Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2013. We are on the verge of losing one of the greatest medical advancements in history, the development of antibiotics, by wasting them on healthy animals.

Antibiotic resistance is a major public health crisis. Every year, two million Americans acquire bacterial infections during a stay in a hospital or long-term care facility. In the past, these infections were easily cleared with antibiotics. Now, as many as 100,000 people will die each year from these infections because 70 percent of them are resistant to one or more of the drugs commonly used to treat them. Alarmingly, multidrug-resistant bacteria, called CRE, have recently been found in 1 in 20 American hospitals and 1 in 6 long-term care facilities. These ``nightmare bacteria,'' so termed by Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Thomas Frieden, are resistant to all antibiotics, including our antibiotics of last resort. A full 50 percent of patients who get sick with these infections will die.

As Dr. Frieden recently warned, ``we have a limited window of opportunity'' to fix this problem. In many cases, even ``our strongest antibiotics don't work and patients are left with potentially untreatable infections.'' We must act now to ensure that antibiotics are not being made obsolete.

Yet, in a time when our most important medicines should be preserved and protected, they are routinely used in massive and indiscriminant quantities in agriculture, with little oversight. These precious resources are used at sub-therapeutic levels on healthy animals as a way to compensate for crowded and unsanitary living conditions or to promote growth. According to an analysis by the Food and Drug Administration, 13.5 million kilograms of antibiotics were sold for use in livestock and poultry in 2010, compared to 3.3 million kilograms sold for use in humans. It is unacceptable that 80 percent of the antibiotics sold in this country are used in agriculture on otherwise healthy animals, rather than being preserved for the treatment of critical human illnesses.

The overuse of antibiotics in agriculture has been conclusively shown to harm human health. A 2002 publication in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal analyzing more than 500 scientific articles concluded that ``many lines of evidence link antimicrobial resistant human infections to food-borne pathogens of animal origin.'' In fact, the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged the threat of antibiotic resistant disease and called for a reduction in the use of antibiotics in agriculture, in 1977. Yet, despite nearly 40 years of evidence, there has still not been any substantive action to halt the abuse of antibiotics.

For this reason, I am again introducing the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. This legislation would phase out the use of the eight classes of medically important antibiotics that are currently approved for non-therapeutic use in animal agriculture. The bill clearly defines the term ``non-therapeutic use'' to ensure that sick animals may be appropriately treated, but that any use of medically important antibiotics outside of treatment of a sick animal is not permitted.

Penicillins are commonly used to treat illnesses from routine cases of strep throat to highly dangerous and infectious meningitis. Tetracyclines are used to treat people exposed to anthrax. Macrolides and sulfonamides are used to treat pneumonia in HIV-infected patients. We must maintain these weapons in our arsenal against illness, or we will soon find ourselves in circumstances such as those described when World Health Organization Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan warned that ``Things as common as strep throat or a child's scratched knee could once again kill.''

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, we will unwittingly be permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant bacteria.

It is time for Congress to stand with scientists, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences to 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 Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the retirement of Mr. S. Gerald Davidson. Mr. Davidson is an accomplished attorney who has dedicated his life to helping his community of Rochester, New York, and making our country a better place to live.

Mr. Davidson was first drawn to our area while attending the University of Rochester, graduating in 1952. After earning his law degree at Cornell, Mr. Davidson moved back to Rochester where he opened his own firm, Davidson Fink LLP in 1968, and focused on practicing matrimonial and family law. Since its inception, Davidson Fink has dedicated itself to tailoring to each client's individual needs, expectations and time constraints. Under Mr. Davidson's tutelage, the firm has become one of the fastest growing business operations over the last four years while attracting some of the best attorneys to Upstate New York.

With 44 years of expertise, Mr. Davidson is very generous in sharing his knowledge through lectures at the Monroe County Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association. By setting this precedent, employees at Davidson Fink LLP are also expected to share their experiences throughout the legal community through publishing, forums, and seminars to meet the challenges of an ever-changing profession.

In addition to fully immersing himself in the legal community through the Collaborative Law Association of the Rochester Area, Inc., and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, having previously served as the chairman of the Family Law section in New York State Chapter Board of Managers, Mr. Davidson has dedicated himself to upholding the highest level of professionalism. Mr. Davidson clearly enjoys remaining a student of a field he loves where families themselves have grown more diverse.

With all of these remarkable accomplishments, perhaps the most illustrative of Mr. Davidson's commitment to his profession is the prestigious honor of consistently being named one of the Best Lawyers in America, beginning with their initial rankings in the 1980s. For families facing monumental changes in their future, this experience can be overwhelming, stressful, and confusing. Even if the make-up of these clients' families may be altered, what remains the same is Mr. Davidson's unparalleled abilities to navigate these complex relationships.

His dedication towards others also extends to our community. Mr. Davidson has served on the Board of Directors for the Jewish Home of Rochester and was a member of the Town of Brighton's Board of Appeals for over a decade. Davidson Fink LLP has continued to follow in his footsteps as a staunch supporter of community outreach by participating in events hosted by the Ronald McDonald House, Habitat for Humanity, and the Ibero-American Action League and advocating for others through pro bono work. Mr. Davidson's actions have had long lasting impacts on our community, and we are so fortunate that he has chosen to call Rochester his home.

In tribute to a lifetime of service to community and country, I stand to acknowledge Mr. Davidson. There is no better way to commemorate his retirement than to honor a man who has committed himself to families and upholding the law to the best of his abilities. I am proud to honor one of the finest residents of New York's 25th Congressional District, the incomparable Mr. S. Gerald Davidson.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act. This legislation significantly strengthens the ability of federal regulators to make rapid, science-based decisions on whether non-native fish or wildlife species pose a risk to ecosystems within the United States and cause economic damage or threaten public health.

Invasive species are a persistent and costly thorn in the side of the American taxpayer. In Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, the federal budget allocated approximately $120 million to control the Asian carp. Meanwhile the U.S. is spending tens of millions more dollars to control other invaders, such as wetland-destroying nutria and two python species established in south Florida.

Yet, federal regulators are frequently slow to respond to emerging threats. Invasive species are currently regulated by the Lacey Act, a 112-year-old law that gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) only limited power to declare non-native animals as ``injurious'' and prohibit their importation and interstate sales. In fact, it takes the FWS an average of four years to officially list a species as injurious and take appropriate action. Experts and interested parties repeatedly describe this regulatory approach as reactive and ineffective.

Alternatively, the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act would give the FWS streamlined authority to prevent invasions using modern scientific approaches. The bill also creates a category of ``Injurious II'' species, which are not suited as private pets or aquarium species, but can be held safely by qualified zoos, aquaria, research facilities and other institutions without any need for a Federal permit. This exemption is broader than current law, which requires a Federal permit for transactions in all listed species, a requirement that is becoming unworkable as more animals are listed.

We must take critical steps now to prevent the next Asian carp, Burmese python, or red lionfish crisis. These destructive invaders will continue to come into our country via globalized trade until Congress steps in to make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, good afternoon.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I joined my former colleague, Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado, to write the original Violence Against Women Act, it didn't occur to us to exclude or discriminate against anyone. And in the multiple times the law has been reauthorized, we, as a legislature, have always tried to ensure that all victims of domestic violence receive the protections under the law.

As my colleague pointed out, up till now they have. Unfortunately, the latest attempt to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act has been different. This time, the majority has alternately tried to pass extreme legislation that would weaken current law and rejected calls to pass bipartisan legislation that would strengthen the current law.

