Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no greater honor or privilege than to serve the American people. As Members of Congress, every day we work to remain worthy of the tremendous trust bestowed upon us by our constituents. While the spotlight is often focused on us, there are people who serve this great body and the American people without fanfare and recognition. In many ways, they are the backbone of this institution--without them, we could not do the People's work. One of the finest examples of this selfless commitment and tireless service can be found in our House Parliamentarian John V. Sullivan.

Following his graduation from the United States Air Force Academy and the Indiana University School of Law, John served 10 years on active military duty. His service in the House began almost 28 years ago when he became Counsel for the Committee on Armed Services. In 1987, he began what would become a distinguished career in the Office of the Parliamentarian, serving as an Assistant Parliamentarian and Deputy Parliamentarian. In 2004, he was appointed to the position of Parliamentarian of the House.

The Office of the Parliamentarian is commonly known as the nonpartisan umpire for

the House. Continuing this tradition throughout his tenure, John has been a shining example of integrity and fairness. John has served under six successive Speakers, both Democratic and Republican. He has truly been an innovator in the House--being the first to incorporate computer technology into the Office of the Parliamentarian. His ability to offer procedural guidance on the workings of this Chamber has earned him the respect and admiration of Members across both sides of the aisle. During my tenure as Chair of the House Rules Committee, John and his Office were invaluable resources to the Rules Committee and me.

John Sullivan has served the House with distinction during some of the most important debates of recent history. His unparalleled knowledge of parliamentary procedure helped guide us through the debates on the Affordable Care Act which ensured quality, affordable healthcare for millions of Americans, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which is helping to create new jobs and encourage investment in our economy, and the Emergency Stabilization Act which has been credited for preventing the collapse of our financial system.

While I join the chorus of voices in offering my best wishes to John on his well deserved retirement from the House, I will certainly miss his warmth, his sense of humor and his humility in this Chamber. Those are attributes that are far too rare these days.

Fortunately, John is leaving the Parliamentarian position in the able hands of Tom Wickham, who I am confident will do a wonderful job. However, I am sure even Tom will agree that he has some rather large shoes to fill. On behalf of a grateful chamber, I'd like to wish John the best of luck, as he starts the latest chapter of his distinguished life.

Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, I was really honored to serve as the chair of the House Committee on Rules and bring this historic Affordable Care Act to the House floor. It was one of my proudest moments. I'm standing here today, equally proud to defend that law from the ongoing war on women.

When it comes to health care, women are classified as a preexisting condition. For decades, women have been routinely charged more for health insurance than a man who seeks the very same coverage.

Did you know that if a business employs more women than men, it can choose to raise everybody's premiums, regardless of gender, to cover the higher cost, which is, in their mind, of insuring women?

Women not only pay for standard insurance coverage, but they also pay a separate cost for maternity coverage. In Illinois, a 30-year-old woman must pay $278 a month and an additional $270 a month for maternity coverage in case she needs it.

Insurance companies claim that these added costs are because women are more likely to visit doctors, get checkups, take prescription drugs, and have illnesses. Everyone knows that preventative care-- everyone but the insurance companies, apparently--saves us money in the long run. We women in the majority of the United States are tired of being second-class citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my colleague (Mr. Bishop), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

We begin yet another week of inaction in the House of Representatives. Last week, our colleagues in the Senate, working together in a bipartisan fashion, approved a transportation bill that would be the biggest job creation measure this body has considered in this Congress. But are we talking about a bipartisan job creation bill in the House? No.

Instead of creating thousands of jobs through a bipartisan transportation bill that has already passed the Senate, and just awaits our action, we are talking about an $800,000 earmark to benefit a single county in a single State. And if somebody talked about the day's work that we were getting around to, this is it.

In other words, instead of creating the millions of new jobs that would result from a strong bipartisan transportation bill, we're spending the entire day debating a bill that affects 32 acres of land in a single State. No other community in America has received the kind of special treatment that is provided to a single community in this bill. This earmark hardly seems like a fiscally responsible way to create jobs and to protect the tax dollars of our hardworking American citizens.

This is not the first time the Federal Government has had to make decisions about transferring public lands to new uses. Fortunately, there is an established procedure in existing law to ensure that the taxpayers get just compensation in such cases. We are being asked today to ignore that. Instead of letting the National Park Service and the local community handle the transfer of this land in the tried-and-true way, the majority proposes making a one-time exception--an $800,000 earmark for a single community.

