Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 237: Page 131, line 24, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $1,500,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon, 26 Republicans joined me and 121 of my Democratic colleagues in defeating a misguided attempt to extend, without badly needed changes, three soon-to-expire provisions of the Patriot Act.

We must remember that the powers of intelligence and enforcement are among the most important powers of government but also the most fearsome. They must be used very, very carefully.

Last year, I joined Representative Conyers and other members in offering the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act. This bill would have revised the three controversial provisions we debated yesterday, and other provisions, to ensure that government agents would have to demonstrate a clear connection between the target of surveillance and terrorism investigation. It is that bill we should be voting on, and I ask the House leadership to schedule hearings and a vote on that bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the powers of intelligence and enforcement are among the most important powers of government, but also the most fearsome. They must be wielded very, very carefully. For decades, our government routinely has collected information on potential foreign threats through various forms of surveillance. These collection activities enjoy broad bipartisan support in our country because of their value in helping to protect American citizens and interests.

However, in the 1960s and 1970s, these collection capabilities were turned on the American people and executive branch agencies engaged in spying on the American public, sometimes even for political purposes. The ensuing public backlash triggered the adoption of legal reforms that gave us laws to help prevent a repeat of these abuses.

Subsequently, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, gave proponents of extended domestic surveillance a powerful political and rhetorical weapon, which they used to reduce constitutional protections against surveillance and seizures without appropriate warrants.

When the Congress passed the Patriot Act in March of 2006, it included sunset requirements of three provisions that you've heard about today. Since 2005, I've voted against extending these and other provisions because these provisions are overly broad and frequently abused while still not improving truly the security of the American people. My concerns are supported by the revelations of abuses of those authorities during hearings of the House Judiciary Committee in 2009 and in multiple reports issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.

The bill before us today does nothing to fix these problems or prevent future abuses. This bill does not raise the standards for intelligence collection to ensure that the right people are targeted in the first place. The law was not meant to sunset so that we could periodically reauthorize it, unchanged. We're now on the verge of the third ``temporary'' extension, with no remedies for the flaws identified by this body and the Department of Justice Inspector General.

For all of these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``no.''

I would like to add a comment to Mr. Inslee's point and just repeat: Pollution is costly. It's costly in lives and it's costly in dollars, and one of the best instruments that has existed in the world over the past 40 years is the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act has decreased lead emissions by 95 percent. In using the Clean Air Act, the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has reduced emissions from diesel engines by almost 90 percent, and that is saving lives and saving dollars. By phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals and working through international agreements, the EPA is cutting non-melanoma skin cancer by hundreds of millions, and reducing smog and soot reduces premature deaths. This is successful legislation.

My colleague, Mr. Inslee, what do we call it? You were calling it the ``dirty air act.''

Undoing the Clean Air Act makes the air less clean. The Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing into the atmosphere the emissions of pollutants/chemicals that kill people. The Clean Air Act has been successful.

And what do we have before us?

Well, tomorrow, as you say, there will be a hearing on legislation not yet in final form--let's hope that it never finds its way into final form. It is legislation that would gut the Clean Air Act. It would prevent the Clean Air Act from keeping up with the times. It would prevent the Clean Air Act from continuing to protect Americans by removing dangerous chemicals from the atmosphere. This is really a matter of public health, and it is also a matter of economics.

The cost of clean air safeguards has been exaggerated over the years. I remember--and I think my colleagues are old enough to remember. I certainly am--when the Clean Air Act was passed. At the time, they said, Oh, this is going to be terrible. It's going to ruin industry. You know, claims about the cost of sulphur dioxide standards were exaggerated by factors of--I don't know--5 or 10.

You know, we've seen from the market price of the sulfur dioxide allowances that the actual market is much less than the estimated cost of complying with the sulfur dioxide regulations. So, again and again, these have been exaggerated, and by implementing the Clean Air Act, we have saved lives and, by association, by extension, saved dollars.

Furthermore, if the Clean Air Act is allowed to continue to look after the air that you and I breathe, it will lead to further efficiency and all of the burgeoning industries that you, my colleague from New York, and you, my colleague from Washington, have talked about. This is going to be very good for the United States to be able to sell these environmentally attractive technologies to the rest of the world rather than to buy them.