On February 12, with 23 Republican Senators voting in favor, including every Republican woman in the Senate, they approved a reauthorization that is both comprehensive and inclusive in nature. Unfortunately, instead of allowing a clean, up-or-down vote on this bipartisan bill, the majority leadership proposed a substitute amendment that removes key provisions from that bill.

For example, the leadership's amendment fails to explicitly protect LGBT victims, and limits protections for immigrants. At the same time, the amendment fails to close the legal loopholes that leave Native American victims of domestic violence with nowhere to turn.

Additionally, despite the high rate of dating violence and sexual assault on college campuses, the amendment entirely omits protections for young women who are victimized in college. And that's why the majority's amendment is opposed by groups including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, the National Congress of American Indians, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, among many others.

It's dismaying that some in the majority want to weaken a strong bipartisan Senate bill, and it's vital that this Chamber reject their alternative partisan amendment.

With the votes we are about to take, we will be asked to choose between an amendment that fails to protect some victims of domestic violence, and the bipartisan Senate bill protecting all victims. The choice is so clear.

We'll be asked to choose between an amendment opposed by victims and victims' rights advocates and a bipartisan bill. And when looking at those options that are before us, it is clear what we must do. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the substitute amendment tomorrow to the Senate bill, so the original Senate legislation will receive a vote in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment and talk about the incredible impact the Violence Against Women bill has had since it was enacted. Thanks to that Act, instances of domestic violence have fallen by 67 percent, and over 1 million people have obtained protective orders against their batterers.

Before the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, police officers were not trained to separate a victim and abuser when they responded to a domestic violence call. Thanks to the law, the police officers are now trained to do just that, a most important change that stopped violence from resuming the moment the police left and the front door closed.

But perhaps the greatest victory of the Violence Against Women Act is that the law finally brought millions of victims out of the shadows and gave them a place to stand.

In 1994, domestic violence in our country was not even discussed, and its scars were never acknowledged. And as a result, the victims often became abusers in a cycle of violence that simply wouldn't end. We wrote the law to stop that cycle of violence, and we think we have achieved much of that. For 18 years, this law gave victims a choice and made incredible progress in ending the cycle of violence.

Every time we've renewed the law, our goal has been the same: to ensure that all victims of domestic violence, no matter their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their age or their gender, are acknowledged and helped and protected by the law.

It has been now more than 500 days since the Violence Against Women Act expired. Today is the day that ends, and we act in the name of justice. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the exclusionary substitute amendment tomorrow so we can vote ``yes'' and get this bill to the President right away.

Now, in addition, I want to mention on the previous question, today we're going to have an opportunity to stop the sequester, which is scheduled, as you know, to take effect in just 2 days.

We all know all the harms. We know very well what the sequester is going to do to the economy and to the workforce in the United States. And most importantly, we know that we cannot afford such a slowdown.

Now, today we're going to give Members of the House an opportunity to vote on a sequester solution. If we defeat the previous question--and please pay attention: If you want to go on record against having the sequester go into effect, we are giving you an opportunity to do that.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, you will allow the House to vote on a measure that Mr. Van Hollen, ranking member of the Budget Committee, has come to the Rules Committee three times with to try to achieve the end of saving us from ourselves. Mr. Van Hollen's legislation would reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible way but stop the devastating sequestration cuts.

Today is the last chance for the House of Representatives to stop the sequester. Despite what some have said, this Chamber has not passed a solution to the sequester during this Congress. It is vital that the inaction of the majority come to an end. We must take a step to stop the sequester today.

So let me urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question if you wish to be on record saying you do not support the sequester, you do not want to see this damage done to the economy and to the United States and, incidentally, to our reputation in the country and in the rest of the world. Doing so will allow Mr. Van Hollen's legislation to have the serious debate and vote that it deserves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) to discuss the previous question. Mr. Van Hollen is the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Budget.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Mr. Van Hollen for clarification, and following that I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

May I inquire of my colleague if he has any more requests for time?

If not, then I'm prepared to close.

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

This has been a wonderful day for us in some way because we are finally debating the Violence Against Women Act, with a great possibility of passing the Senate bill, which will protect all women in the United States and not just some. It's terribly important that we do that. And I think we may have caused some confusion there as we talk about violence against women, and we're also talking about the previous question which deals purely with sequestration. I would like to close speaking about that.

I think everyone understands the importance that we attach to the Violence Against Women Act, but we are also very much concerned about sequestration. The reason we have brought it up on a previous question on the Violence Against Women Act is we've had absolutely no other opportunity to bring it up.

The American public has been told over and over again that twice this House has passed legislation dealing with sequestration. All of us know--I'm not sure the public knows, but let me make it clear--that anything done before December 31 of last year is no longer valid.

Nothing has been done this term to stop the sequestration. The only effort that has been made to do so has been done by Mr. Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He has a very moderate request, one that does not do great harm either to the employment situation in the country or to the output of GDP, and what he said was terribly important.

What we are about to embark on here is totally unknown. We know that it's bad. I think everybody has understood that it's bad. Why we would continue to do it is beyond my imagination. But let me make it absolutely clear here: no opportunity has been given to our side of the House to even attempt to deal with sequestration. This is it.

For any Member of the House of Representatives who would like to go on record saying that they don't want sequestration to take place on March 1, this is your only opportunity. So we are asking that you will vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can at least go on record in this House and we can do our very best to stop what, by all accounts and by what all important economists say, will be an unmitigated disaster.

If we defeat the previous question, we will offer the amendment, which will allow the House to vote on replacing the entire sequester for 2013 with savings from specific policies that reflect a balanced approach to reducing our national deficit. It is a balanced approach, Mr. Speaker, not a meat-ax across the board.

We have to act now if we're going to avert this crisis. I can't reiterate enough that this is our only chance. If we're going to avoid the unnecessary cuts to essential programs, the time is now.

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 strongly urge all of my colleagues in this House, because none of us want to face that abyss, to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker and everyone who is listening, you know by now and what you've heard by now is they want sequestration. The local papers and the ones that we've printed on Capitol Hill today all say they want sequestration. The excuse they're giving is they're going to wait and see what the Senate will do, that we're not going to take any action here, that we're just going to be bystanders until we find out they want sequestration.

Over 700,000 workers are going to lose their jobs. A lot of economists tell us that this could be worse than the Great Depression, but they're willing to do it. They're willing to do it because they want to fight this President. I think that means a whole lot more to them than doing their job here as elected Members of Congress. As we've heard before, we only have 6 legislative days left. When we come back from a week's vacation, we will have these cuts that will have this devastating impact on our economy and on the well-being of every American citizen.

I urge the CEOs of America who are very worried, and they've said so for months and months, that they're concerned desperately about the prospect of sequestration, to talk to their Members here and get them to change their mind, if they can.

This is really dire. We're not kidding around here. This is serious business. We are literally facing a fiscal cliff. But the solution we've made to this, as you all know, a manmade crisis here, they take a swing at their favorite punching bag and hold hostage again the people who make their living serving all of us.

Last night was the first time I really heard that what we're doing, we're not going to save anything. Now, bear in mind that the Federal employees have already given in salary give-backs over $100 billion over the next 10 years. That should be enough sacrifice from them, but no, we're going to go for more. But we're not going to use it to reduce the deficit, it is going to be made available to agencies.

