Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we should not even be considering this resolution. I repeat, we should not even be considering this resolution. We should be moving forward, not backwards. This resolution is a dangerous distraction from the unprecedented challenge before us.

Fourteen million Americans are looking for work. The Census Bureau reported just yesterday that the poverty rate is higher than it's been in 17 years, and median income in this country is at 1996 levels.

The President has proposed a jobs bill that one knowledgeable observer, Mark Zandi, estimates would create 1.9 million new jobs and add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year. We need action to spur economic growth and job creation. That's what we should be considering today.

Instead, through this resolution, Republicans want to prolong the agony of the debt limit debate and take us back to the brink of default, which would be where we would be if you succeeded.

This bill can pass the House only if Members who voted ``yes'' in August on this issue decide in essence to vote ``no'' in September. ``Yes'' in August, ``no'' in September.

This Nation wants us to be guided by the needs of the Nation, not the internal politics of a caucus or a conference. We have seen the consequences of that kind of Republican brinkmanship. Standard & Poor's said, in downgrading our credit rating: ``It involved a level of brinkmanship greater than what we had expected earlier in the year.''

In August, consumer confidence dropped by the largest amount since the peak of the financial crisis in 2008, and the conference board noted a direct link between the fall and the debate over default. I think we need only to check 401(k) statements from August to remember the precipitous drop in the stock market.

Were this resolution to become law, all those who speak or vote for it have to understand that the U.S. would default on its obligations for the first time in our history. This would throw our economy back into deep recession, trigger $400 billion in immediate job-destroying cuts, and call into question our ability to pay earned Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Madam Speaker, we should not be considering this resolution today. We should be moving forward on the President's plan to jump-start our economy and create jobs for American workers.

The American Jobs Act will put more money in workers' pockets through a temporary tax cut, saving the average family $1,500. It would also keep over 6 million workers from losing their unemployment benefits while they continue searching for work and provide new employer incentives to help get them hired.

If we don't act on these issues, over a million people will lose their unemployment benefits in January and over 2 million in February. So we need to act. We need to look ahead, not just try to go backwards.

So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution so we don't waste one more minute on a renewal of Republican brinksmanship. Fourteen million Americans who are looking for a job and 43 million Americans who are living in poverty cannot afford to wait 1 minute longer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentleman, working together won't work if you undo the work that we did together.

I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield 3 minutes to another member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I listened intently, and I don't understand how he could have voted ``yes'' to raise the debt ceiling in August and now, in essence, he's going to vote ``no'' and bring this country back to the brink of chaos.

I now yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, a very active member of our committee, Mr. Neal.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

This resolution isn't about a new vision. It's really about blind rage. There may be a new crew in town; but if this were to pass, it would be a wrecking crew because, essentially, we would be back on the edge, once again, of default.

I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to another active member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of our committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Does the gentleman from New York have any more speakers?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to say to the gentleman from Texas I disagree with his position, but I respect it. I can understand that those who voted ``no'' will now vote ``yes.'' What is not understandable is that those on the Republican side who voted ``yes'' are now voting ``no.''

I yield 4 minutes to our distinguished whip, the gentleman from the proud State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Very briefly, in one sense this is a meaningless resolution. My guess is that opinion makers in this country and I think abroad will consider it not meaningful, that it's going through the motions.

But there is a real danger here, and that is what it says about the dynamics on the majority side. That's the worrisome thing. It isn't that we would slow things down. If this were to pass and become law, indeed, the ceiling would fall. We would go into default very soon.

And I guess what this resolution being allowed to be brought up says is that there's a feeling within majority ranks that we have to let some bring this up, and perhaps a lot who voted ``yes'' now in essence vote ``no'' in order to bring some kind of peaceful equilibrium within the ranks of the majority.

The problem is that we need to be able to reach across the aisle. Having set up a select committee, it says we need to worry less about the dynamics within our caucus or conference and more about reaching common ground.

