Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment introduced by my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Dicks, and in opposition to the broader FY 2012 Interior appropriations bill. This bipartisan amendment, I believe, is critical to restoring the longtime commitment to protecting our most threatened species from extinction.

The gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct that so many of these species our planet actually depends on, and it is a symbiotic relationship that protects our environment.

The language in the underlying bill to prevent any funds from being used to list new species under the Endangered Species Act, I believe, is shortsighted and only serves to punish a successful program for preserving critical habitats. And this language is just one example of the extremely harmful policies included in this bill.

On the broader bill itself, and how it fails to help our economy and create jobs, I want to mention that in my home State of Rhode Island, our unemployment rate right now continues to be the third-highest in the Nation, at 10.8 percent. Right now we need investment in our infrastructure and in our resources to create jobs and modernize our communities.

New England is home to some of the oldest infrastructure in the Nation, and it is estimated that our drinking water infrastructure needs will cost over $400 million over the next 20 years, and that our State has $1.16 billion in unmet wastewater needs. But instead of addressing these needs by investing in our communities and creating new jobs, this bill slashes both the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds by 55 and 14 percent, respectively, below last year's levels.

In this time of complex and contentious debates about our debt and future fiscal security, I constantly hear my colleagues talk about the burden our actions will place on the next generation. Yet this bill would repeal and block implementation of two of the most important laws that keep our environment safe, the Clean Water and Clean Air Act.

Now, what chance are we giving our children to grow up and flourish if we can't protect the rivers and bays that they swim in and the water that they drink?

I'm also very disappointed that this bill blocks the EPA from finalizing a rule reducing emissions of mercury from power plants. Now, last week, Members were down here on the floor speaking about the tiny amount of mercury in light bulbs. Yet, today these same Members are blocking a rule that would keep our fisheries healthy and safe for consumption, in addition to preventing 17,000 premature deaths each year.

I don't understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can be opposed to a small amount of mercury last week, yet today seemingly have no problem, no problem with much larger quantities of the same substance, but it being allowed to endanger public health.

Now, lastly, I urge my colleagues to fight against the nearly 80 percent cut in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the lowest amount in its 45-year history. As many of us are well aware, hunting, fishing, camping, and other outdoor recreation activities are a great benefit to our economy, bringing in a total of $730 billion each year and supporting 6.5 million jobs.

These numbers bear out when you look at my home State of Rhode Island. Each year, 163,000 sportsmen and 436,000 wildlife watchers combine to spend $381 million on wildlife-associated recreation in Rhode Island. We have incredible national wildlife refuges, which have been protected with LWCF funding, and which offer families in my district an opportunity to enjoy beautiful parks, trails, and open spaces at no cost during these tough economic times.

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that this bill reflects our values or our shared desire to preserve our beautiful Nation. I believe we can and we ought to do better for our constituents and for our children. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to bring a bill to the floor that preserves our environment, creates new jobs, and protects our commitment to future generations.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the ranking member. I want to commend the gentleman for sponsoring this amendment and for his work on the broader bill. This is the right thing to do, to defeat the broader bill here and bring a bill to the floor that really reflects our values.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Washington State for offering this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which is nothing

more than a politically motivated distraction from the ongoing budget negotiations necessary to avoid a catastrophic default on our Nation's financial obligations. What we need at this challenging time is shared sacrifice.

The Democrats have called for significant cuts, closing tax loopholes, and requiring people in the highest income brackets to pay their fair share while Republicans continue to push an unrealistic plan that relies exclusively on draconian cuts--on the backs of our seniors, on the backs of working families.

One thing is clear: if we don't reach common ground now, America will default on its debt, and that cannot happen. The most dangerous provision of this bill is the Republican version of the so-called ``balanced budget amendment.'' While a balanced budget amendment done the right way is worthy of consideration, it must, at a minimum, be crafted responsibly and provide flexibility in times of war, recession, or national emergency. This bill does not do that.

