Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), I offer an amendment.

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

I rise today to offer an amendment with my distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which would remove a controversial measure that has been inserted into the underlying Coast Guard reauthorization. The measure forces States to adopt a weak international ballast water standard as a ceiling for regulatory efforts. In doing so, it preempts the right of States to respond to emerging invasive species and provides no incentive for future innovation in critical ballast water technology.

Each minute 40,000 gallons of ballast water containing thousands and millions of foreign bacteria, viruses, animals, and plants are discharged into U.S. waters. That's 21 billion gallons of ballast water annually. Once introduced, invasive species, such as the Asian carp, are exceedingly difficult to control and are often impossible to eradicate.

Having no natural predators, aquatic invasive species easily feed on native fish and other aquatic wildlife, foul beaches, degrade fisheries, clog water intake pipes and other infrastructure, disrupt the food chain, and contaminate our drinking water. We spend more than $1 billion a year simply trying to get rid of zebra mussels which to date we have spent $5 million trying to eradicate and have not even come close.

Ballast water is a serious matter, with far-reaching implications for this Nation. We lose billions of taxpayer dollars every year trying to combat and contain the invasive species brought into our waters by foreign shipping vessels. Many of our Nation's communities and all around the Great Lakes rely on these bodies of water for recreation, drinking, as well as their livelihoods.

The Great Lakes, which face significant challenges from invasive species, contain 20 percent of the freshwater on the planet. And I think those of us on both sides of the aisle who live adjacent to those lakes have always felt an obligation to try to protect that. And we must also remember that those are international waters, and our Canadian friends also have a say here. Unfortunately, the ballast water provisions in this measure protect the foreign shipping magnates rather than the Great Lakes and the people who live there.

The Dingell-Slaughter amendment strikes title VII from this measure, which will remove the damaging ballast water language. This amendment will allow us to pass the important Coast Guard reauthorization while giving Congress an opportunity to come to a responsible and reasonable agreement with respect to ballast water standards.

I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell-Slaughter amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, who cares as much as anybody from New York, the dean of the House and the cosponsor of the amendment, Mr. Dingell.

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

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

We have to allow States, as we always have, to have a voice in protecting their ecosystems and economies. As long as we conform to the Federal law, we have always been able in States to enhance them. But if we want to really truly solve this threat of invasive species in our waters, and I personally believe it is quite serious because both in my time in the State legislature and the Federal legislature, that was certainly pointed out to me.

I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell-Slaughter amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise today to commemorate October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This year, we have good reason to celebrate. Thanks to important changes to the law in the last 5 years, it has never been easier to receive the valuable preventative care that is vital to preventing and treating breast cancer.

Thanks to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a mammogram is now one of the free annual preventive services covered by Medicare. Already 4 million women have taken advantage of that benefit this year.

For Medicare beneficiaries, a free Annual Wellness Visit means that you can discuss your personal risk for breast cancer with your doctor, and receive free preventative screening based upon the decision you and your doctor make together.

In addition, more and more insurance plans are providing free screening services of their own.

Finally, genetic testing for risk of breast cancer is available, with the legal guarantee that

such testing will not result in discrimination against a woman. I fought for 13 years to pass the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) so that anyone could choose to find out their genetic disposition for illness, without fear of discrimination. Since GINA became law, no health insurer can raise an individual's rates and no employer can make hiring or firing decisions based on genetic information.

Unfortunately, even though a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer every two minutes in the United States, screening rates for this dangerous disease are declining. A recent study found that out of 1.5 million women over the age of 40 with health insurance, less than half had received the recommended annual screening.

As we celebrate Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it's important that all women know that affordable screening options are available.

Screening tests can find breast cancer early, when it is most treatable. They are the best way to lower the risk of dying from breast cancer. The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer caught early is 98 percent, compared to 23 percent when it is not.

I encourage women to take care of themselves in every possible way, and to make a renewed commitment to following the recommended screening guidelines for breast cancer. Together, we can take the important steps necessary to win the fight against breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. It is unacceptable that today, in this country, three women and one man will die at the hands of an intimate partner. One in four women will experience some sort of domestic violence in her lifetime. Fifteen and a half million children will witness domestic violence this year. In the face of such overwhelming statistics, it is in our moral fabric as a nation that we act to protect victims of domestic violence in our country.

I am very proud of the progress we have made as a country since the Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law in 1994. VAWA was an historic step forward in our nation's response to sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, and other forms of violence against women. Thanks to programs established by VAWA to respond to the needs of women who had been or could be victimized by violence, women are safer, perpetrators are held accountable, and society is less tolerant of violence against women. Over 60,000 victims of domestic violence receive services every day.

