Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, while the American people are asking Congress to help create jobs and stabilize the economy, the House Majority would rather spend valuable time on handouts to big oil and gas. For the 11th time this Congress, Members are being asked to support giveaways to big producers and polluters. It is ironic that this bill is being debated at the same time the U.S. Chemical Safety Board released its report that the Deepwater Horizon disaster was caused by a lack of adherence to safety guidelines. Instead of thoughtful efforts to ensure health and safety of workers and the public, as well as the protection of the environment, H.R. 6082 ignores any lessons from that tragedy while opening huge portions of our coasts to drilling. In addition, as someone who has fought to make sure the American taxpayer is properly compensated for energy resources extracted from federally leased lands, I am disturbed that this bill would not ensure oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. This bill does nothing to help our country build a strong energy future or get Americans back to work. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, when at work, most employees feel safe from violent behavior; however, violence in the workplace is not uncommon. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 2008, 12,633 rapes and sexual assaults occurred while U.S. employees were working or on duty. When sexual violence happens at the workplace, women are often traumatized again when learning that the remedy is workers compensation. This downgrades the crime to an `on-the-job occurrence' and prevents victims from suing employers when the crime occurred due to lack of safeguards and protections by employers.

Workers compensation systems were designed to create accident-free workplaces and allow employees hurt on the job to receive payment for medical expenses and lost wages. Using workers compensation as a way for employers to avoid lawsuits stemming from their own negligence is offensive to victims of this terrible crime. When sexual violence occurs on the job, employers should not be allowed to hide behind a system intended to compensate for job-related accidents. This is why I am reintroducing the Give Workplace

Gender Violence Victims Their Day in Court Act, which will prevent employers from invoking workers compensation when employer negligence results in the sexual assault and rape of an employee. This bill will help empower victims of workplace sexual assault to have their day in court instead of being subject to the exclusive remedy of workers compensation.

Rape is not an accident and should never be regarded as an everyday, regular occurrence on the job. This legislation will enable victims and encourage employers to create a work environment free of sexual violence and send the message, loud and clear, that rape is not all in a day's work.

Madam Speaker, there seems to be some misunderstanding on the other side of the aisle on the tax cuts that the Democrats are now proposing.

Yes, we want to cut taxes for the middle class. We think that it is critical for our economic recovery. We also want to cut taxes for everyone else, including the most fortunate, but only on the first $250,000 of their earnings. On that portion of their earnings, they will receive the exact same tax cut as the middle class. But if we hope to seriously address the issue of long-term deficits and debt, we can't do it by spending cuts alone.

According to the nonpartisan fact-checking organization FactCheck.org, in 2009 Federal tax rates were the lowest level in 30 years. Let's make one of those hard choices the other side of the aisle likes to talk about. Let's extend the middle class tax breaks, but let the tax cuts for the most fortunate expire and use every bit of that revenue to help pay down the deficit and get our economy moving in the right direction.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

Madam Chair, this is a terrible bill. This shortsighted legislation affects every corner of our government and keeps Federal agencies from issuing rules critical to our economy and health and safety of Americans. It sets a ridiculous arbitrary benchmark of a 6 percent unemployment rate before an agency can issue rules.

For example, I think it goes in the opposite direction of making the Securities and Exchange Commission more efficient and more effective for the American people. The bill could place extremely high procedural barriers in the agency's way as it seeks to enact all of the rules as directed in financial reform with a limited budget.

With this bill, my colleagues across the aisle seem to somehow believe that the final years of the prior administration were just a rousing success, that the near collapse of our financial system never happened, that the outrageous abuses that we saw in the mortgage lending industry never occurred, and that the abuses in consumer lending that the Federal Reserve labeled as unfair and deceptive were just business as usual. But we know that those things actually happened and that they crippled our economy.

It was in response to events of 2008 that we gave agencies like the SEC tools that they had been lacking to monitor the financial system and to protect our overall economy. And now, right in the middle of implementation of these critical reforms, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to forget that all of this happened and want to put barriers in front of implementing the reforms.

