Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today still waiting for the majority to give us a chance to vote on legislation that will create jobs. We are now 6 weeks into the 112th Congress, and we have yet to see a jobs bill from the Republican majority. It's high time the majority party allows us to debate and vote on legislation to get Americans back to work. Instead today, we are debating dangerous and reckless legislation that will cut American jobs and seriously threaten our ability to build upon our fragile economic recovery.

At a time when many Americans are still struggling to find employment, the Republican majority proposes a spending bill that ends construction projects, takes police off the street, and halts innovation that spurs job creation. This stands in stark contrast to the President's 2012 budget proposal that lowers our Nation's deficit and creates jobs for Americans by investing in national priorities like education, infrastructure, and emerging energy technology.

Unlike some within the Republican Party, the American people are not looking to completely cripple the Federal Government and leave the Nation to the corporate elite. Americans have repeatedly expressed a desire to make smart investments in our national priorities that leave our country more competitive now and into the future, and I stand today with the American people.

The Republicans' slash-and-burn budget does nothing to achieve this goal. It even cuts the most fundamental public services, ending policing programs and defunding educational reform efforts here in the United States. As nations like China and India pour money into the research and development of solar panels, wind power, and high-speed trains, creating thousands of jobs for their citizens, the Republican majority is removing the most fundamental investments in comparable American jobs. This reckless approach not only destroys jobs today but also in the months and years to come.

This is a critical time in America's history, and if we are to compete with nations like China to create jobs in the United States and win the global marketplace, we must support our own Nation with smart, targeted cuts that will lower the deficit but invest in American jobs.

As I said, 6 weeks into the new Congress, and we are still waiting to see this smart, targeted plan to get Americans back to work. Instead, we see this hastily drawn up CR that takes a meat axe to the middle class. And as America waits, the global economy moves ahead, leaving us behind.

As the 112th Congress was sworn into office, we were bombarded with promises that an open and transparent process would make a triumphant return to this House floor. But as we now consider our first appropriations bill, we continue to stand here waiting for that grand return.

Mr. Speaker, while this rule may have the word ``open'' in the title, I assure you this is not an open process. Through last-minute changes, convoluted parliamentary maneuvers, and a pre-printing requirement, the Republican majority has provided an extremely convoluted and restrictive process.

An open rule means that as the legislative process proceeds, as an amendment passes, it may spark an idea for an amendment that another Member may choose to offer with the changes that are made in the legislation. This rule takes away that ability.

Also, the Republicans adopted, in a party-line vote at 9 p.m. last night, a parliamentary sleight of hand that blocks the transfer of any money from one part of government to another. This means you cannot use an offset from one part of the bill to increase spending in a different part. In all my years serving in Congress, I have never seen such a blanket prohibition, and yet the leadership would have us believe this is an ``open process'' and that this is ``regular order.''

To top it all off, Republicans have even given themselves an escape hatch with a martial-law provision of the rule which will allow them to report out a new rule for H.R. 1 that shuts down the amendment process without the normal 1-day waiting period.

This convoluted process has once again illustrated that the Republican Party continues to believe that claiming the sky is green will make it so. The truth is, you can't create jobs with a press release. You can't fix the Nation's health care system with a clever tag line, and you can't create an open and transparent Congress by creating an open rule in name only.

My fellow Democratic colleagues and I are committed to living within our means, while investing in the programs and policies that will help our country compete and win the global future. The Republican majority's continuing resolution couldn't be more dangerous to these values that we all hold dear.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for our communities, support legislation that creates jobs, strengthens the middle class while reducing our deficit. Today's CR does not meet this threshold and, as a result, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that what I really would love to see us debating today is how we're going to get out of Afghanistan and stop paying 8 billion borrowed dollars a month for that.

Also, in an editorial printed today, The New York Times said what I think a lot of us are saying, that this bill will cut vital government functions and not have any lasting impact on the deficit.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 14, 2011]

The Obama Budget

On paper, President Obama's new $3.7 trillion budget is

encouraging. It makes a number of tough choices to cut the

deficit by a projected $1.1 trillion over 10 years, which is

enough to prevent an uncontrolled explosion of debt in the

next decade and, as a result, reduce the risk of a fiscal

crisis.

The questions are whether its tough choices are also wise

choices and whether it stands a chance in a Congress in which

Republicans, who now dominate the House, are obsessed with

making indiscriminate short-term cuts in programs they never

liked anyway. The Republican cuts would eviscerate vital

government functions while not having any lasting impact on

the deficit.

What Mr. Obama's budget is most definitely not is a

blueprint for dealing with the real long-term problems that

feed the budget deficit: rising health care costs, an aging

population and a refusal by lawmakers to face the inescapable

need to raise taxes at some point. Rather, it defers those

critical issues, in hopes, we assume, that both the economy

and the political environment will improve in the future.

For the most part, Mr. Obama has managed to cut spending

while preserving important government duties. That approach

is in stark contrast to Congressional Republicans, who are

determined to cut spending deeply, no matter the

consequences.

A case in point: the Obama budget's main cut--$400 billion

over 10 years--is the result of a five-year freeze in

nonsecurity discretionary programs, a slice of the budget

that contains programs that are central to the quality of

American lives, including education, environment and

financial regulation.

But the cuts are not haphazard. The budget boosts education

spending by 11 percent over one year and retains the current

maximum level of college Pell grants--up to $5,500 a year. To

offset some of the costs, the budget would eliminate Pell

grants for summer school and let interest accrue during

school on federal loans for graduate students, rather than

starting the interest meter after graduation.

Those are tough cutbacks, but, over all, the Pell grant

program would continue to help close to nine million

students. The Republican proposal would cut the Pell grant

program by 15 percent this year and nearly half over the next

two years.

The Obama budget also calls for spending on green energy

programs--to be paid for, in part, by eliminating $46 billion

in tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies over the next

decade. Republicans are determined not to raise any taxes,

even though investing for the future and taming the deficit

are impossible without more money.

The budget would also increase transportation spending by

$242 billion over 10 years. It does not specifically call for

an increased gas tax to cover the new costs, though it calls

on Congress to come up with new revenues to offset the new

spending. Republicans want to eliminate forward-looking

programs like high-speed rail.

The budget is responsible in other ways. It would cap the

value of itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers and

use the savings to extend relief from the alternative minimum

tax for three years so that the tax does not ensnare millions

of middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers for whom it was

never intended. For nearly a decade, Congress has granted

alternative minimum tax relief without paying for it.

House Republicans want to leave military spending out of

their budget-cutting entirely, but Mr. Obama's budget reduces

projected Pentagon spending by $78 billion over five years.

If anything, Mr. Obama could safely have proposed cutting

deeper, as suggested by his own bipartisan deficit panel.

The bill for the military is way too high, above cold-war

peak levels, when this country had a superpower adversary.

There's a point where the next military spending dollar does

not make our society more secure, and it's a point we long

ago passed.

Mr. Obama's budget also includes a responsible way to head

off steep cuts in what Medicare pays doctors. It would

postpone the cuts for two years and offset that added cost

with $62 billion in other health care savings, like expanding

the use of cheaper generic drugs.

