Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican plan to gut Medicaid. This plan isn't about finding cost- effective ways to improve Medicaid. It's about limiting health care for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

It's telling seniors they no longer qualify for their nursing home care. It's taking away access to well child visits. The Medicaid program isn't just numbers on a balance sheet; it's the only access to care for millions of low-income seniors, poor children and people with disabilities.

Under the Republican proposal, there will be less access and less care, especially in times of economic stress, like what we are going through today. Medicaid rolls swell as people lose jobs and families lose income. Under the Republican block grant scheme, tough times would mean even tougher times for the newly unemployed, the frail and the young.

As a nurse, I believe a key moral measure of our society is how we treat the least among us. This irresponsible Republican proposal just doesn't measure up.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided resolution. It is another attempt by the Republicans to take away important consumer protections, return to a health care system that is clearly broken. I strongly oppose this amendment because it is harmful to the American people and to our economy.

The majority of Americans, and certainly those in my district, are opposed to this defunding stunt. Seniors do not want to go back to a life of worry about how they will make it through the doughnut hole. Parents don't want to go back to worrying that their child will be uninsured this summer because she graduates. And small businesses do not want to cancel their employees health care coverage because they would lose the tax credits to pay for it.

The Affordable Care Act is law, and attempts by my Republican colleagues to repeal it have failed. Instead of debating the past, we need to focus on the future. Let's work on creating jobs and strengthening our economy. Vote ``no'' on this foolish resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this mean- spirited resolution, yet another attempt by the Republicans to play politics with women's health care, part of their broader priority to reopen the culture wars. But the lies that have been tossed around in this debate are an insult to the 3 million Americans who used Planned Parenthood services this year.

Nearly two-thirds of those who visit a Planned Parenthood consider it to be their main source of health care, their mainstay, their lifeline. In my own district, Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo Counties serves over 31,000 patients a year. I must ask the supporters of this mean-spirited resolution, where should these 31,000 people go? They have no answer. Just inaccurate talking points and a demonizing ``we know best'' attitude.

Instead of taking away women's access to health care, let's turn to working on what they really need: a stronger economy and meaningful job opportunities. So please join me in voting ``no'' on this mean-spirited resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' misguided budget and attack on Medicare. The issue is not whether we reduce the deficit, but how we do it. Simply put, the Republican plan uses our deficit as an excuse to end Medicare as we know it.

Medicare is a cornerstone of the American Dream, a promise that health care will always be there for our seniors and permanently disabled citizens. But the Republican budget takes away that guarantee, and what does it give our future seniors in return? No guarantee of coverage; a real chance of being denied insurance due to preexisting conditions; and around $6,000 a year in additional out-of-pocket costs, as well as the knowledge that the insurance companies will be well taken care of while they are struggling to get by on their fixed income. And not one aspect of the plan will do anything to reduce the costs of care--it just passes the buck.

This is not a plan for our future. It is a recipe for disaster for our seniors. Forty-five years ago, when seniors were the most uninsured group in our country, we made a promise that health care for seniors would be guaranteed. The Republican voucher proposal breaks that promise.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget proposal.

I thank the ranking member of my subcommittee for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1217, a bill that would defund a key strategic investment in our Nation's long-term fiscal and physical health, the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Simply put, this fund is a critical effort to make our Nation healthier and, in turn, to bring down health care costs.

This misguided bill would return our Nation to a system of ``sick care,'' a system that hasn't worked, rather than one focused on health and wellness. That's something we can't afford to do. We all know that health care costs are rising at an unsustainable rate. In fact, the Republican majority has cited these costs as a reason to propose ending Medicare as we know it, by turning it into a voucher program and by whacking away at poor people's health care by block-granting Medicaid.

But one of the key drivers in entitlement spending growth is chronic disease, the exact problem addressed by this prevention fund. Yet this bill shortsightedly cuts back our efforts to reduce chronic illness and promote wellness programs.

In California, we are putting these funds to work to slow the alarming rise in obesity rates, to train our next generation of public health professionals, to curb our tobacco use and improve our capacity to respond to disease outbreaks.

