Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the American middle class wants Washington to create jobs and put unemployed people out of work back to work.

But here we go again. The Republicans show that they aren't listening and that they don't really care about protecting the middle class. Today, Republicans are going to spend their time in Washington helping speculators, speculators inflate gas prices and food prices, making sure that oil companies keep getting unnecessary tax breaks.

The Agriculture appropriations bill to be considered today by the House is just another part of the Republican agenda to reward millionaires while leaving everybody else behind.

Tucked away in the end of the appropriations bill we'll consider today is a provision that would cut money for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Now what is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission? It's a cop on the beat. It's a cop on the beat whose job it is to make sure that the speculators don't drive up the price of commodities like gasoline, like food, like wheat, things like that.

And at a time when the middle class is being squeezed by high gas prices, this is the wrong time to side with the millionaires and billionaires and against the American people.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we're told that we're broke, we're broke, and because we're broke, we can't possibly pay for things like women, infants, and children. We can't have a jobs bill. We can't build our Nation's infrastructure. We can't, we can't, we can't. We have to cut because, according to some, we're broke.

But when we think about how the bounty of this Nation is spread, we're not so broke that we can't give subsidies to oil companies. We're not so broke that we can't ask the richest Americans to do a little more. We're not so broke that we don't call upon people whom America has benefited and allowed them to become millionaires and say, You know what? Now your Nation needs you. We're told, No, those people don't have to sacrifice, but we're broke.

So women and infants and children and seniors, they have to sacrifice. They have to go without. They have to tighten their belts. It's a shame.

We're not asked to be one America, to bear the burden together. If there's a burden to be borne, surely oil companies can bear it with the American people. If there's a burden to be borne, surely the wealthiest among us can pitch in and help out. But not according to the Republican majority. According to them, we're broke, and the poor must suffer. The aged must do without. Those in need have to figure out how to make it one more day because we're broke, and we have to take food out of the mouths of infants and pregnant mothers. And because we're broke, we need to increase the risk of food-borne illness. And because we're broke, we cannot afford to pay cops on the beat who are going to regulate the speculators on Wall Street who drive up the price of gasoline and food. We can't pay for these important public servants because they say we're broke. But we're not too broke to ask our oil companies to help. We're not too broke to ask the top 2 percent to pitch in.

The day must come, Mr. Chair, when the poor are not thought to have too much and the rich are not thought to have too little. The day must come when we have to be one America and come together to deal with the burdens of this Nation and not leave the wealthiest and the most privileged scott free while the other people have to bear the burden of ``we're broke.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand shoulder to shoulder with the legitimate aims of Syrian people in their quest for freedom and democracy.

Ever since the Syrian people rose up to demand their rights and dignity from the Assad regime, they have faced brutal repression. Their nonviolent protest movement has been met with repressive force, and this has been a disgrace on the world scene.

The human rights abuses of the Assad regime are unthinkable, and they are historic and generational. It is torturing its own people at this time, including even children.

I was shocked and outraged by the story of Hamza al-Khatib. He was a 13-year-old boy who was killed and tortured and his body was returned to his family on May 25 with clear signs of torture and brutality. He had a broken hand; his genitals were cut off and severed. This young man, only 13 years old, will never see his family again because he has gone on.

But what happened to him the Syrian people can't forget, and his example has inspired people to stand up for democracy. Over the past 3 months, a familiar pattern has emerged. People organize public demonstrations to demand their God-given rights. Inevitably, the government forces overreact and kill peaceful protesters. Funerals for the deceased garner even larger demonstrations, which are then repressed ever more brutally by the government.

The emergency situation in Syria today reached a new level when tanks rolled into Daraa. Since that time, hundreds of peaceful demonstrators have been killed. Just this morning, this very morning, Syrian forces killed 15 people when they shelled the town of Rastan. Fifty-eight people have been killed there in the past 3 days alone. Over a thousand have been killed since democracy protests began.

Mr. Speaker, it's truly unfortunate that the Assad regime missed the historic opportunity that it had right before it to set a new pattern in the Arab Spring, a pattern that above all respects human rights. Instead, it chose to become an enemy of its own people.

