Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that will prohibit the use of funds by the Department of Education for its misguided gainful employment rule.

Perhaps it would be helpful for the body and the public to know what this gainful employment is that we are talking about. Under the Higher Education Act, proprietary colleges and universities and career training programs are required to offer programs that lead to gainful employment in a legally recognized occupation in order to participate in the Federal student aid programs.

The term ``gainful employment'' has been in the statute for over 40 years; and during the most recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, there was absolutely no debate or discussion on a need to further define the term.

Now, when this originated, several of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am deeply appreciative of the chairman and my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion we went about our business trying to understand just what kind of proposed rule it is that the Department is talking about and just how it is that it will impact the overall public.

What this amendment would do is prohibit the use of funds for implementation of the draft regulation that the Department issued on October 29, 2010, and will prohibit the Department from promulgating or enforcing new regulations regarding gainful employment.

Let me put a face on these schools, as my colleagues that are opposed have done.

Perhaps some of them have never eaten at a restaurant where the person that prepared the food went to a proprietary institution. I have.

Perhaps none of them have had physical therapy where the person administering it graduated from a proprietary school. I have.

And, most importantly, I want this body to understand that of the eight people that had the last hands-on experiences with my mother for 2 years, all were nurses in two different hospitals and at home, and all graduated from proprietary schools.

We all agree that both taxpayer funds and students' best interests should be protected in higher education. But I can tell you this: rushing into a blanket approach that will limit student access to higher education and fail to adequately address problem institutions is not the way to go.

You know what we did here in this institution? What we did here for the people that work with us, young people that graduate from Ivy League schools, historically black schools, all over this place, we created a program that will allow them to help pay off their student loans. Some of us hire people at what I would not call gainful employment that may have graduated from institutions that I attended or that the President attended.

I don't understand why the Department refuses to recognize job placement, professional certification, passing rates, employer verification, or anything else related in determining an institution's effectiveness. If it's unreasonable amounts of student debt that they're trying to address, I agree that that is a concern. Let's have a frank discussion on student debt. But it is not only the institutions that are responsible. Students, lenders, policymakers, as well as institutions must be part of this process and must be held accountable.

This proposed rule is very broad and its implementation so burdensome that many schools will undoubtedly close. And I don't buy into that fallacious argument that 50 percent of these people don't graduate or don't go on to do this, that, or the other. In this economy in the United States of America, a whole lot of students are graduating from a whole lot of schools and are not getting jobs today. And many of these schools that we're attacking, unreasonably, are places where I know, at least in the congressional district that I'm privileged to serve, that many of these people have received jobs--and many of them leave the institutions, like the last two nurses that worked with my mom that had a job when they left the institution.

This may please some of my friends in this body, and the Department of Education, but what will happen to the single mother looking to change careers who needs the flexibility of a private sector college? What about the first-generation college student who needs the added support.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that we support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, this is the full year continuing appropriations act which would help people living with HIV/ AIDS who cannot afford their treatment by reallocating additional funding to our Nation's AIDS Drug Assistance Program.

It is unconscionable that, in 2011, we often have the resources to save lives but wait until a crisis before taking action. Just this month, thousands of Floridians living with HIV/AIDS were on the verge of losing access to their life-saving drugs as Florida's ADAP ran out of money.

Current funding levels for ADAP are unsustainable.

Due to state budget cuts and an increase in the number of individuals who rely on ADAP for HIV/AIDS-related drugs and services, 10 states, including Florida, have had to create ADAP waiting lists and cut services.

As of February 3, my home state of Florida has accounted for over half of the 6,001 individuals on ADAP waiting lists nationwide (3,085 individuals). In fact, Florida has the third-highest HIV/AIDS population in the country and the highest rate of new infections.

Ensuring access to treatment remains key to combating HIV/AIDS. Antiretroviral drugs can increase the life expectancy of a person living with HIV/AIDS by at least 24 years.