At a time when counties have laid off thousands and struggled to maintain essential public health services, the need for this fund becomes even more critical. That's why numerous local governments and national organizations, including the National Association of Counties and the American Public Health Association oppose this shortsighted bill.

Furthermore, the fund is a sound investment. Trust for America's Health Research has shown that investments in proven, community-based programs to increase physical activity, to improve nutrition, and to prevent tobacco use could save the country more than $16 billion annually within 5 years. This is a return of over $5 for every dollar invested.

Not only do these programs add to our constituents' quality of life, but it can also increase their economic output by keeping them healthy and in the workforce.

These are some of the reasons I stand with these folks and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my complete disapproval for the way this House is being run by the Republican majority.

To put it bluntly, the majority is neglecting its duty to address the biggest issues facing this country--creating jobs and implementing a fair and sensible budget that makes investments in our people while bringing down the deficit.

For example, to date, this majority has not brought to the floor a single piece of legislation to help create jobs. Instead, we've seen bill after bill that would actually increase joblessness, including their omnibus spending bill, H.R. 1, which would cut nearly three- quarters of a million American jobs.

While it is clear that we must take aggressive action to bring down the Federal deficit, it shouldn't come at the expense of guaranteeing health care to our seniors. Yet that's exactly the case with the new Republican budget proposal, which uses our deficit as an excuse to achieve their long-held goal of ending Medicare as we know it today.

Medicare has been a very successful program to ensure seniors have guaranteed access to affordable, quality care. It has its problems, to be sure, and they must be addressed, but we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Before deciding to essentially junk Medicare, as the Republican budget would do, let's go back in time a little.

Before Medicare, seniors were the most likely group to be uninsured. Barely 14 percent of them had health insurance coverage at all. Before Medicare, almost one-third of all seniors were in poverty, and countless others would have been if not for the large sacrifices borne by their families. Before Medicare, seniors needed to make a false choice--go to the doctor and pay out of pocket or put food on the table and pay the bills. It also wasn't for seniors' lack of interest in being insured; it was because insurance companies simply had little interest in insuring a group of people they deemed too expensive to cover.

Let's be honest. The older you get, the more likely you are to need health care. We are not a cohort that insurance companies are exactly fighting each other to cover.

It is clear that Medicare has been absolutely critical in providing access to quality care at an affordable cost for seniors. It is responsible for helping lift so many of our parents and grandparents out of poverty, giving them peace of mind after a lifetime of work. It has also freed up their children as well, giving them the opportunity to invest in the future of their own children instead of having to worry about whether or not their parents are going to get the health care they need.

It is a remarkable success story, one that has helped Americans prosper, but this Republican budget proposal announced this week essentially throws it out the window.

First, it reopens the doughnut hole for today's Medicare beneficiaries, like for Beverly, from Morro Bay, who, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, no longer has to worry about how she will afford her important prescription medications if she reaches the doughnut hole again this year. Their plan will roll back the new preventative screenings and wellness checkups that the law provided for with no co- pays at all. Their plan would roll back important cost-containing and quality-improving measures from the program, and it repeals resources in place to reduce fraud and abuse, making this program more costly and less solvent.

But the centerpiece of the Republican proposal is the plan to privatize this critical program and end Medicare as we know it.

Let's be crystal clear: This isn't a reform. It isn't a tweak. It isn't a natural progression. It is nothing more than the end of the very program which, right now, guarantees health care coverage for America's seniors.

Medicare is much like Social Security, which guarantees a pension for seniors regardless of the twists and the turns of the market and our economy. Medicare guarantees health care coverage for our seniors. It guarantees it. But the Ryan budget bill ends that by turning Medicare into a voucher program with no guarantee of coverage--none at all. Instead, each senior would get a set amount of money to purchase a private insurance policy at an amount not high enough to start with and less each succeeding year. In fact, each year, the voucher would cover less and less.

These are the important factors of this budget, which is why we cannot accept it. We must save Medicare.

Who'll pay the rest of the cost of this care?

If you guessed ``my grandmother or my grandfather'' you'd be right.

And this is how the Ryan budget ``saves'' money.