I believe that the language in this bill would basically cripple the SEC. Even as SEC budgets are being slashed, their bill requires the Commission to expend more in the way of resources on economic analysis and places additional procedural barriers in the Agency's way.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I urge everyone to vote ``no.'' It is a death knell of commonsense reform. It would stop reform.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

My amendment concerns title VI of the bill and the enhanced cost- benefit analysis that it requires. The amendment very simply requires that title VI of the underlying bill needs to basically get in line behind all the critical and previously assigned responsibilities Congress has given to the SEC to keep consumers, investors, and our financial system safe.

My amendment would require the Chair of the SEC to certify that the Commission can perform its core mission of protecting investors and do the job it was created to do--safely maintain efficient markets and promote access to capital--before it diverts any of its resources to carry out the new requirements of title VI in this bill.

The financial reforms we enacted 2 years ago gave the SEC critical new tools to oversee a multitrillion-dollar market and to help ensure that we do not get ourselves into another financial crisis. And the reforms we previously enacted require the SEC to conduct extensive rulemakings and to complete a number of critical reports.

Unfortunately, this Congress has chosen to underfund the SEC and hamper its ability to provide the required oversight of the financial industry. The SEC is now facing a $195 million shortfall this year alone. They are also operating on a budget that is a 12 percent cut from what the President requested.

The SEC needs every dollar it now gets just to carry out its core mission: to protect investors, to implement Dodd-Frank, and to provide enforcement. I do not believe that it would be responsible on the part of this Congress to require that already strained resources be diverted from the SEC's core mission in order to comply with the new burdens of this title.

The Congressional Budget Office has made it quite clear that additional resources would have to be used to carry out the provisions of this title. Imposing these new and severe burdens on the SEC's cost- benefit analysis process would ensure that the SEC would be hard- pressed to carry out its fundamental regulatory functions. The SEC would have difficulty protecting investors even when it has identified harmful practices.

The SEC is already required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, and recent court cases prove that, if the process has been insufficient, the SEC must start over.

Last year, for example, the SEC proposed a rule on proxy access to give shareholders more of a say into the activities of companies. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia very directly stated that their cost-benefit analysis had been inadequate. That represents a very real and a very effective existing check on the SEC's authority. But title VI of this bill will effectively shut down the SEC's rulemaking process altogether by requiring significant resources be directed to burdensome new requirements.

So I believe that before we hobble an agency that keeps consumers, investors, and our financial sector safe, it would be wise to require that the Chair of the SEC must certify that it will still be able to carry out its core mission before this provision can go into effect-- also, because we already have a cost-benefit analysis.

In the wake of all the cost, the pain, and the dislocation of the Great Recession, we should not now cripple the SEC's ability to do its real job, that of protecting investors and our financial markets.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

In response to my friend on the other side of the aisle, regulations did not cause the Great Recession; it did not cause the loss of jobs. What caused the loss of jobs was the lack of regulation and the lack of enforcement, and certainly large swaths of the economy that were not regulated at all that brought on the Great Recession.

It was the regulations that Dodd-Frank has put in place, and restoring

the strength to the SEC to protect investors and to protect our economy, and putting hurdles and additional expenses in front of the SEC when they don't even have the money to enforce the new laws and things they have to do. They're very overburdened. So this is a reasonable amendment, and I urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is one of two amendments that Mrs. Lummis has submitted. She has indicated that she will not be offering her other amendment, and we are very pleased as we had some serious concerns about that amendment.

This amendment I am supporting, though, would require Federal agencies to gather valuable data, and it would require the Administrative Conference of the United States to issue a report based on that data. This report would help taxpayers and Congress determine where taxpayer funds flow under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

This amendment has merit. We should have mechanisms in place to track where taxpayer money goes, and the reports this amendment requires will help Congress conduct more thorough oversight over Federal agencies.

There are still some concerns that some have raised about the extent to which the data will be made public. This data could include names of Social Security claimants and veterans who bring claims under EAJA, and this may have a chilling effect on those claimants.

