Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the FISA Amendments Act of 2012. If we had had an opportunity to evaluate this law based on experience with it, and to consider some amendments and alternatives, this opposition would not be necessary. But the Republican majority has, once again, told the Members of this House and the American people that it's ``my way or the highway.''

While it is certainly appropriate for our government to gather foreign intelligence, and while some degree of secrecy is obviously necessary, it is also vital in a free society that we limit government, protect the constitutional rights of Americans here and abroad, and limit warrantless spying to genuine foreign intelligence.

Unfortunately, we have seen repeatedly how even the very minimal restraints Congress put on FISA have been violated. We should address those abuses. Congress has an obligation to exert more control over spy agencies than simply to give them a blank check for another 5 years.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) had an amendment that would have shortened the sunset by 2 years, but we won't even have a chance to consider it, perhaps because some of our Republican colleagues might also want to support such an amendment. As a result, we will not revisit the law until after the end of the next presidential term.

And if we had cut shorter this extension, we could do what we should have done but haven't: hold hearings, look into how the law is operating, and decide what amendments and protections are necessary to make sure it operates right so that we can collect the intelligence without violating the constitutional rights of Americans.

I had an amendment that would have required the Attorney General to make publicly available a summary of each decision of the FISA court and the FISA court of review that includes a significant construction of section 702, which allows warrantless surveillance, with appropriate security redactions and editing.

Many American citizens and others who have nothing to do with foreign intelligence gathering are caught up in this surveillance, and government has an obligation to protect their rights. The FISA court is supposed to do that, and we need to ensure that the law and the courts are working.

Disclosure of classified information is not needed to know whether the court performs meaningful oversight of

the executive branch, applies minimization standards correctly, and whether or not we ought to amend the law.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said, ``rather than playing the numbers game, either with the actual targets or the people who are incidentally surveilled, perhaps decisions of the FISA court, particularly the review of the FISA court, appropriately redacted, would be able to give us the answer to that question. I have always been one that favored disclosure.''

The gentleman from Wisconsin is right. If the FISA court is just a rubberstamp of the executive branch, we and the public should know that. And if the court really does provide meaningful oversight and meaningful limitations on the executive branch, we and the public should know that too.

But we won't get to discover that or to debate that. Failure to do so is a dereliction of our constitutional duty to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the betrayal of our liberties.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and demand that we properly consider this very important issue by a somewhat shorter extension and by proper hearings and examination of the limitations and the workings of this law.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the D.C. Abortion Ban Act.

This legislation is a flagrantly unconstitutional attack on the right of women to make the most fundamental decisions about their lives and their health. It is based on radical ideology rather than on long- established Supreme Court precedent or on sound science, and it is yet another attack on the right to self-government of the Americans who live, work, and pay taxes in our Nation's Capital. It is, in short, yet another example of the Republican war on women and of their fundamental hostility to democracy when the voters have the audacity to disagree with Republican orthodox.

And why are we here today, playing abortion politics with a bill everyone knows will not pass the Senate, when millions of Americans are out of a job and the Republican majority can't find a moment to consider a single one of the President's jobs bills?

The constitutional rule is clear: The government may not tell a woman whether or not she may have an abortion before fetal viability. This bill prohibits abortions much earlier. This bill does not even have an exception to protect women's health, another constitutional violation.

We don't have to guess how this kind of extreme legislation plays out. We know from States which have enacted similar laws. Take the case of Danielle Deaver, a Nebraska woman who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Doctors informed her that her fetus would likely be born with undeveloped lungs and not be able to survive outside the womb because all the amniotic fluid had drained, the tiny growing fetus slowly would be crushed by the uterus walls.

During her pregnancy, Nebraska enacted a law similar to this bill. As a result, Ms. Deaver could not obtain an abortion. Thus, despite serious complications and enduring infections, Danielle had to continue her pregnancy. On December 8, 2010, Danielle delivered a 1 pound, 10 ounce child who survived only 15 minutes outside the womb.

The question of fetal pain is a difficult one, but Members need to understand that the argument being made by the proponents of this bill, that a 20-week fetus can feel pain, is a fringe one denied by the bulk of the scientific community. Scientists will continue to debate and study, but we should not write marginal views into the criminal code.

We also need to remember that this bill targets only the District of Columbia, which some on the other side of the aisle like to treat like a colony. It is outrageous that we would be considering a bill that Members are clearly not willing to apply to their own constituents.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Republican leadership stop diverting the attention of this House from the business of putting people back to work by bringing up one divisive, unconstitutional bill after another.

I urge my colleagues to reject this cynical, dangerous, misogynist, and unconstitutional legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is obnoxious for three reasons:

Number one, it picks on the District of Columbia because we can, because they are defenseless. We wouldn't do this to any State.

Number two, it is a direct contradiction of Roe v. Wade, which says you cannot ban an abortion before viability. And one ignorant judge in Arizona, one far-right judge in Arizona who says that a ban is not a ban, it's only a limitation as long as there's an exemption for the risk of life to the mother, doesn't change the meaning of the English language nor the meaning of the Supreme Court.

And three, it's obnoxious because it says to a woman whose health, whose future fertility, whose health is threatened, we judge that your health is less important than that pregnancy. It's not your decision; it's our decision because we're a bunch of arrogant politicians and you're only a woman who's pregnant, and to heck with you. That's why it's obnoxious.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I strongly oppose the Posey amendment because it makes even worse an already deeply problematic provision.

Under title I of this bill, a court is required to award attorney's fees and costs to a ``substantially prevailing small business'' in any civil action to challenge an agency's compliance with the moratorium. That provision further states that a small business can be substantially prevailing in the meaning of the bill even in the absence of a final judgment in its favor ``if the agency that took the significant regulatory action changes its position after the civil action is filed.''

There are two problems with this. First, it doesn't matter if the agency's change in position had absolutely nothing to do with the civil action. A court would still have to award attorney's fees to a small business that challenges an agency's compliance with the moratorium in court, even if the change in policy had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Bad as this provision already is, the Posey amendment makes it worse by requiring that any award of attorney's fees and costs be taken out of the defendant agency's budget. Agencies are already straining under diminishing financial and staff resources, thanks in no small part to the budget priorities of this House during this Congress. Further debilitating agencies by taking fee awards out of their budgets--even under circumstances when their change in position had nothing to do with the underlying lawsuit--further damages agencies' ability to do what Congress tasked them with doing, namely, protecting public health and safety.

What this amendment says is, if an agency has a regulation which, in its judgment, it must issue to protect the public health and safety and a small business sues to stop that, and even if the small business doesn't prevail, if there is any change in the agency's position, and even if that change in position has nothing to do with the subject of the lawsuit by the small business, it must pay attorney's fees. And, under this amendment, it must pay attorney's fees out of its own budget. That is dangerous because it will debilitate the agencies that we task with protecting the public health and safety.

Second of all, it is self-defeating. If you are the agency and you know if you are going to change your position in any way you're going to have the pay the attorney's fees out of your own budget, better don't change. Fight the lawsuit. Don't give in. Fight the small business because you may win; while, if you change your position in any way, if you compromise, if you say, you know, they don't have that great of a case but we can accommodate them by making a small change-- no, then you have to pay attorney's fees out of our own budget. So don't accommodate them. Don't comprise with them. Don't make the change. Fight them to the bitter end. That doesn't help the small business, and it certainly doesn't help the American people who need these agencies to police the marketplace and to protect the public health and safety. So it defeats its own purpose. It is just wrong on so many levels.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

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

Again, we oppose the bill to start with because we shouldn't have a moratorium on rules that are intended to protect the public health and safety that may be necessary.

