Floor Statements

I thank my friend from Utah for yielding the

time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's been more than 10 years since the attacks of September 11. We have fought two wars and have engaged in military action in numerous other countries. Hundreds of thousands of people have died, and many more have been wounded. We have spent more than $1 trillion. Osama bin Laden is dead, and the Obama administration officials have declared that al Qaeda is ``operationally ineffective.''

Here at home, we've reformed our national government, compromised our civil liberties, spent billions on a surveillance state, and created a culture of paranoia in which, even in the last few days, a reality TV show about Muslim Americans is subjected to a campaign of hate and intolerance.

Before proceeding, let me commend the chairman and the ranking member of the relevant committee of jurisdiction that put this package together. I am fundamentally opposed to many aspects of it, but I am in tremendous agreement with their bipartisan efforts and the staffs of both of them and the other committee members for putting forth the effort to bring us to this point of discussion.

We should take this opportunity at this moment in our history to seriously and carefully deliberate our Nation's counterterrorism efforts. We ought to consider which policies are effective and which, in the end, only create more anti-American sentiment. We ought to consider which policies align with our national values and which, instead, undermine them. We ought to consider whether we should continue using the full thrust of the United States Armed Forces in country after country or whether a more nuanced approach might better serve our needs.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us does not attempt to answer these questions. Instead, it commits us to dive even further down the road of fear. It commits us to more war and more wasteful spending, and it commits us to ceding our freedoms and liberties on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. This legislation erodes our society and our national security by militarizing our justice system and empowering the President to detain anyone in the United States, including American citizens, without charge or trial, without due process.

If this is going to continue to be the direction of our country, Mr. Speaker, we don't need a Democratic Party or a Republican Party or an Occupy Wall Street party or a Tea Party; we need a Mayflower party. If we are going to undermine the foundational principles of this great country, then we might as well sail away to someplace else.

This legislation establishes an authority for open-ended war anywhere in the world and against anyone. It commits us to seeing a ``terrorist'' in anyone who ever criticizes the United States in any country, including this one. The lack of definitions as to what constitutes ``substantial support'' and ``associated forces'' of al Qaeda and the Taliban mean that anyone could be accused of terrorism. Congress has not tried to curtail civil liberties like this since the McCarthy era; but here we are today, trying to return to an era of arbitrary justice, witch-hunts, and fearmongering.

While this measure includes an exemption for United States citizens, it does not protect them from indefinite detention. In one fell swoop, we have set up a situation where American citizens could have their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights violated on mere suspicions. And by placing suspected terrorists solely in the hands of the military, these provisions deny civilian law enforcement the ability to conduct effective counterterrorism efforts.

The fact of the matter is that our law enforcement agencies and civilian courts have proven over and over again that they are more than capable of handling counterterrorism cases. I had the distinct privilege in this country of serving as a Federal judge shepherding cases and protecting the interests of the United States and vital security interests during that period of time. And in every one of those cases--some 11 over the period of 9\3/4\ years--all of the defendants were found guilty, and that is before 2001.

More than 400 suspected terrorists have already been tried in the Federal courts of the United States of America. We should not break something that already works. The idea that the executive branch's current powers are inadequate to fight terrorism is proven false by 10 years of successful counterterrorism efforts. The idea that the President--any President--needs a whole new expansion of his--and I hope one day soon--her powers is just wrong.

Most national security experts, Democrats and Republicans, are telling us not to adopt this language. Many officials responsible for our homeland security are telling us not to adopt this language. A lot of our military leaders are telling us not to adopt this language, Mr. Speaker. This legislation goes too far.

We spend billions of dollars every year on counterterrorism, but we weaken those efforts by tossing aside our own system of justice. We tell the American public that we are fighting overseas in order to protect our freedoms, but then we pass legislation that undermines those very same freedoms here in the people's House and at home.

And we tell the rest of the world to emulate our democratic traditions and our rule of law, but we disregard those values in a mad rush to find out how we can pretend to be the toughest on terrorism.

We won't defeat terrorism by using the military to lock up innocent people for the rest of their lives on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. We will not defeat terrorism by claiming the entire world as a battlefield. And we will not defeat terrorism by replacing our rule of law with reckless, uncontrolled, and unaccountable powers.

Mr. Speaker, we need to have a more considered debate about the best way to conduct our defense and counterterrorism policies. This bill contains over $600 billion in spending, runs to over 1,000 pages, and is coming to the floor less than 48 hours after it was filed.

While the detainee provisions in this legislation might have received the most attention in the last few days, there are plenty of other critical provisions that Members may have opinions about, and that's why on these kinds of measures we should have open rules.

I realize that I've said that Congress--and we are proving it at the end of this session--has a bad case of deadline-itis. But my friends in the Republican majority don't only have deadline-itis, they have deadline-ophila.

Yesterday we considered a poorly conceived extenders package that will harm the middle class and weaken our economy. Today we are considering controversial language in a defense bill that sets a dangerous precedent and will potentially harm the civil liberties of American citizens.

I appreciate that the Republican majority, many of whom are my friends, don't want their holiday season ruined by having to work. But that doesn't mean we have to ruin everyone else's holiday season by passing bad laws.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

After my good friend from Utah spoke, I guess I say, Wow. Last night I reminded him that military people are government workers also. And toward that end, when we talk about cuts and my friend talked about passing on spending, I'm curious. When $1 billion walks away in Iraq and nobody knows where it went, I'd ask my friend to tell those soldiers at Fort Bragg--where President and Mrs. Obama have spoken to them today--that are returning home why they were in Iraq and what is it that we protected by spending $1 trillion. Why is it we are sending money to corrupt governments? And somewhere along the lines I think we will come up with some answers--that we had enough money to spend, but we spent it on things that we should not have.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform us as to the amount of time remaining on either side.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished woman from California (Mrs. Davis).

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will bring up the Middle Class Fairness and Putting America Back to Work Act of 2011, which extends middle class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the Medicare reimbursement doc fix.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Hahn).

I would advise my friend from Utah that I am going to be the last speaker if he is ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In the mad rush to get home for Christmas, we're delivering an early gift to those who criticize our country for failing to live up to our ideals.

With this legislation, we're undermining over 200 years of constitutional protections. We're returning American society to an age when an all-powerful executive can command unaccountable power over people's lives.

To codify in law the power of the President to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial is an egregious affront to our Nation's system of justice. Franz Kafka wrote about it years ago, and it has been known as Kafkaesque.

Ten years after the attacks of September 11--10 years of war, of runaway defense spending, of the PATRIOT Act, torture, and extraordinary rendition--and we're still responding to the terrorist threat with a knee-jerk reaction, devoid of reason and common sense.

This legislation says that our law enforcement agencies do not work; that our judiciary, our court system does not work. This legislation says that the President can, alone, decide who is guilty or innocent.

I would remind my friends that Barack Obama may not be the President all the time. But no President should have untrammeled authority to determine innocence or guilt. It puts the lie to the judicial branch of our government and to the legislative branch of our government. This legislation goes too far.

