Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it's been 2 years, 5 months, and 23 days since Lehman Brothers collapsed and the Wall Street dominos began to fall. It's been 2\1/2\ years since Wall Street mortgage bond traders and their criminal management brought the world financial system to its knees.

There hasn't been one person held accountable for it. Not one conviction. The biggest scandal in American history, and there's been no jail time for anyone.

We Democrats cleaned up the mess. We saved the country from riots in the streets. But no one was convicted. I think a lot of voters, Tea Party voters included, are seething with anger about the injustice.

Riding this wave of voter anger, 2 weeks ago this House passed one of the worst bills ever considered in Congress, H.R. 1, a bill the Republicans have called a ``budget,'' that was nothing less than an attack on children and working people in this country. I think all the people who voted for it should be ashamed.

Budgets are moral documents. They say what a country's priorities are. But looking at what the Republicans passed in this House, it's hard to believe that the bill is what Tea Party voters really bargained for in the last election.

In the papers this week, we're reading that the Tea Party freshmen are now going to school. They are taking classes on the Federal budget--``Budget 101'' is what they call it. So after they balanced the books of the country entirely on the backs of children and women, they are actually learning a thing or two about the budget. It's about time. They're learning the basics after the vote.

But I don't think the Tea Party voters wanted a war on children. Tea Party freshmen certainly didn't run on

that basis. I think the voters look at what this country has been through in the last few years and they see the terrible injustice of it. I don't think the Tea Party movement is about punishing women and children and poor people. I think they want commonsense justice.

Mr. Speaker, only 12 percent of the country's budget is spent on these important programs for the needy. When you cut these programs, you pull American children out of Head Start, you put Americans on the street, you let the bridges we go to work on crumble. That doesn't balance the budget.

Without any changes to current policy, the budget deficit will drop to $500 billion in 2 years. Now, that deficit will slowly rise again. This slow rise in the coming years is the big issue, and it's caused by two things: increased health care costs and a defense budget that is out of control.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to fix the long-term budget deficit of this country by lowering health care costs and by having a sensible defense budget. We aren't going to do it in an orgy of intolerance and demonization of the middle class and working people in this Republican budget.

I think the Tea Party voters want responsible spending. So do my constituents. The Tea Party voters want basic fairness. So do my constituents. Tea Party voters have been misled by the American fear machine into thinking that education and basic services and public employees is where the big savings are. That is a terrible myth and a terrible disservice to the public.

I hope the Tea Party members in the House quickly learn the basic math of the budget. The deficit is about defense and health care spending, not about pushing even more children into poverty.

Every Member of this House ought to watch the 60 Minutes segment from last Sunday night on children who are living in cars, living in motels, living in shelters because they have lost their homes. Twenty-five percent of American children in this country are living in poverty. That show looked like we were looking at Bangladesh. That's what we ought to be pointing to, not spending our time out here today on H.R. 830, whacking the daylights out of another bill to prevent foreclosures. It is simply not what America is about.

I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to go pull up on the Web that segment from last Sunday night and look at the faces of those children and realize you're creating their lives by the kind of economy you put together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer special recognition to my constituents and friends at the Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project as they commemorate the

125th anniversary of the expulsion of Chinese residents from the State of Washington.

Thousands of Chinese immigrants were forced to leave their homes and businesses in the greater Seattle area during the fall of 1885 and winter of 1886.

The expulsion of Chinese workers in Washington State stemmed from the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, a measure passed in Congress at the request of labor unions because of competition from Chinese laborers. A few years after the expulsion, Chinese immigrants were welcomed back, and they helped rebuild the city after the Great Seattle Fire of 1889.

The Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project reminds us of the critical role immigrants have played in the development of our community, city, state and country. A deeper understanding of our past gives us a strong context for understanding immigration issues as we move forward.

The Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project also helps us to better understand the vital role that Chinese immigrants, as well as immigrants from other countries, play in Washington State. This results in our communities being more educated and less inclined to allow fear and intolerance to go unquestioned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the organizers of the Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project for their time, talent and contributions. Thanks to the vision and leadership of Bettie Sing Luke, Ron Chew, Maxine Chan, Edward Echtle, Tim Greyhavens, Theresa Pan Hosley, Kathy Hsieh, Brian Lock, Debbie Louie, Chieko Phillips, Cynthia Kan Rekdal and Connie So, the awareness and appreciation of Chinese American history has greatly risen in our community.

As Seattle commemorates the 125th anniversary of the Chinese expulsion, it is important for us to remember that our country's diverse population has been, and will continue to be, a key factor in growing our economy and creating jobs. The efforts of the Chinese Expulsion Remembrance Project have touched so many of us, and they have shown that education is an invaluable asset to the Seattle community.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Report for the Record which I referenced during debate on my Amendment No. 99 to H.R. 1.

Decision

Matter of: Port of Bellingham.

File: B-401837.

Date: December 2, 2009.

Lee P. Curtis, Esq., Troy E. Hughes, Esq., and Maggie L

Croteau, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester.

James H. Roberts, III, Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC, for Port

of Newport, an intervenor.

Mark Langstein, Esq., Lynn W. Flanagan, Esq., and Diane M.

Canzano, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency.

Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of

the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation

of the decision.

Mr. Chairman, we've been here now the better part of 2 months, and we've seen political theater go on and on and on. Each day we bring out something that looks like it might have some usefulness, but it turns out it's just more political theater. We read the Constitution in here. Well, that took us a day. Then we spent 9 hours arguing about a bill that we knew wasn't going anywhere. Then we brought out the health care bill. Then we keep doing this. Meanwhile, the American people are saying--and Bill Frist--now, I wouldn't say Dr. Frist was a good friend of mine, but he was the majority leader in the Senate, a Republican, a doctor who said don't repeal this law, fix it.

