Floor Statements

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

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about what I think is a very, very important undertaking. It deals with our democratic system and what works against it.

My amendment would require that anyone that receives an appropriation, a contract, doing business with the Federal Government produce full disclosure relative to political expenditures.

I raised this because I think there is a dark corner of our system that is not being addressed, and it is an issue that is as much about deficit reduction as it is about our democracy. We know that there are political expenditures that are made. Some are disclosed; some aren't. I think it's important to state that I think, I really believe, that this could have been a bipartisan agreement. It's important to remember that our Republican colleagues were for disclosure before they were against it.

In 2000, Senator Mitch McConnell asked, ``Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?''

In 2007, on Meet the Press, Speaker John Boehner said, we need ``full disclosure of all the money that we raise and how it's spent. And I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.''

I agree with what the Speaker said in 2007, but since then our colleagues have changed their minds. Not a single Republican voted for the DISCLOSE Act. And when I offered an amendment similar to this one in February, it wasn't even allowed to be brought up for a vote. Since then, Republicans have gone on high alert at the news that the President is considering an Executive order to create the same kind of disclosure they used to favor.

I know that the National Chamber of Commerce has weighed in, and they've raised First Amendment. I'm really interested in this new effort and interest of the National Chamber of Commerce, and I hope they'll come to my office and talk to me about forming a coalition on First Amendment rights. This is not about that. This is not about that, and no one can say that with a straight face.

My constituents are very smart; they can think for themselves. But even the smartest people can't make a decision without critical information, and today's broken system leaves millions of Americans in the dark. They don't know who's paying for what; they don't know who is being paid to say what because there is not disclosure at the Federal level.

So this levels this out. It very simply says that we're on the side of taxpayers, that we are going to make sure that whether it's procurement or contracts or appropriations, that we want to be on the side of the taxpayer, on the side of the taxpayer having full disclosure so that they not only know who's doing business with the Federal Government, but where these tax dollars are going.

There's a requirement at the SEC, Mr. Chairman, where boards of directors, who essentially are the congress of a corporation, must disclose their financial interests. Why? So that shareholders know. Well, guess who the shareholders are in the country? The taxpayers, the citizens. This is in many ways a backdoor earmark, and we need to get rid of it.

So I hope that this will be made in order. And I also think that this is a very important effort for full disclosure at the Federal level, whoever does business with the Federal Government, that they disclose. It's a fair requirement, it's a simple requirement, and I think it's something we should all agree on: disclosure, disclosure, disclosure.

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

Point of Order

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 397, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Offered By: Ms. Eshoo

Amendment No. 79: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and a particular effort to benefit the Asian Pacific American (APA) community, the Hep B Free Campaign. This is a month to acknowledge and celebrate the APA community's vital economic, cultural, academic, and political contributions to our diverse and dynamic country. I'm proud to join more than 150,000 of my APA constituents in California's 14th Congressional District, whose work enriches our lives every day.

As we acknowledge the extraordinary impact of the APA community, this is also a time to address a more sobering impact on the APA community, the grave health threat of Hepatitis B. Hepatitis B is the greatest cause of liver cancer in the world, resulting in up to 80 percent of all liver cancer, three hundred and fifty to four hundred million people in the world are chronically infected with Hepatitis B, which takes a life every 30 seconds. Most of them are Asian. One in ten foreign-born Asian Americans are chronically infected with Hepatitis B, 100 times the infection rate of the general population. Without treatment, 1 in 4 will die from liver cancer or liver failure, often in their prime adult years. In California alone, liver cancer is among the leading causes of cancer deaths among Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, and Filipinos. Nearly 10 percent of the Asian population in my District is chronically infected, and nearly half have not been vaccinated to protect them from infection.

Given the gravity of this health challenge, I'm proud to recognize the outstanding work of the Hep B Free Campaign which promotes public and provider awareness, including programs for screening, vaccination, and linkage to follow-up treatment.

