Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise to pay tribute to our good friend from West Virginia, Representative Nicky Joe Rahall, who will cast in this next vote his 20,000th vote in this House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, this is a milestone event. It gives us an opportunity to recognize the great work done by our distinguished friend and colleague from Beckley, West Virginia. He is always serving his constituents and doing so well. He also strives to work across the aisle, and he is the kind of Member I believe we all feel we should be.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague, Mr. Rahall, to rise so that we may all join together in paying tribute to our friend and colleague on the occasion of his 20,000th vote.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Waxman

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 658 as it currently stands. While I support a long-term reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, this bill is the wrong approach to doing so. I was extremely disappointed in the decision of my Republican colleagues to slash funding levels for the FAA by $4 billion over the next four years. These proposed cuts would jeopardize the Next Generation Air Transportation System air traffic control modernization efforts and devastate safety-sensitive programs.

Worse yet, H.R. 658 slashes the FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) by $2 billion through 2014. The AIP program is essential for airports to handle current traffic levels as well as build infrastructure to address future demand. Not only does it help airports build and improve runways, taxiways, and terminals, but it also helps airports mitigate noise levels, and improve safety and security at their facilities. Please allow me to give you an example of how this program has helped the people of Michigan's 15th congressional district, and why it deserves proper levels of funding. My district contains Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW), which serves over 35 million passengers annually and is one of the newest, most operationally-capable, customer-friendly and efficient airports in North America with more than 1,200 non-stop flights per day to over 160 destinations worldwide. Since 2009, DTW airport has received over $21 million in federal grants from the FAA through the AIP program. These grants helped DTW rehabilitate the runaways and taxiways, reduce noise levels, install taxiway lighting, install guidance signs, and install perimeter fencing. If DTW had not received these grants, it would not have made these upgrades.

Thus, the $4 billion in cuts contained in H.R. 658 will prevent airports like DTW from making necessary upgrades to their facilities, prevent the implementation of new safety standards, reduce safety personnel, and cost 70,000 jobs around the nation. If this bill passes with these budget cuts intact, then passengers at airports across the nation can expect increased delays, overcrowded airports, decreased safety, and crumbling infrastructure. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject these cuts, and to protect the critical and successful Airport Improvement Program.

The FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act, as it stands, is nothing more than a job loss bill that will inflict serious turbulence on our nation's airline industry and transportation infrastructure. I understand the need to reduce the deficit, but we should not do so in such a way that threatens passenger safety, airport security, and airfield maintenance. If my colleagues across the aisle are serious about investing in our nation's infrastructure and creating jobs, then they should vote to rescind these harmful cuts and maintain funding for the FAA at FY 2010 levels.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill unless the proper funding levels are restored.

Mr. Van HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 658. While we need a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, today's legislation takes us in the wrong direction.

Our nation's aviation infrastructure critically needs rehabilitation. On its 2009 Report Card on America's Infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave aviation infrastructure a ``D.'' Investments in improvements--to renovate runways, taxiways, and terminals and to implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) to modernize air traffic control--would enhance passenger safety and reduce delays. They also create jobs-- approximately 35,000 jobs per $1 billion of investment.

However, rather than making the improvements our aviation system requires, this bill cuts funding back to FY2008 levels--a $1 billion cut in the first year alone. And funding would stay level, despite increasing need, each year until FY2014. Cuts to the Airport Improvement Program alone would cost our nation 70,000 jobs over the next four years.

This bill's funding reductions have a very real impact for passengers. Cutbacks to FAA operations could result in furloughs for hundreds of safety inspectors and slow certification of new equipment. A reduced budget could also postpone needed investments in air traffic control towers, lighting systems, and navigational aids. And the delays to NextGen implementation will result in more delays, more gridlock, and more runway incursions that endanger passengers.

Additionally, this bill contains a poison pill--one that neither the President nor the Senate will accept. It repeals a National Mediation Board rule, finalized last year, which allows workers to organize based on a majority of votes cast--the same way members of Congress are elected. Under this legislation, if a worker does not cast a ballot in a union election, he or she would be counted as a ``no'' vote. This is unfair and undemocratic.

