Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, after a month-long standoff over raising the debt ceiling, Congress is now forced to take action on a bill that by all accounts is deeply flawed. I think everybody today has agreed with that.

Why are we doing a flawed bill? Because we waited until the last minute. Instead of reducing the Nation's debt by closing tax loopholes for oil companies and private jet owners, today's bill instead creates a supercommittee that will decide how to take over a trillion dollars in cuts. And this supercommittee will serve as a mock Congress, leaving 523 Members of Congress sitting on the sidelines while a group of 12 decides the shape of the country for a decade to come.

Paying our debt should be a no brainer. Indeed the debt ceiling itself is an antiquated solution to a problem we no longer face and should be eliminated. It was originally created to pay for World War I, to provide our country with economic stability while at war. Today we are again in the midst of war, but instead of protecting the stability of our economy, some in Congress have decided to question the necessity of paying our bills. As we all know by now, they have taken our economy hostage and demanded draconian cuts in exchange for not leading our Nation into default.

The actions have caused real and significant damage. Roll Call reports that because of the prolonged debt ceiling crisis, the interest rate the United States Government must pay has already increased, which means the interest rates for car loans and home mortgages are also increasing.

The stock market has responded as expected. According to DealBook, as of July 29, big banks and companies withdrew $37.5 billion from money market funds that are described as a key artery for our economy. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 5 percent of its value last week, which meant 401(k)s, pension plans, retirement plans of all Americans were put at risk and much of it lost. Baby boomers across the United States watched nervously as all those things were happening.

As I mentioned earlier, this type of crisis has become the new normal in

this Congress. Under the Republican rule, the House of Representatives has repeatedly led our country to the brink of unthinkable situations.

First, the majority led the country to the brink of a government shutdown, threatening the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers and endangering vital government services relied on by Americans every day. As we speak, the Federal Aviation Administration is shuttered, costing the United States Government hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue because the majority refuses to pass a clean legislation that does not include measures that threaten rural communities and the future of airline unions.

Now the majority has brought us to the edge of a cliff in order to see how much they can get for not throwing the country into default. In January, Speaker Boehner promised the American people the debt ceiling debate would be an example of an ``adult moment'' in Washington. Is this what he had in mind?

Just this morning, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, went on National Public Radio saying his party has ``not threatened to torpedo the economy by defaulting.'' This statement defies reality. We've been brought to this point precisely because the leadership in his party has walked out of negotiations and demanded that they get ideologically driven cuts before they will vote to protect the stability of our economy.

Last, but certainly not least, the crisis of the last few months has come at the expense of addressing the true crisis in our country--the jobs crisis that is facing millions of our fellow citizens. Last month, over 25 million Americans failed to find full-time work. Many have been out of work for so long that their unemployment benefits have expired as their skills erode and they are living on savings or charity from loved ones and friends. In response, we have not introduced a single bill in this House designed to invest significant government resources into creating jobs.

Instead, we have repeatedly proposed cutting funding to investments in green technology and transportation infrastructure, destroying the promise of putting thousands of Americans back to work in the jobs that can't be outsourced overseas. They have refused to extend unemployment benefits for those who can't find jobs and are moving nowhere fast to extend a payroll tax break that has helped create the small number of jobs that we added in recent months.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that serious responsibilities are taken here, the responsibilities of leadership, and in doing so, put an end to this self-inflicted crisis and focus on getting Americans back to work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California, the chair of the Rules Committee, 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.)

Madam Speaker, today we face a self-inflicted crisis, and the majority's proposed solution is no solution at all. The debt ceiling was created, ironically, to avoid forcing Congress to approve every new issue of debt. The debt ceiling was originally introduced to pay for World War I and was designed to be a formality that would help our country and economy operate smoothly and without interruption. All these years later, it having done that, the debt ceiling now appears to have outlived its usefulness. In fact, I believe we should abolish the debt limit altogether and never face a crisis like this again of whether we will be a responsible country that pays our bills. Only one other country has the debt limit, and that is Denmark. I think we really need to look at this as an anachronism from 1917.

Regardless, throughout the life of the debt ceiling, raising the ceiling has never been questioned. Since 1960, the ceiling has been raised 78 times. Throughout this time, there's been no quid pro quo demanded to raise the debt ceiling, no ransom demanded in exchange for raising our debt ceiling and preventing default. That is, until today. Bringing our Nation to the brink of collapse has been a conscious decision of the majority party. Placing ideology before country, they are demanding controversial and unacceptable cuts or else they are willing to let our Nation default.

We have been warned by the United States Senate and the President of the United States that the proposed legislation will not be passed into law. They have said it repeatedly. They have said it clearly. Yet the majority continues to believe this bill can actually avert the danger of default. They're playing a dangerous game of chicken, asking the Nation to give into their demands if we want the American economy to live to see another day. I simply cannot agree to the extreme demands being put forth by the majority today.

After pulling yesterday's legislation from the floor, the majority has introduced a piece of legislation that demands the impossible. Today's bill doesn't just require a vote on a constitutional amendment; it demands that a constitutional amendment be approved by both Chambers of Congress this fall. If the amendment doesn't pass, then we not only face the prospect of default again 6 months from now, but we have even fewer options to avoid default.

If previous proposals are any guide, the constitutional amendment would place the burden of debt reduction squarely upon the middle class, threatening Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and Members of Congress would be given a Sophie's choice: Do we vote against this amendment and protect Medicare or do we vote for the amendment to avoid economic default? This is totally unnecessary.

In effect, this legislation releases one hostage and takes another. Six months from now, we would be forced to choose between a constitutional amendment and putting the Nation back on the brink of default. I refuse to trade hostages with the majority and prolong this crisis for another 6 months.

I urge my colleagues to put the country before any ideology and come together to solve an urgent and serious crisis that we are facing today. It's our duty to put the welfare of the country before all else. That is why we were elected by the people who expect us to do just that, and that is what we swear to do. It is time we answered the call.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's bill and urgently, urgently, get back to serving the American people. And we spent far too much time on the useless bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a constitutional scholar.

Madam Speaker, 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.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to yet another constitutional scholar, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I believe I have two.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Markey.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the consequences of this bill are so dire and the circumstances of this constitutional amendment are so far-reaching and damaging that I implore everybody in the House of Representatives, in the name of the Founding Fathers, in the name of our soldiers fighting for our Nation, for people who kept the economy the envy of the world, for the sake of our children and generations yet unborn, to vote against this rule. I have never felt this way before. The process and everything about this is wrong. They are making it absolutely impossible the next time for us to meet our obligations, and we really should not besmirch the reputations that we have as thoughtful legislators by voting for this.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that we have two separate but equally urgent issues facing our country: raising the debt ceiling and reducing the Nation's debt. In this Congress we should make a serious effort to do both. However, after 100 years, almost, of protecting the full faith and credit of the United States by raising the debt ceiling without pause, the majority's decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage in order to push drastic cuts and place the burden of future debt reduction squarely upon the middle class. This unprecedented effort to put ideology before country has led us to the brink of default, a prospect that is all too real as we vote today.

The plan we're considering today is not the product of a bipartisan compromise. No matter how many times anybody says that, it does not make it true. We're considering a bill the majority knows will never be approved by the Senate nor signed by the President. Members of the House are being told to vote on legislation despite having no idea, no idea, what cuts are in this bill. Any Democrat who votes for this bill could be cutting Social Security or heating for low-income families and not even know it. To ask the House to vote on undisclosed cuts is a cynical waste of time.

Furthermore, the bill shrugs aside the burden of governing. It asks us to vote like a mock government that will be set up and pass the buck to a commission to make decisions for us, leaving us to simply rubberstamp what they decide. That is not why I ran or was elected to Congress, and it is an abandonment of the responsibilities we are sworn to uphold.

Today's reckless plan would put us right back in the same situation a few months from now when the atmosphere is even more politically charged by the coming election. Our economy and our markets won't have the stability they need. Credit agencies will have no choice but to downgrade the U.S. debt. This would cause interest rates to rise, effectively raising taxes for every American family.

The leaders of the majority know this and said so publicly, but they don't seem to care. In a June 13 interview with Politico, Majority Leader Cantor said, ``We feel very strongly that one of the reasons why we continue to see an ailing economy is that people have very little confidence, have very little certainty in terms of where we are headed.'' In that same interview, he was explicit that he wants a single debt ceiling vote for this Congress and not, as he said, ``a series of short-term extensions, as some have suggested.''

The following week Politico quoted Leader Cantor saying, ``If we can't make the tough decisions now, why would we be making them later? I don't see how multiple votes on a debt ceiling increase can help get us to where we want to go.'' Yet here we are today considering a bill that will require a second debt ceiling vote just 6 months from now.

Not only is this bill awful policy and a waste of our time, but the rule before us clears the way, which will come as a great surprise to Members, for a constitutional amendment that would give a simple majority the ability to cut spending, while only allowing the government to raise revenues--that is, to go after the people who are more able to pay and to get corporations to pay their own way--by having to have approval of three-fifths of the House to do that. In other words, they are sacrosanct; the poor always give.

