Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time. Neither he nor I need hair spray, and so we can approach that matter with some serenity. But I want to say here, I yield to no one in this Chamber over what has been done or what I have done on food and drug safety for the American consuming public. I'm the author of the provisions that require Food and Drug to only market those things which are safe and effective. If Food and Drug doesn't like this, they can take it off the market on that ground. They have not chosen to do so. The only reason it is going off the market is because of the fact that it bothers the folks who want the Montreal Protocol to go into place.

Now, let's take a little bit of a look at it. There are 1.2 million issues of this particular pharmaceutical. A piddling amount of CFCs is going to be released in that these inhalers are very small. They have a few milliliters of propellent. It's not going to make any significant difference. Food and Drug can take it off the market. It is safe. It is efficacious.

Now I want to talk about a couple of other things. The gentleman from Texas has talked about what happens when you have these problem as an asthmatic. My old dad was a former tubercular. He lived through his life with about half a lung, and I listened to him every night, up walking around, gasping like a fish on a rock because he couldn't get air.

There are a lot of people who have used Primatene Mist because they thought it worked. And if that is so, in fact it does work because it gives relief to people who are sick. If it is bad, Food and Drug can take it off the market because it is unsafe. That is not the reason it is off the market; it is the Montreal Protocol.

Let us consider the fact that there are people out there who need this substance. Now, I hear that it is going to benefit one company, the current manufacturer. That manufacturer is not going to make 10 cents on this deal, and the reason is very simple: the profits and the benefits that are going to be generated by these sales of Primatene Mist are going to go--guess where--to charity. That's where they're going.

Who we are helping is the people who have need of this; and if you haven't

had a situation where you couldn't get your breath, you don't know the terrors that exist there. And you don't know the kind of terrors that my old dad had when I listened to him walking up and down at night, every night, gasping to get a breath of air. There was no Primatene Mist in those days, and so there was no relief for him.

Now, they say, well, you can go to the emergency room or somebody's going to develop relief, but there's nothing on the market that matches the price. Some of these things that they have that they are saying are going to be available are possibly going to be available in a little bit--possibly not. And they also are big, so big that they're not going to be readily available to somebody who has need. They might be helpful if they can put them on wheels so that the fellow can tow them around behind him. But the hard fact of the matter is that Primatene Mist is going to be there when it is needed, and it is going to provide the people who want their free choice to have that particular medication. It will be available to them.

I say make it available to the people. There's no rascality. This is a safe substance. If it weren't, Food and Drug wouldn't have taken it off the market because it was either unsafe or inefficacious.

So having said those things, let us support the bill. It's a good bill. The opposition of other manufacturers is to be expected. They simply want to cut a fat hog by making profits by selling their competitive devices.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6249, the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. While proponents of this legislation claim that they are making a serious effort at immigration reform, nothing could be farther from the truth. True to their pattern throughout the 112th Congress, the Republican Majority has once again chosen to bring a divisive, partisan bill to the floor rather than seeking compromise and middle ground.

I have long called for comprehensive immigration reform, and am pleased to hear this sentiment echoed by others recently. Reducing the backlog for immigrant graduates from American universities who are studying science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) is a worthy and laudable goal. Sadly, H.R. 6429 is not the right way to achieve it. Instead of increasing the number of STEM visas that are available, this legislation would completely eliminate the Diversity Visa program, which provides visas to countries with low immigration rates to the United States. We do not need to rob Peter to pay Paul to help improve our immigration system. We just need some common sense.

Our immigration system has been broken for long enough. Let's dedicate ourselves to finding a workable compromise to this serious problem instead of making a half-hearted attempt at reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 6429.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan, the Honorable David Alan Curson, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not yet arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome my good friend Dave Curson to the Congress of the United States. He has spent his life serving his fellow man, first as a U.S. marine in Vietnam, then as a representative of the UAW, and now as a Member of this distinguished body.

He is also, first and foremost, a family man. He has been married to his wonderful wife, Sharon, for 22 years. Together with her, he has done an extraordinary job raising two daughters and one son; they are Lisa, Katie, and David, Jr.

I have no doubt that our good friend David will do a magnificent job representing the interests of the people of Michigan's 11th District. I know he can count on my support, and I hope that my colleagues will extend him that same courtesy. Dave is a good man, and the Nation is fortunate to have him here.