But second of all, this amendment is self-defeating because if a small business sues the agency, two things. Number one, let's assume that the agency thinks that the small business' suit has some merit, not enough to win the case, but some merit. Under this amendment, the agency cannot compromise, cannot say, You're right; we'll make this change, because the moment it makes a change, even a minor change, then it is no longer the prevailing party. The small business, under the definition of the bill, is the prevailing party and will get attorney's fees, and the attorney's fees come out of the budget--maybe the small budget--of the agency. So rather than yielding in any way, rather than compromising with the small business, fight them. Fight them tooth and nail. That's what this amendment says to the agency. It is, on its own terms, silly and self-defeating, and I urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which would exempt rules to protect nuclear power plant safety from titles I, III, and V of the bill.

It is rare that the premise of an entire week of legislative work on the House floor is wrong, but, here we are here. We are told this is ``regulatory week,'' during which House Republicans are supposedly working to see that the yoke of oppressive government regulation is thrown off and the American entrepreneur is freed to grow his or her business and increase jobs. In thinking about this view, I am reminded of a famous line in Shakespeare's MacBeth, ``It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.''

We have heard, and will continue to hear, a lot of sound and fury this week on the House floor, but just like all the other regulatory bills the House has passed this year, what we pass this week will die in the Senate as well. So all of that talk will signify nothing. Like health care repeal, on which we have taken 33 votes, this, too, is a tremendous waste of time.

More importantly, there is no evidence to support the position that overregulation is the major cause of our slow economic growth and high unemployment rate. According to the Economic Policy Institute, ``economy-wide studies do not find a significant decline in employment from regulatory policies.''

The real culprit of our slow growth and high unemployment is reduced aggregate demand. Do not just take my word for it--this is what economists and business are saying. The Wall Street Journal surveyed dozens of economists last July, and it found that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand.''

The National Federation of Independent Business found that when business owners with declining sales were asked the cause, 45 percent said declining sales. Only 10 percent said higher taxes and regulations.

If all of this is true, why are we here making it harder for the government to enact protective rules and regulations to protect the public health and safety?

Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, suggests an answer. He has said:

Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans

that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue

an agenda supported by the business community year in and

year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political

opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high

unemployment.

Let us look at what the bill that this canard has brought us would do. To me, it seems like Frankenstein. It's put together from various different pieces that do not fit together, and it is very frightening. For example, the underlying bill would block all and any major efforts to protect public health, safety, the environment and so on until the unemployment rate falls below the arbitrary figure of 6 percent; and the bill would impose needless costs on the government and make protecting health and welfare that much more difficult by putting impediments to agreeing to consent decrees and settlements. What all this means is that the most potentially dangerous industries, like nuclear power, the safety of the American public would be put at serious risk by this bill.

My amendment would attempt to make this Frankenstein bill slightly less of a horror show by exempting the issue of nuclear power plant safety from three sections of the bill.

The dangers of nuclear power are well known. One accident can doom millions of people. Because of the almost unimaginable disaster that could happen at a nuclear power plant, regulations to prevent accidents or meltdowns in advance are critically important. The underlying bill would make it harder for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to adopt such rules or policies, thereby putting millions of lives at risk.

Hampering the ability of the NRC to require safety measures like those necessary to prevent a meltdown in the event of an earthquake or an act of terrorism could be devastating. My amendment would free the NRC from the burdens of this bill and allow it to promulgate those rules and regulations necessary to protect us from the disaster of a nuclear catastrophe such as those that occurred at Chernobyl in Russia or at Fukushima in Japan.

I urge everyone to approve the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, first of all, we're dealing with nuclear regulatory authority, with nuclear power plants, and we're not dealing with small businesses. We are dealing with very large businesses. Secondly, we're dealing with permits for construction or modification of a nuclear power plant.

Because of the disaster at Fukushima, hopefully, we learned from experience, it may very well be that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will want to put out new regulations or modify old ones in light of what we have learned from what the Japanese didn't do right, and this would say that they could not promulgate any such regulation as long as unemployment is above 6 percent. As long as unemployment is above 6 percent, we must continue to risk all of our lives. That makes no sense.

Second of all, yes, we want to do environmental streamlining. Well, what this bill says--and this would apply to this, too--is that if an environmental

impact statement takes longer than a certain number of days, forget about it. But it's the sponsor, not the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the sponsor that controls the timing of the EIS.

So if you've got a terrible project which you know is an environmental disaster, all you have to do, under this bill, is to slow-walk the EIS because you control it, and then you don't have to worry about any environmental consequences. That's backwards, it's upside down, and it risks the public safety.

I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I regret what I am about to say could have been and was said a year ago. Not much has changed, but more lives have been destroyed and more billions of dollars have been wasted, all to no intelligent purpose.

The whole premise of the Afghanistan war is wrong. The rationale for the war is to fight al Qaeda, but most of the day-to-day fighting is against an entrenched Taliban insurgency that will outlast any foreign fighters. Fighting in Afghanistan does not enhance the security of the United States in any way.

In 2001, we were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan, and at that time it made sense to go in and destroy those bases--and we did. But that took about 3 weeks. We should have withdrawn after those 3 weeks.

The CIA told us a couple of years ago that there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda personnel in all of Afghanistan. So why do we still have 70,000 troops there, troops who will continue to risk their lives every day in a war that has already claimed far too many lives? And why should we continue pouring billions of dollars into an intractable mess when we should be devoting those funds to our own economy, our own jobs, our own schools, our own bridges and roads and highways, our own housing, social programs, and education?

Afghanistan is in the middle of what is, so far, a 35-year civil war. We do not have either the need or the ability to determine the winner in that war, which is what we're trying to do. If we continue on this course, in 2 years there will be hundreds more dead American soldiers, several hundred billion more dollars wasted, and two or three more provinces labeled ``pacified.'' But as soon as we leave, now or in 2014 or 2016 or 2024 or whenever, those provinces will become ``unpacified,'' the Taliban and the warlords will step up the fighting again, and the Afghan civil war will continue its normal, natural course.

Our troops are fighting valiantly, but we are there on the wrong mission. We should recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan in our own image, that setting up a stable government that will last is both beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the United States.

We fulfilled the mission in protecting America from terrorists based in Afghanistan over 10 years ago. We should have withdrawn our troops 10 years ago. We should withdraw them now. We shouldn't wait until 2014. We shouldn't have several thousands advisers or troops helping the Afghanis for another 10 years. They have their own civil war they have been fighting for 35 years.

I wish we could have waved a magic wand and ended it, but we can't. We should not participate in an Afghan civil war. We do not need to pick the winner in that civil war. We do not have the ability to pick that winner in that civil war. All we are doing is wasting lives, wasting limbs, wasting people, and wasting dollars. We ought to end our involvement in Afghanistan as rapidly as we can physically remove our troops.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Nadler

Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 22, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $426,636,000)''.

Page 3, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $217,282,000)''.

Page 3, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $191,935,000)''.

Page 4, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $236,374,000)''.

Page 4, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $49,872,000)''.

Page 5, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $16,690,000)''.

Page 5, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $13,569,000)''.

Page 6, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $15,370,000)''.

Page 7, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $75,780,000)''.

Page 7, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $26,735,000)''.

Page 8, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $568,000,000)''.

Page 8, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $295,000,000)''.

Page 8, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $255,000,000)''.

Page 8, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $314,000,000)''.

Page 10, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $67,000,000)''.

Page 11, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.

Page 11, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $17,000,000)''.