There have been no hearings in 2 months about how you would fix the bill, and yet the American people--the problems that my colleagues come out here talking about one after another are multiplied by the millions in this country. They know there's a problem, they don't want to repeal it. The numbers for repeal have been dropping as the people have seen more and more provisions of this law come into effect. They want you to fix it, not political theater. It doesn't help them in the emergency room or in the doctor's office.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am a big fan of NOAA. The scientists and analysts at NOAA do extraordinary work for this country. Unfortunately, NOAA's process for choosing a location for the Marine Operations Center jeopardizes the operation of the Pacific Center and is wasting tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

My amendment would save at least $5 million immediately, and beyond that, probably $10 to $20 million in long-term costs. It would defund the move of the Marine Operations Center from Seattle to Newport, Oregon, for the rest of the year so that there is time for the broken process to be looked into.

Now, this is not a case of sour grapes. If it was what was best for the country, I wouldn't fight tooth and nail against some jobs moving from one place to another. But the Commerce Department's inspector general and the Government Accountability Office have written scathing reports about this move and the decision process. They found it is among the worst run, least transparent, and least competitive bidding processes they have ever investigated. If you want to compare it to the Bridge to Nowhere, this is exactly what it is.

I came from Chicago, and when we looked at something like this, we would always say the fix was in. Spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to dislocate hundreds of families to a site that's frequently unavailable for navigation because of dangerous conditions, is not near shipyards or maritime suppliers, is more than 120 miles from the nearest airport, and will be hugely expensive to run every year makes no common sense. And the reports of the inspector general report that very clearly.

Now, Newport is an environmentally sensitive area, and NOAA's own, their

own private consultants say the site is the least qualified destination for the move. Despite all these issues, NOAA has charged ahead and been completely unaccountable. NOAA officials are not willing to admit their huge mistake and fix it. And this is just plain wrong. Taking a breather for the next 7 months while we get a truly transparent process is the right thing to do.

NOAA and Newport are saying that any delay, any examination, any looking at this will have catastrophic consequences. That simply is not true. We have studies from the CRS and others it won't put contracts at risk, it will not increase costs.

So I rise today to stop the process for the remainder of the year, to give NOAA and the Commerce Department time to get their ducks in a row, hit the restart button, and stop wasting taxpayer money.

U.S. Department of Commerce,

The Inspector General,

Washington, DC, May 26, 2010.

Memorandum for: Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of

Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

From: Todd J. Zinser

Subject: NOAA's Acquisition of Facilities to House the Marine

Operations Center--Pacific

By letter dated March 5, 2010, Chairwoman Maria Cantwell

and Ranking Member Olympia Snowe of the Senate Subcommittee

on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Committee

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, requested that the

Office of Inspector General review NOAA's decision to award a

lease to the Port of Newport, Oregon, to house NOAA's Marine

Operations Center-Pacific (MOC-P). Their letter raised

several specific questions regarding the decision-making

process that resulted in this lease.

NOAA began the lease acquisition process as early as

September 2007, when it initiated a market analysis. It

published a Solicitation for Offers for a new lease on

November 24, 2008. Four bidders submitted offers, and NOAA

awarded a lease to the Port of Newport on August 4, 2009. One

of the unsuccessful bidders, the Port of Bellingham,

Washington, filed a protest with the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) on August 27, 2009--10 days after

it received a post-award debriefing from NOAA. On December 2,

2009, GAO sustained Bellingham's protest against NOAA's lease

award and recommended that NOAA conduct an analysis of

practicable alternatives to the Newport offer. In its January

29, 2010, response to GAO, NOAA stated that it expected to

complete all corrective actions relating to the successful

bid protest by May 28, 2010.

Although the lease acquisition process began in 2007, the

decision-making process related to the acquisition can be

traced back approximately 10 years. Together, these processes

involved several separate offices within NOAA, the

Department, and other federal agencies. In addition, they

involved many statutory provisions, regulations, NOAA and

Department policies, other administrative directives, and

changes in personnel. Given the scope and complexity of these

processes, we continue to gather and evaluate information,

and in order to gain the best understanding of the facts and

circumstances surrounding NOAA's process, we will need to

continue our work beyond the time by which NOAA intends to

finalize its assessment of practicable alternatives.

Although our review is ongoing, we have identified one

issue that warrants higher-level review by NOAA before it

finalizes its examination of practicable alternatives.

Specifically, based on our review, we believe that NOAA

should examine whether it sufficiently complied with the

requirement to consider existing federal facilities before

pursuing a new lease acquisition. Such an examination will

help to ensure that the ultimate decision--whether it be to

affirm the original choice or select an alternative

approach--is grounded in a more thorough, well-substantiated,

and well-documented analysis.

According to 41 C.F.R. 102-73.10, before acquiring real

estate by lease, purchase, or construction, federal agencies

should first use space in government-owned and government-

leased facilities. Similarly, Department of Commerce policy

generally disapproves of long-term lease solutions

(Department of Commerce, Real Property Management Manual,

5.4.1(d) (2003)). These issues are separate, but both relate

to how NOAA assessed its options for MOC-P. We address each

issue separately here, detailing factors that may potentially

impact NOAA's own assessment of how well it followed these

directives.

While there is a lack of detailed criteria against which to

measure NOAA's efforts to consider other federal facilities,

the Department's Real Property Management Manual does require

the Department to make ``every reasonable effort to utilize

Government-controlled space'' before leasing space. Our

review uncovered some evidence that NOAA considered other

federal facilities; however, NOAA was not able to provide

evidence that other federal facilities were systematically

inventoried, analyzed, and rejected before initiating efforts

to acquire a follow-on lease from other sources for MOC-P,

nor was the decision to reject other federal facilities well-

documented.

