Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, by gutting investments in transportation

and housing, the majority is proposing to bring our Nation backward at a time when we must be building the infrastructure needed to compete and win in a competitive global economy.

For example, with today's legislation, the majority is proposing to slash the Community Development Block Grant program by almost half. These cuts would be devastating to the working poor in communities like Rochester, New York, which I represent, where block grants provide housing assistance and investments in neighborhoods that are woefully underserved.

Furthermore, the majority is proposing to gut investments in infrastructure projects, and particularly passenger rail. They do so at a time when rail ridership continues to grow across the country.

In Rochester, the Amtrak ridership has been increased by 89 percent since 2008, despite the fact that decades of underinvestment have resulted in aging rails, delayed trains we have to sidetrack to let the freight go by, and a crumbling train station.

I want to say something about this train station. It was built over 45 years ago as a temporary train station. It has not, in all these years, been ADA compliant. You cannot imagine what it is like to get somebody in a wheelchair from the station up onto the train, or to watch a mother with a stroller struggle to get up there because it is impossible to do. 144,000 people went through that railroad station last year, and they deserve something more like the 21st century.

I have fought years to improve train travel; and we are finally getting to build, with a TIGER grant, a new intermodal station in the heart of the city. Like countless other cities and towns, our work has been supported by Federal TIGER grants, which have provided vital support in modernizing our city's infrastructure. The funding is allowing Rochester and countless other communities to build the roads, rails, and runways we need to compete for the jobs of the future. But we cannot allow that to happen if we cut out the very means by which we fund them.

Ridership, as I have said, on Amtrak's high-speed Acela, which I wish we had--we only have one sort-of-high-speed rail in New York--continues to reach record highs, and States like California and Illinois and North Carolina are already building high-speed rail lines. That is terribly important.

As cochair of the bicameral Congressional High-Speed Passenger Rail Caucus, I will soon be joined today by fellow members who realize the incredible value of Amtrak and nationwide passenger rail to our country.

The truth is that our rail system reaches throughout our economy and supports tens of thousands of jobs. The bill before us today endangers these jobs, including the jobs of 20,000 Amtrak employees and the private businesses who sold $1.3 billion worth of domestic goods and services to Amtrak last year.

As my colleagues will tell you, endangering jobs today and our economy is a recipe for failure, especially at a time when our infrastructure really needs to be upgraded. As we rebuild places like Afghanistan, it always makes me so angry. If they are going to be building high-speed rail there, I want to build it in New York, in America somewhere.

Let me tell you this story, which I think will bring it home to all of you.

In 1893, the president of New York Central Railroad, for reasons I'm not really clear, lived way out in upstate New York. He had to commute to New York City every day during the week and spent the weekends at home. In 1893, they decided they would have a race with steam engines, so they raced the few miles between Buffalo and Rochester to see which one of those engines were the fastest. Mr. Chair, they set a world record by traveling at 112\1/2\ miles an hour between Rochester and Buffalo.

Today, we are on the same track. It hasn't been improved any, but we can't go anywhere near like that. There is no way we can get even close to 80 miles an hour. We can't do that. Mostly it is about 40. It takes a lot longer now to travel from Rochester to Buffalo than it did in 1893.

Crumbling infrastructure like this is not only harmful to our economy but is an embarrassment to a Nation that has never been scared to dream big, and while it is true that our Nation has faced challenges over the past few years, we need big answers.

The proposed bill fails our country now and into the future. Now is not the moment to stop investing in our country nor is it the time to resign ourselves to a future of diminished success. Instead, it is a time to roll up our sleeves and to put our country back to work.

We can answer the call of a generation by investing in the future, and we can build a better, more prosperous America one road, one runway, and one rail line at a time. So I urge my colleagues to reject the cynical and backwards-looking legislation that is before us.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the New York Times, May 12, 1893]

Great Speed on the Central

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the National Women's Rights History Project Act, co- sponsored by my upstate New York colleagues Representatives Tom Reed, Dan Maffei, and Richard Hanna. I originally worked with then-Senator Hillary Clinton to pass this bill into law in 2009. With the current authorization for the project set to expire this year, it is vital that Congress pass this reauthorization and ensure that the women who shaped our nation's history and fought for every woman's rights are remembered and honored for generations to come.

The National Women's Rights History Project will establish an auto route linking sites significant to the struggle for women's suffrage, known as the Votes for Women Trail. It will also add to the National Register of ``Places Where Women Made History,'' a variety of historic sites that were home to pivotal moments in our nation's struggle for gender equality. Finally, this Project will establish a public-private partnership network to offer financial and technical assistance for educational programs about the history of the fight for women's rights.

On this day in 1848, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Mary Ann M'Clintock convened the first women's rights convention at Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York. This event marked the beginning of a 72-year struggle for women's suffrage. During the convention, 68 women and 32 men signed the Declaration of Sentiments, which set out radical notions such as women's freedom to own property, receive an education and earn fair wages.

I am especially proud that it was in Rochester, New York where Susan B. Anthony fought so hard for the rights that women throughout this country rely on today. Among her many efforts, Susan B. Anthony established the Equal Rights Association to refute ideas that women were inferior to men and to fight for women's right to vote. She also fought to tear down the walls holding women back from higher education.