If this majority were serious about job creation, we would right now be discussing the Senate-passed transportation bill. But instead, as I said before, we've spent an entire day of this week debating 32 acres of land.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I just wish to make a comment or two. The most unusual thing about this bill is that when we have a Federal land swap and a deed that goes with it, they're always the same--you can use this land for public purposes. Should you decide not to use this land for public purposes, it reverts to the government. It's as simple as that.

So what we're doing now is giving away $800,000 that belongs to my constituents, your constituents, and everybody else's constituents. We're giving away the tax money. I have got a good idea because there's a Democrat amendment today that can remedy that, and it says the county can pay for the land with the revenues they get from developing the land and renting it out. That way we'll get our money back; the county should be very happy; and we hope that a lot of jobs are created there.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is ready to close?

I am ready.

In closing today, let me reiterate what I've said all along: This is not a

jobs bill. It does nothing to put millions of unemployed Americans back to work. By considering this bill, the majority has made a decision that it is more important to vote on an earmark than to vote on a transportation bill that would create thousands of jobs, perhaps millions, throughout the United States and had strong, bipartisan support. We must do something because, as we know, the current legislation will expire at the end of this month.

If the House passes today's legislation, we will have taken a vote, but we will not have helped the American people. We all know we were not sent here to avoid solving the pressing problems facing our constituents, and we certainly weren't sent here to spend our days giving away public land so one county in one State could receive a windfall while all the rest of the taxpayers get nothing.

I urge my colleagues to get back to the single biggest problem facing the country--the lack of jobs--and to vote on the bipartisan Senate transportation bill, which easily passed the Senate 74 22. Until we do, we are just treading water as our roads, bridges, and highways crumble and our constituents are neglected.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is very important legislation we're doing here today because in December the Federal Court of Appeals wrongly determined that the Commerce Department does not have the authority to respond to illegal Chinese subsidies with countervailing duties. The court said that despite illegal action from the Chinese, we, as a Nation, are unable to respond as we wish to stop the loss of thousands of American jobs.

This court decision would have immediately reversed 23 import duties that protect 80,000 American workers from subsidized goods entering our market. In addition, it would have halted six pending U.S. investigations into unfair trade practices while costing the taxpayers billions of dollars each year.

Quite simply, allowing this decision to stand would unilaterally disarm our Nation of one of the most important weapons we have in combating subsidized Chinese exports. In the world of global trade, our Nation can ill afford to let any country assume an unfair and illegal advantage. Countless American companies, from Rochester, New York, to Detroit, Michigan, rely upon a level playing field to compete and win.

From the day of this court ruling, I've been working closely with my colleagues on Ways and Means to reverse this decision, and I'm so happy to support today's bipartisan legislation. Tens of thousands of working Americans are counting on Congress today to reverse the court decision and preserve the ability of our country to respond to illegal trade.

I want to thank Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin for the good work that they have done in working together to reach an agreement that stands up for American manufacturers. I urge all of my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, in my home State of New York, unemployment continues to remain stubbornly high. Thousands of Americans have given up looking for work altogether. For many, unemployment benefits have expired, and there is little hope that a paycheck will soon be a regular part of daily life.

Despite this dire economic reality, once again we are going through a bill that has nothing to do with job creation. Instead, we have piecemeal proposal after piecemeal proposal to do more to further ideological goals than create jobs.

Instead of creating jobs, today's bill would clarify lines of authority for two government agencies. Is this a worthy goal? Maybe. Some say yes. But does it create thousands of American jobs? The answer is clearly no.

As they have with so many other bills, the majority has also inserted unnecessary partisan language into today's bill language that attacks existing environmental law for no good reason. Specifically, it provides a categorical exemption for all small hydropower projects from National Environmental Policy Act compliance. There is no clear reason for this exemption from environmental protection.

Currently, hydropower projects that don't raise substantive environmental concerns have always been approved relatively quickly. From 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions were completed in less than a year each. In 2011, there were nine exemptions that were granted in an average of 40 days. Yet, despite seeing a system that works relatively well, the majority decided to once again put industry before the environment and include this controversial provision. This approach may fill a legislative calendar, but it fails to create jobs for the American people.

We could be considering a 5-year surface transportation bill, which everybody's waiting for, something we were supposed to consider weeks ago. A well-written and bipartisan bill--and all the transportation bills from the Eisenhower administration up to now were always bipartisan bills--would have created thousands of American jobs; but, once again, no such bill has come to the floor. Instead, they were forced to pull a proposed surface transportation bill because they had alienated Members of their own party with extreme provisions that would decimate public transportation and fail to create jobs.