But not all of Mr. Obama's cuts are acceptable. The

president is proposing a reduction by nearly half in the

program that provides assistance to low-income families to

pay for home heating bills. Shared sacrifice need not involve

the very neediest.

Ideally, budget cuts would not start until the economic

recovery is more firmly entrenched. But the deficit is a

pressing political problem. The Obama budget is balanced

enough to start the process of deficit reduction, but not so

draconian that it would derail the recovery.

The same cannot be said for the plan put forward by

Republicans last week. It would amputate some of government's

most vital functions for the next seven months of fiscal year

2011. (They haven't even gotten to next year yet, never mind

the more distant future).

Real deficit reduction will require grappling with rising

health care costs and an aging population, which means

reforms in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as

tax increases to bring revenues in line with obligations.

Mr. Obama's budget does not directly address those big

issues, but doing so would require a negotiating partner, and

Mr. Obama, at present, does not have one among the Republican

leaders in Congress. His latest budget is a good starting

point for a discussion--and a budget deal--but only if

Republicans are willing participants in the process.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say, in a column printed Sunday in The New York Times, prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said the bill will sacrifice the future. He also said, ``Republicans don't have a mandate to cut spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of arithmetic.''

[From the New York Times, Feb. 13, 2011]

Eat the Future

(By Paul Krugman)

On Friday, House Republicans unveiled their proposal for

immediate cuts in federal spending. Uncharacteristically,

they failed to accompany the release with a catchy slogan. So

I'd like to propose one: Eat the Future.

I'll explain in a minute. First, let's talk about the

dilemma the G.O.P. faces.

Republican leaders like to claim that the midterms gave

them a mandate for sharp cuts in government spending. Some of

us believe that the elections were less about spending than

they were about persistent high unemployment, but whatever.

The key point to understand is that while many voters say

that they want lower spending, press the issue a bit further

and it turns out that they only want to cut spending on other

people.

That's the lesson from a new survey by the Pew Research

Center, in which Americans were asked whether they favored

higher or lower spending in a variety of areas. It turns out

that they want more, not less, spending on most things,

including education and Medicare. They're evenly divided

about spending on aid to the unemployed and--surprise--

defense.

The only thing they clearly want to cut is foreign aid,

which most Americans believe, wrongly, accounts for a large

share of the federal budget.

Pew also asked people how they would like to see states

close their budget deficits. Do they favor cuts in either

education or health care, the main expenses states face? No.

Do they favor tax increases? No. The only deficit-reduction

measure with significant support was cuts in public-employee

pensions--and even there the public was evenly divided.

The moral is clear. Republicans don't have a mandate to cut

spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of

arithmetic.

How can voters be so ill informed? In their defense, bear

in mind that they have jobs, children to raise, parents to

take care of. They don't have the time or the incentive to

study the federal budget, let alone state budgets (which are

by and large incomprehensible). So they rely on what they

hear from seemingly authoritative figures.

And what they've been hearing ever since Ronald Reagan is

that their hard-earned dollars are going to waste, paying for

vast armies of useless bureaucrats (payroll is only 5 percent

of federal spending) and welfare queens driving Cadillacs.

How can we expect voters to appreciate fiscal reality when

politicians consistently misrepresent that reality?

Which brings me back to the Republican dilemma. The new

House majority promised to deliver $100 billion in spending

cuts--and its members face the prospect of Tea Party primary

challenges if they fail to deliver big cuts. Yet the public

opposes cuts in programs it likes--and it likes almost

everything. What's a politician to do?

The answer, once you think about it, is obvious: sacrifice

the future. Focus the cuts on programs whose benefits aren't

immediate; basically, eat America's seed corn. There will be

a huge price to pay, eventually--but for now, you can keep

the base happy.

If you didn't understand that logic, you might be puzzled

by many items in the House G.O.P. proposal. Why cut a billion

dollars from a highly successful program that provides

supplemental nutrition to pregnant mothers, infants, and

young children? Why cut $648 million from nuclear

nonproliferation activities? (One terrorist nuke, assembled

from stray ex-Soviet fissile material, can ruin your whole

day.) Why cut $578 million from the I.R.S. enforcement

budget? (Letting tax cheats run wild doesn't exactly serve

the cause of deficit reduction.)

Once you understand the imperatives Republicans face,

however, it all makes sense. By slashing future-oriented

programs, they can deliver the instant spending cuts Tea

Partiers demand, without imposing too much immediate pain on

voters. And as for the future costs--a population damaged by

childhood malnutrition, an increased chance of terrorist

attacks, a revenue system undermined by widespread tax

evasion--well, tomorrow is another day.

In a better world, politicians would talk to voters as if

they were adults. They would explain that discretionary

spending has little to do with the long-run imbalance between

spending and revenues. They would then explain that solving

that long-run problem requires two main things: reining in

health-care costs and, realistically, increasing taxes to pay

for the programs that Americans really want.

But Republican leaders can't do that, of course: they

refuse to admit that taxes ever need to rise, and they spent

much of the last two years screaming ``death panels!'' in

response to even the most modest, sensible efforts to ensure

that Medicare dollars are well spent.

And so they had to produce something like Friday's

proposal, a plan that would save remakably little money but

would do a remarkably large amount of harm.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my fellow New Yorker (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the life-saving work done by Title X family planning providers across the nation.

In 2009, five million men and women received important preventive services from family planning providers, including 2.3 million breast exams, 2.2 million tests for cervical cancer, and nearly 1 million HIV tests. The proposed cuts in H.R. 1 would eviscerate these services, reducing family planning and cancer prevention services. Cuts to family planning would have devastating consequences to families nationwide.

Why is the Republican leadership attacking proven health care services, instead of working with us to create jobs? This legislation does not move our country forward.

By attacking family planning and pursuing an extreme social agenda, Republicans are dividing our country and distracting from the very real economic problems facing our nation.

While these cuts to family planning were proposed under the auspices 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. By preventing cancer, identifying cancer in early stages, and preventing HIV/AIDS, Title X providers are saving money, as well as lives. 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.

Nationwide, this cut will impact family planning services for 5 million women and men. 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.

These statistics represent real women, with real needs. Can we turn our back on them? No, we cannot.

We need to work together to invest in the services that will help our country to be successful. We must focus on building our economy, rather than eliminating health care services.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protect the Clean Air Act. Since the passage of the legislation our skies have become cleaner and our economy has become stronger. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, the United States has made significant gains in public health, a cleaner environment and a stronger more sustainable economy.

Air pollution is costly. It increases asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, respiratory diseases, and lung cancer, and causes premature deaths, hurting our families and burdening our economy. The dangers from air pollution are particularly acute for children and seniors.

It is well established that cleaner air and a healthier population go hand in hand. In fact, according to the American Lung Association, in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act saved over 160,000 lives.

Cleaner air also helps build a stronger economy. In addition to keeping workers on the job, cleaning up air pollution can create new jobs--in designing and manufacturing pollution controls, installing and operating new equipment, and building cleaner facilities.

The draft bill from Representative Upton would return us to a Dirty Air Economy, an economy dominated by big polluters willing to pour pollution into our communities in order to help their companies. Erasing the Clean Air Act may be good for corporate profits but it's bad for our national interest.

