Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the outsourcers' bill of rights.

This bill would be devastating to workers across this country and kick off a new race to the bottom. The outsourcers' bill of rights is a naked attempt to directly interfere in a pending Labor Relations Board case. Now, there is much to be said about workers' rights and the importance of protecting them; but in the short time I have, let me just say a little bit about what this means for the American economy.

It makes it easier to ship jobs overseas. It eliminates the only remedy to force companies to bring work back from overseas. Companies that make a commitment to the welfare of their employees--well-run companies--and make commitments to their home communities rather than shopping for the latest lowest pay scale someplace in the world actually do better in the long run.

So the outsourcers' bill of rights is not only contrary to the interest of workers; it's bad for our economy at large. We need to improve worker protections, not weaken them. Yet the majority party and the proponents of this bill continue their assault on the rights of working men and women. It doesn't create a single job.

With 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, the majority today continues their ``no jobs'' agenda, bringing to the floor a special interest that is dealing with one particular case rather than creating jobs. It is not good legislative policy to legislate on individual cases. I urge my colleagues to oppose the outsourcers' bill of rights.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act, H.R. 2218, which is a bipartisan bill to reform and strengthen the charter school program.

I recently gave the graduation speech at the Princeton Charter School, a high quality charter that opened its doors more than a decade ago and was recognized as a blue ribbon school by the U.S. Department of Education in 2004. And I was pleased to see the success there. But I urged them to make sure they are well-integrated in the public school system in their community.

We need to reinvigorate America's education system and give each and every child the opportunity to learn and thrive. I am an advocate of alternative forms of education including charter schools. I think these institutions can be viable and beneficial in promoting academic achievement and diversity.

It is important to remember that charter schools are part of the public school system, and we must hold them to the same standards of broad educational access and same standards of accountability--which means we have to be willing to shut down charter schools that fail to meet expectations. Otherwise, charter schools are not true to their reason for being: to inject innovation and experimentation into the public school system. I am pleased that this bill increases accountability for charter schools and ensures states use a schools performance as a primary factor for charter renewal.

I have long believed that charter school innovations and best practices must be shared with other school districts--urban, rural, and suburban school districts alike. This requires work on both sides: outreach by the charter schools and acceptance by the traditional public school system to learn what there is to be learned. I worked with Rep. Polis to include such language in his ALL-STAR Act.

That is why I am pleased that the bipartisan legislation before us today includes provisions to require charter schools to disseminate best practices with other public schools.

This legislation also ensures that States work with charter school authorizers to put in place the quality controls necessary for holding charter schools accountable, including annual performance data and financial audits. These provisions will lead to more replication of high-quality charter schools nationwide.

I share the concerns of some that more can be done to improve the accountability, equity and transparency of charter school, and as we continue to move this bill through the process, I hope additional improvements can be made. But we should all recognize that this bill makes a great deal of progress from the existing program and deserves our support today.

Mr. Speaker, I did not return to Washington in time on Monday September 12, 2011 and missed three votes.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 2076-- Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act (Rollcall No. 699), ``yes'' on H.R. 2633--Appeal Time Clarification Act (Rollcall No. 700), and ``yes'' on H.R. 1059--Protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports (Rollcall No. 701).

Mr. Speaker, this week our nation paused to mark the 10th anniversary of al Qaeda's attack on America. When we remember September 11th, we remember our fear, our shock, our disbelief, our grief. We remember images we wish we could forget. We remember loved ones we wish we could visit just once more. We remember how those who lost a family member channeled their grief and anger into a positive force for change.

In retrospect, we know our fears and our reaction to them were exaggerated. We allowed ourselves to become more suspicious and distrustful, more militant, more divided. And yet September 11th was not only among our darkest hours, but also among our finest.

I remember Todd Beamer of Cranbury, who, along with the other passengers on Flight 93, gave his life to prevent another airplane being used as a weapon against the Capitol or the White House. I also remember ``the Jersey Girls''--Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg--who along with other family members successfully fought to have the 9/11 Commission created. These men and women of 9/11--those who died and those who guard their legacy--remind us all what is great and good about our Nation and its people.

Yet I feel hopeful. September 11th was not only among our darkest hours, but also among our finest. Strangers guided strangers away from the collapsing towers. Across the country, lines stretched around the block of men and women waiting to give blood. For at least a moment, we saw our conflicts and rivalries as what they truly are: small and earnest differences among the brothers and sisters of the American family.

Tragedy has a way of bringing people closer together. It doesn't minimize our differences; it magnifies everything we have in common.

