Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote No. 263. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 263.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) for yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the urgent need to cut the Nation's deficit. We need to have serious discussions and make tough decisions about how we prevent a fiscal crisis in our country, and certainly we are beginning those discussions.

But, sadly, today--and I must emphasize this--sadly, today this bill will end Medicare and cost shift to seniors $6,000 more a year. And why are they doing that? They get to pay for more tax breaks for Big Oil and millionaires, who are untouched in this country. That really is strange deficit reduction to me.

Frankly, if I had my druthers, I would start by ending the war in Afghanistan. That war is costing us $8 billion a month, and we're paying to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan while our own infrastructure crumbles and while we feel we cannot afford to spend any of our money on those of us who live here and pay the costs.

Just yesterday, the President presented another way to solve our fiscal crisis, as he laid out a budget that will responsibly reduce the spending and that simplifies the Tax Code, which is so important, so that, as the President said, and this is critical to understand, the taxes you pay are not going to be determined by the accountant you can afford. This is good news for all Americans.

The President's budget puts us on the right track to ending the deficit crisis while investing in the long-term success of our economy and our country. Unfortunately, the thought is far too prevalent in this House that we need not invest in ourselves, that we can just shut down programs and everybody will be happy and singing in the streets. Not likely.

But despite the responsible vision the President presented yesterday, we stand here today debating a reckless Republican budget that will destroy programs like Medicare while extending the tax cuts to corporations and America's rich.

The budget starts with Medicare, eliminating the program that provides secure and affordable health care in old age. And it is eliminated. People who

are on Medicare now will be grandfathered in. In the future what they will get will be a voucher with a certain amount of Federal money that goes with it. They are then required to go do the best they can in the private market to meet their health care needs.

As we watch the cost in the private market climb, we would have to ask ourselves, Would this government help out, as Medicare would, by raising the money that the government puts in to replace it? No, it wouldn't. So under this plan a senior in the year 2021, and I hope there are a lot of them in this House who will follow me on this, will pay $6,000 more for the private insurance than they would have under Medicare. Now, if your insurance costs more than that, you had better find a way to pay your creditors because you're going to be on your own.

Today's budget bill also threatens the future of Social Security. It includes a trigger mechanism that would allow Social Security cuts to be rushed through the Congress at a future date. This trigger is an abuse of the legislative process and puts Social Security on the chopping block for future cuts.

Furthermore, in an act that defies all logic, this bill cripples the watch dogs that we created just last year to police the big banks who created the financial crisis. Why in the world would we want to do that?

In addition to Medicare and Social Security, it cuts 70 percent of our investments in clean energy. It cuts 25 percent of our education funding. It cuts out 30 percent of our transportation funding, including significantly less money for a high-speed rail network designed to free us from foreign oil.

By stopping investments in key competitive areas, our Nation is abandoning jobs and future economic opportunities that come with clean energy, with a new transportation network, and the invaluable work of educating our children. This is the burden 90 percent of Americans are asked to share.

Meanwhile, the Republican budget would make permanent the Bush-era tax cuts that further cut taxes for corporations and America's richest individuals, including the oil companies. Do they need a Federal subsidy? I think not. Had the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire in December, we would almost be able to cut our deficit in half within a few months from now.

The Republican majority apparently believes that the ones who have the most should sacrifice the least. Some have claimed tax cuts create jobs. We hear that a lot around here. But analysis by respected experts, such as Pulitzer Prize winner and former New York Times tax expert David Clay Johnston, have shown that tax cuts do nothing to spur the economy and create jobs; they simply pad the wallets of the wealthiest among us in times of a national need.

As we shape a budget for 2012, we must craft legislation that truly shares the entire Nation's sacrifice, not a budget that ends Medicare while handing more tax giveaways to those who need it the least and in many cases are asking not to be given it.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, later in this debate, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Tonko's amendment to protect Medicare, TRICARE, and veterans' health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee and my colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of our new Members, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the Republicans have shown with their budget proposal that they're intent on using the deficit as a pretense to end Medicare. Democrats proposed an amendment in the Budget Committee to protect Medicare, TRICARE for the military and VA health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps. The Republicans all voted against it. Democrats tried again in the Rules Committee last night, but this rule does not allow the amendment to be brought to the House floor.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Tonko's amendment to protect Medicare, TRICARE and veterans' health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can put every Member of the House on record as to where they stand on health care and if they want to end Medicare or not.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a different historic perspective. This bill is different, all right, and I want to try to explain that to you. But first, I want to say we weren't elected, any of us, to Congress to prove that we can barely keep the government open and alive. That was never why we were sent here. We're here to make America stronger. And looking at this bill, we are utterly failing in achieving that goal.

In addition to the unnecessary and politically driven cuts in the legislation, the process that brought the bill to the floor is a mockery of regular order. Never before, again, let me say it, in the history of our Nation has this rule--what we're doing here today are three bills under one rule. You think we're going to vote for one, that would be the budget for the remainder of the year, but there are two other bills here to be voted on that I think you might be surprised at. It certainly took us by surprise. One of them completely defunds Planned Parenthood, having nothing in the world to do about cutting the deficit.

The second one takes away the health care bill. A matter of that importance is added as a correction onto this bill. What they said they would like us to do is to correct legislation that has not even been passed. That takes a lot of imagination.

But what is more serious, and I believe that is what they have done here, they have added an unprecedented provision that raises serious constitutional questions. Under this rule, and pay attention here, except I don't want children to believe it. This is not the way we do things. After the House and Senate have passed this bill and it comes back over, the House will hold it and will not send it to the President. They will hold it themselves, letting the government shut down again until the Senate votes to defund Planned Parenthood and to kill America's health care.