The truth is that we can have clean air and a strong economy at the same time. The last 30 years have proved it. Since the passage of the Clean Air Act, the United States has reduced key air pollutants by 60 percent, while growing our economy by over 200 percent. The legislation, in conjunction with additional protections passed by both parties, has made our country a healthier, cleaner place to live.

A new study by scientists at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Clarkson University found that the air quality in Rochester, New York improved markedly in recent years and that public health may well improve as a result. Falling levels of air pollutants given off by cars, trucks and power plants has resulted in far fewer irritants in the air that could worsen asthma and lead to serious respiratory disease. The decline is in part due to the tighter federal rules on diesel fuel and engines that went into effect in 2006 under a Republican Administration. Like others have pointed out before, clean air standards have always been, and should continue to be, a bipartisan concern.

I have the privilege to represent the good people living in Tonawanda, New York--a city that has a staggering and urgent air pollution problem. These hard working Americans are surrounded by facilities that make up the highest concentration of air polluters in the state of New York. In 2007, a study found that the people of Tonawanda's risk of developing cancer are 100 times that of the New York State guideline.

During my time serving the 28th District of New York, I have received multiple letters from the people of Tonawanda telling me about how their family and loved ones have developed cancer, asthma and other illnesses due to the extremely poor air quality in their community.

Today, I would like to share the story of Ann, a woman who has lived in Tonawanda for 16 years. Ann's mother and father moved to the city to fulfill the American dream of owning their own home. Ann's mother cultivated her own garden in her yard, spending her free time outside gardening and breathing in what she thought was fresh, New York air.

Sadly, Ann lost her mother to cancer at the young age of 67, just nine years after moving to Tonawanda and breathing the dirty air. Ann can't help to think that if only her family knew what toxic, cancerous chemicals the local facilities were pumping into the air, they could have protected the health of their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of upholding the Clean Air Act and supporting the Environmental Protection Act in doing its work to protect the American people against dangerous corporate polluters. I rise in support of improving our national health and economy, while reducing our dependence on oil. And I rise in support of Ann and the people of Tonawanda who are facing the devastating consequences of air pollution every day.

The choice is simple. When it was passed in 1970, the Clean Air Act was enacted with strong bipartisan support. Like today, we had a divided government, with both parties coming together to enact a law that would protect public health and the environment, as well as our economy.

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 am proud to rise today to introduce the High School Athletics Accountability Act. As opportunities for girls and women to participate in sports and athletics have been made increasingly available, women's participation has grown exponentially. Over three million high school girls now participate in organized sports, as opposed to 294,015 in 1971 before Title IX was enacted. Athletic participation has brought with it confidence and camaraderie among young women, giving them memories and friends that will last a lifetime.

Despite our progress, persistent attacks against equality for women's sports require that we continue to protect the rights our nation's young women deserve. Currently high schools are not required to disclose any data on equity in sports, making it difficult for high schools and parents to ensure fairness in their athletics programs. The High School Athletics Accountability Act requires 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. The data will help high schools improve opportunities for girls in sports, and thereby help high schools and parents of schoolchildren foster fairness in athletic opportunities for girls and boys. Ultimately better information will encourage greater participation of all students in athletics.

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 play sports. For many young women, sports are often their ticket to higher education. A survey conducted by the National Federation of State High School Associations indicates that female students receive 1.3 million fewer opportunities to play high school sports than do male students, which translate into many lost opportunities for athletic scholarships. Other studies show that student athletes tend to graduate at higher rates, perform better in school and are less likely to use drugs and alcohol. The New York Times recently highlighted research that found that the ``increase in girls' athletic participation caused by Title IX was associated with a 7 percent lower risk of obesity 20 to 25 years later, when women were in their late 30s and early 40s.'' The study notes that while a 7 percent decline in obesity is modest, ``no other public health program can claim similar success.'' Women athletes also tend to have more confidence, better body image, and higher self-esteem than female non- athletes--critical attributes that help them succeed throughout their lives.

We must give our schools the tools they need to identify inequities in their programs so that current and future generations of women can enjoy the benefits of sports.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to help girls move toward equality in athletics at every level and in every community across the Nation.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

You know, it's rather ironic that we are having this debate today, because it is almost exactly 1 year from the day the Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case. That decision opened the floodgates for anonymous special interests and corporations to dump unlimited amounts of cash into our political system. Predictably, the result of this awful judgment was to set loose a torrent of secret money to influence the midterm elections this past November.

Now my Republican colleagues propose to further erode whatever protections our government has left against a state of ``democracy for the highest bidder'' by attempting to undo our system of Presidential public financing.

Let's remember where this system came from. It was a direct response to the Wild West--unregulated, freewheeling campaigns that led up to the Watergate scandal. The atmosphere of that time was described by campaign finance expert Fred Wertheimer as so bad that contributors to Richard Nixon's reelection campaign were ``literally flying into Washington with satchels of cash.'' Hidden, unregulated, private money ruled.

In response to that, Congress acted as much as it could to clean up that system, and we have done fairly well with that.

Our democracy will not be able to afford a return to that corruption, but that is what we start today with this bill. This bill will result in even more corporate and special interest money in our campaigns than we have today--and that's really saying something. We don't even know how much money comes in from foreign money.

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund is the one place in our Federal electoral system where we take some of the pressure off of candidates who otherwise have to raise bushels of private money. For the life of me, I can't see how this bill does anything other than add insult to the injury of the terrible Citizens United decision last year. This bill will also take away from American taxpayers the freedom to choose to support good government, to choose to support the public financing of campaigns.

Republicans cite the low participation rate as a reason to scrap the entire program. I don't see the sense of that argument. The amount of money that goes into the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is directly proportional to how many people check the box on the tax form. Apparently, there is enough support for the program for American taxpayers to designate a projected $617 million, since that's the number being thrown around here today, to be saved over the next 10 years. That sounds to me like enough support to keep the program around. Now, that is certainly not to say that this current system is perfect. It has not really been changed since the seventies. On the contrary, our current system is one in dire need of reform.

As the Washington Post said yesterday in an editorial opposing this bill: We have a great need to rehab it. Let's fix it. Don't junk it.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I'd like to see an honest attempt to reform our campaign finance system to provide for openness, transparency and good government. I hope that the other side will join me in supporting such an effort. There are already two bills introduced last Congress and being circulated now that will do just that. The House's very own campaign finance policy expert, Mr. Price of North Carolina, introduced a bill last year, H.R. 6061, the Presidential Funding Act of 2010, which would strengthen and expand the system the Republicans want to dismantle, to bring the system into line with the reality of today's campaigns and boost participation rates.

Also, H.R. 5175 in the last Congress, the DISCLOSE Act, which this House passed last year. The DISCLOSE Act would make sure we know where the money flooding our campaigns is coming from.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the bill. Instead of this anti-small-d- democratic bill the Republicans have brought to the floor without any public input, without any committee hearings and markups, let's debate a serious plan to improve our campaign finance system and strengthen our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I speak to you today on behalf of the women of America, the millions of whom I will never meet but are set to receive countless protections from the Affordable Care Act by the time it is fully implemented in 2014.

