Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to oppose this bill, the so-called REINS Act, and to urge my colleagues to act now on behalf of jobs for America's workers. Jobs are the lifeblood of our economic growth and that of the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy.

Mr. Chairman, for more than 330 days the Republican majority has failed to put forward a clear jobs agenda, choosing instead to propose initiatives that undermine job creation and only benefit the special interests. Today, as we approach the end of this year, Republicans have again refused to vote to expand the payroll tax cut for the middle class and unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They risk the economic security really of all of us--certainly the 99 percent--but we're all in this together, as our President has said.

Democrats have been clear: We must not go home for the holidays without extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance benefits. We shouldn't be leaving hardworking Americans high and dry over this holiday season without doing their work.

This challenge poses a question: Why are we here? Republicans have chosen to be here for massive tax cuts for people making over $1 million a year--not having $1 million; making over $1 million a year-- 300,000 Americans. Democrats are here for the 160 million Americans facing tax cut uncertainty because of Republican inaction. But Democrats are here for everybody, for all Americans, because we all benefit from a strong middle class with demand injected into our economy to create jobs.

Indeed, if we fail to act now on the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, consider the consequences of that reduced demand to our economy. At least 600,000 jobs will be lost. Don't take it from me. Respective independent economists have stated that. Over 6 million out- of-work Americans would lose assistance in the beginning of next year.

Now, consider if we do act--and act we must--putting more than $1,500 in the pockets of the typical middle class family. And every dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields a return of more than $1.50 in economic growth. What's important about that is what it does to inject demand into the economy.

Money in the pockets of hardworking Americans, that's what we want this Congress to pass, instead of being so completely wedded to the idea that if we give tax cuts to the top 1 percent there will be a trickle-down effect. It hasn't happened.

As we approach the end of this year, Congress has a responsibility to address America's top priority--job creation and economic growth. It's time for us to put the interests of working people ahead of the special interests. We must act now to reignite the American Dream and build ladders of success

for anyone willing to work hard and play by the rules, to remove obstacles of participation for those who wish to do that. We must spur our economy, put people to work, and strengthen our middle class.

Now, we should not go home for the holidays without passing the middle income tax--the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance and SGR. And there are other issues that need to be addressed that affect America's great middle class.

Mr. Chairman, Christmas is coming; the goose is getting fat; please to put a dollar in a worker's hand.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this REINS Act and to get to work to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the American people. Only then will we increase demand in our economy, create jobs, promote economic growth, and put money into the pockets of 160 million Americans. Think of the difference that will make instead of putting forth legislation that has no impact on our economic growth, is not in furtherance of job creation, is not in furtherance of strengthening the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy. We can't go home without the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits for all Americans who need them, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Mr. Speaker, today across the globe, people are marking World AIDS Day. It's an opportunity to reflect upon the progress we've made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, this pandemic, and to rededicate ourselves to ending the disease once and for all.

World AIDS Day is an occasion to remember friends, family members, loved ones, and millions of others lost to the disease. It is a solemn reminder of those still living with HIV/AIDS, whether in the cities of the United States, or the villages of Africa, Asia, or elsewhere. It is a reminder of the need to continue the fight to keep investing in research and medical advances, to stay focused on new treatments, care, prevention, and early intervention--a key element of quality of life; to expand housing opportunities to people with HIV/AIDS and end discrimination.

Yet it's also a reminder of how far we've traveled since the first World AIDS Day in 1988 and the first AIDS diagnosis, which we acknowledged recently on the 30-year anniversary of the first AIDS diagnosis.

In my hometown of San Francisco, we learned early on of the terrible toll of HIV/AIDS, the toll it could take on a community.

But that knowledge, as sad as it was, drove us to action, advocacy, and progress. Because we had suffered so much, we could also become a model for the country and indeed the world with our community-based solutions in regard to prevention, to care, and to research for a cure or vaccine.

This is something I'm very proud of, and really it found its way into legislation: the Ryan White Care Act; housing opportunities for people with HIV/AIDS; increased funding for NIH research; expanded investments in prevention, care, treatment; and an end to the ban on Federal funds for syringe exchange. Something very important if you're going to prevent AIDS.

Beyond our borders, we have extended care to millions in the developing world. Early on in our community, when we would have an AIDS mobilization day, right almost from the start--and Congresswoman Woolsey can attest to this--we understood if you're going to meet the challenge of HIV/AIDS at home, you have to have a mobilization that is global because AIDS knew no borders, but it had to be global.

So we would have these vigils of thousands of people walking in a great solemn way to talk about ending AIDS globally almost right from the start, although we were feeling it very personally, very locally in our community. Beyond our borders--that's why we extended care to millions in the developing world. We increased resources for PEPFAR and the Global Fund. And I commend President Bush for his leadership on PEPFAR and the commitment that he made there.

I congratulate President Obama for the statement that he made this morning which increased funding for the Ryan White Care Initiative that supports care provided by HIV medical clinics across the country and also added funding for the drug program initiative for people with HIV/ AIDS, and his commitment to a new target of helping 6 million people around the world get treatment by the end of 2013. It's very important.

I commend Secretary Clinton for her strong leadership and her statement about ridding AIDS, especially among children, as soon as possible.

The challenges that we have faced over the years, some have disappeared. When I first came to Congress, I was sworn in in a special election, and they told me you're not allowed to speak. You just raise your hand and say, ``Yes, I support and defend the Constitution.''