Now, that is very similar to what we did here a few weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago. It may have been last week for all I can remember, we have been working so hard. But what we did was probably one of the silliest things done in any legislative process in the world. They really passed a bill on this floor that said: we have already passed a bill and sent it to you, Senate. The Senate took the bill up, and it failed. So then the House response to that failure was: if we don't hear from you by date certain, then we're going to just say that the House bill is the law of the land.

Now, all of you who have been to school know that what we do to pass a bill is the House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill. If necessary, a conference committee reconciles the two bills, makes them the same, and it requires the President of the United States' signature to make it a bill. But not in this House. You can believe 10

impossible things before breakfast here easily because we're called upon to do that every day.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 225. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 225.

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

Madam Speaker, over 200 years, the House of Representatives has seen almost everything. From the days as a young nation, to modern day America, the exchange of ideas and the debate of legislation is a rich and proud tradition that moves our country forward. Unfortunately, today's legislation abandons this proud history and marks a new low in the United States House of Representatives. As you know, the new majority started off the session with reading every section and every piece of the Constitution of the United States to show our reverence for it, but this morning that Constitution has been kicked under the couch out of sight, lest its presence in the room restrict what is attempting to be done here today. Indeed, this legislation proposes that we throw away 200 years of legislative history and upend the fundamental process of how a bill becomes law.

Despite the urgent and dire issues facing our constituents, here we are, the U.S. House of Representatives, considering legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Today's legislation would ``deem'' a bill that the Senate has already voted down as passed by that very Senate. It would take a remarkable mind to even come up with such an idea. This notion, while clever, will never pass through the U.S. Senate. And let me remind you that what we're doing this morning, saying that we're going to bypass the Senate, would not do anything at all unless the Senate passed it of themselves saying, forget about us. It's simply not going to happen.

The Republican majority claims this bill is a solution to a government shutdown. I hope that discussions regarding the solution to a government shutdown are taking place in offices between Senate and House Members and representatives of the administration as we speak. They are the people who can avoid that. The majority claims this bill is a solution, as I said. If this is their only solution, America is in big trouble. The solution to a government shutdown is to meet the Democratic Party at the negotiating table, not to propose scrapping the entire legislative process simply because the majority party refuses to tell the right wing of their party ``no.''

I am sad to say that today's legislation is more befitting an entry to Grimm's Fairy Tales than to this august body. I think it demeans the House to pretend to do the impossible, to pretend to do what we can't. Does the majority believe that majority confers supernatural powers upon them to bypass the United States Senate?

In the House of Representatives, there are written rules for how the legislative process proceeds, rules that were crafted by Thomas Jefferson, rules that have been tried and true since the founding of this legislative body. These rules have helped lead our country through debates much more fractured than this. From civil war to civil rights, the rules of the House have seen us through struggle and strife and kept our country strong. Today's bill would throw away these rules and very much upset Thomas Jefferson.

Every one of us knows as schoolchildren that there is no way for a bill to become law without both chambers acting on it, a conference committee to meet if necessary, and the signature of the President of the United States. I wish that I were not standing here having to explain to my colleagues how a bill becomes law. I said yesterday, and I must say it again, that I hope we have warped no children's minds. Anyone who may be watching the perversion of the process today and any teachers who are guiding children through this process, take courage, because you can see the video that will explain once again, ``I am a bill.'' Never before has anyone seriously considered the idea that one House can pass a bill and decide it will be the law of the land. Hopefully no party will ever try such a far-fetched tactic again.

Just last year, the procedure to ``deem and pass'' legislation through the House was derided by Republicans as the ``Slaughter Solution,'' a procedure we ultimately chose not to use. At the time, Speaker Boehner called the deem and pass process ``an affront to every American.'' Now he brings his own ``dream and pass'' legislation to the floor.

Finally, I want to speak to the process that leads us to the floor today. The proposed bill has seen no committee consideration of any kind, there has been no opportunity whatever for public input, it required an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee last night to rush it to the floor today, and no chair or ranking member of the four committees responsible for this legislation even came to the Rules Committee; with the Democrat ranking members saying they had never heard of the bill. They certainly did not want to come up and debate it.

We are now considering another closed rule. A process such as this is far from ``the most open and transparent Congress in history'' that we were promised. If we are moving forward with emergency legislation under a closed rule, it should be for one reason: to create jobs. We've gone 13 weeks without a single jobs bill brought to the House floor by the majority. In fact, all of us know that that is the overriding fear in the United States today. Instead, we debate legislation so far- fetched that it will never proceed beyond this House floor.

We should not waste another minute ignoring the needs of millions of Americans, those who have no job and are losing their homes, while debating fantastical legislation that will never become law. This is a bad joke on the American people and not a serious solution to our problems.

I urge my colleagues to think again about the proud tradition of the House of Representatives and how proud each of us are to be able to represent constituents here and to try to do it in a sensible way that can really move the country forward and not, as we are doing today, simply again wasting time.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

There is no need to apologize. That is perfectly all right.

We all were freshmen once. We understand.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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.)

To respond, I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has helped create a few jobs while he has been here.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to one of our freshmen, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide immediately after the House adopts this rule and brings up S. 388, a bill to prohibit Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during government shutdowns.

As we face the possibility of a shutdown and to discuss how to prevent and deal with it, there's one point on which we all agree--that Members of Congress should not be paid during a government shutdown. The Republican bill we're about to bring up ties this bipartisan pay proposal to a partisan bill that isn't going anywhere. We could pass the Member Pay bill today and clear it for the President and simply take the Senate bill from the desk.

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

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful, and that is deal with the pay of the President and the Congress and actually has a chance, because it has already passed the Senate, of being enacted into law.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and I want to congratulate my colleague, Mr. Webster, on management of his first rule.