We are willing to work with Mrs. Lummis to address these concerns. Mrs. Lummis, herself, has raised more specific concerns with how EAJA has been used and urges Congress to amend the act. The committee held a hearing and marked up her bill. The reported bill contained several needed improvements to address many of our concerns on this side of the aisle. We thank her for working with us on these changes. The bill still needs some more work, and we will continue to work with her to address all of our concerns. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

This is an absolute terrible idea. Although I am in total agreement with Mr. Paul that transparency is a virtue, I also believe that the Federal Reserve must be free of any political influence, and I'm afraid this bill opens the door for precisely that to happen. I don't believe there is anyone in this Chamber that thinks that what the process needs is more politics.

Make no mistake, I agree that maximum transparency is necessary and desirable, and that's precisely why we included numerous transparency requirements in the financial reform bill, as well as numerous audit requirements. We authorized the GAO to audit the Fed's emergency lending facility. We authorized the GAO to audit any special facility created within the Fed. And we required the Fed to issue an assessment 2 years after institutions were granted access to the Fed's discount window.

We crafted those measures and more in a way that ensures transparency but still preserves the independence of the Federal Reserve in its decision-making process in the critical area of monetary policy. But this bill, as it now stands, would provide information without a proper context. That could have unintended consequences and have totally unwarranted effects on consumer confidence in our financial institutions.

If the individual members of the Open Markets Committee know that each one of their decisions are subject to potential political pressure, it would significantly alter that decision-making process. An open door to the Federal Open Markets Committee would invite political pressures. And having decisions that are driven by politics and polling data is not the path to sound monetary policy.

Decisions about monetary policy should never be based on the raw political needs of the moment but instead should always be based strictly on objective economic considerations and guided by the twin mandates of low inflation and full employment. The unintended consequences of this bill would be to open the Federal Reserve to political influence, and that would have a negative impact on the Fed's independence and its ability to produce sound economic policy. I urge a strong bipartisan ``no'' vote.

I thank Congressman Sablan for yielding and for his hard work in so many areas and his leadership.

I rise to express my opposition to the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act, H.R. 2362.

This bill is unnecessary and seeks to give special consideration to one country--Turkey.

As a country that has shown both negative and aggressive actions toward a number of our allies, Turkey should not be given investment preferences in Indian tribal lands through this bill. And they should not be given preference over 154 allies, members of the World Trade Organization. Nor should they be given preference over American businesses that wish to invest in Indian tribal lands. This bill would reward a country with a record of human rights and religious freedom violations. It has been on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's watch list for 3 consecutive years.

Just this last Friday, many of us marked the 38th anniversary of Turkey's illegal occupation of the northern third of the island Republic of Cyprus. Throughout this occupation, Turkey actively seeks to alter the heritage and demographics of Cyprus. It has systematically destroyed the island's Christian heritage and colonized the area with more than 200,000 settlers and 40,000 troops.

Furthermore, Turkey maintains an economic blockade against Armenia, sealing its borders to all trade, and continues to deny the Armenian genocide, during which over 1.5 million Armenians perished. I have with me the Armenian Assembly and the Armenian National Committee of America's letters in opposition to this legislation.

Also, Turkey has challenged Israel by arguing against Israel's right to develop energy sources. Turkey has also threatened American businesses by saying it would use force to stop a Texas-based company, Noble Energy, from drilling for oil and gas off the shores of Cyprus. Turkey has said it will blacklist any business that assists Cyprus and Israel in their efforts to jointly develop their country's natural resources.

The preferential treatment given to Turkey in H.R. 2362 is unnecessary given the previous passage of the HEARTH Act, which passed this body 400-0, passed the Senate, and is now awaiting the President's signature. That bill allows domestic and foreign companies to engage in leases for housing construction, clean energy, and business development. Unlike the HEARTH Act, the bill before us today does nothing to support these domestic businesses.

Last November, the director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Michael Black, testified before the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee, stating that the HEARTH Act ``fosters the same goals identified in this bill but on a broader, larger scale.'' Through the HEARTH Act, domestic and foreign entities have already been granted an expedited route to invest in Native American lands and help their economic development.