We all agree that the budget should be balanced; it needs to be. And Congress already has the necessary legislative tools to change its fiscal policies, as we witnessed during the era of surpluses under the Clinton administration. The challenge lies in our collective abilities and individuals' intentions to work together toward a compromise that prioritizes programs most beneficial to our economy, cuts trillions in spending, and increases revenues from those who can afford it.

Mr. Chair, I rise to express my strong disappointment with the FY2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. As our Nation struggles to recover from the economic recession that has kept unemployment above 10 percent in my home State of Rhode Island, one message I hear over and over again from constituents and economists is the need to invest in new industries, including manufacturing, while addressing our reliance on foreign and dirty sources of energy. During this time of economic uncertainty, we have an opportunity to create new industry while working to build up and stabilize clean, domestic sources of energy.

Unfortunately, this effort will be slowed because of the draconian cuts in this bill, including a 27 percent cut to energy efficiency and renewable energy research programs, which means cuts to solar energy, fuel efficiency investments, and research to improve energy efficiency in our buildings, which account for 40 percent of all U.S. energy use.

Next week, I am holding a roundtable to hear from one of Rhode Island's leading renewable energy companies, Alteris, as well as students and faculty from the University of Rhode Island's Energy Center, because I want my State and our Nation to be capitalizing on every opportunity to invest in the energy jobs of the future. Our budget savings should come by ending the subsidies for big oil companies that don't need them, not by harming up-and-coming businesses like Alteris that can create sustainable job growth.

I am also particularly concerned with cuts to weatherization programs, which have helped to reduce energy bills by one-third for low-income families in Rhode Island. Further, this bill rescinds critical funding to modernize and build our Nation's high speed rail system, including investment in the Northeast Corridor and Rhode Island. Construction of high speed rail will not only create jobs immediately, but the expansion of our infrastructure will create new opportunities for growth in our communities across the region.

Another disappointing provision in this bill is the $123 million cut to the National Nuclear Security Administration's, NNSA's, contribution to our naval reactors work. This funding decrease jeopardizes what the Navy has called ``the nation's only day-to-day assured nuclear response capability,'' our ballistic missile submarines. Defense strategist Loren Thompson recently noted the vital need for our ballistic submarine force stating, ``Today, about half of the warheads in the nuclear arsenal are carried on 14 Ohio-class submarines that are nearly impossible to find much less target. . . . the reason each sub needs to be so fearsome is that deterrence depends on what's left after an enemy attacks, since the threat of retaliation is what deters the attack in the first place.''

These subs are already at the end of their lifespan, but due to refueling and modernization efforts, they will stay in the fleet for another decade. This sounds like a long time until you consider that it takes nearly two decades to design, build, and test a successor ship through the SSBN(X) Ohio replacement program. Design work for the SSBN(X) is finishing this October, leading to an incredibly tight schedule which according to CRS could result in a smaller force than is necessary to continue our nuclear deterrent. We need this ship to come in on time and on budget for the

sake of global nuclear security, and the cuts to naval reactors in this bill directly threaten our future national security.

Mr. Chair, our Nation is facing too many challenges at home and abroad to afford such cuts to critical investments in our energy future and important nuclear deterrent programs, while at the same time increasing funding for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and reinvest in those programs that look to our future, rather than relying on outdated technologies of our past.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 68, regarding continuing operations in Libya. As a member of the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I believe it is vitally important for Congress to exercise strong oversight of the conduct of military operations across the globe. It is for this reason that I have supported measures requiring Congress to authorize the use of limited military force in Libya to protect civilians and support the ongoing NATO mission against Muammar Qaddafi, while prohibiting U.S. ground combat forces.

The President, with the full backing of our allies, the Arab League, and the UN, engaged our military forces in Libya to prevent a humanitarian disaster that raised the specter of tragic episodes like Rwanda and Srebrenica. While I am always reluctant to involve our military in any conflict, I support the President's decision to protect the people of Libya and uphold U.S. principles of political freedom and

basic human rights, when we have the ability to do so. I do not, however, support any effort to involve U.S. ground combat forces in this operation, and this authorization specifically prohibits ground combat forces.

