Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 170, 171, and 172. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on roll call vote Nos. 170 and 171. I would have voted `nay'' on rollcall vote No. 172.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote numbers 159, 160, and 161. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on roll call numbers 159, 160 and nay on roll call vote 161.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 162, 163, and 164. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on each vote.

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

I thank my colleague and friend from Georgia for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, with this package of bills, the majority is taking a sledgehammer to civil litigation. I know that my colleague and I are not going to agree with that because I listened intently to what he had to say. But it is closing courthouse doors to ordinary people who are injured in the workplace and makes it harder for working people wronged by the rich and powerful to seek justice.

First, H.R. 985 is really a solution in search of a problem. It uses the false notion of rampant fraud in the legal system to shield corporate wrongdoers and deny their victims relief.

Second, H.R. 906 has the potential to further victimize asbestos victims.

Third, H.R. 720 would roll back significant improvements to the Rules of Civil Procedure and repeat a failed experiment that led to a decade of problems in the courts. By requiring mandatory sanctions that tie judges' hands, we saw an avalanche of unnecessary litigation.

The majority is wasting time and taxpayer money to make changes that evidence and the experts tell us are not necessary and could actually cause more harm than good. It doesn't make sense.

But consider, Mr. Speaker, how the majority conducted itself on health care for a decade now. Almost immediately after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, 13 Republican State attorneys general filed a Federal lawsuit opposing health reform. That was back in 2010. Since that time, the majority has voted over and over again-- more than 60 times--to undermine the ACA.

CBS News has highlighted that it costs the taxpayers an estimated $24 million a week to run the House of Representatives. Think how many millions of dollars of legislative time the majority wasted on these votes that never had any chance of becoming law under the previous President. They wasted taxpayers' dollars and they wasted precious time. The majority spoke again and again about repeal and replace, and all the while, they didn't have a thing in the world to replace the health care with.

Former Speaker John Boehner recently made that clear, and it wasn't until this week that the majority finally let Members of Congress and the American people see their latest effort--and it would be a catastrophe for families across the country. More and more groups and individuals are lining up against it.

People would be forced to pay more for worse coverage if they could afford any coverage at all. The bill would also defund Planned Parenthood, which more than 2.5 million people, men and women, rely on for lifesaving preventive care, like cancer screenings and STI testing, every single year.

It is truly astonishing that the majority is trying to rush through this bill without a Congressional Budget Office estimate about how much it would cost or what impact it would have on the insurance market.

Let me quote from a Washington Post story this morning written by the great Karen Tumulty:

While it is not uncommon for panels to consider legislation

without the Congressional Budget Office first weighing in,

veterans of the process say that doing so on bills as far-

reaching as the healthcare overhaul is rare and ill-advised.

We don't have any idea how many people would gain or lose coverage without the CBO estimate, but we do know that this bill would take us back to the days before the Affordable Care Act when American people were on their own to try and get health care without any real safeguards in place at all; when families were liable to go bankrupt from heavy healthcare costs in a year's time, and the ACA protects them from that by saying that once an insured person has spent $4,500 a year on health care, the insurance company will pay the rest, and for a family, $12,500 to insure them. That is something so rarely talked about that is in this bill that I think is of vast importance, and we would lose that.

Billionaires would get a tax break, but working families probably couldn't afford health care.

We are rushing through this healthcare bill without a proper understanding of its cost or its impacts. The majority completely skipped the hearing process and, therefore, hasn't heard from experts or doctors or people battling an illness--except, I guess, what is going on torturing people over in the Energy and Commerce Committee where they have been there since, what, over 24 hours now.

So we were encouraged yesterday when we learned at the Rules Committee that White House Secretary

Sean Spicer had said at a briefing yesterday:

Every Member of the House and the Senate will be able to

have their opportunity to have amendments offered through the

committee process and on the floor.

It looks like we are not going to have that opportunity. And I do not have enthusiasm for the notion that we will have an open rule since, under this Speaker we have not had any, and the Democrats long to be able to offer some amendments to this bill. I certainly hope that that might be the case.

Now, the only way that happens is through the open rule. As I said, we haven't seen one of those in Speaker Ryan's leadership. I hope the majority follows through with the White House's promise of an open rule because, more than anything on this, the American people deserve an open and transparent process as this bill moves forward.

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

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would require a CBO cost estimate to be made publicly available for any legislation that amends or repeals the Affordable Care Act which may be considered in the Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means Committees or on the House floor.

The Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce are marking up repeal legislation today. Legislation this significant should not advance through the committee process, let alone the House, without first hearing from our nonpartisan budget experts at CBO on what the cost and overall impact would be.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most enduring symbols of fairness is Lady Justice, who is depicted holding the Scales of Justice that represent fairness in our courts. That central idea is embodied in the fact that justice in the United States of America is supposed to be delivered fairly, without any bias toward wealth or privilege.

It is no secret that sometimes we do struggle to live up to that ideal. We have seen evidence of that far too often recently. But, Mr. Speaker, this Chamber shouldn't be actively working to tilt those scales toward the rich and the powerful, but that is what this legislation would do. Considering these bills wastes their money and fritters away the time we should be spending addressing our crumbling infrastructure and the skyrocketing cost of education.

And, Mr. Speaker, today we got from the American Society of Civil Engineers the new grades on our infrastructure. This year we get a D minus, and we should certainly do better than that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Before I start, I include in the Record a letter from over 20 healthcare provider organizations regarding the danger of cutting certain providers off from title X funding because they also provide abortion with private funds.