This cut-first, think-later approach would directly harm the middle class. The amendment stacks the deck in favor of future cuts to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid while making it virtually impossible to close tax loopholes for oil companies and millionaires who own private jets.

As if this was not enough, the process by which we will vote on this amendment is a disgrace to this institution. Under today's rule the majority proposes we consider a constitutional amendment under suspension of the rules, the most closed procedure that we have. As we all should know, suspension of the rules is designed for noncontroversial legislation such as naming a post office or congratulating a winning sports team. To give a constitutional amendment the same consideration as renaming a post office is embarrassing for us and a disgrace to the dignity and tradition of the House.

In closing, today's debate is about fairness. Are we a nation that asks the most of those who have the least? It certainly appears so. Or are we a nation of shared sacrifice and fairness, a nation that asks every American to do his fair share? Today's bill turns upside-down any notion of fairness and proposes radical changes to our Constitution that would protect millionaires and special interests while making it easier than ever to take from the middle class.

For this reason I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, an expert on the Constitution, Mr. Price.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Pingree.

I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that we know very good and well where the majority stands on Social Security and Medicare because we heard the Ryan proposal, and everybody knows it in the country. Those programs are to be changed from what we have, and we're working really hard here to help them out, maybe what you would consider a temporary solution.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Let me now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, since I have extra time and didn't give him enough in the first place, I yield 2 more minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible rule. It trivializes the Constitution, endangers Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and says to the world, The United States Congress is incapable of doing its job.

The majority's risking a calamitous default on our debt, and they're doing so in the name of politics. The Republicans' ``my way or the highway'' approach is dead wrong, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing both this rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant James T. Malloy who served as the last Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives, a man I'm proud to have called a a mentor and friend.

Americans knew him as the bellowing voice we'd be waiting for at the start of the annual State of the Union address; the voice that would yell over the hundreds assembled in the House chamber, ``Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States.'' That first introduction came for President Gerald Ford in 1975 only a few weeks after his appointment.

I was privileged to know the man behind the voice, the man who mentored hundreds of members of Congress and staffers who passed through his doorway and the man who was beloved by everyone in this chamber.

Jimmy was incredibly helpful to me when I first came to Congress 24 years ago. He provided a good listening ear and sage advice. Put simply he was an extraordinary human being and he had no bigger fans than those of us from Western New York.

As the proud son of a South Buffalo firefighter, he put Buffalo on the map on a daily basis.

One of Buffalo's other proud sons, Tim Russert, described Jimmy as ``a good man, who knew everybody and was always proud of taking care of his own.''

``I'll accept that, I like that,'' Jimmy responded when he heard the description with the humility that personified his rustbelt roots.

In 1994, Jim's last duty was to introduce the new Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Since then, there's been no Doorkeeper of the House. I believe no one could possibly follow him. He has been missed in this House and will certainly be remembered fondly by everyone that knew him. He made Buffalo proud and the lives he touched richer. For that, we are all thankful.

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

The National Endowment for the Arts has a 40-year history of investing in communities across the country to expand access to the arts. The NEA has awarded 2,400 grants, spanning communities in all 435 congressional districts.

The proposed cuts to the NEA would have a crippling effect on a program that has been proven to work. Often when I talk about the arts and how I feel about them, I always say how thankful I am to be able to work in an art building that is a masterpiece, but I'm going to be practical tonight. All we're interested in is money, and that's what I'm going to talk about. I hope that people will pay attention to what we get for that little bit of money.

In FY 2010, the Federal Government invested $167.5 million in the NEA for the purpose of providing funding to nonprofit arts organizations. That funding created $166.2 billion in total economic activity, supported 5.7 million jobs, and--listen to this one--generated to the U.S. Treasury $12.6 billion in tax revenue. That does not include the State tax revenue or the local tax revenue. So we spent $167 million and got back $12.6 billion.

I defy anybody in here to tell us that we get that kind of return on any money we spend here. I wish we could find more ways to multiply our money by such a magnitude while enhancing the public good at the same time. Investment opportunities like these are few and far between, and we should be expanding our investment in such a successful program, not cutting its funding to the bone.

I am the proud co-chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus, a group that has supported the NEA for almost 30 years. The Arts Caucus is composed of 186 dedicated, bipartisan Members who are committed to the growth and the success of the arts. Why? Because the arts make a difference.

The NEA reached its peak level of funding in fiscal year 1992, but it has never fully recovered from a 40 percent cut in fiscal year 1996 when, once again, people mischaracterized the work of the NEA. We have seen progress with increasing NEA funding since fiscal year 2008, but just last year, the NEA was forced to deal with a crippling cut again to its annual budget. If this year's appropriations bill takes effect, the NEA will have had its budget cut by 20 percent in just the last few months. These cuts are not sustainable and do great harm to the success of the arts sector across the country.

There is widespread national support for the NEA and the arts, including from companies like Westinghouse and Bravo. Actually, what really happened so much for us that was so good was when Bravo and Westinghouse particularly said they would rather hire people who had backgrounds in art because of what they were able to do--their innovation and using both sides of the brain. Bravo was wonderful, advertising all the time how important arts are to the children in this country. The bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors made art a priority in their 10-point plan, saying Federal resources must also be invested in nonprofit arts organizations through their local arts agencies with the full funding of the Federal arts and cultural agencies.

In addition, I have a letter from 26 national art organizations urging Congress to prevent any further reduction to the investment in our Nation's arts and culture infrastructure, which I would like to submit for the Record.

The simple truth is that funding of the arts creates jobs. There are 756,007 arts-related businesses in the United States that employ 3 million people. In my district, there are 1,229 arts-related businesses that employ 15,864 people. And remember what's already been said so well by Mr. Simpson is that this is seed money from the National Endowment of the Arts which brings in other money--public money, private money--which is terribly important to make these programs survive. And these programs, as I've already pointed out, are an economic gold mine. They employ creative workforce, they spend money locally, they generate government revenue, and are a cornerstone of tourism and economic development.

Along with creating and supporting jobs, the arts provide job skills to our Nation's youth--this is very important to understand--that are marketable to the innovative companies that drive our economy and push America to the forefront in the global marketplace. I've already mentioned Westinghouse, but there are many more.

Exposure to the arts fosters learning, discovery, and achievement in our country. This is, again, simply a fact. Research has proven participation in arts education programs stimulate the creative, holistic, subjective, and intuitive portions of the human brain.

For example, from what we've been told by the University of California-Davis, the only doctors who really understand what they hear in a stethoscope are those who have studied music. High school music students score 102 points higher on the SATs than their peers. Students with 4 years of art in high school obtain 57 points more on their SAT.

So we're making an investment in our students and our future.

But they play other important roles elsewhere in the economy.

Businesses are attracted to communities with a strong arts sector. And we see that everywhere there is art in existence, the presence of the arts can revitalize rural areas, inner cities and areas struggling with poverty. Cultural tourism brings in $192 billion every year to the U.S. economy.

Listen to those figures. I hope to goodness everybody is as impressed as I am.

Furthermore, American arts are an important export for our country, bringing in $30 billion more every year.

One statistic that I found particularly telling is that in 2010, the attendance at three New York museums--the Met, MoMA, and the Guggenheim--exceeded the attendance of all of the New York professional sports teams, all of them combined, by over 300,000 visits. People are interested in arts due in part to the NEA, and they come again and again and bring their families.

Along with all of this is a great intrinsic value that we know. I really must say that a lot of people think that art is not important, and they don't think about it or what it does to the human spirit. Art in so many ways tells us who we were, who we are, and who we hope to be. And if you think you're not affected by it, tell me what happens to you when you hear ``Taps,'' ``Amazing Grace,'' ``America the Beautiful,'' and the stirring that it gives in your whole person and makes you want to be better than you are.

Please, please don't decimate this program in which we invest so little but get back so very much.

July 25, 2011.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative, as the FY12 Interior Appropriations

bill comes to the floor for consideration by the full House,

we write to urge you to prevent further cuts to funding for

the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The direct federal

investment in the artistic capacity of our nation supports

thousands of jobs, strengthens communities, improves lifelong

learning, and boosts this country's international competitive

advantage.

Every U.S. Congressional district benefits from an NEA

grant, leveraging additional support from a diverse range of

private sources to combine funding from government, business,

foundation, and individual donors. The NEA awarded almost

2,400 grants in those districts in FY 2010. The NEA has

provided strategic leadership and investment in the arts for

more than 40 years. Americans can now see professional

productions and exhibitions of high quality in their own

hometowns. Among the proudest accomplishments of the NEA is

the growth of arts activity in areas of the nation that were

previously underserved or not served at all, especially in

rural and inner-city communities.

Nationally, there are 668,267 businesses in the United

States involved in the creation or distribution of the arts

that employ 2.9 million people including visual artists,

performing artists, managers, marketers, technicians,

teachers, designers, carpenters, and workers in a wide

variety of trades and professions. By direct grants and

through allocations to each state, NEA dollars are

distributed widely to strengthen the arts infrastructure and

ensure broad access to the arts for communities across the

country.