That's why this exercise isn't meaningless. The danger is that it will become very meaningful and that we will become--this Congress-- essentially handicapped, if not imprisoned, by the inability of the majority on this side to step up to the plate and realize that in order to solve our problems there needs to be a balanced instead of imbalanced approach; that we have to look at revenues as well as spending cuts. That's the significance of this being brought up here.

I think all of us need to take another look before we essentially change our votes. And, essentially, it would mean ``signaling.'' It will be still more difficult than the present perilous path to make meaningful our effort to move ahead in this country to address the job needs in this country, and yes, to address the deficit, but mainly or essentially to get our economy growing again. If we don't send that right signal here today, and send the wrong signal, I'm afraid this vote will become too meaningful.

I strongly urge that people vote ``no.'' I strongly urge on the Republican side that those who stepped up to the plate last time, step up to the plate this time and not duck for what is essentially an internal political dynamic. The dynamics of this country in terms of jobs and job growth, those dynamics are too essential for partisan internal politics to reign supreme on this floor at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 2832. Unfortunately, today we are acting to rectify only one wrong in the Republican agenda of disregard for workers and economic recovery. The Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, that we extend today for 22 months should never have been permitted to lapse at the beginning of the year.

The Andean Trade Preferences program should also not stand expired. And, importantly, it is inexcusable that the Trade Adjustment Assistance that we improved on a bipartisan basis in 2009 has stood expired since February. The only reason we are considering this legislation today is because House Republicans have been unwilling to support a simple extension of the expanded TAA Program.

They have been unwilling to support a program targeted at helping unemployed Americans get back to work, this at a time when more Americans have remained jobless for a longer period than ever recorded in our Nation's history.

In FY 2010 alone, more than 227,000 workers took advantage of TAA, receiving assistance such as case management, training, and income support. And there is broad support for the program. I quote just one such evidence, a letter circulated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable in May 2011, which states: ``TAA is as vitally important today as it has been over the years. It helps American businesses get into exporting and is designed to give displaced workers the new skills and resources they need to reenter the 21st century job market. Accordingly, we urge Congress and the administration to find a way forward to ensure that the United States has in place an effective TAA program to support U.S. global economic engagement.''

I support the GSP program and the legislation before us today. That program is an important tool in U.S. trade policy. It is a means by which the U.S. can help developing countries to capture the opportunities and meet the challenges of trade and globalization. One hundred and twenty-nine developing countries participate in GSP and depend on it to spur economic growth. This includes some of the poorest countries in the world. Moreover, GSP benefits Americans. I emphasize that. In fact, the majority of U.S. imports under GSP, approximately 65 to 75 percent, are inputs used to support U.S. manufacturing, including raw materials, parts and components, and machinery and equipment.

This program is important enough that it should not have been allowed to lapse, and can now be considered on its own merits. It appears that the prospect is that the Senate will act on GSP by adding TAA. If that is the path for the renewal of TAA, the Republicans have an obligation to ensure that it happens immediately as a primary action.

The Republicans often talk about a languishing trade agenda. What has been languishing is action on trade items ready for action--GSP, TAA, ATPA--languishing at the hands of the Republican majority here while action has been underway to address the shortcomings of the Bush trade agreements.

I am confident that each of the free trade agreements can be considered on

their own merits. Other programs, especially those vital to workers transition during this difficult economy, should never have been held hostage.

I would like now to ask that the balance of our time be managed by the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee, Jim McDermott of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, a most distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee for a long time, Mr. Charles Rangel of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

The Republicans in this House have taken this Nation to a dangerous and unnecessary brink. I definitely do not want our Nation to default on its full faith and credit, but I also don't want our Nation to default on our solemn obligations as a Nation, as a community to all of our citizens. That's why we need a balanced approach to keep us on an even keel as we move ahead. This means savings and revenues.

So as I vote today as the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, I will keep in mind how we must not let down our citizens who need programs.