February 3, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Senate Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Senate Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Schumer and

Leader Pelosi: As organizations representing health care and

public health professionals and the people they serve across

the country, we strongly oppose any effort to prevent Planned

Parenthood health centers from participating in federal

health programs, including Medicaid and the Title X family

planning program. Any proposal to exclude Planned Parenthood

from public health programs will severely curtail women's

access to essential health care services, including family

planning, well-woman exams, breast and cervical cancers

screenings, and HIV testing and counseling. At a time when

there is much uncertainty about the future of affordable

health care in our country, it is dangerous to cut off access

to the life-saving preventive care that Planned Parenthood

provides to some of our nation's most vulnerable patients.

Planned Parenthood health centers play a crucial role in

improving the health and lives of people across the country.

In fact, 2.5 million women, men and young people rely on

Planned Parenthood for health care every year. For many

women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care--

offering basic preventive services that are fundamental to

women's health and well-being. More than 50% of Planned

Parenthood health centers are in areas with health

professional shortages, rural or medically underserved areas.

In 2014 alone, Planned Parenthood health centers provided

nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings and more than

360,000 breast exams. Additionally, Planned Parenthood

provides contraceptive services for over 2 million patients

and more than 4 million tests and treatments for sexually

transmitted infections, including HIV. These services improve

women's health, prevent an estimated 579,000 unintended

pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality.

Policies that would exclude Planned Parenthood from public

health funding would hurt millions of patients and undermine

health care access in communities across the country.

Limiting access to Planned Parenthood's approximately 650

health care centers across the country would prevent patients

from having timely access to basic preventive health care

services. Approximately 60 percent of Planned Parenthood

patients access care through Medicaid and Title X, in

addition to those who rely on other essential programs,

including maternal and child health programs and Centers for

Disease and Prevention (CDC) breast and cervical cancer

screening programs. In some states, Planned Parenthood is the

only provider participating in Title X, and more than 50

percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in a

medically underserved or health professional shortage area.

Because federal law already requires health care providers to

demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion,

prohibitions on funding for preventive care at Planned

Parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these

life-saving services.

In addition to limiting patients access to health care,

defunding Planned Parenthood is not cost effective. The

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that

approximately 390,000 women would lose access and up to

650,000 patients could face reduced access to preventive

health care within a year should Congress act to block all

Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood

health centers. The CBO also projects that excluding Planned

Parenthood health centers from receiving reimbursement

through the Medicaid program would result in a net cost to

taxpayers of $130 million over 10 years because of the

increase in unintended pregnancies without the contraceptive

care provided by Planned Parenthood. Other publicly funded

health centers would not be able to compensate for the loss

of affordable family planning and reproductive health care

services provided by Planned Parenthood.

Every day, we see the harmful impact that unequal access to

health care has on women and communities across the country,

and we therefore strongly support policies that improve

access to affordable, quality health care. Policies that

would deny Planned Parenthood public health funds only serve

to cut millions off from critical preventive care, and we

strongly oppose any effort to do so. We also recognize this

as part of a broader effort to undermine access to safe,

legal abortion and curtail access to other reproductive

health care by limiting the ability of abortion providers to

participate in public health programs.

Sincerely,

American Academy of Nursing, American Academy of

Pediatrics, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American

Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical

Student Association, American Medical Women's Association

(AMWA), American Nurses Association, American Psychological

Association, American Public Health Association, American

Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of

Reproductive Health Professionals, Doctors for America, GLMA:

Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality.

Midwest Access Project, The National Alliance to Advance

Adolescent Health, National Family Planning & Reproductive

Health Association, National Medical Association, National

Physicians Alliance, North American Society for Pediatric and

Adolescent Gynecology (NASPAG), Nurse Practitioners in

Women's Health, Nursing Students for Sexual & Reproductive

Health, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Society for

Adolescent Health and Medicine, Society for Maternal-Fetal

Medicine, Society of Family Planning.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from myself and 161 other Members to Speaker Ryan opposing the Republican majority's efforts to undermine title X family planning programs and women's access to health care.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: We write to express our grave concern

for efforts to undermine Title X family planning. Despite

promises to focus on jobs and the economy, Republicans have

started the 115th Congress with a total assault on women's

choices, access to care, and economic security by:

Charging ahead to sabotage and dismantle the Affordable

Care Act (ACA) while making no promises to preserve vital

protections for women;

Providing little to no details on their plans to replace

ACA, while making a point to announce that their ACA repeal

package will block access to Planned Parenthood, a high-

quality, long-trusted provider of reproductive health

services;

Rushing to impose and dramatically expand the global gag

rule, harming women around the world; and

Advancing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion

Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7) through the House,

effectively banning private insurance companies from covering

comprehensive reproductive health services.

Now, with their most recent effort to weaken the Title X

national family planning program through the Congressional

Review Act, Republicans have demonstrated that they will stop

at nothing to limit women's access to vital health care.

Sadly, this includes contraception and family planning

services that all women need.