In 1880, a woman launched a brave petition to be the first female student at the University of Rochester. For almost twenty years, the petition was flatly denied--until 1898, when the University said that women would be allowed if they raised $100,000 for the school. In today's terms, that is equal to $2 million. By June of 1900 a group of women had managed to secure $40,000, and the University decided that women would be allowed to enroll if they could raise another $10,000 by September. Scrambling to reach the new goal, the women were $8,000 short a day before the deadline. With hours remaining, Susan B. Anthony stepped forward and raised $6,000 from friends and family before pledging her own life insurance policy to raise the final $2,000 and throw open the doors of higher education in Rochester. Now, more than 100 years later, the University of Rochester is home to the Susan B. Anthony Institute for Gender and Women's Studies--one of the pre- eminent educational institutions in the world.

These are the stories of incredible courage, dedication, and unyielding belief in equality that the National Women's Rights History Project is designed to honor.

The fight for women's rights and equality still continues today. It was just 93 years ago that women were finally granted the right to vote. The struggle for women's suffrage was never easy and it is vital that we honor the sacrifices and commitment of those who blazed the trail that led us here today, where a record number of women serve in the 113th Congress.

Reauthorizing the National Women's Rights History Project Act will ensure that this important civil rights story is celebrated for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and reauthorize the National Women's Rights History Project.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I feel as though I could give the same speech today that I have delivered repeatedly in the Rules Committee and on the House floor for the past 3 years. Despite failing 37 times before, the majority is trying the 38th and 39th time today to repeal, defund, or otherwise undermine the Affordable Care Act.

However, unlike past votes, today's attempt to undermine the law occurs on the very same day that my home State of New York delivered incredible news to New York families. Today we learned that, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, health insurance premiums for many of my fellow New Yorkers will be reduced by 50 percent or more. In my district alone, 56,330 persons will be eligible to access those savings through New York's new health insurance exchange.

New York is just the latest in a growing number of States finding the same thing--including Oregon, California, and Washington--where the cost of health care premiums are being reduced because of the Affordable Care Act.

As The New York Times reported this morning, some low-income individuals in New York could see their premiums go from $1,000 a month to as low as $308 a month, and subsidies provided for lower-income persons through the Affordable Care Act will drive those premiums even lower. Believe me when I tell you that New York does not want to be relieved of the burden of the Affordable Care Act. For many of them, it will be the first time in their lives they've been able to afford it.

This is incredibly good news for millions of people in New York and a realization of the law's promise to provide more affordable health care.

Among other accomplishments, the Affordable Care Act is increasing competition in New York because 17 insurers have been approved to participate in the individual insurance marketplace. That competition, again, Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, is what helps to bring down the cost. And that is working. Meanwhile, on top of that, as we know the Affordable Care Act requires all insurance companies to spend 80 cents of your premium dollar on your health care, we know that will even add to the tumbling costs.

And perhaps most importantly, the individual mandate included in the Affordable Care Act will soon take effect, driving down costs even more. Given

this fact alone, it is the height of irresponsibility and nihilistic obstruction for the majority to attempt to delay its implementation one more time. Delaying the individual mandate would undermine the very foundation of the Affordable Care Act and cause health care premiums to skyrocket. In fact, the Urban Institute has estimated that without the individual mandate, an extra 13.8 million people would go without insurance because of the cost.

Everyone from doctors to health insurance companies knows this fact. And, indeed, they are working together in New York to implement this act. That's why organizations such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Heart Association, and the American Diabetes Association are opposing the majority's proposal today.

In a letter to Congress, the American Academy of Family Physicians recently wrote that the individual mandate ``is the foundation of improving access to care and vital to ensuring that everyone has health insurance coverage. For that reason, the American Academy of Family Physicians supports the health coverage requirement for individuals'' and urges that we get on with the program.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the majority's proposal is nothing more than an attempt to score cheap political points. As has been the case for the last 3 years, the Senate will not take up this bill, and everybody here knows that. And even if they did by some strange quirk of fate pass it, the President would veto it. He's said so already. So we're spending another week of legislative business doing another meaningless piece of legislation that we know will not go anywhere.

We should be rejoicing, Mr. Speaker, about the things that are coming in from States that have already set up their exchanges about the money that is being saved and the many, many more people being insured. I've said many times before the estimated cost of running the House of Representatives is $24 million a week. Of all people, the Members of the majority who claim to care so dearly for stopping wasteful spending should be objecting to a legislative agenda that holds a variation of the same go-nowhere bill for 39 times.

Bridges are collapsing. Our economic growth is anemic. Millions of Americans are unemployed, and if the farm bill passed here last week were to become law, they would not only be unemployed, they would not be allowed to get food stamps to help them feed their families.

Meanwhile, sequestration is closing Head Start programs, furloughing working moms and dads, and cutting programs that serve vulnerable populations such as our Indian populations living on reservations who are hit extremely hard by sequestration.

Yet instead of addressing any of these issues, the majority continues to play this game. Such a self-serving political pursuit is a shameful mark on the history of this Chamber and our democracy.

Etched above the Speaker's rostrum is a quote from Daniel Webster that speaks to the need to end the political games and to focus on issues that are important to the American people. In part, those words read:

Let us see whether we also in our day and generation may

not perform something worthy to be remembered.

In 2010, I was proud to play a central role in the passage of the Affordable Care Act. I faced a lot of vitriol because of it. In the darkest moments, my district office was vandalized and the lives of my grandchildren were threatened. Yet I remained dedicated to passing the law because at the time health care costs were approaching 20 percent of our Nation's GDP, and an unconscionable number of Americans were being denied basic health care because of the cost of preexisting conditions. And in eight States in this United States and the District of Columbia, violence against women, domestic violence, was considered a preexisting condition. No more.

Before voting on the legislation, the Democratic Caucus read the bill three times line by line. By the time it was signed into law, it was clear this legislation would deliver on the promise of secure and affordable care for millions who had been denied health care for far too long.