When incorporated into comprehensive strategies, antiretroviral drugs can also help reduce the spread of HIV by up to 92 percent.

Currently, the lifetime cost of living with HIV/AIDS is $618,900. If we do not take action now, the future costs of HIV/AIDS will amount to $12.1 billion per year, with drugs making up 70 percent of the cost. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this crisis; the costs are simply too high.

My amendment reallocates $14 million from each of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 administrative budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) in order to provide $42 million to ADAP.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, if enacted, my amendment would save $1 million in new FY 2011 expenditures. Furthermore, it would have no net budget authority effect for FY 2011.

Mr. Chairman, we can and must do better. I urge my colleagues to support increased funding for our nation's ADAP by voting in favor of my amendment.

By reallocating desperately-needed funds to ADAP, we are helping states like Florida ensure that low-income individuals living with HIV/ AIDS have access to the medications and services they need to stay alive while stemming the tide of new infections and saving our nation money in the long-term.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague and very good friend and colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 425: Page 171, line 21, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $750,000)(increased by

$750,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 426: Page 173, line 14, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $750,000)(increased by

$750,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 21: Page 171, line 21, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $750,000)(increased by

$750,000)''.

Page 173, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $750,000)(increased by $750,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 22: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 23: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 73, the rule providing for consideration of H. Res. 72, which directs certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The resolution isn't objectionable in and of itself. We all agree that regulations that do more harm than good should be eliminated. The President has said that, Democrats have said that, and Republicans have said that. And the rules of the House already require committees to carry out this sort of oversight. So I question, Mr. Speaker, why my friends on the other side of the aisle insist on spending 9\1/2\ hours debating a resolution that is entirely redundant. We're committing the same offense that Republicans claimed to abhor about government: wasting time, effort, and taxpayer dollars.

Devoting 9\1/2\ hours to this exercise is squandering yet another opportunity. We could be using this time to pass legislation that will create and retain jobs right here in this country instead of telling the committees of jurisdiction to continue to do what they are already mandated to do. What's next, Mr. Speaker? Nine-and-a-half hours of debate instructing the House to close for Thanksgiving or Christmas?

Republicans marched into the majority over a month ago vowing a laser-like focus on job creation, and they've done nothing towards that end since. Today's debate is yet another reminder that Republicans care more about their lockstep, anti-government ideology than they do about getting down to the business of improving the lives of hardworking Americans.

Democrats did offer to improve today's rule by adding language instructing the committees to make job creation legislation their highest priority and for such legislation to be considered under an open amendment process. In other words, Mr. Speaker, Democrats made the effort to work in agreement with Republicans on this matter and to ensure that this body emphasizes legislation to create jobs and improve the American economy, but the Republicans said ``no.'' They said ``no'' to working with Democrats. They said ``no'' to prioritizing job creation. They said ``no'' to fulfilling their promise for an open and transparent legislative process.

My friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) declared at the end of last year that, and I quote him, ``Open rules will make a triumphant return to the House floor,'' unquote, and that all Members, and I quote him again, ``will have a chance to fully contribute in this legislative process.''

The House has been under Republican control for 5 weeks. In that time, we have voted on 11 bills. None of those bills went through their respective committees and none of those bills had actual open rules. One had a modified open rule. That's not very triumphant in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

It is already the second month of this Congress and Republicans are still dodging a real debate on real legislation that will create real jobs and improve the American economy. And Republicans are still refusing to address exactly what these cuts will mean to the lives of the American people. Which regulations do Republicans propose to get rid of? The ones for clean drinking water? The ones preventing financial abuse on Wall Street? I was here, Mr. Speaker, along with my friend on the other side of the aisle when Republicans assumed control and that we did not provide the necessary regulation at the Securities and Exchange Commission. I for one thought when a friend of ours who served with us went to be the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission that finally we would get some regulations there. We did not get regulations. What we got--and there's no secret about this, no finger to point at anybody--the simple fact of the matter is by not having adequate regulation of Wall Street, this country came to the brink of disaster in November of '08. Do they want to get rid of the ones that protect against massive oil spills and mine collapses?