I am hopeful today because I believe that, in spite of all the challenges we face, we still have so much in common. We still remain capable of such great things. As we remember our grief, I hope we also remember our unity--and realize that we are bound together as tightly today as we were a decade ago.

Madam Chair, I rise in reluctant support of this bill.

This bill is, by the conventional standards of the House, an appropriate vehicle for meeting many of the routine needs of the Intelligence Community. However, it completely fails to undertake the kind of probing, large-scale reassessment of the structure, mission, and purpose of our intelligence enterprise in a post-bin Laden era. I regret that Congress has not shown the stomach for the kind of thorough, comprehensive, and brave review of intelligence activities that was undertaken by the Church Committee in the 1970's. Given the events of the last decade, such a review is both long overdue and very badly needed. Despite my strong reservations about what this bill does not but should do, I will support this bill.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, many have expressed deep concern about the security situation in the Middle East. There are many hopeful signs from the so-called Arab Spring, but there are also concerns about the security of Israel and neighboring States.

Several among us and among my constituents expressed concern some months ago about what would happen with a weakened border between Egypt and Israel. And, as we all know, on August 18 several groups of terrorists killed eight Israelis, wounded several more in attacks along the road leading to Eilat.

This is just one example of what we need to pay attention to in the area. Will Egypt become a staging ground for more terrorist attacks against Israel? Can al Qaeda gain new safe haven in any of the countries undergoing massive political change? We hope not, I would like to think not, but it is important that we have good, solid intelligence assessments of the situation.

My amendment would direct the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress within half a year of passage of this law an estimate on the implications of these revolutions for the security of the State of Israel and to report to Congress in a way that is accessible to all Members of Congress on the implications of the so- called Arab Spring and the changes in the countries around the area.

This amendment is for obvious reasons. Israel is an important ally and really is founded on principles of law and fairness and justice, and we want to see those values upheld and extended.

I recognized, in conversations with Chairman Rogers and the ranking member, that an amendment to this legislation is, perhaps, not the best way to accomplish this. So in a moment I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, giving notice to the Chair, but with the understanding that we will make this same request of the Director of National Intelligence by way of a letter and that we will have available to Members of Congress this estimate of this security situation.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member very much for their cooperation on this. They are fully aware of this, which is partly why it is not necessary to offer an amendment to that effect.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, having served on the Intelligence Committee until this year for a number of years, I am very much aware of the constraints that are sometimes placed on the agencies by lots of reports due on lots of dates.

I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to see that we get this estimate done in the most constructive way.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendment.

I would urge my chair to reconsider after he has read this amendment and support us in the passage of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as Hurricane Irene roared through the East, central New Jersey braced for the winds. Our towns and homes were battered by the winds and experienced even more damage from the water. Our thoughts and our efforts are with those people injured and harmed, and our heartfelt sympathy goes to those who lost loved ones, including the family of Michael Kenwood, a rescue worker who died on duty.

Today, water is now coming back to exact further vengeance with even greater floods in some areas in New Jersey. Many are helping, including FEMA--yes, a government agency. Whether it is a natural disaster, a terrorist attack or economic hardships, Americans pull together as a Nation. It is unwise for anyone to suggest that people are on their own to deal with a natural disaster or to find work.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and their staffs for their work to produce this reauthorization bill that makes a good deal of progress from the existing law. I share many of the concerns of our colleagues who want to see even more improvement in the accountability, equity and transparency of charter schools as we continue to move the bill forward.

I have a simple amendment today in this bill that reauthorizes the Charter School Program. My amendment encourages the Secretary of Education to award a priority for green school building practices to ensure that any Federal investment in charter school facilities would improve the energy efficiency and environmental advantages of those schools.

Energy bills are the second highest operating expenditure for schools after personnel costs. So we must do all we can to help schools implement green building practices and reduce their energy costs. My amendment will help ensure that schools spend educational resources on educating students rather than heating and cooling inefficient buildings.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 30 percent of energy consumed in buildings is used unnecessarily or inefficiently. By using green building techniques to eliminate areas where energy is used unwisely and is wasted, a school's operating costs can be reduced significantly. A dollar wasted on inefficient heating is lost forever. A dollar invested in a child will pay dividends forever.

The U.S. Green Building Council supports this amendment and in a letter to me they wrote: ``On average, green schools save $100,000 per year--enough to hire two new teachers, buy 200 new computers, or purchase 5,000 new textbooks.'' They go on to note that green schools don't cost more, but in fact can be built at or below regional cost and operated within existing facilities' budgets and save money.