By murdering its own people and violating their fundamental right to security and liberty, the Assad regime has lost any and all legitimacy to govern. Legitimacy is gained through the consent of the governed, not brutal repressive crackdowns, jailings, and torturing.

While we don't know yet how events will ultimately unfold in Syria, I want to commend the activism of Syrian Americans. Syrian Americans are doing everything they can to support their friends and their families. For example, just last week the Syrian American Council organized a day of action to support freedom and democracy in Syria. Some 400-plus Syrian Americans came all across the country to come to Washington, D.C., to lobby their Representatives in Congress, to demonstrate at the Syrian Embassy, and to organize committees to plan future initiatives.

That's how democracy works, Mr. Speaker; people coming together with their common concerns to peaceably petition their government. That's what makes America great, and that's what sets us apart from places like Syria under the Assad regime. Syria could be a great bastion of liberty, but not with this illegitimate regime.

I stand with the patriotic Americans in steadfast opposition to the grotesque human rights abuses of the Assad regime and once and for all call upon it to respect the rights, dignity, and democratic aspirations of its people. The world will not forget Hamza al-Khatib, Mr. Speaker. We won't forget the legitimate yearnings for liberty and justice from the people of Syria or anywhere in the world.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to shed some light on an amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) last night which the House will vote on later today.

The gentleman from Iowa came to the floor at approximately 11:30 p.m. last night and under the open rule offered an amendment prohibiting any funds from the Homeland Security bill to be used for ACORN and ACORN- affiliated community organizations. Besides the fact is that it is clear that ACORN or ACORN-affiliated community organizations are not eligible for funds from the Homeland Security appropriations bill, because as far as I know, ACORN is not in the business of homeland security.

In addition to going after ACORN, the gentleman from Iowa in his amendment goes after 300 organizations. Let me quote from Ranking Member Norm Dicks' eloquent words during debate last night:

You're asking this House to vote on something that you haven't verified, and you don't know what these groups are all about.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), ranking member of Homeland Security appropriations, also asked a good question when he asked for specific information on what was the wrongdoing of these organizations. The gentleman from Iowa's response was that he didn't know.

So, Mr. Chair, to highlight the ridiculous nature of this amendment, the gentleman from Iowa is asking this body to vote on an amendment to beat up on ACORN and ACORN-affiliated organizations and cannot produce a single item of evidence for the record of wrongdoing by these organizations in his amendment.

Mr. Chair, one of the organizations listed, and the reason I take certain umbrage to this amendment is that it's an organization in my own district, is known as Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change. Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change are people who are known to me. They work hard every day. They work on foreclosure. They work on trying to get people to vote. They work with poor people in particular.

Let me read from their Web site to describe to you what they actually do:

Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change is a new nonprofit committed to building power in low-income and moderate-income neighborhoods through community organizing, civic engagement, political mobilization, and education. NOC is a member-funded and member-run organization that takes on the social and economic justice issues that impact our community the most. Whether it's huge issues like health care and bank reform or a small neighborhood concern like getting a stop sign installed at a dangerous intersection, NOC members work together to apply their collective strength and get things done.

This is a good, decent civic service organization, Mr. Chair, and I resent them being slandered in the way they were last night.

So how did Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change get on the gentleman from Iowa's hit list? Well, they used to be an affiliate of ACORN. Now they're an independent organization. So I guess there is guilt by association.

Also, Mr. Chair, since the gentleman from Iowa wants this body to talk

about ACORN, a community organizing group, on the Homeland Security bill, I think it's fair to talk about ACORN.

The House, in 2009, voted to defund ACORN. I voted against that defunding amendment because it was unconstitutional and based on politics of fear and guilt by association. It was a good vote, and I'm proud I voted that way, because a Federal court, Mr. Chair, in December 2009, found the House ban on ACORN grants unconstitutional, and I'm proud I was not on the side of that unconstitutional vote.

Finally, the GAO, in a study released in June 2010, found, quote, no evidence of ACORN mismanaging Federal funds. Again, we held this organization up for ridicule and destruction, and we, the Congress, were wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Let me say quickly, I pulled some articles about this whole thing:

``House Ban on ACORN Grants is Ruled Unconstitutional.''