The NEA funds school-based and community-based programs

that help children and youth acquire knowledge and

understanding of, and skills in, the arts. The NEA also

supports educational programs for adults, collaborations

between state arts agencies and state education agencies, and

partnerships between arts institutions and educators.

We understand fully the shared sacrifice that we all must

make in order to help get our Nation's fiscal house in order.

But funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was

already reduced by $12.5 million in FY11, and the FY12

Interior bill currently includes an additional $20 million in

funding cuts. We urge you to prevent any further reduction to

the investment in our nation's arts and culture

infrastructure when the Interior Appropriations bill is

considered on the House floor.

Sincerely,

American Architectural Foundation, American Association

of Museums, American Federation of Musicians, American

Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic

Works, American Music Center, Americans for the Arts,

Association of Art Museum Directors, Association of

Performing Arts Presenters, Chamber Music America,

Chorus America, College Art Association, Dance/USA,

Fractured Atlas, League of American Orchestras,

Literary Network, Local Learning: The National Network

for Folk Arts in Education, National Alliance for Media

Arts & Culture, National Alliance for Musical Theatre,

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, National

Association of Latino Arts and Culture, National

Council for the Traditional Arts, National Performance

Network, OPERA America, Performing Arts Alliance,

Society for the Arts in Healthcare, Theatre

Communications Group.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to defend our democracy from the egregious attacks on our legislative process that are abundant in the underlying legislation. The FY 2012 Interior Appropriations bill is rife with policy riders that legislate on an appropriations bill, which is in violation of Rules of the House. As a long serving Member of the House Rules Committee, I have seen a fair share of policy riders attached to legislation, but never in the history of my time here in the House have I seen such blatant disregard for the House rules and departure from regular legislative order.

There are dozens of these anti-environment policy riders--or should I say these pro-industry earmarks that are included in the underlying legislation. There is an entire stand-alone bill included in this must- pass legislation--an entire bill that couldn't muster enough support to be passed into law on its own virtues--that is standing in our way from funding the government in the upcoming fiscal year.

Last Thursday in the Rules Committee I offered a motion to amend the rule to strike the waiver that protects these offensive riders from points of order. If the Majority had voted in support of regular order and adopted my amendment, the Members of this House would have had the opportunity to raise points of order against these assaults on our environment here on the floor and strike them from the bill. Predictably, though, my motion failed on a party-line vote.

If the Majority had followed regular and adopted my amendment to the rule in Committee, Members of the House could have been able to strike riders that:

Put more toxic mercury, arsenic, and lead into our air and puts our children's health at risk; Allow more soot pollution in our air;

Block EPA from moving forward with carbon pollution standards for new vehicles after 2016;

Put as many as 34,000 lives at risk;

Threaten the health of millions of Americans;

Threaten the health of America's children, elderly citizens and other vulnerable populations;

Block EPA from limiting dangerous air pollution from livestock production and manure management;

Ban EPA from doing its job to enforce the Clean Air Act in Texas;

Exempt oil companies from complying with Clean Air Act standards;

Put the drinking water of 117 million Americans at risk;

Prevent EPA from protecting communities' clean water supplies;

Allow unregulated discharge of pesticides directly into waterways;

Threaten the health and environment of communities across Appalachia by blocking a number of protections against the destruction and pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining;

Put thousands of people living near coal ash pools at risk of toxic disasters;

Put Americans' drinking water and waterways at risk of sewage and urban runoff pollution;

Block EPA from moving forward with new rules to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of power plant cooling water intake structures;

Block protections for more than 1 million acres of land around the Grand Canyon;

Put public lands at risk of destruction;

Put the Delaware Water Gap and parts of the Appalachian Trail at risk of development; and

Put endangered species at risk of harmful pesticides.

So here we are tonight, fighting for our fellow citizens' right to clean air and clean drinking water with one of the few tools we have left as the minority in the House--our voices and the privilege to represent our constituents on the House floor. We are fighting to uphold decades of successful, bipartisan environmental laws that have protected our environment and improved our public health.

Each policy rider goes against our nation's values and our belief that we solve our toughest problems through shared sacrifice and working together. When these policy riders are all combined, they place a suffocating burden on the American people while rewarding special interests and the lobbyists who walk these halls.

Under this bill, the nation's clean air protections would be devastated, leaving our children exposed to life-threatening pollution. This bill would cause hundreds of thousands more Americans to suffer from the dangerous and deadly impacts of air pollution. The bill's policy riders prevent the EPA from doing its job to protect public health and won't cut one dime from the deficit.

The EPA has been actively engaged in helping clean up the air in Tonawanda, New York, which I proudly represent, and I stand by the agency's ability to continue doing the good work to improve the quality of life for

those residents. Rolling back the Clean Air Act, as is proposed under this legislation, will lead to more air pollution, more hospital visits and more deaths. We must support the Clean Air Act so that all Americans can breathe easier.

I will mention one more of these abhorrent policy riders that should be struck from the bill. There is a rider in this legislation that will effectively open up a million acres of national forest and other public land around Grand Canyon National Park to new uranium mining claims. Democrats have concerns about maintaining the integrity of the Grand Canyon and the effect of uranium mining on water quality, not to mention the spectacle of auctioning off a national treasure with the proceeds going to mostly foreign-owned entities, including Russia's state atomic energy corporation and South Korea's state-owned utility. America is not for sale, Mr. Chair, even if Republicans would like us to believe otherwise.

Mr. Chair, I stand firmly in opposition to the Majority's daily attempts to whittle away at the rules of the House. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Majority's protection of policy riders that endanger our public health and environment in favor of private interests, and to oppose the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, in these tough times we must make choices that reflect our values and our belief that we solve our toughest problems through shared sacrifice and working together. Unfortunately, today we consider yet another bill that is devoid of these values.

Once again, today's legislation places the burden on the American people while rewarding the special interests and the lobbyists who walk these halls.

One of the many riders inserted into the bill will effectively open up a million acres of national forest and other public land around the Grand Canyon National Park because people want to mine uranium there.

Democrats have great concerns about maintaining the integrity of the Grand Canyon and the effect of uranium mining on water quality, not to mention the spectacle that shows us auctioning off a national treasure with the proceeds going to mostly foreign-owned entities.

Who is it that wants to drill for uranium and mine for uranium? Russia, their state atomic energy corporation, and South Korea's state- owned utility.

In other words, we will give up the Grand Canyon and potable water, likely, to benefit the Russians and South Koreans. And any mining that is included in this bill comes under a bill that was signed by Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. We have not raised royalties on anything that anybody takes from us, including foreign entities as they come here to mine our resources.

At the same time, the majority proposes crippling cuts to the EPA that will cut programs that protect our air and water. There are few more important responsibilities in making sure when we go to the kitchen sink that the water coming out is safe. We know a human being may live as long as he or she may without food--four days without water. If our Nation can't protect these most basic of our life necessities, we have indeed fallen far.

Today's bill would also prohibit the use of government moneys to add animals to the Endangered Species List but allows the use of government money to take species off the same list. This policy change threatens the Endangered Species Act and the environmental protections that come with it.

The misguided priorities in this bill will directly impact my district, and my colleague is right about that, and the citizens I am elected to represent. But not just them.

Twenty percent of the freshwater on this planet resides in the Great Lakes. Most of us who live around the Great Lakes believe it is our responsibility to take care of them and to pass it on to future generations. But in recent years, the Great Lakes have been damaged by pollution and invasive species carried on to our water by foreign vessels. We have allowed that.

New York, of course, being closest to the Atlantic Ocean and the St. Lawrence Seaway, has enacted stronger laws against dumping ballast, and this bill punishes us for doing that.

The invasive species are not damaging just an ecosystem but a way of life for the Great Lakes communities that line the shore, as well as endangering our freshwater. The EPA has come to the aid of these communities by dedicating funding to restore the Great Lakes. But today's bill would bar New York State from receiving any restoration funding from the EPA and leave the Great Lakes to be overrun by private polluters and the invasive species they have delivered from overseas.

Any bill that stands up for foreign shipping magnates but won't provide a cent to help Americans should never see the light of day and will never receive my vote.

Today's legislation also harms the arts. If today's bill takes effect, the National Endowment for the Arts will have lost 20 percent of its funding in 2 years. Now, these cuts target a program that works. In fiscal year 2010, we invested $167.5 million into the NEA--remember that number, $167.5--for the purpose of providing funding to non-profit arts organizations.

The funding created $166.2 billion in total economic activity, supported 5.7 million jobs, and, for the $167 million, generated back $12.6 billion in tax revenue to the United States Treasury. And that does not count what happens to help improvements to States' treasuries and local treasuries.

Today's legislation targets a program proven to create jobs and contribute to the economic and the cultural well-being of our Nation. You would think that people who are elected to the Congress of the United States would really want a program like that not only to survive but to grow. But, no, here they are cutting the budget once again.

Our country is blessed with stunning natural beauty and a wealth of natural resources that are unparalleled anywhere in the world. But in one final swipe at our national interest, today's bill cuts the budget for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by a whopping 78 percent. The Land and Water Conservation Fund ensures that our national treasures will be here for our children and our grandchildren, a mission that apparently deserves 78 percent less money than it did the year before. A cut like that says all you need to know about the priorities of the majority and the special interests that are being served.