Page 11, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

Page 12, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $101,000,000)''.

Page 13, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $36,000,000)''.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' 31st attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, you don't have to be a policy wonk to know that the U.S. economy is still struggling to rebound. Millions of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed. That this Congress has not spent every single day of the last year and a half fighting to put people back to work is unconscionable. And now, instead of fighting for good-paying American jobs, Republicans are launching their 31st attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

First, the Republicans said the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said they were wrong. Next, Republicans said the law was too expensive. The Congressional Budget Office said they were wrong. Now Republicans say the law will raise taxes on millions of middle class families. The Urban Institute says they are wrong, estimating that a mere 3 percent of Americans under 65 will face the choice between purchasing insurance and paying a penalty.

Mr. Speaker, let's review what the Affordable Care Act actually does.

We know it extends health insurance to 32 million uninsured Americans, which will prevent the unnecessary deaths of 45,000 people who die each year because they lack health insurance.

We know it will enable millions of Americans with preexisting medical conditions to get insurance. This has gotten publicity.

Also, every middle class family today is one cancer diagnosis away from bankruptcy. Fifty-five percent of all personal bankruptcies are caused by health care emergencies; and 75 percent of these bankruptcies are of people who had health insurance, but health insurance that proved inadequate to cover an expensive disease like cancer.

By preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions and by eliminating the annual and lifetime caps on coverage found in most current policies, the Affordable Care Act will guarantee that middle class families will no longer have to fear going broke because of an expensive illness.

Despite all of the benefits of this law, Republicans have decided the whole law must go. Fine, they want to repeal and replace. Replace it with what?

What is the Republican plan to stem the ever-rising cost of health care in this country and to reduce out-of-pocket health costs? What is the Republican plan to help millions more Americans gain access to health insurance? What is the Republican plan to end discrimination in the insurance market for women, for those with preexisting conditions, for those who are sick and going broke with medical bills and those who die because of lack of care? There is none. The simple truth is that the Republicans have no plan.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to do something new, to try something novel. Instead of going to their familiar well of election-year politics and a steady stream of ``no,'' let's try to work together. Let's not turn a blind eye on the problem and hope it goes away. Let's not be indifferent to 45,000 unnecessary deaths of Americans every single year.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this repeal bill so that we can move on to fighting for American jobs, and we can move on to assuring the middle class that they won't go broke because of an expensive illness and to assuring 30 million Americans that they can get health insurance when they need it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the transportation reauthorization conference report with mixed feelings. The conference report provides $105 billion over the next 27 months for highway and transit programs and will put about 2 million people to work at a time when we desperately need jobs. These funding levels, although far from adequate, are a great improvement from the original House bill and will allow transportation agencies to plan and construct projects important to the economy. The conference report also prevents student loan interest rates from doubling, which is critical to more than 7 million students.

The transit funding formulas are focused on regions with the highest need and will provide essential resources for the MTA to maintain a state of good repair and to make capacity improvements to New York City's subway system. It is unfortunate, however, that the ability of transit agencies to flex funding for operating assistance has been dropped from the final bill.

Also, unfortunately, the Transportation Enhancements program, which includes bicycle, pedestrian, and safe routes to schools, is reduced by several hundred million dollars. And the Projects of National Regional Significance account, which provides for essential freight projects, is substantially watered down.

Thankfully, the Keystone pipeline and coal ash provisions are out of the bill. And although the 270-day deeming provision is no longer in the bill, there are other environmental streamlining provisions of concern, such as the expansion of NEPA categorical exclusions for any project within an existing right-of-way. Massive highway projects could occur within an existing right-of-way, but would no longer be subject to NEPA environmental review requirements.

The final package is a combination of hard-fought victories and losses. Overall, this legislation is essential for creating jobs, preventing interest rates from increasing for millions of students, and putting us on a path toward economic recovery. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the transportation reauthorization conference report, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or ``MAP-21'' (H.R. 4348).

Madam Speaker, I was honored to be appointed as a member of the conference committee, and I was ready to negotiate in good faith to craft a bill that we could all be proud to support. Unfortunately, the process by which this conference was conducted over the last couple of weeks is a cause for concern and was tarnished by a lack of transparency and bipartisan collaboration. House Democratic conferees were shut out of the final negotiations. Our committee staff was not even allowed in the room. The bill text wasn't made available until 4 a.m. yesterday morning, so we have had a very limited amount of time to review the details of this legislation. Yesterday morning, I declined to sign the conference report simply because I could not endorse a product without an adequate understanding of all of its contents, and of the full impact to New York. Our Senate counterparts appear to have struck a compromise including some important victories, as well as concessions of concern. The final package will provide at least $105 billion over the next two

years for highway and transit programs, putting thousands of people to work at a time when we desperately need jobs. These funding levels are an improvement from the original House bill, and will allow transportation agencies to plan and construct projects important to the economy. The conference report also prevents student loan interest rates from doubling, which is critical for over 7 million students. As such, I will vote for this conference report, but with a number of reservations.

The highway program appears to retain the funding structure from the Senate bill and essentially preserves current funding levels to the states. There were efforts to revise the formula, which could have resulted in cuts to many states, including, potentially, to New York. It should be considered a victory that all states are essentially held harmless and will benefit from this economic recovery and jobs package. The transit funding formulas are also focused on regions with the highest need, and will provide essential resources for the MTA to maintain a state of good repair and to make capacity improvements to New York City's subway system. The transit title requires a report on transit agencies' compliance with existing civil rights laws, and includes an enhanced workforce development grant program, although not as comprehensive as the Transportation Job Corps Act, which I introduced to establish a career ladder apprenticeship program. These are important and positive aspects of the conference agreement. I am extremely disappointed, however, that the Senate bill's temporary and targeted ability for transit agencies to flex funding for operating assistance has been dropped from the final agreement.

The bill retains the Projects of National and Regional Significance Account as a competitive grant program that we first established in SAFETEA-LU, but the provision is greatly watered down and is rendered largely symbolic. The authorization level is scaled back to $500 million for one year in FY13, and the funding is not guaranteed, but subject to general fund appropriations. The Transportation Appropriations bill for FY13 has already been considered in the House. It passed just yesterday, and there was no funding for this program contained in it. Perhaps we will get lucky and secure funding for it when the appropriations bill is conferenced with the Senate later this year, but the spending levels in that bill are already much too low and resources are strained. It's hard to see how any significant funding will be dedicated over the life of this bill to these projects that are essential to freight movement, economic growth, and global competitiveness. There is a requirement that DOT prepare a report on potential projects that would be funded under the program, so some work in this area will continue, but it is wholly inadequate.

The National Freight Program originally in the Senate bill is not in the conference report, but the designation of a primary freight network and development of a national freight strategic plan is retained. For too long, freight has been too low of a priority, and this must be changed. We must make the efficient movement of freight a national priority. There is no greater transportation issue in the federal interest, and I hope that the measures contained in the conference report will be a stepping stone to a greater federal emphasis on freight policy and funding--and not an end result.

The Transportation Enhancements program, which is now called Transportation Alternatives and includes bicycle, pedestrian, and safe routes to schools, is still in the conference report, but the program is weakened from current law and from the Senate bill. These projects have bipartisan support, as evidenced by the Cardin-Cochran amendment to the Senate bill, and the Petri amendment to the House bill. Despite the broad support for transportation enhancements, the conference report lowers the overall amount of funding for these projects by several hundred million, and expands the ability for states to use this funding for other purposes, including for projects already eligible under other highway programs.

