Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to congratulate Emily Sabo, Carolyn Grant, Ashley Stafford and Jodie Reese--members of the Hippie Pandas Girl Scout team of Rochester, NY. Along with their coaches Cheryl and Christa Lawniczak, the Hippie Pandas recently pioneered an invention that is preventing disease, and saving lives.

The young ladies of the Hippie Pandas recently partnered with engineers at the Rochester Institute of Technology and Eastman Kodak Company to design and build a device to change the world. Through extensive research and hard work, the young women created a solar- powered pasteurization system that processes raw milk. As I write, this invention is providing women in developing countries with an easy and inexpensive way to access safe milk for themselves and their families.

This invention was spurred by a desire to help women in Nicaragua, where unpasteurized milk has caused women to suffer from higher-than- normal rates of miscarriage and disease. They've done exactly that, as their invention has already been put to use in Nicaragua, and requests have come in to expand its use to other countries.

Across the world, women face the tremendous challenge of accessing safe, affordable and secure health care. Indeed, in many countries, lack of resources and gender discrimination conspire to leave women vulnerable to contracting preventable disease. Every day, some of the most accomplished and heralded professionals in the world work to address these challenges. Yet, quietly, a small group of dedicated young women in Western New York solved one such challenge with an incredible invention.

Through their hard work, the Hippie Pandas have helped change the course of life for women a world away. In the process, they have shown this Congress, and this country, the important role that science and technology play in making our world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent such intelligent, innovative, and accomplished young women. Through their work, the Hippie Pandas have shown the best that the Rochester area has to offer. Their scientific and technological knowledge, together with a deep passion for serving a greater good, embodies the values that serve as a foundation for my hometown and our Nation.

In honor of the Hippie Pandas' service to the global community, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Emily, Carolyn, Ashley, Jodie, Cheryl and Christa, and their mentors at Rochester Institute of Technology and Eastman Kodak Co. for their innovative work and dedication to science and technology. I speak for all of Western New York in expressing our pride and gratitude for the life-changing work the Hippie Pandas have done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take a bold step to keep America secure and rebuild our domestic electronics sector. Today I am introducing the ``Keep America Secure Act,'' legislation that directs the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to only purchase electronic components that are manufactured in the United States. These electronic components--including computer chips, communications devices, and guidance systems--are used in crucial defense and homeland security equipment. This bill is the perfect complement to our ongoing efforts to enhance ``Buy American'' requirements and to ensure that all DoD and DHS equipment be Made-In- America.

If we are to maintain the most advanced military force, with the most advanced weaponry, we must have a dedicated stream of domestically produced parts. Regrettably, today this simply is not happening. Our armed forces dependence on foreign parts has major security ramifications. From missiles to computers, much of our crucial defense and homeland security equipment relies on sophisticated electronic components to function. We must act now to eliminate our reliance on foreign electronic components in our defense systems.

In May 2012 the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded a yearlong investigation that found a substantial increase in the number of counterfeit electronic parts used in the production of sensitive military equipment. The Committee noted, ``Our report outlines how this flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly from China, threatens national security, the safety of our troops and American jobs.''

Furthermore, the SASC report found approximately 1,800 cases of counterfeit parts in U.S. Military Aircraft while noting that both defense contractors and the Department of Defense lack an adequate understanding of the depth and severity of the problem. My legislation will ensure that no counterfeit parts ever find their way into any U.S. military aircraft by requiring that these parts be made right here at home. And, for the first time, it will require the Federal Aviation Administration to formulate rules to ensure no counterfeit parts are making their way into passenger aircraft as well.

When Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March 2003, a Swiss company stopped shipments of a crucial guidance system component for U.S. smart bombs. Both these incidents could have resulted in U.S. forces being in harm's way without necessary tools to defend themselves. Fortunately, neither incident caused threats to our troops, but they clearly demonstrate the need to protect our production supply lines from being cut, especially in times of war.

Similarly, during the first Gulf War, the United States was forced to turn to Japan--not once, but on three separate occasions--for essential parts in the production of the Patriot Missile.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, as one who is very concerned about the state of domestic manufacturing, I strongly believe that the Keep America Secure Act will help re-ignite our high-tech sector. Between 2000 and 2010 the United States lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs.

The Keep America Secure Act would help promote the remaining U.S. high tech firms. We need to rebuild the domestic electronic components industry, and this bill will help us do it.

We have spent the last ten years rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan while continuing to neglect our weakening manufacture sector here at home. Congress must make a commitment to rebuilding our domestic manufacturing base and to ensuring that our courageous defenders continue to have the best equipment available. And as our economy suffers, let us give the manufacturing sector a needed shot in the arm. Unless Congress stands up and puts a halt to it we will eventually be at the mercy of any adversary who controls the manufacturing of our weapons or the critical components of our weapons.

Mr. Speaker, in the days to come, I will look to my like-minded friends, on both sides of the aisle, and say to my colleagues: let's work together to keep America secure.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

We all agree that the Tax Code needs to be updated and reformed--and my Democrat colleagues and I are ready to work in a bipartisan manner to accomplish that goal--but the flawed and entirely partisan priorities reflected in this majority's bill make a very bad start. Their principles seem to point in one direction: less fairness and less of the burden shouldered by the people who have the most; fewer brackets, lower top rates, lower corporate taxes, less revenue, and higher deficits.

My Democrat colleagues and I have a different vision for tax reform, a vision that is reflected in our alternative proposal today. My amendment would replace the principles found in the majority's bill with a different set of priorities for a fairer and simpler Tax Code. I would like to take a minute to outline these priorities.

First, we must identify sources of revenue that, in combination with smart and targeted spending reductions, will provide the long-term means to reduce the national debt significantly while making investments in national priorities such as infrastructure, education, research, and defense, which are critical to the future of American competitiveness and job growth.