But then the Speaker, Speaker Wright, said, ``Would the gentlelady from California wish to address the House?'' I had been told not to address the House, and if I did, to be very, very brief. So I stood up and acknowledged my father, Thomas D'Alesandro, had served as a Member of Congress, so he was on the floor of the Congress, and my family, and I thanked them all and my constituents. My one sentence was, ``I came here to fight against HIV and AIDS.'' And that was about it.

Well, my colleagues who had told me to be brief then said, ``Why would you even mention that?'' This was 24 years ago. ``Why would you even mention that? The first thing that you want to say to the Members of Congress when you get here is you're here to fight HIV/AIDS? Why did you say such a thing?''

I said, ``Well, I said such a thing because that's why I came here.''

But I never would have thought 24 years ago that we would project-- really into another generation now--that we would not have a cure for HIV/AIDS. Never would have thought.

But in the meantime, we've reduced discrimination. We've expanded prevention, care, deepened our research, actually mobilized support. Some, like Bono on the outside, using his celebrity to attract attention to the issue. Public policy, whether it's President Bush, President Clinton. And now with this global initiative, and President Obama, we're at a completely different place than we were then when they wouldn't even have an AIDS ribbon in significant places in Washington, D.C. Today we all proudly wear that ribbon.

Again, it's a day of reminder, but it's also a day where we act upon those reminders of the work that needs to be done. And again, it's a global challenge, but it is a very personal issue.

The statistics are staggering, but we think of them one person at a time. And that is what we have to act upon. This Congress has been great on the subject. I hope that we will continue to honor our responsibility.

Again, on AIDS Day in San Francisco today we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of AIDS Memorial Grove.

This is something that this Congress designated as a national memorial. This is of great significance to our community, for sure--I think very appropriately so--and also for the issue of AIDS. So, when you go West, you have to go to the AIDS memorial and see it as a spirit of renewal--a garden, a grove--always with that fresh, new growth. We have it as a remembrance, too, of those who have been lost and as a comfort to their families.

With that, again, Mr. Speaker, I join others in calling to our colleagues' attention and to those who follow Congress the importance of fighting HIV/AIDS as well as its importance to people, to communities, to our country, and to the world for our good health, for our economy, for the success of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to reaffirm a fundamental value of our democracy: elections must be decided by the American people, not the special interests. I come to the floor to defend the right of American citizens to vote in every election. I come to the floor on behalf of clean campaigns.

Republicans, instead, have brought to the floor legislation that would both diminish the

voting rights of Americans and shift control of our elections into the hands of secret corporate donors. Once again, Republicans refuse to focus on creating jobs and strengthening the economy for middle-class Americans, the 99 percent, but are instead pursuing a narrow agenda to benefit special interests, the 1 percent.

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent in a court case called the Citizens United case. Their decision has undermined our democracy and empowered the powerful by opening the floodgates to big, secret money, resulting in a corporate takeover of our elections.

As a result, the Democratic majority in the Congress, working with President Obama, created the DISCLOSE Act. It would restore transparency and accountability to federal campaigns, and ensure that Americans know who is behind political advertisements.

Democrats in the House passed the DISCLOSE Act, but Senate Republicans blocked its progress.

As a result, secret dollars are flowing into campaigns that represent the interests of the 1 percent--not the urgent national interest--to create jobs. Indeed, special-interest groups spent tens of millions of dollars more in 2010 than any previous election cycle.

Today, Republicans want to take it another step further. The anti- reform legislation we debate today strengthens the role of foreign- owned entities and large corporations in funding political campaigns by eliminating the Presidential Election Fund. For nearly 30 years, the Fund has promoted small campaign donations and disclosure. It should be strengthened and reformed, not eliminated.

Likewise, the legislation also eliminates the Election Assistance Commission, which was created in the aftermath of 2000 elections. The EAC should also be strengthened, especially as states across the nation are taking active efforts to enact partisan measures to disenfranchise the rights of American voters.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU: since the 2010 elections, almost 34 states have introduced voting legislation in 2011 that significantly impacts access to voting. These laws have the potential of eliminating or making voting harder for more than 5 million Americans--harming millions of minorities, and hindering the rights of seniors, students, and low income voters.

This legislation is opposed by a broad range of good government organizations, from the League of Women Voters, to Americans for Campaign Reform, to Democracy 21, and U.S. PIRG. In a letter, they have warned against a 2012 presidential campaign ``being dominated by bundlers, big donors, Super PACs, candidate-specific Super PACs, secret contributions and the like.''

Further, polls have found that more than 70 percent of the American people support the continuation of the presidential public financing system.

In our democracy, voters determine the outcome of our elections--not special interests.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to further empower the special interests--the 1 percent--in American elections--and to protect the right to vote for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for taking the time today to bring this important legislation to the floor.

Yes, we did indeed experience an emotional moment to see Gabby open her eyes, but we all experienced an emotional moment here on August 1 when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords came back to the floor of Congress to cast a vote. With all the smiles that we had that day, and we were part of history, we had deep inside of us the sorrow of those who lost their lives last January, and one of those people was Gabe Zimmerman.

So I'm pleased and saddened to come to the floor of the House of Representatives today to join my colleagues. I thank Congressman Fleischmann, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, and the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia for their leadership here and join in a bipartisan way, especially with the leadership of Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz and the Arizona delegation in a bipartisan fashion speaking on behalf of this resolution.

As has been mentioned, Gabe Zimmerman and five others were tragically taken from us on January 8 of this year in the attack on Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. All the Nation watched and prayed.

Today, in permanently naming a room in the Capitol complex after Gabe, we honor his life. As Gabe's mother, Emily Nottingham, said: It's not Gabe's death, but his work and his ideals that should be recognized here.