So far this year, Republicans have moved to repeal health care, they've moved to restrict a woman's right to choose, and they've moved drastically to cut spending for a huge range of essential government services that ensure public safety, economic opportunity and national security. It seems the Republicans want to use their majority to settle old scores. But I don't think that's what the American people have in mind as a national priority.

Republicans seem to think that if we spend 9\1/2\ hours debating a resolution

that simply remarks on what House committees are already doing, they will suffice to convince the American people that Republicans have a plan for improving the economy.

It is clear that this resolution is really about demonizing Federal regulations. But the Republicans ignore the benefits of regulations, the importance of protecting existing jobs, and the necessity of leveling the playing field to ensure economic growth and prosperity for all Americans. If our constituents had the choice of whether to spend this time practicing our rhetorical skills or actually passing meaningful legislation that creates more jobs, I believe they would vote for jobs. Let's get back to what the American people need from us, and that is to improve the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

(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 tell both sides the remaining amount of time?

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rules to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act.

To explain that further and to explicate as she so desires, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, my friend, Ms. Sanchez.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee, the chairman and two other Members cited repeatedly the January 18 article offered by President Obama that appeared in The Wall Street Journal. Interestingly, they leave out one section of what the President did, in fact, say. They do say, and I agree that he said in the article, ``Sometimes those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' That is where they stop. But the President in that article goes on: ``At other times, we fail to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences.''

If you recall, Mr. Speaker, earlier I began by saying what a lack of regulation caused at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The President, in The Wall Street Journal article, says, ``Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis, from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale depression.''

Now, that began before Barack Obama was President of the United States. Most of us, especially those of us on the floor that are senior Members, were here in November when Secretary Paulson came here and cited with 3\1/2\ pages in his hands that the whole financial system of this country was about to collapse; and I, along with countless others, thought that that was the case, and we worked in a bipartisan fashion, I might add, to do what we could to shore it up.

``Over the past 2 years,'' the President said, ``the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance, and today I am signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government.''

Then what else do we need? Here is what we did one month ago, just one month ago. We approved the rules under which committees must, and I repeat, one, lay out a written plan for overseeing Federal regulations; and, two, conduct oversight through hearings and investigations and provide the American people a written report on the results of that oversight twice a year.

The rules even specifically tell committees to review, and I am quoting from the rules that we passed for the House of Representatives for the 112th Congress, they tell the committees ``to review specific problems with Federal Rules, regulations, statutes and court decisions that are ambiguous, arbitrary or nonsensical, or that impose severe financial burdens on individuals.''

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange, then, that we would come here today and say that we are doing something constructive and substantive for the membership. My friend Mr. Sessions said earlier that we're going to give every Member of the House of Representatives who so chooses during that 9\1/2\ hours an opportunity to speak out on the regulations and to have what they would offer to the committees for regulation oversight. But what he fails to say is that we're proceeding under a closed rule.

Now, it isn't that the American public always understands this Washington inside-baseball closed rule, open rule, modified rule. He was going to fix it, he says, by offering the Democrats a motion to recommit, as if that would then provide all the substantive input that Members could have. One of the reasons we have a Rules Committee is so that Members of the House of Representatives can come to the Rules Committee to offer amendments to proposals. The proposal that we are here on today is regulatory reform. Not one amendment was permitted nor will be permitted under this rule. We can come down here and talk all we want, but it won't change anything substantively about this rule. As I have indicated, Democrats are not opposed to conducting proper oversight. If there are superfluous or excessive regulations clearly of no benefit to the American people, then we ought to take a hard look at how best to eliminate them.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Sessions, as a matter of comity, it was pointed out to me by the chairman that I could have asked him. I was of the opinion that the Speaker would give the direction you did, and therefore I apologize to Mr. Sessions for that.