I would note that nothing in the Republican bill says tax reform needs to lower the deficit or to even hold it level. On the contrary, there are indications that Republican tax reform would make the deficit worse. I think that they believe, along with Vice President Cheney, who memorably said, ``Deficits don't matter.'' My Democrat colleagues and I disagree with that approach.

Second, we believe that there should be a rate structure that distributes the tax burden in a more progressive manner. We support a Tax Code that discourages tax avoidance, including the use of entities and accounts in tax haven jurisdictions, such as Swiss bank accounts or assets hidden in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, all done simply to avoid paying United States taxes.

We believe in preserving and improving the provisions of the Tax Code that support middle class homeownership, education, retirement savings, and health care. In addition, we agree that the time has come to repeal the alternative minimum tax, and we want to retain and improve refundable tax credits that encourage work and education while lifting millions of Americans out of poverty.

We support eliminating tax breaks for businesses that move jobs and profits overseas in combination with a reduction in tax rates for American manufacturers, which are vital to innovation and job growth-- in other words, reward the people who stay here.

Finally, we want to preserve and improve incentives for small business investment and growth. These businesses are the engine of job creation, and we must do all we can to support their success.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican bill can be explained in one sentence: House Republicans want special procedures that allow them to force their rightwing legislative agenda through the Senate.

Why are we wasting time in trying to change the rules of the Senate-- trying to force the other body to accept partisan Republican priorities--rather than just sitting down together and working out a bipartisan path forward?

It's a major question, I think, in this congressional term that, like others have said, is the most poorly productive in history. Our amendment would remove the flawed expedited procedures and misguided Republican principles, and it would replace them with the principles that I have laid out.

Let me end by expressing my utter disbelief at how difficult House Republicans are making it to pass the middle class tax cuts right now. They make clear they intend to hold the middle class tax cuts hostage to the tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans, though we agree that earnings of $250,000 and below should not see any tax increases.

Yesterday, I offered a simple amendment that would say we would delay our departure for the August break until we got this proposal signed into law. It was defeated. Cutting taxes should not be that hard, and I hope my colleagues will join me to support my amendment and to help in our effort to create a fair and simple Tax Code that works for all Americans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, all this discussion is about priorities. As I said, we all agree the Tax Code has to be reformed, but the majority has not come to the floor today with a serious proposal to get us there.

My amendment would put us all on record in favor of the priorities of the middle class: more fairness, a simpler Tax Code, a lower deficit, and incentives to keep jobs here in the United States. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, under the rule before us today, we will choose between two starkly different visions for America. My Democratic colleagues and I are proposing a simple and fair tax cut for the middle class. This proposal has already passed the Senate. If passed by the House, the legislation could quickly become law. Our tax cut is based upon a simple premise--that it is time for the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share--no more. Their fair share.

Unfortunately, despite agreeing with the tax cuts proposed in our bill, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are standing in the way of the tax cut becoming law. Instead of passing a commonsense tax cut, the majority is demanding that any tax cut for the middle class be accompanied by an additional tax cut for the richest 2 percent. Their proposal is based upon the

disproved theory of trickle-down economics--a failed economic theory that has led to record inequality and a broken Tax Code that is riddled with loopholes and giveaways to the wealthy.

For decades, our tax system has been tilted in favor of the wealthy and big corporations--a rigged system that isn't working for most Americans. As just one example, between 2008 and 2010, 30 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid absolutely nothing in Federal taxes, and many more companies and wealthy individuals avoid paying taxes by sheltering the money in bank accounts overseas.

This stands in sharp contrast to other moments in American history. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s--a 30-year period that saw the creation of the middle class and the realization of the American Dream--top income tax rates often reached levels we wouldn't even dream of today. But despite these tax rates, we saw incredible economic growth and the creation of the strongest middle class on Earth.

The middle class grew, in part, because we did not allow the most successful members of our society to dodge their responsibility as American taxpayers. In years since, we've witnessed a purposeful and concerted effort by some to undermine the notion of shared responsibility, which this government was based on. In years since, we've witnessed a purposeful and concerted effort to undermine that. Starting with Reaganomics in the 1980s, a new theory pervaded American politics--a belief that our focus should really be on helping corporations and the wealthy in hopes that they might in return help some of us.

Many on the other side of the aisle subscribed to this idea and believed that by providing for the powerful interests first, success would trickle down onto the middle class. What we now know is the theory is simply not true. Today, America is increasingly unequal, millions of jobs have been shipped overseas, and the middle class has been gutted. These results are strong evidence that trickle-down economics have completely and utterly failed.

In 2001, President Bush proposed a series of unpaid-for tax cuts that exploded our deficit and put millions of dollars directly into the pockets of the richest families in America, and that's where we are today. At the same time, President Bush claimed that these tax cuts would create jobs. And Vice President Cheney told us not to worry about the cost to our Nation because ``deficits don't matter.'' A decade later, we can see that President Bush and Vice President Cheney couldn't have been more wrong.

Under President Bush, our deficit exploded to record levels; and according to FactCheck.org, he created only 1.1 million jobs. In contrast, President Clinton erased our deficit through a balanced tax plan and created 23 million jobs--quite a difference--which brings us back to the legislation that we are considering today.

Today, the majority proposes that we continue failed policies by extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2 percent. Doing so, Madam Speaker, would cost us nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years, it would force us to continue borrowing billions of dollars from China, and would force us to make cuts in vital programs like Medicare and student loans.

To continue the failed status quo is a disservice to the American people that we represent. It is high time that we start making our Tax Code fair for those who work hard and play by the rules--not just the wealthy who lobby hard and rewrite the rules. We can do that by passing a simple and fair tax cut for the middle class today.