``ACORN Workers Cleared of Illegality by Outside Probe.''

``ACORN Did Nothing Wrong,'' is another headline.

``All You Need to Know About the ACORN Scandal and Who is Behind It.''

Who was behind it? A young man named James O'Keefe, who was found guilty of a Federal crime.

[From NY Times.Com., Dec. 11, 2009]

House Ban on Acorn Grants Is Ruled Unconstitutional

(By Janie Lorber)

Washington.--The federal government must continue to

provide grant money to the national community organizing

group Acorn, a federal court ruled Friday, saying that the

House violated the Constitution when it passed a resolution

barring the group from receiving federal dollars.

A judge at the United States District Court in Brooklyn

issued a preliminary injunction that nullifies the resolution

and requires the government to honor existing contracts with

the group and review its applications for new grants unless

the Obama administration appeals the decision.

The court ruled that the resolution amounted to a ``bill of

attainder,'' a legislative determination of guilt without

trial, because it specifically punishes one group.

That provision plays a crucial, but rarely necessary, role

in maintaining the balance of powers, said Eric M. Freedman,

a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra Law School. ``It

says that the Congress may not act as judge, jury and

executioner. That is precisely what the Congress sought to do

in this case, and the district court was entirely right to

enjoin it.''

In the opinion, Judge Nina Gershon wrote of Acorn, ``They

have been singled out by Congress for punishment that

directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to

obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or

even administrative, process adjudicating guilt.''

The Justice Department said it was still reviewing the

ruling Friday night.

Judge Gershon's opinion made a point of separating the

court's ruling from the controversy surrounding Acorn, which

is short for Association of Community Organizations for

Reform Now.

The House acted after the organization came under fire for

a series of embarrassing scandals, most notably the

disclosure by conservative activists of videotape showing

Acorn counselors giving mortgage advice to people posing as a

pimp and a prostitute interested in setting up a brothel.

Even before that, Republicans attacked the group, accusing it

of voter registration fraud in 2008.

Jules Lobel, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional

Rights, which brought the suit on behalf of Acorn, said the

resolution was the first time Congress had ever singled out

one group for punishment. ``Whenever you challenge a statute

of Congress, it's always a significant political battle,''

Mr. Lobel said.

The chief executive of Acorn, Bertha Lewis, issued a

statement calling the ruling a victory for the group and

``the citizens who work through Acorn to improve their

communities and promote responsible lending and

homeownership.''

In a lawsuit filed last month, Acorn that it was penalized

by Congress ``without an investigation'' and had been forced

to cut programs that counsel struggling homeowners and to lay

off workers.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 397 I put my card in the slot, but didn't check whether my vote registered. It so happens that the vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Announcement by the Chair

Mr. Speaker, I represent Minneapolis, Minnesota. Recently, my district was hit by a tornado. That tornado caused damage to well over 535 houses and took the lives of two of my constituents.

I just want to commend all those people who stepped forward to do the right thing for the people who were victims. Whether you were serving meals for people who were put out of their homes; whether you were making games for the children of the dispossessed to be able to have some joy in their lives after such a difficult period; or whether you were an emergency responder, police, fire, emergency, medical; or whether you were a member of our local government, I want everyone in my district to know, everyone in the Fifth Congressional District to know, that I am so proud of the work that you did.

I want folks to know that it is times of crisis like this tornado in which the best of us comes out, when we find our charitable spirit, when we find our courage, when we find all those things that sometimes are lacking in everyday life. I want to let you know that on the faces of the children who have had a warm place to stay after their own homes were knocked to the ground and trees went through people's roofs, that I want to thank all those first responders, all those public servants, all those volunteers who stepped up and made a very difficult situation just a little bit better for everyone who was involved.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we could never forget those two citizens who lost their lives when they were hit by this tornado. It was a tragedy for them and their families, and we will keep them in our thoughts and in our hearts and in our minds as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 287 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in the underlying bill, H.R. 2017, because the bill slashes funding for our State and local governments as they prepare against homeland security threats and respond to natural disasters.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The rule states, ``House Concurrent Resolution 34, as adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the House as though Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution.''

