Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Helen Spivey who today is receiving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2010 Regional Director's Conservation Award. I had the distinct pleasure and honor to serve and sit next to Helen in the Florida House of Representatives, and I am proud that her many years of service yielded such tremendous benefits to the people of Florida and our state's unique ecosystem. Her recognition today is warranted and well deserved. For several decades, Helen Spivey has been an iconic leader in the protection of Florida's special ecosystems and in particular, the endangered Florida manatee. For that work, she holds a very special title to those of us that know her well--``The Manatee Lady.'' For decades, Helen has fought to preserve the more pristine and natural Florida she knew in her youth. Since moving to Crystal River in the 1970s, she has built a long resume volunteering in efforts to fight uncontrolled urban growth, pollution from wastewater facilities, and of course to protect Florida manatees. From serving on the Crystal River City Council to being elected to the Florida Legislature, Helen's life exemplifies the best a citizen has to offer as an active and effective community and public servant. While she has worked in collaboration with many conservation organizations over her lifetime, her connection to the Save the Manatee Club is special. Since 2000, she has served as co-chair of the Save the Manatee Club's Board of Directors. In this role, she works tirelessly for the gentle creature of our Florida waterways. The Club could not have a better advocate for their efforts. Today, the Fish and Wildlife Service is honoring Helen for her work on expanding the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge to include the critically important Three Sisters Springs property. This project is a microcosm of Helen's long fight to protect Florida's incredible natural wonders and to protect much needed habitat for the Florida Manatee. Three Sisters is an urban spring that has been under threat of development for many years. But through Helen's leadership, this 57- acre property was acquired by the Service to forever preserve this ecologically important habitat. Each year, more than 150 manatees winter in and around this spring, and it draws tourists from across the state and beyond to behold this gentle giant of our waterways. If you have ever experienced a Florida manatee up close, you understand how special this creature is, and how important it is that we protect this impressive species for future generations. The Three Sisters project took many years to realize and required the collaboration of many public and private partners. I was honored to work with Helen and with Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite of Brooksville, Florida, and Florida's senior Senator Bill Nelson to help secure federal funding for a portion of this important project. But it was Helen that was the driving force that made the Three Sisters Springs Project a reality. She worked tirelessly to coordinate state, local and federal agencies, and the private partners needed to line up all the funding required to protect this precious resource. She has never been someone to take ``no'' for an answer, and with her bright spirit and intellect, she constantly wins over new allies for her cause. Now that the spring's site is under federal management, I look forward to its full restoration and the inclusion of an interpretive platform and station that will enhance visitors' appreciation for this special ecosystem. Once again, Helen should be very proud, as we are, of her hard fought victory for Florida's ecosystem and for the Florida manatee. But I know what Helen will actually do . . . which is to smile, give us all a small nod, and then get right back to work on her next endeavor. In a 2004 article in the St. Petersburg Times, Helen was quoted as saying, ``I guess I wouldn't want people to remember me . . . but I would be really pleased if they could see an ecosystem that functions and a world that is not asphalt and concrete.'' Well, Helen, we will most certainly remember you and the work you continue to do each day to make your vision a reality. And with your work regarding saving Three Sisters Spring, you have added one more special ecosystem to the list of protected places in our beloved Florida. I am thrilled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is honoring you today--because no one is more deserving of this recognition. So today, as you receive this award while also celebrating your eighty-third birthday, Florida thanks you for all that you do. I am so proud of you and simply can't wait to see what you accomplish in your next eighty-three years.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to state my strong opposition to H.R. 3. This bill--ostensibly the Republican leadership's third-highest priority--is a reprehensible piece of legislation that will do nothing but put the lives of American women at risk. It also tells us what the Republican leadership thinks of American women. When this bill was first introduced, I was outraged and horrified that the bill narrowed the long-standing exemption for rape to only ``forcible rape.'' I called this out for what it is--a violent act against women. When this bill was marked up in the House Judiciary committee, ``forcible'' had been removed, therefore leaving the language as it has stood for decades. Without the word ``forcible,'' this exemption includes a wealth of horrifying circumstances, such as date rape, statutory rape, and rape where the woman is unconscious or mentally unable to consent. To say that these instances are not really rape is a violent affront against women and the gravest insult to ALL victims of sexual assault. Madam Speaker, I was absolutely incensed when I learned that although ``forcible'' does not appear in the bill language, its sponsors ensured that the report language clearly noted that the bill intends to apply to only ``forcible'' instances of rape. So not only do the bill's sponsors not have a problem with endangering the lives of American women--but they're perfectly fine with not telling them the truth, too. Let me be clear--no amendment, no word change could make this bill even close to acceptable. It is an insult to American women who require life-saving abortion care for health purposes, and a slap in the face to all American women who until now may have thought that their constitutional right to make their own private medical decisions about their body was safe. Now we know that it's not-- and the anti-choice community will stop at nothing to ensure that they chip away at Roe v. Wade until it is gone forever. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this atrocious bill. A vote against H.R. 3 is a vote for the health of American women and the sanctity of constitutional rights for us all.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget plan, which is not, as they characterize, a pathway to prosperity but a true pathway to poverty for our Nation. The Republicans' explicit choice to protect millionaires and special interests at the expense of job creation is dangerous and forsakes our future. I'm particularly concerned about the reckless and shameful cuts to the National Institutes of Health for the research of cures to cancer, stroke, diabetes, heart disease, and all the other illnesses that fall under its jurisdiction. That is why last week I introduced an amendment in committee that would stop these cuts. Yet each and every one of our Republican colleagues voted against it. For just half a percent--half a percent--of the cost of extending tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, we could completely reject the Republicans' devastating cuts to medical research for next year. Cuts of this magnitude will slow research progress while squandering critical scientific opportunities that may one day save lives. Yet beyond the dangers posed to our Nation's health, these cuts prevent us from winning the future. The Republicans' cut to NIH kills jobs. NIH grants support more than 350,000 highly skilled jobs in all 50 States, plus an additional 800,000 supporting jobs created in the private sector. This means that the Republican budget puts over 1 million American jobs at risk--from pharmaceutical jobs to medical device manufacturers to technicians working in medical labs. At the same time, the Republican path to poverty ignores the NIH's role in reducing the rising cost of chronic disease and the ballooning costs that compound our debt. We must make smart investments in our Nation's medical and fiscal health. And we must make these kinds of investments now so that we may stem the tide of future disease rates. Cancer incidence is projected to nearly double by 2020, particularly among the aging baby boomer population. As one of the 11 million cancer survivors in the United States, I am living proof of the vital gains made by research at NIH. We can't stop now. Don't turn your back on the millions of Americans who are desperately holding out hope that treatments and cures are coming to them soon. Prevent these deadly cuts. Oppose this Republican path to poverty.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1255. And I say to my friend from Georgia that no matter how he slices it, if you are saying in this bill that if the Senate fails to act, then H.R. 1 becomes law, check Webster's. That's deeming. This is blatantly unconstitutional deem-and-pass legislation offered by Representative Womack, and it makes me wonder what sort of April Fool's Day joke is being played on the American public. To be sure, Congressman Womack cited constitutional authority for his bill. First, he cites clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution for the concept that Congress has the authority to spend money by passing laws. He then cites clause 1 of section 8, article I for the idea that Congress shall have power to lay taxes and pay the debts. But what my Republican colleague fails to cite is clause 1, section 1, article I for the fundamental concept that Congress shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. As much as we don't like that much of the time, that is what the Constitution says. I also refer him to clause 2, section 7 of article I that lays out the basic constitutional construct that a bill becomes a law if, and only if, it is passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President. The House has no magic wand to do this all on its own. Glinda, the good witch of the north, is not coming to save you. H.R. 1 is more like a product of the wicked witch of the west. Perhaps at the start of the next Congress we should show the ``Schoolhouse Rock'' video ``I Am Just a Bill,'' as a refresher on how a bill really becomes a law. It appears reading the Constitution on the floor hasn't stuck so well. Now, while today is April Fool's Day, it also feels a bit like Ground Hog Day because here we are again deeming to pass the majority's job- killing spending bill, H.R. 1. In case anyone has forgotten, that job-killing spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs and threaten the economic recovery now underway. The Democratic minority remains committed to our goals for the 112th Congress to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly reduce the deficit. I say defeat this misguided legislation and make sure that Members of Congress aren't paid when government employees aren't.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 471, the so-called Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. When Republicans took over the House majority in January, they promised to uphold the Constitution--even going so far as to read it on the House Floor. They also pledged to reduce the deficit by fully offsetting any new discretionary spending. But the ideological legislation offered today breaks both promises. It also continues to push the extreme and reckless social agenda of the majority while failing to offer any bill to create much-needed jobs. As I have said before on this Floor, it is not enough to simply read the Constitution, but to abide by it, and carry out its charge. This bill violates a fundamental principle enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution--the Establishment Clause. This ``wall of separation,'' as Thomas Jefferson so famously put it, is ripped asunder by H.R. 471, which unabashedly funnels millions of public tax dollars to private religious schools. The bill compels the American public to spend its tax dollars to fund religious schools that do not have to adhere to important civil rights laws or federal statues requiring equality such as Title IX. This is simply unacceptable. We must defend the ``wall of separation'' between church and state as envisioned by our nation's founders and we must fight to uphold it for all Americans. H.R. 471 also violates the Republican leadership's ``CutGo'' promise. This completely unpaid for legislation would increase the federal deficit by $300 million