VAWA-funded programs have unquestionably improved the national response to domestic violence. Since VAWA was first passed in 1994:

More victims are coming forward and receiving lifesaving services to help them move from crisis to stability. There has been as much as a 51% increase in reporting by women and a 37% increase in reporting by men.

The number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 34% for women and 57% for men and the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased 53%.

States have passed more than 660 laws to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.

Staying at a shelter or working with a domestic violence advocate significantly reduces the likelihood that a victim will be abused again and improves the victim's quality of life.

VAWA not only saves lives, it also saves money. In its first six years alone, VAWA saved taxpayers at least $14.8 billion in net averted social costs.

A recent study found that civil protection orders saved one state (Kentucky) on average $85 million in a single year.

We have come so far. But we must keep going. Reauthorizations of VAWA have addressed the unique needs of battered immigrants, sexual assault survivors, victims of dating violence, youth, elders, Indian women, individuals with disabilities, and child witnesses of violence. Now, VAWA needs to be reauthorized and updated again to better respond to the needs of women seeking health care treatment from domestic violence.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), intimate partner violence costs the health care system over $8.3 billion annually. Approximately 37% of women seeking injury-related treatment in hospital emergency rooms were there because of injuries inflicted by a current or former spouse or partner.

VAWA has begun to address this issue--in the past two years, over 3,000 providers from 100 clinical sites serving over 175,000 women have received training through VAWA to integrate assessment for abuse into health care settings. However, more can be done.

These routine assessments need to be expanded so that providers no longer discharge a woman with only the presenting injuries being treated, leaving the underlying cause of those injuries unaddressed.

It is also vital that we focus on researching the most effective interventions to prevent domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault, and improve the safety and health of individuals who are victimized. We must understand what makes health care interventions effective, what the factors are that increase resiliency for children exposed to violence and individuals who have lifetime exposure to violence and abuse; and which interventions work best within community health centers and adolescent health settings.

When it comes to domestic violence, it is literally an issue of life or death. Thanks to strong action by past sessions of Congress, we have helped reduce the prevalence of domestic violence across the United States. Some may say the progress we have made over the years is ``good enough.'' However, ``good enough'' is neither ``good'' nor ``enough.''

Currently, girls and young women between the ages of 16 and 24 are experiencing the highest rate of intimate partner violence, and one in three teens endure some kind of abuse in their romantic relationships. We cannot let our children and young adults face a life of domestic violence. By strengthening federal laws like VAWA, we can continue to help victims of domestic violence and do all that we can to reduce the prevalence of domestic violence in the United States.

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

Today's bill continues an effort started by the Republican majority earlier this year, an effort to give away valuable American resources to foreign companies. Today the majority is proposing to take sacred land from Native American tribes and give it away to foreign corporations, one of which is partly owned by the Chinese Government. I stand here today in fierce opposition to this attempted fire sale of American resources that is being conducted under the guise of job creation.

Today's bill is not written for the American worker. It was written for foreign mining giants that hope to profit from our generosity. These firms are hoping that this Congress will be charitable enough to give away millions of tons of copper to foreign companies that have no responsibility to create American jobs. Indeed, one of those companies is a leader in robotics and say that they can control a mine from 600 miles away. The likelihood that they plan to create a number of jobs does not hold together.

Copper is one of the most scarce resources on the globe, and yet the majority is proposing to give this asset away. Let me say that again-- give this asset away. Under this bill, the United States receives no royalties from these foreign companies for any copper found in our soil.

Furthermore, today's bill is not the solution to our jobs crisis. The proposed legislation gives federally protected land to companies that specialize in replacing miners with robots that do the same job. The majority hopes this will create jobs at some unnamed point in the future. But in addition to this approach being naive, the majority could be doing more to create jobs than simply relying on hope.

The truth is that we could be standing here today actually doing job creation. We could be voting to put money directly into the hands of firefighters, police officers, and teachers. We could be investing in new roads, railroads, and schools and creating thousands of jobs for construction workers across our country.

But once again, the majority seems to believe that their job is to help foreign corporations grow their bottom line. It is not. Giving away our natural resources to foreign companies will do nothing but leave American workers in the dust and we much poorer.

I strongly oppose today's proposed legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying legislation. More than ever, we need to take tangible action to create jobs, not sell our national interests to the highest foreign bidder.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Madam Speaker, in the last year, while 14 million Americans struggle to find work, Congressional Republicans have whipped themselves into a hysteria--not about job creation, but about further restricting a woman's freedom to access safe and legal reproductive healthcare.

Their legislative proposals are devastating policies that threaten to take away freedoms of all American women. The bill proposed today, H.R. 358, is the most brazen attempt by Congressional Republicans to destroy women's ability to receive private access to abortion services. Let us be clear. The bill today is one of the biggest invasions into the private lives of Americans that our nation has ever seen. With this bill, the Majority is reaching far beyond today's current laws and inserting itself into the most private and often heartrending decisions that women must sometimes make.