Now we continue to wait as the majority works to write a reasonable transportation bill that will actually create jobs. In the meantime, we consider bill after bill that does nothing to create the many thousands of jobs that are so desperately needed.

Madam Speaker, the record is clear. When the majority pushes partisan politics over good governance, the American people lose. Today is the latest in a long line of such partisan bills, and yet one more day when the American people will go without new American jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question--and I hope we will--I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts the rule, we will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.

To talk about our proposal, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

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

Millions of Americans remain out of work, countless more run out of unemployment assistance, and meanwhile gas prices continue to rise on every American family; and they are turning to us for much needed relief.

Today's bill does nothing to address these pressing economic issues. Instead, we're doing more busy work on the floor today, preparing to consider a bill that clarifies the responsibility for two government agencies. This type of bill does little to create the many thousands of jobs needed to begin reviving our economy.

I urge my colleagues to end the long delay and finally bring forth two American job-creation legislations so that American families can live with some hope.

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

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

We stand here today considering a rule that is a blatant manipulation of the legislative process, which we have been pretty proud of, frankly, since the beginning of time here. Process is very important in the legislative business; and while it may seem like cookie cutter, we all still revere Thomas Jefferson and his manual. That's just the way we are, I guess.

But breaking with longstanding, bipartisan tradition for the consideration of surface transportation bills, today's rule throws all notions of bipartisanship and transparency out of the window. As you've heard, it is the first transportation bill since Eisenhower was President that was not bipartisan, and it moves toward a transportation bill that has been widely condemned on both sides of the aisle and by almost everybody who knows about it in the United States.

Now, as you can see on this poster beside me, the Grand Old Pretzel's rating system tracks the legislative contortions that are being done by the Republican leadership as they pursue a hyperpartisan agenda. We launched this system to answer the calls of the American people: What in the world is going on there? No matter which party is in power, the American people demand a fair shot, not a rigged game.

The legislative acrobatics being done by the majority are really quite remarkable. I don't know anybody else on Earth who could have even thought of it. Their stunt work began late last week, as Mr. McGovern pointed out, when we were fully expecting to come in on Monday and deal with a thousand-page transportation infrastructure bill, legislation that we knew already, because we'd heard so many complaints about it, that was cobbled together into Frankenstein's monster. It is made up of completely, believe me, completely unrelated and most times unvetted provisions that addressed almost every issue under the sun.

The Secretary of Transportation, as we all know who is our good friend, deplores this bill. He would like to see this bill fail.

However, before the Rules Committee convened last night, and that's not the first time this year, we were given last-minute notice that Frankenstein's monster was going to be disassembled and broken into three separate bills. This last-minute change would allow the majority to limit the number of germane amendments--300 were filed--and rule out of order commonsense attempts by Democrats to make some special interests, such as Big Oil--and Mr. McGovern has fought this for years--pay their fair share instead of receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

After forcing through these three bills, the majority plans to direct the Clerk of the House to stitch it back together. So the whole purpose of it is to try a sleight of hand. What shell game are we playing here? That's what we're up to, I'm afraid. So that gives the Senate a stitched-together bill which we had cut into three. I don't want anybody to miss this point. And they can take it or leave it. Or, I hope, have a better bill than this. That's what we're hoping for.

For inventing a way to pass as many Republican amendments as possible, and block as many Democrat amendments as possible, while still sewing this monster back again, I want to award the majority four Grand Old Pretzels, the coveted Quadruple Contortion.

The majority has truly achieved the remarkable. Unfortunately, their acrobatic achievements come at great cost to the House; and by pursuing a partisan agenda over transparency and bipartisanship, the majority moves forward alone, against the wishes of their colleagues and the American people.

And I certainly should mention that the President has said this bill will be vetoed by him. He again calls for us to work in a bipartisan manner, not to be throwing more people out of work but to create jobs with an infrastructure bill which is time honored and may be as cookie cutter as it gets but, by George, it works.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote numbers 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, and 63. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote number 62.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

Try as they may, Majority Leader Cantor and the House Republican leadership were unable to move forward with the STOCK Act without keeping at least some of the reforms that we included in this bill 6 years ago. However, when it comes to K Street, it appears that Republican leadership couldn't stomach the pressure from the political intelligence community.

After working behind closed doors, the majority removed the major provision that would have held political intelligence operatives to the same standards as lobbyists who come before the Congress.