If getting our fiscal house in order is truly about shared sacrifices, this bill does not reflect it. We could have started by asking oil and gas companies to pay their fair share after profiting so richly from resources found on American soil. Instead, the majority rejected an amendment that would have asked oil and gas companies to pay a little more so the Nation can fund programs to clean up the most polluted lands in our country. The majority will not even allow this amendment to receive a vote on the floor.

Today's bill asks nothing of the companies that are making record profits. Instead, cuts to programs and services and the agencies that serve the American people and protect our environment for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, a bill like this does not reflect our values. It is not up to the standards the American people have come to expect and deserve. It puts special interests over our general welfare, and it fails totally to invest in our future. We can and we must do better.

I am pleased to now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New York, the ranking Democrat on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond for a minute before I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I have, from the Las Vegas Sun of July 22, an article saying that the previous allowing of uranium mining has caused great damage. This watershed gives water to 26 million people and provides 90 percent of the water used in southern Nevada.

Let me quote from the paper:

``As it is, the Colorado River is already endangered by the uranium mines''--which the gentleman talked about has not hurt anybody at all-- ``that sit in the watershed, some perilously close to the water. The moratorium also doesn't prevent existing mining claims from being developed. The Interior Department says there are about 3,500 claims in the area. Adding the potential for more uranium to enter the water doesn't make sense. Republicans in Congress should quit

trying to repeal the moratorium and should instead work to protect the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put millions of people's drinking water at risk.''

I will put that in the Record, if I may, and a New York Times editorial of June 28, ``Mining and the Canyon.'' Absolute harm is being done.

[From the Las Vegas Sun, June 22, 2011]

Republicans Should Quit Trying to Roll Back Uranium Mining Moratorium

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in June issued a six-month

moratorium on new uranium mining claims on 1 million acres

near the Grand Canyon. The ban provides time for the

government to complete a study of the effects of uranium

mining in the area.

A final report is due this fall, and Salazar said the

department is considering banning new mining claims in the

area for the next 20 years.

The issue is important. Uranium mining threatens not only

the beauty and ecosystem of the Grand Canyon, but it also

poses a threat to the Colorado River, which is a key source

of water for about 26 million people in Arizona, Nevada and

California. The Colorado River, which forms Lake Mead,

provides 90 percent of the water used in Southern Nevada.

Salazar cited a concern for water quality in announcing the

moratorium extension because the 1 million acres are in the

Colorado River watershed. Water officials worry that more

uranium mines could result in radioactive material streaming

into the river.

The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River need to be

protected. The moratorium on new claims was put in place

because of an incredible spike in mining interest in the area

under the George W. Bush administration. The Grand Canyon

doesn't need to see any more mining around it.

Environmental groups and Colorado River water users cheered

Salazar's decision, but in Congress, Salazar's announcement

was targeted by some Republicans who claimed it was a bad

policy.

In a news release issued this month, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-

Ariz., boasted about inserting a provision to block the

administration from enforcing the moratorium in the spending

bill that covers the Interior Department. The bill passed the

House Appropriations Committee this month. Flake claimed that

mining ``can create jobs and stimulate the economy in

Northern Arizona.''

But Flake's argument is shameless. He is using the nation's

poor economy as an excuse to force a dangerous policy on the

country.

Flake's argument is part of the larger Republican attempt

to roll back any sort of regulation. In passing the interior

spending bill from his committee, Appropriations Chairman Hal

Rogers complained about what he called the administration's

``widespread regulatory overreach'' and pledged to cut it.

But when it comes to clean water, Congress shouldn't be

cutting back. People need to be confident their water supply

is protected, and if the Republican plan moves forward, there

will be serious doubt.

As it is, the Colorado River is already endangered by

uranium mines and tailing piles that sit in the watershed,

some perilously close to the water. The moratorium also

doesn't prevent existing mining claims from being developed.

The Interior Department says there are about 3,500 hard-rock

mining claims in the area. Adding the potential for more

uranium to enter the water doesn't make sense.

Republicans in Congress should quit trying to repeal the

moratorium and should instead work to protect the Grand

Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put

millions of people's drinking water at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

We're always being told what's junk science in here, but I will tell you right now, I really think that the science is very strong, and thank goodness there's a moratorium on this mining around the Grand Canyon.

I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who will make it very clear.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers.

I thank you for that, and I am willing to close.

Mr. Speaker, let me just close with this: I think we have demonstrated that this bill contains an astonishing array of devastating cuts and special interest riders that jeopardize the water we drink, the air we breathe, and our country's national heritage.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend our U.S. Women's Soccer Team in their thrilling race to the World Cup Final. Although it was ultimately Japan who captured the World Cup Trophy, as a country we could not be more proud of our team, their tremendous effort throughout the Cup, and their grace in accepting defeat. Regardless of the outcome, there is much to be said about how their playing inspired a country. The attention of the world has turned to women's sports, and these women are serving as positive role models to young girls across the globe. It has been a long twelve years since the heroics of the victorious US Women's National Team in the 1999 World Cup, and I want to congratulate the 2011 team for exemplifying champions, win or lose. The image of Brandi Chastain, fists clenched, basking in the glory of a World Cup victory that captivated our spirits all those years ago still hangs on the wall of my office.

As a representative from western New York, I especially want to congratulate the amazing performance of Abby Wambach, a native of my hometown: Rochester, New York. She scored her 100th career international goal in Rochester and she carries with her the support of Rochesterians wherever she goes. She is a four-time winner of the U.S. Soccer Athlete of the Year award, and is currently the fourth all-time leading scorer in international soccer history. She scored the gold- medal-winning goal in the 2004 Olympics and saved the quarterfinal match in this year's cup against Brazil when she scored a gut-wrenching equalizer off her head in the final moments. In the semi final victory over France, she tallied two more scores, including the go-ahead goal against France in the 79th minute. Of the two amazing goals scored by the U.S. in the finals, Abby scored the go-ahead header in extra time, and Alex Morgan, a player for the Western New York Flash, scored the other.

Alex, a 22-year-old phenom, has impressed the world with her quick feet and prominence as a striker, and she is being heralded as the future star of U.S. women's soccer. The entire Upstate New York area is beaming with pride and admiration of these two players as they represented our area so well.

The fervor and enthusiasm for our team was encapsulated in the hero's welcome Abby received when she returned to Rochester, with

several of her teammates in tow. It was ``Abby Wambach Day'' in Rochester, and she received a key to the city in commendation of her awe-inspiring talents. The regularly scheduled game between magicJack of Boca Raton, FL and the Western New York Flash saw a sellout crowd of 15,404, a record for the 3-year-old league. It is clear that we have all been infused with a love of the game and a respect for our players, and I hope that passion never dies.

The success of the U.S. Women's National Team is of particular importance because it shows young women and girls that like men, they too can earn the respect and admiration of the world through hard work, teamwork, and perseverance on the athletic field.

Since 2004, I've sponsored legislation in the House that would help high schools improve opportunities for girls in sports, and thereby encourage greater participation of both girls and boys in athletics. H.R. 458, the High School Athletics Accountability Act, would require that high schools report basic data on the number of female and male students in their athletic programs and the expenditures made for their sports teams. Without information about how athletic opportunities and benefits are being allocated at the high school level, female students may be deprived of their chance to participate in athletics.

And participation in sports has a multitude of positive effects on young women and girls, both physically and socially. For many young women, sports are often their ticket to higher education through athletic scholarships. I've met with so many Olympic gold medalists that told me without Title IX, which gave them access to athletic scholarships; they never would have had the chance to go to college. While we have made significant strides towards equity in athletics-- since the 1972 enactment of Title IX the number of women competing in college sports has soared by more than 500 percent while the number of high school girls competing in sports increased by over 1,000 percent-- we must continue to monitor our progress and ensure that our nation's young women have the rights and opportunities they deserve.

This year's Women's World Cup was thrilling and is indicative of the amazing talent of our U.S. Women's National Team. The success of our team has captivated men, women and children who nervously watched as the squad overcame Brazil in the last minute to triumph in penalty kicks, and then swept past France with their athleticism shining as they moved onto the final. I proudly cheered for them as they faced Japan on Sunday in the final, and was filled with admiration for their relentlessness on the field. Their accomplishments as a team are inspiring: two Women's World Cups, three Olympic Gold Medals, and eight Algarve Cups, earning them a commendation as one of the finest teams in the world. I must also congratulate Japan for their performance and sportsmanship in a game that was watched by millions around the globe, and that kept everyone on the edge of their seats into the final penalty kicks. Though the U.S. team was ultimately unsuccessful in a heartbreaking 3-1 penalty shootout, I cannot imagine a more deserving adversary in Japan, who so recently suffered a devastating earthquake and tsunami. I hope this victory will bring joy to their people, and I know that the Japanese citizens are as proud of their team as we are of ours.