Contrary to the Rules of the House, today's bill cites no provision of the Constitution, nor any amendment to the Constitution. None at all. Throughout the hearing process, including hearings within the Rules Committee upon which I sit, the bill's sponsor and supporters have failed to effectively answer the Constitutional authority under which we are considering this bill.

One aspect of the bill is particularly illustrative of the extreme government intrusion this bill authorizes within its text. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, any hospital that participates in Medicare must fulfill three basic obligations designed to save lives. There is absolutely no exception to these basic rules.

H.R. 358 would carve out a single exception to EMTALA. Under this legislation, a hospital would be able to invoke a ``conscience clause'' to turn away any pregnant woman who came to an emergency room seeking medical assistance. If this draconian provision were to become law, a woman could bleed to death in a hospital without being treated.

This provision is not only a direct attack on women, it is immoral in its intent. Indeed, religious organizations such as the Catholic Health Association has explicitly told Congress that the current version of the law, strengthened under the Affordable Care Act, is perfectly fine, and that they oppose this provision of the bill.

I stand in firm opposition to H.R. 358 and the continued assault from Congressional Republicans on women's freedoms. May the annals of history accurately reflect the misguided priorities and immoral agenda of the Majority, and may history accurately judge the failed leadership that has been provided by the Majority during the 112th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, and 800. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote numbers 792, 793, 800.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Rollcall vote numbers 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall vote numbers 780, 784, and 785. I would have voted ``no'' on Rollcall vote numbers 781, 782, 783.

H.R. 3078, Motion to Recommit, No. 780, ``aye.''

H.R. 3078, Final Passage, No. 781, ``no.''

H.R. 3079, Final Passage, No. 782, ``no.''

H.R. 3089, Final Passage, No. 783, ``no.''

H.R. 2832, Motion to Concur, No. 784, ``aye.''

H.R. 2433, Motion to Suspend Rules, Pass, No. 785, ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, and 791. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote numbers 787, 788, and 790. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote numbers 786, 789, and 791.

Bill, question, rollcall vote number, vote:

H. Res. 430, Final Passage, 786, no;

H.R. 2250, Cohen Amendment No. 22, 787, aye;

H.R. 358, Motion to Recommit, 788, aye;

H.R. 358, Final Passage, 789, no;

H.R. 2250, Motion to Recommit, 790, aye;

H.R. 2250, Final Passage, 791, no.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I cannot state strongly enough I am vigorously opposed to the three free trade bills that we are considering today.

On behalf of the businesses and workers of western New York, I implore my colleagues to vote against today's free trade but not fair trade bills and put an end to the era of giveaway trade.

None of the free trade bills we voted on in the last 20 years, including these bills today, were designed to protect American manufacturing and American jobs. They were designed to protect multinational corporations operating in the towers of New York, London, and Shanghai. These companies could care less where their goods are made as long as we allow them to sell them all over the world. As American legislators, we have different responsibilities. We must care where goods are made. We must do everything we can to ensure they are made in the U.S.A.

I think many people would be shocked to know that there is little in the current trade agreement to prevent our own trading partners from developing new regulations that we have done all these years making it harder for us to sell our goods in their countries. Using nontariff barriers, they could place a dozen arbitrary restrictions on American- made cars, and they do in order to stop Chevy, Ford, and GM from being sold in South Korea. Do you know how many car dealers sell American cars in Korea? Twenty-six. I imagine most major cities in the United States have 26 car dealers who sell Korean cars in their city alone. There's something wrong with that picture. This is not free-flowing trade. We are restricted, but under these proposed free trade agreements, we can't do a thing to make sure that our companies are treated fairly. And they call it a good deal.

Currently, nontariff barriers are playing a vital role in preventing U.S.-made cars from being sold in Japan. According to the American Auto Council, for every one car that the U.S. exports to Japan, Japan exports at least 180 vehicles to the United States. That's 1 to 180. U.S. auto exports to Japan were limited to 8,000 cars last year. That's all we could sell in all of Japan. The USTR says, A variety of nontariff barriers have traditionally impeded access to Japan's automobile and automotive parts market. Overall sales of U.S.-made vehicles remain low, which is a serious concern.

But despite that, what they think with that hand, the government's left hand, the government's right hand is going to sign more trade bills that do exactly the same thing.

It is an action, as far as I'm concerned, that defies common sense. Instead of wasting our time voting for a bad trade bill, I have introduced a bill that will legally ensure a fair playing field for American manufacturers. It's H.R. 1749. The Reciprocal Market Access Act would require both the U.S. Government to consider tariff and non- tariff barriers when negotiating a trade agreement with another country and not reduce our tariffs until that has been done. This approach would guarantee that American manufacturers have the same opportunity as foreign competition to sell their goods around the world.