Well, there's a lot of ``Alice in Wonderland'' sort of sense in Congress these days. Alice, one of the things that I liked about her the most, and she's a very strange little girl, but she said that she practiced as hard as she could to try to believe six impossible things before breakfast. And I'm trying to put this in that same category, and it simply is impossible for me to believe that we gain anything in the world by taking away the salary and income of hardworking government employees to put back in Federal agencies. Frankly, if any of you can really understand that, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

We had a chance--in the last 2 weeks, we've had two chances--to do away with the sequester in a commonsense way and also to cut the deficit with a sensible solution. Mr. Van Hollen, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee and deserves our respect, was not allowed to do anything.

As you pointed out, and I also heard Mr. McGovern say so, the Rules Committee now runs the House. There's no committee action on any of these bills. No chance for Republicans and Democrats in the committee setup, which the Founding Fathers did, and which we followed for generations and hundreds of years here, no possibility for them to discuss it. It simply is brought to Rules.

Now, Mr. Van Hollen, his sensible solution here, which really does make sense, was simply not allowed to be put on the floor so that we could discuss it and give people a vote. A bipartisan group of the Members of the House don't want this bill passed. I'm going to put a letter in from one of the most thoughtful Members and a friend, Representative Wolf from Virginia, about what he thinks this is about. He calls this a cheap political trick, and I think that pretty well sums it up.

Now, already cuts totaling $1.5 trillion have been made to discretionary spending. And as a result, because of the layoff of employees, our economy experienced an unexpected economic contraction in the final quarter of 2012, which we should pay heed to.

Sequestration would compound our economic troubles even further. George Mason University says sequestration would cause 2.14 million American employees to lose their jobs. Meanwhile, important Federal programs would be crippled because of irresponsible cuts. I need to mention a few of them again.

FAA, which makes flying safer, they would experience a great cutback. The people who guard the border, who do drug interdiction, who keep our border safe and strong, they would have a severe cutback. Sequestration would mean that vital research would be slowed. And as a scientist, let me assure you that research cannot be turned off and on like a faucet. It is necessary for us to maintain that research with dollars because, as it's been pointed out before, we want to keep our population healthy.

How important that is for us, not only for our economic well-being, but for the well-being of our citizens.

This is a foolish thing that we're doing here today, and I can't imagine anybody in the Senate would even contemplate bringing it up. So all of this is simply a waste of time, as we do here so many times.

I urge my colleagues on both sides, vote ``no'' and please give us a chance to let Mr. Van Hollen bring his bill to the floor--or some bill from the Republican side. I don't care where it comes from. We have to stop sequestration.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC.

Vote No on H.R. 273

Dear Republican Colleague: Next week, the House is

scheduled to consider H.R. 273. I urge you to vote no on this

legislation.

Let's be honest: this bill is nothing more than a political

stunt that targets the hardworking, dedicated men and women

of the civil service, who have already had their salaries

frozen for more than two years. Everyone knows they are an

easy target. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we can

balance the budget on the backs of federal employees. It's a

drop in the bucket towards deficit reduction and a hollow

gesture absent meaningful mandatory spending reforms. Worse,

this is just busywork as our economy faces the sequestration

meat ax.

I believe that the federal government must be able to

recruit and retain qualified individuals in order to deliver

government services in an efficient manner. And about half of

all federal employees make less than $60,000 a year. These

are individuals who haven't had a pay raise in more than two

years. And now we're talking about freezing their pay for a

full third year. The president's proposed .5 percent

adjustment is cheap grace ($225, since a quarter of it has

already been frozen) and won't bring civil service pay close

to the private sector, but it will at least attempt to tell

these employees that they are valued.

And just who are these federal employees? They are the

people you call when you need help, and 85 percent of them

live outside of the Washington, D.C. metro area.

They are the CIA agents who planned the raid to kill Osama

bin Laden. They work side-by-side with our military. Those

agents depicted in Zero Dark Thirty? They haven't had a pay

raise in more than two years.

They are the FBI agents you call when your child has been

kidnapped. Those agents who rescued the 5-year-old kidnapped

and held hostage in a bunker in Alabama? They haven't had a

pay raise in over two years.

They are the Customs and Border Patrol and DEA Agents who

are working to stop illegal immigrants and human traffickers

and drug runners. The border patrol agents who worked side-

by-side with slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry haven't

had a pay raise in over two years.

They are the nurses and doctors at the VA who care for our

veterans and wounded warriors--they haven't had a pay raise

in more than two years. I know I'm not alone in wanting the

best doctors and nurses to care for our veterans.

They are the foreign service officers who represent our

government at embassies in Libya, Israel, Russia and beyond.

The FSO's who worked side-by-side with slain Information

Management Office Sean Smith in Benghazi haven't had a pay

raise in more than two years.

They are the FDA inspectors who trace E. coli outbreaks to

ensure that our food is safe to eat. They are the NIH

researchers working to find a cure for breast cancer, and

prostate cancer, and Alzheimer's and Autism.

They are the defense civilian riggers and machinists and

refuelers and engineers repairing sophisticated electronic

weaponry systems at Army depots and Air Force bases and

shipyards who support our military personnel;

They are the firefighters you call when a lighting strike

sets a national forest on fire and homes and business are in

danger. And they are the park service rangers who ensure that

your constituents can safely hike and camp in our national

parks and tour our battlefields.

They are the scientists working at the DOE labs. They are

the meteorologist at weather service storm centers tracking

hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and blizzards. They are the

NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists.

Over the last Congress, unlike other groups, federal

employees contributed more than $103 billion to deficit

reduction--no other group was asked to sacrifice more. I know

that these patriotic Americans are willing to do more, but

they rightly expect all of us to fully join this effort. A

vote for the bill next week isn't a vote just to cut a

program, but it's a targeted vote to specifically freeze an

individual's pay from a marginal increase--a personal affront

to the employee and their entire family, including their

spouses and children, and the retired parents who care about

their children.

I get it--this vote polls well with certain groups. But we

were elected to represent our constituents. Let's pass bills

that actually reduce the drivers of our nation's debt and

deficit. This is cheap grace. Vote no.

Please don't hesitate to contact me or Mira Lezell on my

staff at 5-5136 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I do love my country, and my country is begging me, as I'm sure it is all other Members of Congress, to for heaven's sake get some of this taken care of and have some certainty.

Talking with constituents just this morning, they were saying they simply don't know what to do. And what we're doing here again is just theater, as my colleague pointed out. This isn't a plan. It's a gimmick, and it has wasted valuable time.

CBS News reported last year that it cost $24 million a week to operate the House of Representatives. On behalf of the taxpayers who pay those bills, we should be debating some serious legislation and come up with serious answers to our Nation's problems.

And everybody has known from their grammar school days that the way we pass a bill is that the House proposes a bill, the Senate proposes a bill, they go through the committee processes, they are passed on through the committee, the subcommittees, then the major committee, then to the Rules Committee, in our case, and then we have a conference and we send it to the President. We don't do that anymore.

The last two bills we dealt with on this floor just came directly to the Rules Committee. There was no committee action whatsoever, there was no discussion, there was no input.

And yesterday, what really I think grieves me most is that there was a wonderful substitute put forward with great sincerity by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen. I think he's respected by all sides, and most of this country, for his wisdom and for his acuity. But could they put his substitute in order? No. They said they had to have a waiver. Well, that's what the Rules Committee is for. That's what the Rules Committee does.

The Budget Committee itself has had at least 18 waivers in the last term. It just defies imagination. But this is $24 million again this week, where we're brought in from all of the corners of the United States at an expense to stand here and do absolutely nothing.