The Senate should be commended for keeping the Keystone Pipeline out of the bill, as well as the provisions limiting EPA authority to regulate coal ash. These are important concessions that were undoubtedly difficult to secure. The RESTORE Act, which would dedicate 80% of the fines levied on BP to Gulf Coast oil spill restoration, is still in the bill, but it is unfortunate that the provision directing funding through the Land and Water Conservation Fund did not survive.

There are problematic environmental streamlining provisions. Although the 270 day ``deeming'' provision is no longer in the bill, there are several changes to the NEPA process that will undercut environmental reviews and public participation. The bill sets accelerated, hard deadlines for environmental reviews, with penalties for failure to comply, but ignores the fact that many agencies are too understaffed and underfunded to be able to meet these deadlines. Or perhaps that's the point--to deplete these agencies of resources, and make it virtually impossible for them to effectively do their job. The bill also expands NEPA categorical exclusions, which are typically reserved for smaller-scale projects that will not have a significant impact and therefore no EIS is required. One provision allows categorical exclusions for any project within an existing operational right of way. Massive highway projects could occur within an existing right-of-way, but would no longer be subject to NEPA requirements. I find it curious that many of the Members who espouse local control pushed this provision that will severely limit the ability of communities directly impacted to have a voice in proposed projects. There is bipartisan support for environmental streamlining. I believe there are common sense things we could do to shorten project delivery time, but this conference agreement goes too far in this regard.

The conference agreement includes several important safety incentive grant programs, including those targeting distracted and impaired driving. The bill includes additional incentive grants for states that adopt mandatory alcohol ignition interlock laws for individuals convicted of a DUI. Ignition interlocks are a key feature of Leandra's Law, a New York statute named for one of my constituents, a 9 year old girl who was killed in a drunk driving incident. I am thankful that the conference report contains this important provision. The conference report also does not include any increases to truck size or weight requirements and it includes a study which could provide useful information on truck size and weight safety impacts. The bill also includes improvements to motorcoach safety, requiring seat belts and establishing roof strength and crush resistance standards. However, these standards apply only to newly-manufactured motorcoaches, and there is no mandate to retrofit existing buses.

This final package is a combination of hard fought victories and losses. There are several aspects of it that I do not support, and the process by which this conference report was developed was, at times, regrettable. But the funding levels and distributions to the states and transit agencies should be considered a victory, especially given the position of House Republicans, and the bill will put a lot of people back to a work at a time when we need it most. Because of the positive aspects of the transportation bill, and the extension of lower student loan interest rates, I will vote for the conference report.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise to disagree with the rhetoric and the mythology propounded here by the gentleman from Georgia.

The mythology is that we have a tremendous spending binge that we must reduce, that the country is broke, and it's broke because we're spending much too much money and we've got to reduce the spending. It's simply not true.

Twelve years ago, in 2000, we were looking at a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, testifying in favor of President Bush's tax reductions, said we have to reduce taxes, because if we don't, we will pay off the entire national debt by 2012 and that would be a bad thing, for some reason which I won't go into now. He thought it would be a bad thing if we paid off the entire national debt.

The entire debate between the two candidates, Bush and Gore, then was: What should we do with this $5.6 trillion surplus.

How did we change from a $5.6 trillion surplus to the budget deficits we have right now? Not by increasing spending. If you look at the spending amount other than military, if you look at the discretionary spending of the Federal Government other than military, adjusted for inflation and population growth, it has not increased by a nickel since 2001, not by a nickel.

What has changed? What has changed to create the deficit? Because if you want to solve the deficit, you have to know what created it to undo it. What has changed to create the deficit is several things:

One, 40 percent of the deficit is caused by the Bush tax cuts, which will expire at the end of the year unless we change that. Forty percent of the current and anticipated deficits were caused by the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003;

Second, two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--the first time in American history we fought major wars without increasing taxes to pay for them;

Third, aside from the wars, completely aside from the wars, we have doubled Pentagon spending since 2001 in real terms; and

Finally, we have a depression, or a recession. When you have a recession that started in 2007 or 2008, tax receipts go down. Expenses on things like food stamps and unemployment insurance goes up. That's when you should run a deficit. You should run a surplus in good times; you should run a deficit during a depression or recession in order to stimulate the economy and get it back up.

If we want to deal with the deficit--and we should deal with the deficit--we shouldn't reduce necessary government spending and certainly not nickel-and-dime step pay increases for Federal employees. If we want to reduce the deficit, we should undo most of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, because most of the Bush tax cuts went to rich people and to very large corporations. We are only collecting about 14 or 15 percent of GDP in taxes this year.

The normal range is between 19 and 21 percent. And I say ``normal,'' meaning the entire post-World War II period ranges between 18 or 19 and 22 percent. We're collecting 14 or 15 percent in the last couple of years because, one, the recession, and, two, because we greatly reduced effective taxes on multi-national corporations and on rich people.

We used to have in this country, under President Reagan, 25 different tax brackets. Someone making $5 million paid a higher tax rate than someone making $1 million, who paid a higher tax rate than someone making $250,000 and so forth. Now, the highest tax rate kicks in at below $250,000, and someone making $250 million pays no higher tax rate than someone making $175,000 or $200,000. There's something very wrong with that.

So if we want to deal with the deficit, deal not with the nonexistent problem, which is the huge nonexistent spending surge that didn't occur. And we have great needs in this country. We have to fix our highways, our roads, our bridges, our hospitals, our broadband. We have to invest so this country will be economically competitive, and our schools and our teachers and our cops and all of these things.

If you want to fix the deficit, don't shortchange what we should be doing to invest in this country. Get rid of the Bush tax cuts, or most of them, or get rid of those portions of the Bush taxes that went to rich people, high-income people and to big corporations. Make corporations, the large corporations, pay an effective tax rate again, instead of a large number of our top corporations paying zero dollars in taxes.

Reduce the Pentagon budget, which we can do. We no longer need all those troops in Germany to protect against a Soviet tank invasion, which is not likely to occur since the Soviets don't exist anymore. That's what we ought to be doing.

But the key thing is don't have this mythology that we have greatly expanded Federal spending over the last

10 years, or even over the last 3 years, which is simply not the case.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, we spend a lot of time talking about how we need to do more with less. The reality is that, all too often, we do less with less. This is the unfortunate reality facing our rental assistance programs if the House-proposed funding levels are enacted.

The Housing Choice Voucher program, more commonly known as section 8, provides rental assistance to over 2 million households with very low incomes. Half of these households are of seniors or people with disabilities. Most of the rest are of families with children.

Experts agree with HUD's assessment of section 8. It is a cost- effective means of delivering decent, safe, and affordable housing to low-income families in the private market. Because of the widely accepted success of the program, section 8 has enjoyed bipartisan support for many years.

Despite agreement among policy experts and politicians, section 8 funding levels continue to come up short of the actual need. The National Low Income Housing Coalition found that, according to the latest census data, for every 100 households with extremely low incomes, only 30 rental units are affordable and available. Three- quarters of renters with extremely low incomes pay housing costs that exceed half of their incomes, placing them at a high risk of housing instability and homelessness. Yet, because of limited funds, only one in four eligible families receives rental assistance.

Without increasing funds beyond what is included in this bill for the section 8 program, an estimated 58,000 low-income families will lose their existing rental assistance next year, putting these families at risk of homelessness. Even the more conservative estimate of the section 8 budget shortfall by the OMB finds that 30,000 low-income families will be at risk of losing their current vouchers and, therefore, of losing their homes.

With housing instability and homelessness comes the destabilizing of families and the possible long-term negative impacts on kids. That's why I'm offering this amendment.