If a foreign country is caught trying to stop the sale of American-made goods, we have a ``snap-back'' provision which will stop the free trade agreement.

It's a no-nonsense approach. It is bipartisan in the House. It has been endorsed by Corning; Hickey-Freeman; Hart Schaffner Marx; Globe Specialty Metals; American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition; the AFL-CIO; the United Steelworkers; and the Auto Workers, even though they are the only union that will benefit somewhat by the Korean pact.

Congress needs to wake up, and we need to make countries like China and Germany see who's going to dominate the green manufacturing for generations to come. We have just about lost that great thing we pioneered here. Over and over again we have waited and watched. And the most recent ones that trouble me so much is General Electric giving away the intellectual property on airplane engines to China and GM forced to give over the technology of the Volt to be able to sell there.

Mr. Speaker, the time is now. We're not going to maintain a superpower status as long as all we can do is give each other haircuts and serve each other dinner. We've got to make things here at home so that our businesses can finally benefit by some fair trade.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 745, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. Speaker, my speech today will be very much like my speech yesterday, but then so is the bill. Yesterday the House on both sides of the aisle defeated the majority's first attempt to pass a continuing resolution. And here we are 24 hours later with the very same bill. Let me repeat, the bill we're debating today is barely changed from the one that was defeated yesterday. The bill still contains unacceptable cuts to an essential manufacturing jobs program to pay for equally essential disaster relief.

Homes have been destroyed. Roads have collapsed, and local economies have been disrupted by a seemingly endless stream of hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, and extreme weather that has crisscrossed our land. Our moral compass makes it very clear. We know what we need to do. We

must come to the aid of our fellow Americans who need our help. The problems they are facing are monumental, and quite simply, no one can recover from such natural disasters on their own. They need our help.

Yet the majority's efforts to hold disaster relief hostage to unacceptable cuts is as unwise today as it was 24 hours ago.

As I said yesterday, when it comes to spending billions of dollars on two wars that are bankrupting us, the majority's concern for spending is nowhere to be found. Since 2004, American taxpayers have spent over $3.4 billion as emergency spending on infrastructure in Afghanistan, and even more in Iraq. Not a single one of these $3.4 billion was offset, but were paid for by the same taxpayers that are being denied taxpayer money now. While we send billions of dollars to Iraq, the Iraqi government has begun building. They announced today a high-speed rail system to connect Basra to Baghdad. That's the same week that the majority in this House took all of the high-speed rail away from the United States. And so we will be paying for 280 miles in Iraq, but we can't pay for it from Buffalo to Albany.

When it comes to Americans in need, when it comes to helping women, children, and families whose homes have been washed away, the majority has decided they just can't help unless they get to take the money from a program that has created 39,000 jobs and is poised to create 60,000 more.

The bill was wrong yesterday, and it's wrong today.

Let me just give you some information from, I believe, The New York Times. The headline says, ``Republicans Sought Clean-Energy Money for Home States.'' Senator McConnell asked for $235 million for an electric vehicle plant in Kentucky; Representative Lamar Smith asked for stimulus money for a solar plant in Texas; Congressman Fred Upton wanted five clean energy projects in Michigan; Representative Cliff Stearns asked for a lithium ion battery manufacturing plant in Florida. These requests for funding came from the very same program that has been discussed being cut these last 2 days.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand by your beliefs. If you thought the bill was wrong yesterday, there is no reason to think the bill is better today; virtually nothing has changed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this flawed bill.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2011]

Republicans Sought Clean-Energy Money for Home States

(By Eric Lipton)

Washington.--On the Senate floor and the television

airwaves, Senator Mitch McConnell has lambasted the Obama

administration over what he has described as its failed

efforts to stimulate new jobs through clean-energy projects

backed with billions of dollars in federal loans or other

assistance.

But Mr. McConnell, of Kentucky, is one of several prominent

Republicans who have worked to steer federal money to clean-

energy projects in their home states, Energy Department

documents show.

Mr. McConnell made two personal appeals in 2009, asking

Energy Secretary Steven Chu to approve as much as $235

million in federal loans for a plant to build electric

vehicles in Franklin, Ky.

``I hope you will realize the importance of such job

creation to Kentucky,'' Mr. McConnell said in a July 2009

memo supporting an application from Zap Motor Manufacturing.

Federal lobbying disclosure records show that Mr.

McConnell's support for the project came after Zap Motor

hired a Kentucky-based lobbyist, Robert Babbage, who has been

a frequent contributor to Mr. McConnell's campaigns and

boasts on his own Internet site about his close ties to Mr.

McConnell.