So, for all sorts of reasons, we simply cannot afford the proposal of what's coming from the majority on the other side of the aisle that would increase our dependence on foreign oil, that would leave the air less breathable, that would aggravate asthma and heart disease, and would end up undoing the Clean Air Act. What Congress should be doing is making it possible for the Clean Air Act to continue to protect Americans' health and lives, not undoing it.

I'd be happy to.

If I may explain, the Clean Air Act is based on science.

And the Clean Air Act, as the years have gone by, has used the best science to find the best ways to remove the worst pollutants from our air, and this is a very unscientific approach that they're saying. They're saying because of politics we are not going to listen to science; because of politics, we're going to say the Clean Air Act stops here.

If the gentleman would yield on that very point.

The rest of the world is not backing down. The rest of the world is not moving toward dirtier atmosphere, toward more atmospheric admissions. They understand that this is deadly and costly, and as I said a few moments ago, wouldn't it be better if we Americans were selling the technologies to the rest of the world? Many of these technologies were developed here in the United States. Many of the opportunities for more energy efficiency and less atmospheric admissions can be developed here in the United States. Wouldn't it be better if we developed them here and sold them to the rest of the world instead of someday having to buy them?

I would urge you to put your comment in the conditional. This is not going to happen. We are not going to let it happen. It would be so unwise to say we're not going to follow the science. It would be so unwise to say to the young people, we're going to turn away from this innovative challenge. It would be so unwise to say to families with asthma, we're not going to make the atmosphere better.

It's not going to happen but, we are here to say we won't let it happen.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the irresponsible budget resolution under consideration by the House.

My priorities in the new Congress remain supporting middle class families and helping to foster job creation. These goals should be how we in Congress measure every action we take. Unfortunately the budget resolution before us today fails to meet these goals and is little more than a not-so-shrewd act of political theater staged hours before the President delivers the State of the Union in this chamber.

The resolution, which authorizes the Budget Committee chairman to cut non-security federal spending to 2008 levels, is an insincere attempt at fiscal responsibility. Getting our nation's fiscal house in order is a task I and many of my colleagues take seriously. However, rather than setting a concrete plan for how Congress should spend taxpayer dollars, this resolution contains no hard numbers. Moreover, this resolution would take the unprecedented and undemocratic step of empowering one Member of Congress with the ability to identify which programs to cut and by how much.

One example of how this resolution will hurt middle-class Americans is by cutting the Pell Grant program. Pell Grants help working-class Americans afford a college education. Since 2008, Congress increased wisely the Pell Grant to $5,550. Should this ill-conceived resolution pass, Pell Grants could be cut by nearly 25 percent.

For America's economy to remain competitive in the coming years, Congress must make wise investments of taxpayer dollars. Pell Grants are just one of many of these wise investments. Allowing one Member of Congress to cut capriciously from federal programs while claiming to be fiscally responsible is anything but.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 359, a bill that would terminate the public financing system for presidential election campaigns. The vast majority of Americans oppose the damage done to the integrity of the electoral system by the Citizens United v. FEC, which opened the floodgates for corporate spending in elections. According to a Washington Post poll, 80 percent of Americans oppose the ruling, with little difference reflected by party affiliation (85 percent of Democrats oppose it, 76 percent of Republicans, and 81 percent of independents). Yet, inexplicably, the majority is celebrating the one-year anniversary of that disastrous and poorly- reasoned decision by offering a bill that would make that damage vastly worse.

Frankly, I believe we would be moving just plain backwards if, instead of building upon the public financing system for presidential elections by updating it and adding to it a system of public financing for House and Senate races, instead, we remove the public financing system for presidential elections. So far, the new majority seem focused on undoing landmark legislative achievements rather than strengthening them.

I find two aspects of this bill particularly puzzling. First, it is being offered to ``reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions.'' But nothing in the bill would specifically reduce either federal spending or federal borrowing. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund is funded exclusively by a check-off box on Americans' tax returns, stating that they want $3 ($6 for joint returns) of their tax liability to be deposited in the Fund. If that check-off box were removed, their tax liability would be the same, but the $3 or $6 would simply be allocated to something else. That is, the size of the revenue pie would be the same but the slice that would have been spent on presidential election campaigns would simply be spent on something else, and nothing in the bill would prevent additional borrowing to increase the size of the pie.