One example is unemployment insurance. It's set to expire at the end of this year as millions desperately look for work. And I just now have received a report that this year's extension and the next year's extension would cost $45 billion. We need to get those resources. If we're not on a balanced path, we will not be able to address critical needs of our fellow and sister citizens such as unemployment insurance. We need balance to be true to ourselves.

I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

I have been here almost 29 years. This is a disgraceful moment. This country wants compromise. What you're doing with this bill is to undermine the chances of compromise. That's what you're doing. You're trying to throw a monkey wrench in the Reid bill before it can even leave the station. That's what you're doing. You're trying to make sure that the Senate cannot work its will.

Why isn't this bill being brought up? Because Senator Reid wants to sit down with Senate Republicans and work out a compromise, and you're bringing up this bill to make sure that this will never happen. This is a disgraceful moment, Mr. Dreier. It is a disgraceful moment.

No.

Mr. Dreier, you have already spoken. What you are doing here is----

Look, Mr. Dreier, it is very clear what you are doing here. Mr. Reid wants to sit down and work with Mr. McConnell. What you are trying to do is to make sure that a signal is sent to the Senate, don't bother.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Dreier, that is pernicious nonsense.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The gentleman from California has been talking about moving the process forward. It does not move the process forward to pass a bill that's dead before arrival in the Senate. It doesn't move the process forward to pass a bill that is even more partisan than the one yesterday.

You know, the country has to be wondering, we are 1 day closer to default and, indeed, one step backwards. The Republicans are trying to squeeze out a majority here, and what they are doing is inserting a provision that requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the House, and that's completely a nonstarter.

The American public is looking for a solution, not a stalemate, and the House Republicans have become the party of gridlock. Passing this only increases it. It's a move backwards, maybe to protect your flank, but not to protect America.

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

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

You know, as I've been listening to this debate, I think it's critical that the House needs some truth in speaking.

This bill is not bipartisan. The vote will soon show that. This bill is not a compromise. It does not seek bipartisan common ground. Indeed, it is orchestrated only to find enough common ground among House Republican partisans.

This bill does not reflect compromise. It would compromise, indeed, Medicare and Social Security. It forces massive cuts, consistent with the ideological Republican budget that was unanimously opposed by Democrats.

This bill does not promote certainty for our Nation's economy. Instead, it brings more uncertainty for families facing major financial decisions, for businesses deciding whether to invest or hire, for markets unsure when the next shoe might drop.

This bill is not balanced. Instead, it embraces the Republicans's one-dimensional mantra just again expressed by the chairman of our committee: no end to unjustified tax loopholes or to tax breaks for the very wealthiest, even as so many middle class families have been losing ground.

In a few words, our Nation's economy and jobs are too much to risk on a bill that is a bridge to nowhere between our two Houses.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), another member of our committee.

Could I inquire of our time, please.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from the great State of California, Xavier Becerra.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is a member of our committee and the chair of our caucus.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

In a few words, what is endeavored here is an abdication of responsibility.

This bill is going nowhere. It tries to bind the wounds of a divided Republican caucus. We should do better. We'll have to do better.

I yield back the balance of my time.

In this bill the Republicans are trying to repeal the second half of the 20th century. We've spent decades trying to knit a truly American fabric around a strengthened middle class. It's a fabric that holds, at its core, retirement security, health care through Medicare and Medicaid, and educational benefits for all through programs such as Pell Grants.

For Republicans, the purpose of this measure is to appeal to their base. But in so doing, they are debasing what we have built over the last half century. And it could not come at a worse time for this country. Republicans say they are dedicated to the markets, but they are essentially now saying, financial markets be damned.

As one analyst put it yesterday, ``The closer we get to this August deadline, the more anxious investors become.'' One anonymous Republican told Politico yesterday, and I quote, ``I'm embarrassed to be a Republican. These guys don't understand capital markets. This isn't about who wins an election. This is about whether people are going to be able to finance a home.''