I need to put into the Record that political intelligence is worth $400 million a year. It is unregulated, unseen, and operates in the dark. Fortunately, Democrats and Republicans alike are fighting to keep political intelligence as part of the final bill.

Senator Grassley shares my outrage that Mr. Cantor would let the political intelligence community off the hook. Together with a supermajority, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Senator Grassley followed my lead and included the political intelligence requirement in the Senate version of this bill.

I think his statement yesterday tells you all you need to know about his desire to see this language inserted back into the STOCK Act before it reaches the President's desk.

I would like to read that into the Record if I may.

``It's astonishing and extremely disappointing,'' Senator Grassley said, ``that the House would fulfill Wall Street's wishes by killing this provision. The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? I hope to see a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a House-Senate conference or other means. If Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.''

And it's hard. The STOCK Act is a statement of how we in Congress view ourselves and our relationship with

those who sent us here. No matter how powerful our position may be or we believe it is, nor how hallowed the Halls that we walk, none of us is above the law.

With the passage of the STOCK Act, we can move one step closer to living up to the faith and trust bestowed upon us by the American people, the citizens whom we serve.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, my colleague, for yielding to me.

This is terribly important to me. I've spent 6 years of my life on this bill, so bear with me if I get a little emotional.

Today, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can strengthen the STOCK Act bill that has been weakened by House Republican leadership behind closed doors and in the dark of night. When writing their own version of the STOCK Act, Majority Leader Cantor and House Republican leadership did not consult the bipartisan coalition that has championed this bill and, over the week, neither I nor Mr. Walz were asked to contribute to the final product, nor was our leader consulted in any way. Despite championing the bill for 6 years, I was left completely out.

As a matter of fact, the way the bill is structured, I won't even have an opportunity to offer an amendment to put back the political intelligence piece, which I think is really the heart of the bill. The bill was changed from a bill to a suspension, which means that the minority will have neither the right of a motion to recommit or an opportunity to amend this bill in any way. That contrasts completely with what happened over in the Senate when Members of the Senate were allowed to present amendments to this bill, and many of them did it successfully.

But what we got here was a flawed bill last night and a need to reintroduce revised legislation earlier today. As a matter of fact, the bill they put out last night has already been superceded by one about 45 minutes ago, which shows you that if you write something in the dark of night, you may not know what you wrote.

Despite their many changes, the bill is weaker, not stronger, than before. The simple truth is that the bill introduced by House Republicans waters down government reform, particularly when it comes to regulating the political intelligence industry.

Political intelligence is the latest scheme to profit from the Halls of Congress. The industry profits to the tune of $400 million annually, and that's all we know. That grew considerably this week from the information that we had previously. We don't even know where it is, but this is at least almost half a billion dollars a year. They glean valuable information and they sell that information to high-paying Wall Street clients.

None of my constituents are able to do anything like that. They have no prior information, and they expect their Congress to be more decent and with more integrity than to be doing that.

But like the lobbyists before them, political intelligence operatives use a proximity to power to serve high-paying clients. Unlike the lobbyists, they are nameless. Under the current law, they're not required to identify themselves as they go about their work. They're completely unregulated.

America knows all too well what happens when Congress and K Street meet in the dark. From Jack Abramoff to Tom DeLay, corruption can spread through the highest reaches of Congress without the proper controls, and we know it. But with the STOCK Act, we have a chance to be proactive and simply require--no big whoop--the operatives to register as a lobbyist so we know who they are.

This is not a radical idea, but over the last week the outcry from K Street has been deafening. Soon after they rang the alarm, the House Republican leadership locked themselves behind closed doors where they reworked my original legislation and removed the language that regulated the political intelligence community. We're now set to consider a bill that commissions a study on political intelligence, hardly the type of action that will restore America's faith in this institution.

Did House Republican leadership return to their Abramoff-era ways and put the needs of K Street before Main Street? We will never know, because we don't know who they are and what they're doing, but we know that they're doing something.

What we do know is that the regulation of the political intelligence community was supported by 285 Members of Congress who were cosponsors of our original bill, including 99 Republicans, to whom we are extremely grateful, and a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate. The bill, as you know, passed over there 96-3. What we do know is that after emerging from behind the closed doors, the bill introduced by Mr. Cantor does nothing to regulate the political intelligence community.

The House leadership should have allowed this bill to be finalized in an open and transparent manner. It's that important. America is watching. I have never seen the editorial support or the outpouring of support like we have had on this measure. People want us to be doing this. It is really beyond my ken that we are doing this in such a hidden and weak way. But this has been allowed to come to the floor.