In addition, even if the entire existing balance of the fund were transferred to the Treasury, as called for by the bill, according to the fiscal year 2011 budget the unobligated

balance in the fund is approximately $200 million. The national debt is more than $14 trillion. So transferring $200 million to the Treasury for the express purpose of debt reduction would only reduce the debt by one one-thousandth of one percent. The majority argue that this bill would save hundreds of millions of dollars in mandatory funding over the next decade, but the only thing it seems to do is keep those hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

That is how little would be gained. But what would be lost? That brings me to the second aspect of this bill that is puzzling. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund is a completely voluntary program. It only exists because people volunteer to participate in it. Although tax-payer designations have decreased in recent years, the American people voluntarily contributed the more than $1.3 billion that presidential candidates and party committees have received under the program between 1976 and 2004. Why would the American people voluntarily contribute that much money to the program if they didn't prefer the neutrality of public money being used to finance elections to the bias and manipulative potential of private money being used for that purpose?

Similarly, virtually all American presidential candidates have voluntarily participated in the program since it was founded. With the exception of President Obama, every single Republican and Democratic presidential nominee since 1976 has used the public financing system to fund their general election campaigns. Why would the majority--with no real fiscal benefit ensured by this bill--terminate a program that both the citizens and the candidates have voluntarily supported for decades?

The Citizens United decision is drowning out the voice of the average citizen under a tidal wave of corporate spending. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund amplifies the voice of the average American as against the voice of corporate America. It is a critical and valuable program that we should be updating, enhancing and expanding, as a number of Members of this body have been seeking to do. For example, Representative Price of North Carolina and Representative Van Hollen championed in the prior Congress, and reintroduced yesterday with my support, legislation that would increase the role of small donors and decrease the role of corporate spenders and other big donors in presidential campaigns. It would also eliminate spending limits, freeing up candidates to compete with the onslaught of corporate spending resulting from Citizens United. And it would increase the amount available in the fund by increasing the tax return check-off amount from $3 to $10 (and from $6 to $20 for joint filers). Representative Larson and Representative Jones also championed legislation that would establish a program of public financing for House elections. I think these efforts are the ones we should be devoting our time to.

I want to reiterate--the check-off box for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is a strictly voluntary funding mechanism. Keeping it does not constitute an appropriation. Eliminating it does not, in and of itself, reduce spending or borrowing. Eliminating it in this case would simply take away the only national program American citizens and presidential candidates have been able to use to help ensure that elections are as free as possible from the manipulative force of wealthy and powerful special interests.

I strongly oppose this bill and, for the sake of preserving the voice of the American people in elections, I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget- busting legislation that fails to create one new job and returns our health decisions to insurance companies rather than doctors.

Repealing the health reform law would be a big mistake. Instead of focusing on job creation or retirement security or fair taxes, we're debating repealing a law that protects Americans from insurance company abuses and provides fairer and more accessible health care for children, for veterans, for seniors, for employees, for employers. The law saves the average taxpayer money, and it saves the insured money.

On Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Dr. King fought for an America where everyone regardless of race or class background had access to the American opportunity. He said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.''

Today, the new majority is trying to repeal the health reform law that we enacted just one year ago. That historic law provides secure health insurance coverage to almost all Americans and lowers the deficit. The days of ``you're on your own'' are past now. The law ensures that health insurance companies actually have to provide health insurance, not just in name, but it requires that they spend your premium dollars on actually providing health care.

If this reform law were repealed, Anna's 24-year-old son in Kendall Park, New Jersey would become uninsured; Todd from Eatontown would not be able to get insurance due to his preexisting condition; and thousands of seniors on Medicare, like Howard from Monroe, would not be able to afford his lifesaving prescriptions.

Matthew from West Windsor wrote me to say, ``I just graduated from college, and I'm working at a job with no health care.'' He's grateful now that he can be on his parents' health insurance plan, but he's concerned if this is repealed. He says, ``I have a preexisting condition, and shockingly, I truly would be without insurance and in deep trouble if this law were reversed.''