I rise today in opposition to the Shuster amendment that would undermine the strong flight safety regulations passed by this Congress and meant to protect air travelers throughout the Nation.

Last July, Congress came together to pass the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. It was landmark legislation requiring the FAA to implement the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board, which many of us thought the FAA already did, to establish a pilot records database to provide airlines with fast, electronic access to a pilot's record; to direct all airlines and Web sites that sell airline tickets to disclose who is operating each flight; and, of vital importance to those of us who live in western New York, make the necessary changes that address the underreported and deadly issue of pilot fatigue and inability to fly in bad conditions. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that this amendment stands to undermine all of these reforms. It would lay additional layers to the FAA's already cumbersome rulemaking process, only delaying what we fought so hard to create last year. And we must not go back.

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing western New York, and flight safety is one of our highest priorities. It was outside Buffalo, in the suburb of Clarence, New York, on a snowy February evening that Continental Connection Flight 3407, operated by regional carrier Colgan Air, crashed to the ground, killing all 49 passengers and one man on the ground. It was a tragedy deeply felt in western New York and sent shock waves throughout the aviation community.

As we discovered more details that fateful evening, we learned that the young pilot had never been trained on stall recovery techniques, which were needed that snowy night, and he had failed five different tests, but his employer only knew about two of those failures. One pilot had slept in the airport in a chair. The other had taken a red- eye flight from Seattle just the night before. It exposed delinquencies in commercial aviation that desperately need solutions. Pilots are often exhausted and underpaid. Discrepancies in the training requirements exist between major carriers and their regional partners. And pilot records are inconsistent, meaning a pilot's entire flying record was not available to his employer.

In the 2 years that followed, we took tremendous effort to learn from the lessons of that painful night. Led by heroic family members of victims of Flight 3407, Congress passed the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act. I want to take a moment to recognize the courage and tenacity of those family members. In the past 2 years, they worked through the grief of their own loss and advocated for safer skies for the rest of us. Collectively, they have made 40 trips to Washington on their own money, constantly reminding Members of the House, Senate, and administration that improving aviation safety is never a cause that can be pushed aside.

They have become the most effective group of citizens I have seen in my time in government. Every one of us, and we all do almost every week, who steps into an airplane owes them tremendously, and I am pleased to call them my friends.

The Nation cannot thank them individually, but this Congress can thank them by voting ``no'' on the Shuster amendment. Because of their work and of those in Congress, there is no better way to mark the lessons we have learned as a Nation about flight safety than by honoring the people who died on that cold and snowy night. This has been the mission of their families, and it has become a mission of mine.

Any attempt to turn back the clock on landmark provisions we passed last July will hurt everyone, including all the Members of Congress who, as I say, mostly fly back and forth to our districts each week.

To think that the pilot flying that plane is so fatigued that he or she is not at their peak is astounding and dangerous to all of us. These safety provisions must stay intact. They must apply to all pilots. It should not take another tragedy for us to have to relearn the lessons of flight safety.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, which should not be in this bill.

Mr. Chair, I come to the Floor today to stand in strong bipartisan support of Mr. LaTourette's and Mr. Costello's proposed amendment.

At this time of extreme economic hardship for American workers across our country, it is vital that we, as their voice in Congress, defend their rights to unionize and advocate for a workplace that works for them.

In recent weeks, workers from Wisconsin to Florida have been engaged in valiant efforts to defend their right to unionize, and collectively bargain for a better future. Workers have stood up across America calling for a more equal and more just American workplace.

Their calls come at a dark time in our country. At no point in our history have incomes been so unequal--not even during America's so- called ``Gilded Age.'' Over the last 30 years, the American worker has been knocked down, and worn out, as she tries harder and harder to make diminishing ends meet.

As currently written, today's bill continues to take from the middle class, when they can afford it the least.

The amendment being considered is a commonsense protection provided to the middle and working class. Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Costello's amendment does nothing radical; indeed it preserves the status quo. Yet their amendment shows that there are still some members in both parties who are willing to stand for the middle and working class, and work for a better future.

I urge my colleagues to stand with the middle class, and support Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Costello's amendment--for the benefit of the American worker, and the hope of a renewed American middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote Nos. 200 and 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote Nos. 200 and 201.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill yesterday was brought to the Rules Committee as an emergency meeting. Now, what would be an emergency in the United States? The cost of the war? The damage of the war? Unemployment figures? The deficit? Home foreclosure? The tragedy in Japan? A no-fly zone over Libya?

No. The emergency is that they want to destroy National Public Radio.

This is the latest in a long string of misplaced priorities by the Republican Party. It does nothing to fix the long-term fiscal condition. It doesn't create a single job. In fact, it will lose some. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that the legislation does absolutely zero to reduce the deficit.

When so many Americans want our representatives to create jobs to responsibly reduce the deficit and to bring our sons and daughters home from the battlefields overseas, why are we wasting valuable floor time on an ideological battle that does nothing to achieve any of those goals?

Because the bill is a political stunt, it is being rushed through Congress under draconian rules. Violating their own promises of transparency, the Republican majority held no hearings, no committee action of any kind, listened to no expert testimony, and provided no chance for the American people to weigh in. Just by saying it is an emergency, apparently, in many minds, it does become one. By not providing a true 72 hours and because the bill, itself, omitted the fact that the bill would lay over to allow all Members to review the legislation, they violated the spirit of the transparency they promised the American people just 5 months ago.

My colleagues on the other side know that they must pass this legislation quickly before the American people, at the rate of 69 percent, are allowed to speak and tell their representatives something they don't want to hear, for the American people, unlike the far right- wing, know that NPR is not an ideological news outlet and that NPR radio bases its reporting on fact, which is really an anomaly today in the United States.