Hep B Free was originally started by Asian Week Foundation, a community-based non-profit that celebrates the diversity of Asian Pacific America through identity assemblage, with special expertise in bringing together the multiplicity of groups and personality that make up our community; Stanford University's Asian Liver Center, the only non-profit organization in the country addressing this pressing public health disparity; and the San Francisco Department of Public Health because they recognized the egregious health disparity experienced by APA in terms of Hepatitis B. I'm proud this campaign began in San Francisco, continued in San Mateo County and has now launched its campaign in Santa Clara County with the additional support of Asian Americans for Community Involvement and the Santa Clara County Public Health Department. I look forward to supporting Hep B Free as they expand their efforts to the rest of the country. As Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, Majority Whip of the California Assembly and Honorary Chairperson of the Hep B Free Campaign, said, ``We can set a model for the nation and be an inspiration to efforts around the globe in eradicating Hep

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and career of Thomas (Tom) C. Mohr who is the President of Canada College, a distinguished college in the 14th Congressional District of California and my alma mater. President Mohr has served as a teacher, mentor and community leader for the past 47 years, with 42 of those years living in the Bay Area with his beloved wife Sandy.

President Mohr holds a Bachelor of Science from St. Louis University and a Master of Arts from the University of San Francisco. A life-long educator, he began teaching at Taylor School in St. Louis, Missouri in 1958, and moved to San Francisco in 1959, where he taught at Riordan High School. He began working as a high school administrator in 1971 when he was appointed Vice Principal of Serramonte High School in the Jefferson Union High School District.

During his career he was invited by the Western Association of School Accreditation to serve on more than 30 school accreditations, most of which he chaired, including accreditations of schools in Japan and Egypt.

In 1996, President Mohr was named Superintendent of the San Mateo Union High School District. He pushed for the successful passage of a $137.5 million bond to refurbish and modernize the six high schools in the District. He also led the District in a comprehensive planning process. He retired in 2004, and was soon appointed Interim President at Canada College.

Canada College, located in Redwood City, opened in 1968 as part of the three-school San Mateo County Community College District. The beautiful campus overlooks Silicon Valley and its talented students have gone on to apply the excellent education they received at Canada to achieve their dreams academically and professionally across the Bay Area and beyond.

President Mohr is recognized as the critical leader in the growth of this unique college, including the re-establishment of strong connections with local high schools to make Canada College a destination for graduating seniors, increasing enrollment by nearly 1,000 students.

A tireless leader and innovator in education, President Mohr helped reorganize the entire planning structure at the College and guided it and the San Mateo County Community College District through an exhaustive strategic planning process where the College had its accreditation renewed and is now viewed as a state leader in the accreditation process.

President Mohr also developed his vision for Canada with an Honors Transfer Program at the College designed to support highly motivated students as they pursue their educational goals for graduation and transfer, increasing by five times the number of students transferring to UC schools. In the Honors Program, students are able to find the additional resources they need among their peers and excellent faculty to take their academic achievements to the next level.

During his tenure at Canada College, President Mohr made it a priority to create a center for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning, attracting more than $3 million in Federal grants to support this mission, and adding more than 1,000 students majoring in STEM-related fields.

A practical leader, President Mohr understood the importance of linking career opportunities to education and he created pipelines for ESL students to connect their language education to growing career fields. Understanding that education doesn't stop with an Associate's Degree, he made it a priority to develop additional opportunities for students through the Canada College University Center, including bachelor degree programs in art, psychology, human services, and business administration. The important link between prepared students and student success was a priority for President Mohr, leading him to create the Center for Teacher Efficacy at the Canada College University Center which provides professional development opportunities for high school teachers on the Peninsula.

Throughout his distinguished career, President Mohr has connected the College to the community, serving as Vice Chairman on the Redwood City San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce, serving on the Board for the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula, serving on the Board of the Redwood City Police Activities League, and serving through numerous civic groups.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in offering our warmest congratulations to President Tom Mohr on his retirement and to celebrate his extraordinary career and legacy he created, helping countless students to achieve their dreams and potential. He has led with conviction, inspired through example and taught with joy, transforming each life he touched. He has renewed our community and strengthened our country, proving that one person can indeed make noble and lasting contributions. How blessed I am to know President Mohr, how deeply grateful I am to him, and how grateful our nation is to him for lifting up generations of students who today are major contributors to the good and the greatness of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Reverend Paul R. Vassar's ordination to the priesthood. For four decades, Father Vassar has served the people of his parishes with good words and good works, and on June 11, 2011, St. Leander Parish is celebrating this wonderful milestone in their Pastor's life.