For more than 40 years, Title X has served as a cornerstone

of safety-net care. As the only dedicated source of federal

funding for family planning, Title X allows a diverse network

of providers to deliver high-quality care to low-income,

uninsured, or underinsured individuals and to those seeking

confidential care. In 2014 alone, Title X-funded clinics

helped prevent approximately 904,000 unintended pregnancies,

326,000 abortions, and 439,000 unplanned births. In addition

to direct clinical care, Title X also supports critical

infrastructure needs for health centers, including new

medical equipment and staff training that are not

reimbursable under Medicaid and commercial insurance. This

infrastructure is vital to ensuring safe, quality care at

health centers which serve and provide basic health services

to high-need populations.

Throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations,

Title X has been interpreted to prohibit state actions that

block providers or classes of providers from participating in

a Title X project based on factors unrelated to a provider's

qualifications to perform the required services. The networks

include providers ranging from state, county, and local

health departments as well as hospitals, family planning

councils, Planned Parenthood affiliates, federally qualified

health centers and other private non-profit organizations. In

fact, in instances when states have passed laws to

limit provider participation in Title X, federal courts have

consistently held that those state laws are contrary to, and

preempted by, federal law.

In response to a growing number of states targeting family

planning providers for exclusion from key federal health

programs, including Title X, the previous Administration

proposed the regulation ``Compliance with Title X

Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting

Subrecipients.'' The regulation, which was finalized in

December 2016, helps ensure patient access to family planning

services and supplies through qualified providers by

reiterating that ``no recipient making subawards for the

provision of services as part of its Title X project may

prohibit an entity from participating for reasons other than

its ability to provide Title X services. During the

rulemaking process, the Department of Health and Human

Services received more than 145,000 comments, the vast

majority of which supported the rule.

Women across the United States, and the men who support

them, have had enough. It is unconscionable that this common

sense clarification has become a political football for

members of Congress who want to limit women's access to

comprehensive reproductive health care. We urge you to stand

in support of women and oppose this assault on contraceptive

access and care.

Sincerely,

Judy Chu, Louise Slaughter, Diana DeGette, Frank Pallone,

Jr., Earl Blumenauer, Suzan DelBene, Lois Frankel, Alcee L.

Hastings, Brenda L. Lawrence, Sean Patrick Maloney, Jerry

McNerney, Danny K. Davis, Eliot L. Engel, Raul M. Grijalva,

William R. Keating, Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, Gwen Moore,

Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jan Schakowsky.

Jackie Speier, Peter A. DeFazio, Katherine Clark, Dina

Titus, Linda T. Sanchez, Mike Quigley, Mark Pocan, Grace F.

Napolitano, Alma S. Adams, Mark Takano, Grace Meng, Yvette D.

Clarke, Kathleen M. Rice, Brian Higgins, Debbie Wasserman

Schultz, Pete Aguilar, Betty McCollum, Lucille Roybal-Allard,

Suzanne Bonamici, Luis V. Gutierrez, Raja Krishnamoorthi.

Scott H. Peters, Anna G. Eshoo, James P. McGovern, John

Yarmuth, Wm. Lacy Clay, Gene Green, Jimmy Panetta, Jose E.

Serrano, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Carol Shea-Porter, Jared

Huffman, Nita M. Lowey, Carolyn B. Maloney, Niki Tsongas,

Andre Carson, Jerrold Nadler, Chellie Pingree, Zoe Lofgren,

Seth Moulton, Kurt Schrader, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.

Sander M. Levin, Rick Larsen, Bill Foster, Frederica S.

Wilson, Adam Smith, David Scott, Pramila Jayapal, Paul Tonko,

Kathy Castor, Marc A. Veasey, Ted W. Lieu, Peter Welch, Ami

Bera, Eddie Bernice Johnson, G.K. Butterfield, Steven

Cohen, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Daniel T. Kildee,

Beto O'Rourke, Julia Brownley.

Marcia L. Fudge, Tony Cardenas, Joseph H. Crowley, Marcy

Kaptur, Alan Lowenthal, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Albio Sires, Eric

Swalwell, Joyce Beatty, Ron Kind, Pete Visclosky, Cedric L.

Richmond, Al Green, Darren Soto, Juan Vargas, Mike Doyle,

Bradley S. Schneider, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Raul Ruiz,

Elizabeth H. Esty.

Salud Carbajal, Robert A. Brady, Derek Kilmer, Gregory W.

Meeks, Emanuel Cleaver, Theodore E. Deutch, Mike Thompson,

Hakeem Jeffries, Adriano Espaillat, David N. Cicilline, Tim

Ryan, Val Butler Demings, Adam B. Schiff, Brad Sherman, Rosa

DeLauro, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jim Himes, Donald Norcross,

Michelle Lujan Grisham, Matt Cartwright.

John Conyers, Jr., Gerald E. Connolly, Debbie Dingell,

David Loebsack, Stephen F. Lynch, Keith Ellison, Mark

DeSaulnier, John Garamendi, Denny Heck, Jamie Raskin, Nydia

M. Velazquez, Sheila Jackson Lee, David E. Price, James R.

Langevin, Colleen Hanabusa, Robin L. Kelly, Terri Sewell, Ben

Ray Lujan, Josh Gottheimer, Susan Davis.

Cheri Bustos, Michael Capuano, Jacky Rosen, Norma J.

Torres, Donald M. Payne, Jr., A. Donald McEachin, John Lewis,

Joe Courtney, Ruben J. Kihuen, Brendan F. Boyle, Jared Polis,

Ann McLane Kuster, Jim Cooper, Charlie Crist, Anthony Brown,

Filemon Vela, Ed Perlmutter, Lisa Blunt Rochester, John

Sarbanes, John B. Larson.

Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the majority is in the midst of an unprecedented and relentless assault on women's health--and many other regulations while we are at it--that are being overturned every day here.

Although it pledged to govern by prioritizing jobs and the economy, the majority is, instead, escalating its war on women with H.J. Res. 43, a dangerous continuation of its never-ending crusade against access to health care for women.

The majority started the 115th Congress by moving quickly to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, a law that finally barred insurance companies from treating women as being a preexisting condition. Without this law, women once again would pay a higher rate for coverage than men.

Think about that for a moment. If everybody doesn't know it, before this law, single women paid from 10 to 57 percent more than men for their health insurance in States that allowed gender rating. A lot of people don't understand this, but it costs American women nearly a billion dollars every year. But Republicans are rushing to repeal the Affordable Care Act without anything to take its place.

The majority has also advanced H.R. 7, a sweeping bill that would go beyond even the Hyde amendment, a 40-year provision that has been around for four decades too long.

This legislation wouldn't just make this amendment permanent; it would also place unprecedented limits on women's access to reproductive health services even if they wanted to pay out of their own pockets to access constitutionally protected abortion services.

These moves by the majority, along with the President signing a dramatic expansion of the global gag rule immediately after taking office, have brought millions of people pouring into the streets in protest.

During the National Women's March, millions of people marched all across the country and even around the globe to defend women's rights. These marches were likely the largest day of protests in American history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here in the Nation's Capital. They were peaceful, without a single arrest reported anywhere in the country.

Far from respecting those rights, the majority is today considering a measure that marks an entirely new front in their war against women's rights. This is the most serious threat facing women so far in this Congress, and it is only February.

Programs supported by title X help provide lifesaving preventative healthcare services like contraception, cancer screening, and STD testing to the men and women who need them most.

It is outrageous that the majority today is trying to allow conservative State legislatures to pick and choose who can provide this essential care with Federal money. That is one of the worst things in the world. The luck of the draw of where you live will determine whether or not you have access that is entitled to all people from the Federal money. This would threaten health centers from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing the same problem today we faced for a very long time: men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can and should do when it comes to their own health. They believe the majority of persons--women--in the United States are incapable of making their own decisions.

Do you think that about your own mother or your wife?

Because Washington, D.C., is controlled by this Republican majority, the stakes for women are higher today than they have been in generations, as we turn over laws passed by the elected government of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders in Congress turn a deaf ear to the majority of Americans who oppose this dramatic government intervention into women's health care. They, unfortunately, have the votes to pass it, but they will have to reckon with the overwhelming majority of the public who understands it is time for the government to get out of the business of taking away women's healthcare rights.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a personal moment to speak about the departure of a long-time member of my staff on the Rules Committee. I have always believed that this committee is like family and that we have one of the most respected staffs on Capitol Hill. Adam Berg, the deputy staff director and counsel on the Democratic staff personifies this.

After a decade of working for the Rules Committee, Adam is beginning a new chapter on a different committee in the House of Representatives. His knowledge and guidance these last years have been immeasurable.

During his time here, he has married his wife, Erika, who is beautiful and talented, and became a father to his daughter, Ariel, who was singing songs with her mother at the age of 3 months. That is a precocious child.

Adam has played a key role as this committee brought landmark legislation to the floor of the House, including Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act, and legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage.

The committee wouldn't have been as effective without Adam's counsel, and he will be greatly missed. I wish him nothing but the best in his new endeavor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I think I need to make this point one more time. I really believe that everybody in this House understands that not a dime of Federal money is used for abortions. It never has been, never will. There is meticulous care taken by Planned Parenthood to separate those funds. They have never been questioned in any way by the IRS as to how those funds are being used.

I am sick and tired of everybody saying you can't give anything to Planned Parenthood. The money that goes to Planned Parenthood from this Federal Government goes to reimburse for services rendered for the things I had talked about before: cervical cancer tests, cancer tests of all sorts, and health care that they cannot get anywhere else, such as screening for STDs. That is totally separate.

Yet, that fable that Federal money is used for abortions if you fund Planned Parenthood is totally false. I think it is time that grownups that can read in the House of Representatives do away with that notion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence community regarding the foreign interference in our most recent election. The fears have only been compounded by the troubling revelations published in The New York Times last night that members of the Trump campaign had been in frequent contact with Russian intelligence officials during that campaign.

Mr. Speaker, the future of our democracy is at stake. We are seeing the

same kinds of things that have happened all over Europe, as governments have been changing away from democracies. It is at stake here, and it is time this Republican-controlled Congress does its job and gets to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate foreign interference in our 2016 election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of meeting hundreds of constituents who traveled from Rochester, New York, to Washington, D.C., for the Women's March on Washington. Some of them came with three generations, and it was most impressive, but it is troubling to me that we are fighting many of the same battles that were fought and won generations ago.