Unlike the proposal from the majority, the Democratic proposal to cut taxes for the middle class is something that both sides already agree on. The majority's strategy of holding middle class tax cuts hostage in exchange for tax cuts for the top 2 percent is outrageous, and it must end.

Far too often, the majority has pursued a partisan and zero-sum ideology that has led this Congress down dead-end roads. We've seen it over and over again, whether it's the majority's proposal to end Medicare as we know it, or their inability to avoid a downgrade--the first in our Nation's history--in our credit. Unfortunately, their proposal today is yet another partisan piece of legislation that will never become law. Indeed, the President has already said that he will veto the majority's proposal if it ever reaches his desk.

When faced with these two starkly different proposals--one, a noncontroversial and commonsense tax cut for the middle class; the other, a partisan tax cut to benefit the richest 2 percent--it's clear what we should do.

I urge my colleagues to provide a fair and simple tax cut to all Americans--because the rich will benefit too--while standing up for the financial security and prosperity of the middle class. Why would we continue a program we know has failed?

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentlewoman another minute.

The real issue here today is: Are we going to continue something that we know utterly failed? More than 10 years ago, this deal was made with corporations that we would cut the tax rate and that they would produce jobs. We didn't get the jobs. Half of it didn't work. Why would a country as intelligent as ours want to continue that failed policy? We are at a critical crossroads here, and we had better this time get it right.

In that regard, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

I think I must say that 97 percent of small businesses in America will not be affected at all.

With that, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I will be happy to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, we understand the majority intends to have a last- minute change in the rule. The amendment would create a number of obstacles to middle class tax cuts. And under the last-minute change, the middle class taxes could not be cut until the Senate has approved the entire Republican tax reform agenda, and we certainly don't need that kind of obstacle and we don't need that kind of bill. We need quick action on tax cuts, so I hope we can get that today. But let me remind you that you need to vote against this rule, unless you want the Republican bill to pass automatically.

The Senate-passed tax cuts are a simple and fair extension of tax cuts that will directly benefit the middle class. It was quite wonderful to see the Senate of the United States do the sensible thing and say that everyone making $250,000 and under would receive a tax cut. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are the only ones standing in the way of the tax cut becoming law.

Their flawed alternative proposal demands that any middle class tax cut be accompanied by an additional tax cut for the richest 2 percent. Such a proposal would be and has been a fiscal disaster. It would explode the Nation's deficit, fail to create jobs, and perpetuate the record of inequality facing our Nation.

The oft-repeated premise that we need to protect job creators--who haven't created new jobs--with lower corporate taxes and lower taxes for the wealthy should be put to bed. It has been thoroughly and convincingly disproven.

Instead of protecting tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas and serving the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, we should be making the Tax Code more simple and fair and asking everyone just to pay their fair share. Our proposed middle class tax cut would be a great first step towards doing just that.

In addition, Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to give the House a vote on H. Res. 746, which would prohibit us from going home until the President signs middle class tax cuts into law. Otherwise, we will be going home perhaps tomorrow with that undone.

There is no excuse for Congress to go on summer vacation at the end of this week. No other American leaves work with a job half done, and neither should we. It is our duty to deliver results for the American people, and we should not leave this town until every middle class family has a tax cut in their hands.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the middle class tax cuts, to vote ``no'' on the rule and on ordering the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put the amendment and other extraneous material in the Record immediately prior to the vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Children's Health Task Force Act. As children grow and develop, they are especially vulnerable to environmental health hazards such as air pollution, hazardous chemicals, and lead.

The number of children at risk for lead poisoning alone remains unacceptably high. Today there are 442,000 children with elevated blood levels, yet Congress continues to drastically cut funding for lead poisoning prevention programs. There is simply no safe level of lead exposure for children. Research has shown that lead is damaging to the developing brains of young children and can have harmful long-term effects on behavior and IQ. I believe it is reprehensible to allow this kind of damage to happen to children. This quiet tragedy is entirely preventable, and it is our responsibility to protect our children and make lead poisoning a thing of the past.

In 1997, former President Clinton established by Executive Order an inter-agency task

force to address high priority risks to children's health. Former President George W. Bush further amended the Executive Order to extend the work of this task force an additional few years. Since its establishment, the Task Force has successfully developed strategies and action plans for addressing asthma, unintentional injuries, lead poisoning, childhood cancer, and school environments.

The Children's Health Task Force Act would simply codify the Task Force by an act of Congress and charge it with recommending and coordinating Federal strategies to address environmental health and safety risks for children in the United States.

I am pleased the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Center for Healthy Housing, and Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital have endorsed this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Children's Health Task Force Act. We must ensure that our children grow up in a safe and healthy environment.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a constituent in my district who, along with her late husband and family, has made a positive impact in the Rochester, New York area. I am profoundly appreciative of this monumental opportunity to pay homage to Mrs. Gloria Langston.

In July 1960, Mrs. Langston, along with her now-deceased husband, Andrew, relocated from the State of Georgia to Rochester, New York. From the time Gloria and Andrew Langston arrived in Rochester until today, the Langston family has made positive and substantial contributions to the Rochester area.

Among their many extraordinary contributions, perhaps one of their most transformational is the establishment of the Monroe County Broadcasting Company and the subsequent birth of WDKX-FM radio station. WDKX is named in honor of Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, and the Monroe County Broadcasting Company was the first ever African American corporation to apply for a frequency with the Federal Communications Commission.

WDKX-FM began its service to the Rochester community on April 6, 1974, and today--38 years later--the station continues its service to our community, 24 hours a day and seven days a week. It is the only independently owned and operated commercial radio station in Rochester, New York.

