Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to Mr. Pence's amendment. Pursuant to Federal Statute, no Title X funds can be spent on abortions. So the only conclusion to be drawn from the offering of this amendment is that Mr. Pence is attempting to use propaganda based on hypocrisy to wage war on family planning services. Mr. Pence's amendment would cut off 1.7 million women--more than one in three women who receive Title X services--from their trusted, family planning provider.

Multitudes of poor and low-income women cannot afford to purchase contraceptive services and supplies on their own. Half of all women who are sexually active, but do not want to get pregnant, need publicly funded services to help them access public health programs like Medicaid and Title X.

Low-income women are currently four times more likely to face an unintended pregnancy. 84 percent of Title X clients have incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level, and 61 percent are uninsured. That is why for most women, including women who want to have children, contraception is not an option; it is a basic health care necessity. Each year, publicly funded family planning services help women to prevent an estimated one million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions.

From a public health standpoint, Title X family planning clinics are often the primary health care provider for low income women.

The Title X program provides comprehensive family planning services as well as a wide range of other preventive health care services, including breast exams and instruction on breast self-examination, Pap tests for early detection of cervical cancer or precancerous conditions, testing for high blood pressure, screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted infections, HIV screening, counseling on adoption, foster care, and pregnancy termination and referrals to specialized health care.

In these tough economic times it is hard to understand why Mr. Pence would want to yet again launch an assault on public health care for low income women and families. I strongly urge my colleagues to put public health ahead of politics and vote ``no'' on Mr. Pence's harmful amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 646, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 620, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Part A Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Latham

Madam Speaker, I want to take a minute to pay tribute to Pope Barrow.

Mr. Barrow heads the Office of the Legislative Counsel, an office that advises and assists Members to effect a ``clear, faithful, and

coherent expression of legislative policies.'' While it's optional to use the services provided by Legislative Counsel, most members have learned over the years that it's worth the time to cooperate with the experts. The office provides legal assistance in connection with virtually every bill, resolution, amendment, and conference report introduced or offered in the House or one of its committees.

Pope has led the operation since 1999 after joining the office back in 1968. He has worked on legislation in a variety of different fields including: taxation; foreign affairs; war powers; pensions; environmental law; public land law; and energy law. Even after being appointed to the top job he continued to work on energy law in addition to his management responsibilities.

The son of a United States Marine, Pope was born in Savannah, Georgia in 1942 near Parris Island, South Carolina. He grew up on a farm near here, in Maryland. He attended Yale College and then Harvard Law School before beginning his distinguished career in the House of Representatives.

In recent years, Pope has worked very closely with the Rules Committee, the committee that I have the privilege to chair. Pope is a true professional, nonpartisan, neutral, and serving both parties equally. Over the years, he has provided drafting assistance to Members representing all political viewpoints and it is a credit to his reputation that he and his staff always managed to maintain confidentiality with each client.

The pressures of the legislative agenda have only grown over the years since Pope was appointed Legislative Counsel.

But in that time he has guided his staff of 45 attorneys and 16 support staff through some of the most taxing legislative sessions, producing literally tens of thousands of professionally drafted documents each year. His expertise, willingness to be part of the solution, and lively spirit will be sorely missed in this House.

Today, the Rules Committee and the Congress is losing one of its greatest resources. We wish Mr. Barrow all the best in his life after he leaves behind the hectic amendment deadlines and late night drafting and moves on to new challenges. In fact, Pope recently sailed across the Atlantic in 21 days--not bad for an attorney--and we hope he now finds time to sail across the Pacific.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained because I was meeting with the South Korean Ambassador and missed rollcall votes 357 and 358. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 357 and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 358.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 371, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Madam 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. 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.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution H. Res. 552 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 552.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 552 provides for further consideration of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010, under a structured rule.

Madam Speaker, I know it's safe to say that this has been a memorable appropriations process for both sides, and we're only getting started on this bumpy ride.

Appropriation bills often generate very emotional responses on all sides, and this year is no different. The process is time-consuming and stressful, and my colleagues on Rules know that we were not meeting well after 1 a.m. this morning simply because we like each other's company.