But Democrats now stand for the wholesale undertaking of what is necessary to provide essential public safety measures and crucial economic benefits. We will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules that prevent polluters from dumping toxic waste into drinking water resources. We will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules that prevent Wall Street greed from forcing people out of their homes. And Democrats will not stand for Republicans eliminating rules which ensure that Americans can purchase food at the grocery store without worrying about getting life-threatening illnesses.

While we won't object to Republicans wanting to debate the efficiency of Federal regulations, we do object to spending 9\1/2\ hours debating what everyone has already agreed to. House committees are already required to conduct oversight. They already examine Federal regulations. And they already promulgate legislation making changes to Federal law. Wasting this body's time debating this matter only serves to underscore that Republicans still have no plan for improving the economy and no interest, it does appear, in prioritizing legislation that will create jobs and best serve the American people.

In the 9\1/2\ hours this body will debate today and tomorrow this entirely unnecessary, inconsequential resolution, not a single regulation will be improved, not a single law will be changed, and not a single job will be created. The American people watching know that this is simply a waste of time. They know it is nothing but empty rhetoric. And they know that a 9\1/2\-hour ideological rant is no replacement for the job-creating measures our Nation so desperately needs.

If we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, as I announced earlier, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in opposition to the proposed rule to H.R. 359 to terminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the ability for taxpayers to designate $3 of their Federal tax liability for financing of Presidential election campaign.

This week, Republicans have engaged in what amounts to a shifty attack on a program that successfully limited the influence of corporations and special interests in our Presidential campaigns, tilting the playing field further in favor of multimillionaires who can, and often do, spend their own money.

Just as poll taxes and literacy tests prevented poor people and minorities from voting, eliminating this program will place those without the multimillion-dollar political clout yet another step away from having their day in a Presidential race.

This program allows every taxpaying American to voluntarily check a box--and I think I should reiterate here the individual ``opts in'' to this program--on their 1040 to put $3 in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. A married couple has the option of $6 if filing jointly.

Checking the ``yes'' box does not increase the amount of taxes an individual owes, nor does it decrease any refund to which he or she is entitled.

In establishing the checkoff program, Congress left the single most important decision to the taxpayer. The taxpayer, not the House Republican leadership, decides whether he or she wants $3 of their taxes to be used for the Presidential funding program. The choice is theirs to voluntarily check ``yes'' or ``no.'' And I might add, during our hearing in the Rules Committee yesterday, several of us, including some of my Republican colleagues, indicated that they had at one time or another participated in this program. And yet now they want to eliminate it. Yes, this program does need improvement, but it is far from ineffective or obsolete.

Since the fund's inception in 1976, every Presidential candidate before 2008 has used the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in the general election,

and Republicans' own 2008 Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, used it to fund his election.

During the 2008 election cycle, nearly $17 million of public funds were spent for the Republican convention, and an equivalent amount for Democrats; $84 million to Republicans for general election grants; and a total of $18 million for primary matching funds for parties' candidate nominations.

House Republican leaders have promised to bring reform and accountability to Congress, and I quote from the Republican Pledge to America: ``We are fighting to bring much-needed sunlight to the process.'' Is this the kind of reform and sunlight that you pledge to the American people?

YouCut gives Americans a choice? Really? A Web site where you only have the opportunity to vote ``yes'' for cutting--that is, either you support the Republican agenda, or we do not care what you think. A Web site where saying ``yes'' to meaningful programs, such as the National Endowment For the Arts, Legal Services Corporation, the Community Development Program, and a fund that was created specifically to empower Presidential candidates to participate in the political system regardless of their socioeconomic status or their relationship with special interest influence, is not welcome.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: A more fitting name for the ``YouCut'' program would be ``CutYou'' because it hurts everyday Americans while doing little to cut the Federal deficit.

Simply put, YouCut undercuts our democracy. The summary's headline for the legislation we are considering today is: End the Presidential Election Fund--Savings of $520 million over 10 years.