NPR doesn't try to blur the line between opinion, fact, and political agenda. Instead, it takes the time and spends the money to do in-depth reporting across the country and around the globe and to go where no other news organization will go. Unlike commercial news outlets that are driven by the need to garner ratings and sell commercial advertising, National Public Radio concerns itself, first and foremost, with informing the Nation on the complex issues that face our country.

In stark contrast to the bare bones and often sensationalist reporting found elsewhere, National Public Radio operates 17 foreign bureaus. In fact, it is one of the few news outlets to maintain a full- time bureau in Afghanistan, reporting from the front lines of a largely forgotten war. It is also in the process of opening a bureau in Turkey in order to report firsthand on the democratic uprisings throughout the Middle East.

In the United States, it has correspondents spread out from Texas to Oregon, telling the stories not covered by the cable news pundits that we see on TV every day. In rural America in particular, NPR can often be the only, best source of news. Defunding NPR will cut off this valuable source of news from the southern tier of western New York to the plains of the upper Midwest, and will put rural communities at a major disadvantage in the information age.

It is because of their valuable and unique reporting that Americans are increasingly turning to NPR in order to learn about our ever- changing world. In fact, despite the challenges facing the news media, a new report by the Pew Foundation has shown that NPR is strong and is growing more popular every day. According to the report, NPR's audience has grown to 27.2 million weekly listeners. This is a 58 percent increase since the year 2000. In addition, the Web site is a premier online news destination, garnering 15.7 million visitors a month, which is an increase of more than 5 million people over the course of a single year--and are those people really going to be angry.

I've been a proud supporter of NPR my whole life in public service. While serving in the New York State Legislature, I fought for the launch of news programming on my local public radio station, WXXI. From that humble beginning over 30 years ago, I find myself standing on the floor of the House of Representatives, fighting for NPR again today.

I stand here because, quite simply, facts matter. This Nation wasn't built because we huffed and puffed and wished it were so. We didn't become a global leader by bloviating on 24-hour cable news, and we aren't solving the fundamental issues that face our Nation by passing this politically driven legislation to appease the far right.

Our Nation was built and will be rebuilt by the quiet efforts of millions of Americans across the country who will never make it on cable news and who will never appear on national television. It is these very Americans whom NPR dedicates its resources to finding, to covering, and to sharing the world with. Their stories aren't simple, and their efforts don't sell advertising space, but their stories matter. NPR's work to find the stories that matter is the in-depth intelligent reporting that I fight for today.

No matter what I say, some will still believe that NPR isn't worth funding because they want it to be true. Some will find it in their interests to scare Americans into believing in an NPR straw man, while others will take comfort in watching the straw man fall.

Yet, deep in our hearts, all of us know that governing through fear and divisive legislation is not a responsible way to move this country forward. It is certainly no replacement for creating jobs. With millions of Americans who are unemployed and struggling to live, we can't waste another minute on the House floor without debating a bill that will put some Americans back to work. We should not waste another minute ignoring the needs of millions of Americans while playing cheap political games.

Yesterday, I asked, Why only National Public Radio? Why not television? I think I know the answer to that.

A few years ago, that was tried. The House of Representatives actually tried to kill Big Bird, to destroy Elmo, and to get rid of Bert and Ernie, but it didn't work. I think they didn't want to try that one yet again.

The backers of this bill said to me yesterday that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund with their hard-earned money what they don't believe in. Well, that's an interesting theory, but democracies don't operate that way. If they could, my husband and I and two-thirds of the people in America would gladly be excused from paying the $8 billion a month that we pay for a war which we profoundly do not believe in. We simply must stop this nonsense. It makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

National Public Radio is something that you could turn off if you don't want to hear it, but for the millions of Americans who depend on it, this just cannot be done. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am going to yield myself 30 seconds to tell my colleague from California to calm himself. He doesn't have to worry. We are not equating war and NPR. What I had said was that the basis of this bill today was that people should not have to pay for what they don't believe in. If that's going to be the way the majority is going to run this House, then 66 percent of Americans would like to not pay for the war.

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.)

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I do not. May I inquire if you have more?

I am prepared to close.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We have had a vigorous debate here this morning, just as we had in the Rules Committee. A lot was said, I guess, because it needed to be said. A lot was said, I think, that we could argue with.

One is that we are doing this because it puts us on the road to deficit reduction. It is clear to everybody who reads, or maybe who listens to good programming, that this bill has no effect whatsoever on the deficit and saves no money. Not a dime. This is purely an ideological bill so that our Members can go home and brag about what they have done to public radio.

I want to talk a moment about what's in a New York Times editorial this morning. This bill is, says the Times, ``The latest example of House Republicans pursuing a longstanding ideological goal in the false name of fiscal prudence.''

The Times says, ``This is not a serious bill. It will never survive the Senate or a Presidential veto.''

And further, ``Cutting off that flow would have no effect on the deficit, but it would allow certain House Members to pretend for the folks back home that they struck a blow for liberty.''

I really don't understand this. I know that the present chair of the Rules Committee this morning said that all the legislation that we have done this

term has been on job creation. I don't believe there's enough evidence to convict on that, Mr. Speaker.

This, again, will cause jobs to be lost and does nothing for the deficit. I don't care what you want to say about it and how you want to dress it up, those are the absolute facts.

In a few moments, I will be calling for a vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat that previous question, I want to do a real jobs bill here. I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts the rule, it will bring up H.R. 11, the Build America Bonds To Create Jobs Now Act.

This bill will spur job creation here at home by extending through 2012 the successful Build America Bonds program to help State and local governments finance the rebuilding of American schools, hospitals, water systems and transit projects at significantly lower costs. It has been calculated that every $1 billion in Federal funds will create 34,800 jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, weigh that against taking the little bit of money away from National Public Radio.