Gabe's ideals were rooted in service. He worked, as has been mentioned, as a social worker assisting troubled youth, served on the boards of several community organizations in Tucson, and tirelessly assisted the constituents of Congresswoman Giffords. The work that he did made a difference to veterans seeking the benefits they were owed, to families facing foreclosure, and to seniors with lost Social Security checks.

As this resolution notes, there are more than 15,000 individuals serving as congressional staff. In honoring Gabriel Zimmerman today, we recognize all of them for their service.

I want to particularly acknowledge Pia Carusone, who is the chief of staff

for Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, for her leadership in guiding the staff through this tragic time but not for one moment diminishing the concern and the service to the people of the district that Gabby Giffords represents in Tucson.

Today we pray for Gabe's family. His mother, Emily; his father, Ross; his stepmother, Pamela; his brother, Ben; and his fiancee, Kelly. We hope it is a comfort to them to know that Gabe will be forever remembered here in the Capitol complex. When people walk through that complex and they see that name, that signage, whether it is above the door or directions to it, some may ask the question: Who is Gabe Zimmerman? They may not know him by name, but they know him by his sacrifice. We all honor that here today.

May Gabe Zimmerman, of course, rest in peace. May his memory always be a blessing to us. We know that it is, but we want everyone else to know it as well.

With that, I again thank Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz for her leadership, persistence, determination, advocacy, and relentlessness in making this possible. In honoring Gabe, we honor the work of all of our staff, past, present, and future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on behalf of America's working families and for bringing the opposition to this legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, more than 75 years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt signed a bill which created the National Labor Relations Board and said he did so to give every worker ``the freedom of choice and action which is justly his.'' Today we say which is justly his or hers. That was a very important moment for workers because it said that they could negotiate, they could bargain collectively, giving great leverage to workers in our country, and it was necessary.

The freedom of choice in action has rested at the core of a growing, thriving American workforce. It has created the American middle class that has made our country great and is the backbone of our democracy.

This legislation on the floor today undermines freedom of choice in action. It will weaken our middle class, and again weaken our democracy.

For months in Wisconsin, Ohio, and other States nationwide, Americans have seen Republican Governors and legislatures attack teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants. We've seen American workers, union and non-union alike, fight back, inspiring the Nation.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have promoted many myths about their misguided legislation which they're bringing forward today and how it will impact the National Labor Relations Board. So I would like to clarify a few facts.

First, this bill mandates delay rather than minimizes it. It encourages frivolous litigation rather than discourages it. It convolutes and distorts elections rather than simplifying them.

Simply put, this legislation would deny workers their right to a free and fair election to form a union. It adds extensive delays to the process as workers organize with the clear intention of, as my colleague, Congressman George Miller, the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee has said, wearing down workers so they give up fighting for a better deal. It's an age-old tactic. It must be rejected.

At a time when Americans are demanding jobs and job growth, economic

growth for our country, today's legislation is the wrong priority. We need to be solving the problem and challenge of creating jobs, and not adding to the problems, as this bill would do.

There is a great deal of work to be done to reignite the American Dream. Igniting the American Dream is what Franklin Roosevelt did when he signed this bill and many other initiatives of that era. And they corrected many ills in our economy and our society in communities across the country in terms of fairness and American value.

So we want to reignite the American Dream, to build ladders of success for all who want to work hard and play by the rules, and remove obstacles to fuller participation in our economy so that many more workers can participate in America's prosperity.

This is about, again, strengthening the middle class, the backbone of our democracy. Yet this legislation will have the opposite effect of eroding rights and opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his kind words and his great leadership on all of the issues that are important to America's working families.

Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to talk about the balanced budget constitutional amendment, but before I get into my comments specifically to the amendment, I want to acknowledge that the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Smith, has talked about what the deficit was in 1995 and how much bigger it is now and the distinguished maker of this resolution today, Mr. Goodlatte, talked about the problem of having such a big national debt.

Recognizing those two facts, I want to speak up about them.

First of all, if this were just talking about how we can reduce the deficit, the best way to do that is job creation. We know that.

If we want to talk about what happened in the nineties, we have to reference the fact that under President Bill Clinton, the Reagan-Bush deficit that he inherited he turned around, and five of his last budgets, the Clinton budgets, were in balance or were in surplus. He put us on a trajectory, he and the growth of jobs in our country in the public, and largely in the private sector, took us to a path, a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus.

Along comes President George W. Bush and in record time, he reversed that. It was the biggest fiscal turnaround in our Nation's history, taking us to a trajectory of over $5 trillion in deficit, an $11 trillion turnaround. Two unpaid-for wars said the CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That was because of two unpaid-for wars, the Bush tax cuts, particularly at the high end which did not create jobs, and a giveaway pharmaceutical bill to the pharmaceutical industry.

Those were the three main reasons for the big fiscal turnaround and how we got deeply in debt. I don't remember a lot of complaints coming from the Republican side of the aisle while President Bush was taking us down this path. Mr. Goodlatte referenced two paths. Well, this is one path that President Bush took us down, so now we have to deal with that because the deficit is a concern to all of us.

We believe that the best way to deal with that is what President Clinton did, which was to have a great economic agenda to generate jobs. Yet here we are, nearly 320 days into the Republican majority, and they have taken no action on any serious job-creating bills. Here we go again: debating legislation that will not create jobs.