Mr. Chair, our aviation infrastructure has serious needs. We need a serious bill to address them. Let's end arbitrary and damaging cuts and poison pill provisions and consider a bill that puts Americans to work rebuilding our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for her yielding me this time, and I commend her for her opposition to this outrageous piece of legislation.

I rise in strenuous opposition to H.R. 1076, visited upon us without any attention to regular order, hastened to the floor in defiance of the commitments of the Speaker, and without any hearings or consideration by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. No opportunity for the public to speak or to be heard on what we're doing.

The majority continues to force Members of this body to waste time and energy of the House, a critical asset of this Nation, on political witch-hunts with respect to health care and the environment. Now we find that we're adding public broadcasting to this list.

Public broadcasting is a national treasure. It provides us impartial, honest coverage of facts and news. It provides information not available elsewhere. And, yes, it sheds a little bit of culture on our people, something which probably my Republican colleagues find offensive. It has done so at very low cost to the public, with huge contributions from the people for the support of this.

This legislation is going to prohibit local stations like Michigan Radio in Ann Arbor, and in your own districts and in your States, from using money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to acquire or produce any public radio programs. As regards process, we are completely evading the processes and the commitments that are to be found in the rules and the pronouncements of the leadership on the other side. And we are finding that the history of this, which goes back to the 1934 Communications Act in the Commerce Committee, has been grossly disregarded.

So much for regular order. And so much for transparency that the majority made such a big fuss about at the beginning of this year. What's next? Are we going to amend the Endangered Species Act on the floor to declare an open season on Big Bird? Or upon programs which educate our kids or which contribute to the advancement of our society?

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1076. It's a bad bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 861, which will terminate an important Federal response to the mortgage crisis that continues to threaten American economic growth.

Last week, House Republicans voted to terminate the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Refinance Program, a promising foreclosure prevention program directed toward responsible homeowners. Today, we are considering terminating a program that helps stabilize communities rocked by massive foreclosure and home abandonment. With about 13.7 million Americans struggling with unemployment, I urge the Republican leadership to focus on creating jobs, not on terminating programs. It is time to be constructive, not destructive.

Mr. Speaker, I am starkly opposed to H.R. 861, which would terminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). This important program provides grants to State and local governments and eligible entities to buy and restore abandoned and foreclosed properties. This funding allows the hardest hit communities, like those in my home state of Michigan, to start tearing down dilapidated properties with an eye toward shrinking struggling cities and rehabilitating healthy neighborhoods. This funding helps increase nearby property values and decrease the risk of foreclosure for remaining residents. It also enables communities to cut down on havens for criminal activity, reducing law enforcement costs. Several communities in my Congressional District, like Dearborn, Taylor, and Inkster have benefited from this program, and its continued funding is crucial for local governments to respond to the mortgage crisis. If my Republican colleagues refuse to believe NSP is a wise public investment, I extend an invitation for them to visit my home state and witness the critical impact this program has on hard-hit communities.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for her kindness in yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be one of the sponsors of the legislation before us. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 27, a resolution providing for the acceptance of a statue of the Honorable Gerald R. Ford from the people of Michigan for placement in the United States Capitol. It is an honor to be lead sponsor on this resolution with my dear friend and colleague across the aisle, Mr. Upton. It is a fitting tribute to the bipartisanship and the decency that Gerald Ford espoused as a Member of the Congress for 25 years, and then as Vice President and then President of the United States, that the resolution has the support of the entire Michigan delegation and of the people we in the Michigan delegation serve here in the Congress.

The people of Michigan chose a fine President, wise legislator, and a decent and extraordinary man to serve as one of the two statues representing the people of Michigan in the United States Capitol. Millions of people each year will have the privilege of viewing the statue and be reminded of the thoughtfulness, courage, and sincerity with which he led the Nation during his Presidency. Indeed, much like today, President Ford took office at a time of divisiveness and uncertainty, and he helped to heal our Nation and to bring us together.