Mr. Speaker, at this moment, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the dean of the Republican delegation.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my dear friend, our new Member from Michigan's 11th District, Dave Curson, with my congratulations and good wishes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the resolution of disapproval before us today. Yet again, the House is wasting valuable time considering a resolution that is not about good policy, or helping Americans get back to work, but about political games and rhetoric driven by half-truths.

In July of this year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a memo outlining a program for the consideration of state proposals for alternative job placement performance measures for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. This was in direct response to the requests from at least 29 states who wanted more flexibility on how they measured work participation among recipients. Many of these states requested a waiver so they could focus on more outcome-based measures, rather than job placement rates. The memo released by HHS outlines the conditions that must be met by a state to receive a waiver: a clear and detailed explanation of how the alternative proposal would increase employment by 20 percent, as well as show that there are clear, measurable goals for work placement.

However, my Republican colleagues would have you believe that the administration is gutting the work requirements under TANF. Not so. It should be obvious to any honest man who is not blind that this proposal does not waive the work requirements. In fact, it is the administration's effort to test more effective strategies for moving families from welfare to work while giving the states the flexibility to test which strategies they think will work best for their residents. As President Clinton said, ``The requirement was for more work, not less.''

We hear on the floor of this body, day in and day out, about how onerous federal reporting requirements are to the states, and how federal reporting requirements do not account for the unique needs of each of our states. Yet here the administration is directly responding to this request for flexibility and my colleagues run to the floor waving around a dead-on-arrival resolution of disapproval. In my experience, when the administration has heard your complaints and takes the steps necessary to address these complaints you claim victory.

As our economy has struggled so have American families. Many of these families have ended up on TANF through no fault of their own. These families are not looking for a hand-out from the federal government; they want a hand-up. The proposal put forth by HHS will help the states provide these families with a hand-up, while still retaining the integrity of welfare-to-work requirements under TANF.

I urge my colleagues to reject this baseless and nakedly political resolution. Let's do the business of the American people in an honest, thoughtful, and proper way. I would remind my Republican colleagues that you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are that the administration's proposal would increase work requirements and increase the ability of Americans to get back to work. And here my Republican colleagues are irresponsibly attempting to block that action. Shame.

Mr. Chair, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. We have voted over 30 times to repeal the health care law. We have already voted on a number of provisions in the bill before us. Each time the Republican majority has forced through legislation with little to no bipartisan support and each time the Senate has refused to consider any one of those bills.

Where are the jobs bills? Where are the new ideas from the Republican majority? How much time have we wasted this Congress on legislation that will never be considered by the Senate and would never be signed by the President?

A partisan agenda is not what this country needs; what we need are investments in innovative technologies and sources of energy so America does not fall further behind countries such as China, Korea, Germany, and others

who are subsidizing innovative energy technology.

This bill and the bills we've already voted on this package are simply veto bait that does nothing to help working families, invest in innovative technology, or boost our manufacturing industry.

The majority of the bill before us today deals with the Clean Air Act. In passing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which a number of my Republican colleagues in this House cosponsored, the Energy and Commerce Committee held over 70 hearings during a 10 year period and 21 more during the 101st Congress. A total of seven House Committees participated in the Conference Committee. My point in saying all of this is that any changes to the Clean Air Act must include vigorous debate, not just with the people we agree with, but also those we disagree with. It must also include careful analysis of the Clean Air Act and what problems it creates and what this Committee and Congress should do about these problems. To my colleagues I would say if there is a problem, we should use the limited time we have to address the question of what are the problems and what are the alternatives or solutions.

Just because members disagree with some of the actions taken by the EPA recently doesn't mean we need to defund and dismantle the EPA. As I have said a number of times, the Clean Air Act alone has reduced key pollutants by 60 percent since 1970 while at the same time the economy grew by over 200 percent. We can maintain a healthful environment while creating jobs and growing businesses without going back to the days of un-drinkable water and unbreathable air.

We cannot simply be the House of ``no.'' We can and we must do better for the sake of our country. I must ask my Republican colleagues, is your priority this Congress to build partisan talking points or build a stronger American economy that can compete in the global economy of the 21st century? I hope it is the latter because I know I was elected to do the work of the people and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will start doing the same.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise, first, to salute the gentleman from Florida and to express to him my affection and respect and good wishes as he leaves the Congress, and also to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Upton.

I would observe, however, if anybody were to put a monument like this to me, I would bend this cane of mine over his head. This is perhaps one of the sorriest things I have seen done. It is like the mule: it has neither pride of parentage nor hope of posterity. It isn't going anywhere. It accomplishes precisely nothing. It has a series of findings which are totally unrelated to facts and don't mean anything and don't help us with the problems before us. It is a piece of legislation which was adopted by this Congress with the

full support of all of my Republican friends over there who are now shying away from their parentage of the basic legislation.

