the following decade.

Some argue that repeal will, in fact, reduce the deficit. If this is true, why have we yet to see a positive score that affirms such a point?

Repeal does nothing, absolutely nothing, other than leaving families with real health issues no place to go for help.

What do I tell the parents of the 9,000 children in my district with preexisting conditions who will be unable to access coverage when the ban on discriminating against children with preexisting conditions is repealed?

When insurance companies can claim cancer or pregnancy as a preexisting condition, what will survivors and mothers do for health coverage?

What will the 126,000 so affected individuals on eastern Long Island do?

What will the 2,400 young adults who have been able to stay on or to rejoin their parents' health insurance on eastern Long Island do if repeal is successful?

What will the 112,000 Medicare beneficiaries who can now receive free cancer screenings and other preventive care do?

What about the 8,500 part D prescription drug plan recipients who can no longer count on the doughnut hole being closed and who will, once again, face higher drug costs if repeal is successful?

Mr. Speaker, simply replacing the positive impact the Affordable Care Act has had on American families with inaccurate arguments does not solve our problem. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting the Resolution before us today, and to express my deepest condolences for the families of those killed in the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8. I also offer my prayers for a speedy and full recovery to my friend and colleague, Gabby Giffords, as well as to all those wounded in the attack.

This past Saturday was a dark day for this chamber and our nation. Gabby Giffords is one of the hardest-working members of this House, and has proven herself to be an energetic representative of her district's interests and a thoughtful stateswoman. She is loved and admired by her colleagues and her constituents in the Eighth District of Arizona, who are fortunate and grateful that she survived this terrible attack.

But there are six others who will not be returning to their families and friends as a result of this tragedy, and I know Gabby would want the focus to be on them. One of the six, Gabby's Outreach Director Gabriel Zimmerman, was a Federal employee killed while helping Gabby better represent her constituents.

Madam Speaker, I grieve for our nation when a 9-year-old girl seeking to meet her Congresswoman becomes a target for murder. I fervently hope that all Americans, especially those of us honored with the public trust, view this tragedy as a moment to take personal responsibility for building a safer, more civil and better future.

We are praying for you, Gabby, and for the families of all those affected by this senseless tragedy.