Does this mean that the rule deems that the Senate will have passed H. Con. Res. 34?

I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

So voting ``yes'' on the rule is voting ``yes'' for H. Con. Res. 34, the Ryan budget, which ends Medicare; is that right?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, doesn't the Ryan budget end Medicare as we know it?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I raise this point of order because I think it's important to discover whether or not the underlying rule for the Homeland Security appropriations bill also deems the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it. It's the only vehicle we've got to actually talk about this rule and this bill and how we are being denied the ability to actually offer amendments that we would like to, to illuminate what's actually happening in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to address our deficit. But cutting the lifeline for our seniors is not an act of courage; it's actually cowardly. Claiming to reduce the budget deficit on the backs of Americans who have paid into their retirement their entire lives not only harms American seniors but goes against the basic values of fairness and security that Americans cherish.

Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who pay into it their whole lives. It represents the basic American values of fairness and respect for those seniors which Americans cherish. Siding with lobbyists to give insurance company bureaucrats control of Medicare does nothing to address the deficit, but it does a great deal to reduce health care for our seniors.

Let's put America back to work, and let's reject the rule and underlying bill by voting ``no'' on this motion to consider.

I now yield 2 minutes to Mr. Cicilline of the great State of Rhode Island.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on our side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I yield the lady an additional 15 seconds.

I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, we should be creating jobs, not destroying Medicare. We should be preserving what has made America great, which is the basic sense that we are all in this thing together.

Yes, it is absolutely true that people should go out into the private sector and try their luck in the free market--skill, ingenuity and all that--but America has always had a strong public sector, which has been essential to the survival and the success of that private sector: fair rules, good infrastructure, good jobs, times in America, like during the Depression, when Eisenhower led us to build and create that infrastructure. Then in 1968, when we created Medicare, this country has been at its best. Yes, a private sector but also a strong, vibrant public sector.

We are at a point in American history today when at least the Republican caucus believes we don't need a public sector. We just don't need one. We may need one, maybe, for military stuff, but beyond that, they just don't see a purpose for it. I believe Americans think that things like Medicare, infrastructure development, Social Security, and things like the GI Bill are important parts of what make America ``America'' because they are how we recognize as Americans that we are all in this thing together, that our senior citizens will not be abandoned, that our GIs coming back will not be left behind, that communities which need police, fire and EMT services will not just be left to the ravages of others.

We need an American commitment to Social Security and Medicare, and that's what we're going to be arguing for today. The American people can count on the Democratic Caucus to never abandon our seniors even as Republicans want to take Medicare apart as a program that has served so many people so well. You want to do something to change Medicare? Why don't we let Medicare negotiate drug prices. That could probably save us several billion dollars a year, as much as $53 billion a year. Republicans don't want to do that because they've got their interests to protect.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island, which I am a proud cosponsor. This amendment will help protect our nation's most vulnerable cities and help effectively prevent and manage emergency situations in cities around the country.

Funding for Urban Area Security Initiative helps cities prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from disasters, including terrorism.

My district in Minnesota has benefitted greatly from the assistance of UASI. My district includes Minneapolis, a city that has been listed as one of the 31 most vulnerable cities by the UASI grant program and has received funding for projects to improve safety and response.

UASI Grant program funding has been essential to the ability of the City of Minneapolis to manage events such as the 35W Bridge collapse, the 2008 Republican National Convention and the response to the 2009 and 2011 Minneapolis tornados.

The UASI program has secured the metropolitan area's water supply, improved its emergency dispatch system, and provided protective gear for first responders. It also created special response teams for emergencies involving hazardous materials, the collapse of buildings and advanced bomb squads.

UASI grant dollars have paid for much of the technology associated with the city's new combined Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and first responder training facility providing real time situational awareness and communication capabilities that did not exist before.

Without these operations, the recent tornados in my district would have created confusion and chaos in the aftermath. The speedy and effective response by the city is directly related to the funding they have received through UASI grants.

Without these important investments, public warnings and communications, disaster response, and first responder training will be compromised.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that all American cities with real security needs continue to have access. to UASI funding.

I couldn't help but note my colleague from Minnesota's last comment. He seems to imply that because there have been wars since 1985 that somehow that is an indictment of the U.S. Institute of Peace. That's absurd and ridiculous.