Looking back at that moment in time, it is my belief that the law we produced will go down in history, as Webster says, as ``something worthy to be remembered.''

Already, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, seniors have begun receiving free preventive screenings and subsidies to cover the cost of prescription medicines when they fall in the doughnut hole. In a few years, the doughnut hole will be completely closed.

In addition, children under the age of 26 are now protected under their parent's insurance coverage while they find their first job and start a life of their own. Finally, prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act, in eight States, disgracefully, domestic violence was considered a preexisting condition. Those policies are now outlawed. And soon, no health insurance plan in the country will be allowed to deny an individual coverage because of a preexisting condition, and women will no longer have to pay a higher price for their insurance than men simply because of their gender.

All of this incredible progress is because of the Affordable Care Act. So while repealing the mandate may serve the narrow political interests of the majority, it is a dangerous proposition for the health and wellbeing of American families. Americans deserve a Congress focused on solutions, not a 39th attempt to rehash debates of the past.

Mr. Speaker, as we debate yet another go-nowhere attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, I urge the majority to read the words above the Speaker's rostrum and put an end to their tired political games. It is past time for us to get to work on meaningful legislation to help the American people.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time, I'd like to insert in the Record the article from The New York Times this morning entitled ``Health Plan Cost For New Yorkers Set to Fall 50 Percent.''

[The New York Times, Jul. 16, 2013]

Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set To Fall 50%

(By Roni Caryn Rabin and Reed Abelson)

Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see

their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes

under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M.

Cuomo announced on Wednesday.

State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for

2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those

currently available in New York. Beginning in October,

individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or

more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance

for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the

cost will be even lower.

Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care

Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing

exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring

competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of

new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started

in every state.

``Health insurance has suddenly become affordable in New

York,'' said Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president for health

initiatives with the Community Service Society of New York.

``It's not bargain-basement prices, but we're going from

Bergdorf's to Filene's here.''

``The extraordinary decline in New York's insurance rates

for individual consumers demonstrates the profound promise of

the Affordable Care Act,'' she added.

Administration officials, long confronted by Republicans

and other critics of President Obama's signature law, were

quick to add New York to the list of states that appear to be

successfully carrying out the law and setting up exchanges.

``We're seeing in New York what we've seen in other states

like California and Oregon--that competition and transparency

in the marketplaces are leading to affordable and new choices

for families,'' said Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the

Department of Health and Human Services.

The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New

Yorkers, who receive insurance through their employers, only

those who must purchase it on their own. Because the cost of

individual coverage has soared, only 17,000 New Yorkers

currently buy insurance on their own. About 2.6 million are

uninsured in New York State.

State officials estimate as many as 615,000 individuals

will buy health insurance on their own in the first few years

the health law is in effect. In addition to lower premiums,

about three-quarters of those people will be eligible for the

subsidies available to lower-income individuals.

``New York's health benefits exchange will offer the type

of real competition that helps drive down health insurance

costs for consumers and businesses,'' said Mr. Cuomo.

The plans to be offered on the exchanges all meet certain

basic requirements, as laid out in the law, but are in four

categories from most generous to least: platinum, gold,

silver and bronze. An individual with annual income of

$17,000 will pay about $55 a month for a silver plan, state

regulators said. A person with a $20,000 income will pay

about $85 a month for a silver plan, while someone earning

$25,000 will pay about $145 a month for a silver plan.

The least expensive plans, some offered by newcomers to the

market, may not offer wide access to hospitals and doctors,

experts said.

While the rates will fall over all, apples-to-apples

comparisons are impossible from this year to next because all

of the plans are essentially new insurance products.

The rates for small businesses, which are considerably

lower than for individuals, will not fall as precipitously.

But small businesses will be eligible for tax credits, and

the exchanges will make it easier for them to select a plan.

Roughly 15,000 plans are available today to small businesses,

and choosing among them is particularly challenging.

``Where New York previously had a dizzying array of

thousands upon thousands of plans, small businesses will now

be able to truly comparison-shop for the best prices,'' said

Benjamin M. Lawsky, the state's top financial regulator.

Officials at the state Department of Financial Services say

they have approved 17 insurers to sell individual coverage

through the New York exchange, including eight that are just

entering the state's commercial market. Many of these are

insurers specializing in Medicaid plans that cater to low-

income individuals.

North Shore-LIJ Health System, the large hospital system on

Long Island, intends to offer a health plan for individuals

as well as businesses for the first time. Some of the state's

best-known insurers, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint, are

also expected to participate. Insurers may decline to

participate after they receive approval for their rates, but

this is unlikely.

For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong

with insurance markets. The state required insurers to cover

everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, but did not

require everyone to purchase insurance--a feature of the new

health care law--and did not offer generous subsidies so

people could afford coverage.

With no ability to persuade the young and the healthy to

buy policies, the state's premiums have long been among the

highest in the nation. ``If there was any state that the

A.C.A. could bring rates down, it was New York,'' said

Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee

University who closely follows the federal law.

Mr. Jost and other policy experts say the new health

exchanges appear to be creating sufficient competition,

particularly in states that have embraced the exchanges and

are trying to create a marketplace that allows consumers to

shop easily.

``That's a very different dynamic for these companies, and

it's prodding them to be more aggressive and competitive in

their pricing,'' said Sabrina Corlette, a professor at

Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reform.

But some consumers may still find the prices and plans

disappointing. Jerry Ball, 46, who owns a recycling business

in Queens, said the cost of covering his family increased so

rapidly in the last few years that he had to scale back their

coverage. Still, he pays nearly $18,000 a year for a high-

deductible policy for a family of three.