Health care reform is a major victory for women, and any attempt to repeal or defund this legislation is simply unfair to us, our daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers. The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act ends the widespread discrimination that has existed and will come back against women in the health care system.

It took us decades until we passed this bill to make it illegal, finally, for insurance companies to charge women higher premiums and stop the egregious practice of charging them 48 percent more and to not cover domestic violence victims. Yes, that's right. In eight States and the District of Columbia, insurance would not cover victims of domestic violence on the grounds, I assume, that it might happen again.

Equally egregious, women were routinely denied health insurance if they had children. In many places pregnancy was considered a preexisting condition, as were D&Cs. But both of those reprehensible practices are outlawed in the passage of the Affordable Health Care.

Thanks to the new law, women do not have to worry any more about being treated as second-class citizens or being discriminated against for being a woman.

But that's not where the benefits end. When it's fully implemented, all maternity services will be included in health insurance plans. They will no longer be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for people who have had C-sections or pregnancy.

I speak to you today on behalf of the women of America, the millions whom I will never meet, but are set to receive countless protections from the Affordable Care Act by the time it is fully implemented in 2014. Health care reform is a major victory for women and any attempt to repeal or defund the legislation is simply unfair to us, our daughters, our mothers, and our grandmothers.

The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act ends widespread discrimination against women within the healthcare system. Now the Republican Majority is proposing to replace this legislation with a resolution, another promise to America. What do they promise? Quite simply, that they will figure out a new healthcare plan at some point in the future, and in the meantime you're on your own.

It took us decades to finally make it illegal for insurance companies to charge women higher premiums, and to stop the egregious practice of discrimination against domestic violence victims. It is unfathomable to take these protections away in exchange for a vague promise of some help down the road.

Prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act, women faced severe discrimination from health insurance companies. Through a practice known as ``gender rating,'' women who purchased insurance on the individual market faced the prospect of paying 48 percent more in premium costs than men.

Equally egregious, women were routinely denied health insurance coverage if they had been victims of domestic violence. Shocking as it is, insurance companies often classified domestic violence as a ``pre- existing condition'' and it was completely legal for insurance companies to deny coverage to domestic violence victims in eight states and the District of Columbia.

No more. Both of these morally reprehensible practices are outlawed with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to the new law, women no longer have to worry about being discriminated against for being born a woman.

This is not where benefits for women end. By the time the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2014:

Maternity services will be included in all health insurance plans offered as part of the health insurance exchanges.

Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for women with ``pre-existing conditions'' like C-sections or pregnancy.

Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to place ``lifetime limits'' on health benefits for women, and end care when it is needed the most.

Women who do not have access to insurance through employers will be able to obtain insurance through health insurance exchanges. These exchanges are being designed as we speak to offer a wide selection of health insurance plans at competitive rates.

Women will receive free preventative health services, from mammograms to pap smears.

The ``donut hole'' in Medicare Part D will be closed through the Affordable Care Act, helping women pay for healthcare as they grow older.

All these benefits and protections are provided to women while lowering our Nation's deficit--a priority of both parties.

The choice is clear. For the health and well-being of our Nation's women, we must end this ill-advised attempt at repeal, and implement the valuable protections of the Affordable Care Act.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my gentleman friend, Mr. Dreier, yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What a week it's been. Since being sworn in on Tuesday, the speed in which the Republican Party is working their promises has been dizzying. Speaking of the Republicans' first days

in office, tea party spokesman Mark Meckler summed the week up nicely when he said, ``I actually don't think it would be possible to fall from grace any faster than this.''

In November, the Republican leadership, led by Speaker Boehner, traveled to suburban Virginia and made a Pledge to America. Their constituents, including tea party patriots like Mr. Meckler, listened intently as the Republican Party pledged to be fiscally responsible and serve the will of the American people. On page 6 of the Republicans' Pledge to America, the party states: ``With commonsense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt.''

The pledge was solemnly made by the Republican leadership despite being largely panned as a political stunt. Despite their promise to follow through on their pledge, on Tuesday, aides to the Republican majority said that the pledge to cut $100 billion was ``hypothetical.''

Now today they are moving forward to do the exact opposite of the actions they pledged, as they introduce legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. If successful, the Republican legislation will add $230 billion to the deficit by 2021. This extra $230 billion won't be spent rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, teaching our children, or providing for the millions without jobs. Instead, the $230 billion will be added to our deficit in order to take health care benefits and protections from those who need them the most.

For example, starting this year, the Affordable Health Care Act will begin to close the doughnut hole for seniors. Under the law, Medicare beneficiaries who fall in the doughnut hole will be eligible for 50 percent discounts on covered brand-name prescription drugs. Repeal this law, and seniors receive no help and will be forced to pay their rising drug costs alone. Those are the types of protections that I fight for today.

Fiscally, Members of Congress face a $300 billion choice. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we have two options: one, do we keep the Affordable Health Care Act and save $130 billion by 2021? Or, two, do we repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and add $230 billion to our deficit by 2021? That may be trouble for some; but for most of us, it is easy. For me, the answer is clear; and I assume to most Americans, it's clear as well.

Because they can't win by simply judging apples to apples, the Republican leadership has taken to discrediting the Congressional Budget Office. Yet a quick bit of research will reveal that Republicans have long valued the nonpartisan and reliable work of the Congressional Budget Office and have publicly supported the agency before. In fact, in 2009 Speaker Boehner repeatedly referred to the CBO as a nonpartisan institution and relied on their estimates to argue against the Affordable Care Act at the time. But now that the CBO's estimates are detrimental to their political goals, they have taken to questioning the work.

Republican Senator John Cornyn warned against dismissing the work of CBO just because it's inconvenient. Two years ago he said, ``I believe the professionals at the Congressional Budget Office are doing a difficult but unpopular work. They are speaking the truth to power here in Washington and making the folks who would pass these enormous unfunded bills that impose this huge debt on generations hereafter somewhat unhappy.

``But I think they are doing an important service by telling us the facts. Last week, I commended the director of the CBO, Dr. Doug Elmendorf, for saying that the CBO will 'never adjust our views to make people happy.' God bless Dr. Elmendorf for his integrity and commitment to telling the truth. We need to learn how to deal with the truth, not try to remake it or cover it up.''

Now, I couldn't agree more with that. The deficit estimates provided by the CBO are the singular authoritative figures upon which we make all of our decisions and have for decades. Even if some don't like what the numbers tell us, we know that numbers don't lie.

I will remind my colleagues that today's actions are not ``hypothetical.'' We truly face a $300 billion choice. We can choose to provide invaluable benefits to millions of Americans while paying down our national deficit--remember that it will save $143 billion over 10 years--or we can choose to end valuable health care protections for millions of Americans and add $230 billion to the Nation's deficit.

Madam Speaker, today we are considering the first measure from the Rules Committee of this new Congress, and my Republican friends have already produced one for the record books. Let me give you some of the highlights. First of all, the resolution includes a completely closed process for two separate pieces of legislation. That means we get two closed rules in one. Maybe my Republican friends think they can save taxpayers money by rolling all the closed rules into a single resolution. I think that's what they meant by bringing efficiency to government.