Gloria Langston has an unwavering commitment to uplifting and enhancing the Rochester community, and she exudes a deep sense of community awareness and pride. These admirable characteristics are reflected in the management and staff of WDKX-FM radio. The station is far more than a source of entertainment. It is an invaluable community partner; one that promotes philanthropy for good causes, provides information to enhance health and wellness and provides platforms and opportunities for Rochester area residents to learn about important community activities and initiatives that improve our quality of life.

Because of the countless contributions Mrs. Gloria Langston has brought to Rochester, it is my great pleasure to salute her today. It can be truthfully said that Rochester, New York is a better place because Gloria Langston has walked among us.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its present form, I am.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a final amendment to today's bill.

The amendment is simple in its wording but powerful in its purpose. My amendment simply states that no company that violates the Iran Sanctions Act or the Syria Accountability Act will be allowed to profit from the oil leases in today's bill. The amendment will help to ensure that no company that helps to prop up these oppressive and destabilizing regimes can benefit from today's legislation.

Currently, the United States Government is imposing sanctions on 13 companies who maintain essential business dealings with Iran. In addition, the threat of sanctions is hanging over other companies that continue to do business there. In total, more than 16 oil companies remain ``active'' in Iran. These companies are defying the international community and helping to empower an Iranian regime that exports terrorism around the world, seeks nuclear weapons capability, and threatens the security of the entire Middle East--especially our ally and friend, Israel.

With the threat from Iran continuing to grow, it is vital that Congress respond with prudent and effective action. My amendment will help to isolate Iran, promote stability in the Middle East, and protect Israel.

With regard to Syria, existing sanctions are already helping increase the pressure on the murderous regime of President Assad. Thanks to the sanctions, Syrian oil production had dropped by 60,000 barrels per day by 2011 as companies cut ties with the government and exited the country. Despite this pressure, more action is needed, and my amendment will be a responsible next step to ensure that nothing in this bill will empower President Assad's continued war against the Syrian people.

Madam Speaker, for the last 2 years, we have put the needs of special interests, especially Big Oil, before the needs of our country, our people, and our allies. Over the last 2 years, the majority has voted more than 140 times to benefit Big Oil, and today should not be another one. Instead of passing the bill to create jobs, we've proposed yet another bill to serve Big Oil interests.

If we're going to move forward with such a giveaway, it is vital that they ensure that no profit derived from today's legislation goes to prop up nations who would harm our national security interests or those of our ally, Israel. It is up to this Congress on both sides of this aisle: Will we sacrifice the interests of Israel and the Syrian people by passing legislation that could benefit two of the most oppressive and destabilizing regimes in the world, or are we going to stand with our friend and ally, Israel, and protect the people of Syria?

With both the Iranian and Syrian regimes threatening our allies and thousands of innocent people in the Middle East, I believe it's high time the United States Congress moves to further protect Israel and the people of Syria.

Once again, if my amendment is adopted, the House will proceed to final passage of the bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important amendment today--and it is an important amendment--and put our national interests before the wishes of Big Oil.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2012, I introduced the Reauthorization of the National Women's Rights History Project Act. This legislation was intended to be introduced with Mr. Richard Hanna (NY-24) as an original cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will reauthorize the National Women's Rights History Project. I originally worked with then-Senator Hillary Clinton to create this project, and with the authorization for the project. With its current authorization set to expire in Fiscal Year 2013, it is vital that Congress pass this reauthorization and ensure that the women who have shaped our Nation's history, and fought for women'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. 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 fight for women's right to vote. And in 1900, Anthony fought to tear down the walls of higher education. Twenty years earlier, 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 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 preeminent 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 92 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 have led us here today.

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 have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, we've just concluded debate on a bill that will make it easier for the mining industry to profit from digging up valuable minerals on land owned by the American taxpayer.

What would the American people get in return? Nothing, except poorer public health, a dirtier environment, and fewer opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreation.

Instead of the bill we are considering today, we should be amending the statute that was signed into law by Ulysses S. Grant. Can you imagine that? The mining law of 1872, which is our mining law today, gives away the valuable minerals we should be saving for ourselves or, at the very least, getting some revenue from. But no, 140 years later, we still have this bill which has long outlived its usefulness.

Over the 25 years that I've served in Congress, every attempt to repeal this law has failed. Today, we compound the problem by voting on legislation that will give even more power to mining interests. Adding insult to injury, the companies benefiting from this bill can continue to take minerals owned by the American taxpayers royalty free, even if they're foreign companies and even if they have cheated or are delinquent on their taxes.

There is still time to fix three of the most glaring loopholes contained in this bill, and my amendment does just that. It will not kill the bill, and we will immediately move forward with the final vote on its passage. However, if adopted, my amendment will insert safeguards into the final legislation to protect our national security and to protect American jobs.

First, my amendment prevents mining contracts from being awarded to companies that have failed to pay their taxes. Last week, the Las Vegas Sun reported that mining companies in Nevada have underpaid their taxes by $8.7 million since 2008. At a time when cities and towns across America are going bankrupt and we're facing disaster in many areas of the country and some in Congress threaten to cut Medicare and food stamps in the name of fiscal responsibility, we must and should hold corporations accountable for the taxes they owe to the American people. If mining companies are to profit from our natural resources, they must be required to pay their fair share.

I'm the author of the Reciprocal Market Access Act, a bipartisan bill that would finally put an end to the wholesale exporting of American manufacturing jobs to China. My amendment

today echos this plan. With the passage of this amendment today, we would make sure that the door is closed when China comes knocking to profit from our precious natural resources.

Finally, my amendment protects American jobs by prohibiting outsourcing and requiring mining companies to use mining equipment made in the United States. Isn't that little enough to ask?

The sweat and blood of middle class Americans built the United States, and it's time this Congress put their interests first. With my amendment today, we can do just that, by putting in place safeguards that will protect American jobs and ensure that mining equipment is made in America.