It was 46 years ago this month that President Johnson signed Medicare into law. Yet, this measure doubles down on the Ryan budget proposal that, itself, would end Medicare. Retirees would see, at the very least, a 10 percent cut in their Social Security plans. Nursing home care, which makes up half of Medicaid expenditures, would be slashed. And that is not alone. The devastating cuts to endless programs, such as grants for higher education that have been vital in creating opportunity and building a strong American middle class.

More than 14 million Americans today remain jobless. But instead of using their new House majority to pursue a jobs agenda, it has come to this. Nearly 7 months after they assumed the majority, instead of promoting growth, encouraging job creation, and reinforcing the economic recovery, Republicans have been bringing about uncertainty.

We must, indeed, confront the deficit, but not as the Republicans now propose, tearing apart what has helped create the fabric of the American middle class.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before the House today. The authors of this bill call it ``The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act,'' but this legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with clean water. A better name for this bill is ``The Dirty Water Act.''

In 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio--one of the tributaries of the Great Lakes--caught fire, and became a symbol of everything that was wrong with the patchwork system of state water laws that existed at the time. Water pollution does not respect state boundaries and that patchwork of poorly enforced state laws nearly killed the Great Lakes and resulted in rivers and streams that were unfit to swim and fish in.

In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act and replaced the state patchwork approach with a national system of water quality standards. The Clean Water Act has worked. Over the last four decades, we've made real progress in reducing water pollution and are well on the way to meeting the Act's goals of making our nation's waters fishable, swimmable, and drinkable.

In my own District in Southeast Michigan, we've seen extraordinary progress in reducing water pollution. As just one example, in the 1970s and 1980s, the Clinton River was extraordinarily polluted. The River was dying and the beaches downstream on Lake St. Clair were unsafe for swimming. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and the work of many people at the local level, the Clinton River is making a comeback. Pollution is being steadily reduced. Fish are returning, and the river is once again becoming a recreational asset to the communities along its banks. There is more work to do, but the progress is there for all to see.

The bill before the House goes in exactly the wrong direction. Instead of building on the Clean Water Act, this legislation takes us backwards to the bad old days when there was a patchwork of state water laws and little enforcement when state standards fell short. In particular, the bill would make it harder to take action against emerging threats to waterways. For example, for a number of years now, a large dead zone has formed each

summer in Lake Erie. The problem appears to be getting worse and it is not yet clear what steps will be necessary to combat it. Even now it is evident that we will need a coordinated plan of action involving many states, but this legislation will make taking concerted action that much more difficult.

I urge defeat of this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the city of Center Line, Michigan, as it celebrates its 75th anniversary of being incorporated as a city this weekend.

The city of Center Line is located north of Detroit in Macomb County and was incorporated in 1936. The city has a rich heritage, and is known as a warm, family-oriented and tight-knit community. Residents have always prided themselves on maintaining the community's distinct identity and small-town feel. After 75 years of growth and change, that local spirit remains embodied in the city.

The area incorporated as a village in 1925 and transitioned to cityhood in 1936. The Center Line name derives from the center of three Native American trails named by the French that led north from Detroit to other trading posts. The middle trail, known as the ``Centre Line,'' became the main road used by early settlers travelling between the cities of Detroit and Utica. It became known as Center Line Road, and today is Sherwood Avenue.

The ``center'' of town became Van Dyke Avenue after construction of St. Clement Catholic Church in 1854. St. Clement has been one of the defining landmarks of the city. In addition to the many Catholic families that settled in Center Line, a large number of the residents that migrated from Detroit to settle in Center Line are of French, German, Belgium and Irish descent. These close-knit families have lived in the city their whole lives, many now going on the three generations.

The city of Center Line embodies the American dream: Hard-working, middle class families, many of whom worked their way up the economic ladder through employment in the domestic auto industry and also serving honorably in our country's armed services.

As the city of Center Line commemorates this milestone, I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating its residents, elected officials, and businesses as they celebrate their history, preserve their rich local heritage, and look forward to growth and prosperity in the future.