In fact, according to experts, the enactment of this proposed amendment to our Constitution would destroy 15 million jobs, double the unemployment rate, and cause the economy to shrink by 17 percent. As Bruce Bartlett said recently, former economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan and to President George Herbert Walker Bush:

``Even if we were not in an economic crisis and fighting two wars, a rapid cut in spending of that magnitude would unquestionably throw the economy into recession just as it did in 1937.''

This legislation is an attack on our economy, and it is an attack on our seniors. According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it could result in cuts over 10 years of $750 billion to Medicare and $1.2 trillion in cuts to Social Security. These cuts would be devastating to the 40 million seniors who rely on Medicare and Social Security every day. They are even more draconian than the cuts in the Republican budget, which would effectively repeal the Medicare guarantee. And just one week after our Nation celebrated Veterans Day, we are debating potentially cutting $85 billion over the next 10 years from veterans' benefits.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim this is a clean balanced budget amendment. It is not. Because this proposed amendment to our Constitution will require a supermajority in both Chambers of Congress to raise the debt limit, it puts the full faith and credit of the United States of America in the hands of a minority--this after we went through all of the stress and strain and uncertainty and downgrading of our credit rating when we couldn't even get a majority, and now we're thinking of a supermajority vote for the debt limit increase. Again, that was never a requirement when President Bush was President that there would be a supermajority to raise the debt limit.

This amendment promotes further brinkmanship and uncertainty, enshrining extreme ideology into the Constitution at a time when Americans have been very clear that they expect us to set differences aside and to get to work.

It is our duty as Members of Congress--indeed, we take the oath of office--to be the elected guardians of our Constitution, to protect and defend it, and to do no harm to our founding documents. Yet, if this proposed amendment is adopted, it will have far-reaching and adverse consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it was a Democratic President, President Clinton, who balanced the budget in the nineties. Five of his budgets were in balance or in surplus. We can do it again without harming our Constitution, our economy, our seniors, or our veterans. We must start by creating jobs and strengthening our economic growth--a key to reducing the deficit.

It was interesting to me to hear others on the other side of the aisle talk about our children and our responsibility to them. Yes, that's what we said when President Bush was amassing his deficit, but I didn't hear anyone on the other side of the aisle talking about that.

This is about our Constitution. We owe it to the vision of our Founders, to the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, and to the aspirations of our children to get our economic and fiscal houses in order. This is the exact wrong way to do it. We must reignite the American Dream, and we have work to do on that. So let's get to work to create jobs so that many more people can achieve the American Dream.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am pleased to join my colleague, Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who's been relentless in calling for this day. And to our colleague from Missouri (Mr. Clay), thank you for your leadership on all of this as well; and to our colleagues on the other side, the ranking member on the Banking Committee, and Mr. Pearce as well, who spoke about this.

We have come together in a bipartisan way for a very patriotic occasion for our country. What a thrill it will be when we can tell our constituents we were there to vote for this important resolution which will, as we all know, call for directing the Treasury Secretary to strike a single gold medal of appropriate design in honor of the Montford Point Marines. How exciting.

I know that many of those marines or their families are here on Capitol Hill today. We look forward to welcoming them to a ceremony where these medals will be bestowed. I only wish that all of the marines who served and were willing to sacrifice their lives for our country could be here--all of them the subject of the respect and honor that we pay. This is just another example of some of the inequality that existed in our country earlier on, and it's long overdue for us to redress some of that.

We've had occasion in the rotunda over the last few years to recognize the work of President Truman when he called for the desegregation of the military. Colin Powell--General, Secretary, National Security Adviser; he has many titles--was here with us that day. We've had occasion to honor our Tuskegee Airmen on another occasion. So it is long overdue to, again, take this step to recognize the important work that all Americans played in their most important responsibility--to protect and defend.

I will say this to all of the marines who approached me about this legislation outside the Congress. Every time they did, I said that Corrine Brown and Lacy Clay have already gotten to us. Corrine was absolutely relentless on this, and we're all here because of her leadership and the work of the members of our Congressional Black Caucus and the bipartisan support that we have. Of course, we wouldn't be on the floor without the leadership of our Speaker, who enabled this bill to come to the floor.

It's a proud day for the Congress. We look forward to an even prouder day when these medals will be bestowed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to St. Monica's Catholic Church in San Francisco's Richmond District on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary. The Anniversary Mass will be celebrated by Bishop Robert McElroy and Fr. John Greene, pastor of St. Monica's Church and chaplain to the San Francisco Fire Department.

The Richmond District of San Francisco had expanded after the 1906 earthquake and its Catholic residents needed a congregation. St. Monica's Parish was founded in January 1911 and the church was built in 1918 funded by donations of the parishioners. From its humble beginnings, when the Richmond District was made up of mostly Irish- American and Italian-American residents, the parish has become a spiritual home to an ethnically and culturally diverse population.

St. Monica's School was founded in 1919 by the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary. It is a co-ed Catholic elementary school that welcomes students from all faiths and cultural backgrounds and well represents the cultural diversity of its neighborhood.

It was my privilege to attend the June 2011 funeral Mass for fallen firefighters Anthony Valerio and Vincent Perez officiated by Fr. John Greene. Each year a Mass is held to commemorate the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. Many of these masses are held at St. Monica's because it is a favorite church of San Francisco firefighters for weddings as well as funerals.

All San Franciscans are grateful for Fr. Greene's leadership and his dedication to our first responders. The individuals and families in Fr. Greene's parish have been blessed with a Pastor who has strengthened their church and school, built community and inspired their love for service and their love of God.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a dear friend, consummate professional, and proud San Franciscan: Rollin Post.