If the Republican majority was serious about having this body carefully consider our Nation's defense policies, Members would have had more than 2 days to review the more than 1,000 pages covering $600 billion in spending.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly cast a vote in favor of H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act. I would like the Record to reflect that my intent was to vote against this bill.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Dwayne Fitzgerald Nelson who passed away suddenly on October 18, 2011 at the age of 50. Mr. Nelson, also known as ``Coach Rock,'' coached the boys' junior varsity basketball and football teams at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Before coaching, he worked for the City of Fort Lauderdale for over 20 years. He impacted the lives of many individuals in the community and will be truly missed.

Hundreds of mourners came to Nelson's funeral service, including friends, family members, colleagues, and other members of the community, celebrating the many lives that he touched throughout his years of service. Many of his current and former players came to pay their respects, and the Dillard boys' basketball and football teams wore T-shirts with Nelson's picture on the front in memory of their respected coach. Those in attendance remembered how Nelson helped lead the boys' basketball team to five state championships.

Dwayne Nelson committed his life to serving the Fort Lauderdale community. His colleagues at Dillard High School noted how he was the first person at the school every day for almost 20 years. As a coach, he taught his players lessons that went far beyond any athletic field. He made sure that they kept their grades up, so that they would succeed both on the field and in the classroom. This type of commitment is what set him apart as an outstanding mentor and coach.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Dwayne Nelson's dedication to improving the lives of so many. His service to Dillard High School and the City of Fort Lauderdale, demonstrates how everyday Americans can make a real difference by helping others in their community. My thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Nelson's family and friends during this most difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, which will be observed on Sunday, November 20, 2011. I offer my thoughts and prayers to all those who have lost loved ones to road crashes. All over the world, in every country and locality, traffic accidents remain an ongoing peril and a source of preventable tragedy. As we embark on the Decade of Action for Road Safety, we should pause to remember who it is that we are fighting for.

Road traffic crashes kill nearly 1.3 million people every year and injure or disable as many as 50 million more. The leading cause of death throughout the world for people ages 10 to 29 is not disease or war, but road crashes. Even today, we can expect that 1,000 people under the age of 25 will die on the world's roads.

These numbers are dramatically increasing and place particular strain on developing nations, where crash rates are highest. In developing countries, road crashes have a dramatic impact on their fragile economies, costing an estimated $100 billion and often exceeding the total amount received by these countries in development assistance. Furthermore, road crashes affect first responder services, health care services, and health insurance services, as many victims require extensive, and expensive, critical care, as well as follow-up care and rehabilitation.

In October 2005, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution which calls for governments to mark the third Sunday in November each year as World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. The day was created as a means to give recognition both to victims of road traffic crashes and to the plight of their relatives who must cope with the emotional and practical consequences of these tragic events.

This Day of Remembrance also calls attention to the necessary policies needed to improve transportation management, infrastructure, vehicle safety, education, and post-crash care and rehabilitation. Here in the United States it is of the utmost importance that we continue to support public policies designed to reduce key risk factors like speeding, drunk driving, distracted driving, and the failure of

many Americans to use seat belts, child restraints, and other safety devices.

The Decade of Action for Road Safety has not been declared to merely raise awareness, but also to take action. We all use roads, cars, buses, and bicycles every day. It is easy to take our safety for granted. But too many tragedies remind us that road fatalities and injuries have an enormous impact on our lives. As Americans travel the world more and more and as our global society grows ever more close- knit, the pressing importance of our observance of the World Day of Remembrance only grows as well.

Mr. Speaker, no one should die because of entirely preventable traffic accidents. We must do everything we can to raise awareness and address the underlying causes. On this year's Day of Remembrance, let us pay extra attention to ways we can make the world a safer place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Commission on Employment and Economic Security Act of 2011.

This legislation is a necessary and vital investment for our nation's workforce and their families. It will establish a national commission to examine issues of economic and psychological insecurity within our workforce that have been caused by employment displacement. Further, it will propose solutions, including recommendations for legislative and administrative action, to Congress and the President.

Since the recession began in December 2007, more than 5.1 million jobs have been lost. In October 2011, the unemployment rate remains firm at 9 percent, and it is much higher in many states like Florida, at 10.6 percent, and it has topped 11 percent in Michigan, California, South Carolina, and the District of Columbia.

Over the past year, unemployment rates have increased in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The scope of the economic downturn is so large that its impact is felt virtually everywhere along the economic spectrum.

While Americans lose their jobs and their incomes shrink, too often, they face the loss of their family's health insurance and, subsequent to the loss of income, even their housing. According to an American Psychological Association September 2010 report, money (76 percent), work (70 percent) and the economy (65 percent) remain the most frequently cited sources of stress for Americans. Perhaps even more disturbing, calls to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline have increased by more than 72 percent from 2007 to 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the mental health of the American worker will be integral on the road to economic recovery. Congress must face this problem head on and help the very people who are facing unemployment, loss of health insurance, home foreclosure, stress, increased violence, and depression. It is time that we create this Commission and get our nation back on track.

I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure the greatest possible assistance to our nation's workforce, whose commitment to economic participation has been a defining feature of the cultural fabric of our country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What we have before us today should not be called the balanced budget amendment. What it should be called is the unbalanced budget amendment because that is what this bill is--unbalanced. It upends prudent fiscal policies, makes a mockery of congressional authority, and does nothing to address the economic struggles of millions of Americans.

This proposed amendment no more balances the budget than passing legislation to declare the tooth fairy as real. Saying it out loud doesn't make it true. What this proposal says, instead, is that Congress needs to enact legislation that balances the budget. It doesn't tell us how to do it, just what we must do.

Well, if we could do that, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment telling us to do it, would we? If Congress could enact legislation that balanced the budget, it could do that without a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Merely imposing a mandate within the Constitution does not mean that Congress will be able to fulfill it.

With this kind of circular reasoning, we could go back and forth until the next election and never have to spend one more minute on creating jobs to improve the economy. But that is exactly what my colleagues on the other side want.

They've been in the majority for nearly a year now in the House of Representatives and have failed to put forth any kind of plan to create jobs and improve the well-being of millions of Americans, unless you count reaffirming ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto, weakening the Environmental Protection Agency, or watering down gun safety laws.

I was here in 1995 when this body passed a balanced budget amendment. And let us not forget that under President Clinton and, yes, Speaker Newt Gingrich, we did manage to balance the Federal budget and leave a hefty surplus for President Bush. But then President Bush and the Republican Party squandered that surplus on two wars. And people should never forget that. They squandered it on tax cuts for the richest Americans, and they squandered it on unpaid-for prescription drug benefits, leaving a big old doughnut hole that we've been talking about ever since.