to reauthorize and expand a program that has utterly failed to increase student achievement. What is even more appalling is the fact that Speaker Boehner is pushing the use of public dollars for private religious schools while at the same time slashing federal education funding by almost $5 billion in the majority's job-killing FY11 spending bill passed in February. Across the country public schools are still reeling from the great recession that helped create large state budget deficits. In fact, in my home state of Florida, the Republican Governor, is proposing an additional $2.3 billion in cuts to public education. Rather than turn our backs on students, we should be working together to improve public education, make sound investments balanced with smart cuts, and ensure that all students have access to instruction that will give them the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century. Instead, we stand here today debating a bill that doubles down on a failed Republican program in the District of Columbia which veers far away from these ideals. The Department of Education found that many of the students in the voucher program were less likely to have access to key services--such as English as a Second Language programs, learning support and special needs programs, counselors, or even teachers with a bachelor's degree. Democrats will continue to judge each piece of legislation that comes before the House by whether it creates jobs, strengthens our middle class, or reduces the deficit. H.R. 471 achieves none of these goals while also violating the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this ill- conceived bill.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Russell R. Chard from the Hollywood Fire Department. Mr. Chard has more than 30 years of distinguished service working on behalf of Hollywood, Florida's fire fighters, paramedics and local safety community. For the last 20 years, Mr. Chard served as President of Local 1375, overseeing the welfare of its membership, fighting for the professional standards and ensuring the safe working conditions that are befitting of the service of these men and women. Known as a coalition builder, President Chard served a critical role as liaison to all associated areas for the Local, as well as outside groups such as the AFL-CIO, Florida Professional Firefighters and Paramedics, International Association of Fire Fighters, and Maritime Trade Council. This commitment to the betterment of the community was second only to his dedication to his brothers and sisters in the Union. He was a powerful role model and mentor for many new recruits over 20 years, always emphasizing the unique bond that all fire fighters share. In 1980, Mr. Chard was first appointed to the negotiation committee for Hollywood Professional Fire Fighters Local 1375, where he was quickly recognized for his grit and passion. He was quickly elected as a Trustee and has served Local 1375 ever since. His legacy of fierce advocacy, candor and friendship will not soon be forgotten or lost. I am proud today to honor President Chard's distinguished career and leadership in the South Florida community and wish him and his family well on their future endeavors.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act. This legislation, like the other war on affordable housing bills being brought to the floor by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, seems to terminate a much needed Federal program that helps struggling homeowners. To be clear, shutting down a badly needed foreclosure mitigation assistance program is not a solution to Federal deficits and will simply hurt homeowners and the current economic recovery. Rather than turning our backs on homeowners, we should be working together to improve and expand programs to help the millions of Americans and communities affected by the housing crisis all over our Nation. For several years now, many Americans have struggled with foreclosures, underwater mortgages, and abandoned and blighted properties. For local towns and cities, this crisis has also decimated their tax base, leading to a ripple-up effect producing funding shortfalls for basic services like police, firefighters, and teachers. This creates deficits at every level of government. I keep hearing from my Republican colleagues that the debt is crushing Americans and we must act now. Well, what about the crushing debt of negative equity facing almost a quarter of all homeowners in this country? Nearly one-fourth of all Americans owe more on their mortgages than their homes are now worth. There are nearly 11 million families who feel trapped in their homes, unable to sell or move if they wanted to, or even to refinance to lock in a better interest rate. And the statistics in my home State of Florida are far more staggering than the national average. Forty-five percent of all mortgages in Florida are underwater. In Broward County, where I live, that number is more than 50 percent. Yes, over half. More help is needed, not less. However, what is offered today is a ``repeal and abandon'' approach, leaving homeowners with few or no options. This is simply unacceptable. For 10 weeks now, the House Republican leadership has failed to bring to the floor a single piece of legislation to create jobs despite making occasional casual references to jobs. What they've done instead is push legislation that will destroy jobs--just like the spending bill we pushed through the House a few weeks ago that would cost our economy 700,000 jobs. These housing bills risk further injury to our economic growth. Now, I can appreciate the arguments that the current housing programs have not done enough to help homeowners, and I agree. But that's why I support legislation offered by Congressman Cardoza to require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance underwater mortgages so homeowners struggling to stay out of foreclosure can better afford to stay in their homes. And that's why I support taking a hard look at how we can improve the current Federal programs so more homeowners receive assistance. But my Republican colleagues have no plan to helping make housing more affordable or keeping people in their homes--nor will they. That's because they believe the lending industry will take care of it. For those with short memories, that's the same laissez faire approach that caused the Wall Street meltdown in the first place. The Republican leadership began the 112th Congress with a lot of fanfare by reading the Constitution on the floor of the House. Well, it's not enough to simply read the Constitution, but to abide by it and carry out its charge. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution vests the Congress with a duty to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce. However, over the decade leading up to this housing crisis, the Congress simply abandoned its duty to the American public. Lax Federal regulations and oversight led to an ``anything-goes'' attitude. Banks were making subprime loans people couldn't really afford and then bundling these loans and selling them off, eventually becoming toxic assets that crashed our financial markets. We owe more to our constituents than Speaker Boehner's ``so be it'' attitude. We must do more than just stand by and say the lending industry will take care of this crisis. A foreclosure has a devastating effect on each and every homeowner and tears at the very fabric of the family. Saying you support family values is mere lip service unless you take actions to value the family by striving to keep families intact with a roof over their heads. That is why I support the amendments offered by many of my Democratic colleagues--most of which have been ruled non-germane because, as far as I can tell, they propose helping too many homeowners. Apparently, any Federal effort that would help more than zero homeowners is simply too broad and unacceptable to the authors of this legislation. Perhaps this boils down to a fundamental disagreement of our role in looking out for our constituents and assisting at the Federal level. The Democratic minority remains committed to our goals for the 112th Congress--to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly reduce the deficit. We will continue to judge each of your bills by this standard. The legislation before us today fails on all three counts, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I met with parents of young children in Davie, Florida, in my district who attend early childhood education classes at Crayons Child Care. We spoke about how vital early education is in the development of young children; how early education increases high school graduation rates; how 50 years of solid research has shown that early childhood education reduces crimes and delinquency and yields up to a $7 return on every dollar invested. Unfortunately, though, with the passage of H.R. 1 just over a week ago, this body made the largest cut to education in our Nation's history. Now, we all understand that our Nation needs to cut spending; but the society that balances its budgets on the back of its children should not be surprised when the spine of its future is broken. These children are 2, 3, and 4 years old, but the response from Republicans in the House of Representatives is that they would pay for it. That just doesn't make sense. It is morally wrong.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, just yesterday I stood with parents of young children in Davie Florida who attend early education classes at Crayons Child Care Center. We spoke about how vital early education is in the development of children. How early education increases high school graduation rates, and how 50 years of solid research has shown that early education is shown to reduce crime and delinquency. We spoke about how early education in minority and lower income communities helps to narrow the achievement gap and lifts future generations out of poverty. And how, for every dollar spent in early education, our communities yield up to a $7 return on our investment. Unfortunately, though, we weren't there to highlight the success of early education, we were there to highlight something that borders on insanity. Insanity because just over a week ago, this body made the largest cut to education in our Nation's history. Now, we all understand that our Nation needs to cut spending. But the society that balances its budget on the backs of its children should not be surprised when the spine of its future is broken. Davie is a long way from where we stand here today in Washington. And sometimes it is easy for Members to overlook, or to not understand how what happens here in the Capitol means out in the real world. That is why I stand here today. I stand here because the parents I met with cannot stand here and tell you, Mr. Chair, what these cuts will mean to their children. Should the cuts to early education funding that were passed in H.R. 1 stand, some of the children at Crayons Child Care will no longer be able to attend early education. And if students are forced to leave their early education classes there will be teachers at Crayons Child Care that will lose their job. Laying off teachers and dimming the future of America's children is no way to balance the budget. These children are 2, 3, 4 years old. They didn't run up the debt and deficit of our country, but the response from Republicans in the House of Representatives was that they would pay for it. Republicans preserved tax credits for oil, gas, and chemical companies; they cut Head Start funding. They preserved tax credits for the coal industry, but they cut Early Education funding. The parents I met with yesterday in Davie are just a handful of the 9,148 children in Florida that will lose their early education classes if these cuts are to stand. That just doesn't make sense.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Mayor Rae Carole Armstrong of the city of Plantation, Florida. Mayor Armstrong has nearly 30 years of distinguished public service working on behalf of the residents of Plantation and the south Florida community, and we will miss her strong leadership. Since 1999, Ms. Armstrong has served as mayor of Plantation, promoting and fostering small businesses, revitalizing parks and neighborhoods, and generally enriching the local community. As the first female council member in Plantation--a position she held for 16 years--Rae Carole Armstrong was known for supporting athletic groups and engaging in educational partnerships. Her special ability to work with a broad array of local interests allowed Mayor Armstrong to shepherd the city into the new millennium while maintaining Plantation's close-knit community appeal. Her coalition-building leadership benefited not only the residents of Plantation, but the entire south Florida community. In that spirit, all of south Florida thanks her for her many years of service, and we wish her great success in her future endeavors. Thank you, Rae Carol.