I urge my colleagues to vote no on repealing the health care reform law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the budget busting legislation that fails to create one new job and returns our health decisions to insurance companies rather than doctors.

Repealing health reform would be a mistake. Instead of focusing on job creation or retirement security or tax relief, we are debating repealing a law that protects Americans from insurance company abuses and provides fairer and more accessible health care for children, veterans, seniors, employees, and employers.

On Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life of service. Dr. King fought for an America where everyone, regardless of their racial, ethnic, or class background, would have access to opportunity. Access to health care was important to Dr. King who said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane''.

Today, the new majority is trying to repeal the health reform legislation that we enacted just one year ago. That historic law provides secure health insurance coverage to almost all

Americans and lowers the deficit by $143 billion in the first ten years. Today, the majority is trying to repeal these patient protections and return them to insurance company bean counters.

A new analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services that was released this week reported that as many as 129 million non-elderly Americans have some type of pre-existing health conditions. In my district alone, there are as many as 310,000 individuals with a pre- existing condition, including 39,000 children. Due to health reform, those children can no longer be denied coverage and starting in 2014, adults with pre-existing conditions will no longer be denied health coverage. If health reform is repealed, these individuals will again be denied insurance and lose health coverage, which will lead to higher health costs for all Americans.

To understand how important health reform is, here is a picture of what my district would look like if health reform was repealed. Over 2,000 young adults would become uninsured after losing coverage through their parents' insurance; over 17,000 small businesses would lose tax credits that help provide health insurance to their employees; over 9,000 early retirees might lose benefits through the early retiree reinsurance program; over 100,000 seniors would have to pay for wellness visits and preventive services, like mammograms and colonoscopies; and over 8,000 seniors in the Medicare donut hole would see significantly higher prescription drugs.

Just saying that health reform ``kills jobs'' does not make it so. In fact, health reform not only provides benefits to Americans, it creates jobs. Since health reform was passed, an additional 207,000 jobs have been created in the health care sector. Over the next 10 years, health reform will create up to 4 million jobs by investing in the health care workforce and lowering costs for businesses.

Further, Americans do not support repealing health reform. In fact, according to the latest AP poll, only 26 percent of Americans think health reform should be repealed. Instead, 43 percent of Americans want more reforms to health care.

Passing health reform last year began the process of ending the injustice in health care access that Dr. King thought was shocking and inhumane. We owe all Americans access to affordable, comprehensive health coverage. We cannot let them down. As the late, great Senator Ted Kennedy often said, ``decent, quality health care is a fundamental right and not a privilege.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on repealing health reform.

Mr. Speaker, when we read the Constitution in this body on January 6, 2011, we missed a good opportunity. I joined in the reading. I was certainly not going to allow one political party to claim the Constitution for its own, as it has sometimes tried to claim the U.S. flag. However, by reading an altered version of the Constitution and by doing so without warrant we lost a great educational moment.

I revere the U.S. Constitution and carry a copy of the Constitution with me every day. I often ask students what they think is the greatest invention of humans. Because they know that I am a scientist, they usually say something technical like the laser or a microchip in answer to my question. I reply that the greatest invention is the U.S. Constitution. It is truly ingenious: Because of this document, our brilliant, resilient, self-correcting system of government, dreamed up in Philadelphia so many years ago, still functions well today. The system inspires and motivates people around the world.

Instead of reading the full Constitution, members of the House took turns reading an altered text based on the amendments. I was further troubled to learn that because of human error we skipped two pages during our reading.

The altered text omitted the original language of Article I, Section 2 that counted each black individual as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of apportionment of Representatives, omitting it and reading only the text of the 14th Amendment that apportioned Representatives according to the total number of all male citizens. Yet, Article I, Section 3 that proscribes that the two Senators from each state be chosen by the state legislature, a passage of the Constitution subsequently amended by the 17th Amendment, was read in its original format.

The decision to not read the full text ignores the fundamental strength of the U.S. Constitution--its implicit recognition that the United States of America is an imperfect, ever evolving, self- correcting union. The Constitution is not a perfect document, and the Founders did not have all the answers. African American were counted as three-fifths of a person. Women were disenfranchised. The concept of privacy was glossed over. The full text of the Constitution and its Amendments should have been read today to help American recall and understand how we have strived and still strive ``to form a more perfect Union.''