This amendment would increase funding for section 8 voucher renewals

by $460 million to cover the actual costs of ensuring that existing vouchers will continue and that no family will lose an existing section 8 voucher. This does not increase the number of vouchers, though I would love to do that, but it does ensure that no families would lose their currently existing section 8 vouchers.

Additionally, by funding section 8 at the figures necessary to continue existing vouchers, we can make sure that it would be unnecessary for HUD to implement its proposal for $75 minimum rent even if that $75 exceeds the normal section 8 rental limit of 30 percent of income. To most of us here, $75 may not seem like a lot of money as it's a meal for two in many Washington and New York City restaurants, but for 500,000 of the poorest HUD-assisted families, families who have annual incomes of less than $3,000--that's around $250 a month--$75 is a lot of money. For 400,000 HUD-assisted families, $75 minimum would be a 50 percent rent increase from what they're paying now, leaving these families with less money for food, transportation, and other basic necessities. We're talking about families with annual incomes of $2,000 or $2,500 annually.

Madam Chairman, our first objective must be to prevent further hardship to the poorest people in our country and to prevent additional potential homelessness among vulnerable low-income families. To do this, we must ensure that we do not lose current section 8 assistance and that we do not impose a new minimum rent that could be way beyond 30 percent of income for people earning $2,000 and $2,500. This amendment is necessary in order to do that, so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Madam Chairman, the necessity for this amendment is undeniable.

The hardship and the suffering this budget would cause without this amendment, by imposing minimum rentals way beyond 30 percent of income on people with incomes of $2,000 to $2,500 annually, is undeniable. That this Congress should do such a thing is regrettable, to put it mildly.

I understand the rule. The rule would require an offset of an equal amount of money; but in this overly restrictive bill to start with, there is no way of finding such an offset of that amount of money without hurting people in an equal fashion in other ways. So that says that we have a choice of really injuring ``these'' people or of really injuring ``those'' people. It's not an acceptable choice. I understand the rule. That is regrettable.

I hope that as we progress with this budget that we can find a way of finding the funds that we have in this amendment for this purpose so that we do not injure all of these thousands and thousands of very low- income people.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, before I get to the substance of the amendment, I cannot allow the occasion to pass because it may be my last comment on the floor on this bill, and the occasion is that this is the last time this bill will be shepherded by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who's the ranking member and former chairman of the subcommittee, and who's done a wonderful job and has been a help to all of us and a help on amendments like this. And I just wanted to say that I regret that he will not be shepherding next year's bill and in the future.

I yield to the gentleman.

Let me describe it in one sentence.

This amendment increases the HOPWA, which is the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, by $2 million. It offsets it with a harmless offset.

I appreciate the cooperation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, HOPWA is a national safety net for people battling HIV/ AIDS, providing housing support through competitive and formula grants to all fifty states, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands since 1992. At any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans with HIV/AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. Research shows that stable housing leads to better health outcomes for those living with HIV. Inadequate or unstable housing is not only a barrier to effective treatment, but also puts people with HIV/AIDS at risk of premature death from exposure to other diseases, poor nutrition, stress, and lack of medical care. Housing interventions are critical in our continued fight against HIV/ AIDS, and even modest investments in stable housing programs saves federal and state tax dollars.

It is because of the important and unique role HOPWA plays in battling AIDS that the program enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it's why I'm offering an amendment today that would restore $2 million to the program.

Unfortunately, this year's Transportation-HUD appropriations bill would fund the HOP WA program at $330 million--yet another cut to this successful program, this time in the amount of $2 million, and the third cut it's received in three years.

While the loss of another $2 million for HOPWA this year may seem small by federal budgeting standards, it is far from inconsequential. By restoring just $1 million to the HOPWA program, we can help provide stable, affordable housing for approximately 171 households grappling with HIV/AIDS. If you support my amendment, which would restore $2 million to the program and would maintain flat funding from FY12 to FY13, more than 340 households will have the guarantee of secure housing for another year.

Let me repeat that: my amendment only seeks to maintain FY12 funding levels. $332 million is far from what's needed to help every household eligible for the program, but for those 350 households it means everything.

To protect these households in need while adhering to House rules, my amendment is budget neutral reducing funding for the Chief Information Officer by $2 million. I support the work of the Chief Information Officer and believe that our constituents should know about, and can gain access to, the panoply of HUD-sponsors programs designed to help them and their families. But even after my amendment, the Chief Information Officer would still have almost $37 million to do its work. At a time when all families are struggling, those living with HIV/AIDS are particularly at risk. Nothing can be more important than keeping people in their homes and helping those struggling with disease to have a fighting chance. For me, the choice is simple, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Nadler

Amendment No. 3: Page 75, line 7, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $460,000,000)''.

Page 75, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $460,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Nadler

Amendment No. 1: Page 71, line 19, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Page 72, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $2,000,000)''.

Page 88, line 23, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Nadler

Amendment No. 2: Page 75, line 7, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $257,000,000)''.

Page 75, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $257,000,000)''.

Page 104, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $71,500,000)''.

Page 104, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $71,500,000)''.

Page 110, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $135,500,000)''.

Page 111, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees offered by Mr. Flake, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This motion directs the transportation reauthorization conferees to agree to a provision contained in the Senate bill increasing the guaranteed minimum percentage rate of return that each State receives in Federal aid highway formula funding from 92 percent to 95 percent of payments in the highway trust fund collected through gas tax contributions in that State.

This is the same old donor/donee argument that we've been having for years, but it is becoming even more ridiculous now that all States are, in effect, donee States. Frankly, I'm not quite sure what the realistic impact of a 95 percent minimum guarantee would be at this point.

For several years, general fund revenue has been filling the gap between what the highway trust fund can support and current funding levels, so now every State gets back more from the program than the amount of gas taxes collected in that State. In effect, every State is a donee State. In fact, under SAFETEA-LU, under the current formula which guarantees 92 percent, Mr. Flake mentioned Texas. Texas gets back $1.03 for every dollar it puts in. California, $1.19 for every dollar it puts in. There is no State that gets back less than a dollar for a dollar. So increasing the guarantee from 92 to 95 percent, frankly, I don't understand the point of it.

The Senate bill continues to fund the program through nongas tax- related revenue. Unless my colleagues are proposing to raise the gas tax, and I don't think they are, this motion is, frankly, meaningless.

But the idea behind the motion is wrong in any event. It is highly irresponsible to pick out and insist upon one factor that affects the overall funding distribution to the States without a complete picture of how the programs will be funded and apportioned. The Senate did raise the minimum percentage to 95 percent, but within an overall framework that required that each State get the same percentage of funds it got in the last year of SAFETEA-LU. In the Senate bill, all States were held harmless.

The motion to instruct does not insist on adopting the Senate's funding structure. It cherry-picks one factor to benefit certain States at the expense of others. I would caution against anyone voting for something that affects how much transportation funding will go to your State without knowing what the ultimate impact will be.

We know that House Republicans would like a different formula than what's in the Senate bill since they took a different approach in H.R. 7. Depending on how the final bill is structured and what the ultimate funding levels are for the program, raising the minimum to 95 percent could conceivably result in steep cuts to certain States.

In TEA 21 and SAFETEA-LU, the last two transportation bills we had, we opposed raising the minimum percentage, but ultimately we could live with it because the overall funding levels were increased and States were held harmless; and even though some States got a lower percentage of the funding than they would have gotten without increasing the minimum guarantee, they got more money because the pie was bigger. Each State got an increase in funding, just not as big an increase as some others. Increased funding is highly unlikely in this environment, so this type of motion, although probably meaningless in the long run because every State gets more than 100 percent right now, is potentially dangerous.