For example, we were told by NOAA officials that NOAA had

considered collocating with select Coast Guard and Navy

facilities, but its consideration was not documented. In

preparation for the lease acquisition, NOAA received

proposals in mid-2007 for an alternative site analysis to (1)

investigate the most functional, efficient, and cost-

effective options for reconsolidating MOC-P and (2) provide

an indication of how each site might perform during the

subsequent lease solicitation process. That study, conducted

under contract, was completed in September 2008. Of the 32

ports, cities, and economic development councils contacted,

11 responded, offering a total of 22 potential site options

for further analysis. The 22 were further narrowed to a total

of 15, only 3 of which were federally-owned: GSA's Federal

Center South, the Department of Labor's Tongue Point, and

NOAA's Western Regional Center. In November 2008, in an

apparent rejection of those federal sites, NOAA issued the

Solicitation for Offers.

NOAA also considered and declined GSA's May 2008 offer to

fulfill the MOC-P requirements at the GSA-owned Federal

Center South (FCS) facility. NOAA's Western Regional Center

(WRC) was also rejected as a long-term solution because of

what NOAA characterizes as litigation risks in that area.

Having ultimately rejected the use of other federal

facilities, it is also unclear whether NOAA adequately

considered other required alternatives. Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) Circular A-94, which requires cost-benefit

analyses of decisions on whether to lease or purchase, is an

example of other potentially applicable requirements that may

apply to NOAA's decision-making.

Our review has thus far uncovered three key issues

regarding NOAA's consideration of other federal facilities.

First, at some time between 2000 and 2007, as detailed

below, NOAA may have changed from considering a dispersed

model for fulfilling the MOC-P requirement, which could have

affected the analysis of available federal facilities.

Although NOAA's 2008 Solicitation for Offers was limited to

the lease of a consolidated facility (which would collocate

all ships and staff), it commissioned a June 2000 Homeport

Alternatives Analysis, conducted by SRI International, in

which it contemplated operating from dispersed facilities as

a cost-saving measure. This study was commissioned to explore

alternative homeports, given the possibility of the Lake

Union lease not being extended beyond 2003.

The 2000 study indicated that NOAA was seeking to reduce

costs by moving MOC-P staff to the WRC. Noting that NOAA. was

evaluating split homeporting, the study also explored

homeporting two of four MOC-P vessels in Alaska to reduce

ship travel time.

To date, NOAA has not provided an explanation of what

factors led to the apparent shift from the 2000 study to the

current preference for a consolidated, leased solution. This

apparent change in the vision for meeting the MOC-P

requirement may have had a significant impact on how NOAA

approached its available alternatives.

Notably, since the July 2006 fire that destroyed the MOC-P

piers at Lake Union, MOC-P has operated under a dispersed

model, using piers at NOAA's WRC and GSA's FCS. Also, NOAA's

Marine Operations Center-Atlantic operates in dispersed

facilities. This suggests that a dispersed model may be

feasible and should have been assessed as part of NOAA's

requirements-planning process.

Second, NOAA's analysis of how well it considered other

federal facilities should include an examination of how

thoroughly it analyzed and weighed its potential long-term

options at the WRC and FCS, where it currently operates.

NOAA should consider whether it would have been feasible to

maintain its current dispersed configuration while relocating

staff to the WRC or other leased offices.

Specifically, we found that the WRC was dredged in the

1970s in anticipation of developing four long piers to

accommodate many more vessels, and utilities may already be

in place for two additional planned buildings that were not

developed.

Although NOAA has cited neighborhood opposition to expanded

use of the WRC and litigation against NOAA in that area in

the 1970s, MOC-P has been homeported there since 2006. We

have reviewed recent letters from some surrounding

neighborhood groups that support locating MOC-P at the WRC.

The potential cost savings of using these existing facilities

may outweigh the litigation risks.

Third, GSA's pre-solicitation offer to serve the MOC-P

requirements at FCS may have presented a viable federal

facility for NOAA's consideration. This is particularly

relevant because of the changed circumstances at this site.

GSA's May 2008 offer arrived well before NOAA issued its

Solicitation for Offers in November 2008. NOAA declined this

offer one month later, citing the narrowness of the waterway

adjacent to the existing FCS pier, the fact that the waterway

was a Superfund site, and NOAA's established goal of being

operational in a new lease by July 1, 2011.

Since then, GSA has obtained American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act funds to redevelop three FCS buildings and

plans to relocate a large tenant, leaving an existing

building potentially available for NOAA, with some

modification.

We have been advised that NOAA currently has access to a

pier that is sufficiently

equipped and sizable to accommodate three of its vessels.

Although NOAA has cited concerns regarding underwater

property lines, it has not provided an indication that this

situation has been a problem during its use of the pier since

2006.

Regarding FCS being a Superfund site, according to a senior

official at GSA with whom we spoke, this would be an issue

for GSA, not NOAA. While the potential issue exists and an

environmental impact statement would be required, Superfund

liability would lie with GSA or another FCS tenant.

NOAA cited its June 30, 2011, deadline for vacating the

Lake Union site in its June 2008 letter declining GSA's

offer. However, this deadline was driven by the expiration of

the Lake Union lease, and suitable workarounds--such as

short-term office leases through GSA--may potentially have

been available.

Pursuing such workarounds may have enabled NOAA to garner

the necessary time and funding to develop the WRC and FCS

individually or together for the MOC-P requirement.

In our view, NOAA's examination of these issues related to

its consideration of other federal facilities will ensure

that the final decision regarding practicable alternatives to

Newport is thorough and well-documented.

We noted above that Department policy generally disapproves

of long-term lease solutions, and it states that leased

facilities should not be considered a permanent solution. Yet

although the Newport lease award will commit NOAA to a leased

solution for another 20 years, our review of how NOAA

approached government-owned solutions found little documented

analysis. NOAA has told us that leasing was preferred because

acquiring funding for such an acquisition would have required

considerable lead time and because funding of facilities has

historically received lower priority than other funding

requirements.

NOAA officials also cited the fact that MOC-P has

historically used leased sites.

The relevant documents show that on at least two occasions,

NOAA briefly considered acquiring the Lake Union site, which

housed all MOC-P operations prior to the fire, but

documentation of those efforts was limited to what can be

characterized as passing comments. We have not been provided

with evidence of systematic efforts to assess the feasibility

of purchasing or constructing facilities elsewhere.