Rollin Post was a portrait of persistence, honesty, passion, and strength in his life, in his work as a reporter and commentator, in his love of politics and family.

For more than four decades, working behind the scenes for L.A.-area news radio and reporting on-air in San Francisco, Rollie set the standard for excellence in political journalism; in asking tough questions and always seeking the truth, he did our city, state, and nation a great service.

It was a true privilege to get to know Rollie on a personal level over the years; indeed, I was honored to call him a friend. He was a fixture from my earliest days in public life in San Francisco and in California. Later, we worked together to put on the annual `The Party's NOT Over' event, a bipartisan gathering of Democrats, Republicans, and the press to raise money for minority journalism scholarships. He was held in high esteem and respect by our entire family.

Rollie brought the news to the public; he translated current events into terms all viewers and listeners could understand and appreciate; in the spirit of the best in journalism, he never failed to keep the Bay Area informed about politics and government. He was original and widely beloved, and his voice will be sorely missed.

I hope it is a comfort to his wife, Diane, his children and grandchildren, his family and friends that so many share in their grief at this time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving me this opportunity.

As a mother of five children, when I brought my baby, my youngest baby, number five home from the hospital, that week my oldest baby was turning 6 years old. The birth of a baby is such a jubilant occasion, and women's health is essential to the health of families and raising our children in a way that has respect for all of them.

It's very interesting that we're taking this bill up now when the American people are calling out for jobs. Their number one priority is the creation of jobs, and once again we come to the floor of the House with a major distraction that ``ain't going nowhere'' in order to cater to an extreme agenda of the Republican majority.

The American people want us to take up jobs. They want us to take up the American Jobs Act, which three-quarters of the American people say they want us to consider. It would create nearly 2 million jobs. Or we could vote on the China currency legislation which would save 1 million jobs and has the support of the majority of the Members, including 61 cosponsors from the Republican side of the aisle. But again, instead, we are pursuing the Republicans' ideological agenda, forcing us to relitigate a very divisive issue.

Every woman in America should be very concerned about this assault on women's health. Let us begin the debate with a very clear understanding of the facts. The Federal funding of abortion is already, and has been for a long time, prohibited under the Hyde amendment, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act prohibits the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. That is why the Catholic Health Association said: ``We are confident that health care reform does not allow Federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike.'' I repeat, the Catholic Health Association said: ``We are confident that health care reform does not allow Federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike.''

This bill is a radical departure from existing law. It represents an unprecedented and radical assault on a woman's access to the full range of health care services. For the first time, this bill places restrictions on how a woman with private insurance can spend her own private dollars in purchasing health insurance. As a result of this bill, millions of women using health insurance exchanges are likely to no longer have access to insurance policies that cover all reproductive services.

Furthermore, supporters of this bill falsely claim that this bill is simply a restatement of the Stupak amendment considered by the House in 2009. It is not. This bill is very different from the Stupak amendment. It appears that health care providers could withhold care for women with life-threatening conditions. In other words, a woman could be dying on the floor of the hospital and, when you vote for this bill, you will be saying that caregivers would not allow medical professionals to treat that woman and keep her from dying.

The Obama administration has come out strongly against this legislation, rightly saying it intrudes on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today.

So just a few points again:

Public funding of abortion is prohibited under the Hyde amendment except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother;

The Catholic Health Association says: We are confident the Affordable

Care Act ``does not allow Federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike''; and

Third, it is not the Stupak amendment.

This legislation is bad public policy. It's the wrong priority for Congress. It's an assault on women's health, and women should know that. It prevents them from using their own dollars to buy their own private insurance should they be part of an exchange.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and implore the Republican majority to turn their attention to what this country needs, and that is jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his great leadership on protecting American workers while promoting the global economy which we are proudly a part of.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as we consider the Colombia free trade agreement, to make the following statement:

Much has been said about this agreement creating 6,000 jobs in the United States--6,000 jobs. Now, we want to fight for every single job for the American people. But it is ironic or strange to hear a big fuss about we have to do this because it's going to create 6,000 jobs, when the leadership of this body is totally ignoring the fact that we are losing 1 million jobs--1 million jobs--because of the China currency bill.

When it was discussed that these bills would be brought to the floor, many of us said we shouldn't even be considering these bills: 6,000 for Colombia, perhaps 70,000 for Korea, maybe 1,000 for Panama, 77,000 jobs. That's significant if, in fact, those numbers really bear out. But let's assume they do for a moment.

We're making a big deal out of 77,000 jobs, which are a big deal. But how much bigger a deal is it to say we're ignoring the fact that we are losing over 1 million jobs per year because of the China manipulation of their currency?

The distinguished Speaker has said, if we push this bill, we will start a trade war with China. My, have I heard that song before. Many of us have been fighting for a better relationship with China in terms of our trade relationship, and for at least two decades we've been fighting for opening of our markets to China to stop the piracy of our intellectual property. The list goes on.

But this manipulation of currency, okay, the Speaker says we're going to start a trade war. Twenty years ago, when we started this debate, following Tiananmen Square, our trade deficit with China was $5 billion a year. We tried to use our leverage with most favored nation status to get the Chinese to open their markets, stop pirating our intellectual property, et cetera, and everybody said, if you do that, you will start a trade war. Just let the natural course of events take place.

Well, we didn't start a trade war. But do you know what China's surplus with the United States is today, what our deficit is with China? $5 billion a year two decades, 20 years ago when we fought this fight and lost. It's now $5 billion per week, over--more than $5 billion a week. Over a quarter of $1 trillion in surplus does the Chinese Government enjoy in their relationship with the United States.