The rule we rise to consider today came about as a result of concern from the Appropriations Committee that we were unlikely to get an agreement from the minority for a set and reasonable schedule to consider these spending bills.

Without such an agreement, there was a very real fear on our side that the process could have degenerated into a drawn-out battle, jeopardizing our party's commitment to getting each of the 12 appropriations bills completed on time this year.

At all costs, our party wanted to avoid a repeat of a disastrous 2- month stalemate that shut down the government in 1995 and 1996. And while it's sometimes tempting for the party in the minority to blow up the process, as leaders in the House, we're determined to legislate in a way that seeks common ground and makes everybody proud.

Moreover, we have in recent years detected a trend where more and more amendments are given to us each year on appropriations bills, often for no other reason than political gamesmanship or stunts.

There was not a single amendment to this bill in fiscal year 2003, but this year we had 127 amendments filed on the bill as of the Tuesday deadline. That suggested to us that we were in for what potentially could have been a repetitive chain of deleterious and ill-considered amendments, none of which would have allowed us to get any closer to our goal of getting these bills completed and signed into law by the President.

When it became clear this week that the minority was not ready to agree to a clear and firm schedule for finishing the work on the appropriations bills, we decided we had no alternative but to go ahead with a clear and concise plan.

Our proposal sets out a best balancing act between doing the people's business and still giving both parties ample opportunity to shape the bills with amendments and discussion.

Under the schedule, we will set aside a structured rule that provides for no additional amendments, other than the ones previously agreed to by the Rules Committee. Each of those amendments shall be debatable for 10 minutes.

I firmly believe that, given the refusal of the minority to agree to a schedule for getting the work done, this represents a workable compromise that will allow us to vote on the appropriations bills in a timely and efficient way.

More importantly, it allows us to move each of these appropriations bills in the next 6 weeks while, at the same time, making progress on other crucial legislation facing Congress, such as health care, climate change and supporting our troops.

I hope my colleagues on both sides will join me this morning in supporting this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I don't have anymore speakers present on the floor, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 332 I was unable to vote due to the fact that I was meeting with constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, today I want to speak about the senseless killing of a good man as he was volunteering as an usher among family and friends in his place of worship. Dr. George Tiller got shot to death, as most of us know, at his church in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31. A single gunshot fired by a man who apparently has a long history of animosity to a woman's right to choose ended the life of a man who had dedicated his life to helping others and was a stark reminder to all of us of the raw emotion surrounding this issue.

In the days since the arrest of the shooter, we have now heard reports that even more violence may be planned against doctors who believe in choice. And while this kind of violence is deplorable, it seems to me that this act is particularly villainous because it took place in a house of worship.

This church, a place where people come together to seek peace, safety, and protection, was in an instant transformed into a place of shocking, senseless violence.

Our places of worship are meant to be peaceful refuges for those who seek serenity in times of turmoil and safety in times of hostility. The sanctity of these places is honored at all times and without regard to denomination. There should be no exception to this rule that we are taught early and that provides us with a structure for our interaction with other faiths and beliefs. Only the most evil can bring violence into these sacred buildings. To defile houses of worship with bloodshed is nothing less than villainous, and we should not tolerate such actions in a civilized society.

For millennia, into the Middle Ages, our churches, synagogues, mosques, and others have been the center of communities, places of scholarship, proponents of peace and love among humankind. There is more to a place of worship than its physical presence; there is a sense of community and accord and safety where worshippers can share their faith. But when you look at our recent history, what we have seen is a disturbing rise in violence at churches that we have taken no note of in the House of Representatives. As mentioned, 68 persons have been shot, dead, wounded or assaulted in violence in religious institutions here in the United States. This is more than deplorable.

Deepening the tragedy is the fact that, until now, there has been no expression of outrage decrying violence in a place of worship. It shakes the foundations of our communities, our principles, and our Nation. It is not a Christian issue or a Jewish issue or an Islamic issue or any one faith. It is a test of what we as a society are willing to tolerate and a reminder that some people in this Nation do not respect the sanctity of a house of worship.