We understand that NOAA's consideration of the practicable

alternatives to the Newport site is in progress and scheduled

to be completed by May 28, 2010. Although NOAA had the

authority to define the scope of the practicable alternatives

as it saw fit, it limited its assessment to the four offers

that it received under the solicitation. However, considering

the range of options that were available to NOAA in

government-owned and government-leased space, a broader

examination may be warranted as part of this analysis.

According to NOAA, it is standard GSA practice for lease-

to-build leases not to include a termination clause in the

lease, and such a clause was not included in the Port of

Newport award. We understand that NOAA obtained a preliminary

estimate of potential lease termination costs from the

Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel. However, as

part of its decision-making process, NOAA should conduct a

rigorous analysis of the potential termination costs and

document the specific components of this estimate. As it

continues to evaluate its practicable alternatives, it would

be prudent for NOAA to minimize these potential costs to the

extent possible.

Whatever conclusion NOAA reaches, it should carefully

examine and document all pertinent factors, including those

that we have highlighted. In order for both of our offices to

be responsive to the Subcommittee, it is important to examine

these issues regarding NOAA's consideration of other federal

facilities. As we finalize our response to the Chairwoman and

Ranking Member, we will follow up with your office to

determine what additional information NOAA may have

identified.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to

contact me.

Mr. Chair, I have good friends, and I know they have to defend their hometown as adequately as they want.

But let me read from the IG's report: ``In our view, the more fundamental problems pertaining to NOAA's process prior to the competitive lease process, a primary cause of these problems is grounded in the fact that NOAA did not subject the MOC-P project to a rigorous capital investment planning and oversight process. While the Department has clear property policy, NOAA did not follow it. NOAA thus proceeded with requirements for its desired option of consolidated facility based on justification and consideration of alternatives that, on the face and without additional documentation, are significantly lacking. NOAA's financial analysis of the four offers submitted in response to the solicitation did not assess the total cost to the government, and NOAA provided no evidence that it had thoroughly considered the operational and logistical implications of the relocation.''

Now that's not two rivals from one State and another. This is the Inspector General of the Commerce Department going down and looking at the process. And the fact is that the CRS report, dated 30 September 2010, which I will submit for the Record, says that the Federal Government is able to terminate its contracts for convenience. The governmental interest is always higher than the commercial interest. So the Federal Government can get out of this. They save $50 million. It's not going to be $50 million because they still have the pier. They can do whatever they want with it, but they do not have a contract with the Federal Government for the next 20 years in a place that is very far away.

NOAA has been in Seattle for 40 years. That's true. Whence it was created, it was put there for a very good reason. I don't care if it goes to Bellingham or it goes to Oregon or where it goes, but there ought to be a transparent process.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The gentleman from Minnesota really made the point. Here we are at a quarter to 3 in the morning, going after the working people of this country.

In 1932, we didn't have unemployment insurance.

Now, I'm sure your next amendment will be ``no money should be spent for unemployment insurance in this country'' because that creates that moral hazard where people sit at home and wait for that check to come in, right? They won't go down and look for work. We also had no workers' comp in this country before 1910. If a guy got hurt, they threw him out in the street and got somebody new. We didn't care.

If that's the kind of country you want to go back to, I suppose the next bill you bring out here will be ``let's repeal the minimum wage.'' Why the heck do we have minimum wage? Do you know what the prevailing wage in this city was when this building was built? It was built by slaves. Now, is that where you want to go? What are you after?

The Government of the United States should set a standard of what we want for the working people in this country.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to my constituent, Doctor Usha Varanasi, on the occasion of her retirement as the Science and Research Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Northwest Fisheries Science Center, a position Dr. Varanasi has held since 1994, when she became the first woman to lead a National Marine Fisheries Service Science Center.

During Dr. Varanasi's 35 years of federal service as a research chemist and marine scientist, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center has made potent advances in the fields of ecotoxicology, molecular biology, genetics, and microbiology. Dr. Varanasi's multidisciplinary approach has produced innovative research and established the Center as a high-performing and internationally-renowned research institution. Throughout her remarkable career, Dr. Varanasi has furthered science and technology essential to wise fisheries management and marine resource preservation.

Dr. Varanasi began her career at NOAA pursuing breakthrough research on the effects of chemical contamination on marine organisms. Dr. Varanasi's research revolutionized the field. Her work led to the development of techniques to assess the impacts of oil-related pollution on fisheries resources. As a result, Dr. Varanasi and her team provided invaluable seafood safety evaluation during the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Hurricane Katrina, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Dr. Varanasi's research is recognized nationally and internationally. She has authored more than 150 peer-reviewed articles in journals including Nature and Science. She has edited two acclaimed books and her seafood safety editorial, The Seafood ``Dilemma''--A Way Forward, has influenced policymakers broadly.

Dr. Varanasi's ongoing efforts have ensured that the Center's science is of the highest quality, providing the scientific underpinning for complex decisions that guide management of the Nation's marine resources. From careful monitoring of the West Coast ground fishery, to salmon recovery, to protection of the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales, and, finally, to crucial regional ocean governance structures, Dr. Varanasi has led the way. Her foresight and dedication have made possible new collaborations and effective partnerships that changed the way we approach fisheries management and marine resources preservation.

A generous colleague and mentor, Dr. Varanasi has served for many years on the faculties of Seattle University and the University of Washington. She has been instrumental in helping countless students to understand that the wisest policies come from the best science.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Varanasi's remarkable career has advanced substantially our understanding of marine life and its vital connections to our own existence. Her legacy of leadership and breakthrough research will inspire students, scientists, researchers, and policymakers for decades. I extend to Dr. Varanasi my congratulations on her outstanding

achievements, my appreciation for her many years of exceptional public service, and my best wishes for her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my Republican colleagues to stop their attack on women. Family planning is between women, their doctors, and their family. Republicans have no business being in that discussion.

The anti-choice, anti-women Republican majority in the House has made eliminating critical health services for women a top priority. Apparently, protection begins at conception and ends at birth.