The biased paragraph goes on to say: ``In short, it provides taxpayer subsidies to political candidates and parties.'' Not only are the summaries provided on YouCut inaccurate, they are written to elicit a specific response.

We know that use of the fund has declined in recent years. President Obama was the first candidate since the fund's inception to opt out of the public financing in the general election, and other candidates have opted out of public financing in primary elections. If candidates from major parties continue to decline public financing, then the savings from eliminating the fund could and likely will be substantially lower.

Confusing YouCut voters with one-sided jargon and eliminating programs like the Presidential Election Campaign Fund are not the answers; fixing the public financing system and paying attention to what the American people really want are the answers.

What Republicans fail to mention is that the YouCut program is inherently selective, and therefore biased. Neither online nor cell phone voters are able to vote to save a program rather than cut it. Furthermore, the YouCut program conveniently targets only those who have Internet access and cell phones, which disproportionately leaves out a lot of the poor and elderly. The last time I checked, an undisclosed number of votes on a partisan Web site does not constitute the will of the American people.

Republicans seem to think that this online gimmick is an effective substitute for good governance. Now, the Republicans have promised over and over again that the 112th Congress would be a new wave of accountability and transparency. And yet this, like every other major bill that has been considered thus far, is lacking in both. The Republican leadership has held no hearings or markups, failed to consider alternatives, and crafted a bill so narrow that very few amendments can even be considered germane.

Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates rather than repairs the Presidential public financing system, which is, in my judgment, irresponsible and will move our Nation in the wrong direction. I suggest that the next campaign more than likely on either side, Republican or Democrat, will cost as much as $1 billion each.

The House Republican leadership has touted that they are going to change the permissive culture of Congress. Today's consideration of this legislation is evidence that the only thing House Republicans want to do is glorify the permissive culture of their own party.

I urge my colleagues to instead focus on repairing the system and maintain the focus on increasing the roles of average citizens in our Presidential election process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, that free-flowing debate consists of six preprinted amendments. Five of those amendments are not in order. So we're going to have a free-flowing debate on six matters that are offered; and if what he just said is going to give the American public the impression that we're having a free-flowing debate, then I must have missed something.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I reclaim my time merely to point out that I don't consider five matters that are not in order and one that's going to be ultimately debated to be a free-flowing debate.

We'll get there. Perhaps we'll get there after we listen to my good friend, the former chair of this committee and the distinguished ranking member from New York.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, my good friend, Gerry Connolly.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend of longstanding, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am one of those people among the 10 million that did do the checkoff of $3 for publicly-financed Presidential campaigns and to support the national parties' conventions. I feel very strongly that my $3 now is directed in a way that I did not wish that it should be directed.

I do urge my friend from North Carolina to understand that at least one Member on this side clearly understands that $617 million is a whole whale of a lot of money. To some of us, $617 or $67 is a whole lot of money. That said, what is balanced here is whether or not we should try in this institution to eliminate the kind of corruption that comes by virtue of a flood of dollars going into campaigns.

To correct my colleague from California--and I wish he were here; I would yield to him to respond--when he cites the fact that no corporate dollars can be contributed to the respective candidates who are on the ballot, he is absolutely correct. That is the law. But under the aegis of the Citizens United decision, corporations and individuals can contribute anonymously to any campaign. And we saw evidence of that on both sides.

Now, I have seen every iteration of reform during the last 50 years in the United States of America. Some of it was good and some of it didn't achieve its mark. This particular measure had some limitations and at the very same time did permit people like Eugene McCarthy, Jimmy Carter, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Sr., just to mention a few, and more recently my good friend Dr. Ron Paul-- it gave them an opportunity to put forward their ideas. And the argument that they can go out there and raise the kind of money that would allow for that to happen I think is specious at best.