I say to my Luddite friends: This is not going to accomplish anything. I would point out to you it isn't going to pass the Senate. It isn't going to be signed by the President. It doesn't address any of the problems that are before us. It grandfathers everybody in and says there will be nothing new.

But what does it really do? It hurts our efforts to see to it that we are able to remain competitive in high-tech, new energy undertakings, which are the hope and the future of this country. That's what it does. That's why, if I were on that side of the aisle, I would have a red face.

And I would point out that this proposal was backed by my Republican friends, led by Mr. Barton, supported by my dear friend, Mr. Upton, and all of my good Republican friends. All of a sudden they find that Solyndra has lost money and has gone bankrupt. Why? Because the Chinese knocked the bottom out of the market for solar panels. Why? A governmental economy has killed another American industry.

The future of this country is to compete in high-tech jobs in the new kind of undertakings where we can whip the world. But there is a major capital problem for those companies, and they will not prosper and this country will not prosper unless we provide mechanisms to see to it that they can do the things they did.

The Oversight and Investigations Committee has had no end of hearings on it and has thrown subpoenas around like popcorn at a circus, but they haven't found anything. And the committee has brought forward this miserable, hopeless piece of legislation in the expectation that it's going to do something, and that something is, of course, to try to help my Republicans with their election campaign.

Now, this is a laudable thing if you're a Republican. But if you're an American, this is not helping our country and this is not benefiting anybody. What the result of this legislation is is more wasted time on the floor of the House.

What my Republican colleagues won't admit to you is this is the sorriest session of the Congress in history. I think it outranks the do-nothing 80th Congress, and that was a session where we accomplished precisely nothing in this great body.

I would observe to my dear friends that if you want to do something, let's get down to dealing with jobs. Let's get down to dealing with the economy. Let's work to see to it that we address our foreign policy questions and the problems that the United States faces. Let's complete a budget. Not a thing of that is done. I heard that this particular session of this Congress has done 60 bills. When I walk over, I always ask my staff, ``Which post offices are we naming today?'' That's what we have done.

If you're looking for a record of accomplishment, look in the Senate, which is the cave in the winds which usually does very little. But they are putting us to shame because they are, in fact, legislating while we are over here dithering around with a nonsensical piece of legislation that accomplishes nothing except to try to vindicate a failed investigation where subpoenas were thrown around like rice at a wedding.

I say it is time for us to buckle down if we're going to go on here with some pride in our faces and with our heads held up. Let's go out on a piece of legislation that accomplishes something. This accomplishes nothing except to make a few people who couldn't do their job feel good.

So my counsel to the House is: Let's vote this nonsense down. Let's decide that we're going to do something right around here for a change, even though it's late in the session.

Mr. Chairman, why are we spending time on this deplorable piece of legislation when we should be doing the work of the people? We should be passing bipartisan legislation to continue our economic recovery and create jobs for the unemployed. This is no more than a sorry attempt to stick it in the eye of our president when really what we are doing is sticking it to the American worker.

For this entire Congress, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee has piddled unsuccessfully, call it an investigation of the Solyndra loan. As members of this body know, I am a strong proponent of fighting government waste and corruption through vigorous oversight regardless of what Administration is in charge. However, time and time again, this investigation refused to focus on the issues at hand and instead engaged in a political witch hunt in an attempt to embarrass this Administration. A witch hunt is not what this country needs; what we need are investments in innovative technologies and sources of energy so America does not fall further behind countries such as China, Korea, Germany, and others who are subsidizing innovative energy technology. We must take charge in innovation and this investigation and the bill before us fails to do either.

The end result of this investigation is a bill that does nothing more than to stifle innovation, prevent job creation, and subverts a program that was created through bipartisan legislation and signed into law by a Republican president. We have underinvested in energy for decades and commercial deployment, with U.S. investments, will actually make our companies more competitive in the global market. By freezing this loan program, Republicans will only stifle another opportunity to put our economy back on the right path and create new jobs.

I, along with all of the chairmen of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Speaker, and the Majority Leader worked in a bipartisan way in 2005 to create this loan program that would invest in our economy and our workforce. The legislation and the loan program were then signed into law by a Republican president. The investigation uncovered no undue political influence from the White House. What has changed the mind of the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and Republican leadership to undo that bipartisan cooperation?