Republicans want to gut all reproductive health care in the country and are trying to shut down Planned Parenthood. What an amazingly immoral thing to do. It is utterly disingenuous of the Republicans to go after Planned Parenthood in their inhuman crusade. Radical Republicans are catering to their most extreme base at the expense of 150 million women in this country, and they should be ashamed. But they won't.

The Republicans are also at war with the poor, again, leaving millions of low-income women and women of color with no access to basic health care.

Let's not forget, the American people sent us here to solve problems that face everyone. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is laser- focused not on jobs or the economy or the national security, but on attacking women and children in this bill, waging a culture war to get campaign contributions from the extremists in this country.

In their rush to appease religious conservatives and undermine the health care law, Republicans have gone from pro-life to pro-government intrusion in the extreme. Republican government is about silencing you as you talk to your doctor.

Republicans love to silence Americans and anyone else they can get to on their moral crusade. Only a real Republican could love a law that says it has a gag rule.

Let me be clear. The so-called pro-life agenda set by the Republicans is the most unprecedented form of government intervention on reproductive rights in decades.

I remember the seventies and the sixties. The Republicans are defining what constitutes forcible rape and penalizing private businesses that choose comprehensive insurance coverage. If that's not government intervention, I don't know what is.

Women are the victims in several major bills and amendments that the Republican leadership is pushing at a mind-boggling speed. These radical anti-choice bills all seek to fundamentally erode the right of all women to health care. More importantly, they don't reflect the will of the American people.

A recent national survey conducted by the Lombardo Consulting Group found that more than 60 percent of the voters support family planning. How is attacking women helping the economy or creating jobs or helping our national security?

We have been in the House for a month now and we have seen lots of talks about how we're going to slice the deficit, but not one single discussion, serious discussion, about how to get there. It is irresponsible to allow these narrowly driven ideological debates about women's health to dominate the House calendar when we have a budget to work out and almost 15 million unemployed.

I urge my colleagues to abandon this vicious attack on women and to focus on issues the American people actually sent us here to solve: Looking for jobs. And I urge my Republican colleagues to get out of the doctor's office and leave women and families and doctors alone.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for inclusion in the Congressional Record an article by Joel Connelly of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that talks about the duplicitous and dangerous agenda set by the House Republicans to severely restrict the rights of women, children, and low-income families.

[From www.seattlepi.com, Feb. 13, 2011]

House GOP Agenda: Curtailing Abortion, Cutting Kids

(By Joel Connelly)

The new ``pro-life'' Republican majority in the U.S. House

of Representatives seems dedicated to a curious proposition:

The protection of life begins at conception, and ends at

birth.

The leadership is pushing a Protect Life Act that would

prohibit any subsidies for abortion in any component of the

2010 Affordable Health Care act. It is moving to end any U.S.

government support for abortion providers--anywhere.

``We need to protect human life from the unborn to the

elderly,'' Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., chairman of the Health

Subcommittee of the powerful House Energy and Commerce

Committee, said recently. Pitts has headed the Values Action

Team, a House caucus concerned with pro-life and pro-family

issues.

When it comes to spending on children and health and the

elderly, however, House Republicans' new budget is The Pitts.

The budget axe is about to fall on, to use Ronald Reagan's

line stating his opposition to abortion, ``those who have

already been born.''

Women, Infants and Children was the one new, bipartisan

social program passed by Congress and signed into law by

President Reagan. (Then-Rep. Mike Lowry of Seattle was a lead

sponsor.) House GOP budget writers have targeted it for a

$758 million cut.

WIC provides federal money to States for supplemental

foods, health care referrals and nutrition education for low

income women, and to infants and kids under 5 who are at

nutritional risk.

The budget axe in Congress' lower chamber will also fall--

to the tune of $1.3 billion in cuts--on Community Health

Centers. The program supports community health, migrant

health centers, health care for the homeless, and primary

care programs in public housing.

Maternal and Child Health Block Grants to States have been

targeted for a $210 million reduction. The program helps

train providers and support services for children with

special health needs, screening of newborns, injury and lead

poisoning prevention.

The cuts continue through stages of life, and programs that

sustain and enhance life.

AmeriCorps, the Clinton-era program in which young people

do public service work in exchange for college tuition, is

marked for elimination. Job training is targeted for a $2

billion cut.

LIHEAP, the program that provides winter heating assistance

to low-income families, is to be hit with a $400 million

reduction--despite the growing need for it as America goes

through the Great Recession.

The National Institutes for Health would see a $1 billion

reduction. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

would see a $755 million reduction, or 12 percent.

Nor do cuts stop at the water's edge. A total of $544

million would be axed from international food aid grants to

such organizations as World Vision and Catholic Relief

Services.

The House members championing such cuts are the very people

who profess to be advocates for the unborn and defenders of

life. Yet, their policies hit at society's poor and

vulnerable, and at the ability to pursue the American dream.

How could anyone, in good conscience, proclaim himself/

herself ``pro-life'' while axing a child nutrition program?

Check that. The late Sen. Jesse Helms, R-North Carolina,

managed it for 30 years.

The new majority seems proud of its handiwork: Rookie Tea

Party lawmakers have forced even deeper cuts on the House

Republican leadership.

``Remember, this is historic: The level of cuts here have

not taken place in Congress since World War II,'' House

Majority Leader Eric Cantor boasted Friday.

But we should remember another moment in history: Just

before Christmas, Congress and the White House extended tax

cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans.

Jim Wallis, editor of the Christian publication Sojourners,

has suggested posing a question to the ``peoples' house'' of

Congress. It's a variation on the familiar What-Would-Jesus-

Do slogan used by some Christian believers.

What would Jesus cut?