So you're telling me that if we say, ``We want you to act fairly in terms of your currency,'' that they're going to give up a quarter of $1 trillion in surplus, much bigger exports to the United States, but in surplus.

This manipulation of currency is the subsidy of the Chinese Government for their products. By subsidizing their exports, they make it uncompetitive for us, not only in the U.S.-China bilateral trade relationship, but also in the global marketplace where we have to compete. Our exports have to compete with China's exports, and they have subsidized their exports on the manipulation of about 25 percent of their currency, 25 percent manipulation.

This is just not fair; a million U.S. jobs. So when our colleagues make a fuss about 6,000, every one of them is precious to us, yes, but why are we missing in action when it comes to a million jobs if 6,000 jobs are so important? And I agree, they are.

Last night in the Senate, they passed this legislation. They passed legislation to take action if China continues to manipulate their currency. We shouldn't even be talking about any trade bills until we do the same. They're not voting on Colombia, Korea, and Panama before they voted on China. They did that. They staked their claim for the American workers.

The Speaker says we're going to start a trade war. The Chinese Government started a war with America's manufacturing sector a long time ago. They've undervalued their currency, as I've said. They've violated intellectual property rights. They've subsidized target industry. They've dumped their products into our country. This is a

one-way street to the disadvantage of American workers.

Look, many of us, when we grew up, we dug a hole in the sand at the beach and we said we were going to reach China if we were digging far enough, if we dug far enough. It's a country that we want to have a brilliant relationship with culturally, economically, politically, in every possible way, economically, too.

But when are we going to call a halt to something that is so obvious? We're talking about not an 800-pound gorilla, an 8-ton gorilla that is lying on the floor of this House that we want to ignore so we can talk about 6,000 jobs and 70,000 jobs, which are important. I don't want to minimize that. But why are you minimizing a million jobs at least that would be affected?

It's funny to me because when we were having the fight on most favored nation status for China, we were winning every vote; we just couldn't override the Presidential vetoes. And so they had to change the name. You've heard the expression, PNTR. Do you know what that means? It went from most favored nation, which they said that sounds-- we can't win that argument, to permanent normal trade relations.

You know what that means? Surrender all your leverage in the trade relationship. Surrender because this is a permanent normal trade relationship. So when specific things come up like the manipulation of currency--and, by the way, other Asian economies peg their currency to China's currency; so we're getting an onslaught of this. It's really, really important for us to say: Whom are we here for? Whom are we representing?

We have a Make It In America agenda to grow and to strengthen our industrial and manufacturing base in our country. Exports are essential to our success economically. Small businesses are essential to the success of our economy. Small businesses want to export as well. But why are we saying to small business people, to our industrial workers and to our manufacturing base, you are now going to go into an arena which we have subscribed to that makes you engage in an unfair relationship because we will not speak out against this manipulation of currency?

Sixty-one Republicans are cosponsors of the bill. It has bipartisan support. The Senate has passed the bill overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. They took it up first as a premise planting a flag, staking a claim for the American worker before they went on to consider other trade agreements. Why can't we do that in the House? I think we should call a halt to voting on any of these things until we say to the American worker, we're on your side. We're on your side when it comes to these trade agreements.

We recognize that trade is very important to us. President Kennedy is part of the legacy of all of us here talking about America as important in the world economy and free trade. Fair trade, I like to think, is part of that. But after 20 years of violations of our intellectual property, subsidizing their projects--the list goes on and on--we just sit by and say we're going to start a trade war if we do something about the war on America's manufacturers that the Chinese already have done.

Remember, 20 years ago, they made the same claims, $5 billion a year. How did that work out for us? Today, $5 billion a week at least. So the Chinese are going to walk away from a quarter of a trillion dollars in profits? I don't think so. Let's stop riding that tiger. Let's do the right thing for our workers. Let's not even consider any of these trade agreements.

Since we're talking about Colombia, I want to say the following. I really wanted very much to be able to vote for this legislation. I was very hopeful when the two governments, Colombia and the U.S., negotiated the U.S.-Colombian action plan related to labor rights. They addressed labor concerns to start the process of ending the abuses. But that didn't happen. The administration was advocating for this, but the leadership in the Congress said, no, and leadership in this House said no, we're not going to put language in the bill, the language that the two governments negotiated to address the labor concerns. If it's not in the bill, it doesn't exist. If we're going to implement this action plan, it has to be part of the legislation, or else we're just saying it's an incidental, it's something on the side. That's not fair to the workers in Colombia or to the workers in the United States.

So when the commitment made by our government and Colombia to each other was not included in the bill, I lost my faith in the legislation. I hope that today we can get a vote on China's manipulation of currency, get a Colombia free-trade agreement that can work for Colombian workers and U.S. workers, and get a trade policy that recognizes that it's a competitive world. We intend to be number one, we intend to be innovative, and we intend to educate our workforce so that our entrepreneurial spirit can prevail. It could be a very exciting time--something new and something fresh, instead of reverting to the same old same old ways.

So I urge my colleagues to urge the leadership of this House to take up the China currency bill before we consider any other trade bills.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 766 I was detained at an official event. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Rush

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 767 I was detained at an official event. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall 765, I, along with Mr. Hoyer, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Smith, and other Members, was present at the decommissioning ceremony of Commander Mark Kelly, who was there with his wife, our colleague, Gabby Giffords. For that reason, we missed that rollcall vote.