Now the Republicans in this body are so extremist that they refuse to consider any tax increases of any kind on even the best off of us in America. Instead, they're leaving it up to the struggling middle class and poor people to bear the burdens of the Republican Party's free- spending ways over the last decade. And I wish I had the time to really lay all of that out.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party's intransigence makes this amendment's voting requirements particularly unbalanced. This proposal requires a two-thirds vote, 290 votes here in the House, to pass an increase in the debt ceiling. Do you know what the definition of insanity is, as said by my friend? Repeating the same thing over and over again. And real crazy insanity is just doing it over and over and over and over again and expecting the same result. Or as Ronald Reagan put it, ``There you go again.''

The Republican majority wants to enshrine in the Constitution a permanent hostage crisis for our economy. This supermajority requirement for basic economic management will ensure that we will, on a regular basis, bring our economy to the brink of collapse. Just look at the Republican's performance over the debt ceiling vote. I don't have any confidence that they'll act rationally just because there's a constitutional amendment telling them to do so. That is why this proposal is unbalanced.

By mandating so many onerous, supermajority votes, this amendment guarantees permanent gridlock in the budgeting process. And without the inclusion of a general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our national security. Let me repeat that. Without the inclusion of a general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our national security by creating a scenario in which Congress cannot agree whether or not to vote on funding for national emergencies such as a military conflict.

Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced proposal does not even include a clear enforcement mechanism. I asked about that at the Rules Committee, and I got an answer that I still don't understand.

Making the balanced budget a constitutional requirement means that budget disputes would be solved by America's court system. This body has already failed to pass a balanced budget when the power of the purse is already our constitutional obligation. How can we be expected to pass one when each and every provision is also subject to years of litigation?

The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional obligations to the Federal courts that will have the power to raise revenue. No less an authority than Judge Robert Bork made a statement regarding that.

He opposed a balanced budget constitutional amendment, declaring ``the result would likely be hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits around the country, many of them on inconsistent theories and providing inconsistent results.''

Celebrated late-Professor Archibald Cox of Harvard Law School predicted ``there is a substantial chance, even a strong probability, that Federal courts all over the country would be drawn into its interpretation and enforcement.''

Since my friend used President Reagan, the former Solicitor General to President Reagan, Professor Charles Fried, has testified ``the amendment would surely precipitate us into subtle and intricate legal questions, and the litigation that would ensue would be gruesome, intrusive, and not at all edifying.''

The former Attorney General to President George H. W. Bush, William Barr, opined that judicial power could be invoked ``to address serious and clear-cut violations.''

The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional obligations to these courts that will then have the power to raise revenue, impose taxes, cut spending, and reform major government programs.

I guess, if that's the case, we can all just go home now, Mr. Speaker.

This body has previously considered balanced budget amendments on numerous occasions, initiated by both Democrats and Republicans. The majority party has always ensured sufficient floor time for debate and to allow the minority to offer alternatives; but here we are in a situation where the proposal before us was never marked up in committee, never had a hearing, and, in fact, was drafted late this past Thursday night by some mysterious tweaking of H.J. Res. 1 that became H.J. Res. 2. This version was changed in secret and was filed with last-minute surprises that fundamentally changed the nature of the legislation and will come under a procedure that doesn't even allow a motion to recommit.

This is no way to amend the Constitution.

By all means, Mr. Speaker, if we want to balance the budget, let's not do it on the backs of the hardest hit in America. I don't need a constitutional amendment to tell me that balancing the budget without raising taxes on those of us who are best off in this country is unbalanced.

Where Americans need the Federal Government to support the economy, Republicans are trying to strangle it. Where Americans need us to put politics aside, Republicans are bringing forward legislation written in secret. Where Americans need this Congress to focus on economic issues, Republicans are insisting that we vote on God and gays and guns. We don't need to be voting on God and gays and guns. What we need are some guts to tell the American people that, yes, we can do this and that we can't wait any longer for those who are waiting for us to create jobs.

Now the Republican majority wants to pass a constitutional amendment to tell us that we have to balance the budget every year in a way that no individual, State or local government or business does: no borrowing, no trust funds, no way to plan for long-term projects like highway construction, national defense, and public schools.

This amendment guarantees budgetary gridlock forever and moves budget decisions to the Federal courts, not to Congress. This proposed amendment locks into the Constitution the most far right of the Republican Party's policies, forcing future generations to reap the pain imposed by the callous disregard for the least among us--the ones who need the most help.

Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, there were 273 national organizations that oppose H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment. It's too lengthy to place into the Record or to put forward, but some of them are among the most celebrated organizations in our country.

I also would recommend to the membership an article written by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a nonpartisan group that discusses how unnecessary this particular provision is, and it ends with the following paragraph:

The threat a balanced budget amendment would pose to our constitutional order is unavoidable. Congress, of course, remains free to enact a balanced budget if it believes this is sound economic policy. It also remains fully equipped to institute effective controls to ensure restraint and balance in the budgeting process. Therefore, there is no sufficient reason to incur the dramatic risks that the balanced budget amendment would entail for our Constitution and our Nation.

This is not a balanced budget amendment, Mr. Speaker--but it is an unbalanced one.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I wish to compliment the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I am delighted to withdraw the compliment.

What I wanted you to be able to do, since you had become so enlightened about the balanced budget amendment, was to be equally enlightened with reference to the rules and allow us a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which will help create jobs in the United States by making American-manufactured products more attractive to Chinese consumers.

At this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, my friend on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I'm sure has views that are similar to mine. I yield to him 3\1/2\ minutes at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell me how much time remains on each side?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I would have my friend to know that we also are talking about the previous question, for which at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Florida that I am going to be the last speaker, and if he is ready to close, I will go forward doing same.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It enshrines far-right ideology and makes a mockery of congressional authority to set forth the Nation's fiscal policy. This hardly belongs in the same company as freedom of speech, the abolition of slavery, and a woman's right to vote. This proposal does not balance the budget; it only demands that Congress do so, and yet it does not provide a mechanism to enforce that rule.

So in a situation of partisan gridlock, the Federal budget might very well end up in the courts. This is no way to govern. If this Congress could balance the budget, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment to tell us to do so. But the fact remains that the Republican majority has steadfastly failed to set forth legislation that will create jobs and grow this economy.

Given their inflexibility, a balanced budget constitutional amendment hardly seems like the magic wand Republicans claim it will be. This Congress needs to be serious about the real causes of economic hardship in this country. Focusing on God, gays, and guns and not having the guts to tell people we're not doing anything to create jobs, that isn't going to keep people in their homes, and it isn't going to help Americans obtain quality health care and education.

These are the critical issues facing our Nation. Wasting our time-- and that's exactly what this is, it's going nowhere fast--wasting our time with political gimmicks like an unbalanced constitutional amendment is just that, wasting our time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass real jobs legislation today, not little old stuff that is appealing to the right wing of the people who are pushing nothing more than symbolism and talking about it being in our United States Constitution. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

My amendment would exempt States from right-to-carry reciprocity when the State does not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application at their local law enforcement station.