Offered By: Mr. McDermott

Amendment No. 99: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we come out to discuss this resolution, H. Res. 72, I couldn't but think of a story from the middle part of the United States of America. There was a Methodist minister who fell ill, very, very seriously ill, and the head of the board of deacons called the board together to have a discussion about what they should do about the problems of the ailing minister. They had a long discussion. It took, not as long as this debate will take, but it took 2 hours. And at the end, by a vote of 4-3, with 17 abstentions, they wrote a letter to the minister urging him to get well.

Now this resolution has about as much effect as that letter to that minister in central Illinois. Two years ago--and what a difference a day makes--January 28, 2009, this Congress passed the American Recovery Act. Seven hundred billion dollars that stopped the economic collapse in this country, that got us started on recovery from the problems created by the previous administration. We did that in less than a hundred days.

We've been here a hundred days. There used to be a TV program I liked when I was a kid called This Is The Week That Was. Now let's review this week that was. I arrived back from Seattle and on the calendar were two bills. One was a bill to deal with, as the gentleman from Michigan has suggested, the problems of workers who have been displaced by trade, the so-called Trade Adjustment Act, TAA. That was one bill. The other bill was a bill to extend the Patriot Act. I don't know what the leadership on the other side was thinking. Maybe they can't count. But the bill to extend the Patriot Act went down in flames. They then pulled the bill on extending TAA. That was Tuesday.

Then we came to Wednesday. That was the day they brought the bill in, a meaningless bill, messing with the United Nations funding, that didn't save one single dollar but simply said we weren't going to pay our dues to this, then that section of the United Nations that somebody didn't like, and so they decided they'd come out here and make a big show about the United Nations. That bill went down in flames.

Now the week has not been a total loss. We did change the name of a courthouse; we did it on Wednesday, and I think we got something to go home and talk to our people about in our districts.

And now we're to Thursday. Here we are spending 9 hours out here on a meaningless piece of legislation. It is truly a sad day for the House that we are spending another day not helping the people of America. Not helping the private sector create jobs. Not doing what the people sent us here to do. Early this morning, congressional representatives and staff came to work on Capitol Hill to work for the American people. It is the job every day for Members and staff to oversee the agencies of the Federal Government, to oversee the regulations so that the common good is served. It doesn't require House Resolution 72. We are here to track how money is being spent and that it is being done responsibly. That is the Congress' constitutional responsibility and has been for 224 years.

You would have thought that maybe the people on the other side would have figured this out, Mr. Speaker. We stood out here and read the Constitution. I guess for some of them it was the first time they had ever read it but they weren't paying attention or something because this resolution is simply restating what has always been our responsibility.

Now it's been 100 days, as I said, for the Republicans in control of the House, and they have done not one single thing to create a job. Nada. Nil. Zilch. Nothing. Not a single thing to create a job in 100 days. We have 14.9 million unemployed in this country. We have an intense economic competition with the rest of the world that we are in danger of losing if we don't get moving. We have a home foreclosure crisis in this country. We've got two wars. We've got huge energy and environmental issues to deal with and an economic system that's falling further and further behind the rest of the world. We do not lead the world in college graduates per capita. We are about sixth or seventh or eighth, somewhere down there. Other countries are passing us because of our inaction.

And what do we do? The Republicans say, let's go out and waste the 10th of February. Now, instead, the Republicans are having us working for two whole days to tell the House of Representatives to do its job. For heaven's sakes, what a silly piece of legislation. This bill is an insult to the American people. It's an insult to the people who work here, and they don't even seem to understand they're insulting themselves, as though they didn't know what their job was. It's like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. The House is sitting here while millions of Americans are unemployed. They're selling their belongings. They're emptying their 401(k)s. They're doing everything possible to stay afloat.

Now, this isn't 1930. In 1930, what people did was, they took what few belongings they had, went out, put it on the top of the car, drove to California, and found a job. That's what people did. But every day, millions of Americans can't move to take a new job because they can't sell their house because their homes are under water, according to the banks. In Seattle today, one-third of the homes are under water. Now, if you don't think some foreclosures are coming out of that, you don't understand how it works. There is a whole new underclass of unemployed, undertrained Americans who are not being helped to compete in the world economy.

And while Americans across the country suffer, the Republicans come

out here with H. Res. 72. They are going to do nothing. The Republicans, the party of ``saying one thing and doing another,'' promised big action on jobs during the election: If you elect us, we will get this country rolling again. So they have taken control of the House, and what do the American people get? Instead of helping the private sector with a smart science, technology, and energy investment policy, we are considering Republican legislation on pornography. That certainly makes a lot of sense if you don't have a job.

Instead of compassionately and energetically helping the unemployed, the Republicans want to redefine the rape of women to keep some women who have been raped from getting abortions. You will see that one next week. That's going to be the great bill.

Where's the job bill? Where are the job bills? I have no idea. There are more 99ers every week. Now in case you don't know what a 99er is on the other side, let me educate you. We have an unemployment system that provides for unemployment insurance for 99 weeks; and when it runs out, you are done. And there are four or five people for every job that comes up in America. So if you go out looking for a job, you have a one in four chance of having any chance at getting it. And yet these 99- weekers are piling up all over the country because they've run out of their unemployment insurance, and the Republicans do nothing about creating jobs.

Instead of intelligently debating administration plans in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Republicans want to vote on meaningless bills like the one I talked about with the United Nations that save no money and don't advance the U.S. interest in anything.

The Republicans ran on a slogan, Mr. Speaker: Government spending kills jobs. They are the extreme party of ``everyone for themselves,'' no action for the common good. And now that the Republicans have responsibility, all they have is their message machine. That's what these 9 hours are about. Just in case you haven't broken the code, they are all in their offices now, Mr. Speaker, cranking out press releases: I'm going to take on this regulation. I'm going to take on that regulation. And somehow they think that those messages will get them reelected in November of 2012. They are creating a paper blizzard. Like we have had some snow around here, well, this is a real blizzard.

Now when you try to govern without ideas, it doesn't go over very well with the American public, and slowly the Republican leadership is hearing the feedback. What is the new Republican response? They say the need to ``retool their messaging.''