If they want to know what the President wants to do, they should call him up and ask him. We don't have to do a resolution or a bill on the floor of the House to find that out if that's so important. What a crazy thing that we could do in this time of communication to say this is the way we're going to try to find out something--and find out what?

The drastic across-the-board spending cuts are going to take effect on March 1. Now, the week after next we're taking another week off. We work about two and a half days here. It's really unfortunate. I think I can use that word without being called down, but I have much stronger words in my head. But instead of solving that looming crisis, again, they propose legislation that tries to change the subject. Try as they might, they can't hide from the fact that they are failing to provide help when American people need it most.

Mr. Speaker, we are days away from a serious self-inflicted wound.

Thank you.

If the pending sequester were to take effect, there will be such drastic cuts to important programs, not only domestically, but as you heard Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, say, it would ``hollow out'' the military and leave our military fighting with one hand tied behind its back. Why would we do that? For no earthly reason why in the world would we put the United States through that? Taken together, these cuts, as was said before, would destroy jobs, reverse our economic recovery, just reverse it, and destroy the middle class.

To get a glimpse of what drastic spending cuts would do to our economy, just look back to the end of 2012. As leading economists of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and President Obama have all pointed out, the drastic spending cuts at the end of last year are the leading causes--the leading causes--of our recent economic stagnation. Should the sequester take effect, our economy would suffer even more, and jobs would be lost as deeper and deeper spending cuts take effect.

Is that the path the majority wants to walk down? Because if they keep spending our time debating stupid legislation like this, we're going to find ourselves on that path before too long.

I agree with Mr. McGovern that many of our colleagues seem to want to go off that cliff for some kind of foolish exercise, knowing full well what is going to happen, and that is really shameful.

Yesterday, our Democratic colleagues and I proposed legislation that would stop the sequester with Mr. Van Hollen's substitute, but, no, they would not do that. It was simply tossed aside.

The majority chose to move forward with this restrictive and partisan process, closed rule again, that ignores the problems before us and moves forward with a political gimmick.

As the clock continues to tick, I urge my colleagues to stop those gimmicks and get back to work. Again, the people I spoke with just today are saying over and over again some certainty has to be in this government. People have to know what the economic situation is going to be. We do not want to play Russian roulette in here with the American economy day after day and week after week.

I urge my colleagues to stop wasting valuable time and let's provide that certainty.

Will the gentleman yield?

I see a number of my colleagues have come to speak, so I'm going to be as brief as I can.

I know that the chair of the Budget Committee has said that he can balance the budget in 10 years, which most economists and people say would certainly throw us into the worst depression, worse than 1929.

I believe that what we are doing here--I can't prove it--but my suspicions are that this is something intended to cover that. They're trying to get the President into that trick box or something to try to do the same thing.

Don't go, Mr. President. We can do better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce the High School Data Transparency Act. Since the enactment of Title IX in 1972, the number of women competing in college sports has soared by more than 600 percent while the number of high school girls competing in sports increased by over 1,000 percent. Yet, despite our incredible progress over the years, we still have more work to do.

Young women in high school currently receive 1.3 million fewer opportunities to play sports than young men, and this gap is increasing. The problem stems from a lack of transparency and accountability in our high schools. Federal law requires colleges and universities to report basic information about the funding of athletic programs for men and women and the participation of men and women throughout these sports. Due in part to this public information, American women have unrivaled opportunity at the collegiate level.

Unfortunately, the basic actions required of our universities are not required of our high schools. As a result, we are seeing fewer and fewer high schools realize full equality for male and female athletes, and more young women being denied the opportunity to realize their full potential both on and off the field.

I've met with many Olympic gold medalists who have told me that Title IX--and the accompanying athletic scholarships it made possible--was the reason they were able to attend college and pursue their dreams. These Olympians have emphasized that the benefits of sports participation are not limited to their achievements on the field. Indeed, statistics have shown that young women thrive when they participate in sports and are less likely to get pregnant, drop out of school, do drugs, smoke, or develop mental illness. Increasing young students' physical activity can also help combat childhood obesity, which is at an all-time high.

To address the lack of reporting at the high school level, the High School Data Transparency Act would require that high schools report basic data on the number of female and male students in their athletic programs and the expenditures made for their sports teams. This would be an easy change for our high schools to make. Several states, including Kentucky, Georgia, and New Mexico, have already implemented similar reporting requirements at the state level, and high school athletics directors from those states tell us that it usually takes just 2-6 hours of one person's time to complete each year.

The extraordinary accomplishments we've achieved together over the past four decades of Title IX are a cause for celebration, but we must look forward and continue our steady march of progress.

I urge my colleagues to build on our advancement and help ensure that young women in high school have equal opportunities to play sports by supporting the High School Data Transparency Act.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lieutenant Mike ``Chip'' Chiapperini and Tomasz Kaczowka of Webster, NY. These two heroes will be forever remembered for their brave and selfless commitment to the people they called neighbors, friends and family and the place they were proud to call home.

Chip and Tomasz devoted their lives to public service. For 19 years, Chip worked his way through the ranks of the Webster Police Department--from Dispatcher, to Police Officer, Investigator, Sergeant and Lieutenant. Yet when each shift at the Police Department was complete, Chip's public service continued as a volunteer firefighter with the West Webster Fire Department. For 25 years Chip served as a volunteer firefighter and rose to be Fire Chief and advisor to the Fire Department's Fire Explorer Post.

It was in his role as a firefighter that Chip oversaw a young volunteer firefighter and good family friend.

Tomasz Kaczowka had the passion bestowed by youth, yet a dedication to service that went far beyond his years. From serving as an emergency dispatch operator for the City of Rochester, to responding to calls as a volunteer firefighter with the West Webster Fire Department, Tomasz showed an unrivaled commitment to helping others and a selflessness that set the bar high for future generations to come.

As brothers in service, Tomasz viewed Chip as a mentor; in turn, Chip tutored and protected Tomasz as if he were a son.

It is in the line of public service that these two friends would be taken from this Earth. On December 24, 2012, Chip and Tomasz were responding to a fire in the early morning darkness when a gunman opened fire and took their lives. Tomasz, as was his selfless nature, was on duty that morning so that other firefighters who are fathers could be at home with their families on Christmas Eve.

There is little we can say to provide comfort to the neighbors, friends and family of Chip and Tomasz. Words, no matter their eloquence, fail to heal a pain which cannot be forgotten, and a loss that cannot be undone.

Together Chip and Tomasz served alongside the distinguished men and women of the West Webster Fire Department--a family they loved like their own. When Chip and Tomasz were fallen by gun fire, their fellow firefighters had to persevere through the fear and pain, and bravely put out the fires that threatened to take more lives. Now, these brave firefighters grieve for the loss of their family members, while honoring them the best way they know how--through the work they do every day.

I urge my fellow Members of Congress to follow the example of the West Webster Fire Department and honor Chip and Tomasz with the actions we take. Over the last two months, more than 900 Americans, including Chip and Tomasz, have been killed with a gun. This endless string of tragedies must be no more. Now is the time for Congress to enact a comprehensive and commonsense reform to our nation's gun laws, and renew our commitment to a mental health system that has been neglected for far too long.

While no legislation can bring back Chip and Tomasz, nor fill the void left at their dinner tables every night, putting an end to senseless acts of gun violence can ensure that even in death, these two brave heroes will continue to save lives.

Chip and Tomasz were a shining example of what we know to be true: that in America

we are united, that as long as we walk this Earth we are committed to protecting one another and in so doing we will realize the promise of a better world. In their brave and selfless actions Chip and Tomasz lived this promise to each other, and now it is our turn to do the same.