Mr. Babbage declined to comment on the project. Gary Dodd,

chief executive of Zap Motor, said the intervention by Mr.

McConnell came after the company asked him to push the Energy

Department to approve the loan.

Mr. McConnell's office, in a statement, defended his

actions, saying, ``There was no effort to push the

administration to short-circuit its due diligence simply to

plan a ribbon-cutting.''

Mr. McConnell's high-level advocacy took place despite

early struggles for the project, including the financial

collapse in 2008 of its first Kentucky business partner,

Integrity Manufacturing. Mr. McConnell made no mention of

these stumbles as he pushed for federal money, simply saying

Zap Motor might create as many as 4,000 jobs in his state.

Recently, he has joined with other Republicans in

criticizing a March 2009 decision by the Obama administration

to provide a $535 million government-backed loan to a

California solar-panel manufacturer, Solyndra, which recently

filed for bankruptcy and is now the subject of inquiries by

the F.B.I. and Congress.

``The White House fast-tracked a half-billion-dollar loan

to a politically connected energy firm,'' Mr. McConnell said

Thursday in remarks on the Senate floor. ``This place was

supposed to be the poster child of how the original stimulus

would create jobs.''

Another Republican, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas,

recently asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to appoint

an outside investigator to determine how the Department of

Energy distributes clean-energy money. But in 2009, Mr. Smith

wrote to Mr. Chu asking him to approve loan guarantees from

stimulus money for a Texas project proposed by Tessera Solar,

documents show.

Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan and

another critic of the Energy Department program, signed

letters along with other members of the Michigan delegation

in 2009 and 2010, pushing at least five clean-energy projects

in his state, including a $207 million loan request from

EcoMotors International. And Representative Cliff Stearns,

Republican of Florida, praised the opening last year of a

lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant in his state, which

relied upon an Energy Department grant.

Mr. Smith, along with the others, defended their actions,

saying lawmakers can be critical of the Energy Department

programs while still seeking money.

``I wanted to support Texas companies in their applications

for grants,'' Mr. Smith said in a statement. ``It is the

responsibility of the Obama administration to carry out the

necessary financial reviews of these proposals.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. This combines a speech he would have made yesterday with one he's going to do this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself 1 minute to respond to the General Motors-China issue.

Earlier this week, The New York Times had a wonderful article in the business section that the Chinese were subsidizing electric cars to the tune of $19,000 which all of us know is against every trade law the world has ever seen. But they were going to sell the Volt, and GM announced--they actually told them that in order to sell the Volt at all in China they had to give over all of their technology and all the information they had on how to build that car. I thought they weren't going to do it, but I also read yesterday that now they've got a brand- new Chinese partner, and they're giving them all the technology. I've got some legislation to bring into that, Mr. Speaker. I think it's outrageous that that's what's happening to American manufacturers.

I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan who

knows a thing about General Motors, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, 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.)

Before I yield to my friend from New Jersey, let me respond to my friend from Georgia. Don't forget that 48 on your side voted against it. I don't know what agreement you had with them.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I am expecting another speaker who is not yet on the floor.

My speaker has arrived, Mr. Crowley of New York, and I will yield him 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, our Democrat leader, Ms. Pelosi.

I'm sorry, Mr. Levin. I don't have any more time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question at the end of the debate, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that disaster victims get the help that they need. My amendment will allow Representative Dingell to offer a motion to strike the unacceptable House language and to substitute the bipartisan Senate approach.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because our colleagues in the Republican majority have failed. They failed the most basic responsibility of this institution, as my colleague has mentioned, to pass regular and routine bills to keep the government's doors open, to keep retirement checks in the mail, and vital government services available to the American people.

In a few days the fiscal year will end; and without a stopgap measure, funding for essential government services will run out. Despite 9 months of claims from the Republican majority that things have changed and despite a pledge to America that promised a different Washington, and despite endless calls for a regular appropriations process, not a single appropriations bill has been enacted for the upcoming fiscal year which begins October 1.

Throughout this failed process, the majority has blamed everyone but themselves. They have pointed fingers at President Obama, complained about our colleagues in the Senate, and blamed the Washington status quo that they say they can't control. Throughout the process, the one group of people they won't lay responsibility with is themselves.

After 9 months with not a single bill successfully making its way through Congress, finger-pointing rings hollow. Not only has no appropriations bill been enacted, but half of the necessary appropriations bills haven't even been brought to the floor for a vote. The majority controls this body and has used their powers to pursue sideshow legislation and dangerous games of default, but they can't schedule a vote for the most fundamental pieces of legislation that we consider every year.

As I stand here today to vote on a billion-dollar Band-Aid that will allow us to scrape by until November, the hope is by November the majority will be able to do the job they failed to do all year. Growing up, every child hopes for such a homework extension. By the time we are elected to Congress, however, we should know that our work must be handed in on time.