I'm introducing my amendment on behalf of the people of Rochester, New York. Some of the greatest workers that the country has ever known live there. My constituents are among the 300 million rightful owners of our Nation's natural resources, and not a single one of them wants this Congress to simply give them away to China or outsource precious American jobs.

Over the last 2 years, the majority has consistently pandered to corporate interests. Listen to this, because we've been very concerned this week with how many times we voted to repeal health care. Try this one on. We have voted more than 100 times this term, the last 18 months, over 100 times to benefit the oil industry. As demonstrated last night by a wonderful CBS News program, it costs millions and millions of dollars. They estimate that just the health care votes over and over cost the taxpayers $50 million.

Last year, we voted--as you remember, I voted against it, of course-- to give Federal land to a single foreign mining company that has ties to Iran's nuclear program. That was mining of uranium, free, about 8 miles from the Grand Canyon. I don't know how much more stupid we can get. I think it is absolutely obvious to us that a law passed in 1872 is nowhere near adequate for what we need today.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to protect American workers, American resources, and to protect our friends who are extremely worried about Iran by making sure that they do not benefit at all.

Mr. Speaker, we've just concluded debate on a bill that will make it easier for the mining industry to profit from digging up valuable minerals on land owned by the American taxpayer. And what would the American people get in return? Nothing except poorer public health, a dirtier environment, and fewer opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreation.

Instead of the bill we are considering today, we should be amending the statute that was signed into law by Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. In an effort to spur development of the West, the law gave almost unlimited power to mining companies. 140 years later, this law has outlived its usefulness, yet over the 25 years I've been in Congress, every attempt to repeal this law has failed. Now today, we compound the problem by voting on legislation that will give even more power to mining interests.

Adding insult to injury, the companies benefitting from this bill can continue to take minerals owned by American taxpayers--royalty-free-- even if they're foreign companies, and even if they have cheated on their taxes.

There is still time to fix three of the most glaring loopholes contained in this bill, and my amendment does just that. The amendment will not kill the bill, and we will immediately move forward with a final vote on its passage.

However, if adopted, my amendment will insert safeguards into the final legislation that will protect our national security and protect American jobs.

First, my amendment prevents mining contracts from being awarded to companies that have failed to pay their taxes. Last week, the Las Vegas Sun reported that mining companies in Nevada have underpaid their taxes by $8.7 million since 2008. At a time when cities and towns across America are going bankrupt, and some in Congress threaten to cut Medicare and other vital programs in the name of fiscal responsibility, we must hold corporations accountable for the taxes they owe to the American people. If mining companies are to profit from our natural resources, they must be required to pay their fair share.

Second, my amendment ensures that neither Iran nor China is allowed to profit from today's bill. Under my amendment, mineral resources deemed critical or strategic will be prohibited from export to Iran or China. No company that is owned by Iran or China will be allowed to mine American minerals, and under no circumstances will American minerals be exported to either of these nations.

In an age when Iran is threatening the security of our ally Israel, and the stability of the entire Middle East, this Congress must ensure that not a single American resource goes to supporting the dangerous Iranian regime. My amendment would leave no doubt that the United States stands by our allies and that not an ounce of American minerals ends up in Iranian hands.

Furthermore, as my constituents know all too well, China routinely engages in unfair and anti-competitive behavior that has stolen American jobs and weakened our middle class. It is time that this Congress, and this country, stops the decades-long giveaway to China.

I am the author of the Reciprocal Market Access Act, a bipartisan bill that would finally put an end to the wholesale exporting of American manufacturing jobs to China, and my amendment today echoes this plan. With passage of my amendment today, we would make sure that the door is closed when China comes knocking to profit from our precious natural resources.

Finally, my amendment protects American jobs by prohibiting outsourcing, and requiring mining companies to use mining equipment that is made in the United States.

The sweat and blood of middle class Americans built the United States, and it is time that this Congress put their interests first. With my amendment today, we can do just that, by putting in place safeguards that protect American jobs and ensure that mining equipment is made in the USA.

I am introducing my amendment on behalf of the people of Rochester NY--they are some of the greatest workers that the world has ever known. My constituents are among the 300 million rightful owners of our Nation's natural resources, and I know that not a single one of them wants this Congress to simply give away our valuable assets to China, or outsource precious American jobs.

Over the last 2 years, the Majority has consistently pandered to corporate interests. The Majority has voted more than 100 times to benefit the oil industry, and even voted last year to give away Federal land to a single foreign mining company that has ties to Iran's nuclear program.

The Majority has also answered the wishes of the health insurance industry, including voting more than 30 times to dismantle historic healthcare reforms. They've continued this corporate care-giving right up until today as we prepare to vote on a bill that is a giveaway to corporate mining interests.

What we should be doing is voting on a jobs bill that helps people, not fattens corporate profits. But if the Majority insists on moving forward with flawed bills, we can at least close loopholes in order to protect the American people. By fixing three vital flaws within today's bill, my amendment will allow each of us to vote for our constituents and stand up for the middle class.

Again, my amendment will not kill the bill. If my amendment is adopted, the bill as amended will immediately be voted upon. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and stand with me as I fight to protect our natural resources and American-made jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will never become law, and it is a perfect symbol of the failure of this Congress.

Over the last two years we've voted more than 30 times to mess with the healthcare reforms in the Affordable Care Act. This Congress could barely bring itself to pass a transportation bill, yet it found the time to vote on the same issue 30 times.

The second biggest priority of this Congress appears to be the legislative war on women. We've taken at least 9 votes to take away rights and protections away from women, and specifically attacking women's health.

In short, this Congress has spent two years actively working against the rights of women and healthcare of American families.