Given the redundancies in the bill and the favored treatment it gives to one country that has shown threatening and discriminatory action toward a number of American allies, I urge my colleagues to join Ranking Member Berman and Ranking Member Markey and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2362.

From: Andreas Akaras

Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012, 1:13 a.m.

To: Elizabeth Darnall

Subject: H.R. 2362 Tribal Trade Bill (AHEPA email blast)

On behalf of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive

Association (AHEPA), the largest and oldest membership-based

organization of American citizens of Greek heritage and

Philhellenes, we are outreaching to share AHEPA's position in

opposition to H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and

Investment Demonstration Project Act. We understand H.R. 2362

is expected to come to the Floor under Suspension of the

Rules this week--perhaps on Monday.

Position

AHEPA is opposed to H.R. 2362 for the following reasons:

1. Turkey's Recent Threats to U.S. Commercial Interests.

Why reward it?

Turkey's has issued threats to the actions of U.S. firm

Noble Energy, which is lawfully conducting oil and gas

exploration off the coast of Cyprus, in Cyprus's Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ) in the eastern Mediteranean. Noble Energy

is based in Houston, Texas.

During this same exploration, Turkey's threats have

directed at U.S. allies Cyprus and Israel as both countries

are working in cooperation via a signed agreement to develop

hydrocarbon reserves in their EEZs.

In response to these threats, House Foreign Affairs

Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen stated, ``Turkey's decision to

escalate tensions by increasing its military presence in the

Mediterranean poses a clear threat to U.S. citizens and

interests in the region.''

Moreover, Turkey has threatened to blacklist international

companies willing to work on this particular exploration

project off the coast of Cyprus. This would include any U.S.

companies.

Why would the United States Congress facilitate the unique

opportunity for private entities from Turkey to engage in

trade and financial investment with Indian tribal economies

when U.S. private entities and citizens are threatened by

Turkey?

2. Congress has already acted with the overwhelmingly

bipartisan-passed HEARTH Act.

H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act, passed the House 400-0 and the

Senate by UC. It will be signed into law by President Obama.

The HEARTH Act promotes trade and investment on Native

American lands without requiring the approval of the Bureau

of Indian Affairs.

As the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mike

Black, testified before the House Committee on Natural

Resources in November 3, 2011, H.R. 205 ``foster[s] the same

goals identified in H.R. 2362 on a broader scale.''

The HEARTH Act benefits all tribes; not a select few that

could benefit from H.R. 2362.

Simply stated, passage of H.R. 205 renders H.R. 2362

unnecessary.

3. Section 1(b) Findings (1)(2)(3) of H.R. 2362 displays

preferential treatment for the Republic of Turkey over other

WTO nations. Why?

Proponents state that no particular country is granted a

commercial advantage under the bill, yet the bill's Findings

section clearly single-out and champion Turkey.

If proponents were serious about amending H.R. 2362 to

provide all WTO countries with a level playing field, it

would not state ``Turkey and all other WTO countries.''

4. Turkish Entities Under Investigation in the United

States.

Mainstream U.S. media outlets have reported on the growth

of Turkish charter schools in America, as many as 120 of

them, and how the schools have come under federal

investigation for how they are administered.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on March 20, 2011, ``But

federal agencies--including the FBI and the Departments of

Labor and Education--are investigating whether some charter

school employees are kicking back part of their salaries to a

Muslim movement founded by Gulen known as Hizmet, or Service,

according to knowledgeable sources.''

In addition the New York Times in a June 6, 2011 article

raised the same concerns about how the schools spend taxpayer

money, ``And it raises questions about whether, ultimately,

the schools are using taxpayer dollars to benefit the Gulen

movement--by giving business to Gulen followers, or through

financial arrangements with local foundations that promote

Gulen teachings and Turkish culture.'' The article also

reports on federal investigations about abuse of a visa

program to bring in expatriate employees.

5. Turkey's Treatment of Minority Populations.

The U.S. House of Representatives must take into

consideration Turkey's treatment of minority populations.