The unprecedented marches and rallies that have been happening are necessary because of efforts like this to continually chip away at women's healthcare rights. The sad reality is that politicians have always worked to put up new roadblocks between women and their health care. It has always been my personal belief that when faced with a decision that needs to be made about a pregnancy, a woman should consult whomever she chooses--certainly her husband, her spiritual adviser, her medical adviser, but no one wants to wait in the room until a Congressperson gets there to make the final decision. We are going way beyond our depth to try to make that decision for persons. The government should not be in the business of doing that. The majority has made attacking women's constitutional rights the first order of business this year, working alongside our new President, and it is shameful.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the other measure before us today would repeal the Alaska predator rule which protects the interests of all Americans in national wildlife refuges while banning some of the most inhumane tactics for killing, like killing black bears from an airplane and killing coyote pups in their dens. We should be listening to scientists who study and understand these species, not an ideological minority that sees every animal with teeth as a threat to civilization and a potential addition to their trophy hunting collection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote numbers 66 and 67. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on both.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 62, 63, 64, and 65. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on vote numbers 62, 63, and 65. I would have voted ``aye'' on vote number 64.

Personal Explanation

I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable to me that the majority is prioritizing a repeal of the Affordable Care Act as its top priority for the 115th Congress as the Nation's infrastructure crumbles and as the cost of education continues to skyrocket. It is particularly outrageous that this budget puts the wheels in motion, as my colleague has said, for a repeal of the healthcare law without there being anything to take its place.

This budget would also increase our Nation's debt by $9.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Apparently the party that has tried to claim the mantle of balanced budgets for years doesn't really care about fiscal responsibility.

It is the first step toward defunding Planned Parenthood, which serves 2.5 million patients--men and women--across the country every year and provides preventative care, like birth control and cancer screenings. It seems to me, for the majority of my adult life, I have been trying to defend Planned Parenthood. The excuse given that the community health centers can pick up the slack is so enormously wrong that the community health centers are scared to death that they are going to be asked to try to pick up that slack of 2.5 million patients. That is absolutely a cover for something that doesn't make any sense at all.

I was shocked to read a study over the summer that found that the rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the State of Texas, since they did away with Planned Parenthood, seems to have doubled since 2010, making Texas one of the most dangerous places in the world to have a baby.

What was happening in Texas during this time?

The State legislature was not only making cuts to family planning clinics where many low-income women received the only medical care they got, but the State was absolutely refusing to expand its Medicaid program, which would have given lower income women desperately needed access to prenatal services.

The point being--and one of the things we talked about last night at Rules--is that, of the many States in which the premiums, they thought, had gone reasonably high, these were also the States that did not expand Medicaid or set up the exchanges, which were intended to cut the costs. While the causes of maternal deaths are complex, certainly leaving women without access to medical care will not do anything to decrease that mortality rate.

Today my Republican friends want to inflict the same harm on pregnant women all over the country by taking away the Medicaid expansion and by taking away money for clinics like Planned Parenthood. I cannot believe that in this day and age and in this century it is even contemplated. I know the American people are paying attention because every day in my office we get between 20 and 30 calls--and have for the last 2 or 3 weeks--begging us not to repeal the ACA.

This agenda has the potential to devastate millions of people from coast to coast. Instead of solving problems, the majority is on the verge of creating new ones for families all across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote numbers 51, 52 and 53. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on Roll Call vote numbers 51, 52 and 53.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote numbers 49 and 50. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on Roll Call vote number 49, and no on Roll Call vote number 50.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote numbers 46, 47 and 48. Had I been present, I would have voted no on Roll Call vote number 46, and aye on Roll Call vote number 47 and 48.

personal explanation

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

Mr. Speaker, down the hall in the old House Chamber stands Clio, Muse of History. Perched atop the room, she is riding the Chariot of Time. She has watched silently over the proceedings of this House since 1807. And in the folio that rests in the crook of her arm, she records every move, large and small, for the benefit of all generations, past, present, and future. What she is recording today is, I am certain, a disappointment.

The proceedings playing out before us today show a blatant, overt disrespect for the time-honored rules of this House, first written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801.

The bill that was supposed to come to the floor today, a bill that would have stripped women of their right to constitutionally protected medical care, was so odious and destructive that some of the women of the Republican Conference rebelled against it. It was based on unsound and fictitious science and caused such a meltdown in the Republican Conference that the House majority pulled it from the floor for fear that it wouldn't pass. But something had to be done because visitors were coming to town for the 42nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.

On this day, there are floods of visitors here in the Nation's Capital to fight against that ruling, to protest that decision, and to raise their clarion call against a woman's right to choose.

In this current Congress, this bill was not brought to us under regular order--as not many are. It had no committee action. It had no hearings, no markup, no witnesses testified in favor or against it, and it came out of the Rules Committee and to the floor today under a closed rule.

One of the ever-ready alternatives came to us late last night, and it is even worse than the one it replaced. It seems that the majority has an endless supply of bills attacking women's health. Can't pass this one? Grab another. Can't pass that one? Just take the next one. Their insistence on attacking women's health seemingly knows no bounds.

Because this bill has not seen any committee action in the current Congress, no one has been able to read it or to weigh in on it or amend it, and some of us would like a clarification on the sordid history of this bill.

In the earliest version of this bill, which was in the 112th Congress, there was a phrase that lit a firestorm across the Nation. It was ``forcible rape.'' The bill was, indeed, the one that would have required women to prove that

their rape was ``forcible'' so it could be categorized as ``legitimate.'' Has nothing been learned here?

The next iteration of the bill, in the 113th Congress, included a provision--and listen to this, America--that would have required the IRS to audit women who had had abortions to ensure that the pregnancy that they terminated had been the result of rape or incest.