It saves the federal government money by shifting the cost directly onto seniors.

In fact, while the government would save about $600 per beneficiary, the cost to the senior would jump by an estimated $12,500 a year in premiums, co-pays, and other out-of-pocket expenses--and that amount is expected to grow over time.

That estimate is about double the average annual out-of-pocket cost for a senior in Medicare today.

The CBO is clear in its warning about this program: Some seniors will forgo insurance all together, while others will find barriers to services that might save or improve their lives--both by plans not covering particular services or through such high costs that seniors forgo the care they need.

The bottom line--seniors will pay more for health insurance--much more--than they do today.

Some will get substandard coverage because they can't afford anything better.

Some won't be able to afford a policy at all, so they will forgo coverage and care.

The Republican budget has the wrong priorities.

It focuses on our families and communities for cuts, while doing nothing to root out waste in our tax system--like the tens of billions in subsidies for oil, gas and coal companies, or those that go to giant ethanol corporations.

And it continues the tax cuts for the wealthiest among us as well and even calls for more.

These priorities are all wrong . . . they are dangerous . . . and we must stand up against them.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican Budget that will end Medicare as we know it.

Let's make responsible choices so that we can lower the deficit without doing so on the backs of our seniors.

I thank my esteemed colleague for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution to overturn the FCC's open Internet rules.

The public wants us to focus on job creation. And yet here we are debating this resolution that would do the exact opposite. It doesn't create jobs, not one. Instead, it injects uncertainty into our recovering economy. It stifles innovation in our fastest-growing industries.

The FCC open Internet rules ensure Americans can fully utilize all of the benefits the Internet provides, creating good-paying, head of household jobs along the way. But the resolution before us today jeopardizes all of that. Like a government shutdown, this resolution will hurt the economy, and I can't support that.

Now the public has made it clear: They expect us to cut spending in our CR, and we will. A deal is very close at hand, but Republicans are holding it up at the eleventh hour. Why? Well, apparently, it's not about the money. Instead, the holdups are the extraneous non-budgetary issues Republicans are trying to force into this funding bill, like cutting funding for women's health and letting polluters dirty our air.

Mr. Speaker, even Republican Senator Tom Coburn, who is nobody's idea of a pushover, has urged his party to drop the policy riders in order to avoid a shutdown. They should listen, Mr. Speaker.

Democrats have gone 70 percent of the way to Republicans' demands. That's a long way to go in terms of trying to reach a compromise, but Republicans are demanding that they either get 100 percent of what they want or they will shut down the government.

Democrats do not want to shut down the government. We know it would put our economy at risk right when we have been making progress over the last few months.

Mr. Speaker, the innocent victims that are shut down are the American people, and I share their outrage.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is just more of

the same. It will hobble our efforts to create countless jobs and boost our economy. This resolution shutting down the FCC's effort is not the way forward, and neither is shutting down the government.

I urge the Republican leadership to stop playing these dangerous games.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the dirty air bill.

Once again the House is considering legislation that has little to no chance of becoming law. Meanwhile, the public wants us to focus on job creation. But the leadership of this House isn't listening. The only job they seem interested in is the one they want EPA not to do: protect the public's health. It is not surprising that many of our Nation's biggest polluters have asked for this bill. It lets them keep polluting.

But what is surprising is with this bill we are rejecting scientific consensus. Even George W. Bush's EPA agreed that carbon pollution threatens the public's health.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 910 will increase the pollution that triggers asthma attacks, respiratory illness, and premature deaths. It will hobble America's efforts to compete in the global energy marketplace.

Earlier this year, the President stood on this House floor and talked about winning the future, about tapping into America's genius for innovation, and he used clean energy as a central example because it will help our economy grow. It will help America compete globally and protect the health and quality of life for all Americans.

Let's not obstruct the EPA from doing its job of protecting the public's health. Let's not stick our heads in the sand about the dangers of climate change. Let's not turn away from meeting this challenge, rather, use it to build dominance in the global industry of clean energy.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.

I thank the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this effort to defund public radio.