I'm sure that Mr. Flake and others will say it is the principle of the matter, that those who contribute to the program deserve to benefit from it at the same level. But if that is the principle, why then do they just look at the gas tax? If you truly believe in the principle of user pays, why shouldn't that same theory apply to all revenue that goes into the program? And why apply it just to the highway program?

For example, my State of New York contributes much more to the Federal Government every year than it receives back in Federal expenditures. We have a huge balance of deficit with the Federal Government, and yet the one area where we get more back is the gasoline tax, and so that should be abolished?

This is not about equity. This is about gaming the system by applying this principle to one aspect of one program to benefit certain States at the expense of others. And if you follow the logic through, what these donor arguments are really saying is that each State should get a dollar back for every dollar it puts into the Federal system. If so, why do we have a Federal Government at all? I'm sure some of my colleagues would be happy to have no Federal role in transportation and devolve it completely to the States, but that is not yet the policy of the United States Congress, and I would caution my colleagues about going too far down that road.

The fair thing to do is to spend Federal funds where they are needed. And by the way, one of things that the current formula has done is to say that if a State invests a lot of its own money in efficiency--New York, for example, has a spent billions of dollars of its own money building up a mass transit system. Because of that, we are very energy efficient. We use far less gasoline per capita than other States because we have a mass transit system. That helps the country. It reduces the amount of petroleum that we have to import. And for that, a State that does that should be punished by getting a smaller percentage of highway funds because it invested in mass transit? That doesn't make sense. We should be encouraging States to invest in energy efficiency.

The fair thing to do is to spend Federal funds where they're needed. We have a national transportation system that benefits everybody. These kinds of debates are illogical and divisive, especially when it has no practical impact at all because every State is now a donee State. Our time would be better spent working together to draft a bill that benefits all States. If the purpose of this bill is to create jobs and spur economic growth, we should ensure that all States benefit.

And by the way, we have, this year, a House bill that didn't go anywhere. The Senate passed a real transportation bill. The House only passed a 90-day extension because the Republicans couldn't agree among themselves on a bill. But the bill that they have and they're trying to use as the basis of a conference committee--which they cannot do legally--air-drops into the conference committee a lot of poison pills that will make sure that no comprehensive bill is adopted. It air-drops into the conference committee a provision that says that hazmat provisions should not apply to certain transportation workers. It air- drops into the bill a completely unrelated provision about the XL pipeline that has nothing to do with the transportation bill.

If we care about employment, we should pass the Senate bill and we shouldn't get involved in side debates over provisions that would be unfair if they could be implemented, like this one, but in any event, cannot be implemented; because to say that every State should get back at least as much as it puts in when every State, in fact, is getting back more than it puts in has no practical impact. And I don't understand why we are wasting our time, frankly, debating a provision and motion to instruct conferees on something that may cause some controversy but really will have no practical impact, will affect no dollars, will direct no dollars to any State or away from any other State at all.

We should be debating how to finance the overall bill. We should be debating how to get more funding for highways, for mass transit, how to get our construction workers back to work in this construction season to reduce the unemployment rate in this country. That is what we should be acting on instead of wasting our time debating entirely theoretical questions that have no practical import whatsoever and that are philosophically wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, there is no donee State. Arizona, over the last 4 years or 5 years, got $1.07 for every dollar they put in. There is no such thing as a donee State anymore.

Now, it is true, as Mr. Flake says, that that is because we are supplementing the gasoline tax with general funds to maintain the highway program, to maintain the mass transit program. He says that it better not continue. Well, we have only several choices:

Number one, we can raise the gasoline tax. I might support that. I think most Members of this House probably wouldn't. I'm sure Mr. Flake wouldn't support raising the gasoline tax.

Two, we can fund our transportation system at a totally inadequate level and watch that system deteriorate and watch our country become less competitive with other countries, which is what we're doing now.

Three--and the fact is that we funded the last bill at $286 billion, SAFETEA-LU. When the Secretary of Transportation under President Bush said that we needed at least $375 billion for that time period just to keep the system at a system of reasonable repair and reasonable efficiency, never mind major new construction. But we did that because President Bush said no raising the highway taxes and no funding from the general fund, and no use of other revenues.

If we keep doing that, if we try to maintain the system only on the gasoline tax and don't raise the gasoline tax, then that's a declining revenue base. It's declining for two reasons: one, because of inflation, everything costs more and the same amount of money buys less. And, number two, we're becoming more energy efficient. We want to become more energy efficient; we want to use less gasoline. And since the gasoline tax is a per-gallon tax, not a percentage, if you use less gasoline, there's less revenue. So you're going to have less revenue every year, and inflation is not going to be negative--it's going to be something--how do you maintain your system? You don't. So we either have to raise the gasoline tax, or we have to bring in some other source of revenue or else watch the entire transportation system of this country deteriorate and eventually collapse.

So we cannot stop supplementing the gasoline tax for transportation maintenance unless we raise the gasoline tax. Those are our choices: raise the tax or bring in other revenues, as we have been doing on an ad hoc basis for the last couple of years. We can't stop doing that without raising the gasoline tax or seeing the slow decline and eventual collapse of our transportation system. So we're not going to do that--I hope we're not going to do that. If we don't do that, this motion to instruct is completely meaningless because there's going to be no such thing as a donee State--as a donor State, every State gets more than it puts in.

And by the way, let's talk about what it means to put in. The question is how much gasoline taxes are collected in one State and how much is spent on transportation in that State. There is no principle of equity that says they should match. There is no principle of equity which says that you should get at least as much, or even 95 cents, or any particular percentage of the amount of gasoline taxes collected in your State, because there are a lot of other factors.

It may be that some States, because they are bigger, perhaps, need more money spent on highways because there's more distances. It may be that some States have invested a lot of money in mass transit and therefore are more energy efficient and therefore generate less gasoline tax revenue, but that helps the country. They shouldn't be penalized for that.

There are a lot of different factors that go into this. And to simply say each State should get back the amount that was collected in a gasoline tax is wrong, especially when you consider that there are plenty of--why should this one account be the only one? As I said, New York State annually says--and I'm quoting New York because I happen to know the figure because it's my State--New York State annually sends to the Federal Government between $14 billion and $18 billion more in taxes of all kinds than is spent in New York.

Senator Moynihan used to put out that report every year. Is that a terrible thing? Well, some people think it is, it's unfair--New York ought to pay less taxes, other States ought to pay more taxes. But the fact is we have a Federal Union. Taxes ought to be raised where they can be raised most equitably and efficiently and the spending ought to be done where the spending is necessary. That's what one country means. That's why we're one country and Europe isn't.

So the motion to instruct is wrong theoretically. It does not contribute to equity. And it is totally irrelevant for the foreseeable future because there is no State that would be affected by this in any way as long as the gasoline tax is not supporting the entire transportation system, which it is not now or in the foreseeable future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the argument sounds reasonable, and I have no doubt it's going to pass because there are a lot more people here from so-called donor States than from donee States, and people are going to vote purely on that basis, many of them are. Many people are. But it's not equitable. If it were equitable, why don't we apply the same principle to other things? Why don't we say that the taxes that some States pay for the agriculture program should be reduced because, after all, not all States get the same amount of money in the wheat subsidy. Some States get a lot more back for agricultural assistance than the applicable part of their taxes.