The Constitution was a compromise throughout. In addition to counting each black individual as only three-fifths of a person, it was virtually silent on slavery, the great injustice of the day. But after a way that almost destroyed the Union, after more than half a million died, and when brother fought brother, the Constitution was amended and updated to reflect the will of the people. Today, the American experiment continues to improve. Freedoms and protections of rights keep growing in the face of both consistent and ever-changing threats.

Langston Hughes--an American who was denied the rights and freedoms that all of us deserve--wrote in Let America Be America Again, 1938,

O, yes,

I say it plain,

America never was America to me,

And yet I swear this oath--

America will be!

Students attending under-performing schools, millions of Americans without health insurance, and widespread poverty demonstrate that even today, America never was America for far too many of us. But our Constitution lets us admit when we are wrong and correct our mistakes. Our collective vision of America must include an expanding sphere of freedom, liberty, and opportunity for all. And most importantly, we must never believe we are so infallible that we fail to strive for a ``more perfect Union.''

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, we come to the floor with respect, compassion and yes, love for those who have lost loved ones in Tucson last Saturday and for those who are recovering from the physical and psychological wounds. We also come to pay tribute and show love and send our best wishes to Representative Giffords and to Mark Kelly. I hope they feel our love. Our colleague is a beautiful person and everything one would want in a congressional representative--thoughtful, engaged, compassionate, optimistic and a genuinely good person. We also recognize those who responded, staff members quietly going about making democracy work, bystanders, medical responders and

surgeons, ordinary people doing extraordinary things.

This hits us on more than a personal level, though. Each year, there are many thousands of Americans felled by gunfire. Each is a personal tragedy to the victim's loved ones. The Tucson shooting strikes a blow to our ability to govern ourselves, to maintain a peaceful society. The rights to assembly peaceably and to speak freely are preserved not just for their own sake, but, as the geniuses who established this country recognized, it is through those rights that we can create a society that protects and extends life, liberty and happiness.

There are lessons to be drawn from the events about our understanding of people with mental illness and their screening and treatment. There are lessons to be drawn about our gun crazy culture. There are lessons to be drawn about the ever-present inflammatory, dehumanizing rhetoric, but let us defer those discussions for the moment and recognize that we are a strong, prosperous and supportive country because of our representative democracy and our freedom to assemble and speak.

Let us in Congress not withdraw. Let us hold more outreach, more town halls, more sidewalk office hours. And let us, in the words of Representative Giffords delivered here on the floor of the House, let us agree to forgo some of our individual interests and intemperance to allow the space for open dialogue, debate and discussion.

``To provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. As a cosponsor of the House bill, I urge passage of this important bill.

Today, we have the opportunity to honor the rescue and recovery workers who served our nation after the devastating attacks at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and, more important than empty honor, to provide for their care. My district suffered casualities that day and nine years later, the memory of that terrible day is still fresh in our minds.

Along with the victims of 9/11, there were thousands of rescue and recovery workers who came to the aid of our nation that day. These brave women and men rushed to Ground Zero to help the fallen and to participate in the clean-up effort without thinking about their health or safety. These workers were exposed to environmental hazards and have developed significant respiratory illnesses, chronic infections, and other medical conditions. Further, many first responders are only now being diagnosed with illnesses that are related to their exposure at Ground Zero.

This bill would create the World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP) that would provide medical monitoring and treatment benefits to first responders and workers who were directly affected by the attacks. Additionally, the program would establish education and outreach programs and conduct research on physical and mental health conditions related to the 9/11 attacks. The WTCHP program would serve more than 75,000 survivors, recovery workers, and members of the affected communities.

Additionally, this bill provides long-term health care and compensation for thousands of responders and survivors. By passing this bill, we will be paying tribute to the sacrifice and courage of these women and men and we will be paying a debt. This bill will be paid for with a partnership with New York City and by reducing government procurement payments and the extension of fees for outsourcing companies.