For most candidates, public funding from the Presidential election campaign fund has been the source of sorely needed funds at crucial points in Presidential races. To make matters worse, as has been pointed out by Ms. Slaughter and myself and others, the legislation we are considering today is a repeat of the disastrous Citizens United decision, which on January 21, 2010, unleashed massive corporate influence-buying expenditures in our national elections. In the face of the first anniversary of Citizens United, we know for a fact how essential it is to repair the Presidential public financing system and provide Presidential candidates with a viable alternative for financing their elections, as opposed to having to depend on influence-seeking big donors, lobbyists, bundlers, and corporate spenders. We cannot eliminate the corruption of our political system when we are eliminating a program that was created to try to do that.

Mr. Speaker, a vote for this legislation is a vote for big corporations and big private money to fund the election of their desired candidates. The Presidential public financing system needs repairs, but eliminating a program that works, that is voluntary, and that gives a voice to the American people is not the answer.

Mr. Speaker, 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 DISCLOSE Act, with the same text as H.R. 5175 from the 111th Congress, as it passed the House on June 24, 2010. This Republican proposal to eliminate voluntary public financing for Presidential elections is, in my view, a step in the wrong direction.

When Presidential campaigns stop receiving this clean money, they'll have to go after private contributions instead. That's going to mean more time spent talking to special interests and the powerful and less time spent talking with the voters and communities and groups that have good ideas and real problems to discuss but don't have multi-million dollars to donate to a campaign.

Is that really what we want for our constituents? I am confident that the answer is a resounding ``no.'' Make no mistake, this will affect the quality of our campaigns and it will affect our democratic process.

We should be considering real campaign finance reform like the DISCLOSE Act. That bill would establish disclosure requirements for election-related spending by corporations, unions, and other organizations. And I might add, Mr. Speaker, it was a measure, as offered in the previous Congress, that did go through regular order, did have substantial committee hearings, and was presented to the Rules Committee, as opposed to this measure that has had absolutely no hearings and just comes here direct to the floor under the rubric of a modified open rule. And it would require, this DISCLOSE measure, any person or organization making so-called ``independent expenditures'' over $10,000 to disclose them within 24 hours. That's what we need after Citizens United, not politicians spending more time and energy to raise big money.

The DISCLOSE Act would put a check on donations by Federal contractors and prohibit contributions and expenditures by foreign- controlled domestic corporations. And among its other provisions, for example, is a prohibition on recipients of TARP funds from making contributions or expenditures.

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 so we can debate and pass real campaign finance reform today.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 54 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting

only of the text of H.R. 5175 of the 111th Congress as passed

by the House. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on House Administration. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the contributions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

CITES was created in 1973 to ensure that international trade in wild plants and animals does not threaten their survival. Launched with a few signatory nations, CITES has now 175 parties that have an international obligation and responsibility to protect our planet's endangered animals and plants. Nearly 5,000 species of animals and 28,000 species of plants are protected by the convention against over- exploitation through international trade. Adherence to these protective measures has benefited the conservation of animals and plants worldwide.

Unfortunately, more and more species are at risk of extinction and international trade, both legal and illegal, which has exacerbated the dangers. International wildlife trade is estimated to be worth billions of dollars per year and to include hundreds of millions of live plants and animals and derived products such as food products, leather and fur, ornamentals, medicinal, and timber. Such high levels of exploitation of and trade in wild animals and plants, together with other factors such as habitat loss, are capable of bringing some species close to extinction.

Every two to three years, the parties of CITES meet at the Conference of the Parties to review the status of species in danger of extinction and establish trade restrictions. The 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties was held in March 2010. Several proposals were submitted during the summit, some of them ensuring better protections for endangered species, others trying to downlist species and re-open trade. While proposals to downlist elephant populations in Tanzania and Zambia were successfully defeated, several proposals to establish stronger protections for the polar bear, eight sharks, the bluefin tuna and other species were unfortunately rejected. I am saddened to see that economic interests have prevailed over species conservation, risking to bring species close to extinction. This is unacceptable.