Right now, millions of Americans tune in to NPR stations across the country for one reason, the consistency of the high quality of its programming. In a world awash by often ill-informed and sensationalist cable news and ever louder voices, public broadcasting provides thoughtful, even-handed analysis of the issues of the day. And they do it every day. The bill before us seeks to end that. It is nothing more than an effort to cripple NPR by crippling our local public radio stations.

The bill would decimate local NPR stations by restricting their ability to choose programming best suited to their community.

In my district, NPR stations like KCLU, KCRW, and KCBX provide valuable international and domestic news. They bring ``All Things Considered,'' ``Morning Edition,'' and ``Car Talk'' into our cars and our living rooms. But these stations also cover local news, concerts, local and school events. They produce shows like ``Ears on the Arts,'' ``Community Calendar,'' and ``From Ballet to Broadway.'' The bill throws all that out the window.

NPR reports and media coverage are consistently even-handed, driven by a high standard of journalistic ethics. They are not politically biased. NPR lets the stories do the talking, not the commentators. And apparently the public, the tax-paying public, likes that.

According to the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, in the last year the television networks' audience slipped 3.5 percent, newspapers were down 5 percent, radio fell 6 percent, magazines were down almost 9 percent. NPR, up 3 percent. Since 2000, NPR's audience is up 58 percent. In the last

year, it's Web site, npr.org, drew an average of 15.7 million unique monthly visitors, up more than 5 million visitors.

This is a reflection of the quality of its programs and its dedication to its mission. Public broadcasting helps educate our society, celebrates the arts, education, respectful debate, and civil discourse. NPR and the 900-plus local stations are valuable resources for our country.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for public broadcasting and oppose this legislation.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, for inviting me to join him here and for bringing the likeness of Sargent Shriver, the first director, so that I can stand next to him and pay tribute to him as I am speaking about the importance of the Peace Corps as I have experienced it.

This is such an important anniversary, the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Peace Corps--actually, this day, apparently, that's what you mentioned in your remarks, Mr. Garamendi. And you were joined by two Members of Congress who probably were influenced to become Members of Congress by--in fact, one, Mr. Honda, just spoke, and he said it's because of his experiences in the Peace Corps he could say honestly that that's why he is now serving in Congress. And I've heard others of our colleagues say that as well. And both Mr. Honda and Mr. Petri speak eloquently, as you do, Mr. Garamendi, about the effect of this experience on you. And I have seen it firsthand from friends of mine.

I don't think it's possible to say enough positive about this wonderful organization. So having a Special Order this evening is an opportunity for us all to come together and celebrate the commitment of the United States Congress to communities around the world as they experience, through volunteerism, through ordinary citizens of this country who volunteer to share in the life and experience of a culture different from their own. As the Peace Corps celebrates its 50th anniversary, it's clear that this work that our citizens and volunteers have done is never more important than we see today, and also more relevant to what's going on in the world today.

I am very proud to represent a congressional district, the 23rd in California, with a very active Returned Peace Corps Volunteers community. The alumni association numbers well over 150 members and they are active in our community. And I know firsthand also, knowing several of them--many of them--that the community has been strengthened because of their experiences in the Peace Corps, and they readily testify to that.

And at the University of California in Santa Barbara, my home town, this campus consistently ranks towards the top of U.S. colleges and universities for volunteer recruitment among its young graduates. When I have the opportunity to meet with folks from the

Peace Corps administrative office, the first thing they always mention when they find out where I'm from is the high concentration of former and future volunteers from my congressional district. And so I know that on the south and central coast of California, with these alumni living and working among us, the importance of service, community, and open mindedness, values that the Peace Corps holds dear, these have influenced the way our civic life is conducted in our country as these Returned Peace Corps Volunteers bring their experiences in their service abroad back to their home communities and places of business. It's a win-win on both sides of whatever body it is that separates us from our countries around the world.