I thank my colleague for yielding to me. And I want to continue what he was saying, despite the fact I've got a greet speech here. But it's terribly important, I think, that we try to make the point one more time that process here is turned upside down and is totally meaningless. So John Boehner and Paul Ryan and Harry Reid and the Rules Committee all agree. That leaves out about 500 more people who have been sent here from the districts to represent what the people who live there think.

This is not the first time this has happened. A couple of weeks ago, on the fiscal cliff, we had a thing that came up from nowhere called Plan B. John Boehner liked that. I guess Paul Ryan liked that. I'm not sure what Harry Reid thought about that. The Rules Committee thought it was okay. But the fact of the matter is that that bill was written while the Rules Committee was in session. There are 13 of us on the Rules Committee. We love the enormous power that we've got. But I don't believe any of us ever suspected that the Rules Committee was going to supersede all of the committees in the House of Representatives. There's been no committee action on any of this.

In addition, I want to make the point, again, that despite what we tried to do, we said, Nobody's talked about this. There's been no discussion on this. Let's have an open rule. Let's let not just the people on our side but the people on the Republican side who've had no input here as well, let's open it up and have a real debate and see what's going on here.

What is going on here? What's going on here, as my colleague points out, is a circus of dubious constitutional validity, frankly. Some people may say what they're doing is okay. Other people say, Absolutely not. We certainly should have had that decision before we got this far. What will the Senate do with it? Heavens to Betsy, I don't know. They have to have 60 votes over there before they can get to anything. It is the only legislative body in the world where 60 is the majority, not 51, as it is in every other legislature.

So we've just reached, I think, a new low today. I am very depressed by the fact that the Constitution of the United States, which is very specific, that the rules of the Congress, which are extremely specific, are meaningless here. We have all these people on the committees, people with expertise, and wonderful staff. We can draw on resources from all over probably the world, not just America. But we've got plenty of them here just a block away. All the people we can talk to, all the people we can ask, What is the meaning of this? What will it do to the economy of the United States of America? Are we on the right track? Should we be doing something different? Do we need a debt limit law?

What are we doing? Why can't we have those kinds of discussions in this Congress ever again? It's as though if we give them time to think about it and everybody has a chance to weigh in on it, then maybe we won't be able to move this the way we would like to and play another ``gotcha'' game, which is really what it comes down to.

I don't care if The Washington Post loves it. They're probably so pleased to see the fact that people believe there's something in the fact that Harry Reid said he liked it, which is not anything that's been heard here lately, and that they thought they would like it as well. But I don't know what it is, and I don't think any of the rest of my Members did. And we certainly did not yesterday in the Rules Committee. We did not have the benefit of the knowledge of any of the other Members of the Congress or the committee process, which could have answered the questions for us that came up yesterday.

In fact, all of us know where this came from. Charles Krauthammer wrote a column in The Washington Post. They maybe like that a whole lot, as well. That's where this came from. He said, Hey, there's a good idea. Instead of going to the committees of the Congress of the United States, where people of knowledge are seated, they decided let's just throw it together over the weekend at a retreat and we'll take it back next week. We're only going to work a couple of days so let's rush it through and get it through and maybe by the time we get to 3 months, something will have straightened out. Or, more likely, Mr. Speaker, in 3 months we will have thought of another way that we can kick the can down the road.

Now it's important to note that this is not an extension of debt limit. It is a suspension of debt limit. That makes a difference, I think, as well, but we didn't get a chance to discuss that part of it either. We did away with all notions of regular order. I really thought the Plan B, as I'd said earlier--and I don't want anybody to miss this--that bill was being written while the Rules Committee was meeting. I know that all students of government, all the colleges and universities in this country, they're out there teaching people how America runs, how carefully and wonderfully put together it was by the Founding Fathers, how our Constitution is our guiding light. We just celebrated that. Because without doubt, the President's inaugural speech, based so closely on the Declaration of Independence and talking about the Constitution, made us understand that that is what we are here to uphold. And indeed we all held up our hands and swore we would uphold it.

But when it comes to a piece of legislation like this--and this is the same as I said last night in the Rules Committee--it's just lurching around and jerking around and coming up with any kind of crazy gimmick we can think of and making smart remarks. But I will tell you that kicking the can down the road for 3 more months is not a solution. It gives us some breathing room. But I don't have any reason in the world to believe from past performance that the future is going to be any clearer for us.

Until the leaders of the House can start to include the fellow Members in the majority--because they have been cut out as well--and the minority in the legislative process, the regular order will be little more than a dream. And today's bill drops the majority's insistence that increasing the debt limit be matched by cuts to Medicare or reductions to education funding. That's a step forward. But it doesn't answer our questions.

My Democrat colleagues and I are eager to participate in the legislative process for which we came to Washington. And the American people are certainly eager--if not eager, maybe desperate would be a better word--to see an end to the dysfunction in this Congress. I hope that at some point the majority will realize that a completely partisan approach, which is what we've

had, is a dead end. That meaningful solutions can only come from negotiation and compromise with those on the other side of the aisle who do have some good ideas. And when the majority comes to that realization, my Democrat colleagues and I will happily join in the effort to craft the serious legislative answers our country needs, our constituents deserve, and the world expects of us.

The bill before us today isn't a serious solution--it is a gimmick of dubious constitutional validity. The legislation is the product of a weekend retreat, and contains all the seriousness one would expect from such origins.

For the last year, the majority has alternatively taken the full faith and credit of our Nation hostage and put forth extreme proposals that do nothing to reduce our deficit in a balanced way.

In the process they have done away with any notion of regular order. Just weeks ago, a so-called ``Plan B'' to the fiscal cliff was being written at the same time the Rules Committee was meeting--thus forcing us to debate a bill no one had ever seen.

Now we meet to debate a bill that failed to go through a single committee hearing before landing on the Rules Committee desk yesterday afternoon.

Under the process forged by the majority, the Rules Committee has become the place where legislation is unveiled by the majority and brought to the floor 24 hours later, with no input from their colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

This is about as far away from regular order as it gets. Until the leaders of the House start including their fellow members of the majority and minority in the legislative process, regular order will be little more than a dream.

Mr. Speaker, today's bill drops the majority's insistence that any increase in the debt limit be matched by cuts to Medicare or reductions to education funding. This is certainly a noteworthy step forward.

But kicking the can down the road for three months is not the solution that the American people deserve. If today's legislation had been crafted in the halls of Congress, with input from both sides of the aisle, I believe that we could be voting on a serious measure to prevent a debt-limit crisis and reduce our deficit starting today.

My Democratic colleagues and I are eager to participate in the legislative process, and the American people are eager to see an end to the dysfunction in Congress.

I hope that at some point the majority will realize that a completely partisan approach is a dead end. Meaningful solutions can only come from negotiation and compromise with those on the other side of the aisle.

When the majority comes to that realization, my Democratic colleagues and I will happily join in the effort to craft the serious legislative answers that our country needs and our constituents deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court. This decision is the firewall that protects women's health and the turning point that moved women's health forward.

On this 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we reaffirm the constitutionally protected right of every woman to safe and legal health care. Women are nurturers, but when life places a woman in the most difficult of circumstances, the choices she needs to make should be free from government interference.

Over the years, I have been proud to stand with many of my colleagues as we have beaten back repeated attempts to chip away at women's rights set forth in Roe v. Wade. Over the last 2 years, we have seen the most extreme and repeated attempts to take away a woman's right to her health care.