Sadly, today's legislation isn't even the biggest failure of leadership that we are facing in the House. If the press reports are accurate, we may be headed for an even bigger failure in November. In recent days, reports have surfaced that the majority plans to fund the entire Federal Government with one massive, trillion-dollar omnibus bill.

This bill would explicitly break a promise that the Republican majority made to the American people. In the Pledge to America, their leadership included a goal entitled ``advance legislative issues one at a time.'' In the document they explain, ``we will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will pass major legislation one issue at a time.''

During a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in 2010, Speaker Boehner affirmed the need to consider appropriations legislation one bill at a time, saying he wanted to do away with the concept of comprehensive spending bills. On the eve of assuming the majority in the House, Speaker Boehner elaborated, saying, ``I do not believe that having 2,000-page bills serves anyone's best interest. Not the House, not for the Members and not the American people.'' But, if press reports are correct, a 2,000-page bill or more is what we will get.

Let's be clear. The prospect of omnibus funding is happening for two simple reasons: First, our colleagues on the other side will not work in a bipartisan manner. There are no Democrat fingerprints on any bills that come to the floor to make the compromise necessary to reach consensus. They continue to pass legislation filled with special interest favors and ideological pursuits that the American people never asked for and don't want. As a result, the legislation is built to fail, and fail it does--over and over again.

Secondly, instead of doing the tough, unglamorous, work of the House, we have spent most of the time on ideological quests and political games. Instead of fulfilling the pledge to uphold the Constitution, the majority has worked to fulfill campaign pledges to Grover Norquist and the far right. Instead of creating jobs, our colleagues on the other side have spent months on end pushing a partisan agenda that has covered everything from the trivial to the very real dangers of default.

Instead of funding the Department of Energy, the majority has tried to micromanage our lightbulbs. Instead of funding the Nation's schools, they tried to eliminate Big Bird. Instead of funding the EPA, they tried to sell the land surrounding the Grand Canyon to the state-owned mining companies of Russia and South Korea. Instead of funding cancer research conducted by the NIH, they have tried, repeatedly, to repeal health care reform. And instead of setting a responsible budget for the next fiscal year, they brought our economy to the brink of default and led to the first-ever downgrade of our Nation's credit.

Even today, our colleagues on the other side are injecting politics into a stopgap CR. Today we are considering legislation that will only provide disaster relief to hurricane victims if billions of dollars are taken from a successful alternative energy program that has created 39,000 jobs to date and is poised to create 60,000 more. We were told in the Rules Committee that this was money simply lying there.

In effect, the other side of the aisle is telling the American people that Congress will either help rebuild shattered communities or Congress will create new green jobs, but we refuse to do both. This immoral approach reflects a House of Representatives that is void of responsible leadership from those in charge.

Today I'll do the little bit that I can to provide leadership sorely lacking from those in charge. Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question at the end of this debate, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that disaster victims get the help they need. My amendment will allow Representative Dingell to offer a motion to strike the unacceptable House language that says all disaster aid must be offset and substitute the bipartisan Senate approach.

Since 2004, American taxpayers have spent over $3.4 billion on infrastructure in Afghanistan and even more in Iraq. Not a single one of those $3.4 billion was held hostage or offset by any program in our budget. But now, as many Americans are struggling to rebuild and get their lives back to normal, the majority refuses to help unless they are allowed to defund a successful program they happen to dislike. Remember, what this says is that the American public is financing the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq with taxpayer money, but taxpayer money without an offset will not be used to help the American taxpayer. That takes a lot of explaining.

Because the majority decided that pursuing a partisan agenda was more important than meeting the basic needs of the country, we face the prospect of a trillion dollar, 1,000-page bill to keep the government running because the other side will not stop playing politics and start governing as we are all expected to do. This failure is a disservice to the American people, an abdication of our responsibilities as legislators, and a shame to the expectations, responsibilities and duties of the House.

The majority rode into Washington vowing to change the ways of the past, but over the last 9 months, the American people have witnessed a case study in abandoned responsibilities and misguided priorities. Until the Republican majority begins to govern with responsibility, I fear this Congress will continue to live up to the low regard our Nation has for it, which brings shame on us all. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stop serving their political interests, start doing bipartisan bills, and start serving our country.

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

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 10 seconds to say that I said in my opening statement that this program has already yielded 39,000 jobs, on its way to 60,000, which will not be able to be met because you are using this as the offset.

I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who suffered great damage in the hurricane.

I yield the gentleman another 10 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a

member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Hinchey.

I'm going to give myself another second here just to say I keep hearing that we're all set for next year in the budget, but who's going to tell Mother Nature just how much we can afford and hope that we don't get more than that?