The brutal killing of Dr. Tiller was the latest church killing. In March of 2009, Rev. Fred Winters was killed while at the pulpit by gunfire at the First Baptist Church in Illinois. It was only after the gun malfunctioned that members of the congregation subdued the shooter to prevent further fatalities.

Rev. Donald Fairbanks, Sr., was fatally shot at the Ninth Street Baptist Church of Covington, Kentucky, in November of 2008. He was visiting from his Cincinnati, Ohio, church to attend a funeral for a woman with relatives in his congregation. Grief turned to fear as the gunman opened fire in the church.

In July 2008, an usher and a guest were shot and killed during the opening act of a children's play in Knoxville, Tennessee. This time, the gunman walked into the sanctuary carrying a guitar case with a 12- gauge shotgun. He is said to have fired over 40 shots, killing two and injuring seven.

In May 2006, five family members were killed by a gunman who opened fire during a church service at The Ministry of Jesus Christ Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A whole family was wiped out, and the shooter's wife was abducted from the church and killed nearby.

One of the most upsetting church killings in recent memory occurred in 1999 when a lone gunman massacred seven worshippers and wounded seven others at a youth celebration--150 teenagers strong--that was taking place in the sanctuary of the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. The assault was one of the worst ever, and I know there was a tremendous sense of loss after that awful act.

Why doesn't America care about this? Why have we said absolutely nothing about it? Why are we now allowing concealed weapons to be carried in Federal parks where, frankly, I hope most people will not be able to go in any notion that they might come out of there alive.

Dr. Tiller's family held a memorial service for him over the weekend after his burial on Friday, and he was remembered by all four of his children for his care and devotion as both a physician and father. It is a senseless tragedy, and so I offer this resolution and hope that all Members of this House will say ``no more.''

I thank my colleague Mr. Nadler for yielding.

I want to close my portion here by reminding people what a terrible thing that has happened in this country to a man who was simply doing what he was allowed to do, what he was trained to do.

I think perhaps I should state for the record, too, that third trimester abortions are less than 1 percent, and even Roe v. Wade says that after the first trimester the State has an interest and that it takes two doctors, as well as it does for the third trimester. These are oftentimes babies that have been desperately wanted and planned, but in order to save the health of the mother or to prevent her from carrying a toxic fetus that has already expired, it is sometimes necessary to do this. It is not a whim. It is not something that women do. I think, if anything, what insults my intelligence and my feeling as a woman and a grandmother is the notion that women will just wake up one morning and say, Well, I've had enough. That just does not happen. Women are, by nature, nurturers, and we are just not like that, and it's a major insult to us.

But as we remember this killing and affirm the need for peace in our places of worship, let's remind ourselves of the need for tolerance and kindness. I offer this resolution and offer the most sincere condolences to the family.

The resolution affirms that the House of Representatives commits to the American principle that tolerance must always be superior to intolerance.

I urge Members to join me in supporting this to renounce nefarious violence in our places of worship where Americans seek sanctuary. Violence is deplorable and never an acceptable avenue for expressing opposing viewpoints.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the WHTI IMPACTT Act. As with many people who live along the U.S.-Canada border, we in Western New York do not think of the bi-national Buffalo-Niagara region as two separate countries, but rather as one community with a river running through it. We have shared principles and values, and rely on an intertwining economic relationship that is vital to our prosperity.

In the Buffalo-Niagara region and all across the border, the most pressing issue facing border communities is the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). It is clear that our economy relies on the smart functioning of the Northern border and the increased documentation requirements under WHTI presents a difficult challenge for smooth travel and trade between the U.S. and Canada.

I recognize that there are security concerns at our border, and that in the post-9/11 world it is important that we know that those entering both of our countries arc who they say they are, mean us no harm, and have the secure documents to prove it. That is why I agree with the intent of WHTI. We must be confident that the documents individuals present for entry into the United States are secure and authentic. However, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to our border concerns. We cannot simply flip a switch and move from having the world's largest open border to requiring expensive new crossing documentation.

Recognizing this, in 2007 I led the charge in Congress to delay the implementation of WHTI from January 2008 until June 2009. Language mandating this delay was successfully included in the FY08 Omnibus appropriations bill which was signed into law in December 2007.