Since we have to waste the people's time on the floor today on this meaningless resolution, I thought I should try and be helpful to the Republican effort. It's my civic duty. As a member of the minority, I should help the majority rule. Now, the problem the Republicans are having is that what they ran on, that `` Big Government is the problem,'' isn't true. Big Government is not the problem. No one wants Big Government. What do we want that for? We've all been through TSA. We don't want that stuff.

But the government is not the problem. The government is made up of Americans, good Americans who are writing rules and regulations to do things that Americans want. Americans want clean water. They want to be able to drink the water. They want some water to irrigate their crops. They want water for a lot of things. And it takes regulation because if you let anybody take as much water as they want, some people and some very important things are not going to get done.

They want clean air. Americans want clean air. They know there is an epidemic of asthma among children living in cities, and they're worried about it. And they want regulations. They want regulations in construction so that you don't create an epidemic of youngsters with asthma who fill the emergency rooms every night in hospitals in this country.

Now, the American people want fairness. They want the rule of law. They want laws fixed that don't work. Sometimes you pass a law; and 10 years ago, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Things change. Things need to be changed. Sure, we ought to be doing that. But you don't need House Resolution 72 to tell you to do it. Common sense would tell you to do it. And the American people need the collective help that we can give them. The American people want effective government that deals with people's problems.

Now the Republican ``fear and blame machine'' is an old, tired, failed philosophy that from time to time can be used to scare the American people in an election. They did it in 2004. Remember the orange alerts and the Oh, God, yellow alerts. Oh, God, we've got to have 4 more years of the same stuff. And we got 4 more years of it. In 2010, here they are again.

We were over in the Ways and Means Committee today doing oversight with a wrecking ball. Let's wreck the bill that we passed last year on health care. Now Bill Frist--you are not going to call him a wild-eyed liberal. He used to be the majority leader in the Senate. Bill Frist said to the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, don't repeal it. Fix it. But what we're doing today is getting ready to blow the bill out of the way so that we can have the Paul Ryan road to the end of Medicare and to a voucher system. Paul Ryan vouchers for every senior citizen in this country is the goal. And that oversight is really set to blow apart any chance of developing better law than we got through here last year.

It would work better if both sides worked together, there's no question about it. But if you're going to use a wrecking ball and try to put in a voucher system and say to all the old people in this country, Hey, here's your voucher. This is an $8,000 voucher. Go out and find yourself an insurance company that wants to give you insurance. Mr. Speaker, consider that idea. I mean, I don't know how old the Members' mothers and fathers are; but when you get to be 75 or 80, and you go out with an $8,000 voucher and try to build health insurance, you can't do it, except by taking another $5,000 or $6,000 out of your pocket.

The seniors in this country spend already one-third of their income on health care. They have got plenty of skin in the game. They don't need any more. But the Ways and Means Committee today is doing that rather than trying to figure out what it is that we can do to make the law better. There wasn't a single question about how can you make the law better. All it was was an attack on the man who ran CMS. The first question was, Do you still believe that the national health system of Great Britain is the best thing since sliced bread? The question wasn't, Doctor, how can we help you make this law work more effectively for the American people?

There is an extreme agenda here, and it won't be helped by retooling the message. Now, the other thing that is kind of ridiculous about this whole thing is, we have an Oversight Committee on the Ways and Means Committee. We have a very distinguished Member from Louisiana. Dr. Boustany is a very smart Member of Congress. He is the ranking member on the Oversight Committee. He does not need H. Res. 72 to tell him to do oversight. He is a very thorough man. He is a cardiac surgeon. I mean, come on. This guy is smart and able and can see what the problems are, and he doesn't need these 10 hours out here flogging this resolution so that we can then have our press releases.

The American people deserve better than this. They deserve us to put positive proposals forward that will create jobs, that will deal with the foreclosures, that will deal with the health care problems they have, that will deal with the energy problems, will deal with what's happening in the world and what's going on overseas.

And we are about to see in the budget that comes out what the priorities of the Republican Party are. The budget is a moral document. It is when you say what you really care about. And when you look at that document, you will see what they really care about.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm just sitting here thinking about this whole business about regulation. Since I've been in Congress, when I arrived here we were in the midst of the savings and loan crisis which cost this country something like $50 billion or something to bail ourselves out of. It wasn't the fact that we didn't have the right rules and regulations; we just weren't enforcing them.

Then we had Enron went on down in Texas, and we had the Exxon Valdez, and you look at all these issues.

We need regulation and enforcement to make sure that the people are protected. It is our job, in part, to protect the American people from the capitalist system. The capitalist system is not bad. It simply doesn't have any morals. It is designed to make money. That's all it's about.

And the regulations that are put in are, in large measure, to protect the American people from the excesses of the economic system. And if we don't do that, we don't do our constituents what they sent us here to do, which is to represent them and protect them. We think about protections in terms of, you know, things overseas and missiles flying in from somewhere and all that kind of stuff, but there is more damage done to American people by what happens here in this country by our own companies to the water and the air and the land and the air we breathe. So it is very important that we do this. We should be doing continuous oversight. And in some instances, we should be tightening the regulations.

The banking system that collapsed collapsed because we allowed Wall Street to have a heyday with derivatives and said, you know, do whatever you guys think is right. What they thought was right was to gamble with our pensions and our people's savings, and the whole system collapsed. And we're digging our way out of it.

And to come out here and say what we need is to remove regulations is simply not--doesn't make sense, and it shouldn't make sense to anybody who thinks about it for 1 minute. And I urge my colleagues to vote against this. It's useless. It's stupid. Every committee already has an oversight subcommittee and they will do it, and I think that there is no reason to pass this.

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

Madam Speaker, the legislation introduced by House Republicans to return $179 million from the United Nations Tax Equalization Fund, TEF, is both factually inaccurate and diverts Congress' attention from far more pressing national security considerations facing the 112th Congress, such as Afghanistan.