I was fortunate to serve with President Ford in the House of Representatives. And though we disagreed on many issues, I was always able to say that I and my colleagues here respected President Ford for his decency, and for his ability and desire to bring all people together at the table and to form consensuses across the aisle. When he became President, the Congress helped work with him to enact a number of bipartisan laws, such as the Privacy Act, the Federal Elections Campaign Act, the Housing and Community Development Act, which established the Community Development Block Grant program, and many others.

President Ford and I worked particularly closely during his presidency on energy matters. He was an honorable man whose word was good, and his administration always kept in mind the best concerns and the best interests of the people of the United States. During that administration, we passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, EPCA, which established the Nation's first fuel-economy standards.

At a time when our country is deeply divided, I am pleased to have this moment to reflect on Gerald Ford's legacy. He never abandoned his beliefs, and he never based his decisions on anything except the best interests of the Nation. He once said that ``our great Republic is a government of laws, not men.'' It is wise that we should remember these good words and pay tribute to Gerald R. Ford by accepting his statue in the halls of this great institution. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 830, a hasty political ploy that will terminate a promising program. I refuse to let my Republican colleagues, determined to appear fiscally austere at any cost, cut budding initiatives that are in the best interest of the country.

The FHA Refinance Program is tailored to benefit responsible homeowners--homeowners who, through principal write-downs, will be able to stay in their homes. It is also structured to protect lenders from possible foreclosure losses and save communities from increased blight. Ten states, including my home state of Michigan, posted foreclosure discounts of more than 35 percent in 2010. We must use all our tools at hand to stem this massive foreclosure epidemic.

I hear daily from struggling homeowners who are trying to keep afloat. Negative equity mortgages are plaguing our country from coast to coast. At the end of last year, 11.1 million, or 23.1 percent, of all residential mortgages were in negative equity. In Michigan, over 36 percent of mortgages were in negative equity. Home prices are expected to fall another five to ten percent in 2011. Millions of borrowers are being held captive in their homes, unable to move or sell their properties. Keeping programs like the FHA Refinance Program alive is crucial to spurring economic recovery and giving the mortgage industry the jump-start it so desperately needs.

My Republican colleagues like to point to the fact that since the program has only spent $50 million, it must be ineffective. I find it interesting that a Republican argument against a program is that it hasn't cost the government enough. So much for fiscal austerity. In fact, the FHA Refinance Program was specifically designed to be cost- effective for the government. Its allocated funds only cover incremental credit and incentive costs, and will not be spent unless a borrower defaults under the program. Since no borrowers have defaulted, no money has been spent on loans.

Let us not forget how hasty this bill is--the FHA Refinance Program has only been available since September. It is no surprise that it takes time for such complex programs to work effectively and prudently. Lenders must set up an operational infrastructure to utilize this option, and a great deal of coordination is required throughout the mortgage chain. As of February 11th, 23 FHA-approved lenders are participating in the program, including Wells Fargo and GMAC/Ally, which intend to deliver several thousand loans. FHA also indicates that numerous other lenders are in the process of developing the capability to utilize the program by midyear.

Not only does the Republican Leadership seek to terminate the FHA Refinance Program, but it also seeks to terminate the Home Affordable Modification Program, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, and the Emergency Homeowners Loan Program. It is clear that more needs to be done to help struggling homeowners stay in their homes. However, terminating the very programs that were established to do so is not the solution. I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come to the table and present real solutions to this epidemic. If a Member feels this program has not benefited enough homeowners, he or she should suggest a way to do so and we can go from there. Instead, Republicans are placing politics before people. Our Nation needs solutions, not denunciations.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act. I want to say on record, however, that I support repeal of the Affordable Care Act's 1099 mandate. This onerous paperwork requirement was included in the act at the insistence of our colleagues in the other body, and not by us in the House.