This extreme legislation, which is a dust-covered holdover from the last Congress, was originally sponsored by a man, originated from a subcommittee composed of 13 men, and was passed out of the Judiciary Committee with the votes of 21 Republican men. Remember those pictures, America, all of those men sitting there deciding what women's health would be about? It is a perfect illustration of a problem we have had for a long time, that men in blue suits and red ties determine what women can and should do when it comes to their own health or bodies.

This bill is absolutely a solution in search of a problem. As Ms. Foxx pointed out, all this is taken care of. There is no tax money for abortions. The bill in its current form would permanently prohibit low- income women, civil servants, District of Columbia residents, and military women from accessing a full range of reproductive services by codifying the Hyde amendment, which unfortunately already requires no taxpayer funds be spent on abortions except in very limited services. It has been this way for decades. Congress should be repealing these unfair and discriminatory bans, not doubling down on them.

Are these provisions still in the current bill text before us? We have had no chance to check, and it has been awhile since we have seen this bill.

This display is a messaging opportunity and another attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. This bill not only threatens women who buy their insurance on public exchanges with Federal tax credits but also threatens women who use their own private money to pay for their health insurance on the exchanges. Experts tell us this would jeopardize the availability of abortion coverage for all women, no matter where they buy their insurance.

When the House considered this bill in the previous Congress, it was attempt number 49. Today, it is attempt number 55. That is right, ladies and gentlemen, 55 votes the majority has held in this Chamber to take health care away from their own constituents. The House majority has wasted nearly $80 million of taxpayer money to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

Infrastructure money, anyone?

Time and again, we see the House majority turn their backs on the people they represent and force an extreme agenda, one filled with poison pills that would take our country backward, backward to a time when women died from back-alley abortions; backward to a time of women in desperate circumstances seeking illegal procedures performed by strangers with dirty hands in unspeakable conditions; backward to a time when medical choices were not the choice of the woman, but of the public; backward to a time when women who ``got themselves into trouble'' by getting pregnant could not work and could not go to school.

These choices are personal. They are not public. A woman's actions regarding her own reproductive health should include anyone she deems appropriate, not politicians in Washington or State capitals scoring political points off her health care.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say there is no scientific evidence at all. As a matter of fact, gynecologists have all written to us--and we have their statements--that there is no way of fetal pain at 20 weeks.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Chair is correct, and we will do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene) to speak as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that we have heard what is in this bill, but this bill was taken out of the used-bill freezer last night at 9 o'clock, against all the rules, and put on the floor today. We really don't know what is in this bill.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Madam Speaker, we just heard that apparently none of us have read the bill. That is absolutely true. The bill, as I said, was dragged out of the ``used bill freezer'' at 9 last night.

If it is the same bill that we were talking about that has been through for several terms, it still has the idea of forcible rape being the only legitimate rape and that the IRS can audit to see if you were really raped when you had an abortion and to prove that--again, taking women back to the days when everybody said that they could not make decisions and that they had to be made for them.

If this is the same bill that was brought to us, as we pointed out, by a subcommittee of 13 men and voted through the House by a committee of 21 men, then we don't need to read it again, and my understanding is that this is the same bill. It was repugnant then, and it certainly is repugnant now.

On behalf of the men and women of the United States who feel that they have the right to make their own health decisions, I beg the House of Representatives to turn down all of this.

Now, we know that what they are doing, literally, is dismissive of not only 51 percent of the women population--we are the majority population, we women in the United States--but this is certainly, by any account, a misuse of the Chamber's attention, and we are talking taxpayer funds. Believe me, this is a misuse of taxpayer funds.

Now, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow us to strike the 3-day layover waiver, the waiver that was given by the Rules Committee to not do the 3-day layover, but to have something to do on the floor today.

With 23 months left of the 114th Congress, we should be able to run the House in the thoughtful manner that the rules of the House provide for.

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

Now, I am going to urge again for all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule and, by all means, ``no'' on the intrusive, deceptive bill that has been talked about here for 40 years.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I want to thank my colleague for his great work and for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, today, The Wall Street Journal polled the American public and found that these are their top three priorities: creating jobs, defeating ISIS, and reducing the Federal budget deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I insert that piece from The Wall Street Journal into the Record.

[From The Wall Street Journal]

Poll Finds Agenda Gap Between Leaders, American People

(By Janet Hook)

Republicans are trying to burnish their party's image--and

Congress'--by promising to ``get things done'' now that the

GOP controls both the House and Senate. But a new Wall Street

Journal/NBC News poll shows that the public doesn't care much

about some of the first things the GOP, or President Barack

Obama, is trying to do.

The poll conducted from Jan. 14-17 found that two of the

major issues congressional Republicans and the White House

have identified as candidates for bipartisan action--trade

and simplification of the tax code--didn't even make the top

five issues that people feel need to be addressed urgently.

The poll tried to identify the issues that are most

important to Americans by asking which issues they considered

an ``absolute priority'' for Congress and the president to

act on this year, as opposed to issues that they think could

be delayed.

The list was topped by enduring concerns: job creation,

fighting Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, reducing the

federal deficit and securing the U.S. border.

But people are virtually yawning at the prospect of

expanding U.S. trade, a priority for an administration trying

to finalize a new free-trade agreement with Asian and Pacific

Rim countries. Only 20% said that was an urgent priority for

this year, 59% said it could be delayed until next year and

16% said it shouldn't be pursued at all.