The United States Commission on International Religious

Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal

government commission established by the U.S. Congress, has

recommended Turkey be designated a ``country of particular

concern'' (CPC) in its 2012 annual report. Prior to this

designation, Turkey was placed on its ``Watch List'' for

three consecutive years (2009-2011).

According to the Executive Summary of the 2011 U.S. State

Department Human Rights Report on Turkey, there is

``inadequate protection of vulnerable populations'' within

Turkey.

In addition to these reasons, AHEPA is dismayed the House

Committee on Foreign Affairs was not provided an opportunity

to vet H.R. 2362.

We note a concern with Turkey's foreign policy direction

and history that conflicts with the best interests of the

United States, including: the aforementioned belligerent

posture toward Israel, its vote against a UN resolution to

impose sanctions against Iran with regard to that country's

nuclear weapons program, its 38-year illegal invasion and

subsequent illegal occupation of the Republic of Cyprus, a

member of the European Union and current holder of the EU

presidency; its continued violations of Greece's sovereignty

in the Aegean Sea, a staunch NATO ally; and its blockade of

Armenia.

Hellenic Caucus Opposition

We also thought you would be interested to learn of AHEPA's

position because the congressman is a member of the

Congressional Hellenic Caucus.

The Congressional Hellenic Caucus is opposed to H.R. 2362

and has circulated a DC letter on the issue. Please contacts

Chairs U.S. Reps. Gus Bilirakis or Carolyn Maloney to sign

the DC letter.

Thank you also for consideration of AHEPA's position. We

hope the congressman will take all of the points presented

into consideration and will oppose H.R. 2362.

Andreas N. Akaras,

Advisor,

Office of Congressman John Sarbanes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the founder and cochair of the Hellenic Caucus to speak on the 38th anniversary of the 1974 illegal Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus. We must ensure that the passage of time does not allow us to forget that the Cyprus issue is the result of an illegal invasion and ongoing occupation.

It is long overdue for Turkey to withdraw its troops from Cyprus so that the island can move forward as one nation. Turkey continues to forcibly occupy more than one-third of Cyprus with more than 48,000 troops. In addition, to date, Turkey has repeatedly ignored many of the United Nations resolutions pertaining to Cyprus and has continued to occupy the island in complete violation of international law.

The destruction of religious and cultural sites and artifacts continues unabated, in a long list of Turkish actions that flagrantly disrespect the rights and religious freedoms of the Cypriot people. In the last Congress, the Hellenic Caucus passed a resolution in the House calling for the protection of these religious sites and artifacts in Turkish-occupied areas. We have also worked on a resolution that has been introduced by Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Engel, H. Res. 676, which calls for the halt of the Republic of Turkey's illegal colonization of the Republic of Cyprus with non-Cypriot populations. They are moving people onto the island. It is reported there are 500,000 Cypriot phones in the Turkish area. So the population--no one knows how many more people they're moving in. Cyprus is endeavoring to control all of its territory to end Turkey's occupation and to exploit its energy resources without illegal interference by Turkey.

In 2011, they discovered gas in the Cypriot area. The Noble Energy Company, a private energy company from Texas, discovered that a field off the coast of Cyprus may hold as much as 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the first discovery off the divided island nation. This is tremendously important for energy independence and for an ally to be able to support America and our energy needs. The beginning of drilling by Noble prompted Turkey in September to send a vessel accompanied by warships and fighter jets to the area.

Cyprus is divided after Turkey invaded the northern third of the island in 1974. Turkey does not recognize the Greek Cypriot Government. So this is yet another development that the Turkish country has brought to the island of Cyprus.

There have been some successes for Cyprus. In May of 2004, Cyprus, with the support of the United States, joined the European Union. And during the second half of this year, Cyprus took over the very important and prestigious position of presidency of the Council of the European Union. This is the first time Cyprus presided over the Council of the EU since it became a member of it in 2004.

Yesterday, a group of Hellenic Caucus members met with a group of leaders from the district that I am honored to represent. They included Phil Christopher, Peter Papanicolaou and other national leaders of the Cypriot American community and other Greek American leaders. They came to participate in the hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the confirmation hearing of Mr. Koeing. John Koeing was nominated by President Obama to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus, and we are hopeful that the confirmation will move forward.