He said he would be reluctant to part ways with his

insurer, Oxford, and was disappointed that even the least

expensive Oxford plan being offered next year would cost

about as much as he pays now.

With another plan, he said: ``Will I be able to maintain my

doctors? I'm concerned that some of the better doctors aren't

going to take health insurance.''

He acknowledged that the new law would allow him for the

first time to easily switch plans, but it is still hard for

him to believe it guarantees coverage for pre-existing

conditions. ``I have to be careful. I can't be denied

coverage, right?'' he asked.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield the gentleman another minute.

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

By happenstance, I have some figures here that will explain to my colleague and friend, Mr. Sessions, the chair of the Rules Committee, what will really happen in his district if he should have his way and this were to go away, and who is really going to be hurt and who really is going to be in jeopardy:

9,200 young adults right now are on their parents' health insurance in his district; more than 6,600 seniors receive prescription drug discounts worth $10.1 million, or an average discount of $700 a person; 66,000 seniors are now eligible for Medicare preventive services without paying copays, coinsurance, or a deductible; 182,000 individuals in his district, including 39,000 children and 74,000 women, now have health insurance that covers preventive services without copays, coinsurance or a deductible; 182,000 individuals are saving money due to the ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20 percent of their premiums on profits and administrative overhead.

Over 46,000 customers in his district received approximately $6.5 million in insurance company rebates. That's pretty impressive--$6.5 million. I wonder how many in my district. They will receive an average rebate of at least $95 a family.

Up to 42,000 children in his district with preexisting health conditions can no longer be denied coverage, and 237,000 individuals-- that's a lot of constituents--in his district now have insurance that cannot place a lifetime limit on their coverage and will not face an annual limit for what will be covered. Up to 152,000 individuals in his district who lack health insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage without fear of discrimination or

higher rates because of a preexisting condition. In addition, the 43,000 individuals who currently purchase private health insurance on the individual or small group market will have access to a more secure, higher quality coverage. And many will be eligible for financial assistance.

I think I've made the point that those are the people who are really going to be hurt, should he get his wishes today.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

If we defeat the previous question, we want to offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider the Invest in American Jobs Act of 2013. This bill would ensure, at last, that Federally funded transportation and infrastructure projects are constructed with steel, iron, and manufactured goods that are made in America.

To discuss this proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), who got great news this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, before I close, Dr. Burgess is a good doctor. I want to put in the same statistics that I read for Chairman Sessions for his district. Almost a third of his constituents would be involved, and I know he's going to want to read that in the Record.

But let me get to closing. As I have repeatedly said over the last 3 years, the majority is again wasting valuable time, millions of taxpayer dollars to vote today, for the 39th time, to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, they have not taken a single vote on jobs in this Congress, so we are going to be able to give you a chance to remedy that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can really begin to work on our infrastructure and get Americans back to work.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 26th Congressional

District of Texas

Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and

the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of

American families almost immediately after it was signed into

law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law

will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when

health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These

marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small

businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare

health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and

sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance

coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Burgess's

district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts

of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following

the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

9,500 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 4,900 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $7 million, an average

discount of $650 per person in 2011, $720 in 2012, and $850

thus far in 2013.

55,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

232,000 individuals in the district--including 66,000

children and 86,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

230,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 59,300 consumers

in the district received approximately $8.3 million in

insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate

of $95 per family in 2012 and $187 per family in 2011.

Up to 48,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

305,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

Up to 90,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition. In addition, the 44,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be

eligible for financial assistance.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a talented young musician from the 25th District of New York. Martine Thomas of Rochester was selected on March 4th to participate in the first National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America.

Ms. Thomas, a student at the Joseph C. Wilson Magnet High School, plays viola. She is also a member of the Rochester Philharmonic Youth Orchestra. In addition to her orchestral commitments Ms. Thomas is a member of the Garth Fagan Student Dance Company and enjoys hiking, swimming, and biking. Ms. Thomas hopes to pursue a career in viola performance.

She will join a group of 120 of the finest young musicians in this country aged 16-19, each of whom was selected from over 1,200 applicants from all 50 states. Organized by the famed Carnegie Hall in New York City, it is truly a significant accomplishment. As part of their experience, in July the group will travel to New York for two weeks of rehearsals at SUNY-Purchase, and then embark on an international tour that includes a debut performance at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, as well as performances in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and London. The last concert in London will be broadcast as part of the BBC Proms.

While there are many terrific local and regional youth orchestras (such as the Rochester Philharmonic Youth Orchestra) in this country and several successful national youth orchestras in other countries, the National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America is a unique and unparalleled opportunity for young, high school-aged musicians in the United States to be recognized as the pinnacle of our music training system. The success of Venezuela's El Sistema has generated increased international interest in the value of youth orchestras, and in my role as the Chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I am thrilled that Carnegie Hall has spearheaded this initiative to showcase America's finest young musicians and reinvigorate interest in youth musicianship at home and abroad.

I am proud of Ms. Thomas, and proud of the entire group of musicians selected to represent their hometowns and the United States as cultural ambassadors during their time with the National Youth Orchestra. I encourage all of my colleagues--many, many of whom also have constituents who were chosen--to join me in wishing these extraordinary young and talented individuals the best of luck on their tour. Many congratulations to Ms. Thomas and to Carnegie Hall in this endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I want everybody who may be watching this or in earshot to understand that when the House of Representatives cannot pass a farm bill, we have reached a new low. The reverence in which we hold our farmers is so strong that the farm bill could almost be a part of the Pledge of Allegiance. I want to point out to you that this is the second time that this House is going to likely not be able to pass a farm bill.