Abby and her teammates have been role models for all with their poise both on and off the field and their dedication to the sport. I could not be more proud of her and her teammates as role models for young women interested in sports. I encourage children of all ages to be as inspired by the success of the U.S. Women's National team as I am, and to get involved with sports so that everyone can reap the benefits of this highly beneficial activity. Best of luck to the U.S. Women's National Team in the future; I know this is not the last time we will be cheering for them in the World Cup Finals. With the London 2012 Olympic Games on the horizon, we won't have to wait long to see them back in action on the world stage. Go USA!

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

Madam Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a reflection of the Nation's values. It embodies the ideals of fairness, accountability, and equality, values that help us define who we are as a people. Just as importantly, the CFPB brings accountability and transparency to the financial sector and reduces the risk that consumers will be sold financial products they don't understand and can't afford to buy.

The CFPB is already hard at work. This agency has started by proposing a simplified disclosure of mortgages so the consumers can read them--isn't that refreshing?--in plain language, the terms of an agreement, before signing on the dotted line.

Despite this valuable start, today's bill is designed to effectively neuter the agency before it can fully begin to serve the middle class. In so doing, this bill is a giveaway to special interests in the financial sector that fear they will finally be held accountable by the law.

Apparently unchastened by the economic crisis they plunged us into, financial firms continue to take advantage of unknowing consumers. Just this past year, a robo-signing scandal led to banks foreclosing on many families who had done absolutely nothing wrong. These firms will not stop trying to take advantage of people unless someone forces them to stop. Despite all this, the majority proposes that we weaken the very agency designed to protect consumers against illegal practices and unfair play.

The CFPB was launched thanks to the great work of Professor Elizabeth Warren and the team of professionals that she has assembled to launch the agency. Their work has been tireless and invaluable. Professor Warren acutely understands the struggles of American families and her words summarize nicely the choice Members of Congress are being asked to make today.

While speaking about the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB, Professor Warren said, ``I remain hopeful that those who want to cripple this consumer bureau will think again and remember the financial crisis--and the recession and job losses that it sparked-- began one lousy mortgage at a time. I also hope that when those Senators and Congressmen next go home they ask their constituents how they feel about fine print, about signing contracts with terms that are incomprehensible, and about learning the true cost of a financial transaction only later when fees are piled on or interest rates are reset.

``I hope they will ask the people in their district if they are opposed to an agency that is working to make prices clear, or if they think budgets should be cut for an agency that is trying to make sure that trillion-dollar banks follow the law.'' Members of this House would do well to remember her words.

Will we vote today to protect the middle class and the millions of consumers struggling to make ends meet, or will this body stand with financial lobbyists and leave the middle class to go it alone? In strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to take a vote that reflects our values and vote against this rule we're considering today and against the underlying bill.

Please let's stand up for the American families and help the helpless people who are simply struggling to get by despite what we have done for them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam 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.)

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas how many speakers remain on his side.

I would like to inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this rule and this bill will do nothing but get in the way of the important work of an agency designed to help consumers who are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not even up and running yet. There is no reason to think it won't work exactly as intended. Is that what the majority is afraid of?

Are they afraid that CFPB will make prices clear? that they will make terms and conditions clear? that they will ensure that mortgage disclosures are short, relevant and understandable by the consumer and the lender?

Are they worried about letting consumers shop for the best product at the lowest price? to help consumers understand the true cost of a financial transaction? that a cop on the beat will make sure the largest financial institutions in this country are following the law?

If that's what they're afraid of, then we don't want to join them, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill so that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can do its job without Congress getting in the way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would eliminate a tax loophole that puts at risk telecommunications services and workers in states across the country. The bill seeks to limit ``Reverse Morris Trust'' (RMT) transactions, a tax avoidance loophole that continues to be utilized by companies, including publicly regulated utility companies. RMT transactions regularly allow companies to avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes while having adverse consequences for consumers, workers and the Federal Treasury.

Under an RMT, a parent company can spin off a subsidiary that merges into an unrelated company tax free if the shareholders of the parent company control more than 50 percent of the voting rights and economic value of the resulting merged company. The result deprives the federal treasury of hundreds of millions of dollars. And all too frequently, the new entity incurs too much debt and lacks the capital needed to maintain services and perform system upgrades that it depends on to provide quality services to its customers and create good paying jobs.

The legislation I am introducing would restrict the benefits of the RMT transaction by removing an incentive for companies to sell off assets tax free by creating a spinoff company that assumes massive amounts of debt. The bill would help protect the interests of consumers and workers, while preventing this unintended loophole from resulting in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal revenues at a time when our federal deficit is soaring. Based on analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation in the 111th Congress, closing the RMT loophole would raise approximately $250 million over 10 years.

One recent RMT transaction provides a prime example of the dangers of this loophole. Despite objections from the public and Congressional members, Verizon utilized the RMT to avoid taxes on a similar transaction with FairPoint Communications in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont almost four years ago. As predicted, the result was unprecedented consumer complaints lodged with state regulators who were unable to reverse the negative consequences. On October 26, 2009, FairPoint declared bankruptcy, leaving the future of telephone service across all three states uncertain, and potentially putting at risk the compensation and benefits of thousands of employees.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to close this loophole that cheats the American public and helps large companies evade paying taxes by saddling smaller ones with debt.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Chair, I am opposed to the misguided cuts to high-speed rail funding in this bill that

will eliminate thousands of jobs, halt a large number of rail projects across the country--and we are way behind every other nation almost, industrialized nations, anyway--and hurt local and State economies. This is the latest in the majority's agenda that can best be described as penny-wise and pound-foolish.

In their Pledge to America, the majority made a promise to the American people. ``We will fight efforts to use a national crisis for political gain,'' they declared. Sadly, that's what they're doing today. Using the tragedy of natural disasters in America's heartland as a political tool to try to eliminate a job creation program, one of the very few we have, is just wrong. Thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic investment are at stake, and yet this fight brought to us today is little more than an unnecessary ideological battle.

The high-speed and intercity passenger rail program is critical to our country's competitiveness. It puts Americans back to work, revitalizes our construction and manufacturing sectors, boosts the domestic economy, and helps end U.S. dependence on foreign oil. It is both unwise and ineffective to cut important funding from one project in order to pay for disaster relief. We are a Nation that should be able to both build for the future--in fact we must--and provide for our fellow citizens in need today.

High-speed rail creates jobs. Every $1 billion of high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail construction funding supports 24,000 jobs. High-speed rail creates short-term jobs in construction, long-term jobs in ongoing maintenance and operation, and indirect jobs by providing regions with access to a larger labor pool and driving economic development.

In my home State of New York, the United States Conference of Mayors estimates at least 21,000 new jobs and $1.1 billion in new wages with the construction of high-speed rail along the Empire Corridor from Buffalo to Albany.

High-speed rail also creates the economic corridors of the future. A high-speed rail line in western New York as currently planned would reduce travel time significantly and expand the western New York labor market to 955,562 workers. This would make us the 26th largest metro area in the Nation, and that means new businesses will be drawn to the area as we connect our cities to Montreal, Toronto, New York City and the rest of the eastern seaboard; and for the first time in many areas, we may even be able to go west.

In New York, high-speed rail will be our next Erie Canal. Nationally, it is rightfully being compared to our national highway system. Both spurred local development and brought millions of jobs to our State and the Nation. At this point in time, we must not let this opportunity slip away.

What's more, rescinding funds for high-speed rail now, after $5.68 billion have already been obligated by the Federal Railroad Administration, will negate the unprecedented work already being done by the FRA and its partners.

FRA, the States, Amtrak, and infrastructure-owning railroads have made significant progress in reaching service outcome agreements to ensure that intended project benefits are realized, while protecting the public's investment and the railroads' operating interests.

The attempt to rescind this money is nothing but an opportunistic attempt to gain politically from a human tragedy. The flooding that has occurred in our Nation's heartland is being used as an excuse to eliminate an investment in our transportation network of the future.

This is morally reprehensible and economically irresponsible.

If we are to be a competitive global economy in the years to come, we must dedicate ourselves to building the infrastructure that we will need to compete. To rescind these funds now after so much progress has been made and at a time when investments in our own infrastructure and our country are so sorely needed is quite simply an act of foolishness.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 2018, Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act and stand in strong opposition to the underlying bill. H.R. 2018 is yet another attempt to dismantle our nation's environmental protections and further jeopardize the public health and safety of our citizens.

Simply put, H.R. 2018 would return the U.S. to a structure of Clean Water laws that existed before enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1972 by undermining the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to assure state water quality standards. Before the Clean Water Act of 1972, 70 percent of our nation's waters were unsafe for fishing, swimming, or drinking.

This amendment, offered by my colleague from Virginia, would exempt states that receive federal restoration funding from H.R. 2018. It understands that ongoing cooperation among federal, state and local governments is necessary to ensure that basic water quality standards are upheld across the United States, regardless of which state you reside in.

This amendment also recognizes that our Federal Government has spent billions of dollars on regional collaborative efforts among states to repair and restore our nation's valuable waterways, and that this bill, H.R. 2018, threatens to nullify these efforts and write off valuable investment already undertaken by effectively giving any one state veto authority over a region's restoration efforts.