Build America Bonds are broadly supported by American business, the construction industry, and State and local governments. At a time of fiscal restraint, they are a good deal for the American taxpayer, wisely using small public investments to leverage significant private funds to rebuild America and create jobs.

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

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass jobs legislation today, and 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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act.

Every year, two million Americans acquire bacterial infections during their hospital stay, and 90,000 will die from them. 70 percent of these infections will be resistant to the drugs commonly used to treat them.

Drug resistance prolongs the length, cost, and severity of the illness, raising health care costs and reducing health outcomes. In the 1990s, the Institute of Medicine estimated that health care costs were upwards of $5 billion; more recent cost estimates have climbed even higher. According to a recent peer-reviewed article published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal, antibiotic resistant infections extended hospital stays between six and 13 days as well as increasing mortality. The researchers concluded that antibiotic resistance costs society over $35 billion nationally.

Antibiotic resistance is a major public health crisis, and yet antibiotics are used regularly and with little oversight in agriculture.

Many of the antibiotics used in agriculture as animal feed additives are also used to treat humans, including tetracyclines, sulfonamides, penicillins, macrolides, aminoglycosides, chloramphenicols, and streptogramins. These classes of antibiotics are critical to our treatment of potentially fatal human diseases. Tetracyclines, for example, are used to treat people potentially exposed to anthrax. Macrolides and sulfonamides are used to prevent secondary infections in patients with AIDS and to treat pneumonia in HIV-infected patients. Penicillins are used to treat infections ranging from strep throat to meningitis.

Despite their importance to human medicine, antibiotics are used routinely to promote growth in livestock agriculture. According to analyses by the Food and Drug Administration, 13.1 million kilograms of antibacterial drugs were sold for use in livestock and poultry, and 3.3 million kilograms were sold for use in humans in 2009. It is unacceptable that 80 percent of antibacterial drugs were sold for use in agriculture in the United States in 2009--rather than for human health purposes.

The overuse of antibiotics in agriculture has been conclusively shown to harm human health.

A 2002 publication in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal analyzing more than 500 scientific articles concluded that ``many lines of evidence link antimicrobial resistant human infections to food-borne pathogens of animal origin.''

The Institute of Medicine, likewise, concluded that reducing the agricultural usage of antibiotics was necessary. Their 2003 report on Microbial Threats to Health concluded, ``Clearly, a decrease in the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in human medicine alone is not enough. Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse in animals and agriculture as well.''

Federal agencies, public health organizations, and scientists are united by their concern with the overuse of antibiotics, and its implications for human health.

Despite increased attention to the issue, the response has been inadequate. Part of the problem has been the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA's, failure to properly address the effect of the misuse of animal antibiotics on the efficacy of human drugs.

Although the FDA could withdraw its approval for these antibiotics, its record of reviewing currently approved drugs under existing procedures indicate that it would take nearly a century to remove these medically important antibiotics from the feed given to food producing animals. In October 2000, for example, the FDA began consideration of a proposal to withdraw its approval for the therapeutic use of fluoroquinolones in poultry. The review, and eventual withdraw of approval, took five years to complete. Under its current regulations, the FDA must review each class of antibiotics separately.

For this reason, I introduced the Preservation of Antibiotics for the Medical Treatment Act, PAMTA.

This legislation would phase out the use of the seven classes of medically significant antibiotics that are currently approved for non- therapeutic use in animal agriculture. This bill only restricts the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals; it does not infringe upon the use of these drugs to treat a sick animal.

Addressing this critical issue is not only important for protecting the public's health, but also to ensure that American livestock production remain competitive in international markets.

Nations around the world including those of the European Union, New Zealand, Thailand, and Korea all have either banned or will begin banning the use of antibiotics for the purpose of growth promotion in animal feed. Under World Trade Organization rules, trading partners who implement this ban will have the right to refuse imports that do not meet this standard. Accordingly, if the United States does not conduct similar restrictions, but continues to allow for the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock, there may be major trade and economic implications.

Limiting antibiotic usage in agriculture is eminently practical, as Denmark's example shows. After banning the non-therapeutic usage of antibiotics, Denmark increased productivity while lowering antibiotic usage. A recently published article in the American Journal of Veterinary Research evaluated the effectiveness of Denmark's ban on non-therapeutic usage of antibiotics, and determined that the ban did not harm agricultural productivity. From 1992 to 2008, antimicrobial usage per kilogram of pig produced decreased from 100 to 49--a decrease of more than 50 percent. At the same time, pig production increased from 18.4 to 27.1 million pigs--an increase of 47 percent. This peer- reviewed evaluation reveals that eliminating non-therapeutic usage of antibiotics helped position Denmark's agricultural industrially globally.

The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, therefore, is an urgent trade matter as well as an urgent public health matter.

When we go to the grocery store to pick up dinner, we should be able to buy our food without the worry that eating it will expose our family to potentially deadly bacteria that will no longer respond to our medical treatments. Unless we act now, we will unwittingly be permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant bacteria.

It is time for Congress to stand with scientists, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences and do something

to address the spread of resistant bacteria. We cannot afford for our medicines to become obsolete.

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

I certainly want to agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, that what the world is waiting for this Congress to do is to create jobs. We are approaching 100 days here without a single bill to do that, and we certainly look forward to that great day.

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that this country was facing the real possibility of another Great Depression. The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by reckless decisionmaking on Wall Street that had deep and painful impacts on hardworking Americans everywhere. As a result, millions of people lost everything. They lost jobs, retirement savings, and homes. All across America, families anguished over how to avoid homelessness, how to feed their families, how to keep them intact, how to keep their lives together for just one more day.