I know I don't have to point out to my constituents on both sides of the aisle that the SNAP program, the nutrition program, the school lunch program, the Meals on Wheels and what we do to feed people in this country is also a farm program because, believe it, people, that's where the food comes from. So when you take those programs away, you also hurt the farmers.

We had a pretty offensive attempt here about 3 weeks ago to defund the program. So I do not trust, I'm sorry to say, the majority with trying to do something about this bill. In fact, I'll make a prediction right now. If they decide to bring up the nutrition program as a freestanding bill or anything from the Agriculture Committee, there's not a chance anywhere--it's better stated that way--that that could possibly pass the House simply because we had a lot of explaining here this morning. We were told that the fact that the Republicans took the SNAP and the nutrition program out of it would not be construed by the American people as if they're opposed to feeding people, it's just that they thought it was a piece of extraneous matter that they could deal with maybe in this some other way.

What a tragedy that is for all of us to have to go back home and try to explain to the people that we represent that this House--the most dysfunctional House in history--spending $25 million a week to operate the House of Representatives, that our biggest trick here is to pass a bill here that we know from the outset will never see the light of day. Almost all of them have Statements of Administration Policy that no way in the world would the President ever sign any kind of a bill like that.

Enough already. Enough. We've disgraced ourselves before the country. We have disgraced ourselves in front of the world. Now, we are raising a generation of children right now who have not been adequately----

I will just end up this way: I've been here a while. I've never seen anything this dysfunctional. I really am embarrassed to say today that trying to feed people could be a reason why they would stop the farm bill--which, as I said, has been a bipartisan bill, has gone through like a hot knife through butter ever since we started doing farm bills in the United States. This is the lowest of the low. When we can't pass this, you know, ladies and gentlemen, they can't run the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the majority's proposal to slash funding for the Nation's lead poisoning prevention efforts.

At a time when we should be working to eradicate lead poisoning, the majority's Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations package cuts funding to the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control by over 60 percent. We need to be focusing more on our efforts of ensuring that children live, play and learn in healthy environments free from the lead hazard and not less.

The number of children in the United States who are suffering from lead poisoning remains unacceptably high. A recent report by the Centers for Disease Control found that 1 in every 38 children has dangerous blood levels. Those levels lead to cognitive and behavioral problems, a loss of IQ points, and a lifetime of adverse health effects. It is estimated that lead exposure costs the Nation more than $50 billion in lifetime productivity losses.

Over the past two decades, HUD's Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control has successfully treated 168,000 units for lead hazards and has improved the lead safety. This is no time to backtrack.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Polis amendment to H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, which reauthorizes the study of antibiotic resistant bacteria through 2018.

Since 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has funded important research on antibiotic resistant bacteria in agriculture and the development of strategies to mitigate them. For example, the Department has funded research into the development of vaccines and probiotics that reduce the need for antibiotics in agriculture, research tracking the transmission of dangerous and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in agriculture, and the development of strategies for mitigating antibiotic resistance in food-animal production systems.

This type of research is more important today than it has ever been before. Eighty percent of all antibiotics sold in the United States are used in agriculture. We are throwing away the greatest scientific advancement of the 20th century on healthy animals--and in the process creating a massive public health emergency. Science has clearly demonstrated that this type of overuse contributes to the rise of antibiotic resistant infections, which kill 70,000 Americans each year. We must fund research to identify ways antibiotic use on farms can be eliminated to ensure that our Nation's food supply is safe. The type of research authorized under this grants does just that.

When we go to the grocery store to pick up dinner, we should be able to buy our food without the worry that eating it will expose our family to potentially deadly bacteria that will no longer respond to our medical treatments. Unless we act now to develop better surveillance and strategies to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture, we will unwittingly be permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant bacteria and do irreparable damage to our ability to fight disease and protect the health of our fellow Americans.

It is time for Congress to stand with scientists and do something to stop the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Protecting the public's health is one of the greatest responsibilities of this body. I urge my colleagues to stand with me to support the Slaughter/Polis amendment reauthorizing research into antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, for 40 years I've been marching for this women's choice bill, but we seem never to finish with it. It's something that people like to drag up and bring out.

In that regard, I want to ask the women of America to think of two things. First, I want you to remember the panel that Chairman Issa put together last year to discuss contraception and whether or not women should have access to it. If you recall, that panel was made up entirely of men. There was a young woman, a graduate of law school, who wanted to speak that day; but she was found to be unworthy, unable to speak. Indeed, her virtue, her character, everything else about her was assailed because she had tried to do what many of us know we can do here, and that is speak.

Think about another thing now. Think about the Judiciary Committee; 22--now 23--all white guys turning down every amendment to try to preserve women's health, to try to preserve women's psyche, and do anything in the world to do this--and to try to discuss that this bill, as my colleague vainly tried to do, that this is unconstitutional. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows the Senate's not going to take this up. This is purely window dressing.

And as I do here often, I want to remind everybody that it costs $24 million a week to run the House of Representatives. We've spent over $54 billion almost already now just trying to repeal the health care bill.

When in the world are we going to get to work? 2\1/2\ weeks from now, the interest rate on college loans will double. Are we doing anything about that? Not a thing on Earth. Do we care about the people who are out of work? Do we care about the people who are facing loss of their food stamps? No. We care more about war on women. Women of America, keep those two panels before your mind forever. Those are the deciders--the men on Issa's panel, the men on the Judiciary Committee.

Now, in State Houses all over this country, and in Governors' mansions and Halls of Congress, the majority's antichoice agenda is driven by men in blue suits and red ties who seem to believe that once they get elected to something, they have a right to play doctor. I would like to think about what they have done over the last years to remind my fellow American women.