The United States Congress should never be in the business of stripping States of the right to make their own decisions about whether to recognize other States' permits. States have put forward a considerable amount of time trying to determine just what is best for their citizenry in reference to safety. By overriding State-based concealed-carry laws and forcing States to recognize concealed-carry permits from every other State, we're putting our State and local law enforcement in grave danger.

Two nights ago the sheriff in my county and I discussed this matter. I might add he is a Republican sheriff who is a friend of mine. We discussed this matter, and we concluded that it's going to be very difficult to get people to want to become police officers. Not only are they being attacked in reference to their organizing efforts, but now we are going to make it difficult for them to do their jobs.

This amendment closes a loophole that would otherwise be created by

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, the last thing we need is to tell sovereign States that they are no longer free to make the decision to require an in-person interview when making a gun permit determination. At least 10 States grant law enforcement broad discretion to deny permits to carry concealed, loaded guns based on an applicant's record or other factors. Fourteen other States grant law enforcement more limited discretion. In addition, at least 14 States require applicants to show good moral character. Many of these States require applicants to present themselves in person for interviews. For example, applicants in New York must complete an in-person interview to receive their carry permit.

By contrast, Utah applicants, as has been pointed out by the ranking member, can submit their application by mail and can complete the fingerprinting and firearm safety training requirements outside of the State. In comparison, Utah's driver's license application specifically requires, and rightly so, that applicants submit the application in person, that it be notarized, and that the employee initial the application upon submission. Utah also grants permits to nonresidents, potentially allowing individuals nationwide to apply for a permit by mail.

Supporters of H.R. 822 claim that concealed-carry permits should be treated like driver's licenses. My amendment, however, points out that this is yet another instance of my friends' hypocrisy. First-time drivers applying for licenses in Utah and Florida must appear in person and pass a written and road test.

While Utah and Florida are free to make the decision that they will not require in-person appearances for concealed carry permit applicants, it should not be the job of Congress to impose this decision on other states.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 822 is a dangerous bill, and quite frankly will do nothing to create a single job across the nation.

Americans are hurting, they want jobs, and to be able to provide for their families.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which will help to close a dangerous loophole created by H.R. 822.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor America's veterans, who have courageously served our nation. These brave men and women deserve a debt of gratitude for their commitment to protecting the liberties that are the foundation of our country.

As we recognize their selfless dedication and accomplishments, we must be reminded of the challenges many veterans face when returning home from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, upon returning to civilian life, many suffer from severe physical and mental wounds. In fact, 20 percent of all suicides in the United States are veterans. Furthermore, 25 percent of those who find themselves homeless are veterans and many of them are also unemployed. These figures are extremely alarming and quite frankly, unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, as we welcome home the thousands of American troops currently deployed overseas, we must ensure that they receive the benefits they rightly deserve. It is imperative that we provide the very best educational, medical, and employment benefits available to assist with their transition back home.

On this day, I encourage all Americans to honor our nation's veterans. My thoughts and prayers are with those brave men and women and their families. Let us remember those who have fought, those who have returned, and those who have not. We are forever indebted to their courage and dedication as well as their service to this great nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. In 1989, Congress designated October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month in order to raise awareness about the tragic social ill that is domestic violence, and to help bring attention to the efforts of those who are working to end it. Today, victims of domestic violence in the United States are more likely to report their situation to the authorities than they were three decades ago, and the number of fatal and non-fatal cases of domestic violence has declined significantly. The efforts of nonprofit organizations, such as the YWCA Harmony House located in my Congressional district, have assisted millions of victims of domestic abuse in making the best possible choices for their life and well- being.

While the number of domestic violence cases has indeed declined in the last few years, there are still millions of people experiencing some type of domestic abuse each year in the United States. An overwhelming number of these victims are women, who in many cases suffer in silence instead of seeking help. Sadly, victims often completely isolate themselves out of fear and shame of their abuse.

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that one in four women in the United States will experience domestic violence during their lifetime. Women between the ages of 20 to 24 are the largest group of non-fatal abuse victims, while women under 24 suffer from the highest rates of rape and sexual abuse. Furthermore, women living in households at the lowest income level experience six times the rate of domestic abuse.

Domestic violence, however, is by no means limited to any one group. Due to numerous factors, including social stigma, many male victims of domestic abuse tend to remain silent. In addition, domestic abuse occurs in approximately 30 to 40 percent of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) relationships, contrary to the misconception that domestic abuse only affects certain individuals.

Young children who live in homes where spousal abuse takes place are also often victims of abuse themselves. In fact, it is estimated that 30 to 60 percent of people who take part in domestic violence against their partners also abuse children in their household. Sadly, some of these children grow up to be abusers themselves.

In 1994, I voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Act, historic legislation that established new criminal and civil enforcement resources to hold abusers accountable for their actions, while introducing tools to help victims seek justice. Additionally, as part of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced new guidelines that will ensure women receive preventive health services without additional cost, including domestic violence screening and counseling. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies can no longer classify domestic violence as a pre- existing condition.

Last year, I also voted in favor of reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which gives communities life-saving tools to help identify and treat child abuse or neglect. It also supports shelters, service programs, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline, providing victims with the critical resources they need.

Mr. Speaker, victims of domestic abuse should know that they are not alone. There are countless organizations all over this Nation who stand ready to help them. In Congress, I will continue to do everything in my power to speak out against domestic violence and ensure that our laws protect the well-being of all Americans.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I rise today in opposition to the combined rule for H.R. 674 and H.R. 2576.

The underlying bill, H.R. 674, repeals the 3 percent withholding for taxes on payments to government contractors, and H.R. 2576 will make health care unaffordable for 500,000 Americans--that's not according to me but according to CBO--leaving them with no choice but to drop their coverage. This bill will also increase the costs or reduce the coverage for many more Americans, including individuals with severe disabilities.

The pairing of these two bills is not, in my considered opinion, an appropriate use of our Nation's Tax Code, and in my opinion, does nothing to create jobs. It is part of the same old ``all or nothing'' majority strategy that led to the debt ceiling standoff earlier this year.

The Republicans have taken a bipartisan idea--and it is bipartisan, as my good friend from South Carolina said--that would actually put money directly in the pockets of hardworking Americans and make its passage contingent on a bill that rehashes the health care reform debate from the last Congress. Once again, my colleagues have chosen to play politics with the lives of middle class and working poor Americans.

The withholding requirement, itself, was passed in 2005 when President George W. Bush was in the White House and when Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate, but it was never implemented, and it has been put off a number of times.

Today, there is broad support for repealing this Republican-created provision. H.R. 674 has, as my friend said, 269 bipartisan cosponsors. Since Republicans have now brought a bill to the floor that would repeal this requirement, it is clear that this measure should not be combined, as in this rule, with H.R. 2576.

Getting rid of this provision will keep administrative costs down and assist American businesses during these challenging economic times. However, Republicans want to pay for the 3 percent bill by making it harder for retirees, the disabled, and poor to get access to health insurance. This is, yet again, an inappropriate use of our Tax Code.