We are also very concerned about a bill that has been put forward that gives preferential treatment to Turkey over other countries on contracts and activities that take place on American Indian areas. This has caused a great deal of concern with the members of the caucus.

I now want to express my opposition to the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act. This bill would give preferential treatment to Turkish businesses to engage in investment activities on Indian tribal lands. And I question why they are being singled out for this consideration, given the illegal occupation that continues.

I express my strong support for Cyprus and the vital role it is playing in European affairs and the strong ally they have been to the United States.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership.

Madam Speaker, today Congress must, once again, spend time in an empty gesture even as this country waits for real solutions to serious problems.

Instead of dealing with ways to speed up and expand the creation of jobs, once again, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist that we pretend like we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act-- even though that could drop over 6.6 million young adults under the age of 26 off their parents' health care policies; even though that could throw 17 million children with preexisting conditions to the mercy of the marketplace; even though that would drop 5.3 million seniors down the doughnut hole of Medicare; even though it would just create new uncertainties for small businesses.

Even though all of this is true and more, you make Congress, once again, engage in this crude Kabuki, which is totally without meaning because, if by some dark miracle you are able to pass the bill in the House and the Senate, do you believe for one second that the President would sign it? So what are we doing today? We are taking a vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 31st time. It was a waste of time the first time, the second time, the third time, and so on and so on, and it's a waste of time today.

So I would say let's just hurry up. Vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bill, and let's get back to the business of working to create jobs for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago today, on July 9, 2002, the National Institutes of Health released groundbreaking research findings from the Women's Health Initiative--the largest preventive women's health study ever conducted in the United States. The researchers found that the hormone therapy regimen women were using at and after menopause increased a woman's risk of heart disease, rather than decreasing it, as many had believed, and that it also increased her risk of getting breast cancer.

For decades before this, hormone therapy had been heavily marketed and routinely prescribed to women during menopause, making it one of the most prescribed drug regimens in the country with more than 90 million annual prescriptions written in 1999. But after learning about these research findings, women voted with their feet and hormone therapy prescriptions dropped quickly. This was followed by the first significant drop in breast cancer rates in United States history--there are 160,000 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over the last 10 years because they avoided unnecessary exposure to drugs that would have caused it.

Many people deserve credit for this remarkable public health achievement--the researchers at the National Institutes of Health who led the effort, including the late Dr. Bernadine Healy, the first female director of NIH, who spearheaded the launch of the WHI; the women who volunteered to enroll in the WHI as research subjects to advance science for the benefit of all women; women's health advocates like the National Women's Health Network which built public support and demand for research into the pressing health issues of concern to women; and the women in Congress who led the charge in 1991 to increase the nation's investment in women's health research.

The Women's Health Initiative involved more than 27,000 post- menopausal women at 45 clinical centers across the nation. It remains unsurpassed as the largest women's health research study of women in this age group. Despite this historic significance, however, unfortunately women are still underrepresented today in health research. For example, women make up just 34 percent of heart disease prevention trials and less than 40 percent of clinical cancer research. I rise today to call on my colleagues to support a more equitable allocation of resources and to address the vital need for more investment in research on women's health.

Mr. Speaker, today is not a victory for one party or another. It is not a victory for an ideology. It is a victory for the American people and for the millions who had, for years, gone without access to quality health care. It is a victory for women who will no longer be discriminated against in their insurance premiums and for preexisting conditions and for women and children and seniors and families.

This is a great day for our country, as we finally join the community of economically advanced nations that see to it that all their citizens have access to quality care.

Let's get on with the unfinished business of helping create more jobs and putting a Nation of healthy Americans back to work.

Mr. Speaker, the family of Brian Terry deserves our respect, our condolences and our best efforts to finish the mission, to put an end to gun violence on the southern border. But instead of going after gun violence, this investigation has gone after the man that tried to stop the gun violence, the Attorney General.