Already, because of the majority's efforts, women in eight States are required to undergo an ultrasound before they can exercise their constitutionally protected right to a safe and legal abortion--an ultrasound that is not medically necessary, an ultrasound that is medically contradicted, and an ultrasound for which they are required themselves to pay. As we speak, the legislators in the State of Wisconsin have passed a similar measure through the State House and are awaiting the enactment into law.

Most telling is right now more States have a waiting period for abortions

than a waiting period to buy a gun. Let me say that again. More States have a waiting period for abortions--a constitutionally protected procedure--than have a waiting period to buy a gun.

Now, here in Congress, the majority conducted a hearing at the Oversight and Government Reform Committee last year that I have already spoken of. There were five men and zero women. As you know, they talked about Sandra Fluke and all the vituperation and hatred that was poured down on her because she wanted to speak.

But just last week--I think this past week--the majority took it a whole lot further. For the first time, during the committee, after it was all passed and gone, before it goes to the Rules Committee, the sponsor of this bill made one of those comments like Todd Akin had made. And I think if you scratch an awful lot of guys on that committee, they all feel the same way because it keeps coming up over and over. You can't get pregnant, they say, if you're raped. They believe that in the bottom of their heart, and some of them were doctors. But during the committee amendments to include the exceptions for the health of the mother and victims of rape and incest, they were rejected along party lines.

Mr. Franks has been taken off the bill, and for the first time, in my recollection, unanimous consent has to be given here to ask a woman-- they have found a Republican woman who would take this bill--off a completely other committee and allow her to manage the bill. If that is not a first, I don't know what is. And if that is not PR, I don't know what is. And if that is not simply trying to fool you, I don't know what else that is.

As Mr. Franks' remark and the extreme nature of his bill became clear, they realized they were about to anger the American women even more than they had last fall, and you know how that turned out at the election. Instead of abandoning the legislation and respecting a woman's right to choose, they decided to try to make changes to the underlying bill, after it had already passed through committee, and assign a woman outside the committee to manage a bill on the floor.

Such a cowardly move is an insult to the intelligence of women in America. You are supposed to believe this was all done well and properly. No amount of window dressing is going to change the fact that you are severely trying to restrict a woman's right to choose with today's bill. I don't think anybody makes any bones about that.

The majority has argued the legislation is in response to new science, even though if there has ever been a House of Representatives that cared not a whit for science, I can't imagine they would come even close to this one. When a fetus feels pain is the new idea. As my colleague, Mr. Nadler, has previously made clear, their so-called ``new findings'' are nothing more than the marginal views that fly in the face of established science. In fact, one of the experts upon which the majority relies has testified that science for and against fetal pain is most uncertain.

The fact of the matter is that today's legislation is unconstitutional and contains a narrow and adequate exception for the life of a woman and a victim of rape and incest. No man on any of those committees, no man on any of those panels, is ever going to have to face that problem himself of rape and incest. How strange it is that they know the precise answer for people who are victimized by it.

Many serious health conditions actually materialize or worsen after the 20-week mark in a pregnancy and can seriously compromise the health of the mother. A physician has to be able to provide the best care for their patients; and in cases where a woman's health is exacerbated by pregnancy, politicians have no right in intruding in the doctor-patient relationship and criminalizing those trying to protect their patients' lives and safety.

Furthermore, the majority's requirement that a victim of rape or incest report the crime to authorities before receiving an abortion effectively prevents many victims from exercising the right to choose. More than half of all rape victims, as we know, don't report, and that is a sad thing.

The requirement in today's bill ensures that a woman who has been a victim of rape or incest faces massive barriers to exercising her right to safe and legal reproductive health care. Mr. Speaker, from requiring women to undergo mandatory ultrasounds to applying police reporting requirements for victims of rape, the majority has made it very clear that they don't trust women. In fact, it came up at the Judiciary Committee that one of the reasons they needed to report it to police is because women would lie. I think they make an exception in that case for their sisters, their daughters, their mothers, perhaps. It is just the rest of us who can't be trusted.

Try as he might, no man will ever understand the choice that faces a young woman who is told that she suffers from severe valvular heart disease and that, if she carries a child to term, her life and the life of that child are at risk, or the choice of a woman who is violently raped and would be reminded of the crime against her every moment of every day if she is forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

I urge my colleagues to respect the established science on this issue and the constitutional right of every American woman. Reject today's rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has other requests for time.

Well, that sort of leaves me uninformed. But I want to introduce the previous question before I do my closing. And I'm hoping you are prepared to close. Is that correct?

No, I'll reserve the balance of my time.

That was the question I had asked you. I am prepared to. Mr. Connolly is my last speaker.

Not until I find out if we're prepared to close.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Congress should not be standing around while this is going on. Congress should also not be standing around

while college loan rates are doubling and we have so many people out of work.

I'm delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney.

Madam Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act. If Congress doesn't act next month, the undergraduate students across this country will see a doubling of their student loan interest rates.

To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Speaker, on July 1, young women in college face a doubling of Federal student loan interest rates; but instead of legislating the rights of our daughters and granddaughters to access safe and legal reproductive care, we should be ensuring that the cost of college doesn't skyrocket at the end of the month.

When it comes to the most personal and important decisions a woman will ever make, we deserve the privacy and freedom to make the decision that's right for us. No matter how many women the majority trots out to advance their agenda, their attempt to take away our reproductive rights will not stand.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 214, 215, and 216. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote number 214 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote numbers 215 and 216.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the bicentennial celebration for the Western New York town of Gates, New York, which is appropriately known as ``a community for all people.''