We should learn from the past. There are indeed times when American national interests should overtake political or partisan political interests.

I remember the debate on Kosova 12 years ago. Congress refused to authorize American action by a split vote. That was a tragic mistake. House Republican leadership opposed that resolution: 187 noes against 31 yeses. I believe it was clear then that Republicans would not have opposed the Kosova resolution, at least in those numbers, if George Bush had been President.

Today, there are echoes from Kosova on this Libyan resolution. The Republicans should not make the same mistake again. We should join together to support the Hastings' resolution that's consistent with the War Powers Act.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong objection to the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The bill before us is simply inadequate. While there is little disagreement that we must reach agreement on a balanced framework to reduce our deficit, we cannot do so by quite literally taking food from the mouths of children. This hinders our long term prosperity, and it is simply wrong.

In expressing serious concerns about this bill, the Administration's statement on this bill says: ``The Administration strongly objects to the level of funding provided for nutrition programs that are critical to the health of nutritionally at-risk women, infants, children, and elderly adults. The proposed funding levels would led to hundreds of thousands of participants being cut from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and reduce Federal support for food banks. These cuts would undermine efforts to prevent hunger and support sound nutrition for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.''

The human impact of the bill would be devastating. Hundreds of thousands of low-income children, mothers and seniors would lose WIC assistance. The National Commodity Supplemental Food program estimates that more than one hundred thousand low-income seniors would lose access to nutritious food assistance. Feeding America estimates that approximately 32 million pounds of nutritious food would not be available at food banks and food pantries for working Americans struggling to feed their families.

I want to say a word in particular about CSFP. This program is a vital component of our nutrition efforts because it reaches many seniors who qualify for no other program while providing delivery for those that are homebound. CSFP provides 600,000 food packages each month in 39 states and the District of Columbia, including seven new states as a direct result of increased funding in Fiscal Year 2010. This year 97 percent of the participants are elderly individuals with an income at or below $14,157. Food packages are designed to supplement needed sources of nutrients typically lacking in participants' diets, and are delivered through local providers in a very cost efficient manner: the typical food package has a retail value up to $50 but costs the Federal governments less than $20 per participant package.

Earlier this year, a number of us wrote to the Appropriations Committee requesting that funding for CSFP simply be held at the 2011 level of $176.8 million. Not an increase, though there is certainly greater need, just level funding. Instead, the Committee cut CSFP by more than 20 percent. As a result, if these cuts become law, more than 100,000 low-income seniors will be at greater risk of hunger.

Madam Chair, this bill represents the wrong priorities. Under the guise of deficit reduction, of which it does very little, it imposes harmful cuts on the most vulnerable among us. I urge all of my colleagues to reject it.

This is indeed an open rule in the sense it's so open that if you vote for the rule, you're voting to end Medicare.

Republicans have done this once. If you vote for this, you're going to do it twice. And the gentleman who is handling this for the majority earlier talked about Medicare and said the Republicans are trying to save it. You don't save something by ending it. Purely and simply. And to come to this floor and say you're saving it when you're ending it, that kind of talk is a big lie.

We heard this with Social Security some years ago when the effort to privatize it was said to be an effort to save it. The public caught on. And the public said no. The public has now said ``no'' to ending Medicare. But, essentially, you're tone deaf.

Now, you're doubling down on your plan to end it, a plan that would force seniors to pay twice as much for their health care, a plan that increases seniors' drug costs, and a plan that puts insurance companies in charge of seniors' health care.

I will finish.

So instead of a bipartisan effort to save it, by this rule you are essentially deeming the budget that you passed that ended Medicare, period.

So don't come and say you're saviors when you're eliminating a program. Stand up and be honest and say you want to replace it with something else. That something else is not Medicare. It's turning it over to the private insurance industry and saying to seniors who become eligible, who would be, instead, you are going to see double your costs. That's not forthright.

If you vote ``yes'' on the rule, you are the second time voting to end Medicare.