In the most recent Congress, we found ourselves defending a woman's right to access contraception. We opposed a bill that would have allowed women to die if the emergency room employee who came to her aid had a

``conscientious objection'' to performing an abortion that would save her life, without even being required to refer her elsewhere for help.

We have insisted that politicians not place themselves in the operating room to judge the motives of a woman seeking a constitutionally protected medical procedure if they thought her decision may have been based on the gender or race of the fetus.

Mr. Speaker, we stand on the shoulders of giants of women who went before us on this, and we take up the cudgel to keep it safe and legal.

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

I really appreciate the words of my colleague and the generosity--we were very happy last night at the Rules Committee that all members of the Rules Committee recognized that this is America in need. It's a fascinating story, and knowing Rodney Frelinghuysen, no one could be surprised about the action of his ancestor. Of course, we all apologize for what happened to you. That should not have happened to your ancestors.

But throughout our modern history, the United States Congress has always responded swiftly to help the victims of natural disasters. It is today 78 days since Hurricane Sandy absolutely devastated the Northeast. We never hesitated as Americans because we know that all of us are in it together and that when any American is hurt, we all hurt, and when communities are devastated by earthquakes, tornadoes, or hurricanes, we all feel our duty to respond.

When Sandy plunged communities into darkness and left them without power or water for weeks, countless Americans volunteered their own resources to help the victims of Sandy, just as they had helped the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the victims of the Joplin tornado.

Yet, no matter the generosity of our Nation's people, there is no replacement for a swift and well-organized Federal response. From military-grade trucks, helicopters, and supply planes, to Federally backed small business loans, our Federal Government is absolutely vital to rebuilding efforts.

That is why we were so sad, all of us from the Northeast, that it took so long for the House to respond. While the Senate acted soon after Sandy occurred to pass a comprehensive aid package, there was nothing done in this House for months. This Congress responded to Hurricane Katrina in 10 days. As I pointed out, it's been 79 days for Sandy.

When the majority did act, they passed a partial aid package that could be described as a starting point at best. And while we appreciate that we're taking action to help Sandy victims, the piecemeal approach has hurt our disaster response efforts. Without knowing whether more aid is absolutely going to come, the governors and the mayors can't sign contracts with construction companies, can't complete their plans, and cannot prioritize repair efforts and provide effective aid. It simply does not do to give out money in tranches without a guarantee of the actual money needed to be coming. In addition, the majority's demands that any Federal aid include offsets has delayed and endangered the aid from getting into the hands of those who need it.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee was presented with almost 100 amendments for inclusion in today's bill . More than 40 of those 100 amendments proposed by the majority attempted to cut, hinder, and offset the aid that is contained in today's bill. Many of the amendments contained extreme and ideological proposals that should never have been considered for inclusion in a disaster aid bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is now entering the cold parts of winter. There are families up and down the eastern seaboard who are still homeless, while thousands more are still working to get back on their feet, and many small businesses and restaurants have been forced to close because of the slowness of aid. Meanwhile, important institutions such as the NYU hospital in New York City struggle to repair the flood damage, and countless restaurants, as I've said, have been forced to close.

After being battered and bruised by natural disaster, the victims of Sandy are now at the mercy of the House of Representatives.

I urge my colleagues to show fundamental humanity and pass the bill today that does not include unnecessary amendments that are little more than political ransom for the majority.

It's time the Chamber passes a bill that can and will be signed into law and gives the victims of Sandy the help they need to rebuild.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my new colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a fellow New Yorker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my gentlewoman friend from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), my fellow New Yorker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform my colleague I have no further requests for time and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, this process that has led us up to this point has been distressing. Indeed, this Congress has failed time and again to really look at what's happening here, and that is climate change. Because of that, and our inability to deal with it, there will be more and more disasters. We must be prepared for them in the future and not hold any area of the State up for 90 days to try to get the help for them that they require and that they need--80 days, actually, to be perfectly accurate.

I urge my colleagues to stop the political games today. Let's pass a bill that is free of unnecessary amendments and get the aid into the hands of those who need it most, those who have suffered the most.

As many of my colleagues have said, it's not just the Northeast that suffers. When an area that large and that populated suffers, the Nation suffers.

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 certainly thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying to my colleague, Mr. Dreier, we've served together here for many years on the Rules Committee. I think that his knowledge of both the Rules Committee and its functions and the rules of the House are unsurpassed, and I think he will be very greatly missed.

I want to wish him the very best in his new endeavors in the rest of his life. Nothing but happiness and joy. And thank you. I feel I've learned a great deal from you, David. Thank you for that.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before me, as my colleague said, is no great victory. It's only a partial answer to a much larger problem, and it sets our Nation up for another fiscal showdown in mere months. As we vote, let every Member of this Chamber reflect on the dysfunctional legislative process and the irresponsible leadership that brought us here today, and the need for the majority to come back to the bargaining table in good faith as our work continues. And I share Mr. Dreier's hope that from now on we will put this all behind us and that this next term will be a bipartisan term.

Let history show that the fiscal cliff and the dire economic consequences that would come with it were the deliberate creation of this House. Because of hyperpartisan actions taken by the majority, the body has pushed our Nation closer to a self-created economic recession and the greatest displacement of workers that the Nation has known since 1929.

The idea behind the fiscal cliff was that the potential for a self- inflicted wound would force Congress to address the growing deficit and debt. Yet from the beginning, the plan was flawed. Over the last 10 years, our deficit has ballooned because of the cost of two wars and massive unpaid-for tax cuts. Yet discussion over the cost of war-- conflicts that have cost the lives of thousands of Americans and forever changed the face of American families--has been almost nonexistent. At the same time, the majority's desire to protect tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires quickly hardened into intransigence and has led us to where we are today. Just a week ago today, it looked as though Congress was close to a solution, until the House majority walked away.

Instead of seizing an historic opportunity for compromise, the majority introduced a so-called ``Plan B,'' which quickly morphed into Plan C before being scrapped altogether and leaving us with almost no time to avert the fiscal cliff. By making tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires their biggest priority, the majority not only endangered our economy but they led the House through a legislative process that violated any sense of regular order and transparency. Indeed, as my colleagues and I sat in the Rules Committee last week, the legislation we were considering was changing by the minute, leaving us to guess at what would actually be included in any bill that required our vote.

Sadly, such dysfunctional governing comes as little surprise. For the past 2 years, the majority has led with a toxic combination of extremism and hyperpartisanship that has resulted in the 112th Congress being the least productive in history. During the summer of 2011, the majority threw our Nation into crisis when they took our economy hostage and threatened to default on our Nation's debt. This dangerous and irresponsible approach rattled investors around the world and led to the first-ever downgrade of our Nation's credit. In addition, over the last 2 years, the majority has voted more than 33 times to repeal the historic Affordable Care Act, despite knowing full

well that the repeal votes would never be signed into law because the Senate would not do that bill. In so doing, they took up valuable time from other legislative priorities. And CBS News reports that these votes consistently trying to repeal health care, Mr. Speaker, cost the American taxpayer almost $50 million.

For over a year and a half, this type of irresponsible and unproductive governing failed to provide any solutions to the American people. And coming out of the November elections, our mandate was clear. The American people demanded an end to the political theater and the dangerous legislative games. They demanded that we finally get to work and solve the looming fiscal cliff in a balanced, responsible, and bipartisan way.