We cannot simply be the House of ``no.'' We can and we must do better for the sake of our country. I must ask my Republican colleagues, is your priority this Congress to build partisan talking points or build a stronger American economy that can compete in the global economy of the 21st century? I hope it is the latter because I know I was elected to do the work of the people and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will start doing the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great frustration. It is a sad state of affairs when one of the few bipartisan achievements of this Congress is to delay major federal spending decisions for another six months. I will reluctantly support H.J. Res. 117, the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013, so funding for the government can continue, but I want to be clear that this is no way to run the country. We need to return to regular order and consider each of the 12 appropriations bills individually and in their entirety. A failure to do so is an abdication of the duty of Congress as enumerated by our most sacred document, the Constitution.

I oppose the next bill, H.R. 6365, which has an interesting name. In reality, it is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to back out of the bipartisan deal struck last year in the Budget Control Act (BCA). We all agree that sequestration should be avoided, but it should be done within the framework of the BCA, instead of bypassing the deal to which we all agreed. I have long said everything should be on the table as we seek to reduce our deficit. I believe a balanced approach for doing so is the only legitimate way forward. H.R. 6365 abandons this approach by implementing deeper cuts in domestic programs so as to increase defense spending, and avoiding sequestration entirely. This is a cynical attempt at balancing our Nation's books. It does not ask the wealthiest among us to contribute a penny more to our country's needs. We must be fighting for the middle class and making smart, targeted investments to grow our economy and to create jobs, not needlessly slashing important domestic programs to protect millionaires and billionaires.

Congress has little time remaining to prevent sequestration from going into effect. I call on all members to come together and help find a serious, balanced solution to deal with our deficit, instead of engaging in political theatrics by passing H.R. 6365.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, FAA. Matters of national security are of the utmost importance and we should ensure that the government has the necessary tools to keep America safe. Yet, we must always balance this with protecting the civil liberties of American citizens. Unfortunately, this legislation before us today fails this important test.

I voted against this legislation when it was first passed in 2008 and I continue to have many of the same reservations and objections to the policies set forth by the FAA. I continue to be concerned that the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens are not adequately protected by this legislation, which is of the utmost importance. Specifically, FAA makes an

end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, by allowing the government to conduct surveillance without a FISC warrant. Such a broad exercise of power undermines our system of checks and balances and has grave implications for the protection of our constitutional rights. We should be enhancing the role of the FISC to ensure that the rights of American citizens are protected while the government collects intelligence to help defend our nation.

Additionally, the five-year extension provided by this legislation will ensure that regardless of which candidate wins the presidency on November 6, their administration will have these powers for the length of their term. A shorter extension would allow Congress to conduct the proper oversight over the use of these authorities and to better examine whether such authorities are still necessary to ensure the protection of our citizens.

Regardless of who is in the White House, it is the duty of this body to ensure that the power of the executive branch is not unfettered and that proper oversight is conducted. It is in this spirit that I cast my vote against this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the Energy & Commerce Committee has been able to come up with another bipartisan piece of legislation that addresses a significant problem. I thank Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, as well as my good friends Mr. Green and Mr. Doyle. The work they and their staffs put into this bill is admirable.

To quote Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, ``the law is an ass.'' Current law makes no sense by forcing a utility to comply with one federal agency and then be fined by another for complying. The bill before us eliminates this contradiction and will provide certainty to utilities that might need to operate under an order in the future. I believe the compromise negotiated will allow environmental protections to stay in place while ensuring the Department of Energy has the tools it needs in order to respond quickly to true emergencies.

Of the few emergency orders that have been issued under the Federal Power Act, most have been short term propositions. If an emergency order violates an environmental law, the negotiated compromise will allow the Department of Energy to react to an emergency situation and quickly issue a 90 day order which is longer than most of the orders that have been implemented. Should the emergency last longer than 90, the Department is required to consult with the appropriate Federal agency of the violated environmental law. The appropriate agency will submit its recommendations on how to tailor the extended order to minimize violations adverse environmental impacts. The Department of Energy may exclude recommendations it believes will interfere with implementation of the emergency order.

I believe this is a good piece of compromise legislation that solves an unnecessary contradiction in current law. I urge all my colleagues to support the Olson bill.

Citizens United v. FEC is one of the most destructive Supreme Court decisions in the history of this country.

It unleashed the floodgates for unlimited expenditures on elections; ignored factual records; disregarded congressional intent; and opened up the floodgates of crime, misbehavior, and scandal. In addition to that, people are going to be spending money without knowing who is having it spent, why, or for how much or by whom.