I'm confident that my 285 colleagues who supported the original STOCK Act would have passed the tough regulations for the political intelligence community.

I thank the gentleman.

Instead, the majority continued their ``my way or the highway'' approach and shut out their colleagues and made partisan changes to a bipartisan bill. As a result, a bipartisan coalition in the House is left with one option: to reintroduce our political intelligence regulations by defeating the previous question. Putting Main Street before K Street starts here.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, reinsert language to regulate a growing K Street industry, and make the STOCK Act as strong as it was when I introduced it 6 years ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, from Main Street to Wall Street, it is common knowledge that insider trading of stocks is a crime. In 2004, celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison. In 2011, Wall Street titan Raj Rajaratnam was sentenced to 11 years in prison for profiting from stocks bought and sold on insider information.

Despite these headline-grabbing convictions, when it comes to Members of Congress, the law of the land clearly does not apply. In the Halls of Congress, there are no clear laws preventing Members of Congress from using their public office to obtain insider information and trade stocks for private enrichment. We thought last week when the Senate passed the STOCK Act 96-3 that the House would have a chance to follow and that we would be moving forward to remedy that wrong. We were unfortunately very much wrong. We had had a markup 2 months ago in December on the STOCK Act; and at the last moment, the bill was snatched away, the meeting was adjourned, and we heard no more.

After the Senate passed the bill, the House decided that they indeed would pass one, any kind that was going to be strengthened and made better. We discovered yesterday that what was going to happen was that we would no longer have a freestanding bill, but instead we would have a suspension bill.

Let me take just a second to explain the difference between those two bills. We would have had an opportunity under a regular bill to be able to amend it, and we would have been given the right to recommit. Under suspension, we can do nothing but vote it up or down. This bill, which has the most support that I've seen in my 20 years in Congress, more editorial support all over this country and support in parts of Europe, is more than you can even imagine, and it was simply taken away. Was it made stronger? Absolutely not. We said yesterday that we were afraid the euphemism for making stronger meant that the bill would be gutted, and indeed it was.

The part called ``political intelligence,'' which is an investment that people make in getting political intelligence from Members of Congress and their staff, yields $402 million a year just simply from information traded from Members of Congress and sold to the clients of hedge fund dealers. We're pretty disappointed about that. It happened in the dark of night. We didn't even know it was going to be in the bill until 10:30.

I was really pleased today to hear from both Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy of their great disappointment regarding what the House had done, and we are demanding that we have a conference on these two bills so that we can have an opportunity to keep political intelligence in that bill because of its major importance. In fact, if we do nothing, this totally unregulated industry will simply continue to prosper in the shadows with no one watching.

In a way, the STOCK Act is a statement of how we view ourselves, and it certainly is the relationship to those that we serve. It's a reflection of our role as public citizens and knowledge that while we may receive the honors and power conferred by our service, we ourselves are equal in our rights and responsibilities just as every other single American citizen. No matter how powerful our position, no matter how hallowed the Halls we walk, no one here is above the law.

With the passage of the STOCK Act, Congress could have moved one step closer to living up to the faith and trust bestowed upon us by the American people, citizens for whom we

serve. Unfortunately, that has been snatched away from us at the 13th hour.

We are hoping either for a reconsideration by the leadership of this House or that we can, with the help of the Senators that I've mentioned, be able to demand a conference between the two Houses on the bill they passed and the travesty that we will be passing here.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I am pleased now to yield time to my good friend and fellow New Yorker, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and absolute delight that I'm able to yield to the next speaker, who is a newly minted Member of Congress for just a little more than 24 hours, Suzanne Bonamici from Oregon.

I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend President Obama and Health and Human Secretary Sebelius for including contraception as a preventive service that health insurance plans are required to cover at no cost.

This decision, based on the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine, is the right decision for women. It affirms the individual freedom of women to make choices about their health and their future.

Following the administration's decision, there has been an uproar from the religious community. While some claim it is in violation of First Amendment rights, the simple truth is that this decision upholds the First Amendment rights of millions of women to not have their reproductive health managed by religiously affiliated organizations who may not share their own beliefs.

This decision stands up for women's freedom, as it is a woman's right to decide when and how she wants to have a family, whether or not she chooses to use birth control, as 98 percent of Catholics do. If she subscribes to a religion that teaches against the use of birth control, then she is free to choose not to use it either.

If she would rather use birth control for the many health protections and benefits that it provides, such as the fibroid tumors, migraine headaches, and bleeding that cannot be controlled, she should also be free to do so. Either way, the choice should belong to her and to her alone.