The 1099 mandate should be repealed, but it must be done in a fiscally responsible manner than does not harm working families, who struggle every day to cope with the effects of the current recession. The bill we are presently considering passes the cost of the 1099 repeal on to middle class Americans by ensuring that more of them will be subject to increased taxes. Moreover, H.R. 4 will reduce the number of Americans with health coverage by over a quarter-million, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4 is a poor compromise, reminiscent of the legislative travesty foisted on the American people last December when Senate Republicans insisted unemployment benefits come at the price of tax cuts for the rich. I call on my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead work to find more responsible ways to pay for the repeal of the 1099 mandate, such as closing foreign tax loopholes and eliminating tax breaks for oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize H. Douglas Chaffin's being named the Michigan Bankers Association (MBA) 2011 Banker of the Year. Doug serves as the President and CEO of Monroe Bank and Trust (MBT), a locally owned and operated community bank headquartered in Monroe, Michigan. He has been with Monroe Bank and Trust since 2001 and assumed the role of CEO in 2004.

Doug has guided Monroe Bank and Trust with a steady hand through the turmoil of the current recession. In a time of great uncertainty and anxiety, he has led the bank with dignity and grace. Due to his keen instincts, high character and responsible management, Monroe Bank and Trust not only has weathered the financial maelstrom but, unlike its national counterparts, continued without interruption to lend to a community in dire need. Doug's vast knowledge of the financial industry and sage counsel have helped inform me for years, and his expert testimony to the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Financial Services in November 2009 helped bring a community bank's valuable perspective to the financial regulatory reform debate.

Doug's role in the community extends far beyond the walls of his bank. He is a community leader in every sense. Doug has served as the past chairman of the Michigan Bankers Association. He also serves on the board of directors for the Monroe County Industrial Development Corporation, City of Monroe Downtown Development Authority, The Foundation at Monroe County Community College, and Mercy Memorial Hospital System.

Mr. Speaker, Doug Chaffin has served his bank and his community with distinction and honor. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating him on this well deserved recognition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York, the Honorable Carolyn McCarthy, to provide needed funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. The intent of the amendment is for the Department of Justice to use $20 million appropriated in the State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance account to provide grants to States and tribal areas to implement the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, Public Law 110-180.

Representative McCarthy and I have worked together to improve the national instant check system since 2002. It was obvious to us at the time that the National Instant Check System was not working as Congress had intended it should. However, it was the tragedy of Virginia Tech that spurred Congress to act unanimously to update the instant check system. The perpetrator of that violent attack was adjudicated a danger to himself and others--therefore, legally prohibited from possessing a firearm--but was able to pass a background check because his name was not in the NICS database.

It is estimated that there are still millions of qualifying records that should be in NICS but are not. A study by the National Center for State Courts found there should be roughly twice as many mental-health records in NICS as there currently are, based on responses from 42 of 56 States and territories.

At the time we enacted the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, we found that there were two primary reasons there were delays in NICS background checks: the lack of updated and available State criminal disposition records and insufficient automated access to records pertaining to mental illness, restraining orders, and misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence.

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act sought to address these inadequacies by authorizing grants to States and tribal areas to upgrade their electronic records and technologies, enhance their capacities to perform background checks, supply accurate and timely criminal history disposition records, and improve reporting and transmitting to the NICS database. This amendment would allow the Department of Justice to continue making these grants. Adequate funding for NICS must be part of the equation to improve it. Between FY 09 and FY 11, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act authorizes appropriations of over $900 million. Yet, in FY 09 and FY 10, just $30 million has been appropriated.

Mr. Chair, all Members of Congress can agree that we must confront our budget and deficit. However, at a time when States' budgets are more strained than ever, the federal government must be ready to help protect public safety, enforce the laws on the books, and in turn, serve our national interest.

Funding for NICS is not only an important tool to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and those mentally unfit to possess them, but also to ensure individuals' Second Amendment rights are protected, as States are required to remove obsolete or erroneous records from the database. This commonsense amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association, an organization whose top priority is protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise more in sorrow than in anger about the legislation now before us.