That is why, today, I, along with a number of my colleagues, will be introducing the Restoring Confidence in Our Democracy Act. This legislation makes findings of fact about the negative effects of unlimited spending which the Court cannot ignore. It reinstates the law that was in place on the day before Citizens United was adopted by the Court. It prohibits corporate spending in elections, and it subjects super PACs to $5,000 contribution limits.

Don't wait for a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United. Support the Restoring Confidence in Our Democracy Act, and let us do it by an enactment of Congress preceded by the necessary findings pointing out the evils of this scandal. We will be back in less than 30 days, and we are going to find out after the primary elections and after the general election what an outrage this is.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we are finally addressing the problem before the House, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1627, the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act. This is long overdue.

The most noteworthy thing we can observe about the behavior of the military leadership is they have been uncooperative and have been most diligent in obfuscating the problem and seeing to it that the matter has been unduly dawdled over while our military personnel were both put at risk and placed in a position where their families also shared that risk and hazard. I want to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller, and my dear friend, Mr. Michaud, for the things that they have done to see to it that finally justice is being done.

The victims of the Camp Lejeune contamination disaster have waited too long for justice for themselves and for their families. The passage of this legislation today is an important first step in moving forward and providing for the victims of what has been a long and ongoing tragedy. It is also evidence that there is still a great need for us to see to it that the military cooperates in these kinds of investigations and see to it that the military goes beyond that and that they conduct a cleanup of the military facilities where we send our military personnel and their families.

In 2004, I conducted a series of investigations into this and other contamination problems as the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. After meeting with the Marine Corps personnel and Master Sergeant Jerry Ensminger, whose daughter died of a rare form of leukemia at the age of 9, I must confess that I can come to no conclusion other than that that was caused by where her father had been serving and the fact that the military had not been diligent in cleaning up its messes.

These investigations revealed a great coverup and much foot dragging and obfuscation on the part of the Department of the Navy to properly deal with the consequences of the contamination. They also showed other failures by the Department of Defense in other places, including installations in far distant points of service like Japan.

With the passage of this bill, veterans of Camp Lejeune and their families who also served there are going to receive some measure of justice and help in addressing the problems they have because of where they were compelled to serve and because of lack of diligence on the part of the military to see that they were properly cared for. They will now be eligible, if they served between 1957 and 1987, to receive VA health benefits for illnesses connected with that contamination.

While the passage of this legislation is a success, we all know there's much more to be done. The veterans deserve the presumptions of the service connection in the bill to ensure that they receive important benefits to which they are due. That is simply a proper concern for our veterans and for their safety. They and their families should not be put at unnecessary risk by places that they serve solely by reason of the fact that they serve at a particular place and because of slothful, improper behavior by the Department of Defense higher-ups and because of coverups in which they did not cooperate in seeing to the proper safeguards of our Federal employees there and our military personnel who were serving there involuntarily as a part of their superb contribution to the safety of this Nation.

The fight continues, and I'm hopeful that we can continue to bring justice to the victims of Camp Lejeune, and to see to it that others of our military are not put at risk because of slothful, improper, and dilatory behavior by the Department of Defense.

I ask my colleagues here to understand our duty in seeing to it that the families of our military and our military personnel are not put at risk by where they serve or by indifferent and careless behavior of their government. The government has a duty not just to see to it that our military personnel are made whole, but they do have the duty to see to it that our military bases and military service are not put at risk by actions which make the points of service of our military unnecessarily risky because of contamination in the places where our military and their families live and work.

Here we have another high duty, and that is to see to it that the military personnel are kept safe with their families at their side as they serve in the military bases.

The Military leadership must recognize their responsibility not to put our soldiers, sailors and airmen at risk by reason of the places they serve. They confront enough risk from their duty, without careless and indifferent behavior of their superiors, who first disregard safety of the facilities, and then expand the risk by reason of cover ups and obfuscation of the facts and the need to clean up messes unnecessarily caused and improperly denied.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5856, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013. We are still a nation at war. Our troops continue to remain in harm's way fighting for our country in Afghanistan. Our consideration of this legislation must begin with an acknowledgement of this critical fact.