In the middle of last July, all of the ranking committee members in the House of Representatives sent a letter to the Speaker asking that we begin in July to find a solution to the fiscal cliff and sequestration. We called for a bipartisan approach and something we could get finished before the August recess so that we could spare the American people and most other people in the world and financial markets the worry that we have put them through. We got our answer tonight.

So, unfortunately, today, what we are doing here does not give the American people a solution worthy of their full approval--and I'm sure we don't have it. The legislation before us fails to seriously address the deficit and debt, protects too many wealthy Americans, and sets the Nation up for another round of high-stakes negotiations. However, what we do have before us is a product that can avert the worst of the fiscal cliff and begin the process of balancing the budget and returning fairness, we hope, to the Tax Code.

Under today's legislation, millions of Americans will be spared from a tax increase, and valuable tax extensions for middle-class families and students will remain in place. In addition, today's legislation extends unemployment insurance for millions of Americans struggling to find work.

In closing, this legislation is far from perfect, and the process that has led us here is an utter disgrace. Yet in this time of crisis we must act first and foremost to try to protect the American economy. And today's legislation will do that. In the coming weeks, we must continue the hard work of creating a fair Tax Code and ensuring we reduce our deficit in a balanced, responsible, and bipartisan way. And as we do, I urge my fellow Members to avoid brinksmanship and partisan games and to come to the table in good faith on behalf of all the people who sent us here and put their faith in us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.

I believe I have three, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke earlier, I referred to a letter that we had sent to the Speaker, and I would like to insert that in the Record.

July 25, 2012.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Chairs of the Committees: As the

senior Democratic Members of the Committees of the House, we

call upon the Republican Leadership and the Chairs of our

respective committees to begin immediate negotiations with

Democrats on replacing the scheduled 2013 sequester with a

balanced deficit reduction plan. We all agree that a

sequester starting in January, 2013 is not in the country's

best interest and is not the best way to assure responsible

deficit reduction. The American people want us to work

together to avoid unnecessary economic uncertainty at this

crucial time in our recovery. Failure to reach an agreement

would have devastating consequences for our economy, small

business and the middle class.

The looming possibility of a January, 2013 sequester is

already creating uncertainty in our economy. Working together

and in good faith, Democrats and Republicans can negotiate an

alternative to the defense and non-defense discretionary

sequester as well as the mandatory sequester for fiscal year

2013. We are confident that we can identify revenue sources

and prioritize investments in a bipartisan fashion to avoid

the sequester while achieving our deficit reduction goals.

We look forward to hearing from you and sitting down to

negotiate an alternative to the sequester. We strongly

recommend that this bipartisan process begin before the

August recess so that the American people can be reassured

before September 30 that the sequester will not take effect.

Best regards,

Collin C. Peterson, Ranking Member, House Committee on

Agriculture; Norman D. Dicks, Ranking Member, House

Committee on Appropriations; Adam Smith, Ranking

Member, House Armed Services Committee; Chris Van

Hollen, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Budget;

George Miller, Ranking Member, House Committee on

Education & the Workforce; Henry Waxman, Ranking

Member, House Energy & Commerce Committee; Linda

Sanchez, Ranking Member, House Committee on Ethics;

Barney Frank, Ranking Member, House Committee on

Financial Services; Howard Berman, Ranking Member,

House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Bennie G. Thompson,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Homeland Security;

Robert A. Brady, Ranking Member, House Committee on

Administration; John Conyers, Ranking Member, House

Committee on the Judiciary; Edward Markey, Ranking

Member, House Committee on Natural Resources; Elijah

Cummings, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight

and Government Reform; Louise Slaughter, Ranking

Member, House Committee on Rules; Eddie Bernice

Johnson, Ranking Member, House Committee on Science,

Space, & Technology; Nydia M. Velazquez, Ranking

Member, House Committee on Small Business; Nick Rahall,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation &

Infrastructure; Bob Filner, Ranking Member, House

Committee on Veterans' Affairs; Sander Levin, Ranking

Member, House Committee on Ways and Means; C.A. Dutch

Ruppersberger, Ranking Member, Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence.

I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, if I could inform my colleague, I have no further requests for time and I'm prepared to close if he has no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, failure to avert the fiscal cliff could lead the Nation back into an economic recession and create the largest displacement of workers in the Nation's history. The dangers are avoidable, and it is our solemn obligation to avert the fiscal cliff and protect the American people.

As I said earlier, today's legislation is far from perfect; but in this time of crisis, legislators must act. In the months to come, we will face more fiscal challenges and be asked to act again. When that time comes, I hope that we will avoid the brinksmanship that we have seen to date and come to the table in good faith. If we do, I'm confident that we can finish our work and provide solutions for a better future for America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we're watching an attempt to perpetuate a hoax. To everybody watching, I want to say to you don't bother to take notes, no need to call the family to see history being made here. Just move along. There's nothing happening here. We've got this plan that doesn't come anywhere close to being a solution to the fiscal cliff. It's a political gimmick, and all of us recognize that it has no chance whatsoever of becoming law.

The process that has brought us here has been equally shameful, more befitting a developing country than the greatest democracy on Earth. It has been absolutely painful to watch the otherwise responsible Members of the majority play their assigned roles, pretending that what we did last night was normal and legitimate. Last night we saw one of the greatest miscarriages of the democratic process in my time on the Rules Committee. Facing the impending fiscal cliff that could devastate our economy and harm millions of Americans, the majority decided to cobble together last-minute legislation on a wing and a prayer.

Last night, the Rules Committee spent most of the evening debating legislation that we've barely seen. We were told that there would be two bills. Two bills actually were filed at midnight on Tuesday. One of them disappeared. And in the waning hours, even while the debate on the rule was taking place, a third was dropped into our laps. It turned out to be a warmed-over bill that went through the House of Representatives in May destroying health care, food stamps, and almost every other possibility of people in the country to survive. That's how the majority wants to solve the greatest economic threat facing our Nation.

With nothing less than millions of jobs on the line, does the majority really believe that passing a bill in less than 24 hours that will do absolutely nothing is responsible governing?

Today we're prepared to vote on this legislation and, I think, possibly adjourn for the final time this year. If this is the majority's final attempt to reach a compromise, then our Nation does indeed face frightening times. If no compromise is reached, we may face the greatest displacement of workers since 1929 as sequestration takes effect and forces countless layoffs. How devastating is that to a recovering economy? Every American knows we cannot let this happen; and, frankly, I believe that every Member of Congress knows that we never would let it happen. But after last night, I'm not so sure.

This is not a serious solution to avoid economic catastrophe. It's just one last attack on the poor and the middle class right before we tumble off together over the fiscal cliff. Today's bill contains many dangerous provisions. I mentioned part C that we got last night, the old warmed-over bill providing an average tax cut of $50,000 for millionaires and billionaires. Meanwhile, the 25 million working families would pay an average of $1,000 more on taxes; 11 million families would lose a tax credit that helps to pay for college; drastic cuts would be made to Medicare; and the important provisions of the Affordable Care Act would be no more. They simply could not adjourn this year without one last attempt to destroy the health care bill that will provide health care for millions more Americans, many covered by insurance that they have never been able to have before.

During my last election, which occurred last month, I met more than one person who told me that they had been born--there is one person who sticks out in my mind--she had been born with cerebral palsy, Mr. Speaker. She told me that her whole life, while she brought up a family, lived her life driving a car, cooking, moving, everything that we all do and take for granted in life, she had to do without any health insurance because having been born with cerebral palsy, she had a preexisting condition that prevented it. It was not until she was 65 and was able to get Medicare did she have the peace of mind that most of us take for granted that she was eligible to be covered. Why in the world do we keep trying to be the only industrial country that does not take better care of its people than that?