The first closed rule on the health care repeal bill does most of the heavy lifting. It blocks every single germane amendment submitted to the Rules Committee. Well, that's not exactly right, though. It actually slips in one change without allowing the House to vote on it. This special amendment, slipped in with the famous deem-and-pass maneuver, is very interesting. It allows the House to pretend that the repeal bill is free, even though the Budget Office says it will raise the deficit by over $1 trillion. That's a neat trick; and now we know the secret weapon for reducing the deficit: a blindfold.

This closed process is especially troubling on the health care repeal because this Republican bill has had no public hearings, no committee consideration, and is not paid for. The second closed rule in this two- for-one package blocks all amendments to another resolution to correct a flaw in the swearing-in process. Apparently the vice chairman of the Rules Committee was conducting legislative business before he was actually a Member of Congress. Maybe amendments are not important here because no Member in the House has seen this resolution, since the rule allows the majority leader to make changes until the moment it is introduced.

But if any of my colleagues are concerned about not having enough time to read this surprise resolution, don't worry: the rule allows the House to debate it for 4 full minutes, 4 minutes. Have you ever heard of a bill debated for 4 minutes? Fortunately, the rule generously gives the minority 2 of those 4 minutes, and I guess that qualifies as both efficiency and bipartisanship.

Finally, the rule allows the House to consider a sweeping press release from the Republican leadership, a resolution to replace real patient protections with vague rhetoric.

Madam Speaker, this is a very disappointing day for the House Rules Committee. Our first action of the new Congress violates the promises that we heard from our Republican friends: no public hearings, no committee consideration, a completely closed process, legislative text no Member has read, 4 minutes of debate on an important constitutional issue, and so on.

For all those Members who were sent to Washington, like I was, to repair our Nation's finances, create jobs for millions of the unemployed, help the millions of Americans in need, the decision should be simple. I encourage my colleagues to reject the efforts of Republican leadership, keep our promises to our constituents, and vote to keep the affordable health care law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, this is not a dispute between Republicans and Democrats about the $1.3 trillion. CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is saying that.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, our ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Madam Speaker, we have got every minute taken. I am not sure everybody is going to show up.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and our leader on health care.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont, former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the figures from today's jobs report showing that since the enactment of health reform in March 2010, the economy has created 1.1 million private sector jobs.

Update on Job Growth Under Health Reform

Today's jobs report exposes the fatal flaw in the

Republicans' argument that health reform is ``job killing.''

Since the enactment of health reform in March 2010, the

economy has created more than 1.1 million private-sector

jobs.

That's an average of 123,000 jobs created per month in the

private sector since the enactment of health reform, compared

to an average of 7,000 jobs lost per month in the private

sector during the Bush Administration, when our health care

system was in a downward spiral and insurers had free rein to

raise premiums on families and small businesses by double

digits and deny or limit coverage with no accountability or

recourse.

12 Straight Months of Job Growth in the Private Sector More

Than 1.3 Million Private-Sector Jobs Created in 2010

Unemployment Rate Drops From 9.8% to 9.4%

113,000 private-sector jobs were created in December, the

12th straight month of private-sector job growth.

In all, more than 1.3 million private-sector jobs were

created in 2010. That's a dramatic

turnaround from the situation President Obama inherited in

early 2009, when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month.

The November private-sector jobs number was revised up

29,000 to 79,000 private-sector jobs created, and the October

number was revised up 33,000 to 193,000 private-sector jobs

created.

Government employment declined slightly in November; as a

result, net payroll growth for the public and private sector

combined was 103,000 in December.

The unemployment rate fell to 9.4% in December.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of Government Oversight and Reform.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

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

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

I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Eliot Engel.

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

Madam Speaker, if we are able to defeat the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order a bill (H.R. 2378) from the last Congress, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which invokes our anti-dumping laws and provides relief for American workers and companies injured by unfair exchange rate policies.

I yield to the gentleman from New York for a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am pleased to say this morning that I am delighted to be here.

I want to give my congratulations to Mr. Dreier on reclaiming the Rules seat, and we are very keen on our side to make our case before you today.

Madam Speaker, actually, my head is somewhat spinning because, not 20 minutes ago, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives stood where you are and said he was going to be listening to people, but the first order of business before the House came from the delegates whom this rule disenfranchises--not only the delegate of the District of Columbia but all of the Territories. They didn't get to say a word. So my head is somewhat spinning at this point, and we hope to try to at least give them unanimous consent so that they can try to get some message into the Record.

It is again part of the rhetoric from the last campaign that keeps spinning in our heads: All we want to do, they said, is to bring down the deficit. We're going over a cliff, and we've got to bring down the deficit.

As we stand here today, on the brink of a new session of Congress, the concern about deficits has disappeared from everything but the press releases. Under the new majority rules, the other side will essentially gut PAYGO--the pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democrat majorities in the House and Senate in 2007 under which tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. Under President Clinton, it gave us the biggest surplus we have ever had. It was a hallmark of Democrat leadership, and we are proud of it. We adhered to responsible spending levels and affordable tax cuts, and we took sensible steps towards controlling the deficit.

But not today.

Their talk about belt-tightening and deficit reduction is going to be thrown out the window so that they can free themselves to hand out even more tax credits to their friends, the corporations. Under these proposed rules, notes The Washington Post, tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected, but tax help for those at the other end of the income spectrum? Forget about it.

Obviously, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other respected news organizations have cried foul at this sleight of hand. In recent days, editorials have appeared slamming this hypocrisy and phony attempt at fiscal austerity.

What seems crystal clear to me is that the other side has doubled down and adopted the mentality of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who responded to the 2002 midterm elections by advocating in favor of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts. ``Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. This is our due,'' said the Vice President. The other side now wants to adopt the posture of budget cutters, but when it gets right down to it, they want to be able to make sweetheart deals without having to pay for them.

Nor is their sleight of hand or hypocritical actions an isolated event. It was less than a month ago that Republicans successfully held unemployment benefits for Americans hostage until they got their wish-- more Bush-era tax cuts for the people making more than $1 million a year. That package added another $140 billion to the deficit, but that didn't seem to bother them either, obviously, as they have told the world it is their number one priority.

Just this week, Republican new Members ushered in the new Congress with a $2,500 a plate fundraiser at the W Hotel in downtown Washington. Lobbyists, political action committee members, and other exclusive guests were treated to a night of drinks and entertainment by country singer LeAnn Rimes. Those who donated $50,000 were treated to a VIP suite at the W, along with the rest of the night's entertainment.

Last month, the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee offered his own assessment of Republican oversight. He told the Birmingham News in Alabama, ``In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.''

And according to Politico, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking for ways to make government more responsive to Wall Street and their corporate allies like Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Health.

Instead of all this business as usual--and we are headed right back into where we were before 2006--what I'd like to see is an honest attempt to create a set of rules that provide for openness, transparency, and good government. This set of rules is not that document. And I hope that the other side--and I believe they have good intentions--will join us in supporting this effort.

Deficit Hypocrisy

[From the New York Times, Dec. 29, 2010]

It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding

unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end

Bush-era income tax cuts and--as a little bonus--won deep

estate tax cuts for America's wealthiest heirs. Those cuts

will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term,

while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money

had been spent more wisely.