Now, I'm disappointed that the bill we are considering today reauthorizes only charter school programs. We should be considering full reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We should be considering a public school construction bill. Assisting local school districts with school construction and modernization would help rebuild and upgrade local schools and create jobs.

But I do want to see this amendment included in the bill. It will help schools all across America. It will save energy; it will create jobs; it will improve education.

I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining, please.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman of the committee reads too much into this amendment. It says, in awarding grants, the Secretary is encouraged to give priority to States that encourage green building practices and certification. In other words, if it certifiably will save energy and thereby save the school district money, it should be encouraged. What in the world could be wrong with that?

I would urge my chair to reconsider after he has read this amendment and support us in the passage of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it seems whenever important decisions are made by a few people inside a room inside the Beltway, ordinary folks are not only excluded from the room but seem to be excluded from the minds of the people in the room.

I'm talking about ordinary folks working to keep their heads above water; ordinary folks working to keep their mortgage, keep their homes; retirees living on a fixed income; students hoping to have help in going to college; those who are working to improve people's health and our Nation's energy supply--ordinary folks.

What makes anyone think that a supercommittee of 12 people operating in a room inside the Beltway in November is going to do a better job looking after the interests of ordinary folks.

Mr. Speaker, the default debate is, at its heart, a debate between two visions for America. One side envisions rebuilding our country, investing in jobs and education and infrastructure, and rising from the Great Recession as a stronger and more resilient Nation. The other side accepts a pessimistic vision of a weakened America with a shrunken government--a Nation hampered by deep cuts to the safety net and hobbled by a refusal to invest in our future.

I have no doubt that, in a fair debate, a hopeful vision for America would win out. But the default debate has not been held on fair terms. The Tea Party and their enablers have held America hostage. They have insisted

that, unless Congress enacted their radical, ideological agenda, they would force an unprecedented default on America's obligations and thus trigger an economic collapse.

From the beginning of this debate, I rejected the notion that America's creditworthiness should be used as a bargaining chip. Yet I was willing to support a balanced, fair deal if that was what was required to prevent a default. Unfortunately, today's deal is not balanced. It is not fair. Most of all, it is not right.

The House has voted for vast cuts in government services that ordinary Americans depend on: student loans, unemployment insurance, food safety inspections, highway safety programs, and more. These cuts will force layoffs among teachers, public safety officers, construction workers, and more. These laid-off workers will, in turn, be forced to pare back their spending at their local grocery stores, drug stores, and small businesses, forcing still more layoffs--a vicious circle that threatens to destabilize our fragile economy. We saw in last week's economic reports that job growth has been choked back by cuts in state and local governments. This deal does not help the situation. It hurts the economy.

The deal lays the groundwork for another $1.5 trillion in cuts to come, to be negotiated behind closed doors by an unelected super- committee. Given that the first round of cuts will have decimated discretionary programs, these later cuts will very likely focus on Social Security and Medicare. The citizens who will be hurt most are those who have the least voice in our democracy. After all, when a handful of politicians gather in the proverbial smoke-filled room, the interests of ordinary Americans are nearly always left out.

Yet although most Americans will sacrifice greatly, the most privileged among us will be immune. Favored corporate interests, millionaires, and billionaires will continue to receive special tax breaks as far as the eye can see. That is not the sort of fair, balanced deal that Americans asked for and expected.

As poor as this deal is on its merits, I am even more troubled by the precedent it sets. The Tea Party and their enablers have, by taking the American economy hostage, transformed a routine budgetary authorization into the most dramatic reshaping of government in decades. Today's deal establishes that government by hostage negotiation is a legitimate, effective way to achieve one's political ends. I am frightened by what this means for the future of our democracy.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 92: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

To follow on the remarks of my good friend from Virginia, I must say, this is almost incomprehensible. The Smithsonian as a collection of museums and zoological park and so forth that my colleague talked about is half the picture, and, indeed, if any of those facilities are closed, there will be a lot of unhappy families from Georgia and Tennessee and Montana and all the 50 States.

But it's a lot more than that. The Smithsonian is a collection of research centers that goes far beyond biplanes and folk art and portraits and jewelry and pandas:

The Smithsonian astronomical observatory, one of the finest collections of research scientists in the world for understanding the workings of our universe.

Barro Colorado Island in Panama, in the middle of the Panama Canal, probably the principal research center for understanding the workings of our biological world.