Prior to the Affordable Care Act becoming law, being a woman was a pre-existing condition. Women were denied health insurance coverage because they were victims of domestic abuse, and when they were given health insurance coverage, they oftentimes paid more than men for the same level of care. Companies that have a large number of female employees faced higher healthcare costs than other companies--all because health insurance companies could, and did, get away with price discrimination.

The Affordable Care Act finally gave women equal rights when it came to healthcare, and it is the reason I rise to defend that lifesaving legislation today. I strongly oppose the political charade that is being carried out here today--and on behalf of every woman who is no longer a second-class citizen, I urge my colleagues to vote against today's bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess I'd better start by saying that one man's facts are another woman's folly. I want everybody who is listening today to clear their minds of what they just heard and also to remind them that when Medicare and Social Security were also before the Congress of the United States, Republicans didn't like them either, and almost all of them voted against it. So to hear people whose plan for Medicare is to simply do away with it and give vouchers to the Medicare recipients no matter what their physical condition or their mental condition to go into the private market and try to buy insurance if they can with the amount of money that may not even cover it, this crying about Medicare in this bill, which really strengthens it, is hard to take.

This is an incredible milestone today, and those of you in the gallery are here on a very important day. Over the last 2 years, over 30 votes have been taken on this health care bill alone. Today is the 31st. They want to defund or dismantle or do whatever to it. Never in the history of this Congress, and I feel perfectly secure in saying this, has anybody voted this many times on a single issue. Why? Because we don't have anything else to do.

We are here simply killing time because everybody knows the Senate has already done away with this bill, so we know it's never going to become law. What it's going to do is, as I said yesterday at the Rules Committee, we're not trying to make law here, we're making political points. And that is a shame, because it's not that the country doesn't need our attention. It isn't as though the unemployment rate isn't so high and that people's futures are not so grim that they are crying out for us to get something done, but it has been said that this is the least productive Congress since the beginning of Congresses, apart from the Continental Congress.

So here today, no jobs bill has been passed here, and over that time while everybody is clamoring for it, we do the 31st vote on this measure which, again, everybody knows is going nowhere. So we have just months left in the 112th Congress, and yet we vote again on this. We voted at least nine times on women's reproductive health, which shows you what are the real issues here that people care about.

Sadly, we're not going to be able to vote this year, the rest of this term, on creating jobs or rebuilding the infrastructure or even ending the war in Afghanistan, but we vote for the 31st time on dismantling historic health care concerns.

I am sure that while time runs out on this Congress to tackle the major issues that face us, to create jobs and to rebuild our country, we have failed to answer the call. I shouldn't say ``we'' because that's the polite way to do it on the floor of the House. But everybody knows who is wasting time.

This year, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, already more than 360,000 small businesses are expected to receive tax credits that reduce the cost of health care for their employees. And meanwhile, the new guarantees, one that ensures that the insurance companies will spend 85 percent of the cost on health care, of your premium dollar for the first time in history, 85 cents of that dollar is going to go to health care, not administrative costs, not being put away to something or building buildings or whatever else. It will go to health care. That in itself is going to reduce the cost. This increased efficiency is very good news not only for small business owners but all the rest of us who bear the burden of inefficient care.

In addition, more than 3 million young adults are already insured on their parents' health care, and more than 5 million seniors have cheaper prescription drugs simply thanks to this health care reform, and we have not even started. It is not going to go into full effect until 2014, which I deplore, but nonetheless that's where we are.

Despite these benefits for millions of Americans, the majority wants to take it all away. Now they talk about repeal and replace. With what? We've had no plan of replacement. There is no answer to what's going to happen to the seniors and others who are already benefiting from this plan. They have offered no solution of their own; and 537 days ago, the majority passed legislation requiring this Congress to craft a proposal that would keep popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as health care for people with preexisting conditions.

I hope everybody understands that your health care, as it is written now, has a yearly limit and a lifetime limit. If you exceed the lifetime limit, you are not insurable again in the United States. And you can do that very easily with, let's say, a serious head wound or other trauma. But we have waited for a year for this bill that was promised 537 days ago. I really believe, and I don't want to be cynical, but I certainly do believe, because I must, that no such bill will ever come.

So what's going to happen if this bill passes and the Affordable Care Act is

repealed? What's going to happen to the millions of women who will, once again, be charged more money than men for the same health insurance coverage? Do you know women pay 40 percent more? What will happen to the millions of seniors who will, once again, face the financial threat of the doughnut hole? What's going to happen to the thousands of children who will, once again, be denied health insurance coverage because they were born with a preexisting condition? And what will happen to the young people on their parents' health care unable to find work because Congress is not involved with that--or at least the majority is not? What will happen to them?

Today's vote will take away health care from women like Nancy O'Donnell, who is 60 years old and lives in my district in Rochester, New York. She works four jobs to make ends meet, and not a single one of them offers health care. Her life changed when she was diagnosed with cancer and told she would need a mastectomy. With no insurance to help cover the cost of major surgery, she faced the very real prospect of suffering with cancer and having no hope of being cured. And if anybody out there believes that you can be diagnosed with cancer and not be able to get treatment for it because you have no insurance, you've got another think coming.

Prior to the Affordable Care Act, there would have been no recourse for a woman like Nancy. For years, millions of women and men in America were denied health insurance because cancer was a ``preexisting condition'' or if they had ever had it and they changed jobs and they had to get new health care, they probably would not be able to because they had had cancer. Even patients like Nancy who had insurance--and she did not, remember--would face lifetime and yearly limits on their health care, meaning that they would stop providing treatment because they didn't want her high-cost disease affliction.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, these tragic stories are no more. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Nancy was able to access health insurance at a price she could afford. And with that health insurance in hand, she was able to access treatment and found out that a mastectomy was no longer needed. She has now had four clean CAT scans and no sign of cancer, and we are all delighted for her.