Mr. Chairman, all Members will agree we have to confront our budget deficit; but we have to do so, I think, in a sensible fashion. I grieve that that does not happen here. The cuts of the magnitude that we are making today and the places they are being made is destructive beyond belief. We risk a continuation or, indeed, a re-igniting of the recession which has plagued us, and we risk seeing to it that the great needs of our country are not met. We are looking at the strong possibility of a loss of jobs.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 800,000 jobs will be lost, jobs that are not only important but that are, indeed, of major national priority, which are being put on the chopping block. Let us look at some of the things about which our Republican friends are dismissive.

The education of our children: the continuing resolution will eliminate or reduce aid for almost 1.5 million low- and middle-income students paying for college.

The safety of our food: these cuts here will hamstring the Food and Drug Administration's ability to implement critical food safety legislation, leaving us vulnerable to food-related illness and death.

Americans' health: the continuing resolution cuts billions from the Department of Health and Human Services, over $1 billion from the National Institutes of Health, and over $1 billion from community health centers.

The welfare of our homeless veterans: even housing vouchers for the homeless defenders of our country are eliminated. This is disgraceful, and indeed it is a dishonor to those who have served their country.

Job training: the continuing resolution cuts billions from job training for displaced workers, turning our backs on those hit hardest by the recession.

U.S. exports, which make jobs: even though both Democrats and Republicans have called for a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, the continuing resolution severely cuts into our primary export promotion effort.

Security on our streets: millions will be cut from the funding for State and

local policing activities to fight drugs, gangs and terrorism. Moreover, the continuing resolution eliminates Federal grants that help police departments around the country hire or rehire police officers.

Critical conservation programs: the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, all of which are solid, bipartisan programs, would either be completely or effectively gutted. In addition, this legislation prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from taking important steps to protect the waters of our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, with unemployment hovering around 9 percent nationally--and much higher in my own State--and with many Americans still struggling through this recession, we cannot pull the rug out from under them. Politics aside, cuts of this magnitude would be unhealthy, untimely, and would provide uncertainty for our Nation as we try to get back on our feet.

Instead of draconian cuts, we should be looking to see to it that we have wise and prudent cuts, while at the same time we have an investment in the future of our country and in our people. I do not see that in this proposal before us at this time.

As the President has said, we can and, indeed, we must out-educate, out-innovate and out-build our competitors. That is the only way that the United States can achieve the kind of hope for recovery and economic activity that will benefit our next generations. Contrary to H.R. 1, we need to balance investments that will help our economy recover while also committing to decreasing the Federal deficit.

It is clear that neither goal will be achieved overnight and that they certainly will not be achieved in this legislation. I stand ready to work with my colleagues and with the President to find responsible and effective ways to trim the budget, but I refuse to permit my Republican colleagues to gut vital government programs and bring our economic recovery to a standstill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a fine public servant, a community leader and a dear friend of mine, Mrs. Floreine Mentel, on the occasion of her retirement.

Floreine M. Mentel is retiring from a teaching career of 50 years, including her most recent service as a Monroe County Adult Education and a G.E.D. examiner. Floreine has dedicated her life to service, both for the people she taught and the community she lives in. She has set a tremendous example for her community and proven without any doubt that one person's involvement does make a difference. For 14 years she served as a Monroe County Commissioner, helping to lead the County with wisdom, and intelligence and passion. In addition to this public service, Floreine has given her time and talents to numerous groups such as the Monroe County 4-H; the Area Agency on Aging 1-B; the Monroe Women's Center; the Monroe County Historical Society and many others. She was especially instrumental in helping to build the necessary community support for the new River Raisin National Battlefield Park.

I wish Floreine and Bill, her husband of more than 50 years, many more years of happiness together and enjoyment in retirement. Floreine is a remarkable public servant, a dedicated community member and an incredibly wonderful human being.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 359, which would eliminate the presidential public campaign financing system. A year ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of its most devastating decisions in recent memory, ruling in Citizens United vs. the FEC that corporations could spend unlimited amounts in elections to argue for the election or defeat of a candidate. The ruling indeed opened the floodgates: corporate and special interests spent nearly $300 million in the 2010 midterm elections, four times what was spent during the 2006 midterms.