``It's a reminder that this is for the most part a very

distant economic issue and it's not one that people focus

on,'' said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who

conducted the poll with Democrat Fred Yang.

The apathy about trade is bipartisan. Only 22% of

Republicans and 21% of Democrats said it was a top priority.

Simplifying the tax code is also an issue that's not a top-

five policy priority for most Americans, but is treated like

a motherhood issue by politicians of both parties. Just over

half polled said it was an urgent priority--less than the

percentage who wanted to make ``efforts to address Iran's

nuclear program'' a top agenda item.

Even some of the issues Washington lawmakers are fighting

over are matters of only marginal concern to many people.

Republicans have acted quickly on a bill to finish

construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and Mr. Obama threw

down his first veto threat over it. But nearly four in ten

people polled said they didn't know enough about the issue to

have an opinion.

The survey of policy priorities underscored another trend

that doesn't bode well for bipartisan cooperation: On all but

a handful of issues, such as job creation and infrastructure

repair, the poll found big disparities in the interests of

the two parties. So, while 67% of Democrats identified income

inequality as an urgent priority, only 19% of Republicans

did. U.S. border security was a top priority for 79% of

Republicans but only 43% of Democrats.

It's not surprising, then, that the poll found people were

down on the idea of having divided government. Mr. Obama and

Republicans in Congress may agree on the need to ``get things

done.'' The problem is there isn't a lot of agreement on what

``things'' should get priority.

Mr. Speaker, why am I bringing that up? The offense, to me, is that there are so many people in Congress who always want to bring up this issue of eating away at Roe v. Wade. They don't have the nerve, I think, really, to try to take that away.

Roe v. Wade gave women a choice, and I believe that, if you don't want to have that choice yourself, don't use it; but what right do people who do not agree with choice have to make it the law of the land--to require everybody to live under what they believe is true?

Now, there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence that at 20 weeks pain is felt. The neural connections are not there to have that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to insert into the Record what scientists-- the executive vice president and others--have said from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in that this is not possible.

January 21, 2015.

Dear Member of the House of Representatives, We, the

undersigned medical and public health organizations, stand in

strong opposition to H.R. 36, the so-called ``Pain-Capable

Unborn Child Protection Act,'' sponsored by Representative

Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-

TN). Politicians are not doctors and should not interfere in

personal, medical decisions.

If enacted, H.R. 36 would ban most abortions in the United

States at 20 weeks after fertilization, clearly before

viability. The bill threatens providers with fines and/or

imprisonment for providing professional and compassionate

care, and is intended to intimidate and discourage doctors

from providing abortion care. This bill places health care

providers in an untenable situation--when they are facing a

complex, urgent medical situation, they must think about an

unjust law instead of about how to protect the health and

safety of their patients.

Politicians are not medical experts. H.R. 36 disregards the

health issues and real life situations that women can face in

pregnancy. Every woman faces her own unique circumstances,

challenges, and potential complications. She needs to be able

to make decisions based on her physician's medical advice and

what is right for her and her family.

H.R. 36 would force a doctor to deny an abortion to a woman

who has determined that terminating a pregnancy is the right

decision for her, including women carrying a pregnancy with

severe and lethal anomalies that may not be diagnosed until

after 20 weeks in pregnancy and women with serious medical

conditions brought on or exacerbated by pregnancy. H.R. 36

contains no exception to preserve the health of the woman.

Instead, it includes a vague life endangerment exception

which exposes doctors to the threat of criminal prosecution,

limiting their options for care that is often needed in

complex, urgent medical situations.

Moreover, H.R. 36 would dictate how physicians should care

for their patients based on inaccurate and unscientific

claims. Conclusive research shows that contrary to the

sponsors' claims, the fetus doesn't have the neurological

structures needed to experience pain until significantly

later in pregnancy.

We strongly oppose governmental interference in the

patient-provider relationship and criminalizing provision of

care to women and their families. H.R. 36 jeopardizes the

health of women in the U.S. by limiting access to safe and

legal abortion and replaces personal decision-making by women

and their doctors with political ideology. Our organizations

urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 36.

Sincerely,

American College of Nurse-Midwives,

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

American Medical Students Association,

American Medical Women's Association,

American Nurses Association,

American Society for Reproductive Medicine,

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals,

Medical Students for Choice,

National Abortion Federation,

National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's

Health,

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health

Association,

Physicians for Reproductive Health,

Planned Parenthood Federation of America,

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine,

Society of Family Planning.

Mr. Speaker, as a scientist, I have learned that this Congress does not take scientific facts as facts but that it views them as, maybe, suggestions. Yet how often it is that we are playing with people's lives. It is the most personal decision one could ever make, and it should be made between the woman, her family, or whomever she wants to consult--her doctor, her priest, her pastor--anybody--but not the Congress of the United States.

Why do men in blue suits and red ties get to make that decision when it has nothing to do with scientific or medical facts? It is absolutely astonishing to me that this continues over and over again; and in the States that have passed 20-week abortion bills, the bills have always been overturned with regard to the constitutional question, and this will be as well.

Time and time again, when asked about it, neurobiology specialists, obstetricians, and gynecologists the world over have refuted the scientific and factual premises of this bill, but nobody cares about that here. I saw a great button that called the people here who are trying to do this today ``gyneticians.'' A ``gynetician'' is described as a politician who knows more about women's health than doctors do.

We can go on with this, but what we need to remember is that, last night, half of the President's speech dealt with people who are underpaid and who struggle to live in America.