Incorporated on April 1, 1813, the Town of Gates, New York was named in honor of American Revolutionary General Horatio Gates. The Town was one of the very first in Monroe County, New York, when in the year 1821 the New York State Legislature approved creating a new county named after the 5th President of the United States.

Today the Town of Gates, New York is comprised of over 28,400 residents and remains the geographic center of Monroe County. It is also the proud home and nationwide headquarters of Wegmans' Food Markets. As well, the Town hosts the Greater Rochester International Airport, Rochester Tech Park and other essential businesses which positively impact the economic vitality of Monroe County, the Greater Rochester area and the State of New York.

A most notable former resident of the Town of Gates is the revered leader of the American Women's Suffragist movement, the incomparable Miss Susan B. Anthony. History records that in the year 1845, she and her family first resided in the Town of Gates upon their arrival in the Rochester area and that their Gates farmhouse actually became a meeting place for anti-slavery activists, including Frederick Douglass.

Among notable living Americans who were born, raised and educated in Gates, New York is famed rock vocalist and songwriter, Lou Gramm, who is recognized around the world for his monumental contributions to the American and global music industries.

Today it is my esteemed honor and great privilege to recognize in front of this august body, the Town of Gates, New York and its government and residents, as we joyfully commemorate the 200th anniversary of its establishment.

It is from small towns like Gates where the American Dream was defined. Whether it is a parade through the town square on Memorial Day, the crack of the bat at local ball fields, or the crackle and boom of fireworks on the Fourth of July, towns like Gates imbue our nation with the richness of American life that we hold dear.

So I rise today to commemorate all that Gates, New York has contributed to American life, to congratulate the people of Gates on achieving such a milestone, and to wish this special New York town the fortune and providence to celebrate 200 years more.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 186 and 187. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote Nos. 186 and 187.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, just today, The New York Times reported that we are simultaneously facing a shortage of effective antibiotics and the growing threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Already antibiotic- resistant disease claims 70,000 American lives each year.

According to today's story, Dr. Janet Woodcock, the director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, has warned ``it is bad now, and the infectious disease docs are frantic, but what is worse is the thought of where we will be 5 to 10 years from now.''

They are even desperate enough to ask GlaxoKleinSmith, which is working on some new antibiotics, to allow the use of them untested--the FDA is considering this--and to try, in perhaps what will turn out to be a vain attempt, to save people who are dying from infections that we can no longer cure. GlaxoKleinSmith has said the new antibiotics they are working on they will not license for livestock feed.

Eighty percent of the antibiotics produced in the United States of America is put every day in livestock feed. The major reason for the increase in the antibiotic-resistant bacteria is the routine overuse of antibiotics in the Nation's livestock. These are not sick livestock, Mr. Speaker. This is simply put in the feed because they grow faster and they are fatter and they can get to market a little quicker. This irresponsible practice has already been scientifically linked to the growth of superbugs.

It's clear--and it has been clear for quite a while--that the Federal Government must act to end this dangerous practice. Yet, incomprehensibly, for more than 35 years the United States Food and Drug Administration has refused to follow its own advice and ban the routine use of antibiotics in agriculture, not just use it for sick animals. Instead, they have proposed voluntary guidance that naively asks industry to put public welfare before private profits--something the industry has repeatedly shown in 35 years they will not do.

As if such dereliction of duty were not enough, the FDA is now panicked about the superbug threat that they helped to create; but instead of finally removing routine antibiotic use from livestock production, the FDA is thinking of waiving important drug-testing procedures, as I said, in order to rush new drugs to market. The testing procedures that are currently in place are in place for a reason. Waiving these requirements sets a dangerous precedent and is one that is only being considered because the FDA is panicked and has refused to challenge the special interests that have helped to create this superbug threat in the first place.

As the only legislator in Congress with a background in microbiology, I can assure you we will never win the arms race against nature. As long as we allow the irresponsible use of antibiotics in our society, nature will always evolve to create stronger bacteria. As I said, with 80 percent of all of the antibiotics going to agricultural use, our answer has to start on the farm. We have to end the unnecessary use of antibiotics on healthy animals before it's too late. Indeed, it may almost be too late.

At the very least today, the ADUFA legislation should include language to collect important data on antibiotics. That provision would at least allow us to finally learn the full scope of the problem that we confront. Even more importantly, I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, H.R. 1150, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which would ban the routine use of eight important classes of antibiotics in livestock, but still allow a sick animal to be treated, and would help curb the growing threat of superbugs.

We are literally standing today on the brink of a public health crisis as the food industrial complex fritters away one of the most important advances in medical history--the beginning of the use of antibiotics to cure human beings. Already, some strains of tuberculosis have evolved that are incurable, and others are coming. Some experts have said that if we don't do something soon--and it may already be too late--that strep throat could become a fatal illness. That's what they're worried about, what could happen here in 5 years.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation today and to please join me in the fight to protect the antibiotics for human health. It is so important. I cannot vote for this bill, although I recognize that some work has gone into it. I have spent years on this, and the years are running out, and the time is short.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On July 1, interest rates on federally subsidized Stafford student loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. At a time, as everybody said this morning, when job prospects for students remain few and far between, we must not--or should not--let student loan interest rates rise.

That is why it's so disappointing that instead of helping the college students, the majority is doing ``go-nowhere'' legislation--because the Senate will not take this up--that would actually increase loan costs for the Nation's students.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, a student who borrows the maximum subsidized Stafford loans for each of the next 4 years would actually pay $1,056 more under the majority's plan than they would if Congress failed to act and interest rates doubled. That's a rather sobering idea.