A native of Oakland, Father Vassar graduated from Bishop O'Dowd High School, studied philosophy at St. John's College in Camarillo, and graduated from St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park, California. He was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Floyd Begin in 1971.

Since that time, Father Vassar has served as an Associate Pastor at the Oakland parish of St. Leo, and as Pastor of St. Benedict's in 1977. After studying at Howard University, he was appointed Pastor of St. Columba Parish in Oakland, where he ministered for 13 years. After a decade as Diocesan Vicar General, Father Vassar became Pastor of St. Leander Parish in 2004.

At St. Leander, Father Vassar's energy and enthusiasm constantly shine through. He visits students in their classrooms regularly at the Parish school, delighting in their growth and activity. Dedicated to learning and listening, Father Vassar learned Spanish to better communicate with his diverse parish. Under his guidance and exceptional leadership, one of the oldest parishes of the Diocese of Oakland has flourished.

Father Vassar has served on the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities of the East Bay, and he and several of his priest friends formed a support group to share the challenges and joys of their callings.

It is a special personal privilege for me to honor Father Paul on the 40th Anniversary of his ordination. We have been friends since his days at St. Patrick's Seminary and he has been part of my family since then, from the births of my children, to officiating at the wedding of my daughter, to celebrating the Funeral Masses for my parents when each entered into eternity. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Father Vassar's four decades of faithful service to the Bay Area Catholic community. When he joined St. Leander, he commented on how excited he was to return to parish work. ``I get to walk with people where God is working with them,'' he said. For 40 phenomenal years, Father Vassar has done just that. I'm proud to know him, to be his friend, and to pay tribute to this good, holy and happy man who has strengthened our community, deepened our faith, and made our country a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary contributions of John Kelly, an outstanding humanitarian and former Executive Director of Samaritan House in San Mateo, California. Samaritan House is honoring John Kelly at its May 7th Gala for a lifetime dedicated to helping the least among us.

John Kelly grew up in the community he watches over. A San Francisco native, he earned a Master's Degree in Theology from the University of Notre Dame and a Master's Degree in Psychology from Berkeley's Graduate Theological Union. He spent 25 years as a Catholic priest and nearly two decades teaching at Serra and Menlo Atherton High Schools.

In 1985, Samaritan House hired John Kelly to unite a San Mateo City Information and Referral Agency for low-income residents, with a free meal program. Under John Kelly's fifteen years of unparalleled leadership, Samaritan House expanded to include many new programs and help many more people in need, including a 90-bed shelter, free medical clinic, food pantry, clothes closet, and holiday assistance. They offer classes in learning English, household budgeting, nutrition, and parenting skills. Today, more than 3,000 volunteers help Samaritan House provide more than 12,000 San Mateo County residents with free food, clothing, and counseling. Primarily relying on private donations, Samaritan House proudly models its services on the idea of ``Neighbor Helping Neighbor.''

John Kelly is one of the best neighbors in the Bay Area. His public spiritedness truly encompasses the entire community. Since 1991, John Kelly has volunteered several days a week at San Quentin State Prison, where he teaches self-help courses, and offers spiritual guidance and discussion. ``I relish seeing so many men turn their lives around,'' he always says. John Kelly also serves on the boards of several civic organizations, and I'm proud to sit alongside him as a member of the advisory board of the Service League of San Mateo County. In recognition of his outstanding commitment to his community, John Kelly received the Bay Area's 2005 Jefferson Award for Public Service.

The term ``Good Samaritan'' is used so often that we occasionally forget what was so extraordinary about the story, where one man recognized a kinship, a common humanity, and stopped to help a person in need. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest passes by the hapless victim. For John Kelly, the seminary strengthened his desire to help. It is his calling, and he has immeasurably transformed the lives of so many.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life's work of John Kelly and the Samaritan House. He has said, ``The most important thing you can do is help another human being.'' In this sense, John's entire life has been filled with doing important things. He has spent his life recognizing and resolving the problems of poverty, and I'm honored to recognize him in turn in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

First of all, to imply that taxpayers fund abortions today is a lie. No, not one penny can be spent on abortions because of the Hyde Amendment which passed on September 30, 1976.