Mr. Speaker, let me get right to the chase here.

Barney Frank, our former colleague, said that many people believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.

I want to know how this Congress is going to comply with what the President asked us last night: Will you give more money for child care? for daycare? Will you give more money for early education? Will you make sure that mothers are paid as much as the men they are working with and that the same jobs pay the same? Will you do something about paid sick leave? Will you help these children get to college?

Absolutely not. The record has been clear on all of these issues.

There is something really awful when we take up the time to please the base of some sort out there against all scientific belief and everything that we know about medicine. I wish this Congress would stop the folly. We are faced with a lot of serious problems in this country. Again, as my colleague points out, we have no ability to amend it. Nobody else can be heard on anything else. It is simply going to be voted on; the Senate may or may not ever take it up; and the President will not sign it. It is the same thing that we did over and over in the last session--kill health care.

Do everything you can. Nothing is going to be signed. No bills will be made. It is a shame. I have labeled it before as ``legislative malpractice,'' and that is exactly what is going on with this bill.

I thank Mr. Crowley for yielding to me. There is so much on my mind as to what I could say about him.

I knew him longer than the rest of the New Yorkers. I met him in 1973. I was a member of the Democratic State committee in Rochester, New York, and I was asked by the district attorney to come over to his house and meet a man from New York City who was thinking about running for Governor; so I joined my friends and sat in the

living room for about an hour, awaiting the guest from New York to get off the telephone in the kitchen and come out and talk to us.

He came out. He was perfectly charming, but he didn't know upstate New York. He started by telling us: ``A lot of people are talking to me about running for Governor, and I thought it would be a good idea if I came up here to see what all of you thought.''

I left the house that night, and I said to my friend that I was driving with: ``He is really a nice guy, and he is very smart, but, boy, he needs a lot of help.'' I was really pretty lucky, I think, that I got to do that. As it turns out, Governor Carey ran for Governor at that time, and Mr. Cuomo was appointed secretary of state.

He had some great ideas for upstate New York. One of them was they were going to have an upstate coordinator, which is kind of an amorphous title, but I was very blessed that he let me try that job. I had been out of the workforce. I was home. My youngest child was about 12 years old. It was back in the day when one income could bring up a family and educate them.

And so trying to get back into work and to get back into all of that was pretty difficult for me. And I am not sure anybody else would have put up with me, other than Mario Cuomo, giving me every opportunity in the world to try to learn what it is we were trying to do.

But, boy, did I ever teach him a few things. We had an old State car, a rattletrap. I drove him all over upstate New York, and the conversations we had would absolutely astound you.

We stopped one day in one of our beautiful rural villages in upstate named Pavilion to get a cup of coffee. And a 16-year-old girl came out to wait on us. And here he was: a new person to speak to. Now, those of you who knew him know how exciting that would be. And he started in by asking her, What was the main business in Pavilion? What was the gross domestic product there? He was asking her all these questions. And all she wanted to do was get him a cup of coffee. And I felt a little sorry for her, so I said, ``He is the secretary of state.'' Unfortunately, I forgot the part to say secretary of state of New York. She went back into the kitchen, knowing this man was not Henry Kissinger, and never came back out.

And as we rode around in this old red car, he would ask me about the cornfields. And I will tell you, if my agriculture people knew what a botch I made of trying to explain to him the life of the cornstalk, it was really awful. And he would say things like, How do they heat that house over there? What do you think they do? Where do they all go to school? Everything in the world interested him.

He was the most extraordinary teacher that I have ever had. I just had those 2 years of showing him upstate New York. And then when he got elected lieutenant governor--I ran that upstate campaign--the State Police took over. But we still carried on all these great conversations we had. And I remember one of the policemen said once that no matter how upset Mario was, when he got off the plane and would go 10 miles or 10 rounds with Louise, they were off on a whole other subject.

I learned so much from him. And I know that everybody thinks of him as a one-speech maker sort of a--but let me tell you, that was not it. The speech that he made at Notre Dame was so incredibly wonderful and so important and so instructive that everybody should read that as well. But one of my very favorites was when he made his speech about my hometown of Rochester on Lake Ontario.

He described Rochester as a necklace of neighborhoods clustered around the lake. Now that is talking. And he also talked about life, that our life needed to be more than to just hope always to land on the safe squares. And we thought that was such an incredible thing to think about, that your life had to have more meaning than that.

The people that we worked with at the secretary of state's office who were holdovers from the previous administration had said to me many, many times how wonderful it was for them to be able to work for such a first-rate lawyer. And believe me, he really was.

He loved the country, as Nancy Pelosi pointed out. His love of his family was absolutely legendary. He was a man of deep conviction, of religious faith, who loved his family more than anything. But he also loved the great opportunity that this country had given to him.

He talked so admiringly of his father and the strength that his father and mother had, coming here with literally nothing. And it was the manual labor that his father did to lift himself up and, consequently, his family to a better life, and the country.

He loved New York. He loved its people. He loved its history more than anything. He loved the institution of governing.

So I speak of him as somebody that maybe other people didn't get to know the way I did, but I admired him always. And I am pretty sure I would not be in elected office at all had I not had the opportunity to learn from him, the wonderful opportunity to represent our neighbors and to come down and to try to make law and to make some changes.

So I thank you very much for the time, Mr. Crowley. We will not see his like again.