There is an institute on my campus that I'll reference, it's named for my husband, but it's called the Capps Center for the Study of Faith, Ethics and Public Policy. They sponsored an event--in fact, they had a series of events this past fall celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps. And on one of those occasions it was a privilege to welcome Aaron Williams, who is the National Peace Corps Director, to Santa Barbara, and in doing so to pay tribute to the Peace Corps. But also, the Capps Center invited three former Peace Corps volunteers to honor their service, but also to invite them to form a panel discussion so the rest of us could listen and respond and have questions about their own experiences. One of them was Sarah Chayes, who is a former NPR, National Public Radio, correspondent. She is a prominent author and founder of the Arghand Cooperative in Kandahar, Afghanistan. She spoke of her early experiences in the formation of the Peace Corps. She served in Morocco from 1984 to 1996.

Also present to be recognized and also to participate in the discussion was Gordon Radley. He is the former president of Lucasfilm. He served in Malawi from 1968 to 1970 and then again in western Samoa in 1979 and 1980.

The third person who spoke--I just acknowledge these people because they're examples of community leaders in the country who were influenced so tremendously by their experience in Peace Corps. One whom I know well, because he's a constituent of ours in the congressional district but also with his service, is Thomas Tighe. He is the President and CEO of a very influential organization called Direct Relief International, which provides emergency services, disaster aid to countries around the world. It's headquartered in Santa Barbara. And before Tom came to this position, he served as the Peace Corps associate general counsel and was the chief of staff and COO of the Peace Corps. He, himself, served in Thailand from 1986 to 1988.

I mentioned these three because now the Library of Congress is collecting these stories from previous volunteers, and I think it's a great idea that the anecdotes and vignettes that Peace Corps volunteers remember so poignantly from their time of service can be woven into the Library of Congress archives and there for permanent record.

Some of us in Congress, Mr. Garamendi, are old enough to remember the passion and enthusiasm from these 50 years ago when President Kennedy announced the creation of the Corps, the idea that Americans from all different backgrounds and walks of life would have an opportunity to work for and to learn from other cultures. You know, in that time, that was a fairly radical concept. But I marvel--don't you?--at how far we have come.

Since 1961 when the first volunteers went abroad, nearly 200,000 volunteers have served in over--in 139 countries around the world. These are talented and selfless Americans who have made lasting contributions in agriculture, in business development, in sustainable infrastructure, in education, in health, in combatting HIV and AIDS, in working to protect the environment around the world. Collectively, each volunteer's work represents a legacy of service that has become such a significant part of America's history and the positive image that we have abroad.

I know that Mr. Farr is going to speak probably after me, and he has just joined the group. He and I are part of an organization here in Congress which has some connections to the Peace Corps. It's called the House Democracy Partnership. And last week we traveled actually literally around the world. One of the places we were, one of our partner countries whose parliament we work with closely is the country of Indonesia.

For many years, the Peace Corps was not there. And now, just this past year, volunteers have been welcomed back. We had the chance to meet these active volunteers as we have met during visits to other countries with our work in the House Democracy Partnerships. Some of the countries are Malawi and Indonesia, and we've taken gifts. Sometimes occasionally we'll have a constituent serving there, so a family will ask us to bring some item that this person has wanted.

It was because of Mr. Farr's insistence that we invite four of the current volunteers. They've just come back, the presence of Peace Corps in the country. I know, Mr. Farr, I hope you'll expand upon this. The four had dinner with us who were visiting. Here we were in Surabaya, a coastal community in a large city actually in Indonesia, and these four young people who are teaching English as a second language in the high schools in the region came and shared some of their stories with us. It moved me then as it has over the years as I've heard these stories. And to see these young faces--not all Peace Corps volunteers are young, I know that. But these are young people who just were caught with zeal and enthusiasm with what they were doing.

During times of both war and peace, our volunteers through Peace Corps have exemplified some of the best qualities that this country has to offer the world: generosity, tolerance, hard work, ingenuity, friendship, and compassion. They have exhibited critical attention to detail and an unwavering commitment to sustainable development. These are talented people who really are a beacon of the goodwill that we want our country to stand for.

So I'm offering tonight, and I'm standing right next to the likeness of Sargent Shriver, as I offer my sincerest congratulations to the Peace Corps on its 50th anniversary that we all join in celebration.