Finally, 2 million Americans would lose their unemployment assistance right here at the holiday time. As I said before, the nutrition assistance program would be gutted. Those unjust cuts would leave millions struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table.

The Americans that we're talking about, those that will be suffering, are not the ones that caused the problem in this country. They had nothing to do with financial services and the shenanigans that were played that brought us to our knees. Yet, continually, this House asks them through the majority side to pay the price.

Enough already. They're not to blame, and they should not be put on the block.

Sadly, just days ago--Tuesday, in fact--it appeared that President Obama and Speaker Boehner were close to a fiscal cliff compromise. President Obama had made concessions, some that, frankly, as I pointed out, our side is not that crazy about, but in the blink of an eye, the House majority decided to walk away in 51 seconds, announcing what they were going to do in a take-it-or-leave-it manner and introduce this political hoax that is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, don't anybody be fooled. The American people know better. They see through this. They know that a compromise means that we must meet in the middle. Unfortunately, the majority continues to think, if they pass extreme legislation and then run for the hills, the rest of us will be forced to give in.

We've seen similar antics from the majority throughout the 112th Congress--from holding the full faith and credit of this Nation hostage for the first time in its history and losing our credit rating to voting 33 times to repeal health care reform. The majority has continually advanced a cynical and partisan agenda at the expense of our Nation's welfare. Given this, there is little surprise that the approval rating for Congress is at an all-time low and that historians have said it is the least productive Congress in our history.

Mr. Speaker, in the election just last month, the American people made their voices heard. When asked to choose between an extreme agenda that took care of the millionaires and billionaires at their expense, they said ``no'' in that they wanted not to be going over a fiscal cliff, and they have made that very clear.

I think of what we have done to just the economic future of this country by debating this fiscal cliff as long as we have, but I don't believe, as I said, that we will actually go over it, except I'm not really clear on what we're doing here today unless that is to cut and run. Yet, in the process, the majority has presided over a shameful legislative circus not worthy of this institution. When our Nation is in desperate need of serious solutions, the majority is doing everything in its power to avoid finding the answers.

I strongly oppose this hoax before us. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate your yielding.

I appreciate your giving us your assurance, but I do recall that Mr. McGovern and I, both in our turns, asked last night for assurance that the bill that we were looking at was the bill we were going to vote on, and all we got was doublespeak. So, while I appreciate your giving me your assurance, I think I'll give it back to you.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

I'd be happy to tell you. We expect four. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlelady another minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it has been said here before that the bill that mysteriously appeared last night had passed the House in a bipartisan way. Let me point out it was bipartisan opposition. No Democrat voted for it and 16 Republicans voted ``no.''

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I can't say it enough, today's legislation is a step backwards in the effort to find a fiscal cliff compromise. Plan B, Plan C, neither one of them are serious proposals but a gimmick designed to get headlines. By using the Halls of Congress to play political games, the majority is making it harder to find a commonsense and bipartisan solution to the impending fiscal cliff.

The time for these games is over. It's time that the majority comes to the table with a serious proposal that reflects the wishes of the American people.

Nobody wants to see the taxes raised on 25 million working families. As I said earlier, they seem to be called upon to pay the price for the fiscal irresponsibility of the financial district.

The American people don't want to see hundreds of thousands lose access to nutritional programs, and I sure can tell you that they don't want to see Wall Street reforms repealed and the historic health care law dismantled, but all these things would happen if this bill before us became law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the gimmick proposal before us today and return to the serious work of balancing our budget while protecting the poor and the working class.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which will allow the House to have a chance to vote on the bill passed by the Senate to extend the middle class tax cuts to all persons making less than $250,000, which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 15. Also, the amendment would prevent the House from adjourning until we have averted the fiscal cliff and the President has signed legislation to prevent tax increases on the middle class.

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.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the rule and certainly on the underlying bill.

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 rise today to mourn those who were killed in Newtown, Connecticut last Friday, and begin the urgent work of stopping tragedies like this from ever happening again.

Let us be clear--there can be no better tribute to the innocent children and educators who were killed in Newtown than to finally address the out-of-control gun violence that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year.

In answering the call, Congress must look to enact a comprehensive and commonsense reform to our nation's gun laws, and renew our commitment to a mental health system that has been neglected for far too long.

We can begin by taking the most dangerous and deadly weapons off our streets. That means we must do more than simply reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. We must strengthen that law by including language that retroactively applies to weapons already in possession, so that law enforcement can finally remove all assault weapons from our communities.

These weapons serve no purpose other than to kill human beings. Our colleague, Senator Joe Manchin, today said the following: ``I just came with my family from deer hunting. I've never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don't get more than one shot anyway. It's time to get beyond rhetoric, it's time to sit down and move in a responsible way.'' He continued to say that limiting the size of a gun magazine to even 10 bullets should be on the table when it comes to reforming our laws and ending gun violence. I couldn't agree more, and believe that no weapon that is designed with the primary intent to kill people should be out on our streets.

This also means that this Congress must look at the types of bullets that are sold today. The perpetrator who murdered more than 20 innocent children took their lives with bullets that were designed to break up inside a victims body and inflict the maximum amount of damage to internal organs, bones and tissue. There is no legal activity in our country that requires the use of such deadly bullets. They should be included under any renewal of an Assault Weapons Ban.

In addition to removing the most deadly weapons from our streets, we must also close the so-called ``fire sale loophole'' and ``gun show loophole''--two products of a powerful gun lobby that must be brought to heel. Because of these loopholes, more than 40 percent of all guns sold in the United States are sold without the buyer undergoing a federal background check.

We require anyone who wishes to drive a car to prove that they can safely operate a vehicle, yet when it comes to buying a gun, almost half all buyers do not have to prove they will safely operate such deadly weapons. In a country of 315 million people, there are almost 280 million guns owned. Of those 280 million guns, almost 112 million of them will have been purchased without a background check. Were they purchased by law-abiding citizens or by troubled individuals who may endanger lives? Because of irresponsible legal loopholes, we simply do not know.

No more. It is time that we require anyone in the United States wishing to purchase a gun to pass a federal background check. I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 263, the ``Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act'' and H.R. 1781, the ``Fix Gun Checks Act'', and urge the Leadership of this Congress to bring both bills to the floor for a vote.

Finally, our work is not complete unless we improve our nation's mental health system. For years, experts have known how to improve our mental health care system, but a lack of political will has led to its continual decay.

Such failure has a very real impact on the health and well being of thousands of our fellow citizens everyday. Instead of accessing the care they need, they are often left on their own to deal with illnesses that they have little power to control. Place these troubled individuals in the vicinity of a deadly weapon, instead of the care of a mental health care provider, and tragedy can result.

If we are to succeed in our efforts to prevent more gun violence tragedies then an improved mental health care system is part of the solution.

I believe we must respond by drastically improving our community- based mental health services--including mobile crisis services, assertive community treatment, peer supports and supportive housing. These important mental health programs are in short supply all across our nation, which means that thousands of our friends and neighbors who desperately need help are stranded with nowhere to turn.

While no legislation can undo the terror that was done in Newtown, Connecticut, our nation has a moral obligation to act with the utmost urgency to reduce gun violence and save innocent lives. It is long past time to get to work, and I am ready to begin that work today.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 627 and 628. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 627 and 628.