But it always seems that we can find more money for defense spending but not for peace. It's a question of priorities.

Last night I was here trying to argue that when the GAO and the Subcommittee on Sea Power says that we don't need to spend $150 million on the LHA-7, friends on the other side of the aisle leaped to their feet and declared, ``We've got to have this.'' Well, the GAO doesn't think so.

But yet we're trying to zero out the U.S. Institute of Peace which can keep us out of conflict and is on the ground in Baghdad, Kosovo, Haiti, all kinds of places, trying to keep people safe and alive.

So faulty logic, poor argumentation won't justify this bad amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that will cut $150 million in unnecessary defense funding.

Congress must reassess our budgetary priorities. We should not be in the business of needlessly increasing defense spending while simultaneously cutting spending for critical services that Americans depend upon. Without my amendment, Congress will needlessly approve $150 million for the LHA 7 amphibious warship program. Now, let me be clear. I'm not against such a program in its own right, but I am against authorizing this funding for FY12 because the Government Accountability Office and the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower said we shouldn't do it. And they have very good reasons for coming to that conclusion.

First of all, according to the Government Accountability Office report, which I have in my hand and I intend to submit into the Record, these funds won't even be used in fiscal year 2012. The report states that contractor delays and labor shortages ``will likely have implications on the ability of the shipbuilder to start construction of LHA 7 as currently planned.''

If we do not authorize these funds, our national security will not be harmed. The GAO reports that FY11 funds already appropriated will be sufficient to cover the costs of the program and expenses for LHA 7 in FY12. As the report makes clear, and I quote again, Madam Chair, ``most of the construction costs for LHA 7 will not be incurred until fiscal year 2013.''

Given the GAO's recommendation, the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower did the right thing. They cut funding for the LHA 7. However, that funding was reinstated in the full committee. Given that the funds will not even be able to be used in FY12 due to contractor delays, why was $150 million reinstated in the full committee? Well, I can tell you that a Republican gentleman from Mississippi sits on the Armed Services Committee, and he represents a district on the coast with a very large shipbuilder in it.

Let's review momentarily. At a time when Congress is cutting critical heating assistance programs, education, and health care, why should it authorize defense spending for work that military contractors aren't even prepared to do?

Without my amendment, Congress is set to increase funding for the LHA 7 warship at a time when we are slashing critical domestic spending programs that Americans count on.

This is a commonsense amendment, Madam Chair, and it follows that the GAO and the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower said we should do. We should cut $150 million for the LHA 7 warship program. I'll leave it to you and your imagination as to why the funding was reinstated at the full committee.

I urge my colleagues to reassess our budgetary priorities and authorize funds for when they can actually be used. Spending should not be authorized prematurely, especially when Congress is cutting other critical programs.

LHA Replacement, Shipbuilding and Conversion (SCN), Fiscal Year 2012--

Line 3041

program overview

The LHA program will provide the functional replacement for

the LHA 1 Class ships which are reaching the end of their

extended service lives. The program is to ensure that the

amphibious fleet remains capable of Expeditionary Warfare

well into the 21st century and provide for an affordable and

sustainable amphibious ship development program. LHA 6, the

lead ship, was authorized in fiscal year 2007. Fabrication of

LHA 6 started in January 2008 and it is currently scheduled

for delivery in October 2013. The Navy requested funding for

the first follow-on ship, LHA 7, in its fiscal year 2011

budget request and requested an additional $2018.7 million in

fiscal year 2012 to fully fund the ship. The Navy awarded an

advance procurement contract for LHA 7 in June 2010, and

planned to award the construction contract in November 2010.

[Dollars in millions] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal year

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Would the gentleman yield now for a question?

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Will the gentleman yield for a question, Madam Chair?

Madam Chair, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this underlying bill.

As the Senate votes this week on the Republican scheme to end Medicare, I am standing up to protect health care for our seniors. Our seniors, they blazed the trail for all of us. They fought the wars, they've earned the money, they've come and made America a great place; and we have inherited what they've done. We have inherited what our senior citizens have made for us. And now we see our Republican colleagues want to end Medicare for these same seniors. To spend nearly $1 trillion on handouts to millionaires not only harms American seniors, but threatens our economic future.

Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who pay into it their whole lives, Mr. Chairman. It represents the basic American values of fairness, decency and respect for our seniors that all Americans should cherish.

Last month, our Republican colleagues voted to end Medicare as we know it. According to the Congressional Budget Office--and, Mr. Chairman, that's the office that is bipartisan and calls it straight as they see it--this plan, this Republican plan, would raise seniors' health care costs by more than $6,000 a year--that's a lot of money, Mr. Chairman--more than doubling their costs. Instead of fulfilling a promise to our seniors, a promise that the people who gave everything for us would have something in their golden years, the plan would bring about a corporate takeover of our health care. Insurance company bureaucrats would be able to deny seniors care that they had paid into for their entire lives. The GOP plan no longer guarantees seniors the same level of benefits and choice of a doctor that they have today under Medicare.

Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about the deficit. Only if it were. This debate is about something else, and it is about whether we are going to meet the promises of our seniors, of our children, of our students, of our public employees, or not. It's a choice of whether we're going to put America to work or not. It's a basic choice about how we're going to live together.

Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about a deficit. And as my fellow colleagues pound on this idea that we're broke, we're not broke. What we are is unwilling to do the basics for people who have given America so much. This debate is not about a deficit, because we can reduce the deficit by putting America back to work. Two-thirds of American corporations don't pay any taxes, including General Electric, Bank of America, and others. If we ask people to just do their fair share, America's not broke.

By siding with insurance industry lobbyists to raise Medicare costs only increases the burden on our seniors while doing nothing to address the deficit. As I said, this is not about the deficit.

Raising taxes for 95 percent of Americans to pay for a trillion- dollar tax cut for CEOs who ship American jobs overseas sides with the rich at the expense of the middle class.

Spending billions on handouts for corporate special interests, including $40 billion on Big Oil, only drives up prices at the pump for families who are already hurting the most.

The Progressive Caucus, Mr. Chair, has a plan that puts people's priorities first. Our budget, which we call ``The People's Budget,'' strengthens Medicare and Social Security. It lets Medicare negotiate cheaper drug prices so insurance company bureaucrats can't deny you the medication you need. And it creates jobs by eliminating the deficit by 2021. That's right. The Progressive Caucus eliminates the deficit. That is the fiscally responsible budget. That's a budget that Americans can get behind. Not some budget that rewards the rich at the expense of everybody else and doesn't do anything to end the deficit.

I'll not stand for a vision of America that throws American seniors under the bus. We have a vision of honoring our seniors, honoring those people, the Greatest Generation, the generation that brought us civil rights, women's rights, human rights, the generation that brought us Medicare. We are in a generational fight, Mr. Chairman, and generations in the future will look back on us and ask us why did we let the Republican Caucus take away the basic promises of America, and we will be able to stand now and say, We didn't. We fought them back and we fought for America where everybody does better because everybody does better, including our seniors.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I urge all Members to join in supporting this very important motion to recommit.

We have seen a great victory for our country, and yet we have suffered a tremendous loss, 3,000 of our countrymen lost because of al Qaeda and al Qaedaism and their belief system. But you know what? They have wreaked havoc all across this world. Whether it is Tanzania or whether it is Nairobi, they have brought murder and destruction across the globe. Even in Pakistan, 80 dead just recently. So we have got to make sure they are the priority, they are the focus, so we can rid the world of this pernicious, evil philosophy that has caused so much harm to so many.

Mr. Speaker, on May 12, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall Nos. 321 and 322. Had I been present I would voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, we've been here for about 5 months so far. It's easing up on June. It won't be long until it's summertime. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has not brought a single bill to create a single job.

I was very pleased to hear the gentlewoman from North Carolina say that they are marking up a bill on jobs. It would be the first one, if it ever gets here. That's a shame, because I think when people voted last November, they were thinking, hey, we've got to do something about some jobs. And yet the Republican majority has dallied away and done everything but work on jobs.