It has become clear over the past year that this delay has proved to be absolutely necessary. Consider what has been done since the original January 2008 deadline in Western New York alone towards WHTI implementation:

The first NEXUS enrollment center in Western New York was not opened until September of 2008, and the RFID technology that is so critical to the success of Passport cards, NEXUS cards, and Enhanced Driver's Licenses, did not ``go live'' at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo until this past November.

At other important border crossings in New York State and Michigan, this vital technology was not set to be working and active until April; less than two months before yesterday's final WHTI implementation.

Despite this progress being made, and despite DHS and State Department issuing their WHTI certification, I, along with a number of my colleagues, remain wary of the readiness of WHTI and committed to ensuring that it is implemented in a way that will not harm the cross border trade and travel that is so critical to our border communities.

During President Obama's visit to Ottawa earlier this year, he and Prime Minister Harper stressed the importance of a healthy U.S.-Canada trade relationship to bringing both countries out of the current economic recession. I would contend that a successful WHTI implementation is an important aspect of this trade relationship, and a failed WHTI implementation could have a devastating effect not only on border communities, but on the broader national economy.

The economic downturn facing both countries has already dramatically affected cross border travel and trade. Statistics from the Public Border Operators Association show that passenger, truck and bus crossings at all New York and Michigan border crossings in January of 2009 decreased by an average of over 16% from January 2008 levels. In Western New York, traffic at the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge and the Peace Bridge decreased by 19% and 13% respectively. If WHTI is not implemented properly it will only compound the current negative trend in commerce across the border.

For this reason, today I introduce the WHTI Implementation Monitoring Plan to Assure Continued Travel and Trade Act, or the WHTI IMPACTT Act. This legislation will place significant oversight on the implementation of WHTI to identify and mitigate any harmful effects of the new requirements. It will require joint reports to Congress from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security on December 1, 2009, and June 1, 2010, that detail the effect of WHTI on freight and passenger travel across the border, enrollment levels in frequent traveler programs, the effectiveness on RFID technology, CBP staffing levels, and its effect on overall border security. It will also require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on the impact of WHTI on border economies and overall domestic security.

This legislation will allow Congress to partner with DHS and State to identify any problems with WHTI implementation prior to the 2010 Olympics and the 2010 tourist season, and hopefully quickly determine what actions need to be taken to ensure that our border and our regional economies are healthy.

I want to talk a moment about the safety of our skies and the frightening gap in training and oversight surrounding the commuter airline business.

One of the worst plane accidents in recent history occurred earlier this year on the night of February 12, just outside of Buffalo, New York. We lost 49 lives that snowy and icy night, and my thoughts are with the families and the victims.

Last week the National Transportation Safety Board conducted hearings, and we were shocked and saddened by the testimony and the revelations. I'm not here to revisit the sad last moments of the crew or the 45 passengers who were lost that day. We still have many questions that must be answered and a lot of work to be done to ensure it never happens again. That is our responsibility and our mission.

I want to address the shocking conditions that many of these pilots are facing each and every day because of the lack of rigor and training and certification programs of commercial airline pilots. I hope we can shine a light on the appalling job that the FAA has done in recent years in regulating that industry. That's why I've joined with my friends from New York, Mr. Lee and Mr. Higgins, to introduce an amendment mandating a detailed investigation by the General Accounting Office into this gap in training.

We need to look at the number of training hours required for new pilots,

how the carriers update and train the pilots, and what kind of remedial action is taken when pilots rate unsatisfactorily, among other things.

It is my belief that a thorough, top-to-bottom review of this issue is absolutely essential if we are to understand the troubled reality of today's regional airline industry.

Most importantly, if we don't get all the facts out and into the open, we are unlikely to be able to take meaningful steps toward reform. My intention is to work with colleagues on this issue and explore legislative remedies that we can take.

As I look around the Chamber, I'm reminded that many Members of Congress also take flights to get home to their districts that are the regional airlines. And I take two of them every week. And in the gallery I'm sure there are visitors who have flown to Washington from their hometowns. Every day people from coast to coast in small cities and major hubs catch a plane from work to see a loved one, or simply to get away. All deserve the confidence that the pilots in the front of the plane are trained and ready for work when that aircraft pushes back from the tarmac.