I want to take the opportunity to encourage anyone who is thinking about it to serve either abroad or find a way in one's own community to serve with this kind of volunteerism.

I appreciate the leadership you've shown, Mr. Garamendi, in calling us together. I want to thank you and my colleagues in Congress who add so much to your service as colleagues of mine by this history that you share. You can add this to the kind of Peace Corps volunteerism that you did when you were younger, and it is a spirit that I know has never left you.

So I got a signal from Mr. Garamendi, and it is really a tribute, because Mr. Farr is a dear friend but also my neighboring congressional district Representative, and he never misses an opportunity, whether he's at home or abroad, to bring up the topic of serving in the Peace Corps. And how fitting this evening, Mr. Farr, that you are here to add your words to and your stories to this celebration.

I'm going to yield the floor, if it is okay with Mr. Garamendi, right directly to you.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1.

This deeply flawed bill does nothing to create jobs or promote economic growth. In fact, it actually undercut these critical priorities, threatening to destabilize our fragile economic recovery.

The bill cuts billions of dollars from programs that increase transportation and housing choices, reduce traffic on our highways, and lower energy costs for American families. It cuts Community Development Block Grants that empower local cities and counties to prioritize the housing and infrastructure projects that make the most sense for them. And it eliminates funding for the Sustainable Communities Initiative--a program that strengthens local economic competitiveness and reduces commutes to jobs, shops and schools.

These proven programs are already creating jobs and stimulating economic growth. They help local communities attract new businesses and jumpstart their economies. They help improve local business districts and provide affordable housing options nearby. And rather than build expensive new roads and highways, these programs focus on fixing what we already have.

In short, these programs create jobs. High tech jobs. Clean energy jobs. Construction jobs. High quality, local jobs that pay well and can't be shipped overseas.

Rather than enhancing these proven job creators, the Majority is eliminating them. The irrational spending cuts in this bill completely undermine these proven programs and threaten to cripple our fragile economic recovery. It makes no sense.

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, given the Majority's record on the issue. It's been nearly two months and we have not voted on a single bill to create jobs or promote economic growth. Not one.

Mr. Chair, we can't simply cut our way to economic prosperity.

This CR is nothing more than a negligent political gimmick. But this gimmick has real consequences. Real consequences for our local communities whose crumbling infrastructure will only deteriorate further; real consequences for the millions of unemployed Americans whose search for a job will only get longer; and real consequences for Middle Class families whose struggle to stay afloat will only get tougher.

It's time this Congress starts doing what our constituents sent us here to do--create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support jobs creation and oppose H.R. 1.

I strongly oppose this amendment because it is harmful to the American people. It adds significantly to the deficit. And I have listened to my constituents. And they tell me they are opposed to this defunding stunt. Why? If health care reform is defunded, who will ensure that seniors in the doughnut hole receive half-price medications this year? Who will process the small business tax credits that employers across the country are entitled to this year under the reform law? Who will keep insurance companies honest, protecting Americans from coverage denials and limits on care?

The Affordable Care Act is law. It's endorsed by the American Medical Association. And attempts by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to repeal it have failed. Instead of fighting this same battle over and over again and living in the past, Congress must turn its focus now to what the American people really care about: creating jobs and strengthening our economy.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word in strong opposition to the Price Amendment and the underlying bill.

This amendment would make this atrocious CR even worse. Section 1517 of the CR already cuts the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by 40 percent. And as if that wasn't enough to cripple this new bureau, the Price Amendment would prohibit funding for salaries and expenses-- ending the agency as it's just getting started.

Although, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Mr. Price and his colleagues have fought long and hard for their friends on Wall Street to allow them to continue gouging families and small businesses with predatory mortgages and credit cards.

But last year the Democratic majority overcame their corporate lobbyists and special interests to finally bring an end to these Wall Street abuses. We enacted historic credit card reforms and established the new independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau tasked specifically with protecting consumers--the first of its kind. This new Bureau will finally ensure that mortgage and credit card agreements are safe for the families and small businesses most vulnerable to predatory practices. The Bureau's Office of Service Member Affairs, led by Holly Petraeus, is specifically tasked with protecting our men and women in uniform who all too often are preyed upon by unscrupulous lenders.