This bill is known as the MAGI bill, ``modified adjusted gross income.'' It repeals the provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows individuals and families to exclude nontaxable Social Security benefits from their incomes when determining their eligibility for health care benefits. This definition would also apply when qualifying for Medicaid and Federal subsidies to buy private insurance in the State-run exchanges. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the exclusion of nontaxable Social Security benefits is typical when applying income limitations to tax benefits.

Regardless of the facts, my friends in the majority have decided to throw retirees and disabled individuals under the bus in order to offset a completely unrelated bill.

My friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this is about equity and fairness, but is it equitable for as many as 500,000 Americans to lose all their health care coverage as a result of this measure? What are we saying to these individuals; sorry, 500,000 of you are out of luck? Is it fair to make health care less accessible to low- and middle-income individuals rather than close loopholes and cancel special tax deals for wealthy, wealthy oil companies?

In contrast, the Democrats' substitute offered by Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, will make oil companies pay their fair share of taxes, thereby reducing the deficit by $5.3 billion over 5 years and $12.8 billion over 10 years.

It is clear that H.R. 2576 is not about equity at all. It's about forcing individual taxpayers to shoulder the burden of business tax provisions. H.R. 2576 will impose higher costs on retirees and persons with severe disabilities, shifting them out of Medicaid coverage or requiring that they contribute significantly more of their income for health insurance coverage through reduced tax credits.

How do Republicans intend to offset the cost, such as increased trips to the emergency room? How do you offset that association with half a million Americans suddenly losing their health insurance coverage? The Tax Code should not be used to effectively reduce health care coverage and increase costs for those least able to afford it.

Make no mistake, H.R. 2576 is yet another attempt by Republicans to undermine comprehensive health care reform. Last week, the Senate Republicans forced a vote on the 3 percent withholding repeal bill, but it too failed over unreasonable Republican demands.

Where are the jobs? Instead of passing a jobs bill, Republicans are redefining the rules to make health care less accessible for a considerable number of Americans. These bills together are a new approach to cutting the deficit for Republicans. Until recently, they said that the only way to fix the deficit was to starve the beast, that is, spending cuts only. But with a bill like H.R. 2576 that takes away health care from hundreds of thousands of Americans, Republicans have decided that rather than starving the beast, it's better to feed the beast to our society's most vulnerable members.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend and classmate from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend from South Carolina that I am the last speaker. If he has other speakers, then I will reserve my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama, as has been cited, along with many of our colleagues, supports changing the definition of ``modified adjusted gross income.'' But like on other occasions, I have disagreed with this President on matters, and in this instance I do. There are many in the institution who have a different view. But there is no reason why a bill reducing access to health care for millions of Americans has to be tied to a bill that will put money back into the pockets of middle class and working poor Americans.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle made a conscious decision to make it harder for Americans to pay their medical bills. Now, they could have just as easily tied this bill to one that reduces oil and gas subsidies. But listen, I just spoke to a group of students, about 15 or 20 of them from American University, and I put the question to them regarding this rule,

explaining to them some of the dynamics of the institution. I put the question to them: What would seem more sensible to you. Would it be that 500,000 people should and may lose their coverage under a measure, or that the oil companies and gas companies--and I added GE--that those kinds of companies that cause these kinds of matters not to have to come into play at this time in our institution?

Now Democrats--Sander Levin, my good friend from Michigan, the ranking member--introduced a substitute that would eliminate oil and gas subsidies in order to repeal the withholding requirement while still allowing Americans to keep their health care coverage. Yet they wouldn't waive the rules for that, as they've done a number of times, my Republican friends, for their own amendments, proving once again that the rules are only sacred when oil and gas and big business profits are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, an amendment will be offered to the rule to let Mr. Levin of Michigan or Mr. Bishop of New York or Mr. Keating of Massachusetts offer the amendment we tried to have made in order in the Rules Committee yesterday. As we've said, the amendment will roll back special tax loopholes for immensely profitable big oil companies. Is there anybody that doubts that?

And I'd like to hear from these oil company representatives. They're entitled. They're not a person, as some have said; they're a corporation. And they don't have, I guess, a conscience because their bottom line is to make a profit. Well, they've made a lot of it, and all we're asking them to do in this case and others--and I'll be back down here another time asking them--to share some of it with the American people and not cause the pressing down to our States, the pressing down to our counties and municipalities, and causing people who are disabled--and, indeed, some will lose their insurance because of this.

And maybe some of these persons have never had a disabled person. But I had a mother that was disabled for the last 2 years of her life, 30 years previous to that being almost bedridden, and I know what disability is, as I'm sure some of my friends do here. Had I not been alive, she would have died many years earlier because she had no ability to provide for herself, yet Shell Oil and Exxon and GE and all these people do. And they're right about their profitmaking, but they're wrong about not being able to share it with the people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Dixie Smith, a Suncoast High School senior in Riviera Beach, as a Hastings' Star Student. During her junior year of high school, Dixie earned recognition as the Palm Beach County All-Conference selection for diving. This year however, her accomplishments go even further. Recently, world renowned tennis player Serena Williams chose 17-year old Dixie as the recipient for the M Foundation's Silver M Award. With this award, she joins the ranks of previous recipients who are viewed as ``exemplary role models'' in their communities. The award will present Dixie with a $1,000 college scholarship and a $1,000 donation to a charity of her choice. It was Dixie's commitment to giving back to her community which earned her this award.

Without a doubt, Dixie Smith exemplifies the term volunteerism. She started the Autism Speaks club at her high school, teaches gymnastics at Gymnastics Revolution, and also lends her time to instructing developmentally disabled children at the Renaissance Learning Center. Additionally, she has taught surfing to autistic children for the past three years, and has participated in the Surfers for Autism event regularly. In a recent letter, Dixie shared with me how these events served to be a humbling experience as time after time she witnessed children, who were initially afraid of the ocean, overcome their fears and catch waves on their own. She believes that surfing changes them, and the joy felt by their parents as they thank her is better than any award or scholarship she could ever receive. Dixie's work with developmentally disabled children is to be commended. Her selfless service represents a true dedication to the betterment of her community. I am sure Dixie's outstanding achievements are an inspiration to her peers and to the greater Riviera Beach area. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

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

I am so accustomed to coming here and making repeated assertions regarding my friends on the Republican side. But today, we are really about the business of undertaking added emphasis on regulation and doing nothing about jobs.

Let me refer to an article that occurred in The New York Times on October 4, written by Bruce Bartlett, an editorial opinion. Mr. Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and the George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staff of the distinguished former Member of this House of Representatives, the departed Jack Kemp, and on the staff of Ron Paul. He says, ``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.''

And I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle don't jump up and start about their 15 forgotten bills. They're not only forgotten; they're forgettable. And they're forgettable for the reason that they don't create jobs. But here we are today dealing with three suspensions and one other measure, and we've been out almost as much as we've been in session, and we still aren't addressing the subject of jobs.