I remember an argument on the floor a number of years ago in which we were debating, I think, funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, and Mr. Burton of Indiana was orating against the NEA, and he said it's wrong for this reason and that reason and the other reason. And anyway, he said, all the money goes to New York and Los Angeles.

And I got up and I said, you know, Mr. Burton, I'm shocked to discover that New York City, with 8.5 million people, doesn't get a penny of the wheat subsidy. How fair is that?

The fact is we don't grow wheat in New York, and the fact is that money should be distributed--and I'm not opposed to the wheat subsidy. It may be--I'm not an expert on the farm program, but it may be that farm States need it, and it may be that other States need other things. But we should spend Federal money where it's needed, and we should tax it where we can tax it efficiently and equitably. And the two may not have the same relationship to each other. And if you start establishing this principle that you have to get at least back as much as you put in on this thing, in this case, transportation, why not on everything else?

And then you'd say, well, it's very unfair that a given State sends more to Washington than it gets back at all. Well, some States do. New York does, other States do. Other States get back more than they send to Washington, but that's the point of a Federal union.

So simply to say on any given area that we send--our State sends more to Washington or more taxes collected than we get back does not demonstrate inequity or equity. There may be good reasons for that. And you may want to make an argument that overall the State has a balance of payments deficit with the Federal Government, but there may be good reasons for that, too.

When many of these formulas were set up, the educational formula, for instance, a lot of States send more money to Washington that gets paid back in education, and then they get it back. Other States are the other way around, because when the allocation formulas were set up, it was deliberately decided that richer States should subsidize poorer States. And I'm not sure that was wrong. But the fact is that's the way a Federal union operates. And if you want to say a Federal union shouldn't operate that way and we should start saying that it's unfair, then you're questioning the entire basis of our Constitution, and frankly, there's no equity in that, especially when you limit it to one subject, to one area.

Again, what we ought to be debating is not this very interesting theory, theoretical thing which has no application in the real world because there is no such thing as a donor State right now and it won't have any real impact at all, because every State will still get the same amount of money under the bill.

But this highway bill has been in conference for 6 weeks. Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that more than 2.2 million construction and manufacturing workers remain out of work, and we're in the height of the summer construction season. The highway bill has been in conference for 6 weeks and the conferees, of whom I'm one, are now wasting precious time as House Republicans are working to air- drop poison pill provisions that never passed the House into the conference report. Without further congressional action, highway and transit investments will entirely shut down at the end of the month.

Why are we wasting time here on this theoretical motion to instruct, which has no practical consequences whatsoever, when the conferees are being faced by Republican poison pills eliminating occupational safety and health protection for hazmat workers, eliminating dedicated funding for transportation enhancement projects, expanding truck weights to destroy our highways faster? That's what's holding up a highway and transportation bill that will get 2 million people back to work. That's what we ought to be saying. Let's move this bill instead of wasting our time on entirely theoretical questions like this one.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'll just say one thing. I think we've beaten this dead horse about as much as we can.

Is 95 percent reasonable? It's unreasonable, in my opinion; 92 percent is unreasonable; 89 percent is unreasonable. There ought to be no such figure because money should be allocated where needed and should be raised where it can best be raised on the questions of equity, efficiency, et cetera.

And I'll give you one other example. Certain States have coastlines. The gulf coast has a lot of hurricanes. We spend a lot of money there. Should we say, well, gee, we don't have as many hurricanes. We shouldn't spend that percentage of our tax money on hurricane relief in the gulf.

We don't say that because we're one country. We don't say that we shouldn't spend money on relief to States that have other natural disasters because we don't have those kinds of natural disasters.

As a general principle, money should be raised, and there's no difference because you say it's a user fee. All taxes, in some sense, are a user fee. They're the price for civilization, as Mark Twain said.

And maybe you shouldn't have gasoline taxes. You should finance it some other way. That's a whole different discussion.

Yes, as I said before, I'm quite well aware that people are going to come here. They're going to vote, and they're just going to look at are they a theoretical donor State or a theoretical donee State and they're going to vote on that basis, even though no one is, in fact, a donee State right now because everybody gets more than they put in. And this will have no practical effect, but some day it might.

But the fact is that there is no reason to pick the highways as against everything else. Some States contribute a lot more in Federal taxes than they get back in Federal money, others don't. My State does. We don't say it's unfair. We don't say we've got to change the formula.

Maybe specific formulas ought to be changed for various reasons. There are all kinds of reasons for all the formulas. There's a different formula for agriculture, a different formula for education, different formula for everything. They have all kinds of different justifications and different histories. To pick out this one area and say this one area, but no other, has to be 95 percent, why not 75 percent? or 92 percent? It's been going up every time we pass a bill. We think it's beyond fair.

To pick out one particular area and say there's got to be an equivalence or a relationship between how much money comes in and how much goes out or from where it comes in and goes out, whereas we don't do that in the rest of Federal budget, that's not equitable.

And I wish we were spending our time now not on this theoretical discussion--theoretical because it has no practical implication, as I said before, because it will not, in fact, affect any State or any dollars--instead of dealing with the fact that the Republicans are holding up a bill by parachuting poison pills into the conference discussion, that's what we ought to be about.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act.''

Today, the Republican majority continues its war on women in a new and creative way, by attempting to couch legislation that would destroy women's fundamental constitutional rights as a women's rights law. It is cynical, but creative.

Trying to destroy women's constitutional rights, and pretending that it is somehow being pro-woman, plays well to the far-right wing base, but does nothing to help American families get

on their feet and put people back to work.

This bill criminalizes abortion prior to viability. It makes pre- viability abortions a crime under certain circumstances, a flagrantly unconstitutional provision under Roe v. Wade.

Under this bill, a relative who disagreed with a woman's choice would be able to sue a doctor simply by alleging that the woman had an impermissible motive. The doctor would face years of litigation at great expense. A relative could even obtain an injunction blocking an abortion from going forward merely by alleging that the abortion is being done for the purposes of sex selection. While the matter is being litigated, the pregnancy would go forward so that, regardless of the merits, a woman would be compelled by a court injunction to proceed with her pregnancy against her will, perhaps to have an abortion at a much later stage with a much more mature fetus.

Any clinic employee who suspected--merely suspected--that a woman's motives ran afoul of this law would have a legal obligation, under penalty of prison, to report that suspicion to law enforcement.

How would this affect the basic practice of medicine?

H.R. 3541 would force health care providers to inquire into women's reasons for seeking abortion services. Physicians would have to consider whether women seeking routine non-abortion services, such as determining the sex of the fetus, might then use that information in deciding whether to continue a pregnancy.

Given the severe civil and criminal penalties in this bill, doctors would be forced to police their patients, read their minds, and conceal information from them. The failure to do so would put medical professionals at risk of prosecution and lawsuits.

This bill is facially unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held, beginning with Roe v. Wade and in Casey and subsequent cases, that the decision of whether to have a child or whether to end a pregnancy is a private one. Up until the point of viability, the government may not make that decision for a woman. Following viability, the government may regulate or bar an abortion, except when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

The preference for male children is a real, if limited, phenomenon in the United States. Some women face familial and community preference to have male children, and that pressure can increase with each subsequent birth. But this bill does nothing to help those women.

This bill cites the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women as urging governments to prevent sex-selective abortions, but it ignores the concerns of those who work on this problem, such as the U.N. Population Fund, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the U.N. Children's Fund, the U.N. Women, and the World Health Organization, that abortion restrictions are not the solution because they put women's health and lives in jeopardy and violate women's human and reproductive rights.