It is also important to note the details of the administration's decision.

We're not talking about churches or organizations that exist for the sole purpose of teaching their religion.

These organizations are totally exempt from providing coverage for contraception.

What we are talking about is religiously affiliated organizations, such as hospitals, schools and universities. Millions of women are employed by these types of organizations, and those women do not necessarily share the beliefs of their employers. In fact, I think one of the most egregious things felt by many women is that whatever their own religions teach, they are not going to be allowed to go by that.

Catholic hospitals can and do--and we want them to--employ Baptists, Methodists, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists. Teachers, cafeteria workers, administrative staff members at religious schools and universities are not necessarily members of that religion. Those employers should not have the right to decide whether or not the women on their insurance plans can access birth control. They still have separation of church and state.

Many religions that teach against the use of birth control also teach against divorce, but institutions affiliated with those religions are not allowed to discriminate against employees based on their marital status. They do not have an exemption from labor laws because of their religious beliefs. This is no different.

A recent decision by the administration shows that they are standing with women and supporting their freedom to make the choices that impact themselves and their families. Surveys have repeatedly shown that women and men across this country support providing access to contraception at no cost and that that support is equally strong among members of the very religious who are fighting this decision.

I applaud the President and Secretary Sebelius for supporting the health and freedom of women, and I support their decision to put women's personal health and freedom first.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Speaker, after 23 short-term extensions, I am glad that we have finally brought the long-term FAA authorization bill to the floor. Twenty-three extensions are about 20 too long. Unfortunately, this legislation also contains unnecessary language that would inject politics into what should otherwise be a clean bill to make our skies safer.

Today's bill would change requirements for unionization that have existed for more than 75 years. This politically driven legislation is being done unilaterally without consulting unions and the workers whom it will impact.

During the 20th century, the rise of unions was quickly followed by the creation of the American middle class--the largest middle class on Earth; and thanks to their safety protections, fair pay and humane hours that were achieved by unionized labor for all the rest of us who labor, the American workers didn't just hear about the American Dream-- they lived it. Meanwhile, American corporations, including airlines, were rewarded with the best workers that the world had to offer.

Over the years, a changing global economy and a deliberate effort to weaken unions has made life harder and harder for the middle class. In the aviation industry, airlines began to outsource repairs, often using counterfeit parts and even repairing airplanes in foreign countries, endangering our flying public. The unions fought these changes and tried to keep American workers in charge of protecting the American flying public; but over the objections of the unions, the airlines continued to outsource, sometimes resulting in very dangerous accidents.

Today, it's more challenging than ever for a middle class family to pay rising medical bills, to put food on the table, and to afford a college education for the next generation. For so many families, the American Dream has now become nothing more than a memory of times past.

At a time when some of our Nation's airlines are reporting record profits and our Nation's workers are struggling to get by, I don't think we should be considering legislation that makes it harder for the middle class to survive. In State capitals and in the Halls of Congress, the American worker has been under a sustained political attack. These attacks must not go undefended. For that reason, I cannot support this bill and ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman 2 minutes.

Very briefly, in closing, politically driven additions to today's legislation mar what would have otherwise been a clean and commendable funding bill for the FAA, and I deeply regret it. I regret that some have opted to take this important legislation and inject politics where it does not belong.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

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

A lot of verbiage is going on here this morning, but Mr. and Ms. America, let me tell you what we're doing here--nothing. We were promised that we could have a vote to concur in what the Senate did, 89-10, give it to the President and make sure that the payroll tax continues, but that's not what we're doing here today.

What they changed that to is to reject what the Senate did and ask for a conference, which the other side, the leader of the Senate says he is not going to do. We could have done all of this last week, but instead, 435 of us have been flown back here this week to do absolutely nothing.

At the end of the day here, we will not have accomplished a thing. There will be no payroll tax; there will be no unemployment insurance; there will be no doc fix. It just simply says we reject what they did, 89-10, which is a miracle in itself, but we're not going to do anything here. We're just going to kick it over to the other side.

In addition to this, the President has not signed the omnibus bill. I think he was going to wait for this one, which means that come Friday the government could shut down. We have once again this brinksmanship of hanging by our thumbs.

So if I can make any point today for America: Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain here. We are not doing anything. We could have but we are not.

And after that great expense of shuttling us all back and forth last weekend, we come here today, and we really had a rare opportunity to truly come together and provide the vital assistance to Americans in need. The Senate certainly answered the call in a bipartisan bill, which was really quite wonderful. It made us all feel really good about the Congress. It may have even made us go up from 9 to 10 points for all I know.