Earlier this month, Congress received a letter from Qaddafi praising its criticism of President Obama over the NATO mission. The world watches America, and what we say has a dramatic effect on not just our own nation, but the safety and security of our allies and peoples around the world. That is why I will also vote today against H.R. 2278, which is a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the President and would only heighten the appearance of divisions between the United States and our allies. Abdicating the mission in Libya in this way emboldens Qaddafi, harms our standing in a dangerous region, and will make it more difficult in the future to rely on and partner with our allies.

I hope my colleagues will reject this measure and send a clear message of support for our allies and for the principles of democracy and human rights that make America great.

Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the FY12 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. This measure does not reflect the needs of our constituents, nor the values of our esteemed body.

In Rhode Island, we have the third highest unemployment rate in the nation, and during the past several years our families have dealt with job losses, higher food prices, and turmoil in the housing market.

I have made many visits to the Rhode Island Community Food Bank and have seen the great work they and many other wonderful organizations in our state do to help our families. I have spoken with the working families who are not proud to accept this assistance, but have no better option and need to use all resources available to feed their children.

That is why I am disappointed that this measure includes $2 billion less than the President's request for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. This measure also cuts the Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP, by $12 million.

While my colleagues in the majority have touted cuts in this bill that are fiscally responsible, I would like to highlight what would happen if we cut and not maintain these programs.

Four years ago, the Rhode Island Community Food Bank served 80,000 SNAP beneficiaries. This month, they are serving 162,000 Rhode Islanders.

Four years ago, they served 30,000 Rhode Islanders through TEFAP. Now they serve 60,000.

If these funding levels are signed into law, the impact to the Rhode Island families most affected by the economic downturn will be devastating.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure, and support legislation that reflects the needs of our constituents and communities who are continuing to feel the effects of the recession.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment to the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that exempts various agencies from Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, a critical provision for our national security.

This exemption will derail the government's efforts to strengthen national security through greenhouse gas reduction. Furthermore, many senior defense leaders do not want such provisions. During recent testimony before Energy & Commerce, Navy Deputy Assistant Secretary Tom Hicks stated the Defense Department was comfortable with Section 526 and that the provision was an effective policy tool. Furthermore, it is important to note Section 526 actually supports the development of alternative domestic fuels; a point that many critics of this provision do not fully understand or articulate in their arguments against it.

Allowing this amendment to become law will ultimately endanger our national security. I hope my colleagues can work together to reach a compromise to strengthen this energy security provision as this bill moves through the legislative process.

Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the FY12 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. This measure includes a $650 million cut to the WIC Program, which would cut up to 1,000 eligible recipients in Rhode Island.

This program provides nutritious food, counseling on healthy eating, and health care referrals for low-income women and children under age five. In Rhode Island, the WIC program collaborates with local culinary programs and farmers markets on cooking demonstrations, healthy eating habits and children's activities.

While all our constituents are feeling the effects of the economic downturn, our most vulnerable citizens are disproportionately affected by job cuts, higher food prices, turmoil in the housing market and other burdens, and the impact can be devastating. Programs like WIC support these families and help put food on the table.

It is our responsibility to ensure that children born into poverty have the same opportunity to achieve the American Dream as any other child in our country and that cannot happen if children grow up malnourished and hungry. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and to reject these harmful cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both H. Res. 292 and H. Con. Res. 51 which address our ongoing allied efforts in Libya. While I strongly support Congress's continued oversight and debate of the mission in Libya and its effect on our national security, I do not believe that either of the resolutions before us represent the most appropriate approach to this issue.