As a co-chair of the House Great Lakes Task Force, a bipartisan working group of members from eight states surrounding the Great Lakes, I understand how critical it is for our states to work together to save our nation's valuable waterways and that this cooperation must be guided by the underlying premise that water does not stop when it reaches the state line. The Great Lakes have received over $800 million in federal funding over the last two years alone to undertake such restoration efforts. We must not let these efforts and our valuable nation resources go to waste.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose

Mr. Chair, I rise today to protect the Clean Water Act and in support of the amendment offered by Representatives Markey (MA), DeFazio (OR), Capps (CA), Blumenauer (OR), Capuano (MA), Napolitano (CA) and Hirono (HI). Since the passage of the Clean Water Act our waterways have gotten cleaner and our public health has improved. Thanks to the Clean Water Act, the United States has achieved significant gains in public health, a cleaner environment, and a stronger more sustainable economy.

The Clean Water Act, CWA, is one of our nation's greatest environmental laws, safeguarding our rivers, lakes, and streams and protecting the health and safety of our drinking water. The CWA was enacted as a bipartisan effort almost a half century ago, coming on the heels of several rivers catching on fire, including the Cuayahoga River in 1969, and the decimation of Lake Erie's fisheries due to pollution. Under the current Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has taken significant actions to improve the safety of our drinking water, and continues to protect of our nation's waterways.

There is no right more basic than the right to safe drinking water, and that right depends on unpolluted source waters. The Clean Water Act protects our water from heavy metals such as arsenic and lead, dangerous pathogens like

E. coli, and other toxins. Clean drinking water is basic to our very survival.

The amendment before us would ensure that if this bill, H.R. 2018, ever made it into law, it would not endanger the safety protections provided under the Clean Water Act for waters that provide flood protection for communities, are a valuable fish and wildlife habitat that provide benefits to the economy, or are coastal recreational waters. We cannot sacrifice our waterways for the interests of big polluters.

The nation's fish and wildlife habitats and recreational waters are fruitful economic drivers for local communities, especially in the area I proudly represent on Lake Ontario. According to a recent study, 900,000 recreational boaters using Great Lakes harbors spend approximately $2.35 billion annually on boating trips and another $1.4 billion to purchase and maintain their watercraft. This supports 60,000 jobs in the region and generates $1.7 billion in annual personal income. The CWA has served an integral part in cleaning up and maintaining the health of our waters, and therefore boosting the health of our local economies.

A strong Clean Water Act has moved us beyond the days of rivers on fire. However, there is still more to be done. State and EPA data reveal that 44 percent of assessed river and stream miles and 64 percent of assessed lake acres do not meet relevant water quality standards. Now is the time to support the efforts of the EPA as the agency works to ensure we all have access to clean water.

I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment so that our environment and local economies remain protected under the Clean Water Act. We must reject any effort to repeal our valuable protections, and recommit our pledge to the American people to work toward a cleaner, healthier, more prosperous future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern that justices of the Supreme Court are not required to explain their decisions to recuse--or not recuse themselves in a particular case before the Court, and that those decisions are final and unreviewable. Recusal decisions, left to each individual justice to make on his or her own and with no opportunity for review, require that each justice be a judge in their own case.

Questions of impartiality erode the integrity of the Court and threaten to undermine public trust in our judicial system. The recusal process for Supreme Court justices must be reformed to provide an open and reviewable process.

A Supreme Court Justice's Recusal Decisions Should Be Transparent and

Reviewable

(By the Alliance for Justice)

The recusal process for Supreme Court justices needs

transparency and accountability. Although there is a statute

governing recusal--28 U.S.C. Sec. 4551--that applies to

Supreme Court justices, the statute does not require

individual justices to explain their recusal decisions, and

those decisions are final and unreviewable. This system

violates the basic maxim that no one should be a judge in his

own case. It also ignores the fact that the standard to be

applied in recusal cases is the appearance of bias, which by

necessity depends on the views of others, and not the

justice's own views of his or her impartiality. Exacerbating

this lack of accountability is a lack of transparency, as

justices are not required to issue a written opinion

explaining a recusal decision.

That's why over 100 law professors recently sent a letter

calling on Congress to hold hearings and implement

legislation to increase the transparency and accountability

of recusal decisions.

A recent Supreme Court case, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal,

Inc. provides an object lesson in the hazards of a self-

policing judiciary, in which individual judges determine

whether or not their impartiality can reasonably be

questioned. In Caperton, West Virginia Justice Brent D.

Benjamin received substantial campaign contributions made

directly or indirectly from the president of a company with

an outstanding $50 million judgment against it on appeal

before the judge. Justice Benjamin denied three motions to

recuse himself, and then voted in the 3-2 majority to reverse

the judgment against the company. A public opinion poll

indicated that 67% of West Virginians doubted Justice

Benjamin would be fair and impartial.

The Supreme Court reversed Justice Benjamin's decisions not

to recuse himself on the basis that the risk of actual bias

was so high that it violated petitioners' constitutional due

process rights. It did not matter what Justice Benjamin

thought of his own potential for bias, the key was whether

the appearance of impartiality was compromised, the Court

held. The Court emphasized the need for an objective test to

evaluate whether an interest rises to such a degree that the

average judge might become biased, rather than relying on a

judge's self-evaluation of actual bias. ``The difficulties of

inquiring into actual bias and the fact that the inquiry is

often a private one, simply underscore the need for objective

rules,'' the Court added. The Court held that the need for an

independent inquiry is particularly important ``where, as

here, there is no procedure for judicial factfinding and the

sole trier of fact is the one accused of bias.''

The opacity and lack of accountability of the recusal

process erodes public confidence in the integrity of the

Court and the sense that justice is being administered

fairly. For example:

In 2003, a prominent legal ethicist argued that Justice

Breyer should have recused from Pharmaceutical Research and

Manufacturers of America v. Walsh, in which an association of

drug manufacturers, including three in which Justice Breyer

held stock, brought suit challenging the constitutionality of

state regulations aimed at keeping drug costs down for

consumers. Justice Breyer chose not to recuse himself,

despite his potential financial conflict of interest.

In 2004, just weeks after the Supreme Court granted

certiorari in a public records case brought by the Sierra

Club against then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Justice Scalia

went duck hunting with Cheney and accepted a free ride on the

Vice President's plane. Despite widespread public criticism

questioning his appearance of bias in the case, Justice

Scalia refused to recuse himself. In a memorandum opinion

denying the Sierra Club's motion to recuse, Justice Scalia

wrote that he ``would have been pleased to demonstrate [his]

integrity'' by disqualifying himself from the case, but

nonetheless decided there was no basis for recusal. He then

cast his vote in support of Vice President Cheney's position.

This year, the advocacy organization Common Cause filed a

petition with the Department of Justice, requesting that it

file a Rule 60(b) motion seeking the invalidation of last

year's Citizens United v. FEC ruling on the basis that

Justices Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves.

The petition alleged the impartiality of both justices could

reasonably be questioned under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a) due to

their alleged attendance at a closed-door retreat hosted by

Koch Industries, a politically active corporation that

supported and has benefited from Citizen United's dismantling

of campaign finance laws. Common Cause also alleges that

Justice Thomas had an obligation to recuse himself under 18

U.S.C. Sec. 455(b), due to a financial conflict of interest

created by his wife's employment at a conservative political

organization that stood to benefit from unrestricted

corporate donations made possible by Citizens United.

Also this year, Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and 73

other members of the House of Representatives have asked

Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any upcoming review of

the Affordable Care Act due to his wife's ties to

organizations lobbying to repeal the Act. Rep. Weiner asserts

that IRS records show that between 2003 and 2007, Virginia

(``Ginni'') Thomas was paid $686,589 by the conservative

Heritage Foundation, which at the time opposed health care

reform. He adds that in 2009, Ms. Thomas became the CEO of a

nonprofit, Liberty Central, which also opposed health care

reform, and that earlier this year, Ms. Thomas announced that

she had formed a lobbying firm, ``Liberty Consulting,'' to

advance various Tea Party legislative initiatives, including

the repeal or nullification of the Affordable Care Act. Rep.

Weiner alleges that these connections give rise to an

appearance of partiality, and a potential financial conflict

of interest that require Justice Thomas to recuse himself, if

the Affordable Care Act reaches the Court. While a judge's

spouse is not prohibited from engaging in political

activities, Judicial Conference Advisory Opinions

interpreting the Code of Conduct make clear that a spouse's

political activities may increase the likelihood that a judge

must recuse from a particular case.

These examples highlight the need for transparency and

review of recusal issues that arise for Supreme Court

justices. The impartiality of specific justices, and thereby

the integrity of the Court, has come under question because

the recusal statute fails to provide an open and reviewable

process. This needs to change, either through Congressional

legislation, or by the Court itself adopting new recusal

policies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over ethically questionable conduct of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that threatens to undermine public trust in our judicial system.

Justice Thomas has repeatedly engaged in questionable actions and hidden them from public view. Just this weekend, the New York Times revealed troubling details about favors Justice Thomas has received from a millionaire real estate magnate named Harlan Crow.

Despite the revelations, Justice Thomas refuses to provide details about his relationship with Mr. Crow. The report from the New York Times is the latest in a long line of troubling actions taken by Justice Thomas, yet he refuses to share the necessary information to ensure that his service on the bench is fair and free from conflict of interest.