For myself, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the motion to table the resolution.

I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 766, the Waxman bill, to protect our children from mercury.

I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 767, Mr. Rush's amendment.

My colleague, the distinguished Democratic whip, says that he and Ms. Wasserman Schultz would have voted similarly.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I commend her for her enormous leadership, patience, and great intellect that she brings to bear on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, it's really almost hard to explain to someone why we're coming back tonight with the same old, same old warmed-over stew that was rejected yesterday by the Congress of the United States. But since then we've had some support expressed for the initiative that is contained in this bill and against the notion that our Republican colleagues have that it's a good idea to use this as a pay-for.

I take particular pride in this provision that the Republicans are trying to zero out in this bill, the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program.

You will recall, Mr. Dreier, that it was part of a bill that was passed when President Bush was President. It was the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It was a bill that passed the Congress with strong bipartisan support, including your support, Mr. Dreier. In fact, 95 Republicans voted for the bill. It was an even split in the Republican Caucus, 95 for, 96 against. But you recall voting for that.

No, I'm sorry, because you have a half an hour and I don't.

The gentleman has all the time. For some reason the Republicans are not showing their faces on the floor on this amendment. He has plenty of time on this bill, plenty of time to speak. If he didn't, I'd be more than happy to yield to him, but since he has so much time on his own, he can use that.

In any event, here's the thing. We have an initiative that is bipartisan. We have an initiative that has passed the House in overwhelming numbers, 314-100; 314-100 it passed the House after coming back from the Senate.

Yesterday, there was an attempt made to use the funds allocated to the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program to offset the disaster assistance. I myself believe it is a matter of principle that we should just do with disaster assistance what we always have done, have no doubt in anyone's mind that when a disaster, a natural disaster strikes, the Federal Government will be there, FEMA will be funded, and that we don't have to look around for a place to say, let's prioritize. No, the disaster assistance is our priority.

But on top of that, they use as a pay-for, again, zeroing out the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing. I don't want you to take my words for the merit of this initiative. I want to quote for the record the letter from the United States of America Chamber of Commerce and the letter from the National Association of Manufacturers.

First from the Chamber of Commerce:

``As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes to highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program. First, the program was authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was supported by both Republicans and Democrats as an important step in reducing America's dependence on oil from unstable regimes. Second, ATVM loans, which will be repaid with interest, incentivize automakers and suppliers to build more fuel-efficient advanced technology vehicles in the U.S., providing new opportunities for American workers in a sector of the economy that is critical to the Nation's recovery.''

Then they go on to say that this is funded by the Department of Education, and that it's not the fault of industry if these funds have not been used.

In the NAM letter, National Association of Manufacturers, they say similarly:

``We express our support for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program, authorized under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bush.''

It was a very proud day for us when President Bush signed this bill. It made tremendous advances in energy efficiency and conservation. It was a great accomplishment of the Bush administration and a Democratic Congress working together, but the bill passed in strong bipartisan fashion.

``The ATVM program is an example of what government/industry partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs and put our Nation on a path towards greater energy security. The NAM believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.''

I will submit the rest of the letters for the Record so Members can read further for themselves in the Congressional Record; and for all who view the work of Congress, they can see the importance of these initiatives, first by the strong bipartisan support that they received in a Democratically controlled Congress but signed by a Republican President, President Bush, a very major accomplishment, I think he believes.

The second point, though, is that, again, American people are looking for ways for us to create jobs. The Republicans have been in power in this Congress in this House of Representatives for over 250 days. They have not passed one bill into law which is a job creator; and today, they come back to the floor a second day in a row with a job destroyer. The repetition of it is almost frivolous when you think that what we could be talking about here is a clean CR, a clean continuing resolution that will meet our needs to November 18.

I thank Chairman Dicks for his leadership on this important issue, Mr. Levin, certainly Mr. Dingell, who was a champion of this initiative from day one and a leader in the fight to preserve it here.

It could just have been so simple. Let's just keep government open until November 18 with a clean continuing resolution instead of coming to the floor and for the first time.

Now my colleagues will say, Well, we've had other emergencies that were funded. I'm not talking about emergencies. There are many emergencies. I'm talking about disasters. I'm talking about natural disasters when people's homes are swept away. This isn't political. This is very, very personal, if you've lost your home, your belongings, your livelihood, your business, your sense of community, the character of the area in which you live, as many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have done. When you see the nature of the natural disasters, whether it's out-of-control forest fires in Texas, what happened in Joplin, Missouri, which is almost biblical in its proportion, and what happened on the east coast with the earthquake followed by hurricane followed by tornado followed by floods and all that goes with it.

Do you think people think that we have any relevance to their lives if we're talking about something like this when all they are saying is, Help. It's as if a building is on fire and you're going to figure out who is going to pay for the water instead of just running to the rescue.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this and urge my Republican colleagues to please pull this back, bring a clean CR to the floor. Let's get serious about the people's business.

Chamber of Congress

of the United States of America,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2011.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,

and region, strongly supports disaster relief funding to

assist victims of natural disasters. The Chamber is also a

vocal proponent of fiscal responsibility and recognizes that

Congress must make difficult but necessary choices among

competing priorities.

As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes to

highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology

Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program. First, the program

was authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007, which was supported by both Republicans and Democrats

as an important step in reducing America's dependence on oil

from unstable regimes. Second, ATVM loans, which will be

repaid with interest, incentivize automakers and suppliers to

build more fuel-efficient advanced technology vehicles in the

U.S., providing new opportunities for American workers in a

sector of the economy that is critical to the nation's

recovery. Third, the fact that the Department of Energy has

yet to use the funds Congress appropriated for the program is

not the fault of industry; numerous loan applicants have been

in the queue for years, waiting for the Administration to

complete its due diligence.