I recently voted for an amendment to the FY2012 Defense Authorization Act to prohibit the use of American ground troops in Libya as the operation progresses, and I continue to believe this is the right path for America's involvement. However, it is not in the best interest of our national security today, or in the long term, to remove all forces from the effort, including U.S. Air and Naval assets, as H. Con. Res. 51 demands. The ongoing NATO operation is intended to preserve the lives of the Libyan people. By completely removing ourselves from this effort, we weaken our global standing on human rights, risk damage to our relationship with NATO allies, and threaten our national security by putting the stability of the region in jeopardy.

Similarly, while I support the ongoing discussion of our involvement in Libya and feel that the Administration's initial coordination and consultation with Congress could have been improved upon, I find H. Res. 292 unduly critical of the Administration's efforts. Furthermore, this resolution would have no actual impact on Congressional oversight of the President's authority or conduct of operations. Rather, it seems designed to serve a political purpose that does nothing to advance the genuine, substantive discussion we should be having about this issue.

Congress should continue to debate U.S. involvement in the Libyan effort, however we must do so smartly and in a manner that does undermine our military efforts or global standing. I urge my colleagues to vote against both of these measures.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to echo his sentiments. I rise in support of my joint amendment with Congressman Cicilline to restore $337 million to the Urban Areas Security Initiative grants program, which would fund the program at the FY 2010 level.

In my home State of Rhode Island, a counterterrorism fusion center, regional cyber defense measures, and chemical, biological, and nuclear detection assets support response efforts across southern New England. A Level I trauma center and the Port of Providence are also critical assets for the region. These homeland defense capabilities are in jeopardy, however, due to the cuts to the Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program in this bill.

The UASI grants were specifically designed to make sure that densely populated areas with critical assets were adequately funded and protected. Now, because of the cuts in this program, this is an example of what I believe are an irresponsible and arbitrary approach to budget cutting that jeopardizes safety throughout the region in case of an attack or natural disaster.

So I applaud my colleague and look forward to working with him on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the Cicilline-Langevin amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would basically ensure that the total cut to the National Defense Education Program does not come from its K-12 education program, which links DOD scientists and engineers with students and teachers in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, or STEM, fields. We know that our Nation is woefully behind in these subject matters. If we don't engage future generations to excel in these fields, it will hurt both our capability for innovation and our national security.

NDEP supports national competitions to create locally based, content- rich environments and robust learning opportunities for students and teachers with an understanding of the real-world application of the STEM fields. Just last year, 1,750 DOD scientists and engineers from 48 DOD laboratories in 26 States engaged more than 180,000 students and 8,000 teachers in outreach and informal education initiatives.

So, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we actually have to make investment in these STEM programs, and I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague and the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Washington, to strike language in the bill concerning the transfer of detainees to U.S. soil for prosecution.

Mr. Chairman, simply put, this amendment does not require that detainees be transferred to U.S. soil. It simply allows a range of options for prosecution of terror suspects and supports our most sacred national values.

As currently written, this legislation ties our hands at a crucial time in Gitmo's history. It's important to note that, as of today, over 400 terrorism convictions have occurred in U.S. Federal courts since 9/ 11. Prosecuting terrorists in the U.S. is just one of many options, including military commissions and detainee transfers, which must be available in order to bring these terrorists to justice.

Now, a ``yes'' vote for the amendment is a vote for our national values, for due process, and for leaving all our prosecutorial options on the table when dealing with the world's most hardened terrorists.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for his thoughtful amendment. Again, this does not require that detainees be transferred to U.S. soil. It just leaves that potential option on the table if the President so deems that that would be an option that should be exercised.

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

I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in support of my amendment to help secure and protect our Nation from cyber attacks. My amendment would basically coordinate Federal information security policy by creating a National Office for Cyberspace, update our Federal information security management practices, and establish measures for the protection of critical infrastructure from cyber attacks.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment passed the House of Representatives last year without objection.