Continuing with Mr. Bartlett, he says, ``The GOP opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending that would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels of government.''

He goes on, but the specific takeaway that impressed me in his article that I wish to share is, ``In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue

an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''

I want to address the subject of regulation because it seems that I keep hearing this thing that the business community needs certainty. Well, the American people need certainty as well, and certainty about their health and certainty about employment and certainty about housing. And toward that end, I don't just distinguish one little category, it's a hole here in this country. And in the period when we did not have regulation, my recollection of the no-regulation period led us to what we see and have experienced on Wall Street when there is no regulation.

What do we think caused this great downturn in the economy? Was it because students weren't going to school? Was it because people weren't going to work? Was it because we had coal ash gas? Or did it occur because we didn't have regulation that we should have had that would have manifested itself?

Madam Speaker, I believe I may be the only speaker, and toward that end, rather than continue, I will reserve the balance of my time and have my colleague know that I will be prepared to close when he is finished.

I thank my good friend and colleague for the information.

I would like to ask my friend a question. Is there anything in this measure that requires the copper that you just spoke about--and I don't disagree with many of the facts that you put forward--but is there anything in this bill that requires that copper to remain in the United States of America?

I yield to my friend.

I appreciate the answer. I'll take that as a no, that there is nothing in the bill to cause the copper to remain in the United States.

I yield to my friend.

I understand. But when you step up to the plate, you have to hit the ball. You can't fake like you're hitting the ball.

The gentleman from Utah and I use baseball analogies. I don't know whether he has a dog in this World Series fight or not, but I appreciate he and I going back and forth on that.

I do recognize that you did respond as I thought you would about the America's job creators provision that occurs. I do encourage that people--I normally don't advertise for the other side--but you have jobs.gop.gov. And what it says is: empower small businesses and reduce government barriers to job creation; fix the Tax Code to help job creators; boost the competitiveness for American manufacturers; encourage entrepreneurship and growth; maximize American energy production; and pay down America's unsustainable debt burden and start living within our means.

All of that is practical. All of that seems to make sense. But in the final analysis, it's not putting a teacher, a firefighter, or a police officer to work. And we're talking about right now is when we have this problem. If we don't have this problem by the time we empower small businesses, then let's empower some of them then. Let's do

some things to make sure that some money gets in their hands, rather than dance around this issue.

We need some direct programs from the United States Federal Government to help States, counties, and municipalities in this country, and to help individuals, particularly those that are on the front lines dealing with these particular issues. But you haven't done anything, which is almost laughable, and you put on your Web site that you have 15 ``forgettable'' bills.

I guess what we're trying to do--and it does make a little bit of sense to me--that we should point to the other body and say that we have passed measures here in the House of Representatives that have gone to the other body and not become law. Well, my last recollection is that we passed over 400 measures when we were in the majority and they went over to the U.S. Senate; and here's where the catch is that people don't seem to understand. The arcane rules of the Senate require that they have 60 votes. And the majority does not have 60 votes. In almost every measure that may have helped this country, the Republicans stood in opposition and, quite frankly, obstructed the passage of legislation. I guess now you're joining us in saying that they're doing the same things to you in the House of Representatives.

Well, I accept that if that's your argument. But let's make it very clear that it is in the United States Senate and that here we aren't originating nor are we evidently working with them to address the subject of the need for jobs, housing, and education in this country.

After another week away from Washington, thanks to my Republican friends, we're back here considering this bill on an issue that I think very few of my colleagues, myself included, fully understand.

The Republicans have been in charge for 294 days, and they have not brought one job-creating bill to the floor in that time, not one. I do make an exception that I believe all of us recognize has been in the works through several administrations, and that is the various trade agreements, which in some respects are going to create jobs but in other respects are going to cause the loss of jobs. And I don't think that that equation is full yet; but, yes, that did pass the House of Representatives.

While Americans continue to struggle to find work, this Republican majority has been more interested in going on recess than in passing legislation. The truth is, Madam Speaker, the House has only been in session 109 days, and we're almost in November--109 days. During this limited time, my friends on the other side haven't found time to send a single appropriations bill to the President, not one.

When we are in Washington, look at the bills that my colleagues have debated passionately--defunding Planned Parenthood, defunding the National Public Radio, promoting the use of inefficient light bulbs. Madam Speaker, this would be comical if it weren't so serious.

Let me also remind my colleagues that only a paltry 43 bills have been signed into law this year, less than half the average first- session total for Congresses since 1991, even compared to other years following shifts in control of the House.

I believe that Americans want action to help our economy now. They want us to consider the President's jobs bill now. They want us to quit wasting time on trivial issues that are only meant for 30-second political sound bites. They want us to do our jobs. But these friends on the other side just don't get it.

Four years ago, their Presidential nominee talked about ``country first.'' But in the House of Representatives, time after time after time we see the Republican leadership ignore the needs of out-of-work Americans. And the bill before us today is more of the same, another enormous rip-off for struggling American workers disguised as a jobs bill. In fact, this time it's not even disguised very well.

The underlying bill is a massive land giveaway to foreign companies looking to mine copper on American land. And that's why I put the question to my good friend about whether that copper was going to stay in the United States. Let me repeat that. This bill benefits foreign mining giants, first and foremost, at a time when millions of Americans are unemployed and families right here in this country are struggling to pay their bills.

The two companies that stand to benefit the most from this bill-- British-owned Rio Tinto and Australian-owned BHP Billiton--are highly profitable titans in the mining world. As the bill is currently written, American taxpayers will receive no share of the expected billions in profits generated by this mining. All profits will be enjoyed by foreign companies.

And claims that H.R. 1904 will lead to the creation of thousands of good-paying American jobs are dubious at best. Both companies, the two I mentioned, are pioneers in developing automated and remote-control mining technologies. Seriously? We're creating jobs for foreign robots instead of American workers? No offense to R2-D2, but there are American workers who need help. On top of that, any American jobs that may be created will be years in the future. This bill does nothing to create good jobs right now when we need them the most.

My friends in the majority want this process to seem fair. Yes, they made in order all the amendments submitted, but that's not the same as an open rule. Let me be crystal clear: This is not an open rule. Once again, the Rules Committee is breaking the promises of this new majority. Clearly, the Republican leadership is more interested in shutting down debate and fostering a more closed House rather than living up to their campaign promises of a more open House of Representatives.

Despite these broken promises, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that the Democratic amendments--that my good friend mentioned are made in order--will insert some common sense into H.R. 1904 if they are in fact adopted. And as I heard him say that they ought to be debated and what have you, but they are not real in terms of their mandate.

Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Garamendi have offered an amendment to try to create more than just jobs for robots. Their amendment would require that these foreign companies actively recruit and hire local employees--and I hope everybody votes for that amendment--that all the oil produced, they say, from the mine be processed in the United States, and that all equipment used at the mine will be made in the United States. I hope everybody supports that amendment.