No more hidden fees. No more arbitrary interest rate hikes. No more twisted contracts that lawyers can't even understand. This is the type of protection the American people expect from their government. Reasonable, responsible measures to ensure out troops and consumers aren't taken advantage of.

But, for some reason, Mr. Price and those who support this amendment believe our troops and the American people don't deserve these protections. They're unabashedly trying to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before it even gets started. They're trying to return to the days when Wall Street ran amok and did as it pleased. They're trying to return to the same failed policies of the past that caused the financial crisis we're still climbing out of.

One would think that such a ridiculous maneuver would at least be disguised as something less destructive. But then again, the Majority has made no secret of its pursuit of political gimmicks over substantive measures to create jobs.

Just look at this CR--hundreds and hundreds of pages that do nothing but undercut our fragile economic recovery and destroy jobs. Nothing but page after page of absurd cuts to proven programs that protect consumers, stimulate growth and create jobs.

Not to mention that we have yet to consider a single bill on the House floor that would actually create jobs. Not one.

Mr. Chair, the American people expect better. They sent us here to create jobs, not destroy them.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Price Amendment and the underlying bill. I yield back.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this straightforward amendment to reduce the deficit and protect taxpayers. It says the Nation's biggest oil companies won't be able to buy new leases from the Federal Government if they want to keep drilling on the public's land for free. That's all.

Now, there's a consensus in this Congress that we need to address the Federal deficit. With this amendment, we can.

GAO says we're giving $53 billion to the oil companies over the next 25 years if we do not fix the royalty relief law.

So let's fix it. Let's make the oil companies simply pay their fair share. Let's stop pouring billions of dollars into their already stuffed oil industry coffers. Isn't it time we give our constituents a break instead of the oil companies?

This is about the people we represent. They're taking their savings and they're putting it into their gas tanks and into heating their homes. Big Oil doesn't need this profit.

Let's end the handouts, reduce the deficit, protect the taxpayer. Support the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in strong support of Mr. Blumenauer's amendment to restore funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The Republican move to gut funding for public broadcasting in this Omnibus spending bill is an incredibly bad idea.

Millions of Americans rely on public broadcasting for their news, entertainment, and local programming.

Public broadcasting provides programs and services that inform, enlighten, and enrich our society.

And in a world enlightened by all too often ill-informed and sensationalist cable ``news'' shows, public broadcasting provides thoughtful, even handed analysis of the issues of the day.

Simply put, public broadcasting helps educate our society and celebrates the arts, education, respectful debate and civil discourse.

The CPB enables nearly 1,300 public radio and television stations-- like KCBX, KCLU, and KOCE, in my district--to stay on the air and broadcast quality, commercial-free news and educational programming.

These stations reach 260 million Americans in every corner of this country--bringing ``All Things Considered'' and ``Car Talk'' into our cars and Sesame Street, Frontline, the Newshour and NOVA into our living rooms.

I know that my district is a far richer place because of these important public broadcasting outlets.

The CPB also promotes public-private partnerships.

And as we look for ways to reduce our spending, we ought to look to agencies and programs that have the most bang for the buck.

By providing essential foundational money, the CPB enables public stations to leverage funds to raise the additional resources they need to fully cover operating costs.

Ending CPB funding would undeniably punish these successful partnerships.

Finally, the public radio and TV stations supported by CPB are locally owned and consistently broadcast content important to their communities.

In rural areas, these stations are frequently the only source of free local, national, and international news.

Public broadcasting is often a lifeline for Americans in times of natural disasters, providing up-to-date information on evacuation routes and evacuation center locations.

CPB funds are vital to the success of public broadcasting.

You know, some years ago Newt Gingrich went after Big Bird and the results weren't pretty.

The American people made it clear that they like their local NPR stations and other public broadcasters.

They believed that supporting public broadcasting was a worthwhile use of their tax dollars.

I don't think that sentiment has changed.

I urge my colleagues to restore funding to the CPB by supporting Mr. Blumenauer's commonsense amendment.