The bill incorrectly states that there is $179 million in the TEF to date, when in fact there is $79 million. The legislation fails to take into account the $100 million that United States has already committed to support critical security upgrades at the U.N. Headquarters, as requested by the City of New York. Forcefully transferring $179 million to Treasury--as this bill dictates--would make it impossible for the U.S. to follow through on our commitment to fund necessary security enhancements that we as the host nation are responsible for, not to mention place U.N. personnel at risk.

At a time when U.S. taxpayers are spending a staggering $100 billion per year in Afghanistan, it seems odd that the Republicans would choose this as a top priority.

I do not support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote against it. I also urge my Republican colleagues to follow through on their number 1 campaign promise and focus on creating jobs and growing our economy-- something they have yet to do in any meaningful way since assuming control of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the PATRIOT Act in 2001, voted against its extension in 2005, and will again vote against it again today. The PATRIOT Act was sold as a measure to ensure the safety of the American people. Instead, the PATRIOT Act has served primarily to subvert fundamental rights afforded to American citizens.

A plain extension of the PATRIOT Act, without revisiting its many problems and abuses, is a huge mistake and missed opportunity to truly protect our country against terrorism and do so in the confines of the Constitution.

Freedom does not have to be compromised to defend liberty. Continuing to weaken fundamental American principles will not leave us more secure, but instead more vulnerable. Through mutual trust and fearlessness, we can progress together.

It is time to stop extending the PATRIOT Act and restore full American freedoms and liberty to our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

The short title of this bill ought to be ``The White Flag of the United States Congress on Campaign Finance.'' My distinguished colleague from Oklahoma says, if it's broke, why don't we write a bill. That's exactly what the point is. There weren't very many people on this floor who were involved in politics when this whole thing blew up. You've forgotten 1972. We wrote a bill in the Congress--we didn't, but the Congress wrote a bill. Interestingly enough, they left themselves out of it, but they tried to control how much money went into a Presidential campaign. Now, if you don't index it for inflation or do some kind of mechanism, it's pretty clear that a law written with the limits of 1972 is going to be pretty out of date by 2012.

There are some things we could do to change this process and make it more in sync with what's going on in society financially. But by saying you repeal it with nothing to replace it, you simply are saying we don't care how much money is spent in the election of the President of the United States; it is of no concern to the Republican Party whatsoever.

It fits very nicely with the Citizens United lawsuit that allows corporate money to come in in a variety of other ways. And the system is now so corrupt that what you heard my colleague from California say, that is, all the things that were uncovered as a result of Watergate and the investigation that followed and led to the ejection of the President from the White House, was because we didn't have any controls on anything.

Now, did we put the perfect controls in? No. Should we be amending this bill? Yes. Because I don't know what 2012 is going to cost--maybe $1 billion on either side. Sarah Palin will have $1 billion and Barack Obama will have $1 billion, and that will be all right with everybody. But the problem with that is that the ordinary folks in this country don't have any opportunity to participate.

They also know that people don't give $1 billion with no expectation of something coming back. That's what happened in 1972. People gave money and they expected something back. And that's where the real fallacy here is in simply wiping this out without trying to fix it. It's an admission that you do not care how much money gets spent in a Presidential campaign. And if that's your view of how the democracy works, I think we are in serious trouble.

I'm one of those who think there should be publicly financed campaigns. I think even my opponents against me--I get 84 percent, but I think my opponent ought to have an equal shot at me. But the Congress didn't put that in this bill because they didn't want that. Neither did the Senate want that. They wanted to put it on the President and say, well, we fixed it over there. We really need it for this House and the Senate as well as what's going on in the Presidential election. And to simply repeal this is bad public policy and it is an admission that we don't care.

I oppose the bill.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 359--Termination of Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns and

Party Conventions

(Rep. Cole, R-Oklahoma, and 18 cosponsors, Jan. 25, 2011)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

359 because it is critical that the Nation's Presidential

election public financing system be fixed rather than

dismantled.

The Presidential election public financing system was

enacted in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal to free the

Nation's elections from the influence of corporations and

other wealthy special interests. Rather than candidates

having to rely on raising large sums of private money in

order to run, the system provides qualifying presidential

candidates with the option of accepting matching funds in the

primary and a public grant in the general election. It has

done so at minimal cost to taxpayers, who fund it by

voluntarily choosing to direct $3 of their Federal taxes to

this beneficial system. For many years, the system worked

well and attracted wide participation. In time, however, it

became clear that a system introduced in the 1970s was in

need of modernization and repair. Beginning in the 2000

Presidential campaign, candidates began to opt out. Since

that time, promising proposals for the strengthening of the

system have been made.

H.R. 359 would kill the system, not strengthen it. Its

effect would be to expand the power of corporations and

special interests in the Nation's elections; to force many

candidates into an endless cycle of fundraising at the

expense of engagement with voters on the issues; and to place

a premium on access to large donor or special interest

support, narrowing the field of otherwise worthy candidates.

After a year in which the Citizens United decision rolled

back a century of law to allow corporate interests to spend

vast sums in the Nation's elections and to do so without

disclosing the true interests behind them, this is not the

time to further empower the special interests or to obstruct

the work of reform.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).

Madam Speaker, I want to give folks a preview of tonight's off-Broadway performance that will follow the President's State of the Union Address.

The stage will be the House Budget Committee hearing room. The actor in the one-man show will be Republican Representative Paul Ryan from Wisconsin. The script will begin with something like, Hello, I'm Representative Paul Ryan, and I'm speaking to you from the very location where the Democratic job-killing spending binge unfolded during the last 2 years. Unfortunately, the script for tonight's performance will not include the fact that Democratic investments have created more jobs during the last 2 years than were created during the entire 8 years of George Bush. You also won't hear about the one thing that Republicans fought tooth and nail for during the last 2 years: an extension of a budget-busting $700 billion tax break for wealthy Americans.

Coming attractions? The chairman will have another show in the next week where he pulls a budget number from a hat filled with rabbits. That will be our budget number. Enjoy the show.