In that light, I am pleased that this legislation gives our troops the support they need while they are serving our Nation abroad. The bill provides $519.2 billion for the Department of Defense's base budget, and $88.5 billion in funding for the war. It also gives a 1.7 percent pay raise to our troops and provides $2.3 billion for family support and advocacy programs. I am also very pleased to see the Committee include $181 million in funding to keep the M-1 Abrams tank production line in operation, which will help ensure our military industrial base is strong and vibrant. The legislation also provides $1.6 billion for activities to counter Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which continue to be a leading killer of our troops abroad. All of these programs are an accurate reflection of our priorities as a nation.

That being said, I am dismayed that House Republicans chose to write all of this year's appropriations bills under a lower limit than was established under the Budget Control Act (BCA). The BCA represents a bipartisan compromise on Federal spending and it should be respected. The Senate Committee on Appropriations is moving forward with the limit established under the BCA with the blessing of the Republican leadership. Such a disconnect between the two bodies on an issue of critical significance only adds to the uncertainty surrounding our economy and is not in our national interest.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation so our troops can know they have the support of the Congress.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

This is the gavel I used when I presided over the passage of Medicare and when I presided over the passage of legislation called ACA. This legislation takes care of the American people. I'm willing to loan it to my Republican colleagues if they'll use it in a good cause. It's even been on television with ``The Daily Show.''

But what is important here is you're going to win the vote, but you're going to lose the case and the debate because the American people know what you're trying to take away from them. This is the 31st time we've voted on this. And it is the law.

We have 44 days left to finish the business of this Congress, according to your whip's office. And interestingly enough, we're not going to deal with important questions like jobs, employment, the economy. We have the worst economy, which the President inherited, since the days of Herbert Hoover.

The American people are going to wonder why this Congress has not been doing it. Well, the reason is the Republicans have been wasting the public's time. And in those 44 days, they're not going to be able to do the Nation's business. The unemployed are going to continue to be unemployed.

I'll loan you the gavel if you promise to use it for something good because it's a fine piece of wood and its tasks in terms of dealing with the public's concerns are not yet done.

But having said these things, I say shame. You are wasting the time of the American people. You are wasting the time of the Congress.

You're wasting the time of the Congress. You've told us how you're going to repeal and replace. Where is the replacement? It is not to be seen. Where are the steps that you should be taking about jobs and opportunity for the American people? They are not to be seen.

You have the gavel, use it. Use the leadership that the people have given you to lead the Congress of the United States. The Democrats will work with you. But you won't work with us, and you won't work for the American people.

The time of dealing with the business of this Nation is short, and the needs of the American people are great. But nowhere are we seeing anything done by our Republican colleagues except to get up and denounce ObamaCare.

I say have a more enlightened outlook and proceed to do the Nation's business well.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5972. While this is not a perfect bill, it will fund important transportation and housing projects creating well-paying jobs across this country.

I am pleased that this bill provides a much-needed increase to Amtrak, which will greatly help Amtrak accommodate growing ridership and develop intercity passenger rail. It also continues to invest in the FAA's NextGen air traffic control modernization effort, which will help to keep our public airspace safe and reduce flight times. The Community Development Block Grants program is also fully funded helping local governments to address housing and social service issues unique to their communities. It also fully funds the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program, providing the nearly 70,000 homeless veterans with long-term housing when they need it.

However, I want to express my deep disappointment that this bill does not provide any funding to high speed intercity passenger rail or the TIGER program. Both of these programs have proven to be successful and play an integral role in bringing our infrastructure in to the 21st Century. At a time when you have labor and business--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO--calling for stronger investment in our infrastructure, it is shortsighted that we not provide this necessary funding. We cannot continue to compete with our neighbors abroad if we are not improving and growing our infrastructure. My colleagues in the House, on the left and the right, have called for a jobs package and this funding could have been that first step.

I am disappointed at the lack of funding for critical housing programs. This bill drastically cuts funds to the Project-Based Section 8 voucher program that provides rental assistance to approximately 1.2 million low-income families. Furthermore, there is no funding for programs that would help rebuild blighted communities. Not only would eliminating blight and rebuilding neighborhoods create jobs, but they would also rejuvenate communities in areas like Southeast Michigan that were hit so hard by the collapse of the housing market and the economic recession.

Taken as a whole Mr. Chair, H.R. 5972 will make needed investments in our transportation and housing infrastructure, but more must be done. As our bridges, roads, sewers, buildings, and neighborhoods crumble, we cannot afford to underfund critical programs that rehabilitate and rebuild. We cannot move in to the 21st century with 20th century investments. I call on my colleagues to pass a strong surface transportation reauthorization that will fix this oversight of needed funding and put Americans across the country back to work bettering our neighborhoods and communities.