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Republicans' latest cynical and callous attempts to derail health care reform, and I think it's quite interesting that the gentleman from Montana would be dismissive of the issue of deficit reduction and that somehow that's now labeled a distraction. I think that adding $5.5 billion to the deficit when we should be going in the opposite direction is far more than a distraction. It's a moral imperative that we not do that. In the past 6 weeks, we have seen the true face of the Republicans' legislative agenda. Rather than work to create jobs and improve our economy, they have focused on baseless attacks on American families. With their repeal and replace bills, they have demonstrated that they don't mind if insurance companies drop patients as soon as they get sick, or that families wouldn't be able to save thousands of dollars by keeping young adult children on their family plan. And with this pernicious amendment, we now see their outrageous attempts to strip funding from the implementation of the health care law. Let's be clear: Our colleagues across the aisle want to yank funding from a law that is already helping millions of Americans. This amendment would seize funding from the agencies and workers who have already been tasked with implementing the most essential tenets of the Affordable Care Act, provisions which are already making a world of difference in millions of lives. If this amendment passes, seniors will be thrown back into the Medicare part D doughnut hole coverage gap and be forced to pay exorbitant costs for their prescription drugs. Women in desperate need of an annual mammogram or a colonoscopy will once again face prohibitive copays or perhaps face denial of coverage for the preexisting condition of simply having ovaries, and our Nation will once again return to the egregious practice of denying so many young children coverage for their health history that they cannot control. Rather than roll back the hard-fought consumer protections and freedoms that unshackled Americans from the whims of private insurance companies, Republicans should be working with us to build on and improve the health care system. Instead, they wish to use this amendment process to reverse the progress that we have made with these vital health care reforms. I am glad the American people can see their hypocrisy right out in the open.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, is it a violation of the House rules wherein Members are not permitted to make disparaging references to the President of the United States? In two previous gentlemen's statements on the amendment, both of them referred to the Affordable Care Act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as ObamaCare. That is a disparaging reference to the President of the United States, it is meant as a disparaging reference to the President of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendment 13, which would defund Florida's new clean water rules. This amendment will harm Florida's economy and threaten the natural ecosystems on which we rely. This past November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved a final regulation setting new water quality standards for Florida's lakes and streams. This clean water rule is desperately needed to address the nutrient pollution contaminating more than 1,000 miles of State rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900 square miles of estuaries. Potential tourists to Florida often envision images of pristine beaches, beautiful waterways, and vibrant coastal ecosystems with great fishing and recreational opportunities. That is why so many people flock to our State. Florida's waterways, beaches, and coastal ecosystems are critical parts of the economic engine that drive Florida's $65 billion a year tourism industry. But without the new clean water standards, this could all evaporate. Already algae outbreaks plague many of our lakes and rivers, depleting oxygen levels and suffocating living organisms. Nutrient pollution results in massive fish kills, waterways clogged with toxic green slime, beach closures, and reduced waterfront property values. We need these new clean water standards because the current standards for determining when someone is polluting is vague, and therefore unenforceable. Waiting until the waterway is choked with sewage, fertilizer, or manure is simply no way to manage our water. For over 10 years the State of Florida labored to produce a clean water rule but never quite got there. In the absence of State action, EPA had to act to protect Florida's waters. EPA produced a rule built on years of data collected by the State and based on the best science available. The clean water rule is also the product of tens of thousands of public comments, numerous public meetings and workshops, and years of consultations between the State of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. While EPA took over finalizing new standards, they did not take a ``my way or highway'' approach. They listened to Florida's citizens and regulated entities, made many adjustments, and included plenty of flexibility. To begin with, the final nutrient standards are comparable to the State's own draft standards. In some areas they are more stringent, but in other areas, they are less stringent. The major difference between the State and Federal rule is that the EPA actually finalized it rather than continuing the foot-dragging. And as a practical matter, all this amendment will really do is hurt the very stakeholders its proponents say they want to help. EPA built in a 15-month delayed implementation to allow it to provide technical assistance to stakeholders and ensure compliance is achieved in the most efficient, cost-effective way possible. EPA is using this time to hold workshops, seminars, and other meetings of regulated entities to achieve this end. But with this amendment, that all goes away. These regulated entities will still have to comply with the law, but now they'll be on their own. Perhaps even worse for the regulated entities, this amendment will prevent State water managers from utilizing the flexibilities of the rule. It would prevent the EPA from working with the State to develop and implement a process to review and approve site-specific alternative criteria proposed by regulated entities. This makes no sense. This rule provides flexibility to regulated entities and to the State. If the amendment passes, it would be devastating to Florida's economy.