Chairman Issa has acknowledged that Attorney General Holder did not know about the gunwalking operation. He has acknowledged that the President and the White House did not know about the gunwalking operation. Both the White House and the Attorney General have acknowledged that the gunwalking operation was a tragic mistake, that it was badly executed, and that it originated under the Bush administration.

It was Attorney General Holder that terminated the program and requested an extensive investigation of the operation and how it was conducted. And the documents that they're now requesting in this ``vast and spurious'' investigation have absolutely nothing to do with gunwalking.

If they were really interested in discovering the truth, the committee would have called Kenneth Melson, head of the ATF, as a witness. The chairman refused 10 different requests for a hearing with Mr. Melson--10 requests.

Republicans have not granted one single Democratic witness request in 16 months. Not one.

This is not about discovering the truth. This is about politics. This has become an obsessive political vendetta, pursuing a political agenda in a season of unusually ugly politics.

If they were serious about ending gun violence, they would do what many ATF agents have suggested and put some teeth in the law; and that is why I authored, with my colleagues, a bill to make gun trafficking a Federal offense and strengthen penalties for straw purchases.

This unprecedented contempt citation is politics at its worst and why this body is held in such low esteem by the public now.

Madam Speaker, with so few days left in this legislative session, this is a time when we could be talking about how to help create jobs, improve education, and lower the deficit. That is surely what the American people really care about.

Instead, the greatest deliberative body in the world is quarreling about bringing a contempt charge to the floor of Congress against the Attorney General. It has never happened before. And let's be clear: it's not about finding the truth or creating reforms or finding out how gun walking started. We know how that started--it started under the Bush administration.

What this is about is just the Republican leadership pursuing single- mindedly a political vendetta, a political obsession. Like Ahab going after the great white whale, they are hoping to spill political blood.

This is the type of gamesmanship and partisanship that understandably makes the American people lose faith in their Congress and in their leaders.

Tomorrow, if it comes to the floor, vote ``no'' and let's get back to work on the real problems.

Mr. Speaker, on the 40th Anniversary of Title IX, I can clearly recall my youth when I and my female classmates didn't participate in sports simply because there weren't any sports for girls to play.

Many believe that Title IX applies only to athletics. While it's true that Title IX has literally changed the playing field for women in sports, this landmark legislation has also created opportunities for women in math, law,

science, and other fields where women and girls have historically faced considerable barriers to access and involvement.

Prior to Title IX, sex discrimination was rampant. Many colleges limited the number of women by requiring higher grades and test scores than men, pregnant students were frequently expelled from high schools, and athletic programs for females were virtually nonexistent.

Today, women comprise over half of undergraduate students, roughly half of students in medical and law schools, and girl's participation in high school sports has increased tenfold.

To commemorate this landmark legislation, I am introducing a Resolution to Commemorate the 40th Anniversary of Title IX along with Reps. Gwen Moore, Marcia Fudge, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barbara Lee, Frederica Wilson, Betty McCollum, Laura Richardson, Edolphus Towns, Russ Carnahan, Lynn Woolsey, Jim McDermott and Jim McGovern. The countless girls and women that have benefited from Title IX are a testament to the importance of gender fairness and the obstacles girls and women still face in overcoming the wage gap, sexual harassment and shattering ceilings in lines of work that still favor men.

It's my great hope that we will use this momentous occasion to affirm the equal treatment of men and women and boys and girls and endeavor to work towards a time when women and girls can achieve true equality in athletics, education, and employment.

Mr. Speaker, on June 5, 2012, I missed rollcall votes numbered 315, 316, 317, and 318. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall No. 315, the McClintock Amendment which would reduce the Nuclear Energy account by $514,391,000, and apply the savings to the spending reduction account; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 316, the Hirono Amendment which would reduce the Fossil Energy Research and Development account by $133,400,000, and increase funds for the Advanced Research Project Agency account by the same amount; ``no'' on rollcall No. 317, the McClintock Amendment which would zero out the Fossil Energy Research and Development account (a cut of $554 million) and apply the savings to the spending reduction account; and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 318, the Matheson Amendment which would increase the Non- Defense environmental cleanup account by $9,600,000, and reduce the National Nuclear Security Weapons account by the same amount.