Mr. Markey's amendment would require that these foreign companies pay a simple royalty to the United States on all minerals extracted from this site. If mining is done on U.S. land, the American people should be able to share in the profits.

Finally, what is most disturbing about H.R. 1904 is a complete lack of respect for sacred Native American sites that will be swept into mining operations. Native people won't even be able to comment on the land transfer until after it has occurred.

Now, I've seen that often in our area--I represent Native Americans, Seminoles and Miccosukee--and repeatedly where developers have gone forward, not just in mining but the artifacts of our great history in this country, and have caused us to pause. And we should be very careful with this particular measure because we don't want to repeat that that I've seen happen time and again in Florida. That's insulting and completely disrespectful to native traditions and culture.

And my friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed by the blatant mistreatment of Native Americans by this bill. Mr. Lujan's amendment to exempt all Native American sacred and cultural sites from land conveyance under this bill is not just commendable, it is critically important and deserves the support of every Member in this body.

Madam Speaker, this is not a jobs bill, and there's no effort by this Republican majority to bring up a jobs bill. We shouldn't be wasting our time. We should not be wasting the American people's time with trivial bills that benefit foreign countries while our own citizens struggle to find work.

I urge a ``no'' vote. And on this business of the ``forgettable 15,'' I urge that we do something to create jobs and not just try to give the impression that we are creating jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would ask the gentleman from Arizona to respond.

Rio Tinto, the company from Australia, has a mine that is controlled by people that are 800 miles away from the mine.

Now, I heard you distinctly, and let me make it very clear. I remember this measure being offered by the lady that you won office from previously as well. And I'm one who seriously encourages that we protect our congressional areas.

But when you say it's going to create 3,000 jobs, let me give you a ``for example'' of how the local community does not work, and then ask you to respond. In the Everglades, we, many Members of this Congress, rightly have dealt with trying to preserve this area. So we have, with the Army Corps of Engineers and a variety of other people, a lot of earth moving and a variety of undertakings that are taking place.

In the meantime, one of my cities, Pahokee, has gone almost out of business. They're doing a remarkable job trying to stay afloat, and the area has diminished while all of this work is going on around them.

Now, how are you going to stop Rio Tinto, who can operate mines with robots, how are you going to stop them from bringing their Australian people? How are you going to stop the British from bringing their workers? Because, as in my city and counties that I'm talking about, when these big companies come in to do all of this work, they bring their workers with them, and we don't have the kind of jobs that are needed. And in this instance, you're talking about robots running large measures of it.

So how does that create jobs?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Reclaiming my time, and I will yield to you additionally, I still didn't hear you address how you are going to cause these foreign companies--I'm not talking about that immediate amount of cement, and I'll grant you, 500 workers, but I heard you say 3,000.

I'll also grant you that it's temporary, and I'll make you a bet, and I hope you and I are here that when and if this measure passes and it does all the things that you say it's going to do, I'd like for you to come with me and I'll go with you, you come with me to Pahokee, where we passed all of these things and all of these people came from other areas and they made money, but the people in the area didn't.

Now I understand that you have to have somebody to hammer a nail and to drive a truck to get something put up. But when it's all said and done, your area isn't going to have anything other than robots that are going to be controlling this, with the exception of a handful of people.

I yield to the gentleman.

You mean a copper mine or Rio Tinto's mine?

You mean the one in Arizona.

I'm not quarreling with that. I'm talking about when Rio Tinto comes and this bill allows them to go forward in a way that allows them to robotize many of the--look, I'm not against technology. But what I'm saying to you is I don't see as how ultimately, that foreign companies are going to cause local communities to have increased employment that's sustainable.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

All right. At least we had a fair exchange, and perhaps if we had more time with measures like this we could do similar. But I would hope then my argument about the Native American measures does not fall on deaf ears when you take into consideration the need to preserve our cultural heritage and artifacts that might be swept up in mining.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time just to ask you one more question that requires a ``yes'' or a ``no,'' and that is: You support Mr. Lujan's measure then that will make sure that that happens, an amendment that's coming up. Are you going to vote for that?

So you aren't going to vote for it?

I get the picture.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I will be the final speaker.

With that in mind, Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, which I will not use.

I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that I'm not against foreign investment in the United States of America. I'm not against real jobs being created in the United States of America, including Arizona and including Superior. I'll tell Mr. Gosar, I'll give you one Superior and I will match you with one Pahokee and one South Bay, Florida, where the jobs didn't come when the other circumstances that would take place in the community did.

I respect the mining industry, and I believe the mining industry can do their job in an environmentally and culturally sensitive way; and there are demonstrative evidences that take place all over this Nation that show that. But what I'm trying to get across here is that my colleagues on the other side are still not in the business of seeing to it that we immediately do something about firefighters, police officers, and school teachers in this country. And I assure you that that's something that we have not done in the 109 days that we have been here and almost 104 days that we have not.

Please, let's get about the business of doing something about the massive unemployment in this country that is desperately in need of the attention of this institution--the House and the other body.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the passage of H.R. 2349, the Veterans' Benefits Training Improvement Act of 2011. This important legislation makes much-needed improvements to benefits and services for our nation's veterans. It improves the claim- processing system by establishing a pilot program to assess the skills of employees responsible for processing veterans' claims, authorizing the use of electronic communication to contact claimants regarding their benefits, and assisting veterans in obtaining private records, among others.

Included in this legislation is a bill that I sponsored entitled, the Veterans Pensions Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 923). My bill protects veterans' pensions by exempting the reimbursement of expenses related to accidents, theft, loss or casualty loss from being included into the determination of a veteran's income. Under current law, if a veteran is seriously injured in an accident or is the victim of a theft and receives insurance compensation, he or she may lose their pension if the payment exceeds the income limit set by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This means that the law effectively punishes veterans when they suffer from an accident or theft.

Such a tragedy happened to one of my constituents, a Navy veteran with muscular dystrophy who was hit by a truck when crossing the street in his wheelchair. His pension was abruptly cut off after he received an insurance settlement payment to cover medical expenses for himself and his service dog, and material expenses to replace his wheelchair. As a result, he could not cover his daily expenses and mortgage payments and almost lost his home. To me this is unacceptable.

I am extremely pleased that H.R. 923 was incorporated into H.R. 2349 and I want to thank my Florida colleague, Chairman Jeff Miller, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Jon Runyan and Ranking Member Jerry McNerney for their continued support on this important issue.

At a time of economic hardship, it is essential to guarantee the continuity of our veterans' pensions and ensure that no veteran will have their benefits unfairly and abruptly depreciated or cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, our nation's servicemen and women are currently fighting two wars abroad and engaged in action in other parts of the world. As they return home, many bear the mental and physical wounds incurred in the defense of our nation and deserve the highest quality care and services that we can provide them. Therefore, I thank my colleagues for supporting this much-needed legislation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the Protect Life Act amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services or any health plan that includes such service. It also imposes new restrictions on health insurance coverage for termination care and expands conscience protection laws, while limiting access to reproductive health services.