That should have been evidence enough that the Republican

Party's one real priority is tax cuts--despite all the talk

about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here's some

more:

On Dec. 22, just before they left town for the holidays,

House Republican leaders released new budget rules that they

intend to adopt when they assume the majority in January and

will set the stage for even more budget-busting tax cuts.

First, some background: Under pay-as-you-go rules adopted

by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007, tax

cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by

tax increases or entitlement cuts. Entitlements include big

health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for which

spending is on autopilot, as well as some other programs for

veterans and low-income Americans. (Discretionary spending,

which includes defense, is approved separately by Congress

annually.)

The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go because

they require offsets only for entitlement increases, not for

tax cuts. In effect, the new rules will codify the Republican

fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit.

It gets worse. The new rules mandate that entitlement-

spending increases be offset by spending cuts only--and

actually bar the House from raising taxes to pay for such

spending.

Say, for example, that lawmakers want to bolster child

credits for families at or near the minimum wage. One way to

help pay for the aid would be to close the tax loophole that

lets the nation's wealthiest private equity partners pay tax

at close to the lowest rate in the code. That long overdue

reform would raise an estimated $25 billion over 10 years,

but the new rules will forbid being sensible like that.

Even worse, they direct the leader of the House Budget

Committee to ignore several costs when computing the budget

impact of future actions, as if the costs are the natural

course of politics for which no payment is required.

For example, the cost to make the Bush-era tax cuts

permanent would be ignored, as would the fiscal effects of

repealing the health reform law. At the same time, the new

rules bar the renewal of aid for low-income working

families--extended temporarily in the recent tax-cut deal--

unless it is fully paid for.

House Republicans obviously believe they have a good thing

going with voters by sanctifying tax cuts and demonizing

spending. That's been their approach for 30 years after all,

and it unfailingly rallies their base.

The challenge for President Obama and Democratic lawmakers

is not to get drawn into that warped mind-set. They need to

present an alternative, including investments--in energy,

technology, infrastructure and education. They also need a

plan for long-term deficit reduction that recognizes what the

Republicans ignore: Never-ending tax cuts make the deficit

worse. Prudent tax increases need to be part of the solution.

New Pay-Go Rules Reveal GOP's Misplaced Priorities

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2011]

Are House Republicans serious about dealing with the

deficit? You could listen to their rhetoric--or you could

read the rules they are poised to adopt at the start of the

new Congress. The former promises a new fiscal sobriety. The

latter suggests that the new GOP majority is determined to

continue the spree of unaffordable tax-cutting.

The ominous signs come in the wording of the new majority's

version of its pay-as-you-go rules, which normally require

that new programs or tax initiatives be covered with cuts to

other programs or new revenue. In

the GOP concept, pay-as-you-go applies only to spending

programs. When it comes to tax cuts, it's all go, no pay.

Taxes can be cut, and the national debt increased, without

any offsetting savings.

If you thought the sticker shock of the latest tax deal

served as a useful reminder that tax cuts cost the Treasury

money, think again. Deficit financing is fine, it seems, when

it comes to tax cuts. But that's not all. Under the new

rules, not only are tax cuts exempted from the pay-go

concept, but the only way to pay for spending increases is

with spending cuts elsewhere. No tax increases allowed--not

even in the form of eliminating loopholes or cutting back on

tax breaks. Of course, if you wanted to expand the loopholes,

no problem. No need to pay for that.

Having made clear that no tax cuts need be paid for, the

rules then take the extra step of specifying which deficit-

busting tax cuts the new majority has in mind. They assume

the continuation of all the Bush tax cuts; extension of the

new version of the estate tax; and the creation of a big tax

break to let ``small businesses,'' which can be expansively

defined, take a deduction equal to 20 percent of their gross

income.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected. But tax

help for those at the other end of the income spectrum?

Forget it. The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and

the Child Tax Credit, programs that help keep low-income

working parents and children out of poverty, are not assumed

to continue and would have to be paid for--with, of course,

spending cuts. This is about as upside-down a set of

priorities as can be imagined.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who, as I said, is disenfranchised by this rule. Millions of Americans will be underrepresented.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

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

I yield to the Delegate from Guam, Delegate Bordallo.

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

I yield to the Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rules Package which once again removes the opportunity for Delegates to Congress and the Resident Commissioner to vote on amendments in the Committee of the Whole. It was our privilege in the past two Congresses to vote along with our colleagues on issues of importance to all Americans, especially the over 4 million of us who live and work in the U.S. territories.

The people of the U.S. territories are a diverse group, much like their fellow citizens on the mainland. Some are born in the territories under the American flag, some have migrated there and embraced our culture and our values before naturalization, others were born in the states and have chosen by virtue of their chosen occupation or by love of our islands to make the territories their home. All are Americans in every sense of the word, except for full representation in the House of Representatives and the ability to vote for the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the U.S. territories have served their country in all of its

conflicts from the American Revolution to the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have given their youth, their time and even their lives for our country. We had hoped through our participation to obtain the good will of all of our colleagues to ensure full participation in the democratic process for all citizens of our country. The events of this week have proved to us once more that we still have a long way to go to ensure equality and justice for all.

I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

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

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).

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

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands are citizens of the United States. And the Constitution declares we are ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof.''

But today the majority's Rules exclude us from even symbolic representation in our government.

The Pledge to America declared the majority would fight those who whisper America's standing as the world leader of democracy is ending.

But today the majority breaks its own Pledge with Rules that take away the vote from 5 million Americans.

What a sad way to begin this new Congress.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, if we defeat the previous question, Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland will offer an amendment to restore fiscal discipline in the House.

I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee now, so that he may explain his amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida, a former member and missed member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation.

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

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

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can take serious action described by Mr. Van Hollen to decrease the deficit rather than to simply make it easier to give tax breaks to billionaires.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. A lot of us are going to sleep a lot better now knowing that this bill has been passed.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1766 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I must say that I understand the point of the gentleman. I think spending this kind of money, over $700 billion over 10 years for 6,600 families in the United States, is a foolish expenditure. I do agree that what we want to do is get the deficit down, and believe me, that does not do it.

Technically, though, this point of order is about whether or not to consider the rule and, ultimately, the underlying measure. And, in reality, it's about trying to block the measure. I believe that that's an abdication of our responsibility. We have to have the opportunity to debate, and without an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, we are failing our responsibility. I think that is wrong.

I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider the legislation on its merits and vote accordingly and not stop it on a procedural motion.

I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments this morning. I urge him to vote ``no'' on this bill if he plans to do that, and I think he will find a great deal of company. But I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we may debate and vote on this piece of legislation today.

It is not perfect by any means. I rarely see a piece of perfect legislation. But remember that what we are doing here is concurring in a Senate bill, which limited the fact of how many changes that we would be able to make.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on House Resolution 1766.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1766 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act.

The rule provides 3 hours of debate and makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. If that motion fails, the rule causes to be pending a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853.

Finally, until completion of all proceedings, the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening motion, resolution, question, or notice; the Chair may postpone proceedings to a time designated by the Speaker; and each amendment and motion shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan agreement on a framework for extending middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment relief is certainly not perfect. In fact, I don't like it much at all.