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, sadly, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no idea how to create jobs or turn the economy around, so their true colors have come to the surface. And Speaker Boehner made that clear when asked about the potential job losses that will result from horrendous budget cuts that we have been debating for the last couple of days, when he responded, so be it. So I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is a dangerously ideologically motivated stunt that will imperil the lives and well-being of millions of women and their families. This amendment is not just a war on Planned Parenthood, as the gentleman from Indiana said. It's a war on women. Planned Parenthood clinics are a crucial part of our national health care fabric. Through Federal funds, including Medicaid reimbursements and title X funding on an annual basis, Planned Parenthood health centers are able to offer nearly one million lifesaving screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast examination, contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients, nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, and education programs for 1.2 million individuals. These are much needed services that we could not afford to lose. In addition to completely de-funding Planned Parenthood, this amendment would also strike all Federal funding for title X programs. This would be a colossal mistake and truly a matter of life and death to millions of women nationwide. Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a key component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and an essential element in the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies. Today title X serves over 5 million low-income individuals every year. In every State, women and men rely on title X for basic primary and preventative health care including annual exams, lifesaving cancer screenings, contraception and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, in 2009 alone title X providers performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including nearly a million HIV tests. As a breast cancer survivor whose cancer was caught at the earliest stage, like my friend from Connecticut, I know how critical these screenings are in saving women's lives. And preventative care isn't limited to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid STDs. Supporters of this bill mistakenly argue that this cut is necessary to prevent Federal funding for abortions. Let me be clear: Federal funding for abortions is already prohibited by law. This has been the case for decades. Yet this amendment attempts to take funding prohibitions to an unconscionable new level and, if passed, will result in millions of women not being able to obtain necessary preventive care like birth control and cancer screenings. If Republicans truly want to reduce abortions in this country, they would vote against this amendment. Indeed, title X actually reduces the number of abortions. Title X services help to prevent nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion. Current statistics from the Gutmacher Institute indicate that nearly half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended. We should be providing women and their families with the resources they need, not striking them. Indeed, Planned Parenthood and the title X program provide vital family planning services which help improve the life of the mother and the child. It's a simple fact. Family planning keeps women and children healthy. When women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to seek prenatal care, improving their own health and the health of their children. In fact, access to family planning is directly linked to the declines in maternal and infant mortality rates. There should be no shadow of a doubt that this amendment is anti-woman and anti-family. While my colleague from Indiana may frame this amendment in the context of fiscal responsibility, that is once again a mistaken premise. This amendment would not cut the deficit. In fact, title X actually saves taxpayer dollars. Since many of the patients served by title X are on Medicaid, preventative care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. Indeed, for every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in Medicaid-related costs. That's savings to both Federal and State governments. And one of the most detrimental and dangerous things we could do to women and their families right now is to de-fund the leading title X provider nationwide, Planned Parenthood. Every year, Planned Parenthood works tirelessly to improve the health of communities across this country. Six in 10 women who access care from centers like Planned Parenthood say it is their main source of health care. We cannot cut these women off from the health services that should be available to all of them. Efforts to undermine the title X program and this essential health care provider are not only reckless; they are also anti-woman, anti- child, and anti-taxpayer. Madam Chair, this is a horrendous amendment that would devastate access to health care for millions of American women and should be defeated.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for my colleagues' support of an amendment to protect our most vulnerable constituents, our children. This bipartisan amendment is a simple one. It says that child victims of sexual predators should not be forced to fight for funding scraps if deep cuts to the Department of Justice occur. This amendment fences off $30 million within the Department of Justice's Justice Assistance Account for child exploitation prevention and interdiction. It ensures that, even in this time of painful budget cuts, that we will protect the most precious and vulnerable among us. Over the last decade, child pornography trafficking has exploded into a multi-billion-dollar global industry. The majority of both demand and supply is based in the United States and, sadly, most often involves parents or adults that the victim knows and trusts. Tragically, the demand for images of young children being sexually exploited, raped, and even tortured can only be supplied through the continued sexual abuse of more children. Literally, every image of child pornography is a crime-scene photo. Several years ago, law enforcement informed Congress that it could identify hundreds of thousands of individuals perpetrating child exploitation offenses online, but admitted it was investigating fewer than 2 percent of these known individuals due to a lack of resources that left them outnumbered and