Yeah, they've tried to take away the Affordable Care Act and take away health care from people who really need it. Yeah, they've tried to do a whole lot of things, push a social agenda. They've done all these things, but they have yet to focus on the one thing that Americans need most, which is a job.

If you want to reduce the deficit, you've got to have people making some money, and that means getting some jobs. People pay taxes. People would love to pay taxes, but they would do it if they had work. But they don't have work because our Republican majority has got other things to do.

Remember, jobs are the key. I am looking forward to Republicans bringing a bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, on May 11, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall Nos. 310 and 311. Had I been present I would voted ``yes.''

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1213, and I rise in opposition to the underlying bill.

My amendment is very simple. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress 6 months after the enactment of the bill, a report which examines the possible delays and potential enrollment reductions in the health care exchanges that will result from this bill. Yet, before I dive into my amendment, Mr. Chair, let's review just for a moment.

From the year 2000 to the year 2006, the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. They controlled all three of those institutions at a time when Americans were literally going bankrupt because of medical debt. The fact is that the Republicans refused to do anything at all to try to help Americans within our

health care system, which was dysfunctional and broken.

They did nothing.

They stood back and watched 60 percent of all bankruptcy filings happen as a result of medical debt. They sat back and watched 47 million uninsured Americans as they faced nothing more than emergency rooms as relief. They sat back and watched small businesses either have to offer no health care insurance at all or have to stomach enormous health care burdens as premiums just galloped along day after day. They sat back and watched while auto companies produced vehicles where as much as $2,100 per car went to nothing but health care costs.

This is the Republican Conference that now seeks to try to take away what the Democratic Caucus and the United States Congress passed the last time. Instead of trying to say ``we're here to do something; we're here to offer some solutions,'' all they want to do is to strip away from Americans that little bit of protection from the vicissitudes of the health care insurance industry that they have been subjected to for so many years. Instead of saying ``we're here to help,'' they're here to help the insurance companies. That's whose side they're on. It is a shame and a disgrace, and I am very, very sad to see this bill on the floor today. So what I'd like to do is to offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I offer an amendment to say, if we're going to do this, if we're going to take away from the American people these exchanges that are going to give them a little bit of relief, let's at least know what we're doing. Let's at least figure out what the effects are going to be on the American people instead of just snatching out of their hands these exchanges that are designed to give them a little bit of relief from the health care insurance companies. Let's find out who is going to be delayed and what potential enrollment reductions are going to exist. Let's figure it out.

This is an important and a meritorious amendment, and I think the least the Republican Conference can do is to say, You know what? If we are going to go back to the bad old days, which was before the Affordable Care Act was passed, at least we ought to know what harm we are going to be doing to the American people.

So I urge support of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, why all the attacks on the Secretary of Health and Human Services? I believe our Secretary of Health and Human Services is an honorable person, and there is no basis to attack her integrity on the House floor. That again is a disgrace and a very sad occasion. This Secretary of Health and Human Services was appointed by a duly-elected President, and was confirmed by the Senate. Yet the Secretary has to withstand all of these attacks on her integrity.

The fact is that this is still nothing but a diversion and a distraction. This is an attack on the American people's legislation to fix this health care system. As the gentleman goes on and on about government, look, health insurance companies, which have absolutely no accountability except to their stockholders and their highly paid CEOs, are denying care, denying treatment, denying doctors. This is the tragedy that Americans are living through every single day.

By the way, to the tune of as many as 52 million people, Americans have gone bankrupt, have lost their livelihoods, and have been uninsured. What is the gentleman's answer to that? We've heard nothing about this--only what's wrong, only blaming government. In this democratic Nation, which I am proud of, he attacks our government, the American people's government. This again is an abomination and a sad thing.

Let me just say, if the insurance companies love the bill so much, why have they lobbied against it to the tune of $14 million a day? I remember standing on this House floor, seeing the insurance company lobbyists here every day. They spent as much as $14 million a day to defeat the Affordable Care Act. This is the bill that, according to the gentleman, they love so much. The fact is that that, again, is not accurate. It's untrue.

This is a good amendment. It just adds a little bit of sunshine which will help people get into exchanges to get affordable health care insurance policies. As that is stripped away and snatched out of their hands, Americans will at least know why and the impact of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.