Where is the legislation providing women with the means to achieve independence so that they are not subject to community and family pressures? My Republican colleagues opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that would have done just that. We all had to watch the charade recently where Republicans pretended they weren't going after the Violence Against Women Act with a meat-ax. Where is the support for family planning services so we have fewer unplanned pregnancies and, therefore, fewer abortions? Where is the commitment to maternal and child health programs?

But all this costs money, it won't do anything to undermine Roe v. Wade, and it doesn't play well in the world of abortion politics.

I urge the Members of this House to reject this cynical, dishonest, and hypocritical legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act.''

Today, the Republican majority continues the war on women in a new and creative way, by attempting to couch legislation that would destroy women's fundamental constitutional rights as a women's rights law. It is cynical, but creative.

Our nation's economy is struggling to recover. Families are struggling to keep their homes, and provide a better future for their children.

And what is the majority doing about it? Nothing. Today we have yet another radical foray into divisive social issues. Trying to destroy women's constitutional rights, and pretending that it is somehow being ``pro-woman,'' plays well to the far right-wing base, but does nothing to help American families get on their feet, and put people back to work.

This is election-year politics at its absolute worst.

Despite the fact that this bill is couched in the language of civil rights, indeed it amends the civil rights crimes chapter of the federal Criminal Code, it is nothing more than yet another attack on the fundamental constitutional rights of women. It does not improve their ability to choose to have a healthy and successful pregnancy. It does not improve the prospects for their children once those children come into the world. It does nothing to help women who are subject to community pressure to have sons. It does nothing to improve the lot of women who may really need our help.

This bill criminalizes abortion, prior to viability; it makes previability abortions a crime under certain circumstances, a flagrantly unconstitutional provision under Roe.

Under this bill, a relative who disagreed with a woman's choice would be able to sue a doctor simply by alleging that the woman had an impermissible reason. The doctor would face years of litigation at great expense.

A relative could even obtain an injunction blocking an abortion from going forward merely by alleging that the abortion is being done for the purposes of sex selection. While the matter is being litigated, the pregnancy would go forward so that, regardless of the merits, a woman would be compelled by a court injunction to proceed with her pregnancy against her will.

Any clinic employee who suspected--merely suspected--that a woman's motives ran afoul of this law would have a legal obligation, under penalty of prison, to report that suspicion to law enforcement.

How would this affect the basic practice of medicine?

H.R. 3541 would force health care providers to inquire into a woman's reasons for seeking abortion services. Physicians would have to consider whether women seeking routine non-abortion services, such as determining the sex of the fetus, would then use that information in deciding whether to continue a pregnancy.

The more information the doctor has, and the more he shares with his patient, the greater the risk that someone could argue that the abortion was for a prohibited purpose, and that he knew it.

Given the severe civil and criminal penalties in this bill, doctors would be forced to police their patients, read their patients' minds, and conceal information from them. The failure to do so would put medical professionals at risk of prosecution and lawsuits.

Do you want to see defensive medicine? Try making this law.

This bill is facially unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held, beginning with Roe v. Wade, and in Casey and subsequent cases, that the decision whether to have a child, or whether to end a pregnancy, is a private one. Up until the point of viability, the government may not make that decision for a woman. Following viability, the government may regulate or bar an abortion, except when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

This bill would bar a woman from having an abortion at any time on the basis of her motives.

While this bill may be an unconstitutional intrusion into women's private choices, it does nothing to help women or their children. That sort of legislation is not on the agenda here, or in this Republican controlled Congress.

The bill contains flat out lies. For example, it contains a ``finding'' that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks, even though this is a fringe position rejected by the mainstream of medical science. A survey of available research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005 concluded that ``[e]vidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.'' Similarly, a detailed survey by the Royal Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded:

In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence

in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the

periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of

gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the

cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded

that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to

this gestation.

But why let the facts get in the way of some nice rhetoric?

The preference for male children is a real if limited phenomenon in the United States. Some women face familial and community preference to have male children and that pressure can increase with each subsequent birth.

But this bill does nothing to help those women.

While H.R. 3541 cites the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women as urging governments to prevent sex selective abortions, it ignores the concerns expressed by those who work on this problem--such as the United Nations Population Fund, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations Women, and the World Health Organization--that abortion restrictions are not the solution because they put women's health and lives in jeopardy and violate women's human and reproductive rights.

The Judiciary Committee heard from Miriam Yeung, of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, who discussed how Congress could address the male child preference issue in a manner that is effective and that supports women rather than stigmatizing them. She explained:

Son preference is a symptom of deeply rooted social biases

and stereotypes about gender. Gender inequity cannot be

solved by banning abortion. The real solution is to change

the values that create the preference for sons. . . . We are

working with members of our own community to empower women

and girls, thereby challenging norms and transforming values.

Where is the legislation providing women with the means to achieve independence so that they are not subject to community and familial pressures? My Republican colleagues opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that would have done just that. We all had to watch the charade recently where Republicans pretended they weren't going after the Violence Against Women Act with a meat-ax. Where is the support for family planning services so we have fewer unplanned pregnancies and, therefore, fewer abortions? Where is the commitment to maternal and child health programs?

There are many things Congress could do to assist women, including women who are under pressure from their families or communities to terminate a pregnancy--strategies that have worked and that assist women rather than turn them into suspects or pariahs. We can work with their doctors and provide necessary resources to women and their families.

But that costs money, it won't do anything to undermine Roe v. Wade, and it doesn't play well in the world of abortion politics.

I urge the members of this House to reject this cynical and destructive legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the Lee Amendment to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home as quickly as possible.

The whole premise of the war in Afghanistan is wrong. The rationale for the war is to fight Al Qaeda, but most of the day-to-day fighting is against an entrenched Taliban insurgency that will outlast any foreign fighters. Fighting in Afghanistan does not enhance the security of the United States in any way.

In 2001, we were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan, and at that time it made sense to go in and destroy those bases, and we did. But that took about three weeks. We should have withdrawn after three weeks. The CIA told us more than a year ago that there are fewer than one hundred Al Qaeda personnel in all of Afghanistan. So why do we still have 88,000 troops there? Troops who will continue to risk their lives every day in a war that has already claimed far too many lives. And why should we continue pouring billions of dollars into an intractable mess when we should be devoting those funds to our own economy, our own jobs, our own schools, our own bridges and roads and highways, our own housing, social programs, and education?

Afghanistan is in the middle of what is, so far, a 35 year civil war. We do not have either the need or the ability to determine the winner in that war, which is what we're trying to do. If we continue on this course, in two years, there will be hundreds more dead American soldiers, several hundred billion more dollars wasted, and two or three more provinces labeled ``pacified''. But as soon as we leave, now or in 2014 or 2016 or 2024 or whenever, those provinces will promptly become ``unpacified,'' the Taliban and the warlords will step up the fighting, and the Afghan civil war will resume its normal, natural course.

Our troops are fighting valiantly, but we are there on the wrong mission. We should recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan in our own image, that setting up a stable government that will last is both beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the United States. We fulfilled the mission in protecting America from terrorists based in Afghanistan over 10 years ago. We should have withdrawn our troops 10 years ago, we should withdraw them now. We shouldn't wait till 2014, we shouldn't have several thousand advisors or troops or whatever advising or helping the Afghanis for another 10 years. They have their own civil war they have been fighting for 35 years. I wish we could wave a magic wand and end it but we can't, we should not participate in what is an Afghan civil war, we do not need to pick the winner, we do not have the ability to pick the winner, all we are doing is wasting lives, wasting limbs, wasting people and wasting dollars. It ought to end as rapidly as we can physically get them out of there.