No one should be above the law, especially those chosen to uphold it.

[From the New York Times, June 18, 2011]

Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics

Pin Point, GA.--Clarence Thomas was here promoting his

memoir a few years ago when he bumped into Algernon Varn,

whose grandfather once ran a seafood cannery that employed

Justice Thomas's mother as a crab picker.

Mr. Varn lived at the old cannery site, a collection of

crumbling buildings on a salt marsh just down the road from a

sign heralding this remote coastal community outside Savannah

as Justice Thomas's birthplace. The justice asked about plans

for the property, and Mr. Varn said he hoped it could be

preserved.

``And Clarence said, `Well, I've got a friend I'm going to

put you in touch with,' '' Mr. Varn recalled, adding that he

was later told by others not to identify the friend.

The publicity-shy friend turned out to be Harlan Crow, a

Dallas real estate magnate and a major contributor to

conservative causes. Mr. Crow stepped in to finance the

multimillion-dollar purchase and restoration of the cannery,

featuring a museum about the culture and history of Pin Point

that has become a pet project of Justice Thomas's.

The project throws a spotlight on an unusual, and ethically

sensitive, friendship that appears to be markedly different

from those of other justices on the nation's highest court.

The two men met in the mid-1990s, a few years after Justice

Thomas joined the court. Since then, Mr. Crow has done many

favors for the justice and his wife, Virginia, helping

finance a Savannah library project dedicated to Justice

Thomas, presenting him with a Bible that belonged to

Frederick Douglass and reportedly providing $500,000 for Ms.

Thomas to start a Tea Party-related group. They have also

spent time together at gatherings of prominent Republicans

and businesspeople at Mr. Crow's Adirondacks estate and his

camp in East Texas.

In several instances, news reports of Mr. Crow's largess

provoked controversy and questions, adding fuel to a rising

debate about Supreme Court ethics. But Mr. Crow's financing

of the museum, his largest such act of generosity, previously

unreported, raises the sharpest questions yet--both about

Justice Thomas's extrajudicial activities and about the

extent to which the justices should remain exempt from the

code of conduct for federal judges.

Although the Supreme Court is not bound by the code,

justices have said they adhere to it. Legal ethicists

differed on whether Justice Thomas's dealings with Mr. Crow

pose a problem under the code. But they agreed that one facet

of the relationship was both unusual and important in

weighing any ethical implications: Justice Thomas's role in

Mr. Crow's donation for the museum.

The code says judges ``should not personally participate''

in raising money for charitable endeavors, out of concern

that donors might feel pressured to give or entitled to

favorable treatment from the judge. In addition, judges are

not even supposed to know who donates to projects honoring

them.

While the nonprofit Pin Point museum is not intended to

honor Justice Thomas, people involved in the project said his

role in the community's history would inevitably be part of

it, and he participated in a documentary film that is to

accompany the exhibits.

Deborah L. Rhode, a Stanford University law professor who

has called for stricter ethics rules for Supreme Court

justices, said Justice Thomas ``should not be directly

involved in fund-raising activities, no matter how worthy

they are or whether he's being centrally honored by the

museum.''

On the other hand, the restriction on fund-raising is

primarily meant to deter judges from using their position to

pressure donors, as opposed to relying on ``a rich friend''

like Mr. Crow, said Ronald D. Rotunda, who teaches legal

ethics at Chapman University in California.

``I don't think I could say it's unethical,'' he said.

``It's just a very peculiar situation.''

Justice Thomas, through a Supreme Court spokeswoman,

declined to respond to a detailed set of questions submitted

by The New York Times. Mr. Crow also would not comment.

Supreme Court ethics have been under increasing scrutiny,

largely because of the activities of Justice Thomas and Ms.

Thomas, whose group, Liberty Central, opposed President

Obama's health care overhaul--an issue likely to wind up

before the court. Mr. Crow's donation to Liberty Central was

reported by Politico.

In January, the liberal advocacy organization Common Cause

asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Justices

Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have recused themselves from

last year's Citizens United campaign finance case because

they had attended a political retreat organized by the

billionaire Koch brothers, who support

groups that stood to benefit from the court's decision.

A month later, more than 100 law professors asked Congress

to extend to Supreme Court justices the ethics code that

applies to other federal judges, and a bill addressing the

issue was introduced.

It is not unusual for justices to accept gifts or take part

in outside activities, some with political overtones.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer has attended Renaissance Weekend,

a retreat for politicians, artists and media personalities

that is a favorite of Democrats, including former President

Bill Clinton. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in a

symposium sponsored by the National Organization for Women's

Legal Defense and Education Fund, and a philanthropic

foundation once tried to give her a $100,000 achievement

award. She instructed that the money be given to charity.

But in the case of Justice Thomas and his dealings with Mr.

Crow, the ethical complications appear more complex.

conservative ties

Mr. Crow, 61, manages the real estate and investment

businesses founded by his late father, Trammell Crow, once

the largest landlord in the United States. The Crow family

portfolio is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and

includes investments in hotels, medical facilities, public

equities and hedge funds.

A friend of the Bush family, Mr. Crow is a trustee of the

George Bush Presidential Library Foundation and has donated

close to $5 million to Republican campaigns and conservative

groups. Among his contributions were $100,000 to Swift Boat

Veterans for Truth, the group formed to attack the Vietnam

War record of Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic

presidential candidate, and $500,000 to an organization that

ran advertisements urging the confirmation of President

George W. Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Crow has not personally been a party to Supreme Court

litigation, but his companies have been involved in federal

court cases, including four that went to the appellate level.

And he has served on the boards of two conservative

organizations involved in filing supporting briefs in cases

before the Supreme Court. One of them, the American

Enterprise Institute, with Mr. Crow as a trustee, gave

Justice Thomas a bust of Lincoln valued at $15,000 and

praised his jurisprudence at an awards gala in 2001.

The institute's Project on Fair Representation later filed

briefs in several cases, and in 2006 the project brought a

lawsuit challenging federal voting rights laws, a case in

which Justice Thomas filed a lone dissent, embracing the

project's arguments. The project director, an institute

fellow named Edward Blum, said the institute supported his

research but did not finance the brief filings or the Texas

suit, which was litigated pro bono by a former clerk of

Justice Thomas's.

``When it came time to file a lawsuit,'' he said, ``A.E.I.

had no role in doing that.''

coming up with a plan

In addition to his interest in politics and policy, Mr.

Crow is well known for his keen devotion to history.

A backyard garden at his $24 million Dallas residence is

dominated by old statues of dictators he has collected from

fallen regimes, including Lenin and Stalin. His private

library is packed with 8,000 rare books and artifacts,

including a Senate roll call sheet from Justice Thomas's

confirmation and a ``thank you'' letter from the justice,

according to local news reports.

There are a number of reasons Justice Thomas might be

thankful to Mr. Crow. In addition to giving him the Douglass

Bible, valued 10 years ago at $19,000, Mr. Crow has hosted

the justice aboard his private jet and his 161-foot yacht, at

the exclusive Bohemian Grove retreat in California and at his

grand Adirondacks summer estate called Topridge, a 105-acre

spread that once belonged to Marjorie Merriweather Post, the

cereal heiress.

Christopher Shaw, a folk singer who said he had been

invited several times to perform at Topridge, recalled seeing

Justice Thomas and his family ``on one or two occasions.''

They were among about two dozen guests who included other

prominent Republicans--last summer, the younger Mr. Bush

stopped by.

``There would be guys puffing on cigars,'' Mr. Shaw said.

``Clarence just kind of melted in with everyone else. We got

introduced at dinner. He sat at Harlan's table.''

Mr. Crow's $175,000 donation to the library in Savannah in

2001 started out anonymous, but it was eventually made public

amid opposition to the project by some local black leaders

who did not like Justice Thomas's politics. Similarly, Mr.

Crow sought to keep his role in the museum quiet.

At first glance the Pin Point Heritage Museum, scheduled to

open this fall, would seem an unlikely catalyst for an

ethical quandary. That Pin Point's history is worthy of

preservation is not in dispute.

Part of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

designated by Congress, it is representative of tight-knit

Southern coastal settlements that trace their roots to freed

slaves and were often based around fishing. In Pin Point, the

Varn crab and oyster cannery, founded in the 1920s, was a

primary source of jobs until it closed in 1985.

Mr. Varn and his wife, Sharon, said they had long hoped the

property could be saved from commercial development but had

little success coming up with a plan. That changed after

their chance encounter with Justice Thomas, who was visiting

his childhood home with a television news crew.

Justice Thomas, 62, was born and raised near the cannery

overlooking the Moon River, where it was not uncommon for

babies to rock in bassinets made of crab baskets while their

mothers shucked oysters. He sympathized with the Varns'

wishes and said he had a friend who could help, Mr. Varn

said.

The Varns eventually sold their property in April 2008.

During a recent interview at their home near the cannery,

they made it clear that they were ``not supposed to say'' who

the buyer was, and a news release issued last November by a

Savannah public relations firm said the museum was being

``privately funded by an anonymous donor.''