This is just the latest example of putting politics and special interests ahead of the American people. As we speak, the majority is preventing a budget from being finalized even though they have been calling for a budget for years.

Currently, both the House and the Senate have passed the budget resolutions, which means the only step left--and everybody who knows how a bill is passed knows this--the only step left is to organize a conference committee to finalize the conference report; yet the majority of the House refuses to appoint conferees and begin the conference process.

Now, why is the majority suddenly abandoning their quest to produce a budget? Is it because their desire for a budget is nothing more than to make political points?

It is clear the majority is consistently choosing to put political interests before the welfare of the Nation, even if it means that the American people will and are suffering. This obstructionism must come to an end.

I urge my colleagues, once again, to reject today's rule and the underlying legislation that will never go past the House so that we can get busy solving the American student loan debt crisis in a bipartisan way. Let's protect our Nation's students from a doubling of student loan interest rates and work together to craft a solution that will end the growing mountain of student debt and ensure college is more affordable for our Nation's students. Our Nation's future depends on it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend's comments mean that the Republicans are ready to appoint conferees.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on the Veterans Backlog Reduction Act. To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, if my colleague has no further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish we were debating legislation that I thought might actually have a possibility of becoming law, but we are not.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and to think about Memorial Day and our proposal to take care of the veterans' backlog. I hope that we are successful in getting that done.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

With today's legislation, the majority is putting the interests of Wall Street, once again, before the welfare of the American people. Unfortunately, the majority's desire to give a helping hand to Wall Street is nothing new. In addition to today's legislation, the majority has repeatedly provided favors to a shadowy arm of Wall Street known as the political intelligence industry.

Over the last few weeks, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal have all reported on a suspicious surge in stock prices caused by operatives in the political intelligence industry. On April 1, a political intelligence consultant sent an email to selected investors announcing a pending change in government policy that would benefit health insurance companies.

Shortly after that email was sent--actually 18 minutes before the stock market closed that day--stocks in three major health insurance companies skyrocketed by--hold the phone--$660 million. In 18 minutes before the close of trading that day, three health industries got investments of $660 million; and that occurred 30 minutes before the government announced its decision.

Now, earlier this week, we learned that the political intelligence consultant sent a subsequent email boasting to his lobbyist friend: ``Did you see what I did to the stock market in the final 30 minutes of trading? I still want to buy you a drink.''

Now, this is exactly the kind of questionable case that I have been fighting for 7 years, and we finally got the STOCK Act; but my point this morning is that the SEC has launched an investigation into this matter. There would be no cost-benefit whatever to having the SEC stop looking into this bill and what happened to the stock markets that day because of political intelligence so they can look back over ancient laws. There would be no cost-benefit having the SEC so tied up with that that they cannot regulate that which they are supposed to regulate had they done a better job. The recent financial disaster that cost us an awful lot and would have been a great benefit to stop was not caught in time.

The political intelligence industry walks the Halls of Congress every day looking to privately profit from the public trust. However, unlike lobbyists, there are no regulations to ensure they adhere to any ethical standard of behavior.

Months before I introduced the STOCK Act in 2006 there were suspicious Wall Street trades occurring immediately prior to the Senate Majority Leader announcing an important vote on asbestos liability legislation. It soon became apparent that nonpublic information regarding the legislation had been used to enrich stockholders, and the political intelligence industry was at the heart of the case.

We had a lonely battle, those of us--there were seven of us for three terms that cosponsored the bill. But in 2011, a television program called ``60 Minutes'' did an expose on insider trading by Congress. And overnight, just about--well, maybe by the end of the week, I'd say--we had 286 cosponsors in the House, including 99 Republican cosponsors.

As the bill gained popularity, I was promised a markup in the Financial

Services Committee, but it was canceled, pulled out from under the chair. In the Senate, Senator Grassley joined our cause. And when Senator Lieberman took it out of the Senate bill, Senator Grassley had an amendment that passed the Senate, putting political intelligence back into the STOCK Act. However, it still had to come back to the House. And miraculously, political intelligence was removed once more to benefit Wall Street. It was put on the suspension calendar, completely unamendable. I could do nothing about it. It is very painful for me. At least I've been paying attention here to what I have seen happening since. So I promise you that we will come back again with it, but as I said, I'm pleased that the SEC is investigating this most recent case.

Two days ago, I tried to do an amendment on this particular bill to see if we could bring political intelligence back. It would have helped the SEC build the insider trading investigations, but the majority in the Rules Committee rejected my amendment and we go on today, as usual, without it.

We also go on today with a bill that's never going to go to the Senate. As I pointed out yesterday on our 38th try to repeal the health care bill, that cost us $54 million on that particular bill alone, and every time that we have tried to repeal it--$54 million has been spent to try to repeal Medicare.

CBS has said it costs about $25 million to run the House. I really would like to find out how much House time we've paid and how many millions of dollars we've spent since this term started with bills like this, one House bill--one House bill that we know the Senate will never take up, will never become law. And if by some fluke they should, the President tells us that he will veto it--over and over and over again.

I could be mistaken with one or two things, but to the best of my recollection the only thing we've done here this term that got some action in both Houses was when we changed the FAA policy under sequestration. And I join my friend, Mr. McGovern, to say what we should have done is do away with sequestration. Maybe the freshmen who wanted to vote again to repeal the health care bill might have gotten some joy out of lifting sequestration and letting cancer patients again get their treatment and children go to Head Start. I'd like to try to do it that way. Talk about cost benefit--that's a benefit. If we really want to worry about how much it cost and what we get from it, nothing could prove that better than to lift sequestration.