In the lead-up to the debate here this morning, a lot of my constituents have encouraged me to oppose it. They know it is an unwarranted handout for millionaires and billionaires at a time when we are still fighting two wars with countless pressing needs here at home and a deficit that would push us further into the red by this giveaway.

A typical sentiment was reflected in a call from Ken, a Niagara Falls resident, who phoned my office to insist it was wrong-headed for Democrats, who control the House, the Senate, and White House, to agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. His words were: ``Barack Obama is still the President of the United States, not Mitch McConnell, and McConnell should not get to dictate tax policy.'' To that, I say, I hear you. But, nonetheless, today here we are.

There are some good things in this bill. Certainly extending unemployment relief for struggling American workers who may have been laid off and simply need assistance to help them buy groceries and necessities until they find a new job is important.

During the last 2 years, this Congress has voted to cut taxes for working parents and small businesses at least eight times, and lower tuition costs for college students. We have provided the best opportunities for growth and prosperity.

But losing $25 billion in revenue to provide a tax shelter to 6,600 families who will qualify for this new estate tax handout is just wrong, it is disgraceful, and it is damaging to the entire economic future of this country.

In the aftermath of this negotiation, the President was accused of quitting in the first round, giving away the store, punting on first down, and other things that I don't want to go into here. But while this agreement is flawed, there are parts of it, as I said, that will benefit the American people.

Failure to send the bill to the President's desk for his signature would result in tax hikes on millions of middle class families across our country and loss of unemployment insurance for those who are hardest hit by this recession.

More importantly, I think it might risk slowing the economic recovery. However, I think it is very important

for me to make this point: we have lived with these tax cuts for 10 years. It is certainly no secret to any American or anybody else in the world that our unemployment condition is perfectly awful. And to try to pretend to the American people that once we pass this great tax cut for the rich that jobs are suddenly going to rain on us makes us feel like Alice in Wonderland, able to believe 10 impossible things before breakfast. I am just not one of them. It will not make that kind of difference. It simply, once again, makes the rich richer. But that was the price we had to pay for helping the middle class and the unemployed.

I note that many of these tax cuts, as we know, were created 10 years ago. And what have they brought? Nothing but a deep-lasting recession. But what I also want to comment on here is the impossibility of this Congress to let these tax cuts expire, which would in itself decrease the deficit by 50 percent in 2 years, says to me that these will never expire. And I want to put that in connection with what we have done to the payroll tax.

I consider this one of the greatest threats to Social Security and its future. If anybody here believes, if anyone can stand up and believe that we are going to be able to reinstate that payroll tax on employers and employees, they only need to look at what is happening here today, that after 10 years of experience, which brought us no jobs, we are expanding tax cuts which will, again, bring us no jobs.

If this agreement doesn't become law, I know that the tax rates on the middle class will go up. They are going to end up paying more money, and I hate that, because God knows all the benefits in the last 10 years have gone to the wealthy.

I dread seeing my America, the one I grew up in and I love, where I don't believe that the American Dream is available for children anymore. I am not going to cry about it, but I know that now that the rich are richer and the poor are poorer, the poor children don't think about that much anymore. They think about trying to get an education, if they can, or trying to live another year.

So we have to take this bill up today. No question about it. And I feel very sad about it. But I will tell you that it has been our experience that these are the prices that we have to pay when we negotiate with our partners on the other side. They believe in trickle- down with all their heart: make everybody richer at the top, all those great folks, even those with great inherited wealth, as my colleague Mr. McGovern said, who may never have worked a day in their life, and suddenly jobs are going to be produced. Please, America, please don't believe that. That is not what we are doing here today. We are not doing anything to benefit this economy here today.

That logic of driving up long-term deficits and putting the government in the red more than it is, to hand out money for a tiny fraction of taxpayers, is that really a sensible thing for America to be doing today? I think not. But we know that the other side in the coming years will pursue even more tax breaks for the wealthiest and the wealthiest estates. All of those tangible outcomes are directed toward millionaires and billionaires. As long as I am serving in Congress, I will resist this with every fiber of my being because I don't think it does anything for our economy while adding to the deficit.

In the end, I am here to encourage my colleagues to support this rule so that we may have this 3-hour debate, which will give people plenty of time on both sides to express their opinion. It is a fair process. All the Members will be able to express their views.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1766 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1766.

Mr. Speaker, since I made a rather lengthy speech at our first rule this morning, I am going to be giving up my time to other Members.

So I will at this point reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you for yielding.

There are very few changes, if any. The caucus in the Democratic Party is really the most important part of our side of the House. The Speaker is meticulous about working with them to achieve consensus. Frankly, we had a rather raucous meeting this morning at the caucus and it was decided that it would be better if we recessed and took some time to see where we were and to make sure that all facets of the caucus had been listened to. But as I said, there will probably be very little change, if any, from the rule we had this morning.

The gentleman is correct. There were many Members who felt that they needed that extra vote. At the proper time we will make the decision as to whether we will call and ask for a change in the rule.

I would be happy to respond to the gentleman.

The only thing I can tell you, Mr. Dreier, as I said before, is that there is no change in this bill. We may or may not ask for an ability to have a separate vote, as you pointed out, so that people will have an up-or-down vote on the bill.

As you know, we are dealing with the resolution, and if the Pomeroy portion of it should go down, then we wouldn't normally have that up- or-down vote. If it should pass, that would normally be the end of our proceedings, and it would go directly to the Senate. We are simply adding, as a precaution and for a number of Members who have requested it, an ability to have that up-or-down vote regardless of whether the amendment passes or fails.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

That is correct.

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

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

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

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

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

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

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the last speaker I have.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an amendment to the rule, and I want to take this opportunity to briefly describe the amendment.

The amendment shifts initial consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate

amendment to H.R. 4853 into the Committee of the Whole. After 3 hours of general debate, a vote will occur on the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and the Committee of the Whole shall rise. If the amendment passes, a vote will occur on a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with the amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole. If the motion fails, a vote will occur on a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, the rule, and the previous question.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

I have an amendment to this rule at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, on the rule, and the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6517, the Omnibus Trade Act of 2010. This bill includes provisions that are critical to our manufacturing base: specifically decreasing the cost of raw materials, extending Trade Adjustment Assistance to workers who have seen their jobs shipped overseas, and making an important technical fix to the Wool Trust Fund program.

Trade Adjustment Assistance is one of the most important lifelines for American workers who have lost their jobs due to international trade. The program helps train workers in new fields, and helps bridge the gap in health insurance benefits for workers and their families. In 2009, Congress made significant improvements by expanding eligibility for service sector workers, manufacturing and secondary workers, and by increasing training funding. The expansion also increased the Workers Health Coverage Tax Credit subsidy to minimize gaps in health insurance coverage for workers and their families. Since the overhaul more than 10,000 workers in New York alone have been certified to receive TAA benefits, and over 5,000 of these workers would not have received benefits had the extension not been in place. Across the country, TAA has helped more than 155,000 otherwise misplaced workers with the expansion since 2009.

Our vote today will extend the improvements made until June, 2012.