I yield 1 minute 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 gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch). We watched Route 4 in Vermont crumble like a cookie in the rain and wash away.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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

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

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

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

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order a motion to strike the unacceptable House disaster funding language and substitute the bipartisan Senate approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' defeat the previous question, and if we are successful in defeating the previous question and offering our amendment, then we will get on with the underlying House amendment.

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 in support of the Pharmaceutical Stewardship Act of 2011.

Across the country, unused and expired pharmaceuticals are polluting our water ways, poisoning our children, and putting our public safety at risk. Americans should have a convenient and safe option when they want to rid their cabinets of unused drugs. The pharmaceutical stewardship bill I introduced today would ensure that these drugs are kept out of drinking water and out of the hands of both criminals and unsuspecting children.

The need for a safe drug disposal program has never been greater. In a 2008 investigation, pharmaceutical contamination was found in 24 out of 28 metropolitan areas' drinking water. Over 50 pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the Philadelphia source watershed alone.

Unlike the citizens of approximately a dozen other countries, Americans do not have a convenient and consistent place to bring their medications. Without a drug take back program, pharmaceuticals are frequently diverted to purposes for which they were not intended.

The results can be deadly. Unguarded, unused pharmaceuticals can cause accidental poisonings, be misused, or diverted for criminal purposes.

Every fifteen minutes, a child under four will overdose on drugs found at home. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that unintentional prescription opioid overdoses now kill more Americans than cocaine and heroin combined. In Florida, the death rate for prescription drugs increased 84 percent.

Without safe disposal options, our most vulnerable and unsuspecting citizens are in the bull's eye of a proliferating pharmaceutical black market. The elderly are at risk of violent home break-ins, scams, and death as prescription drug addicts seek to steal their medications.

Drug thieves also target `open house' events and ask to use the bathroom in order to have access to the medicine cabinet. The problem is so rampant that realtors in Ohio are given medication lockboxes to store medications during open houses and the National Association of Realtors recommends hiding all prescription medications during open houses.

Americans who want to reduce the threat to their health and safety posed by leftover prescription medications have few options.

Federal agencies from the Office of National Drug Control Policy to the Drug Enforcement Agency are encouraging Americans to use secure medicine take-back programs to return drugs for environmentally sound disposal. But these programs are too few and far between, and communities are struggling to provide them. Because secure take-back programs are not widely available, the FDA currently recommends that the most toxic and addictive substances be flushed down the toilet and into the wastewater system. When take-back programs are not available, federal agencies are forced to advise that all other unwanted pills should be mixed with undesirable substances in an attempt to prevent theft and then thrown in the trash for delivery to the landfill.

The current disposal methods are inadequate and even dangerous. A mother with Crohn's disease was prescribed an opioid patch 100 times stronger than morphine but she was afraid her plumbing could not handle the used patch so she threw it away. Her 4-year old died after finding and applying the patch from the trash.

Furthermore, pharmaceuticals disposed in the trash or down the drain reach our nation's waterways and our drinking water.

In 2002, the United States Geological Survey found that 80 percent of streams and 93 percent of groundwater was contaminated with at least one pharmaceutical. In 2008, an investigation found that at least 46 million Americans are exposed to prescription drugs through their drinking water. Others are exposed when food crops are fertilized with polluted biosolids and absorb pharmaceuticals through the roots to the plant itself. Perhaps even more frightening is that the current extent of pharmaceutical pollution is unknown and understudied.

Aquatic organisms and indeed whole ecosystems can never escape this witches brew of pharmaceuticals. The USGS recently reported the widespread sexual disruption in fish across the United States. Of the many compounds in the pharmaceutical slurry that

aquatic organisms swim in, estrogens are particularly concerning. In a review of the literature, fish were found to be particularly susceptible to these endocrine disrupting chemicals. Intersexed fish are found around the nation and even at a wastewater treatment plant in the Nation's Capital. In this District of Columbia study, female eggs were found in over 80 percent of the small mouth bass male reproductive organs.

Unused and expired pharmaceuticals are a threat to our homes, families, communities, and the environment. Sporadic take back events are not sufficient. DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart recently stated that the 309 tons of pills collected at two recent community- funded take-back events ``represents a clear need for a convenient way to rid homes of unwanted or expired prescription drugs.''

Public safety organizations and medical organizations have called for expanded drug takeback programs. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) senior vice president and chief medical officer, Allan Korn, M.D., stated that ``Unused prescription medicines that remain in homes can be misused or abused if they get in the wrong hands of children, family or friends,'' and commended, ``providing a safe and easy way for Americans to drop off their unnecessary prescription drugs.''