Unfortunately, this bill is a weaker version of the bill that I cosponsored and that the House passed in September. The bill caps federal funding for health programs over five years and allows first responders only five years to file claims. Unfortunately, some put politics over these brave first responders. Although this bill is a reduced version of the original bill, we must honor the rescue and recovery workers by providing them with the much needed health care. We cannot let our first responders down.

Mr. Chair, it is with regret that I rise in opposition to this legislation. Less than two weeks ago, I joined a majority of this House in passing middle class tax relief that balanced the needs of working families with our nation's need to get its fiscal house in order. Unfortunately the Senate failed to pass this bill.

The legislation we are considering today is deeply flawed. We should try to put money in the pockets of working families, and I do not fault President Obama and many of my colleagues who want to get something done on behalf of the millions of Americans who need help. But, this is the wrong way to do it.

Yet, at a time when income inequality in the United States has risen to its highest level in decades, the bill under consideration would shift the burden of funding the federal government further onto middle- class and working-class families. The bill would give away tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent of households at a cost of more than $120 billion charged to the national debt.

I am most concerned, however, that the bill undermines the very idea of Social Security. Social Security has been a pillar of our society for generations. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Frances Perkins, and others created Social Security in 1935, it was a political masterstroke. Social Security was created as an insurance program and has remained intact for 75 years because Americans have a real sense of ownership for the program.

In good economic times and in bad, regardless of which political party is in power, this sense of ownership--that Americans will get out that which they put into the Social Security--has allowed it to survive despite the efforts of determined enemies.

A provision in the bill would reduce an employee's contribution to Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of salary. This could have a beneficial stimulative economic effect. The $112 billion cost to the Social Security trust fund of this payroll tax holiday is supposed to be replaced with money from the general treasury fund. But that is just the problem. In Social Security's history such a commingling of payroll taxes and money from the Treasury at this scale is unprecedented.

This is not just about the financial health of Social Security, rather it is about Social Security's rationale that has worked well for generations. This bill places Social Security on the table with tax breaks for business expenses, tax breaks for the top two percent of Americans, the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax--essentially making it just another bargaining chip. If we allow Social Security to become a bargaining chip for dealing politicians, then it will not be long for this world. As much as we need economic stimulus now, we will need Social security for decades to come. Rather than taking money from Social Security, I would support a tax credit--similar to President Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit--that would give working families a sizeable tax break with money from general revenues.

In a message to Congress on January 17, 1935, FDR insisted that Social Security should be self-sustaining and that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should not come from the process of general taxation. FDR's message is as correct today as it was 75 years ago.

To be sure, the legislation before us today contains many good provisions that I would support on their own. The bill contains a one year extension of emergency unemployment benefits. According to the Labor Department, there are five job-seekers for every job opening in the U.S. Extending unemployment is the right thing to do morally and for the economy. The legislation would extend middle class tax relief for two years along with many family-friendly tax breaks such as the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, Alternative Minimum Tax relief, and marriage penalty relief. The bill also would extend expanded transportation benefits for commuters and tax credits like the research and development tax credit to help businesses grow and create jobs.

Congress needs to provide unemployment insurance for Americans searching for work, extend tax relief working families, and find solutions to our budget crisis. Yet these must not come at the expense of Social Security. It is too important to lose.

I thank the chairman.

Madam Speaker, for decades, it's been clear that our investments in scientific research and education underwrite our national prosperity, yet we've continued to underinvest in these economic drivers. The National Academy issued a call for action 5 years ago with ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' and Congress responded by holding a number of national town meetings arranged by then-Minority Leader Pelosi and then passing the America COMPETES Act under the chairmanship of Chairman Gordon. That legislation is now set to expire, and the National Academies has issued an update on our progress. It is an ominous warning. It says bluntly: ``Our Nation's outlook has worsened.''

Now, as a Member who has conducted NSF-funded research and who continually argues that our economic health depends on investment and research, I would have preferred the more robust funding authorization levels passed by this House earlier this year. However, this legislation does maintain a 10-year doubling path for funding for our basic research agencies.

I am especially pleased that the bill requires the development of a comprehensive national competitiveness and innovation strategy, a provision I wrote. The nations that are outcompeting us already have national innovation strategies in place. We should too. To guarantee a secure economic future for our children and in our Nation, we must not fail to provide robust funding for the programs in this legislation.