Three years later, we are starting to see the signs of a fragile recovery. However slowly, we have started to see modest private sector job growth over the past few months. However, we are far from where we need to be, and the troubled housing market remains in complete disarray. Millions of Americans are unemployed and still struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments. Millions more are saddled with mortgages worth more than their homes.

Foreclosures swallowed up a whopping 1.2 million homes across the country in 2010, up from 900,000 in 2009. Despite the Republicans' apparent lack of concern for the ongoing foreclosure mess, many estimate that the United States will eclipse previous yearly totals and foreclose on even more Americans in 2011.

There is overwhelming evidence that everybody knows about that many of these foreclosures were faulty or downright illegal, and yet no accounting of this failure is demanded. But the people who lost their homes have lost it in major ways and have no recourse except some of these bills. These bills obviously need a lot of help. I couldn't agree more. They are not the best we could do. And yet the sad thing to me is that once these four bills are done away with, there is no replacement, and we simply leave Americans to function as best they can.

If we are a Nation that cares whether or not our neighbors are kicked out onto the street, it's clear that we can't end these programs designed to lend a helping hand without something to replace them. The Emergency Homeowners Loan Program was created to help prevent foreclosures that are the result of massive financial hardships caused by unemployment and underemployment across the Nation.

Admittedly, some foreclosure prevention efforts of the past few years have not had as much success as we hoped. And we certainly have had very little cooperation from banks. They were simply asked to help, not required to. Democrats agree that the programs need improvement and would support a process to allow for bipartisan collaboration. So it's a shame that we stand here today ready to kill this program before it even gets off the ground or has a chance to help stem the tide of foreclosure.

My colleagues on the other side are ready to end the program without offering any solution to what is clearly a continuing problem. But if we don't provide help to our constituents in need, then who? It surely won't be the big banks foreclosing on our neighbors at record numbers. Just today, the New York Times reports that the CEO of Bank of America rejected the idea of reducing home loans for Americans in need. He thinks if he has to do it for one, he'll have to do it for all.

What's fair about big banks reporting record profits by kicking homeowners out on the street? What's fair about banking executives walking away from their failed mortgage schemes without punishment while thousands live in their cars or subsist in squalor not fit for a global superpower? The audacity to call for a fair modification process after swindling millions of Americans with predatory mortgages and walking away with record profits as the house of cards collapsed is simply maddening. Yet we stand here today preparing to debate a bill that will tell the American people that we just don't care.

With so many homeowners still facing foreclosure, we should be focused on ways to improve programs designed to keep people in their homes. Many of these families are facing insurmountable odds on their own, but with just a little help they may be able to make it through this tough time. But instead of reforming the program, today we are eliminating it.

I would like to talk a little about the process. Today's rule is called a modified open rule, but this is not an open process. For starters, if the debate on the bill inspires an amendment, a Member cannot offer it because it would not have been printed in time. Secondly, if the bill is changed by an amendment, Members will not have the ability to respond to the changes. This limits the give-and-take of ideas that is the hallmark of dynamic and rigorous debate. But the biggest problem with this process is that Members who want to reform the program rather than completely get rid of it must find a germane offset, which is nearly impossible because the bill completely eliminates the program. In other words, any amendment to save any part of it would have to be offset by new money.

We agree that reform is needed. Members have ideas for reform, alternatives to simply eliminating the existing program. Unfortunately, under this process, these alternatives cannot be offered.

I urge my colleagues on the other side to work with us to improve these foreclosure programs, stem the foreclosure tide, and strengthen our middle class. This bill does not do that.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I would like to yield myself 1 minute, if I may, simply to say that one of the things that we're hearing today is that these bills are unneeded.

Let me just quote a little bit from the Dallas Morning News: home prices down 3.6 percent in December, 40 percent of home sales in north Texas are foreclosed and short-sale homes. A Dallas housing analyst said, ``There's no doubt the foreclosures continue to have an impact on the market,'' and they're going to receive 135 million assistance unless all these bills die.

I will insert the full text of the Dallas Morning News into the Record. I obviously mention Dallas because that is the district of my colleague, and I wanted to point out that there's pain at home.

[From the Dallas Morning News, Feb. 22, 2011]

Dallas-Area Home Prices Sag Again

(By Steve Brown)

Dallas-area home prices show no sign of a rebound in the

latest measure. And economists worry that further declines

are ahead.

Prices in the area were down 3.6 percent in Standard &

Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Index released Tuesday.

The December report was the sixth consecutive year-over-

year Dallas decline in the closely watched monthly survey.

Nationwide home prices were 2.4 percent lower than a year

earlier, according to Case-Shiller.

Only two of the 20 cities that Case-Shiller tracks had

increases from previous-year levels.

``Despite improvements in the overall economy, housing

continues to drift lower and weaker,'' Standard & Poor's

David Blitzer said in the report.

Dallas' decline in December was a bit improved from the 4.2

percent annual price drop that the area saw in November.

Home prices in the area remain about 9 percent below where

they were at the peak of the market in 2007.

So far, that's the smallest such drop among all the U.S.

markets that the Case-Shiller index tracks.

Nationwide prices have slid about 30 percent since

residential values began falling in summer 2006.

Dallas prices at the end of 2010 were about 5 percent lower

than they were in June, when the local housing market

appeared to have turned the corner.

Since then, sales have plunged and the number of

foreclosures coming onto the market has grown--both creating

downward pressure on prices.

``There's no doubt the foreclosures continue to have an

impact on the market,'' said David Brown, who heads the

Dallas office of housing analyst Metrostudy Inc. ``We are

[also] continuing to see the effect of the slowdown in sales

after the tax credit expired.

Positive, but . . .

``I think the reports will start to turn more positive in

the second half of the year,'' Brown said.

In the meantime, economic growth in the area and expected

gains in home sales later in 2011 will reduce the unsold

inventory, he said.