But they passed a bill with support of 89 Senators, and 80 percent of the Republican Senators, and I'm very proud of them. Not only did they vote for that, but they are signaling their great displeasure that the House can't do the same. And until Saturday night, this bill had the blessings of the Speaker of this House.

After a year of bitter battles in Washington, we stood on the brink of a bipartisan agreement to lower taxes and provide much-needed assistance to those who are struggling to get through the holiday season through no fault of their own, having lost their employment, that is, until a small army of ideologues said ``no'' and demanded that a truly bipartisan bill be tossed out in the cold. What a shame.

So we meet today at the height of the Christmas season as the timeworn tales of Tiny Tim and Mr. Scrooge are playing out in theaters across the country and here in the House. Will we come together to provide a gift for the American people or will a small group of ideologues let taxes rise and the unemployed go without housing and food as we ring in the new year?

It is my belief, and certainly borne out, I think, by not a shortage of media this morning, that one of the reasons that the vote today is to reject the Senate bill was had we had a vote to concur in it instead and say that we agreed with what the Senate had done, then it would have passed.

Now, I spoke about this game of brinksmanship last week, and certainly, you know, we've gone the whole year hoping that there would be no payroll tax on the other side. They didn't believe in that and certainly did not believe in the extension of unemployment. Now, suddenly today, we can't just have two months; we've got to have a year.

The reason they couldn't get a year in the Senate was the difference of opinion on how to pay for it. It was decided that, with the 2-month extension, we would keep it, that we would not lose it after 2 months. During those 2 months, the House and Senate, we would hope, would be working out ways we could continue it for a year. There is not going to be that great hardship of bookkeeping that everybody is talking about. We were going to take our time to fix it during those 2 months, but the 2 months is basically an emergency measure which is being turned down by the House of Representatives.

We'd love to live in a world where every single principle we believe in could be made true, where those who disagree with us would bend to our wishes and support our views, but quite simply, we don't live in that world. After the majority spent the entire year ignoring the need for an extended tax break and renewed insurance for the unemployed, I've heard frequent refrain in the last 24 hours that the policies we are considering today should not be implemented for 2 months but, rather, for a year. That is pretty recent.

The majority should be heartened to know that hardly a soul in the body disagrees with it. We all wanted a year, as did the President of the United States. As I've said before, we know that we will get that year and that we will have the 2 months to work on getting that extension. However, after weeks of negotiation, 435 legislators can't agree on an equally important point: how to pay for the tax cuts for a year.

The Democrats have said that millionaires and those who have benefited the most in the past decade should pay for this tax break. The majority has said that seniors receiving Medicare should pay instead, which was, indeed, in the bill passed here last week. This simple but profound disagreement is part of what has led us here today.

The other part of the equation is that the majority needed to design a vote by which, no matter the vote totals, they would never lose. Isn't that clever? If we had another month to work on resolving our disagreement, we could continue to debate without pause. However, the clock is about to hit midnight, and the taxes of millions of Americans and the unemployment insurance of millions more are about to be harmed because we won't strike a deal.

By now, it should be obvious why we must pass this Senate agreement. It's time that all of us accept the world as

it is. It's time that we came to a compromise, a compromise to benefit millions of Americans in this time of holiday cheer for some. There will be many more debates in the months to come about how to help the American people, but now we must seize our opportunity and provide for the millions of Americans who sent us here in order to make sure the season can be a little better than the last.

So I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question when we get to that point, but I want to reiterate again that nothing is happening here today. When we leave here, the tax cut will not be extended; unemployment will not be extended. We will simply go back home to await the consequences of what we're doing here today. I deeply regret that because I would have liked nothing better than the bipartisanship that the Senate showed in this time of need to have been on display here as well in the House of Representatives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts and a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would like to include in the Record the comments of Republican Senators begging the House to take their bill.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA): ``The House Republicans' plan to

scuttle the deal to help middle families is irresponsible and

wrong. I appreciate their effort to extend these measures for

a full year, but a two-month extension is a good deal when it

means we avoid jeopardizing the livelihoods of millions of

American families. The refusal to compromise now threatens to

increase taxes on hard-working Americans and stop

unemployment benefits for those out of work. During this time

of divided government, both parties need to be reasonable and

come to the negotiating table in good faith. We cannot allow

rigid partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand

in the way of working together for the good of the American

people.''