Again, while the Chamber understands the importance of

reducing America's unacceptable debt and believes that all

programs must be on the table, the Chamber urges you to bear

in mind the facts about the ATVM loan program, which promotes

manufacturing in the U.S. and is an important component of

America's energy security.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate him on his tremendous leadership as the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

When he was speaking today, I was thinking back to when I was a relatively new Member of Congress--not even here 2 years--when we had the Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was shocking to us. Of course, it was a complete surprise--a terrible natural disaster. The Bay Bridge was out of commission and cracked. The homes were on fire for days and days and days--a true natural disaster.

When I came to the floor when this issue was brought up by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Honorable Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, he came to the floor; and with his words of comfort and assurance to the people who were affected by this natural disaster, his comments made all the difference in the world. In listening to him, no one had any doubt

that the Federal Government was going to honor its commitment to the American people: that when in time of natural disaster, we will be there. We have a compact with the American people.

How different the conversation is today when we're talking about saying, when in a time of natural disaster--and by the way, there have been many more natural disasters than in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Loma Prieta, which stretched for long distances in northern California. Today, we've had hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, forest fires still raging out of control in some parts of the country--Texas, until recently, in that situation. I hope that it's under control now or that the rain we all prayed for there is coming.

And what do we do? We come to the floor and say, Now we're going to institute a new policy that says: in time of natural disaster, we're going to have to find some place to pay for it. Now, what's next? Where are we going next to pay for it?

The distinguished chairman has said, well, we've paid for emergencies before and, indeed, we have. I'm talking about something of a much different caliber. I'm talking about a natural disaster. I'm talking about the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund. With all of the disasters that are happening at once, we don't know when the next one will come; but what is frightening also is we don't know where this majority wants to go to pay for it.

I have serious objection to the pay-for in this legislation. I have a bigger objection that we would have to pay for a disaster. We never paid for the tax cuts for the rich. They never were paid for. We never paid for the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. They were never paid for. But, all of a sudden, we have to pay to try to make whole these people who have been affected, who have lost everything. I've visited there. I wish you would. Maybe you have. But it's not that the joblessness story is finished. It's not that as we go to a new disaster, we're finished with the old one. It's just compounded.

Someone mentioned earlier in the election--people talked about this-- that the American people, whether in election or out of election, want jobs; and exactly what this bill does is cut jobs. Instead of creating jobs, which is the number one priority of the American people, this Republican bill will cost good-paying jobs. It's amazing because the bill that we're debating here will cost at least 10 good-paying American manufacturing jobs--Make It in America--and perhaps tens of thousands more by cutting the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program.

I'm not even going to speak too much about it because our colleagues already have. They've talked about how this takes us to the next place in innovation and competitiveness for our country, the next place in technology for cars that will reduce emissions, which will help to stop some of these natural disasters. These loans are proven to be effective. They have already created 42,000 jobs, putting America to work making cleaner, more efficient American cars. We shouldn't have to choose between creating jobs and caring for those struggling in the aftermath of disasters like Hurricane Irene and the earthquake that preceded it and the floods that continue.

One of the speakers, a gentleman whom I respect, said this is a political move. Well, if there is anything that is not political in our country, it is a natural disaster. Do you want to talk politics when somebody is suffering a natural disaster? There is no place for that. At some place, we walk on a ground that is more hallowed than the normal terrain on which we debate, and that terrain is the terrain of the disaster that has affected the American people. If you looked in their eyes, you would feel so helpless that you could not make them whole. You may not be able to provide them the personal effects of their families. I've seen it so many times.

Will they economically be made whole? Will their homes be restored in a way that makes it the home it was before that they loved, that created a sense of community, one home after another? So we're at a very, very sad place for all of these people. We don't know who is next.

What makes me suspicious about what the majority has put into this-- and I want you to know this--is we haven't paid for natural disaster assistance before. They're using this advanced technology vehicle manufacturing. They're taking $1 billion of it to pay for the disaster. There is a half a billion dollars left, and they're rescinding it in this bill. They're eliminating it. So this isn't about paying for the disaster. This is about destroying an initiative that is job-creating, that is innovative, that keeps America number one, that creates good- paying jobs in our country.

It's really hard to understand what the motivation is for that, but one thing is clear--they are using the disaster to eliminate that initiative, and that's just not right. But even if they had the best offset in the world, I still think it is wrong for them to go down a path that says, This time, for your disaster, we're using this technology program. What's next? With all of the disasters that we have, where do we have the room to say, On those days, at that specific time, this is how we'll pay for it?

Let's, instead, do something that gives hope to people, that creates an economic boomlet in these places that have been affected and not a discouragement that they are being treated differently than anybody else has been in time of natural disasters.

I heard the distinguished chairman use the term ``emergency.'' It's a different story. It's a different story. It is with great sadness that we try to meet the needs of people at this difficult time. It's in great sadness that we even have to have a debate about it. I urge our Republican colleagues to withdraw this bill. Come back clean. Let us vote together to address the natural disaster that has afflicted our country, recognizing that we don't know what's around the corner.

As one of my colleagues said, We said we're going to pay for everything.

We don't know what God has in store for us for the next disaster. We hope and pray that, whatever it is, we have the strength to meet the needs of our people in a way that has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with America.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this, reluctantly, because I would love for us to join together but not in its present form.