My resolution will recognize the important contributions the convention has made in regulating international trade in endangered species and protecting endangered species worldwide. It will also applaud the convention's leadership in protecting elephants in Tanzania and Zambia. Lastly, the resolution will urge all parties to the convention to collaborate effectively to curb excessive exploitation of species for international trade and to adopt stronger protections for several endangered species at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties in 2013.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has a moral obligation to protect endangered species and their natural habitat. Wild animals are a very important part of our commonly held natural resources and contribute to the diversity and stability of our environment. We must continue to maintain a balanced and healthy ecosystem that allows for the coexistence of both human beings and the world's most incredible species. It is essential to work with the international community to ensure the survival of these species. I believe that the stakes are too high to let national interests and differences hinder the future of our planet.

I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting wildlife and promoting environmental conservation across the globe by supporting this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences for the loss of life and destruction of property that is occurring in Australia's northern state of Queensland, as a consequence of the worst floods in half a century. The flood, which has affected three-quarters of Queensland, has killed 20 residents and resulted in thousands of people being evacuated from their homes and businesses.

The steady rain that fell for days before Christmas caused rivers to swell and inundated 22 cities and towns. The Australian National Climate Centre has predicted that the region is highly likely to receive even more than average rainfall from now until the end of March, when the full impact of a strong La Nina cycle will be felt. Estimates of the number of Queenslanders affected go as high as 200,000. States of natural disaster have been declared in 41 of Queensland's 73 municipalities and more than 11,000 people have been evacuated. In addition, the floods have cut off food supplies to communities in the north including Townsville, Cairns and many indigenous communities.

Economists predict that the floods will have an impact on the national GDP of between 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent, or $3 billion to $6 billion, with the mining and agricultural industries affected the most. Half of the state's agricultural crops have been destroyed, coal deliveries have been halted, and mines shut. The international economy will likely feel this economic burden because Queensland supplies half of the world's cooking coal for steel manufacturing, which accounts for about two-thirds of the global trade. The Premier of Queensland and Australia's Prime Minister have announced additional disaster relief assistance to help small businesses and primary producers that have been impacted.

Encouragingly, the size of the tragedy has been matched by the size and speed of the response, but the long-term impact is yet to be determined. It will be a long wait before the massive amount of water recedes and the recovery process starts, involving the resurfacing of roads, reconnecting of power and repairing of infrastructure--all requiring an unparalleled rebuilding effort. I extend my sincere appreciation to the emergency service personnel, army and air force crews, volunteers, and Australia's federal and Queensland governments for their well coordinated response to this disaster. The loss suffered would have been far greater without the skill, dedication, compassion, and sacrifice of these emergency responders.

Mr. Speaker, the flood in northern Australia is a major natural disaster and has caused

loss and destruction on a catastrophic scale. I want to send a message of condolence to those Australian families who have lost lives and livelihoods. Australia is and always will be an important ally and friend to the United States. The Australian people will truly be in my thoughts and prayers over the coming weeks. I wish the affected communities the very best as they rebuild their lives and communities, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a great American, Katherine C. Kelly, a lifelong champion of human rights and universal health care, who died on the morning of January 6, 2011 at the age of 86.

Katherine was a good friend and supporter for more than 40 years. Over the course of her life, she and her late husband, Edward M. Kelly, were prominently active in the civil rights movement, the fight for women's rights, gay rights, and every progressive movement in the United States. Katherine dedicated her life to the Democratic Party, serving as State Committeewoman from Palm Beach County for 26 years.

Additionally, she was named to the Electoral College and served as a delegate to five Democratic National Conventions.

She also served as the Legislative Director for Florida NOW, as Vice President of the Florida Women's Political Caucus, as a Board member for NARAL, and as Development Director of Women Leaders Online. Her continued dedication to political and progressive causes led to recognition as the Outstanding Feminist 2001 by Florida NOW and Woman of the Year in 2008 by the Democratic Women's Club Palm Beach County.