If we in Congress don't take action and instead let these improvements expire, we abandon workers who have already suffered from our tilted trade policies. It is imperative that we pass this legislation to ensure that America's workforce is able to adjust to changing economic environment and America can remain competitive in the global marketplace. H.R. 6517 also includes a technical fix to ensure that the Wool Trust Fund is funded at the level authorized in 2004 and 2008. This program provides payments to U.S. suit makers who have been left at a competitive disadvantage due to an inverted tariff--where the duty on the finished product is lower than the duty on the materials used to make the finished product. Without this fix, we are actually disincentivifzing suit makers to operate in the U.S. and that would be tragic for my district, which is home to Hickey-Freeman and 500 of the best suit makers in the world.

The workers at Hickey-Freeman know from experience that over the past 2 years, revenue for this program shrank considerably, resulting in cuts of up to 66 percent to payments made to U.S. companies. H.R. 6517 closes the funding shortfall ensuring that our domestic suit makers continue to manufacture in the U.S. and that they are able to compete on a level playing field.

I strongly support this legislation because it protects many of the manufacturing jobs we have now and provides funding to retrain American manufacturing workers for the jobs of tomorrow.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6517.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act.

Child marriage is an international epidemic, with 100 million girls projected to marry in the next decade.

Not only do these young girls lose the opportunity to achieve their full potential, but they also are at risk for serious health consequences. Childbirth is five times more deadly for girls under 15 than for women in their twenties, and pregnancy is the most common cause of death for girls between the age of 15 and 19.

HIV/AIDS is another serious risk for child brides, as they frequently marry more sexually experienced men. In many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, girls under the age of 19 are more than twice as likely to contract HIV as boys of the same age.

Young girls frequently experience trauma and violence in these marriages.

A front page article in The New York Times on November 7, 2010 told the story of Farzana, a young girl living in Afghanistan.

Although she dreamed of being a teacher, Farzana was engaged at age 8 and married four years later. Her husband beat her for the first time on her wedding day, and the beatings continued for four years. She was forbidden to see her mother.

Farzana tells us, ``I thought of running away from that house, but then I thought: what will happen to the name of my family? No one in our family has asked for divorce. So how can I be the first?''

Left with few choices, Farzana set herself on fire. After burning half her body, she lived--but only after 57 days in the hospital and multiple surgeries.

Farzana's dream of becoming a teacher was killed by a premature marriage.

She--and millions of others like her--deserve better.

The bill that we are considering today will help realize the dreams of many young girls like Farzana by expanding assistance to prevent child marriage and empower girls around the world.

Young girls everywhere deserve the opportunity to make their own decisions and determine their own destiny.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 20th anniversary of the Office of Research on Women's Health. As the leading agency for women's health research in the United States, the Office has transformed biomedical research and improved the lives of women nationally and internationally.

The Office of Research on Women's Health was founded in response to congressional and scientific concerns over the systematic exclusion of women from clinical research trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). One clinical trial, the Physicians' Health Study, included 22,071 men--and no women. This clinical trial generated over 300 basic findings that are used today to guide all facets of medicine. Indeed, the common advice to take aspirin to prevent heart attacks is based largely on this clinical trial with no female participants. By excluding women from clinical trials, biomedical research failed women.

Scientists and government officials alike recognized the troubling implications of providing medical care based on research that excluded more than half of the world's population. The Society for Women's Health Research was founded to galvanize support and improve scientific research.

My colleagues and I in the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues challenged the exclusion of women from federally funded research.

In 1990 we introduced H.R. 5397, an omnibus Women's Health Equity Act, an unprecedented package of 22 separate bills designed to improve the status of women's health in the areas of research, services, and prevention. Among the provisions of this mammoth legislation were: the establishment and permanent authorization of the Office of Research on Women's Health; the statutory requirement that women and minorities must be included in NIH clinical studies, where appropriate; the establishment of research centers on osteoporosis, contraception, and infertility; and necessary funding increases for research into the diseases that claim unacceptable numbers of female lives, like breast, ovarian, and cervical cancers.

Our interest prompted federal action. The National Institutes of Health announced the creation of the Office of Research on Women's Health in 1990.

Many of the provisions of the Women's Health Equity Act were included in the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993. Thankfully, President Clinton made the NIH bill, and especially its critical improvements of women's health research, one of his first legislative priorities. It was signed into law on June 10, 1993, in a White House ceremony befitting such historic legislation--establishing the Office of Research on Women's Health in statute.

Since its creation 20 years ago, the Office of Research on Women's Health has increased our understanding of sex differences, from single cells to biological systems. This new focus on sex differences has transformed epigenetics, endocrinology, immunology, and many other fields.

In 1999, the Office initiated the ``Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health initiative'' which supported the career development of approximately 400 early-stage research scientists. By helping these scientists to become independent researchers and obtain academic positions, the Office of Research on Women's Health built a sophisticated, active field of women's health research.

In 2002, the Office established the ``Specialized Centers of Research on Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Women's Health'' program to support interdisciplinary research in basic and clinical research. In 2009 alone, this program helped scientists to publish 116 journal articles, 176 abstracts, and 63 other publications.

Alongside of the ambitious research agenda of the Office of Research on Women's Health, the Office also educates physicians, providers, and patients about gender-based differences in health care. This education program helps to translate the research accomplishments into tangible improvements in care for women and girls nationwide.

The Office of Research on Women's Health continues to press for improvements for women's health care.

This fall, the Office launched its ``Vision for 2020 in Women's Health Research'', a far-sighted research strategy for the next 10 years. Their vision--which I share--calls upon our Nation to increase its commitment to evaluate sex differences in both basic science and clinical research.

We also must ensure that sex differences are acknowledged in the design and application of new technologies and medications. Furthermore, we need to build a talented, diverse, and active women's health research workforce.

We cannot abandon our commitment to women's health research.

Indeed, recent withdrawals of medications by the Food and Drug Administration remind us of the importance of evaluating medicines by sex. In 2001, the then U.S. General Accounting Office published an evaluation showing that eight of the ten medications recently withdrawn ``posed greater health risks for women than for men''.

The importance of the mission and accomplishments of the Office of Research on Women's Health cannot be overstated. Women and girls deserve health care that has been tailored to their needs, and that requires high-quality research sensitive to gender-based differences.

I thank the Office of Research on Women's Health for their achievements over the past 20 years. I know that the Office will use the next 20 years to support excellent science that will benefit women and men alike.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am proud to rise in support of the men and women who risked their lives for their fellow citizens following the attacks on September 11. On that day in 2001, tens of thousands of Americans raced to rescue those injured in the terrorist attacks. In the course of the work that day and the days following, they were exposed to dangerous toxins and physical hazards. After giving so much of themselves, many of the firefighters, police officers, and bystanders face serious respiratory, gastrointestinal, and mental health conditions. While Ground Zero is 7 hours away from my own district in Rochester, the New Yorkers banded together as they joined the chorus of Americans asking how we could help. Just the other day, I talked to a captain of the Niagara Falls Fire Company who broke his leg at Ground Zero in an effort to rescue those trapped under rubble, many of western New Yorkers who answered the call to serve.

We recently observed the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and we can't forget those who risked everything to help the victims at Ground Zero. For this reason, I support H.R. 847, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Fund.