I want to commend Chairman Gordon for writing and taking action on this legislation. It is another part of a good legacy of his distinguished career.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R 5116). Our investments in scientific research and education underwrite our national prosperity and success. Economists attribute over half of the growth in our gross domestic product (GDP) since World War II to progress in science and technology. Yet for decades, we have underinvested in our nation's tools for advancing innovation and competitiveness. In 2005, the National Academies issued a call for action in the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report. Two years later, following a series of national town halls arranged by the then Majority Leader Pelosi, Congress responded by implementing many of the report's recommendations in the America COMPETES Act.

Yet now we are faced with the impending expiration of the COMPETES Act, and the National Academies has released an update on our progress since the original Rising Above the Gathering Storm report. It tells us that we have not done enough. It says bluntly, ``Our nation's outlook has worsened.'' Other countries are implementing many of the changes suggested five years ago while we continue to hold back on the necessary investments to rebuild, restructure, and renew our national innovation infrastructure. The reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act is essential if we are to maintain our competitive edge in the global economy.

Basic research is a powerful source of new and unexpected discoveries that can transform our economy. While I would have preferred the more robust funding authorization levels passed by the House earlier this year, this legislation maintains a 10-year doubling path for funding at our nation's basic research agencies--the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy's Office of Science. These funds support fundamental research in every discipline, maintain our national laboratories, and provide vital training for the next generation of scientists and engineers. The dividends from our investments in research and development are the breakthroughs that yield new industries, drive job growth, and sustain our future economic and technological competitiveness.

The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act includes a number of new programs and initiatives to foster innovation. The Regional Innovation Program will help create and expand science parks and Regional Innovation Clusters to leverage collaboration between businesses, academic institutions, and other participants to facilitate the transfer of technologies from the laboratory to the commercial sector. The Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Department of Commerce will accelerate the commercialization of research and development by identifying ways to overcome existing barriers and providing access to relevant data and technical assistance. The legislation authorizes the Partnerships for Innovation program to help move research out of the lab and into the marketplace by strengthening ties between institutions of higher education and private sector entities.

Additional assistance for manufacturers and other businesses would promote the adoption of new technologies and improve productivity. The legislation requires NSF to support research in transformative advances in manufacturing, and it ensures that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program will inform regional community colleges of the skill sets needed by local manufacturers. A newly established Innovative Services Initiative will assist small- and medium-sized manufacturers in implementing energy and waste reduction technologies, including renewable energy systems. A loan guarantee program will allow manufacturers to access capital for the installation of innovative technologies and processes that will help increase their efficiency and maintain their competitiveness. A new interagency committee under the National Science and Technology Council will establish goals and coordinate federal programs in advanced manufacturing research and development.

To preserve our leadership in scientific and technical fields and strengthen our competitiveness in the twenty-first century economy, the U.S. must continue to produce the world's best scientists, and we must ensure that every student is exposed to the fundamentals of science, technology, engineering, and math, STEM. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act will establish an interagency committee to coordinate federal STEM education programs and report to Congress annually on implementation of the STEM education strategic plan. Updates to the NSF's Robert Noyce Scholarship program will allow more schools to participate and more qualified STEM educators to reach high- need schools. Undergraduates will have more opportunities to participate in research, and support for graduate students will be strengthened. Women and minorities remain underrepresented in STEM fields, and this legislation continues programs to help expand the STEM talent pool and increase the diversity of our nation's future scientists.

In the energy field, this legislation reauthorizes programs at the Department of Energy's Office of Science, which is the nation's largest supporter of physical sciences research. In addition, the reauthorization of the Advanced Research Projects agency for Energy, ARPA-E, which is modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, will help us pursue high-risk, high-reward energy technology develop that might not receive support otherwise.

Finally, I am pleased that this legislation incorporates two provisions that I offered and the House passed when it considered a previous version of this bill. The first requires the working group responsible for coordinating policies related to the dissemination and long-term stewardship of unclassified federally funded research to take into consideration the importance of peer-review and the role of scientific publishers in the peer-review process.