But there are also worries that thousands of public-sector

layoffs will add to the housing sector's woes. ``Most of the

people who work in the public sector are homeowners,'' said

Dr. James Gaines, an economist with the Real Estate Center at

Texas A&M University. ``It will be like another wave of

private-sector layoffs.''

Gaines said it's too early to tell how many teachers and

other state and local government workers will lose their

income because of Texas' huge budget shortfall.

But he knows the impact of these layoffs could cause

further home foreclosures and certainly reduce potential

housing purchases. ``Hopefully, the private sector will

absorb some of these folks losing their jobs,'' Gaines said.

``It depends on how severe it is.''

Case-Shiller said that at the end of 2010, the biggest home

price declines were in Detroit, down 9.1 percent from a year

earlier, and Phoenix, down 8.3 percent.

Washington, D.C., (up 4.1 percent) and San Diego (up 1.7

percent) were the only markets that Case-Shiller studied

where December prices were higher.

Dallas-area home prices began falling in July after eight

months of year-over-year gains.

Troubled properties

By recent estimates, almost 40 percent of monthly home

sales in North Texas are distressed properties--previously

foreclosed and short-sale homes. On average, these homes sell

for about 30 percent below nondistressed prices.

Case-Shiller looks at the actual value of specific single-

family homes over time. The index does not include

condominiums and townhouses. It only covers pre-owned

properties--no new construction.

Declining home prices.

Percentage change in home prices in December 2010 compared

to year earlier in each market.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Atlanta.................................................... -8.0% Boston..................................................... -0.8% Charlotte.................................................. -4.4% Chicago.................................................... -7.4% Cleveland.................................................. -4.0% Dallas..................................................... -3.6% Denver..................................................... -2.4% Detroit.................................................... -9.1% Las Vegas.................................................. -4.7% Los Angeles................................................ -0.2% Miami...................................................... -3.7% Minneapolis................................................ -5.3% New York................................................... -2.3% Phoenix.................................................... -8.3% Portland................................................... -7.8% San Diego.................................................. 1.7% San Francisco.............................................. -0.4% Seattle.................................................... -6.0% Tampa...................................................... -6.2% Washington................................................. 4.1% Composite-20 city.......................................... -2.4% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Standard & Poor's and Fiserv

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

NEA funding is an investment in the arts, but it's also an investment in communities and jobs. The arts have an incredible ability to enrich our communities and strengthen our cultural diversity, while positively impacting local economies and spurring billions in economic activity.

A strong arts sector is an economic engine that stimulates businesses, generating $166.2 billion annually in economic activity, supports 5.7 million full-time jobs, and returns $12.6 billion in Federal income taxes.

The NEA provides grants to communities across the country, supporting our national progress and scholarship in the arts. For each Federal dollar spent on the arts, it creates 9 dollars in economic activity for local communities.

The arts creates jobs in every Congressional District across the country. In Representative Garrett's district alone, there are 2,042 arts-related businesses that employ 8,473 people, according to Americans for the Arts. And yet, Representative Garrett is proposing to completely eliminate funding for the NEA, which will threaten jobs and businesses in his district.

The arts also generates tourism revenue. Arts audiences spend more than $100 billion annually boosting local economies. Every year, 78- percent of U.S. travelers take arts and heritage trips with their families, contributing more than $192 billion annually to the U.S. economy.

In my district, the 28th District of New York, we have impressive institutions that attract tourists from far and wide, like the Shea's Performing Arts Center in Buffalo and the Memorial Art Gallery in Rochester.

Americans embrace the arts on a personal level. Both military and civilian populations have long relied on the arts for inspiration, to raise morale, to fight anxiety, and to express our democratic values.

This amendment represents the Republicans' commitment to killing jobs and stifling economic activity. It's flawed ideas like this one that have created zero jobs with a Republican Majority.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this job killing, economy stifling amendment.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment that attacks Planned Parenthood. By targeting Planned Parenthood, the Pence amendment will risk the lives and safety of millions of American women. These proposed cuts to family planning represent the opening salvo in an all-out war on women's health. I have been a soldier on the other side of that war for several decades. I have served now in three legislatures. In two of them this was one of the issues that came up continuously, is what we would do. In most cases, men in either blue or gray suits felt compelled and competent to tell women what they could do with their lives.

It has been a serious problem to try to get women's health in the first place. It was up to the 1990s before women were even considered subject for research at the NIH. It has been an absolute awful time for most of us who are such strong believers in the rights of women and women's health and that women should have the ability to make decisions themselves and not have men have to make them for them. It has been a dreadful time for us to see ending tonight in trying to do away with one of the most important agencies in the United States, Planned Parenthood.

I stand here tonight in lieu of hundreds of women in the State of New York, most of them Republican women, who financed, who spoke for, who founded the agency of Planned Parenthood. New York was being filled with

an influx of new citizens to America and Planned Parenthood allowed them to space their children so that there would be healthier children and healthier mothers. And we have all benefited from that.

But why are we attacking proven medical care? Why aren't we trying to create jobs, which is the only thing we've heard about for the last 6 months? This amendment will do absolutely nothing to move our country forward, but indeed backward.

In my own State of New York, the cuts to Planned Parenthood would affect 209,410 patients. Don't tell me that what you're doing here tonight is to allow Planned Parenthood to keep on with the cancer screenings, to keep on making sure that cervical cancer is not something about to take the life of a woman. Don't tell me that you are only trying to cut abortion. You know, we know, everybody knows that Planned Parenthood abortion money is not public tax money. As my other colleagues have said, that has been true for a very long time.