overwhelmed. The vast majority of these identifiable sexual predators remained at large, and their young victims beyond rescue. Congress and the President responded by passing and signing into law the PROTECT Our Children Act, which provides desperately needed resources for the vital Internet Crimes Against Children task forces. These task forces are teams of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors that lift the digital fingerprints, rescue the children, and hold perpetrators accountable. The ICAC task forces rescue child victims in real time, victims like Alicia Kozakiewicz, who was sexually assaulted at age 13 by a man who befriended her online and abducted her from her Pittsburgh home. She was rescued by the FBI and the Virginia ICAC task force. Now is not the time to pull the funding rug out from under these ICAC task forces. Congress is already funding this effort at only half of its authorization. Yet the law is making a difference. The Department of Justice recently released its ``National Strategy'' to combat child exploitation, but it is only first getting up and running. Now is not the time to impose draconian funding cuts on the Department of Justice that could thwart this progress. I want to thank Congressman Shuler, Congressman Lamar Smith, and Congressman Dan Lungren for supporting me in this bipartisan effort. This important amendment will give State, local, and Federal law enforcement the resources they need to protect our most vulnerable. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in support of Amendment 23 offered by Mr. Hastings, my good friend from Florida, which would help people living with HIV/AIDS afford treatment through the vital AIDS Drug Assistance Program. This program, known as ADAP, provides HIV-related prescription drugs to low- income people with HIV/AIDS who have limited or no prescription drug coverage. This essential national program is undeniably in the midst of a devastating funding crisis. The combination of an economic recession, State budget cuts, and increased testing and diagnosis of HIV have created the perfect storm against ADAP's fiscal situation--more patients are requiring ADAP treatment as the program has been emptied out. This has resulted in drastic cuts in services provided and thousands in 10 different States have ended up on waiting lists to receive these necessary lifesaving drugs. In my own State of Florida, with the largest of all such waiting lists, 3,276 individuals languish without access to affordable lifesaving treatment. Our State has lowered financial eligibility down to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, while at the same time reducing the formulary for the patients who still qualify. This is an enormous problem for a State with the third highest HIV/ AIDS population and the highest rate of new infections in the country. You may be shocked to know that the new infection rate in south Florida is higher than in Africa. We cannot let this happen in our own backyard to our neighbors and our constituents. Though our administration has demonstrated that funding ADAP is a priority, we just keep hitting the wall. Current funding levels for this program are unsustainable and we must do more to help. This amendment would help give the ADAP program a much-needed boost and help thousands of patients access the treatment they so desperately need. In this budgetary climate, we must make smart and sensible decisions. Where we can afford to make an administrative haircut, if the tradeoff is saving lives, it is our moral imperative to do so. By reallocating these greatly needed funds to save ADAP, we ensure that people living with HIV/AIDS in our communities can access the treatment they need to stay alive while we stem the tide of new infections and save our Nation money in the long term. I strongly urge you to support the efforts of this responsible and compassionate amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the amendment to add funding back to title X from my colleagues Congresswoman Lowey and Congresswoman DeLauro, who have always been fierce advocates for women's health, and I am thrilled to join them in this important fight. Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a key component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and an essential element in the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies. Efforts to cut the title X program would take away funding from essential women's health care providers like Planned Parenthood. Today, title X serves over 5 million low-income individuals every year. In every State, women and men rely on title X for basic primary and preventative health care, including annual exams, lifesaving cancer screenings, contraception, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, in 2009 alone, title X providers performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including nearly 1 million HIV tests. And preventative care isn't limited to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid STDs. If Republicans truly wanted to reduce abortions in this country, they would vote for this amendment. Indeed, title X actually reduces the number of abortions. Title X services help to prevent nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion. So we can say for certain that title X funds play a vital role in helping to reduce the number of abortions in our Nation, working towards the goal of making abortions safe, legal, and rare. But it goes further. The title X programs through providers like Planned Parenthood provide vital family planning services which help improve the life of the mother and the child. It has been proven time and again that family planning keeps women and children healthy. Studies have shown that when women have better access to family planning, it leads to healthier outcomes for both mother and child. When women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to seek prenatal care, improving their own health and the health of their children. In fact, access to family planning is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality rates. Eliminating the national family planning program will result in millions of women across the country losing access to basic primary and preventative health care and to the providers that offer these services. Without title X, more women will experience unintended pregnancies and face potentially life-threatening cancer and other diseases that could have been prevented. In recent weeks, Republicans in this Congress have produced