Announcement by the Speaker

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Bringing up this bill in this fashion is a ploy so egregious the Republicans have had to spend the last week pleading with Wall Street not to take it seriously and risk our economic recovery.

If Republicans were being truthful, they'd admit they're looking for political cover. But in their doing so, they risk blowing a hole in our Nation's economy. They'd acknowledged that their timing is an effort to change the subject less than a week after their plan to end Medicare was dealt a major setback by voters in a New York special election whose democratic winner will be sworn in tomorrow.

To act in good faith to solve our Nation's fiscal problems, the Republicans should focus not on this ploy but on the budget negotiations being led by the Vice President. Our Nation's debt is indeed a problem that requires serious solutions--not ploys that risk another global financial crisis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of our committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.

I yield myself 10 seconds.

I think, Mr. Camp, Standard and Poor's did not downgrade. They threatened. Let's be accurate.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

How much time is there on each side, please?

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of our leadership and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield myself 5 seconds.

Mr. Camp, you were the ones who said just keep spending. We don't say that.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the whip, Mr. Hoyer from Maryland.

The whip is so eloquent, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

How much time remains from our minimum 20 minutes?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I would ask the gentleman from Michigan, do you have other speakers?

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield our final minute to our leader, who will close on our behalf, Ms. Pelosi, from the great State of California.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this short-sighted and harmful legislation, H.R. 1216.

Everybody recognizes that we don't have enough primary care physicians and by 2020 most experts believe that we will face a shortage of over 40,000 primary care doctors. This legislation ignores reality and would jeopardize funding for a program whose purpose is to increase the number of primary care doctors and bring down the cost of health care.

As a result, it would be more difficult to find a doctor and people would be forced to turn to more expensive and less effective emergency room care.

This bill is a step backwards. Rather than supporting a meaningful effort that will reduce this shortage of primary care physicians, Republicans have brought a bill to the Floor that undermines health care. It is one of the many mindless attempts to repeal health care reform that just make needed change harder to achieve. We need to strengthen our health care system by implementing health care reform.

To move forward we need to reject Republican efforts, vote down this bill and reject the dangerous health care policies in the Republican budget that will end Medicare and cut Medicaid.

I urge Members of Congress to reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today will be the formal dedication of the Mandell and Madeleine Berman Center for the Performing Arts in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

It is a magnificent, state-of-the-art cultural center on the campus of the Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit. It is a result of the generosity of two people who have exemplified over many decades an exceptional sense of gratitude for the opportunities provided to their families by our nation, Bill and Madge Berman.

The focal point of the new Center will be a 350-seat high-tech auditorium that can be opened to a capacity of 600 seats. The Center will be a venue for people of all ages to experience classical and Broadway music and a wide variety of theatrical productions.

Bill Berman graduated from Detroit schools and Harvard College and Business School, and served as a naval officer for 4 years during World War II. He next began a highly successful career in the building business, using his expertise in a variety of commercial activities and related endeavors. His deep sense of community found its voice in his service on the Michigan State Finance Housing Authority and Board of New Detroit, and he also served as the first Chairman of the Skillman Foundation.

Bill Berman became an indispensable force within the greater Detroit Jewish Community in a wide variety of vital religious, charitable and educational activities. In these efforts he was actively joined by his wife, Madge Berman. She was an inspiration for their deep interests in the arts. She has served on the Board of Directors of the Detroit Symphony and the Michigan Opera Theater. Madge Berman was appointed to the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities in 1994 and was reappointed to the President's Committee last year by President Obama.

The fabulous offer for a cultural center by Bill and Madge Berman engendered support from other very generous persons that will help make this new center a reality. This warm and loving couple has brought joy over many years to their friends. They now will bring the joy of the arts to many, many thousands who have never met the Bermans but will benefit greatly from their generosity. I ask all my colleagues to join me in conveying congratulations and thanks to Bill and Madge Berman on the formal dedication today of the new Center bearing their names.