The cuts were proposed under the guise of being fiscally responsible, but nothing could be further from the truth. For every dollar--and I want to say this maybe twice, it's so important, because nobody seems to have gotten this except my new friend from Illinois--for every dollar invested in family planning services, taxpayers save $4. So if you think you're going to save yourself some money, go back to your planning board for that. But cutting family planning is not fiscally responsible and will not reduce the United States' bottom line.

Furthermore, as we've said over and over again, it has nothing in the world to do with cutting Federal money for abortions. That is simply a smokescreen. We want to empower women to be able to prevent unintended pregnancies, and that's what we would like to do here tonight with the help of Planned Parenthood and other agencies and doctors and medical professionals in the country--make sure that women have education and access to contraception. That is precisely what family planning is and what it does.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment to restore funding to Title X family planning.

By slashing Title X family planning services in the budget, Republicans risk the lives and safety of millions of American women. These proposed cuts to family planning represent the opening salvo in an all-out war on women's health. I ask you to join with me and with my colleagues to restore this vital funding to Title X family planning.

Five million men and women depend on Title X providers for important preventive health care. Among other services, they received 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 million cervical cancer screenings, and nearly 1 million HIV tests. These services prevent fatal illness; and for those who do have the misfortune to contract HIV/AIDS or cancer, Title X providers ensure that they receive life-saving

treatment early, when it has the greatest potential for good.

The proposed cuts in H.R. 1 would eviscerate these life-saving services.

While these cuts to family planning were proposed under the guise of being ``fiscally responsible,'' that is far from the truth.

For every dollar invested in Title X family planning services, taxpayers save just under $4. Cutting family planning is not fiscally responsible, and will not reduce the bottom line.

Moreover, this cut has nothing to do with ending funding for abortions, despite claims to the contrary. Title X family planning funds simply do not fund abortions. If we want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, the methodology is clear--empower women to prevent unintended pregnancies through education and access to contraception. And, that is precisely what family planning funding does.

In my home State of New York, cuts to Planned Parenthood would impact 209,410 patients. Just last year, Planned Parenthood provided 70,490 screenings for cervical cancer in New York, detecting 7,931 abnormal results requiring medical action. Another 67,957 women received breast exams. 138,501 tests for chlamydia helped to avert the leading cause of preventable infertility in America today. New Yorkers stand to lose valuable health services.

Instead of cutting vital health care services, we should focus on rebuilding our economy and creating jobs.

I thank the gentleman.

I first want to respond to some of the things that I just heard before I give my statement, if I may. The majority has promised that after we vote on this, we will have some hearings. We are told they are going to be rigorous and fair, and we are reminded of the many hearings held by Mr. Sensenbrenner during the 2005 reauthorization.

Well, first, in the 111th Congress we held the hearings before we marked up the Patriot Act, before we asked Members to vote on the bill, not after. We

have new Members in the body who have never voted on the Patriot Act, have never been briefed on how these authorities are used. It is simply not responsible to make them vote when they don't know what they are voting on.

Second, the majority's nostalgia for 2005 has colored their memories a bit. While they remember a careful and thorough process, I remember being forced to hold minority hearings so all perspectives could be heard. I remember hearings being gaveled to a close before they were over. I remember a subcommittee chairman walking out of the hearing while Members were raising points of order. I remember microphones being turned off on Democrat members, including one of my fellow Members from New York, while they were speaking. I remember being forced to convene a hearing on something like 2 days' notice as the power to schedule the committee was abused. So I don't know how to take these current promises of openness and a fair procedure.

Third, while there has been so much talk today on the floor about using the coming hearings to reform the Patriot Act, we know that is simply not what is going to happen. My friends in the majority have already stated their views on the question. Last Congress, Chairman Smith proposed a 10-year extension with no changes or reforms to the underlying law. In 2005, Mr. Sensenbrenner proposed a permanent extension, and they have a bill for that right now in the Senate.

Indeed, if there were any will in the majority party to reform these provisions, that would have happened in the last Congress. The Democrat majority worked for months to forge a compromise but got no Republican support. So I don't expect the coming hearings to be part of any kind of reform process. I expect them to be heavy on political theater designed to make these powers permanent. That, no doubt, is why this extension is timed to force the next vote into the presidential primary season; to raise the political stakes.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the 16 provisions were set to expire in 5 years is because they were deemed too invasive of our civil liberties, possibly invasive enough to be used to violate the very freedoms that our young men and women in uniform too often die protecting. These provisions provide the government with exceptional powers of search, seizure, and surveillance, often without the due process that our Constitution guarantees us.

Nearly 10 years later, we continue to reauthorize these provisions without a blink of the eye. The idea of these measures always was that they would be temporary. And yet to see the process under which we deliberate them, it seems they would last forever. Seeking no input or deliberation of any point in this bill's consideration and instead choosing to blindly move forward is a rather sad testament to the majority's view of an open process.

Ultimately, this is no way to consider a piece of legislation that has such far-reaching and profound implications for our civil liberties as this does. Yet the majority seeks to simply kick the can down the road, all the while stifling the rigorous debate with which these deserve and need to be scrutinized.

We would do well to remember that these provisions were passed into law in the frantic weeks after September 11, 2001, without our understanding of their potential impact and benefit. And that is why we created a sunset review in the first place and why we need thorough review as long as we keep these incredible powers in place.

Make no mistake, they are incredible powers. We're not patching a run-of-the-mill program here. These are powers that will allow the government to continue to access business records, conduct roving wiretaps, and monitor American citizens. The intrusive nature of these provisions that the majority seeks to whisk through would leave our Founding Fathers aghast at the willful erosion of the civil liberties they enshrined for us. Our swearing into office is an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. However, many Members of the House voted against the Constitution when this came on the floor last week. This process, lacking a serious review of far-reaching and invasive provisions, does not live up to that standard.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and against the underlying measure.