The bill I introduce today would help solve these serious environmental, public health, and public safety concerns by providing Americans with a convenient way to safely dispose of their pharmaceuticals. Producer responsibility and stewardship is the backbone of this legislation. Simply put, producers must take responsibility for their product beyond the initial manufacture and sale. By establishing a national drug take back program financed by producers, this legislation will help reduce the supply of unused medications across the country and prevent the entry of pharmaceuticals into the water supply.

In addition, this legislation establishes a commission of stakeholders to investigate risks, causes, and potential solutions of pharmaceutical contaminants in the environment and waterways. Using this information, the Commission will develop a strategy that will prevent pharmaceutical contaminants from polluting our waterways and environments from cradle-to-grave.

Without a safe means of disposing our pharmaceuticals, we risk our public health, our public safety, and our environment. We cannot wait any longer for action.

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

I thank the gentleman from California, my good friend, Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, after a tense standoff over a self- inflicted crisis, I'm extremely disappointed with the solution that is being proposed today.

It's important that we raise the debt ceiling; in fact, it is the duty of every Member of Congress to ensure we pay our bills. Unfortunately, we have reached this point because some on the other side see paying our bills as optional and have asked a king's ransom for doing so. In the process, the majority has shown the world that our democracy is currently dysfunctional. Even if we avoid default, the process that got us to this point has already shown the world that the greatest nation on Earth can barely keep the lights on.

Recently, IMF Chief Christine Lagarde told CNN in not so many words that we are destroying the world's faith in our ability to be the most powerful economy on Earth and our ability to pay our bills. This dysfunction is only highlighted further by the proposed creation of a so-called ``Super Committee,'' a closed-door committee that will determine how to cut another $1 trillion in government spending while 523 elected Representatives are told to sit on the sidelines and vote up and down when all is said and done. I repeat what I said last week, my constituents did not send me to Congress to sit on sidelines while the most important issues of our time are being decided.

The crumbling faith in our democracy is already having an effect on our

economy. Just last week, Roll Call reported that the prolonged debate over raising the debt ceiling resulted in an increase in Federal borrowing costs--a fancy way to say that interest rates for car loans and home mortgages are higher now than they should have or would have been.

Furthermore, today's agreement does nothing to create jobs for the 25 million Americans who failed to find full-time jobs last month. On Friday, we will receive a jobs report that will provide even more evidence that while Congress has shrugged aside the urgent need to create jobs, millions of Americans continue to suffer. This bill does nothing to serve them.

The majority has steadfastly refused to consider a balanced approach to reducing our deficit, rejecting attempts to close tax loopholes for the rich and extend unemployment benefits for those unable to find work. Instead, they have decided to only consider the draconian cuts that threaten to reverse whatever fragile economic recovery is underway.

On Sunday, Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of a major financial firm, spoke of the damage that proposed cuts will inflict on our economy. While speaking on ABC, he said, ``Unemployment will be higher than it would have been otherwise, growth will be lower than it would have been otherwise, and inequality will be worse than it would have been otherwise.'' He added, ``We have a very weak economy. Withdrawing more spending at this stage is going to make it even weaker.''

Today's agreement will endanger the potential for new jobs while asking absolutely nothing of those in our country who are the most well off.

Democrats will continue to vigorously fight for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare to ensure that not a penny is cut from the checks of seniors and working people who rely on these programs every day. It is a contract.

We believe that ultimately we must take a balanced approach to reducing our deficit. Tax loopholes must be closed, and those who have benefited the most in this country must be asked to pay their fair share. And regardless of the outcome of today's bill, these are the priorities for which I will continue to fight.

Especially as the debt debate continues, I urge my colleagues to look towards a balanced approach and return this country to its rightful place as a shining example of democracy and equality for which we should once again aspire.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am 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.)

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds to comment on the supercommittee.

When was the last time we had a bipartisan group like that? Simpson- Bowles, which got absolutely nowhere; the Gang of Six in the Senate, again which got absolutely nowhere. And six and six, I can imagine what it is going to be like to get somebody to be the seventh vote on the other side.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

If I may respond to the gentleman, I don't think the Gang of Six was any outside committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Budget and Ways and Means Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we should never have found ourselves where we are today, facing a self-inflicted crisis and being asked to vote for a bill that has so many flaws. The prolonged debate that led us here has caused the world to question our Nation's credibility and already inflicted harm on the U.S. economy.

The irony of our situation is the other side claims to be bringing certainty to the market, but the reality is they have undermined faith in the United States Government's ability to lead the global economy. Throughout this debate, Congress has gotten lost in the crisis created instead of the true crisis of unemployment that faces our constituents. Nobody, even Members of Congress, especially Members of Congress, should have the ability to bring the faith in the American Government to its knees.

It's high time we address the crisis of jobs in our country and resolve the self-inflicted crisis we are facing today.

I yield back the balance of my time.