What this bill does is to play reproductive roulette with the Tax Code. Under H.R. 3, if someone buys private insurance that includes coverage for abortions, they will be taxed. If someone buys private insurance, using your own money, obviously, that doesn't include coverage for abortions, then they can deduct the cost of the health plan from their taxes. This would turn our tax collection agency into a health care policing agency.

I support a woman's right to opt for or against abortion. The decision is private. It's a matter of faith. It's a matter of conscience, and our Constitution recognizes this.

Make no mistake, this is an attack on women's health and it's a giant step back for the equality we've worked so hard to achieve. This is wrong, this is dangerous, and the House should oppose it.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1217, a bill to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Prevention works. It's the best way to keep costs down and keep people healthy.

For decades our healthcare system has been designed to treat patients once they're sick. This is inefficient and costly. The Prevention and Public Health Fund included in healthcare reform is finally starting to change this backward system and invest efforts to keep people healthy.

The Fund is important because it offers flexibility--grants are awarded to states, communities, and local public health groups to implement local prevention programs that work for the local community.

Any person in this chamber who is concerned about the rising cost of healthcare in our country should be embracing the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Study after study has proven that prevention saves money. This legislation willfully ignores this fact and instead, favors an ``every man for himself'' approach.

Is it any wonder why we spend more on healthcare than any country in the world with lackluster results? Other nations are out-investing us in prevention, public health infrastructure, and primary care. Smart healthcare saves money.

Unfortunately, we're also considering several bills this week to eliminate healthcare and none of them are wise. Efforts to chip away at the first meaningful health reform our country has ever seen are shortsighted and foolish . . . even worse is to take away basic preventive health services that women already have. Ninety seven percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides have nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with family planning, diabetes care, vaccines, physicals, and, for men, testicular cancer screenings. Eliminating funding for the preventive services of Planned Parenthood will increase the number of abortions in our country and reverse the positive results of mammograms and cervical care.

I urge my colleagues to vote against these efforts.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution 37 which, if enacted, would overturn the FCC's open Internet rules, not closed Internet rules.

The first thing that I want to say today is that at 2 p.m. today, which is the time right now, we are moving ever closer to the shutdown of our government. I think that this is a very sad day, a day when the rest of the world that always looks to the United States of America to be the best example for what we do, how we do it, what we say, and how we comport ourselves, that there is failure within a few hours, a total collapse of leadership.

So while this is taking place, that is the toxic cloud that really hangs over the House.

I'm going to use 4 minutes, Mr. Speaker.

This resolution isn't about acting in the interest of American innovation, American jobs, American competition or American consumers. Quite simply, this is an ideological assault on a government agency and their ability to provide basic consumer protections.

If this were about innovation, jobs, competition for consumers, the majority wouldn't really be offering it, because it disables a free and open Internet, which has brought about greater consumer choice and has ushered in some of the most successful businesses of the past two decades in America, from Google and Facebook to Amazon and EBay. I know because so many of them--and I'm so proud of this--are constituent companies of my distinguished congressional district. These companies and thousands of others like them offer access to news, shopping, video, music, and social networking, and have resulted in more than 3 million new American jobs over the past 15 years. If the majority understood this, they wouldn't be standing in the way of it.

In fact, consumers have lined up against what the majority has brought to the floor today. Some of the largest broadband providers in the Nation--AT&T, Comcast and others--have lined up against it. Small businesses have lined up against it. Medium-sized businesses that are in the Internet business

have lined up against it. More than 150 organizations, including public interest organizations, civil rights groups, unions, and education advocates have lined up against it. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has lined up against it. The United Church of Christ and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have lined up against it. The Computer and Communications Industry Association has lined up against it. TechNet is against it. These groups overwhelmingly agree that the CRA is not the answer.

The chairman said earlier that there are many Members on this side who have enacted--used--the CRA on other pieces of legislation. Yes, we have. We thought it was appropriate to. We're not opposed to the CRA, but we are in terms of using it on this.