But the paper trail leads back to Mr. Crow, and in

interviews at the project site, people working on it

acknowledged that he was financing it. Property records show

a company called HKJRS/Pinpoint bought the land for $1.5

million, and incorporation records say the company is

controlled by a Dallas-based partnership run by Mr. Crow.

Project documents reviewed by The Times show a preliminary

construction budget of $1.3 million, but it is unclear if

that includes expenses related to the content and design of

the museum.

Justice Thomas remains closely involved with the project.

Emily Owens, a museum spokeswoman who works for Mr. Crow's

company, said the justice ``played a big part'' in creating a

video documentary that will be part of the museum experience.

He hosted a design team from Dallas for a four-hour meeting

at his Supreme Court offices in February.

And he has had a role in picking people to help with the

museum. Barbara Fertig, a history professor at Armstrong

Atlantic State University in Savannah, said that she was

asked to meet with Justice Thomas last spring and that ``by

the end of the meeting, he said he would like me to work on

this project.''

She said she had ``never been particularly curious'' about

why Mr. Crow is financing it, adding that costly preservation

projects are often possible only because of philanthropy

motivated by friendships. Justice Thomas and Mr. Crow would

seem to fall into that category, Ms. Fertig said.

``I've been in the company of the two of them together,''

she said, ``and they certainly really are friends.''

the code of conduct

That friendship is important to determining whether Justice

Thomas's interactions with Mr. Crow conflict with the code,

said Raymond J. McKoski, a retired state judge in Illinois

who wrote a law review article on charitable fund-raising by

judges. If Justice Thomas did not ``misuse the prestige of

office'' in getting Mr. Crow to take on the project, it

should not be a concern, he said.

``Some of it depends on the conversations that took

place,'' Mr. McKoski said. ``Who brought up the idea? How

willing was Mr. Crow to do it? What exact questions were

asked by Justice Thomas?''

Beyond the admonition against fund-raising, the code

generally discourages judges from partaking in any off-the-

bench behavior that could create even the perception of

partiality. It acknowledges the value in judges' being

engaged with their communities, lecturing on the law and

doing charitable work, but draws a line where those

activities might cause a reasonable person to worry that a

judge is indebted to or influenced by someone.

``The code of conduct is quite clear that judges are not

supposed to be soliciting money for their pet projects or

charities, period,'' said Arn Pearson, a lawyer with Common

Cause. ``If any other federal judge was doing it, he could

face disciplinary action.''

The justices are not bound by the federal judiciary's

conduct code, because it is enforced by a committee of judges

who rank below the justices. Even so, Justices Breyer and

Anthony M. Kennedy said in testimony before Congress in April

that the justices followed the code.

Beyond the code, the justices must comply with laws

applying to all federal officials that prohibit conflicts of

interest and require disclosure of gifts. Justice Thomas's

gift acceptances drew attention in 2004, when The Los Angeles

Times reported that he had accumulated gifts totaling $42,200

in the previous six years--far more than any of the other

justices.

Since 2004, Justice Thomas has never reported another gift.

He has continued to disclose travel costs paid by schools and

organizations he has visited for speeches and teaching, but

he has not reported that any travel was provided by Mr. Crow.

Travel records for Mr. Crow's planes and yacht, however,

suggest that Justice Thomas may have used them in recent

years.

In April 2008, not long after Mr. Crow bought the Pin Point

property, one of his private planes flew from Washington to

Savannah, where his yacht, the Michaela Rose, was docked.

That same week, an item appeared in a South Carolina

lawyers' publication noting that Justice Thomas was arriving

aboard the Michaela Rose in Charleston, a couple of hours

north of Savannah, where the Crow family owns luxury vacation

properties. The author was a prominent lawyer who said she

knew of the visit because of a family connection to Mr. Crow.

Justice Thomas reported no gifts of travel that month in

his 2008 disclosure. And there

are other instances in which Justice Thomas's travels

correspond to flights taken by Mr. Crow's planes.

On Jan. 4, 2010, when Justice Thomas was in Savannah for

the dedication of a building in his honor, Mr. Crow's plane

flew from Washington to Savannah and returned to Washington

the next day. Justice Thomas reported in his financial

disclosure that his travel had been paid for by the Savannah

College of Art and Design, which owned the building.

In his 2009 financial disclosure, Justice Thomas reported

that Southern Methodist University in Dallas--Trammell Crow's

alma mater--had provided his travel for a speech there on

Sept. 30. Flight records show that Mr. Crow's plane flew from

Washington to Dallas that day.

Among the questions The Times submitted to Justice Thomas

was whether he was on any of those flights, and if so,

whether the colleges reimbursed him or Mr. Crow. The colleges

declined to comment.

One item not required to be reported in Justice Thomas's

financial disclosures is the millions of dollars Mr. Crow is

spending on the museum. That is because the money is not

being given to the justice as a gift.

For Algernon and Sharon Varn, who said they were thrilled

to see a cherished piece of local history being restored, the

museum is a gift to the community. While it is about more

than Justice Thomas, they said, he deserves credit for

putting them together with someone who had the money and the

interest to make the project a reality.

``He was instrumental in getting the process started,

because he wanted it preserved to show that no matter where

you came from, you can go where you want,'' Mr. Varn said.

``He had a meager existence, and yet look where he is today.

It's a great American story.''

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to thank my colleague very much for yielding the time, Mr. Speaker.

We're considering matters of war and peace today. On Sunday, our Nation will have been engaged in military action in Libya for 100 days. The actions taken by the President have a grave impact on the constitutional role of Congress and the role of the United States abroad. Taken together, these are among the most important issues that we as Members of Congress will ever consider. These are the very debates that scholars and historians will study and analyze for decades to come.

Given these fundamental issues, the American people deserve the full and thorough consideration that should be afforded to all legislation introduced in this body--with committee hearings

and debate, followed by an open and regular process, and a thoughtful debate by the whole House.

In 1990, when I was first here, the body considered a resolution regarding matters of war and peace. At the request of President George H.W. Bush, both Chambers of the United States Congress engaged in a fierce debate about whether to authorize the use of military force in the Persian Gulf. I have vivid memories of those debates long into the night, with issues being debated in committees, marked up by both parties, brought to the House floor for a final debate before the American public. On that particular measure concerning the Persian Gulf, we had 25 hours of debate and 263 Members spoke. It was one of the most thorough airings of our constitutional obligations that I have witnessed.

In exchanges that can be publicly accessed today, Members of the House and our colleagues in the Senate engaged in an intelligent and enlightening exchange of ideas about the merits, the dangers, and necessities of passing a resolution authorizing American troops to engage in military force overseas. There were strong views on both sides of the aisle, but these views were accompanied by an overriding sense of duty to our country--a belief that Congress would reach a decision based upon the thoughtful and prudent vote of its Members and a reflection of a common interest of all its citizens.

As historians look back on the debate over the Persian Gulf War, they can clearly see a vibrant democracy--a democracy that is engaged in robust debate and a democracy earnestly working together for the best interest of its people. Two decades later, we stand in a room imbued with this history--that debate took place right here--but we avoid the robust debates that preceded us here today. Indeed, the way in which today's measures are being debated shame the dignity, history, and tradition of this body.

Today's resolutions about our actions in Libya have been rushed through the House of Representatives. They were written behind closed doors and received neither committee hearings nor committee markups. The two resolutions are being considered under a single closed rule following an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon. The process by which these measures proceeded through the Rules Committee is indicative of the chaotic and rushed process that we're being asked to vote for here today.

Late Tuesday night--10 o'clock, I believe--we were given two resolutions for an emergency meeting on Wednesday. They were added as emergency items to our afternoon meeting. When we got to the Rules Committee, they had been pulled from the agenda. It wasn't until 9 p.m. Wednesday that we received the text of H.R. 2278. Yesterday, we were notified that the Rules Committee would meet on this new and unvetted bill, along with one of the original two resolutions, less than 3 hours before the meeting began. We now stand on the House floor being asked to vote for a closed rule. We will then be asked to consider two resolutions of historic proportions with no ability to shape and adjust the measures to reflect the true will of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I regret the shameful way this important debate has been rushed through Congress, and I apologize to future generations who will look back on the work that we're doing today. Quite simply, the legislative process matters. Historians, scholars, and yes, future Members of Congress will look back on our actions today to see how their forebearers shaped the fate of this country.

In the case of the resolution of the Persian Gulf, they'll say how our democratic process thrived, whether one agreed with the resolution or not. Shamefully, in the case of today's resolutions, they will see a dysfunctional democratic process, one that has committed a disservice to the American people, to the dignity of the House of Representatives, and the future of the United States, by avoiding a true debate on one of the most important issues of our time.

For these very reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

I would be happy to yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

I would be pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and remind us the last time we had such a weighty debate, we devoted 26 hours to it, and 263 Members, more than half the House of Representatives, spoke.

I agree with what has just been said by Ms. Lee: this is much too late. It comes at a very strange time, and it really says today that this is pretty much a political move, which I regret, because this is probably, as she pointed out, and those of us who've been here before having to vote for it, voting to go to war is the most solemn experience that we face here.

So let me urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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