In the intervening year, the threats that we face in cyberspace have clearly multiplied. Three months ago, the director of the CIA told the Congress that the next Pearl Harbor could very well be a cyber attack. Shortly after, the Los Angeles Times reported on a computer hacker who, in a test of a southern California water system, took control of the equipment that added chemicals to the water. The article stated, ``with a few mouse clicks, he could have rendered the water undrinkable for millions of homes.''

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would secure our government-owned IT networks against massive data breaches and attacks by implementing recommendations of the CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity, which I cochaired last year's committee work on Oversight and Government Reform and several recent White House proposals.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment focuses on coordination of efforts to secure our Federal networks, develop smarter cyber policies, and protect critical infrastructure like the power grid. It also establishes a Senate-confirmed National Cyberspace Office in the Executive Office of the President.

This amendment was included in the House-passed fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act and helped spark renewed action in Congress on this critical issue. Now, with so much underway in the executive branch and in the other Chamber, I believe it is critical for the House to once again take a stand on this issue and make the investments necessary to protect our networks in cyberspace.

I would note here that my offset is based on previous estimates of the cost of these provisions, which I firmly believe will actually be lowered once it is rescored. However, even this cost is dwarfed by the tremendous cost of inaction, which, if a successful cyber attack were carried out on critical infrastructure, could result in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses.

Last year alone, researchers recorded 662 breaches at large companies or Federal agencies that left 16.2 million records exposed. Now, this data enabled cyber criminals to prey on citizens and companies with some estimates putting the cost of cyber threats to our economy at $8 billion annually.

But these threats don't just come from criminals. It's believed that there are approximately 1.8 billion attacks on our government servers every month. And the cyber incidents have targeted some of the most sensitive national security data, potentially allowing a foreign intelligence agency to gain a ``digital beachhead'' on our classified and unclassified networks. A larger investment in the security of these networks, which has already been initiated at the direction of the White House, will yield huge efficiencies for our IT systems in the long run while protecting information critical to our security.

Traditionally, no matter how fractious the debate in Washington becomes, Mr. Chairman, we have put aside partisanship when it comes to protecting the American people.

Mr. Chairman, cyber attacks pose a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States, and this legislation takes significant steps toward stopping these threats.

I urge your support of this amendment to keep our Nation safe from cyber attacks.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his kind comments and supportive comments of the work I've done on cybersecurity. And likewise, I want to acknowledge his leadership and the cooperation that we've had on this issue and many others both on the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. I clearly respect the work the gentleman has done, his passion and hard work on protecting the Nation on cyber, and I look forward to our continued work together.

I would, of course, just respectfully disagree that we should hold off and actually take steps to act on this critical issue now. I have worked on, as the gentleman has noted, and have studied this issue for quite some time. I know that this is a moving target, moving faster than what we are prepared for right now in terms of how we are organized and how we are defending ourselves. We are too vulnerable. Our enemies are too aggressive and too far ahead. We need to get better organized and have a more effective response. This amendment would clearly get us further down the road in terms of where we need to be in terms of protecting ourselves.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I first want to begin by thanking Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, as well as the chairman of my subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Chairman Mac Thornberry, for putting forward a bill that truly supports our men and women in combat, enhances our national security, and is in keeping with the true bipartisan history of the House Armed Services Committee.

While I don't agree with every provision in the bill, I am proud that both parties worked together to reach compromises on many measures that support our national defense. As the ranking member of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, I am especially pleased to support our Armed Forces. You need global reach around the world and in cyberspace.

I have also been a long-time supporter of our Special Operations Forces, and the incredible raid on the Osama bin Laden compound several weeks ago is a true testament to their patriotism, their training, their strength and dedication, and I commend them for their incredible work. These brave men and women are a critically unique asset to our national security, and this bill affirms our commitment to supporting their efforts.

This mark also prioritizes the department's cybersecurity efforts, which have long been a chief focus of mine, by strengthening provisions to protect our Nation from insider threats, analyzing threats to military readiness, highlighting vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure, and increasing cooperation with international allies and domestic partners.