I really think, at the end of the day, this is ideological. I think, in the Republican DNA, there is total opposition to any Federal agency that is charged with carrying out the protection of consumers and those things that the Congress believes are the best for the American people. So, with all of these businesses and all of these organizations, I think, with all due respect, that you have a very, very weak case.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield 4 minutes to a highly valued member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

I would just like to add to the debate that the number of Democrats that signed the letter that Mr. Stearns just referenced, that was in opposition to operating under Title II. The FCC listened, and they went and placed this set of rules under Title I.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), another very distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to say that this charge about the FCC failing to conduct an adequate market power and cost-benefit analysis has been stated and restated ad nauseam. The FCC fully reviewed the competitiveness of broadband Internet access markets and analyzed the cost benefit of adopting open Internet rules.

Secondly, the Republican witness that came before the committee very comfortably spoke about blocking Netflix. So if anyone questions whether consumers are at stake here and what could happen, they should just look to that record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just in a calm voice respond to my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte. And he is a good friend.

This is not necessary. If there were a case to be made, other than those that have come to the floor today, it would have been made in testimony by the people that are the very stakeholders in all of these businesses. And that's why I started out today by saying I don't believe the Republicans have a case, a leg to stand on, because all of the companies--small, medium, and large--even the largest broadband providers in the country, consumer advocates, religious organizations, it is the broadest and deepest coalition I have seen in recent history of the committee, they are all opposed to what you are doing.

So you are having a wonderful conversation with yourselves, but, most frankly, it is not doing anything for anyone else. This is about protecting consumers, and there have been cases, case after case at the FCC where abuses were committed in terms of blocking, and many other things. So this side is for protecting and understands what an open and free Internet is.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the full committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I thank the very distinguished ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very strong opposition to this bill,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Lois Lees Clumeck, who passed peacefully into eternity at her home in San Mateo, California, on March 21, 2011, at the age of 97 years. She was the pillar of her family . . . a loving wife, mother, grandmother, and great grandmother.

Lois Clumeck raised her family to live life to the fullest and help others do the same. Her daughter Jill and son-in-law John Freidenrich took this message to heart, becoming active philanthropists committed to causes in medicine, education, and art. The passion and philanthropy that the Clumeck and Freidenrich families have demonstrated have transformed countless lives and left a legacy of light and love.

After Jill was diagnosed with breast cancer, Lois became particularly passionate about aiding women with breast cancer through an organization the family created, Breast Cancer Connections. Just as Breast Cancer Connections provided a support network for families struggling to cope with the disease, Lois was always the support network for her entire extended family, whom she deeply cherished.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Lois Clumeck's children . . . Jack and Gloria Clumeck, and Jill and John Freidenrich; her grandchildren, Linda, Alan, Karen, Danny, Gail, Andrew, Eric, Amy, Cindy, and Adam; and her great grandchildren, Benjamin, Lauren, Evan, Danielle, Jacqueline, Samuel, David, Theodore, Lucille, Beverly, Sylvia, Justin, Jacob, Ross, and Alexa.

Lois' devoted daughter Jill once said, ``Find something you're passionate about and give as much as you can to that, and you will feel a richness beyond all riches.'' Lois Clumeck found her passion in people, and her life was rich beyond measure because of it. The memory of her words and deeds are a blessing, and I'm especially grateful to have known such a remarkable woman. She made her community better and strengthened our nation with her love, her generosity, her gentleness and her integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the long and loving life of Oneida ``Mother'' Branch, the heart and soul of the East Palo Alto, California, community, who died in her home on March 22, 2011. For 92 years, Mother Branch put the ``active'' in activist, devoting her life to her family, her church, and her community.

Born in New Orleans, Mother Branch moved to East Palo Alto half a century ago to start a church with her late husband, the Reverend James Branch. After helping to start St. John Missionary Baptist Church, Mother Branch taught Sunday school and founded a sewing club, attending services until just a month before she died. Widely known and respected for her prodigious knowledge of church history and her willingness to help others, Mother Branch was a deeply religious woman who was revered by the entire community.