At a time when our Nation is facing great economic uncertainty and millions of Americans are in need of jobs, please, somebody tell me why we are here considering a bill that is a direct attack on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose and that does not create one single job.

Let's be serious here. Republicans have yet to pass a jobs bill. Instead of getting down to the business of creating jobs, they're bringing to the House floor a deeply flawed and deeply divisive bill that will not pass the Senate and would be vetoed if it reached the President's desk. They know that. I know that. Everybody knows that.

The Protect Life Act is both unnecessary and clearly politically motivated. Republicans are resorting to their old bag of tricks and pulling the abortion card in order to distract from their clear lack of leadership. In April they rammed through H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, instead of focusing on efforts to pass a clean continuing resolution that would prevent a government shutdown.

As the deadline approaches for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction in Congress to approve a deficit reduction plan in excess of $1.5 trillion, Republicans have deemed it necessary to rehash the health care reform debate and roll back women's rights.

And I want to clear up one thing. You keep saying ``ObamaCare.'' I've said repeatedly that there are those of us, and I am among them, that advocated for health care, including a public option and universal health care long before we even knew Barack Obama's name. So perhaps it should be called ``Hastings-ObamaCare.''

This time, however, they take it to a new harmful extreme. The Protect Life Act is not about the regulation of Federal funds with regard to abortion services. The Hyde amendment already does that. This act is about restricting access to care and intimidating women and their families in the use of their own money.

Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has prohibited the use of taxpayer money for funding abortions, unless the abortion is performed in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother. The Affordable Care Act is no exception.

Regardless of the facts, however, House Republicans continue their assault on a woman's right to choose. Contrary to popular belief, the Protect Life Act is not the Stupak-Pitts amendment of the 2009-2010 health care reform debate. It goes far beyond Stupak-Pitts to impose unprecedented limitations on abortion coverage and restricts access to abortion services for all women.

The Protect Life Act would have an adverse effect on women's access to reproductive services, especially for low-income minority women who are very likely to be underinsured or uninsured and use partial subsidies to purchase insurance.

It not only ends abortion coverage for women in the exchange who use their own private funds to pay for their insurance, but also essentially shuts down the private insurance market for abortion coverage. This act imposes crippling administrative burdens on insurance companies that choose to cover abortion care and bans abortion coverage from all multi-State plans, interfering with private insurance companies' decisions about what benefits to offer.

Simply put, the Protect Life Act is a misnomer. It poses a direct threat to the health and lives of women by restricting access to termination services, including factually accurate information such as the availability and coverage of abortion care by insurance plans. Even more troubling is the fact that this act creates an exception to the obligation of hospitals to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires appropriate treatment and referral for emergency patients. If enacted, hospitals could refuse to provide abortion services to pregnant women whose lives are in critical danger. This is beyond irresponsible. It is, indeed, reprehensible.

Finally, the Protect Life Act vastly broadens already expansive federal conscience laws without regard for patient protection or anti- discrimination protection for providers of abortion services. It safeguards from federal preemption State conscience laws beyond abortion, which could allow providers to drop their coverage of other reproductive health services like contraception and possibly even reproductive care such as mental health services and HIV counseling.

All I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially those within segments of their party, is that they want the government to butt out. Why, then, are we considering legislation on the House floor that effectively overturns the privacy rights enumerated by the United States Supreme Court as well as increases burdensome government regulations on insurance companies? Congress should not be making personal health care decisions for women, and Congressmen really shouldn't be even involved in making personal health care decisions for women. That should be between a woman, her family, and her doctor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell me how much time remains on each side?

Madam Speaker, with your permission, at this time, I am going to yield to a number of Members for unanimous consent, the first of whom is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

That declarative statement that you speak to, am I correct, Madam Speaker, that it could include a sentence?

At this time, I yield for a non- embellishment, unanimous consent request to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Hahn).

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished lady from California, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui, for unanimous consent.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for a unanimous consent request.

I yield to the distinguished lady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for a unanimous consent request.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of offering a unanimous consent.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, would you tell us again how much time remains?

Thank you very much.

I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

How much time is remaining again, Madam Speaker?

At this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished woman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Chu).

I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Lee).

At this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would ask the gentlelady if she is prepared to close.

Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

I won't take all of that time, Madam Speaker, but I do wish to assert into this debate, it's been said often on the other side, and my distinguished friend from the Rules Committee made the point, that people came here and said that jobs were more important than life. I didn't hear anybody say that, and I don't believe anybody believes that.

But what I do believe that most of us understand is that this is not going to become the law and, therefore, what we are doing, in the final analysis, is a waste of time, and we could have been trying to do as we have not done in this session of Congress, address the subject of jobs.

Madam Speaker, what we have before us is an extremely flawed bill; and, contrary to their self-professed commitment to an open process, this particular provision being considered is under a closed rule.

Furthermore, I would also like to call into question how it's possible for us to consider this bill on the House floor when its sponsor, Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, failed to provide a statement citing Congress's constitutional authority to enact it. Mr. Pitts's statement of constitutional authority for the Protect Life Act cites no provision of the Constitution or any amendment to the Constitution.

Therefore, I would like to request of him or Members on the other side to share with us the basis for this bill which violates the fundamental right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court. It restricts women's access to health care and imposes further regulations on health insurance coverage. It's clear that the Protect Life Act lacks both constitutional and moral integrity.

Let me insert additionally some feelings that have been expressed in public, and I take the prerogative of using them here on the floor.

H.R. 358 comes on top of votes by the Republican-led House to eliminate all Federal funding for title X, the National Family Planning Program, to eliminate funding for all other reproductive health programs offering breast and cervical cancer exams or well-woman and primary health care and family planning to prevent unintended pregnancies and to reduce the need for abortion.

They've led measures that eliminate requirements in health care reform covering maternal health care, mammograms, breastfeeding support, and other essential health services.

In addition, they've made it impossible for women to speak to their doctors about abortion using Internet-based telemedicine.

Now, these are just a few examples. The Republicans are full of fuzzy facts. I start my day almost every day, Madam Speaker, by reading the cartoon, after other parts of the newspaper, ``Get Fuzzy.'' And the cat in that particular cartoon constantly comes up with fuzzy facts. If you put all the fuzzy facts together and all the things that the Republican majority has done, they include Tea Party-led efforts to gut Environmental Protection Agency rules that keep the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the environment in which we live safe. They have done efforts to virtually eliminate child nutrition. And I can't believe that 20 years I'm here, and I hear Republicans talk about cutting out the Head Start program, the one documented program that has benefited American society over and above what was thought.

They have done things to eliminate programs to help the unemployed to survive, to slash Medicaid and Medicare, to effectively abrogate any social contract and tear to shreds any social safety net.

I have to ask, exactly whose lives are we protecting here?

I yield back the balance of my time.