Regrettably, there are also several provisions included that deeply concern me--from attempts to derail the successful repeal of DOD's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to measures tying the President's hands over decisions about our nuclear arsenal and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. It is my hope that these issues will be further considered and improved upon by the conference committee.

However, overall, this bill reflects the recognition of the Congress of the incredible sacrifices that our brave men and women in uniform make for our country every day. I am certainly honored to be a part of this process, and I certainly look forward to supporting this bill as it moves through the legislative process and moves into law.

Again, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership, as well as the chairman of my subcommittee, Mac Thornberry. We work, truly, in a bipartisan fashion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, while I support the underlying bill, I rise in opposition to language in the National Defense Authorization Act that exempts the Department of Defense from section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, a critical energy security provision which also supports the development of domestic alternative fuels.

This exemption, Mr. Chairman, will derail the DOD's efforts to strengthen national security through reducing dangerous greenhouse gases. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, recently warned that climate change will have a significant effect on increasing competition for water and food, potentially causing humanitarian crises that could lead to failed states.

Further, this concern is not new to DOD. In 2008, the Defense Science Board recommended to avoid investing in processes that exceed the carbon footprint of petroleum. This provision proposes to do exactly that.

I would hope that we would remove this language and allow the department to experiment and use alternatives that would not exceed the current limit on the current carbon footprint on greenhouse gases.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be in the Chamber for three rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 299, the Polis amendment to H.R. 1229; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 300, the Garamendi amendment to H.R. 1229; and ``yea'' on the Markey amendment to H.R. 1229.

Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress in 2001, I have strongly supported the longstanding policy that prohibits federal funding of abortion. However, I cannot in good conscience support H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, which goes far beyond current policy by using the tax code to punish families and small businesses for the private insurance that they already have.

The thirty-year precedent to restrict the federal funding of abortion, commonly known as the Hyde Amendment, has rightfully served as a guarantee to citizens that the federal government shall not use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions beyond the unique exceptions of rape, incest, or life endangerment of the mother. The Hyde Amendment is a common sense measure to prevent the federal funding of something that many oppose on moral or religious grounds. I am certainly one of those people. However, this bill does much more than make this policy permanent federal law.

For the first time ever, H.R. 3 would expand the definition of federal funding to include tax deductions and credits of private income or expenses. In other words, current restrictions on government spending would also be applied to the private dollars families and small businesses decide to spend on health coverage. This is an unparalleled reinterpretation of federal funding that could have far- reaching consequences for families, businesses, and even religious institutions.

This bill explicitly prohibits individuals and small businesses that elect a private insurance plan with abortion coverage from claiming certain tax deductions, credits and exclusions for health care expenses, even if that abortion coverage is never used but happens to be part of a plan that otherwise works best for a particular family. Such a substantial change in federal policy would raise taxes on families and small businesses for private coverage that they are already struggling to afford.

This prohibition is also not equally applied to large employers, who can continue offering abortion coverage, creating an uneven and unjust application of abortion policy within the tax code. Further, since the IRS is charged with enforcing taxpayer compliance, this bill raises serious concerns over how the government might audit ``questionable'' benefit claims by women who receive an abortion as a result of sexual assault or legitimate life-threatening medical conditions.

It is also important to note that taking the unprecedented step of redefining ``federal funding'' to include the benefit of a tax exemption could raise political and legal questions for churches and other religious organizations which operate under similar restrictions as current law. Many religious institutions either receive segregated federal funds or tax exemptions to run activities such as adoption services, homeless shelters and food banks. This precedent challenges the very pro-life activities that these churches promote.

Although this bill contains many provisions that I do support, it simply goes too far by redefining the very meaning of federal funding.

Finally, we must not lose focus on the truly urgent priorities of Americans right now, namely economic security and deficit reduction. We are five months into this session and Republicans have yet to offer a single bill to help create jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the current version of this bill, stop allowing divisive social issues to dominate our time, and turn our attention to the true economic and fiscal challenges in front of us.