some of the most anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-family bills that we have ever seen, trying to redefine rape, raising taxes on women who have private insurance with comprehensive health care coverage, telling women who need our help the most that they are on their own. But that just didn't just go far enough for them. Republican proposals to cut title X funding and completely shut down Planned Parenthood, where millions of women receive their only health care, is one of the most spiteful, egregious moves we have ever seen. It is truly mind-boggling that the same Members who purport to be anti-choice can turn around and say in the same breath that they want to strike all Federal family planning funding. So now they don't just want to make abortions illegal, they also want to throw a huge obstacle in the path of those who want to prevent themselves from ending up in a situation where they might need one. This helps no one. It doesn't help women, it doesn't help families, and it certainly doesn't help reduce our deficit. That is because title X actually saves taxpayer dollars. Since many of the patients served by title X are on Medicaid, preventive care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. Indeed, for every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in Medicaid-related costs. That is savings to both Federal and State governments. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this amendment of my good friends that would reinstate title X funding in the continuing resolution. The decision by Republicans to defund title X was not only reckless, but thoroughly anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help correct a massive injustice against American women and families. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, it has been 6 weeks now since Republicans assumed control of the House of Representatives, and we have yet to see a single job-creation bill brought to the House floor. Indeed, just last week we spent roughly 10 hours debating a primary function of Congress, that of congressional oversight, something we already do. Yet still no legislation brought forward to spur job creation. But while the Republican Congress has yet to bring forward a jobs agenda, they have found plenty of time to bring forward an extreme anti-woman agenda. Just recently we saw the introduction of H.R. 3, legislation that originally sought to redefine the definition of rape. Yes, that's right, legislation that would change rape from acting without a woman's consent to instead require women to prove force was used in order to prove rape. It remains to be seen whether Republicans working on this legislation have shelved their plans to redefine rape and whether they will revise the language in H.R. 3. Still, 163 Republicans signed on as cosponsors of the bill with the forcible rape language included. But the extreme anti-woman agenda doesn't stop with attempting to redefine rape. This week the House will vote on an amendment introduced by Representative Mike Pence that would eliminate family planning and lifesaving preventive care to millions of individuals each year. Mr. Pence's amendment does this by eliminating title X funding. Since 1970, the title X family planning program has been a key component of our Nation's health care infrastructure and an essential element in the winning strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies. Efforts to cut the title X program would take away funding from essential women's health care providers like Planned Parenthood. Today, title X serves over 5 million low-income individuals every year. In every State, women and men rely on title X for basic primary and preventive health care, including annual exams, lifesaving cancer screenings, contraception, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, in 2009 alone, title X providers performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases including nearly 1 million HIV tests. And preventive care isn't limited to cancer screenings and education on how to avoid STDs. Title X actually reduces the number of abortions. In fact, title X services help prevent nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies each year, almost half of which would otherwise end in abortion. Planned Parenthood and the title X program provide vital family planning services which help improve the life of the mother and the child. Indeed, family planning keeps women and children healthy. Studies have shown that when women have better access to family planning, it leads to healthier outcomes for both mother and child. When women plan their pregnancies, they are more likely to seek prenatal care, improving their own health and the health of their children. In fact, access to family planning is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality rates. Eliminating the national family plan program will result in millions of women across the country losing access to basic primary and preventative health care and to the providers that offer these services. Without title X, more women will experience unintended pregnancies and face potentially life-threatening cancer and other diseases that could have been prevented. The simple fact is that this proposal is anti-woman and anti-family. Now, I know that we're all interested in finding ways to cut Federal spending, and Representative Pence's amendment to eliminate funding for title X is framed in the context of fiscal responsibility. But even more important than cutting spending is asking the question, are we reducing the deficit? Unfortunately, the answer to whether the Pence amendment would also cut the deficit is ``no.'' That's because title X actually saves taxpayer dollars. Since many of the patients served by title X are on Medicaid, preventative care like cancer screenings and contraceptive counseling actually means fewer costs to the taxpayer in the long run. Indeed, for every public dollar invested in family planning, $3.74 is saved in Medicaid-related costs. That's savings to both Federal and State governments. Every year, Planned Parenthood works tirelessly to help to improve the health of communities across this country. Efforts to undermine the title X program and this essential health care provider are not only reckless, they are also anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-taxpayer. Can we please stop the relentless attack on women, stop pursuing the divisive anti-woman legislation and focus on job creation and spurring economic growth once and for all?