The second requires the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a comprehensive national competitiveness and innovation strategy. For decades, U.S. leadership in science, technology, engineering, and innovation was unquestionable. But we cannot pretend this is a given. In 2009, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation found that among 40 major nations or regions, the U.S. ranks sixth in overall innovation and competitiveness. More importantly, over the last decade, every one of our competitors has improved their innovation capacity faster than us. Each of the five nations ranked by ITIF as ``out- competing'' the U.S. already has a national competitiveness or innovation strategy in place. All together, at least thirty other countries have implemented plans to boost their economic competitiveness through innovation and technological development. The United States has yet to put forward a similarly comprehensive roadmap for success. Our competitors are making plans to grow their economies by competing in the global marketplace. We should be too.

The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act makes long overdue investments in the foundations of our national innovation system. It will create jobs in both the short- and long- term, support manufacturers and businesses in commercializing new technologies, help us pursue a clean energy economy, improve STEM education, and strengthen our international competitiveness. Yet authorizing the programs in this legislation is only the first step in keeping the United States competitive. To guarantee a secure economic future for our children and for our nation, we must not fail to provide robust funding for these programs. Even as we face budgetary challenges and political pressure, we must ensure that our scientists, engineers, innovators, and entrepreneurs have the tools and resources they need to renew our economy and help us truly rise above the gathering storm. I commend the United States Senate for taking action on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as this session of Congress moves to an end, I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his service and for bringing this up now.

We will recognize with this resolution and celebrate the 100th anniversary of this historic organization that is a force for good, a leading voice in the United States for compassionate service and care and for social reform. More than 1,700 local Catholic Charities, agencies and institutions nationwide carry out the mission to provide service to people in need, to advocate for justice and social structures, to call people of good will to do the same by working with individuals and families and communities to help them meet their needs, address their issues, eliminate oppression, and build a just and compassionate society.

Catholic Charities focuses on poverty, but has important work in parenthood, in immigration, human trafficking, disaster response and relief, climate change and other such things.

Catholic Charities provides help and hope for more than 8.5 million people each year. For example, it provides food service to millions of people; immigration services; refugee services; addiction services; adoption services; temporary shelter; transitional housing; and much, much more, in a compassionate, nonsectarian way.

This really is an example of what we can do together as a community. I see this in New Jersey under the auspices of the bishop of the diocese of Metuchen, Bishop Bootkoski; the bishop of Trenton, Bishop O'Connell; dedicated people, such as Francis Dolan, Joyce Campbell and Marianne Majewski. On the national scene, Rev. Snyder, the national president, provides every day a fine example of how service and care and compassion that are motivated by faith and religious teaching are delivered in a nonsectarian way without proselytizing and available to people of all faiths.

These people let their works, their good works, speak. Communities that are marred by disasters such as hurricanes, fires and floods find Catholic Charities there as one of the greatest providers of financial and technical assistance and training and, most of all, compassion and care.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing 100 years of good works of Catholic Charities USA.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1767) commending the Wisconsin Badger football team for an outstanding season and 2011 Rose Bowl bid.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on House Resolution 1767 in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1767, which commends the Wisconsin Badger football team for an outstanding season and a 2011 Rose Bowl bid. I present this resolution on behalf of Representative Baldwin. Representative Baldwin introduced this, and it is supported by others from the Badger State.

The Wisconsin Badgers just completed a dominant regular season, winning the Big Ten title, finishing 11-1, and earning a bid to the Rose Bowl game on New Year's Day 2011.

The Rose Bowl is the oldest of all college football bowl games, first played in 1902. Since 1945, it has been the most highly attended college football bowl game in the country.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the University of Wisconsin-Madison chancellor, Biddy Martin; three-time winning Rose Bowl coach and athletic director, Barry Alvarez;

and Head Coach Bret Bielema, for their outstanding season.

The Badgers have achieved an outstanding overall 49-15 record under Coach Bielema's tenure. For a second consecutive season, the Badger football team features 22 players selected to the Academic All-Big Ten team, surpassing the previous record of 19 set a few years ago. The team also--and this is worth noting--is the least penalized team in the United States, displaying remarkable discipline and leadership on the field.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representative Baldwin for introducing this resolution and once again express my support for House Resolution 1767.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the author of this resolution, for such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I ask passage of this bill, H. Res. 1767, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.