But Mother Branch's charity was not confined to church. ``Mother was a little lady with a massive heart,'' Paul Nyberg, Publisher of the Los Altos Town Crier, once said. ``She was an unabashed Christian reaching out to help everyone in need.'' In the 1970's, Mother Branch established the East Palo Alto Community Center to provide food, comfort, and support to those in need. For decades, she dispensed canned food, blankets, and clothing--as well as uproarious stories and sage advice--to the people of East Palo Alto, working especially hard to promote education and the dignity of women.

Even while she performed her good works, Mother Branch experienced a series of difficult setbacks. The first Community Center office burned down just before Thanksgiving of 1977, and a flood later destroyed her second office. Mother Branch kept aiding her community, spending what little money she had on temporary storage units and continuing to distribute supplies from her own home--which burned down as well. Motivated by a heroic desire to help, even as a stroke at the age of 86 kept her in the hospital for only two days, she went back to work. ``No one should suffer,'' she would say.

A constant whirlwind of wisdom and affection, Mother Branch always seemed younger than her years . . . which was in fact the opposite. Over the course of resolving a mortgage issue in 2007, Mother Branch discovered that she was actually three years older than she'd thought. But the aid she gave was ageless, touching generations of East Palo Alto residents. Over the years, she would proudly observe, ``I have seen people stand on their own feet.'' This was perhaps her greatest quality, her ability to strengthen and sustain the lives of those around her. She lived her faith daily, and recognized the godliness in every human being.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Mother Branch's children: Erwin Babney, Whitney Babney, and Nate Branch, her grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, as well as all the residents of East Palo Alto. Mother Branch was deeply rooted in her community, nourishing everyone she met with her light, love, and laughter. I'm proud to have known such a caring and extraordinary matriarch and distinguished citizen of our community and our country.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in fierce opposition to this bill which is going to adversely affect more than 34 million National Public Radio listeners through 900 local stations across our entire country.

My Republican colleagues have declared an emergency to rush this bill to the floor without any hearings whatsoever to examine the proposal. I think that's a bad way to do business.

We have many emergencies to deal with in our country, but attacking and crippling NPR is hardly an emergency. And it does it in a very sneaky back-door way. What the bill does is it cuts off the use of all Federal funding to NPR by preventing any grants to it. It prevents any support to NPR by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and it prevents support to NPR programming from public radio stations across the country. In other words, it cripples it, it hobbles it, which is really what the majority is seeking to do.

This proposal is not going to do anything about reducing the deficit. The CBO has weighed in. It doesn't cut any Federal spending. In fact, the bill doesn't produce one penny in savings. What's very clear is what it does do, and it's really purposeful. And that is to hobble NPR, threatening 9,000 jobs at stations across the country. Why? I think the motivations behind this effort are quite clear: They are rooted in an ideological view about what NPR broadcasts, and it capitalizes on recent headlines involving Ron Schiller and Juan Williams. This attack on NPR strikes at the core of a wide array of NPR programming that Americans enjoy every single day, all week long across the country, from ``The Diane Rehm Show'' to ``Morning Edition'' and two of my favorites, ``Car Talk'' and ``World of Opera.'' I acknowledge that our Nation faces threats, but ``Car Talk'' is hardly one of them, and neither is ``Diane Rehm.'' Silencing what some disagree with--make no mistake about it--is a threat to our democracy. A great democracy does not silence voices. We want many voices to the many.

NPR programming reaches more than 900 independently owned and operated stations across the country, from San Francisco's KQED, the most listened to public radio station in the country with more than 740,000 listeners each week, to small rural stations like that of the chairman of the subcommittee, KCUW in Pendleton, Oregon. These stations provide an important public service to the local community, and people trust it, and they enjoy it. They want it. They like it. This is national programming with local listenership.

And NPR's listenership has increased, unlike other stations, by 72 percent over the last 10 years. A recent national survey found--and that's why I think this is an ill-begotten proposal by the majority. You say you listen to the American people. I think you have to take the plugs out of your ears. A recent national survey found that almost 70 percent of all voters across the entire political spectrum oppose terminating the funding for public broadcasting, including 56 percent of Republicans in the country.

So I think it's time to stand up for NPR. I think that this is a phony emergency measure, and I don't think NPR deserves to be treated this way. I urge my colleagues to vote to preserve really what I think is a national treasure. It provides in very tough times very

clear and important news and information to instruct our country and listeners in local communities around our Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from our beautiful State of California, Congresswoman Doris Matsui.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to a highly respected member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mike Doyle.

And Happy St. Patrick's Day.

I would just like to add something here, and that is that one of the mantras of our friends on the other side of the aisle was ``read the bill.''

If the gentlewoman from Tennessee would read the bill, she would know that there is not one dime, not one cent that is saved in this bill. And what this bill does is you can talk all you want about NPR and how much you love it, but what you are doing is killing off the local stations from being able to have the money to buy NPR's programming. So you are hurting local broadcasting.

I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished woman from the Santa Barbara, California area, a valued member of the committee, Congresswoman Lois Capps.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin, a highly valued member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have left on each side?

Thank you.

I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Ed Markey, whom I think possesses the broadest and the deepest knowledge about telecommunications in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is the chairman of the House Caucus on Public Broadcasting.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who is one of the great advocates of public broadcasting in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

At this time I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman, the great Irishman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time we have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield my remaining 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, in the wake of the horrible tragedy in Arizona, Members of Congress were united in condemning the violence. We expressed our prayers and hopes for the recovery of our colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the others injured in the attack, and we praised the heroic actions of ordinary Americans on that day.

But for our words to have meaning, Madam Speaker, we also must act.

I'm proud to join Representative Carolyn McCarthy in introducing the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, to eliminate access to clips that enable the kind of shooting spree that took place in Arizona. No one can say that the ability to shoot more than ten times-- without pausing to reload--makes our cities or our citizens any safer. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 addressed this issue, but perversely, by allowing it to expire in 2004, we lost critical ground.

The importance of the ban was tangible in each of our communities. When I first came to Congress, East Palo Alto, a city in my district, bore the awful distinction of being the ``Murder Capital of the Country.'' Today, the crime rate has subsided. The ability to take these murderous assault weapons off the street played a major role in that turnaround, and we should not turn back the clock.

Madam Speaker, we all honor our Constitution and the Second Amendment. I, however, see no connection between the primitive muskets our Founding Fathers contemplated and the sophisticated, deadly weapons that plague our streets today. The United States continues to have the most per-capita gun deaths of any developed nation. This is not a symbol of our freedom. It's a capacity to kill, and this must not eclipse our capacity to care. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this sensible gun legislation which we are grateful to Representative McCarthy for authoring to better protect our communities.

Mr. Speaker, the 26th and 27th of February mark the 23rd anniversary of a violent and horrific attack against Azerbaijani citizens of Armenian descent. The 1988 attacks occurred in the town of Sumgait in Soviet Azerbaijan. Dozens of Armenians were killed, and hundreds more were wounded. During the pogrom, Armenian women and children were raped and people were set on fire and beaten to death while police stood by, unwilling or unable to intervene.

The violence touched off a broader attack against Azerbaijan's ethnic Armenians, ultimately resulting in a war with Nagorno-Karabakh in which tens of thousands of people were killed. The conflict persists and remains unresolved today, as does the military blockade of the Nagorno- Karabakh Republic. The pogroms precipitated a massive refugee situation displacing hundreds of thousands of people, virtually eliminating Azerbaijan's once-significant Armenian population.

Mr. Speaker, as people of conscience, this is a remembrance we must all engage in. For me, it is also a very personal remembrance. My own family members fled the slaughter of the Armenian Genocide under the Ottomans, and when we learned of the massacres against Armenians in 1988, we saw history repeating itself. These vicious acts of murder, targeted at ethnic groups, must be forcefully condemned whenever and wherever we see them. Yet 96 years after the slaughter, Congress has yet to officially recognize the Armenian genocide.

Without our recognition and our forceful condemnation, the cycle of violence will continue. Even today, Christians and other minority groups are being driven from Iraq by extremists, and the once large and diverse ethnic mosaic there is all but eradicated. Without our attention and action by the world community, there is no end in sight.

Today, Mr. Speaker, let us remember the Armenians who lost their lives in Azerbaijan 23 years ago. And then let us take up the work that our principles demand of us, standing united against ethnic violence, discrimination, extremism and brutality, wherever we find them.