Citizens United provided corporations like Exxon Mobile and Goldman Sachs the same free speech rights under the First Amendment as teachers, factory workers, and janitors. And yet, at a time when most Americans are fed up with the amount of special interest money flowing in Washington, the Republican party wants to make it easier for corporate voices to be heard. Moreover, these corporate donations can be funneled to tax-exempt organizations that do not have to disclose their donors, decreasing transparency when Americans want more of it.

Last year, the House passed a bipartisan bill to increase disclosure and transparency in federal elections. Unfortunately, the legislation died in the Senate. The last thing we need to counteract the harmful Citizens United decision is to eliminate the public campaign finance system established by Congress in the wake of Watergate which has helped candidates whose voices would not otherwise be heard to participate in federal elections.

Mr. Chair, we were promised more transparency and regular order from the new Republican majority. But we are considering this legislation six days after it was introduced, bypassing the committee process of hearings and mark-ups. I applaud the majority for allowing amendments; but, the truth is, this bill is so tightly written that few amendments are germane. And in the height of hypocrisy, the majority is using an estimate provided by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to justify savings to taxpayers, the same agency which the majority party was decrying just last week when it reported that repeal of the health care reform law would add to the deficit.

Unlike my friends across the aisle, I will not dismiss the CBO's score of this legislation as somehow deceptive. However, the bill's savings over 10 years amounts to less money than is spent in 1 month on the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Chair, I agree that we need to find solutions to our deficit problems but this is not one of them. Rather, eliminating the public--financing system will cost us much more in the long term, requiring our elected officials to spend more time raising money to keep up with the corporate spending in elections than legislating.

Everyone agree that the presidential public campaign financing system must be fixed. Fewer Americans are checking the box on their tax forms to contribute to it. President Obama eschewed it in 2008 in favor of receiving small dollar donations via the Internet. Let us work together, in a bipartisan fashion, to reform the system and make it work for the 21st century. As the Washington Post editorial said, ``fix the system--don't junk it.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 38, a vague and reckless ``budget-less'' budget resolution. H. Res. 38 claims to reduce non-security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less, but this one-page bill has not one final budget number, nor does it actually make any specific cuts. Instead, this resolution grants all authority to the Chair of the House Committee on the Budget to set the budget allocations for the Committee on Appropriations. This entitles the Chairman to merely have the allocations printed in the Congressional Record. So much for an open and transparent process. So much for allowing the Committees of jurisdiction to do their work. Mr. Speaker, we declared our independence from Great Britain precisely because we didn't want a king and here we are making one out of the Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.

By allowing only one hour of debate on the resolution and no amendments, Republican leadership seeks to bypass the deliberation and debate by Members of Congress. Republican leadership also struck down a motion that would have required a vote by the full House before any allocation could become effective, once again limiting input by the Members of this body. It is clear that the Grand Old Party remains committed to deciding our Nation's budgetary policies in smoke-filled backrooms.

It is clear that the one-page resolution brought to the floor today is not a serious plan to reduce the deficit. Indeed, the new Republican plan offers the same empty rhetoric as the last: all smoke and mirrors. It is fiscally irresponsible, both procedurally and substantively, and it puts too much power in the hands of one individual--the Chairman of the Budget Committee.

Furthermore, the arbitrary decision to reduce spending to non- security--a clear definition of which we have yet to see--funding levels in fiscal year 2008 jeopardizes the progress our country has made in recovering from the economic downturn. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not governing for fiscal year 2008, we are governing for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. Rather than driving our economic progress forward, the Republican leadership has chosen to throw the car into reverse, threatening to destroy the recovery this economy has made.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they can't provide specifics, as they are awaiting information from the Congressional Budget Office. The same Congressional Budget Office they recently accused of cooking the books. I am glad Republicans now see the value of the non-partisan organization. It is my understanding that CBO will come out with baseline numbers within the next week. Would it not be a better course of action to wait for those numbers and show us all exactly which programs are to be cut--to lay the specifics on the table? Or is today's resolution modeled after the Republican repeal bill--meant for political showmanship only?