Mr. Speaker, Katherine was deeply loved and widely respected by everyone who knew her. Today, our nation has lost someone who represented all that is good in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Ms. Yolanda De Venanzi and her efforts to raise HIV/AIDS awareness and education within the Hispanic community in South Florida.

Yolanda De Venanzi is an outreach worker with the Comprehensive AIDS Program of Palm Beach County, working within the Hispanic community to help promote HIV/AIDS awareness, testing, and prevention. Among her many activities, she organizes discussion groups and distributes literature throughout the County. Her efforts indeed reach far and wide, including barbershops, the El Sol migrant labor center in Jupiter, and the Caridad Center in Boynton Beach, which provides health services to Hispanic farm workers.

Furthermore, Yolanda also trains volunteers to spread information about HIV/AIDS prevention. One of her ideas that has proven extremely successful is recruiting drivers who work for the Golden Cab Company to distribute packets containing condoms and brochures about the disease. As with all volunteers, they are trained to discuss and promote behavior that helps prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This creative approach is truly a stroke of genius.

A native of Venezuela, Yolanda has had a varied career, working as a psychology teacher and a mental health counselor. This experience has no doubt benefitted her in her work with the Comprehensive AIDS Program. In addition, she still teaches online classes in stress reduction and coping for Empire State College.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. De Venanzi's compassion, concern, devotion, and brilliance are to be lauded. Moreover, her efforts represent the kind of community activism that is key to addressing the serious public health challenge that is HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jean Harper on the occasion of her 90th birthday. Jean was born on January 14, 1921 to David and Alda Sims Hart in Avondale, North Carolina. At a young age, Jean relocated to her home of Washington, District of Columbia.

For thirty-two years, Jean served as a diligent employee at Freedman's Hospital as a Dietitian. While working at Freedman's Hospital, Jean met the love of her life, James ``Jimmy'' Harper. The couple soon married and had one daughter, Barbara Jean. In 1954, Jean and Jimmy moved to Taylor Street where she currently resides. Jean is a proud member of Trinity A.M.E. Zion Church where she serves as a missionary and works actively in the Pastor's Aide Club.

In addition to working enthusiastically in her church, Jean devotes the majority of her time to her family. Invariably, she can be found with her daughter, her grandchildren, and her great grandson. Jean enjoys traveling, shopping, cooking, and socializing with friends and extended family.

For her commitment to her family, to her community, and to her Nation, it is my privilege to wish Jean Harper a very happy 90th birthday.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule for the consideration of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Jobs-Killing Health Care Law Act.

Instead of focusing on job creation and other efforts to grow our economy again, House Republicans have set the tone for the beginning of the 112th Congress by attempting to ram through a repeal of the most comprehensive health care reform legislation in our history.

They want to ``repeal and replace'' the Affordable Care Act, but have yet to share with us and the American people what exactly they want to replace it with.

``Just trust us,'' they say. Well, their idea of trust is voting to strip middle class, working poor, and other vulnerable Americans of their access to affordable, quality health care now, and worrying about the costs later.

What they call a ``job-killing health care law'' actually creates much-needed jobs and cuts the deficit.

In fact, according to a preliminary estimate from Director Elmendorf of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), repeal of the Affordable Care Act will explode federal budget deficits by $230 billion through 2021 and by billions more in the following decade.

The bottom line is that Republicans would rather help themselves by taking away over 32 million Americans' health care than help put our nation back to work.

Simply put, a vote in favor of ``repeal and replace'' is a vote to:

Take coverage away from young adults looking for jobs, children with pre-existing conditions, and low-income families;

Impose lifetime limits on coverage;

Allow insurance companies to spend more on CEO salaries, bonuses, and corporate profits than health care; and

Increase preventive care and prescription drug costs for seniors under Medicare.

Madam Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, I asked all those in attendance whether their health insurance premiums over the past 20 years had gone down. Not one single person, and that would include my Republican colleagues, raised their hands. Need I say more?

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and underlying bill.