Sen. Scott Brown, Press Release: ``Sen. Brown Blasts House

For Jeopardizing Tax Relief, Unemployment Benefits'', Dec 19,

2011.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine): ``I spoke out against this

unprecedented two-month policymaking experiment on Saturday.

That said, there wasn't an indication that the House would be

in disagreement with the Senate's action. Nonetheless, what

is paramount at this point is that this tax benefit

for hardworking Americans not be allowed to lapse.''

Seung Min Kim and Jonathan Allen, ``New GOP split over

payroll bill'', Politico, 12/19/11.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.): ``there is no reason to hold up

the short-term extension while a more comprehensive deal is

being worked out.''

Seung Min Kim and Jonathan Allen, ``New GOP split over

payroll bill'', Politico, 12/19/11.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine): ``at this point, we must act,

as the Senate has done, to prevent a tax increase that will

otherwise occur on Jan. 1.''

Seung Min Kim and Jonathan Allen, ``New GOP split over

payroll bill'', Politico, 12/19/11.

Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.): ``I'm hopeful there are a

majority of Republicans and Democrats 4 today who will

proceed, because it seems to me this is best for the country,

as well as for all the individuals who are affected.''

Daniel Strauss, ``GOP's Lugar: House should pass tax bill

for the good of the country'', The Hill, 12/19/11.

I want to put into the Record the key dates in the Boehner payroll tax cut debacle:

Last Wednesday, Speaker Boehner sat at a meeting in Senator McConnell's office with Reid and McConnell. Speaker Boehner said the two Senate leaders should negotiate a deal and that Senator McConnell has his proxy.

Thursday, Speaker Boehner made public comments promising to live by whatever agreement the Senate reached. He said: ``If the Senate acts, I'm committed to bringing the House back--we can do it within 24 hours--to deal with whatever the Senate does.''

On Friday, Speaker Boehner reacted to reports that we may have to settle on a 2-month extension by saying if the Senate passed that, he would take it, add the Keystone pipeline provision to it, and send it back to the Senate. So we added the pipeline into the deal in the Senate because that's what Speaker Boehner said he needed to get the measure through the House.

Friday night after Senator McConnell presents the payroll tax deal to his caucus, he's captured in a video leaving the caucus high-fiving Senator Barrasso. Later, Senator McConnell tells reporters: ``Obviously, I keep the Speaker informed as to what I'm doing.''

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Saturday, McConnell calls the payroll tax cut compromise a bill designed to pass. McConnell said: ``I thank my friend, the majority leader, for the opportunity to work together with him on something that could actually pass the Senate and be signed by the President.''

Saturday, Speaker Boehner called the deal a ``good deal'' and a ``victory,'' and according to reports, urged his caucus to declare victory and pass it, on a conference call.

Saturday afternoon, Senator McConnell gave his consent to allow the Senate to adjourn for the year.

On Sunday, once the Tea Party Republicans in the caucus rebelled, Speaker Boehner reversed course and is now disowning the deal he supported 24 hours earlier.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Ms. DeGette.

Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the assistant Democratic leader, Mr. Clyburn.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and my colleague from New York, Mr. Engel.

If my colleague is prepared to close, I have one more speaker.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, our Democrat leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to reiterate the way I started today that what we're doing here today is killing the tax cut by not voting anything here except that we do not concur with the Senate and that we will hope some conference will come from someplace. That means there will be no tax cut; that means there will be no extension of unemployment benefits.

Now, last night at 7 o'clock when the Rules Committee was supposed to meet, the agenda called for a vote to concur in the Senate bill. But after the stormy 2-hour Tea Party conference, they reversed their course. And now we have a process where no tax cut can pass today, no matter who wins what vote.

If every Member of the House supported the bipartisan proposal, it still does not go to the President, and it does not become law. We have one chance, Mr. Speaker, of being able to vote on the Senate bill and one chance of winning that, and that will be on the previous question.

If we are able to defeat the previous question, we can have what I will construe as an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. 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, but we want an up-or-down vote on the previous question.

Let me repeat that because it's terribly important. I urge all of my colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle, if you wish an up- or-down vote on what the Senate has done so that we can actually get some legislation done here and get it sent to and signed by the President of the United States, you must vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we will have that opportunity, which we have absolutely been denied.

Let me repeat, again, what we're doing here is absolutely nothing. It's simply a stalling tactic, I believe, to kill the tax cut and to kill the unemployment benefits.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question so we can do the compromise today. I urge a ``no'' vote also 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.