Women like Nancy are the reason I brought the Affordable Care Act through the Rules Committee to the House floor. Women like Nancy are the reason I stood up to those who threw a brick through one of my district office windows and who threatened my family because I wanted to provide affordable, lifesaving health care to Americans in need. Health care was costing us 17, going on 18, percent of GDP, and we could not afford it unless we wanted to become the one industrial Nation on Earth that was only able to provide health care and do war.

Surely to goodness, we would like to join the community of other nations. And in addition to that, we have put the burden on our employers to provide the health care for their employees that none of their competitors from overseas or Canada have to put up with. This has been really sad and really the start of the debate for Clinton health care which came from Lee Iacocca, who said that the cost of health care forced him to put about $2,000 more for the cost of each automobile he sold. It was unsupportable. But we're still at it here.

The United States, as I said, is the only one that does not provide its citizens with safe, secure, and affordable health care. They do it much cheaper than we do with much better outcomes. Instead, we put the burden back on the employers. That puts us at a disadvantage with competitors all around the world. Despite not providing reliable health care to millions of our citizens, the cost of health care rises. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, we were on a trajectory to soon be bankrupt simply through the skyrocketing cost of care.

Since the Presidency of President Roosevelt--and I'm talking about Teddy here, we're going way back beyond, ahead of Franklin--numerous Presidents have tried to provide health care--President Nixon, President Truman, President Clinton--to the millions of the uninsured to lower the cost of care.

We, each of us, when we talk about having other people buy health insurance if they can afford it, and if they can't, we help them, each family is expected, and has been for some time, paying what is estimated to be between $1,000 and $1,500 more on your own health care to cover for the uncompensated cost of people who don't have it.

So why don't we deal with this in a mature and grown-up way? Because somehow or other we can't. But the reason could be this: yesterday morning, Politico, one of the newspapers that we have here on the Hill, reported on the plans of the majority over the next 4 weeks. They had been talking to members of the majority. In part, they wrote: ``House Republicans have planned a series of hot-button votes over the next 4 weeks to contrast the party's agenda with that of Democrats and put President Barack Obama and Democratic candidates on the defensive,'' as though we are not capable of standing up and defending the votes that we take. ``The main goal is to boost the party's prospects on Election Day.''

Madam Speaker, the record is clear: today's vote is nothing more than a show. It is political theater. It puts political games ahead of the health of the Nation's citizens.

So, on behalf of the millions of Americans who are already benefiting from affordable care, I urge my colleagues to change course and reconsider the legislation before us today. Frankly, we should drop it. There's no point in taking this vote at all. Too much needs to be done, from creating jobs to investing in schools, rebuilding our broken highways and bridges. And we have only been able, in the United States, to build one airport from the ground up since 1972, in Denver. That tells you how modernized we are. But we are playing politics with health care reform instead, and health care is already saving lives.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose today's rule, the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who knows health care, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Markey.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Doggett, who also served on the Subcommittee on Health during the health care debate.

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

I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, Presidents from both sides of the aisle have tried to do health care in the United States for a hundred years. Finally, 2 years ago, we were able to achieve the goal. Today, we vote on a bill that would dismantle that achievement for political points only, because the 31st time is not going to be the charm here.

We have heard, again, the dire straits of this country. Please ask your Member of Congress why it is that we're voting on this for the 31st time instead of doing something about jobs, for heaven's sake.

I've not heard anything in that bill or anyplace else that 17,000 IRS agents are going to be hired. I think that's, again, something that we really don't know about.

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

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

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 rise today to congratulate Theresa Lou Bowick, BSN, RN

upon the realization of her vision and to recognize her for her dedication to the Rochester, New York community.

July 7, 2012 will mark the official kick off of the Conkey Cruisers, a free neighborhood ``biking to better health'' program that will journey throughout the northeast crescent of Rochester, otherwise known as the Conkey-Clifford Neighborhood. The Conkey Cruisers is an official 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that has singlehandedly unified an inner city neighborhood by addressing two important factors: crime and health.

Just one year ago, Ms. Bowick was out running in her neighborhood when she had two disturbing encounters. First, a young boy called out to her, ``Hey, lady! Are you on probation?'' He assumed that Ms. Bowick was running from the police, as he apparently had little understanding of any other reason for running in that particular neighborhood. Soon after, an older man accused Ms. Bowick of being an undercover cop, boldly stating, ``She is the police, because nobody exercises in this neighborhood!''

These encounters inspired Ms. Bowick to start an exercise program in the ConkeyClifford Neighborhood. The program advocates ``Getting fit, one street, one person, one bike at a time.'' As a registered nurse, Ms. Bowick understands the health benefits of regular exercise, particularly at a time when our nation is experiencing an epidemic of obesity. Her efforts are getting an entire neighborhood up and moving, all the while restoring safety and a sense of home back to the residents.

The signature black, yellow and white Conkey Cruiser t-shirts can now be seen daily on the streets of Conkey Avenue, as neighbors both young and old exercise on their bikes. Beginning July 7th, youth from the Conkey-Clifford neighborhood will participate in the six-week, five days a week free Conkey Cruisers program, which provides an introduction to safe bicycling and healthy eating, as well as an opportunity to earn President Obama's Active Lifestyle Award.

I am proud that such dedicated individuals call my district home, and that they have committed themselves to improving their neighborhoods, increasing safety, and pursuing health for all of our residents. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Theresa Lou Bowick and the Conkey Cruisers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing the 40th anniversary of the momentous Title IX legislation. Forty years ago, on June 23, 1972, it was established that educational institutions receiving federal funding were barred from discriminating against anyone on the basis of sex. That decision applied to student admissions, recruitment, scholarship awards and tuition assistance, housing, access to courses and other academic offerings, counseling, financial assistance, employment assistance to students, health and insurance benefits and services, athletics, and all aspects of education-related employment.