It's my understanding that the salary of one of the pilots on that plane was $16,000 a year. I can only imagine how little the attendants were paid. These young pilots earn far less than pilots at major carriers and struggle to make ends meet. My guess is it would surprise many of the passengers on a typical commuter flight to know the captain was paid less than a bus driver.

Worse still, we learned during the hearing that many of the pilots fly when they are sick and when they have not been able to have food. Imagine that. A pilot responsible for a plane full of men, women and children, who is sick but can't take the day off; hungry and can't stop and get lunch.

We have discovered the training is stunningly inadequate.

We have also discovered that the training for some of these pilots is stunningly inadequate.

For example, the pilot in the Buffalo crash had apparently failed a hands-on proficiency exam not once but three times. He covered that up on his job application and the fact was not discovered until after the accident, according to the testimony we heard last week.

And even after that pilot was hired by Colgan, he actually failed two additional check rides but still was certified to fly. That's five failed tests--five too many if you ask me.

Passengers on a typical flight would be horrified to learn that the pilot flying their plane was a repeat failure on such a basic skill test.

And finally the way that these pilots are assigned routes--which in many cases are hundreds if not thousands of miles from their homes-- appears to me to be a recipe for disaster. In the case of the Buffalo crash, both pilots had flown from across the country just to arrive at their route--one from Florida and one from Seattle. Both had apparently slept in a lounge--if they slept at all. Trying to rest in a lounge or an airplane is not safe and we should not tolerate pilots being treated that way.

We need to reform this system so airlines and pilots can escape from this insane business of criss-crossing the country to work in different time zones for meager pay and the hope that one day they'll work for a major airline.

It's my intention to buckle down on this issue so we can put the focus less on the glamorous lifestyle of pilots and more on the quality of their training and certification and safety.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment and get some answers on the regional airline industry.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 424 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 242. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 242.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my amendment to protect college students from the hardship of excessive credit card debt and bankruptcy, and I am pleased to share my time with Congressman Duncan of Tennessee, with whom I have labored for at least 10 years to try to see this day come. And I appreciate him for his constant help and support.

According to Sallie Mae, the average undergraduate has $2,200 in credit card debt, and that figure jumps to $5,800 for graduate students. And according to Sallie Mae, 84 percent of undergraduates have at least one credit card, up from 76 percent in 2004. On average, students have 4.6 credit cards, and half of college students have more than four, which would be fine if the students were able to pay off the credit card debt.

Only 17 percent have said that they regularly pay that debt. Most of them have parents or simply let it go. A 2005 study--which is very important for us to know--indicated that many university administrators believe that credit card debt leads to a higher drop-out rate than their academic failure. Now, I don't think any of us ever expected that in our lifetime, that more students would drop out of college because of credit card debt than because of their academics. Indeed, the Indiana University administrator was quoted in the Chicago Tribune warning incoming freshmen that the school ``loses more students to credit card debt than to academic failure.''

And we all know the ramifications of what happens when they become delinquent on their credit card debt. They can ruin their credit scores and end up paying higher rates on all future loans, and even more seriously they may be forced to declare bankruptcy and may not have enough credit rating to have credit cards again.

Over the past 10 years the number of young people filing for bankruptcy has increased. If credit card companies applied the same scrutiny to college students as they do to adults when approving them for credit cards, college students would not be able to maintain the balances which they are incapable of paying.

This is not merely smart business practice, it's good public policy, and our amendment will do just that by requiring the credit card companies to take responsibility for their lending practices to reduce the number of young people carrying excessive debt and filing for bankruptcy. We would ensure that credit card companies cannot provide students with extravagant limits and require the creditors to obtain a proof of income, income history and credit history from the students before approving the application.

It would also encourage financial responsibility from students by limiting those without income to one credit card and set a limit by allowing increases over time if prompt payments have been made.

Credit cards can be a useful tool to help students; however, it can also be a card to failure.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Duncan.