I am ready to work in a bipartisan way to reduce deficits, as well as promote economic growth and protect the strength of American middle- class families. During this current economic downturn, we must not jeopardize our Nation's ability to create jobs. Unfortunately, the GOP has made it clear they are not interested in taking real action for the American people. Republicans have already voted in their rules package, paving the way to add nearly $5 trillion to the deficit, and have voted to increase the deficit by $230 billion by repealing the health care law. I will NOT stand idly by and let the GOP advance its record of doubling the national debt and shirking away from fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I thank my good friend.

Well, so much for openness and transparency. We're going to do all this without any hearings, without knowing what's going on. But I'm going to tell you a little bit on my Republican side of the aisle here about what this is really going to do:

Insurance companies will be able to deny 292,000 individuals in my district, including 33,000 children, an opportunity to have health insurance, and this will be because of preexisting conditions. They're going to increase the number of uninsured in my district, the 15th of Michigan, by 20,000. They will increase the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated care in the 15th District alone by $182 million. They're going to cost each American $1,000 more because the uninsured are going to go in and get health care anyhow.

I want to tell you what is going to happen with one young lady who has a terrible condition called endometriosis. She is going to receive now health insurance through the legislation passed because that insurance will flow to her until she is 26 on her father's insurance. But you're going to take that away from her. And you're going to see to it that the doughnut hole doesn't close because of the fact that you are saying no longer is this law going to be in effect.

We want to see to it that the American people benefit from this. The repeal that you're talking about today will see to it that they do not. What's it going to do to the deficit? Add $1.4 trillion to the deficit. It's going to do more than that. It's going to add $230 billion to the annual deficit. And it's going to see to it that Americans can no longer be assured that they are going to not have their health insurance canceled because of a sickness which occurs to them. It is going to

hurt small business because it's going to take billions in tax benefits away from small business who would do this.

I urge the House to vote down this outrageous piece of legislation.

I thank my dear friend for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise, as do all of my colleagues, with sincere condolences to the families who lost loved ones in the horrific events of last Saturday. The victims amongst them were a young student, a number of congressional staff members, one of our dear friends and colleagues who has served with distinction and remarkable ability and grace, and an outstanding Federal judge.

During my career in Congress, I have witnessed horrific events: the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. I have seen firsthand anger brought on by landmark life- changing legislation such as the civil rights bill. Like other Members, I have found the current state of affairs is also somewhat new to me.

One of my colleagues, as we were going to the memorial service, observed to me that he had as a judge sent large numbers of people off to jail, but he had never been as concerned about his own personal safety and that of his family as he is today. Our Founding Fathers wanted our system of government to be a vigorous one, full of enthusiastic and vibrant debate. But I don't believe that they wanted to see the kind of debate and discussion that we are seeing both in this place and in other places of public assembly.

I want to read a few of the statements that I have seen that I find to be pretty awful. Here is one:

``People are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is to take (blank) out.'' That blank is for the name of the person.

The next one: ``I want people in (blank) armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.''

``I want to kill (blank) with a shovel.''

``Every night I get down on my knees and pray (blank) will burst into flames.''

``Our Nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.''

``Don't retreat, reload!''

I thank the gentleman.

I would observe, we saw the district of Gabrielle Giffords had crosshairs put on it. As a lifetime rifleman and shooter, I know what crosshairs signify when you put them on somebody, and I know what happened.

One other quotation: ``If ballots don't work, bullets will.''

So here we have a denigration of the great debate and the system of government of ours where threats are made. Members of this body have a duty to speak out, as do members of the media who have been saying these kinds of things and leading us into a time when we create a threat not just to the lives and well-being of our Members but also to the lives and well-being of this country and its debates.