This landmark legislation led to gains for women in all fields, from academics to business to science and technology. The law is probably most well known for its impact on women in athletics. Since Title IX was enacted, the number of women competing in college sports has soared by more than 600 percent, and the number of high school girls competing in sports has increased by over 1,000 percent.

This is important because we know from scientific research that student athletes graduate at higher rates, perform better in school and are less likely to use drugs and alcohol, smoke, or develop mental illness or obesity later in life. Furthermore, I have heard from countless female athletes, like Olympic gymnast Dominique Dawes, that without athletic scholarships made possible by Title IX, they simply would not have been able to attend college. Imagine the vast intellectual, cultural and athletic opportunities that would have been lost to these young women had they not been able to pursue their goals of furthering their education.

In the years since the law was passed, we have had to fight for improvements to the legislation and fight against other attempts to weaken it. In 2003, I led a hearing in the basement of this very Capitol building when Title IX was being threatened by Commission for Opportunity in Athletic recommendations that ignored the continuing lack of participation opportunities and funding that women's and girls' athletics were facing. I clearly recall watching a line of little girls in their soccer uniforms enter the room accompanied by their fathers. These dads spoke eloquently about the importance of coaching their daughters in sports, and how it meant just as much to them as coaching their sons. Although bad policy was enacted that limited the effectiveness of Title IX, I am proud to say we were able to reverse significant parts of that in 2010.

The fight for fairness continues. Today we still face disparities in opportunities for girls in sports, particularly at the high school level. Girls make up half of the high school population, yet receive only 41 percent of all athletic participation opportunities. This translates to 1.3 million fewer opportunities for young women to play high school sports than young men. Worse yet, this gap is actually increasing.

How is it that one law can have such a dramatic impact at one age level and yet be less successful for our young women who are just four years younger? The answer can be found in public transparency and accountability. As is true elsewhere in life, sunshine can be the best of disinfectants.

At the collegiate level, colleges and universities are required to publicly account for how their athletic opportunities, resources, and dollars are allocated among male and female athletes. No such transparency requirements are found at the high school level. Not surprisingly, where there is no public accountability, there is a growing gap in athletic opportunities for young student-athletes.

Currently, high schools are required to submit annual reports of their athletic participation numbers by sport and gender to their state high school athletic associations. Additionally, school bookkeepers already keep records of all school expenditures--including those made within the athletic department. Despite doing all the work of collecting this data, none of it is required to be made public.

To make a simple, but profound, change to high school reporting requirements, I have authored H.R. 458, the High School Athletics and Accountability Act. This bill would require high schools to make public vital data on the participation of girls in high school sports. Schools already collect this data. Making the information public would be a small change for school administrators--estimates are that it would take just three to six hours of time once a year to produce a report-- and would have a huge impact on the opportunities available to our young girls.

As we celebrate the anniversary of the passage of this landmark legislation, we must recommit ourselves to continuing the fight for equity for women and girls. I ask my colleagues to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Title IX with me, and pledge to keep pressing forward until opportunities are equal for all.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, with every decade that passes, the middle class has faced higher and higher prices at the pump. Meanwhile, the world's five biggest oil companies have reported record profits year after year. Between 2001 and 2011, the five biggest oil companies made more than $1 trillion in profits.

Despite these record profits, the majority continues to put the wishes of Big Oil before the needs of the middle class. Instead of balancing our Nation's budget by closing tax loopholes on Big Oil, they have repeatedly told the middle class that they should sacrifice the programs on which they rely to live.

Twice, the majority has passed the Ryan budget, which would end Medicare as America knows it. And picture this for your mother or your most elderly relatives. In its place, they would be given a health care voucher and sent into the marketplace on their own to find health care on their own. Meanwhile, they work hard and we call all the time for votes, not to protect the billion-dollar Big Oil subsidies from any cuts, but, again, to protect our vanishing middle class. I think this approach is not only wrongheaded and will hurt us all, but it's morally wrong.

A year ago, Speaker Boehner told ``60 Minutes'' that ending subsidies for Big Oil companies is ``certainly something we should be looking at.'' I couldn't agree more. He continued, ``We're in a time when the Federal Government is short on revenues. We need to control spending, but we need to have revenues to keep the government moving, and they ought to be paying their fair share.'' Speaker Boehner was absolutely right, and this is the time to do it.

By voting in support of my amendment, the whole House will finally have the opportunity to demand that Big Oil pay its fair share.

Last year, the five biggest oil companies in the world made a combined record profit of $137 billion. During that same time, thousands of middle class Americans slid out of the middle class and into poverty. While ExxonMobil was busy using at least 20 tax shelters to lower their tax rate to a mere 13 percent, over 20 million people were living on less than $9,000 a year. That's not America. I think we need to balance our budget by asking those who have benefited the most simply to pay a fair share, not by taking from those who have the least. Our country was never based on that.

With my amendment, the world's biggest oil companies would begin to pay their fair share. They would be barred from receiving new drilling leases until they gave up their oil and gas subsidies. In addition, my amendment would require each Big Oil company that obtains an oil and gas lease to use American-made products and hire American workers who are more than ready and willing to do the job. This amendment will do much of what we've been striving to do this whole term.

The amendment will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee. If we approve this amendment, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage.

It's up to us, ladies and gentlemen. We can return home this weekend and tell our constituents that finally we voted for the middle class, which is what they want us to do, or we can turn our backs on this opportunity before us and go home and explain why this Congress would vote to gut Medicare but won't ask Big Oil to pay their fair share.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and stand up for the middle class and the suffering Americans.

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

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