Oh, yes, there would be a lot of unhappy families if this amendment were to go through, but among those 600 positions that would be lost no doubt would be some of the finest scientists in the United States, in fact, in the world, and there would be a lot of unhappy scientists around the world who would wonder, what in the world were they thinking of? What in the world were they thinking in Washington, D.C., when they cut back on these research efforts?

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, last month I gathered almost 200 individuals interested in the arts and humanities to discuss National Endowment for the Humanities and National Endowment for the Arts programs. The turnout was impressive. But considering their eagerness to win endowment grants, it was also a reminder of how tight funding is for these critical programs.

My friend, poet Paul Muldoon, read some poetry to the attendees and reminded all, in his words, the NEA and the NEH are not properly funded. It is a national disgrace. Now, that was before the amendment that is here tonight that would cut the NEA even further.

The NEA and the NEH help ensure a well-rounded education, and result in a well-rounded society. Now, of course the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are different, but they are similar in what they bring to our Nation.

The arts and humanities inspire our children to explore their own creativity and encourage positive development in the course of their educational careers. The arts and humanities are a fundamental component of our society and they, indeed, warrant Federal funding. The arts and humanities help us know ourselves as a people.

Just a few weeks ago, here on this floor, the House approved a bill that increased the spending for the Department of Defense by $17 billion. The total funding for the endowments is hardly more than a percent of that increase in defense spending that was passed. Talk about misplaced priorities.

I'm reminded of the often told exchange between Scientist Robert Wilson, the Director of Fermilab, when he was testifying before the Senate and Senator Pastore. The Senator asked, with regard to a science experiment at Fermilab, whether it would help defend this country against the Soviet Union. Replied Dr. Wilson, no, Senator Pastore, this will not help defend us against the Soviet Union, but it will help make our country more worth defending.

This amendment is based on the premise that arts and humanities are a luxury. The author of this amendment to cut the NEA further says America is impoverished. Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you what would leave America really impoverished is if we strangle the arts and humanities.

We've heard what the arts contribute to our economy. The Americans for the Arts, in its report, Arts and Economic Prosperity, details that the arts support more than 5 million jobs and generate tens of billions of dollars in government revenue.

Arts are good for our cultural development, yes. They are good for our society at large and good for our economic development as well.

I've heard from a number of my constituents on this matter, and nearly everyone has pleaded with me to preserve as much funding as possible for the arts and for the humanities. As one of them said poignantly, ``A Nation without culture is a Nation without a soul.''

I strongly oppose this amendment and other efforts to strangle the arts and humanities in America and to defund the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

As you heard, this appropriations bill provides several hundred million dollars to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Sounds like a lot of money, but it is far less than what is needed for the protection of the environment and of workers for offshore oil and other activities.

The Director of the bureau recently testified that these funds that are missing are needed and that their lack will have a direct and immediate impact on the ability of the agency to hire inspection and permitting personnel.

It's interesting that so eager is the majority to look after the interests of the oil industry that they ruled out of order our amendment which provides one way to make up for these lost funds, this amendment that I would have offered with Mr. Markey of Massachusetts and Mrs. Capps of California had the amendment been in order. So eager are they to look after the interests of the oil industry that they actually work against the oil industry.

So eager are they to look after the interests of the oil industry, that they actually work against the oil industry. The irony is pretty rich here. At a time when the majority is aggressively pushing their oil, oil, oil, drill, drill, drill agenda, they are slashing the very funds that are needed by the bureau to conduct the lease sales and issue the permits and inspect the offshore drilling facilities so the industry can move ahead safely and efficiently.

You know, at a time when we are about, according to the majority here, about to require seniors and the poor to pay more for their health care, and the majority is considering drastic cuts to the social safety net and considering trading away critical parts of Medicare and Medicaid, the majority is prepared to hand out yet another subsidy to the oil industry. They refuse to make in order the legislation that would take 0.02 percent, that is two-tenths of 1 percent, of the annual profits of the top five oil companies to replace the missing $35 million in inspection fees. That amount would fully fund the bureau and would ensure that the agency could effectively and efficiently issue the permits and conduct the safety inspections.

This is an industry that is making tens of billions of dollars each quarter. As we have heard, BP just today announced more than $5 billion in profit. That is a little bit below expectations, we read, $5 billion in the last 3 months.

So as a result, because this amendment is not being made in order, this bill, should it become law, would leave the agency that is responsible for the management, regulation, and enforcement of offshore drilling underfunded, understaffed, and it would leave the public and the workers at risk.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 68: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: