Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1255, the ``Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011.''

As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I reject H.R. 1255 on its face. H.R. 1255 seeks to commit a multitude of constitutional law violations and set aside the U.S. Constitution on a wholesale level. The Constitution is the veritable law of the land that we all took an oath to uphold. H.R. 1255 is an unfounded attempt to use the non- statutory ``deeming resolution'' or ``deem and pass'' procedure to unconstitutionally achieve the $61 billion in budget cuts that the Majority of this chamber failed to get passed in the Senate in the form of H.R. 1.

This legislation unconstitutionally states that if the House has not received any message from the Senate providing for the Appropriations of Government for fiscal year 2011 before April 6, 2011, then H.R. 1 would be deemed as passed by the Senate, signed by the President and enacted into law.

H.R. 1255 also prohibits the CAO of the House and the Secretary of the Senate from disbursing salary payments for Members of Congress, and also prohibits the President from receiving his salary. It states that the President and Members cannot be disbursed a salary for every day that there is a lapse in appropriations, or if the debt ceiling prevents Federal expenditures. However, because H.R. 1255 already would deem H.R. 1 passed, no funding gap could exist, while hitting the debt ceiling would by definition prevent Federal expenditures like Member salaries.

This legislation would have absolutely no practical effect. Since the Senate would have to pass it and President would have to sign it, this bill is nothing but a talking point for the Tea Party wing of the Republicans. This bill would not have any effect on current, serious negotiations to keep the government operating. The Member Salary portion of the bill would also have no effect since H.R. 1255 already would deem H.R. 1 passed.

This legislation is unconstitutional. The Majority would make history by deeming that the Senate passed a bill which was considered on the Senate floor and failed. The Majority would also make history by deeming that the President would have signed a bill which he promised to veto, should it reach his desk. After opening Congress with a reading of the Constitution, the Republicans are breaking their pledge again.

This legislation exposes extraordinary hypocrisy from the House Republican Leadership. In the 111th Congress, while Republicans promised never to use the ``deem and pass'' process, it only took a few weeks for them to break another pledge to the American people. During the 111th Congress, then-Minority Leader and now-Speaker John Boehner called deem and pass a ``scheme and plot'' that set a precedent that was ``one of the most outrageous things [he] had seen since [he] had been in Congress''--and, erroneously claimed it had ``never happened in American history.'' Now-Majority Leader Eric Cantor has previously offered a privileged resolution on `deem and pass' putting Republicans on record as considering this process a ``malfeasant manner'' and those who might support it as having ``discharged the duties of their offices.''

This legislation is a waste of the American people's time and a distraction from Democrats' serious efforts to keep the government from shutting down. Instead of passing this hypocritical, unconstitutional, meaningless bill, the GOP Leadership ought to spend more time at the negotiating table trying to reach a compromise agreement to keep the Government running.

I am an ardent supporter of working in a bipartisan manner to pass fiscally responsible legislation which properly funds the Federal Government through fiscal year 2011 and maintains important programs that are vital to our economic recovery. So, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and supporting true bipartisan appropriations legislation to keep the Federal Government operational through fiscal year 2011, so that we may address and solve the important issues facing the American people.

It's time to cease fire and sit down and negotiate. One would believe that I'm speaking about the conflict in the Mid East and about Libya. What I'm really speaking about is the Governor of the State of Texas and the challenge that we have of ensuring that $830 million comes back to the State of Texas for our school children.

Earlier today, I had the privilege of speaking to a group of students from Spelman College, an Historically Black College, and I told them their greatest contribution can be to go into the elementary schools and the secondary schools and talk to them about the value of education. We can't see America lose its excellence in education, see children in 60-person classes, teachers thrown out in the street. We need the $830 million in the State of Texas.

Let's resolve our differences. Let's give a commitment to the Secretary of Education that you will use these dollars for education only. Parents and teachers and students and those who are committed to educating our children, the best and the brightest, deserve that kind of commitment.

What is America great for? It's great because we've given the opportunity of education to all people. Texas, it's time to cease fire. Sit down, negotiate, and receive $830 million Federal dollars on behalf of the children of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to ask my colleagues to help American families and children.

I join my good friend Congressman Luis Gutierrez on acknowledging the many children, the talented children that are in our schools that deserve the best education, along with all of our children who happen to have been in this country most of their lives but they're undocumented. They are called the DREAM Act children, the children who are our future engineers and doctors, teachers and train workers, bus workers--people who help build America.

It is time now to support comprehensive immigration reform. It's time now to distinguish between the bad guys, whom all of us want to be see deported, versus these young children who are valedictorians and salutatorians, who are athletes, who are men and women in the United States military, who are seeking to be part of the pillars of this community. I want to join in standing alongside these American families and children, not to break up families who are raising wonderful Americans but yet are not statused because of the way their families came to seek an opportunity.

Comprehensive immigration reform is the answer, but we must protect the DREAM Act children.

Let me applaud the work of this committee, and particularly Mr. Rahall and Mr. Costello, whom we work very closely with. I serve as a ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee, and I can't imagine a more perfect fit than the question of safety and security for our traveling public, and I thank the chairman of the full committee and others associated with this legislation, however disappointed I am in having to come to the floor and raise questions about our next steps. And I am particularly devastated about the cuts in the FAA's Next Generation Air Traffic System, the NextGen.

Whenever you think of air traffic controllers, I want you to think of them as first responders, of which I will discuss in an amendment that I have regarding the issue of ensuring the kind of staffing needs necessary to engage in security. But further, since I have one of the largest airports in the country, Bush Intercontinental Airport, of which we were proud to name, I am disappointed that the FAA Improvement Program has been cut and, therefore, construction improving runways, taxiways, terminals. There's one thing about getting up and getting in the air and having that beautiful feeling. But what about coming down and not being able to work?

And let me say I am disappointed that we would have a Shuster amendment that would really put a dent in the pilot fatigue rulemaking. That is very important. And then of course the issue dealing with the Costello-LaTourette amendment, which I support. How can you win by 70,000, then you count the people who didn't vote, and you lose by 150,000? Let's be fair. Let's have a bill that responds to the needs of all.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of debate, I intend to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

First of all, let me indicate to my colleagues the importance of this issue. I served as the chairperson of the Transportation Security Committee on Homeland Security and I now serve as the ranking member, so I have lived through these issues of security for a very long time. From the tragic moments of 9/11 and the organization of our Homeland Security Committee as a select committee, and then the final committee, I have been involved in these issues. So my intent is to discuss why this is an important safety issue and an important security issue.

Again, it is to recognize that our air traffic controllers are really our first responders. It is important to note that air traffic controllers are in rural airports, in small airports, and in our major airports. My amendment would specifically speak to the busiest airports, those airports that could document on an annual basis the amount of passengers at that airport, such as Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas, that is number eight.

Commercial aircraft, for example, always have at least two pilots for long hauls. Sometimes there are three for long hauls. Why would we not have the same standards for air traffic controllers? I believe it is important to ensure

the safety of the American public. There are notorious incidents that involve pilot fatigue, but there are also incidents that reflect upon the lack of air traffic controllers.

I commend Secretary LaHood for ordering a second air traffic controller to be on duty, in particular, overnight at the National Airport. And I want to make the point that we are not demonizing air traffic controllers, because if you know the story, you know the individual that fell asleep had been on duty for three nights in a row. The Secretary's action evidences that there is no current mandate for multiple air traffic controllers.

There is legislation in the Senate and there is language in the House bill that deals with the study. I frankly believe that we should have a more firm assessment, having a minimum of three, and at least two air traffic controllers to address this question.

Why do I say that? The National Air Traffic Controllers Association and their president have indicated one-person shifts are unsafe, period. The most horrifying proof of this, of course, came on August 27, 2006. In addition, it has been in the air traffic controllers' mission to have at least two people on staff or as air traffic controllers for most of their existence.

So I stand today saying that it is important that we have trained air traffic controllers. They are called certified professional controllers. But in the top 20 airports, I must ask the question: Why do we have a structure that doesn't require minimally three, at least two, and at least, if you will, would have the individual there at all times who has not been on duty for three nights in a row?

I think that this is an important step, and I would ask my colleagues to work with me as we go forward to ensure the safety and security of the Nation's skies. We are all working together, and I look forward prospectively to looking at legislation, long-term, that addresses this issue of safety and security in the Nation's air traffic control towers. They are our public servants.

Mr. Chair, my amendment calls for staffing minimums of no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during the period of airfield operations at the 20 busiest airports in the country.

We have all heard about the air traffic Supervisor who reportedly fell asleep on the job last week, forcing two airliners carrying more than 150 passengers and crew to land without direction at National Airport.

It is a blessing that the pilots had the wherewithal to handle the situation safely, securely, and without incident, but this has highlighted a serious safety and security issue in our aviation system.

Although the Supervisor at National Airport was certified to perform air traffic control, the fact that a Supervisor for the FAA who is responsible for managing air traffic controllers was working alone without any frontline air traffic controller(s) on duty, is shocking in itself. What is more shocking is that this was his fourth 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift in a row, according to USA Today.

This is not the first incident at National Airport, where a traffic control tower was left unmanned for an extended period of time.

The vast majority of air traffic controllers are hard working dedicated individuals. 365 days a year, air traffic controllers ensure that we have the safest aviation system in the world.

But Mr. Chair, we are all human and mishaps occur, which is why in the aviation system we use multiple layers and duplication to ensure for the safety of the public and the crew.

Commercial aircraft always have at least two pilots, and for long haul flights, there are three. Why would we not have similar standards for air traffic controllers performing an equally critical function?

Think about the people flying on the planes across our country. They our our grandmothers, husbands, wives and babies. They are American passangers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety we must insist that Certified Professional Controllers (CPC) are always in the tower. We must set a reasonable minimum standard.

I commend Secretary LaHood for ordering a second air traffic controller to be on duty overnight at National Airport. However, the Secretary's action simply evidences that there is no current mandate for multiple air traffic controllers. The Secretary stated, ``It is not acceptable to have just one controller in the tower managing air traffic in this critical air space. I have also asked FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt to study staffing levels at other airports around the country.''

My amendment calls for a minimum of three air traffic controllers in the tower during hours of airfield operation at the Nation's busiest airports.

After 9/11, we witnessed the vital importance of air traffic controllers in protecting our domestic airspace. Air Traffic Controllers also known as Certified Professional Controllers (CPCs) are part of our front line of defense to protect and ensure the safety of our airspace. In the shocking aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it was air traffic controllers who monitored the air space above our nation to help keep us safe from further attacks.

Our system is clearly not impervious to the effects of human error, and all it takes is one accident for us to regret not taking the proper action on this amendment.

We must not forget the people who are the passengers in those planes that fly above American skies. They are our grandmothers, grandfathers, husbands, wives and children. They are American passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety we must insist that air traffic controllers are provided with proper staffing levels to do their important and necessary jobs of keeping Americans safe.

Mr. Chair, let me end by quoting from a statement released by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association which says:

``One-person shifts are unsafe. Period. The most horrifying proof of this came on Aug. 27, 2006, when 49 people lost their lives aboard Comair Flight 191 in Lexington, Ky., when there was only one controller assigned to duty in the tower handling multiple controllers' responsibilities alone. One person staffing was wrong then and it's wrong now.''

Mr. Chair, my amendment is essential to ensure that we continue to have the safest and most secure aviation system in the world, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me thank the gentleman, and let me thank Mr. Costello, as well, for working on these issues. I think both Members know my relationship to the issues of transportation security.

I would argue that having a statutory framework to work from is the appropriate approach to take. You can assess, then, whether you need three or two or whether some of the airports already have the standing amount. But we have to focus on the security of our skies, if you will, and we don't want any more tragedies to occur without some framework.

I look forward to working with both gentlemen on a framework for our air traffic controllers. I intend to work on legislation that embodies safety and security in a jurisdictional manner and working with Homeland Security, working with the Department of Transportation and our respective jurisdictional committees.

We owe this to the American public. It is my commitment to ensure that professionalism is there, that safety and security are there, and no more lives are lost because of the potential of an overly tired air traffic controller.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I ask the American people to

wake up from the malaise of this debate about the deficit and raising the debt ceiling. You have lost your way. Let me just ask you to raise your voices against the issue of a broken government and the potential of a shutdown on the question of, what do you want for your children.

As we go back to our districts and our school districts and our States, parents are standing in lines at school board meetings crying about 60-seat classrooms and teachers being laid off. Don't you understand that it starts right here in Washington? You need to be speaking to our friends on the other side of the aisle. It is time to invest and grow the economy. It is time to recognize that consumer spending has increased, that jobs have been created, and that it is important to invest in this economy.

If you don't get in the way and get in the mix, I can tell you that the rise that we have of 192,000 jobs being created, the unemployment going down, economists saying we should invest now, you are going to lose it, tied up with those who have views that are only self-centered, our friends that are in the tea party. It is time for people to put education first and realize that if you let us fall on the spear here in Washington on the grounds of mislabeled politics and not worry about your children, you are going to lose.

Wake up, America. It is time to get in the fight. Fight for your children. Invest and grow the economy now.

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

I thank the chairman very much, and I thank my colleagues very much as well.

As we come to the floor of the House, I know that Members on both sides of the aisle are committed to knowing the facts. We want to know the facts when we go to town hall meetings when our constituents pose very deliberative questions. We want to give them numbers. We want to be able to reason with them. And one of the deliberative aspects of legislation is that you fix it; you don't end it.

So I rise today to ask my colleagues to support my amendment, an amendment that I think makes common sense. It is an amendment that thoughtful Members can support. It is an amendment that, whether you are Republican or Democrat, you want to know what works.

My amendment would call on the Secretary of the Treasury to commission a study that would identify what aspects of the HAMP program were successful and effectively carried out the original intent of the program. It would then require the Secretary to issue a report to Congress containing all findings and determinations of the

study and legislative recommendations for a new mortgage modification program that could more successfully and effectively achieve the original purpose of the Home Affordable Modification Program.

We have to thank the administration for recognizing that people were literally on their knees. There is no doubt that we have different philosophies. My friends on the other side of the aisle, they keep talking about the deficit and the depressing aspect of the $1 trillion debt. We keep talking about invest and grow the economy. When you grow the economy, you have the ability to pay down on your debt; you have the ability to address the question of the debt ceiling. So my question is: Why wouldn't you want to know the best practices?

Let me give you some of the myths that have been presented. One suggestion is that this legislation that we have before us to end the HAMP program will prevent another $30 billion from going to one of these programs. That is inaccurate. The repeal of this program will, in essence, save only $1.437 billion. That is all that it will save. But, more importantly, what you will have is you will throw homeowners into the streets when the major asset for Americans, middle class, hardworking Americans, is their home. Let's find out the best practices and make this work.

The monthly rate of new loan approvals would have to triple in order to approximate the amount cited by the chairman of this committee, suggesting $30 billion. Actually, we expect the rates are, instead, likely to modestly decline. So you are not going to have that much savings and it is not going to, in essence, blow up with so many people using it that you are going to use this amount of money.

One Republican has suggested that the program goes to private lenders. Well, for every dollar that the HAMP program has paid out, homeowners have received from lenders $5 in reduced mortgage payments. Most of the program funds do not go to lenders but go directly to homeowners as incentives on the on-time mortgage payments. It is giving individuals a leg up.

It is interesting that we would not want to focus on the best practices when, if you look at this map, you will see that every single State has received a HAMP impact, someone has a mortgage problem that the HAMP program has helped.

Now, can we fix it? Yes, we can make it better. But let me tell you about a person by the name of Laurel. She indicated how this program has helped her. ``Well, my income has not fully come back.'' She was unemployed. ``I am making much less than I was making before, so it has been a difficult time. With the modification, my mortgage payment has gone down $800 and I am able to make my payment on time. I have been able to remain in the home that I love, and that has provided me with great stability. I am extremely grateful that I received the modification.''

She has saved an asset that contributes to the economy. What would be the result of ending the modification program? I can tell you what the result would be. The result would be that Laurel would dump another home onto the market that no one could buy, that would bring down the quality of the neighborhood and the house appraisal prices of the neighborhood and, therefore, add another dent to the economy.

Invest and grow. And the question is, all of my friends who are there on the other side of the aisle, here is a document that is 15 pages long that shows that your district, your cities, have been impacted positively by the HAMP program. Job growth is picking up. Invest and grow jobs should be the mindset of the American Congress, for that is what we were sent back to Washington to do.

There is no doubt that we have a collective commitment to bringing down the debt. There is a collective commitment to doing that, and we can look reasonably at what and how to do it. But when you don't even have the best practices or know why you are repealing something, and right now people are in the middle of addressing this question of modifying their mortgage.

I ask my colleagues to support my amendment because it does in fact provide a lifeline, and it invests in the economy, creates jobs and stabilizes the middle class.

With regard to the HAMP program, I would like say, ``Mend it, don't end it!''

The HAMP program has not been perfect, but it has helped a considerable number of Americans modify their mortgages in order to prevent foreclosure and keep their homes and livelihoods that they work so hard for day in and day out.

The White House agrees--The White House has indicated that the President will veto the HAMP termination bill if it passes.

As written, this bill would prohibit new mortgage loan modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program, (HAMP), which is funded under authority generally referred to as TARP, pursuant to the ``Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008'' (also known as EESA). Despite termination of the program, this bill would grandfather in assistance to homeowners who, prior to the date of enactment, had already been extended an offer to participate in HAMP, either on a permanent or trial basis.

I am here before you today to offer an amendment that I believe will greatly enhance this bill by making it a vehicle that providing us, the Members of Congress, with very useful information. If H.R. 839 were to pass, terminating the HAMP program, my amendment would call on the Secretary of the Treasury to commission a study that would identify what aspects of the HAMP program were successful and effectively carried out the original intent of the program.

It would then require the Secretary to issue a report to Congress containing all findings and determinations of the study, and legislative recommendations for a new mortgage modification program that could more successfully and effectively achieve the original purpose of the Home Affordable Modification Program.

Parliamentarian ruled that the amendment is germane.

Congressional Budget Office, CBO, found that there is no cost associated with my amendment.

If the HAMP program is terminated, we will still be left to deal with the problem of foreclosed homes in a recovering, yet very fragile, housing market. With the unemployment rate still hovering at an uncomfortably high rate, Americans are still dealing with the difficulties of making ends meet. Although our economy is slowly but surely on the path to recovery, Americans struggling to find work will still be faced with the painful reality of losing their home, although now, without an avenue for assistance with refinancing.

To avoid another slump in the housing market, and to avoid dealing yet another blow to our fragile economy, if H.R. 839 becomes law, it will be necessary for us to consider a new mortgage refinance and modification program in the future to prevent stalling the recovery of the housing market, or even worse, allowing it to crumble once again. If that day were to come, it would be most useful to have firm facts and strong statistics about what methods are proven to be most effective in solving the problems associated with high foreclosure rates and ensuring that home loan modifications are both permanent and successful.

The HAMP program was put in place by the Obama Administration in early 2009 with the intent to modify mortgage loans in order that distressed borrowers might have a better chance at making payments and holding onto their homes. The program has successfully modified over 500,000 million mortgages to prevent foreclosure and keep homeowners in their homes. While well intentioned HAMP program has encountered some difficulties--not yet reaching the goal set by the Obama Administration of helping 3 to 4 million homeowners.

Nonetheless, the program has effectively helped a number of homeowners with successful loan modifications that allowed them to keep their homes. To date, there are 539,493 homeowners with permanent HAMP loan modifications.

New permanent HAMP modifications have averaged around 29,000 per month over the last six months of 2010. Therefore, assuming a modestly declining rate from this, a reasonable estimate is that program participation will double by the end of next year, for a cumulative total of 1.1 million homeowners. Based on this estimate, the bill would deny modifications to more than a half million homeowners at risk of foreclosure.

This is a sign, that despite its problems, there are some positive and effective aspects of the HAMP program that should be considered when we look to replace the HAMP program if H.R. 839 is passed terminating this program. My amendment would call for a detailed study that would highlight these best practices, while also ensuring that those aspects of the program which may have hampered its initial success are not repeated.

There are a number of reasons the program has not met the original Obama Administration goal of helping 3 to 4 million homeowners,

some of which are actually sound and appropriate aspects of the program. HAMP appropriately excludes different categories of borrowers--including investors, owners of second homes, homeowners whose mortgages are unsustainable even with HAMP assistance, and homeowners that can pay their mortgage without government assistance. These particular categories of borrowers are either unlikely to refinance successfully, or are not those who the HAMP program originally intended to help--those bar rowers who are in dire need of assistance to keep from losing their home.

Another reason the HAMP program has not reached its desired goal is because banks and other mortgage servicers were understaffed and unprepared to carry out loan modifications--resulting in widespread complaints about lost files, non-responsiveness, etc. Furthermore, legally, mortgage holders can not be forced to reduce mortgage payments. Programs have had to be voluntary, incentivizing lenders to reduce mortgage payments in lieu of foreclosing on the loan.

One of the more fundamental flaws in the HAMP Program was that it does not take certain circumstances into consideration. For instance, the program does not account for second mortgages than many homeowners may have on their property. As a result, some homeowners have ended up paying more than they originally owed, an outrageous thought considering the intended goal of the program. The study and report that would result from my amendment would bring these types of issues to light to ensure that a new program would better achieve the goals set by the Obama Administration

Temporary Modifications--There were many temporary modifications that did not result in permanent modifications but . . . the Obama Administration says 50 percent of those who got temp modifications received permanent modifications in the private market (so this means HAMP temporary modifications did in fact help homeowners)

These types of strengths and weaknesses are invaluable pieces of information. My amendment would simply ensure that Congress would be privy to an official report containing this information and determinations from those experts who have worked most closely with the HAMP program since its inception.

With that, Mr. Chair, I ask that this committee strongly consider accepting my amendment. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Good morning to the ``fend for yourself'' bill. That's the message of my friends on the other side of the aisle-- with short-term CRs, $61 billion in reckless and ludicrous cuts that don't make sense on 20 percent of the budget which is discretionary funding.

But NPR. This morning, I listened to NPR, as I usually do, and someone who designates themselves as a Republican called in and said, ``I'm through. I'm a registered Republican, but I'm leaning Democrat. I've been listening to NPR for most of my life.''

Biased? No. Unbiased. NPR is a voice of reason. Federal funding frivolous? No. Federal funding allows the objectivity. And no one can account for the fact that we believe in the First Amendment, but yet we want to defund NPR.

NPR, National Public Radio, speaks the truth on all of our cases. It provides the American people far and wide an opportunity to hear a fair and balanced presentation.

Thank you very much.

The resolution speaks nothing of fact why do you desire to cut NPR. Why do you want to put the burden of a budget or a CR on the NPR? The real issue is that no matter how much they keep doing, no one on the other side wants to address the cause of the issue of the deficit or the debt, that we have to balance, we have to bring in a number of issues that we have to address.

We can't scapegoat. I refuse to scapegoat the National Public Radio, a reasoned and responsible voice for the people, no matter who you are. It is a ridiculous legislation. In my District, KPFT and KTSU are great public communicators for many of the poor in my district--don't shut them down! I ask my colleagues to vote against it.

I respect my President, our President.

I thank the previous speaker for his service. I thank all of the United States military, at home and abroad, for their brave and courageous service.

I beg to differ. The Constitution indicates that the Congress can declare war, which has not been so declared. I would make the argument that we have shed our blood in Afghanistan, and my hat is off to those families who have lost their loved ones, and certainly those who fight on the front lines today.

I believe it is important for Congress to be engaged in this effort because this is the people's House. A few months ago, a year ago, I may not have supported this move. But here we are again, facing the same obstacles.

This amendment or resolution says within 30 days, but up to December 31, if necessary.

It is time now to push the Kabul government to be able to negotiate and engage. It is time to use smart power. It is time to let girls go to school, let leaders lead, and for our combat troops and others to come home.

It is time to recognize that our resources are needed around the world. Libya is in need.

But it is time for us to end with Afghanistan and to push them to be a sovereign nation, and to work with them on diplomacy and to be able to save lives.

I support this resolution. I wish that it would pass now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote to against H.R. 1076 which would prohibit federal funding for NPR and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content.

Today's Republican attempts to defund NPR will affect stations all across the country. In my district alone, KTSU and KPFT will have to cope with the aftermath of the Republican proposal. These two stations serve predominately poor, minority populations in my district, and the House Republicans are attempting to eliminate their opportunity to provide National Public Radio to their listeners. If this bill were to become law, radio stations in my district would no longer qualify to receive over $743,000 in Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants, and prohibiting the use of these funds to purchase popular NPR programming will make it difficult for stations to attract local listeners and raise funds for the production of local content and station operations. Hundreds of stations rely on public broadcasting funding as a major source of funding, especially rural and minority stations.

Some people in my district exclusively listen to these stations. These two stations in Houston and hundreds across the country do not have the money to compete with big corporate stations, and they cannot compete with conservative talk shows because they do not spew out biased, partisan, uncomplimentary, critical messages. They are just reporting the news and bringing it from all over the world.

Further, I think it is shameless that once again the Republicans have violated their so called promises of transparent government by refusing to allow this bill to go through normal committee processes. There have been no hearings or expert testimony for Members to review. There has only been politically charged rhetoric and lies about the impact of public radio.

Mr. Speaker, while we are here in the United States, and I am privileged and honored that we are comforted by our flag, our values, and the fact that we can live in peace and security, Mr. Speaker, there are those who are fighting for freedom all over the world, but in this instance in the Mideast, and they are dying as we speak.

We had the uprising in Egypt and Yemen and Bahrain. Bahrain is moving people out of the streets. But then you move to Libya and people are dying.

Today I stood with a mother who lives in the United States, and her Libyan American son, who was born here, is lost in Libya. At first she thought he was dead, but she is looking to see whether or not there is news that he was only wounded. Even so, he was not in battle. He was providing food to those who needed the food, and yet he was brought down.

It is important that we not enter a war, but that we create with our allies a no-fly zone. Otherwise, Qaddafi is going to slaughter the people of Libya. Where is our heart? Where is our compassion?

As we seek to bring our heroic soldiers home from Afghanistan who have fought for peace and freedom, let us not forget those who stand unarmed almost in their civilian clothes fighting against tyranny. We must have a no-fly zone. We cannot tolerate the slaughter. We must stand for peace.

Mr. Speaker, I know we're not supposed to remind us of our history. I won't be long. But if you will recall, some 8 years prior to this present administration, day after day after day, our budget was simply imploding with millions, trillions of dollars going into the war in Iraq. So here we are. Someone wants to blame the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Well, let me explain to you, we were in double-digit unemployment. Look where we are today, going up and not down in terms of job creation and going down in terms of unemployment. The economy was sick, and it is coming back. But what do our colleagues want to do? Pass CRs that every economist says is the wrong direction to go in 2011.

It's like you started out with $150 for the household expenses that you have. You had that money to pay for the expenses of that month, and all of a sudden, somebody came and said, You know what, I'm taking $75 away from you, so you don't have that money to pay your expenses. And guess what, you are in the hole. Why are you cutting budgets in 2011? Why are you cutting 16,000 law enforcement jobs? Why are you cutting 800,000 jobs? Why are you cutting 800 Border Patrol jobs? This is the wrong direction to go. We need a real budget. We need real leadership. Adults need to come to the table and work together and solve this budget crisis.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a CR of $61 billion in cuts causing the loss of 800,000 jobs. What is more precious to America than the opportunity to own a home?

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program has gone into inner city and urban areas and recaptured neighborhoods, giving them a boost of energy that they needed. There is always the opportunity for reform, Mr. Speaker, but I would simply raise the question: Let's mend it, don't end it. Let's not leave cities abandoned with broken down, ramshackle homes that would in fact create more blight, more gang opportunities, more dangerous conditions.

And, yes, HAMP needs reform. But what does it mean to eliminate a program? Of course the HAMP has a grandfather provision. But all America wants is to get these programs to work. Neighborhood stabilization works. HAMP can work. Now you're letting banks off the hook, so that every day a homeowner calls, they can hear the sound ``foreclosed.'' At least the intervention allowed those hardworking Americans to keep their home and to provide for their family and to keep jobs will be lost if these bills are passed. Vote no.

I would like to thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for allowing us--and being the lead on Monday after Monday--opportunities to be able to engage our constituents and speak on a number of very important issues. I thank you for your leadership. I have certainly been privileged to be part of this very important opportunity to speak on a number of challenging issues.

Many of us have just arrived back into Washington. We have spent precious days with our constituents, and it is amazing the number of issues that we are encountering: individuals who are impacted by the broken and unfixed immigration laws; individuals who are in need of small business assistance or health care. These are the real issues of Americans. Or those who are gathering to join their allies and friends in Wisconsin as they are concerned and almost intimidated somewhat about the misdirected approach to budget cutting by cutting out rights of workers, many of whom are women.

So I think speaking about women is crucial as we commemorate Women's History Month, because we know from the early founding of this great country, women were standing side by side with the Founders. Those of us who come from a slave history, we know the history of slave women who were the backbone of keeping families together. That if a slave woman was sold, she could turn to another slave woman and say, Would you take care of my children? I can't take them with me. Or if, tragically, she lost her life in the violence of slavery, the families of other slaves rallied around those children.

I would think the same of Native Americans, Indian women, who were the backbone of their families, and pioneering women and women who came from places around the world, Irish women, women who came from Great Britain or Poland or from South and Central America or from the Caribbean. These are women who have come to the United States and were part of the founding.

I speak of my grandmother, Olive Jackson, who came from Jamaica, West Indies, and with her husband, Albert Jackson, went to Panama and helped build in the teeming woods and forests of that era, fighting against malaria and mosquitoes and diseases and were part of building the Panama Canal. How my grandmother kept the family together and gave birth to her first son and survived to be able to make it here to the United States and had children born in South Carolina and made their way up, and then finally got to Brooklyn, New York. A part of the history of this country. She kept the family together.

Let me just call a roll, if you don't mind, of some of the women from Texas. Please note that there are many others.

Women like Mrs. Johnson, the wife of Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was so much involved in the beautification of Texas. Her daughter, Luci Baines Johnson. Her other daughter, Lynda Robb Johnson. The Honorable Barbara Jordan, who made a point in the 1974 Watergate hearings that she would not see the Constitution declined or diminished, and that she believed that even though it did not include her when we started, that this Constitution means We the People. That's what Women's History Month means.

Ann Richards, the former Governor, the late Governor of Texas. Mayor Kathy Whitmire. Beulah Shepard, the mayor of Acres Home. Ruby Mosley, who has been such a leader and a pioneer in changes in Acres Home. Jewel Houston, a great educator. Willie Belle Boone, a great political activist. Christia Adair, another great political activist. Esther Williams, a great early political activist and precinct judge. Irma of Irma's fabulous Mexican restaurant, a businesswoman who, with her children by her side, opened one of the famous restaurants in Houston. Representative Carol Alvarado. Representative Anna Hernandez. Commissioner Sylvia Garcia. Council Member Wanda Adams. Council Member Jolanda Jones. Doris Hubbard. The late Dorothy Hubbard. Mayor Annise Parker.

Small businesswomen. The late Nancy Berkman, who was so pivotal in working on the Mickey Leland Kibbutzim program. Joyce Schechter, a premier advocate and supporter of Democratic policies. Parvin McVey, an outstanding humanitarian. The women and doctors at the March of Dimes that I work with, the sacrifice that they make. Former Councilwoman Robinson, the wife of the late Judson Robinson, the first council member to be elected, and once he passed, Council Member Robinson, his wife took his place. Jewel McGowan, another great educator.

Teachers, nurses. Dr. Betty Lewis, a great nurse. Dr. Wanda Mott, a great doctor. Dr. Natalie Carroll, former president of the National Medical Association. And certainly Ling Lui, a Chinese American. Dr. Ahmed, an American from Bangladesh who's at Texas Southern University.

My mother, Ivalita Jackson. My aunts: Aunt Valerie, Aunt Audrey, Aunt Vickie, Aunt Sybil.

The reason why I just called their names is because they, along with the women of courage that we honored just a week or so ago with Secretary Hillary Clinton and Mrs. Obama--Michelle Obama, which I include in the greatness of how far women have come--they really make a statement, Congresswoman, that what we're doing in the budget and what we're doing in the CR really does not take into account all the sweat and toil of hardworking women.

Can you tell me how we would ignore a health care reform that women no longer have to be subjected to preexisting condition as a means of getting insurance and therefore pregnancy now does not stifle a woman who is working on a job from getting insurance and bans insurance companies, again, from dropping the women when they get sick or become pregnant. For women in new plans, it provides pre-coverage of important lifesaving preventative services. Women who are sometimes a single head of household, older women who have chronic conditions, they can now be covered because of preventative care; bans insurance companies from reauthorization or referral for access to OB/GYN care.

What an antiquated system that required women not to be able to go to a doctor for OB/GYN care. We have gotten rid of that; and the common practice of gender rating, meaning charging women substantially higher premiums. Yet this Affordable Health Care is on the chopping blocks. I can't understand it. Ensures children up to age 19 cannot be denied coverage for preexisting disease. Sometimes babies are born with asthma or sickle cell or juvenile diabetes. Those people cannot get insurance. Women would have to take off or quit or get on welfare just to be able to find some such basis of coverage or insurance.

Greater access to insurance by women. And yet as we commemorate Women's History Month, we have a situation where our friends on the other side of the aisle are slashing and burning. In fact, they have already voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. What does it say to the history of women in this country?

Let me quickly move to some additional harms to women, Republican- proposed cuts that will harm women

and their families. Title X family planning. This program has provided family planning services, breast and cervical cancer screening and other preventative health care to low-income women. It has provided health centers that serve more than 5 million women.

Can you imagine that healthy women, who make a difference in this country--that is less hours of sick women, less children away from the home, less women able to bear children and then go out into the workplace, because they have suffered the lack of access to health care. Well, my friends, if you can imagine, this is where we are today.

We had $300 million in a vote just by a Congressperson from Indiana, who won the vote 240-185 to prevent any Federal funding to Planned Parenthood. By the way, Planned Parenthood reads. They understand. Their moneys are used for family planning. It is used to detect cervical cancer and breast cancer. It's used to provide preventative service to millions of women in health care dealing with HIV testing, breast exams, and, of course, contraception. But none of these dollars will be used for what I suppose this amendment was supposed to inhibit--and that's abortion. They read. They get it. They have been following the law for years.

In Women's History Month, what are we saying to our women? It cuts nutrition programs for pregnant women and children $747 million, special supplemental nutrition program, the WIC program. Can you believe it? Suggesting that it's a waste of money, when most educators will tell you children that are not nourished in the early stages, they have a default in their ability to think and to be able to do well in school. Cut Head Start and child care. People approach me in my district, on the streets here in Washington, D.C. Cutting $1.1 from Head Start, $39 million from child care.

I want you to know that I'm dealing with a case, Congresswoman, in my district where Federal dollars were supporting a home child care. As you well know, those requirements are less than Head Start. And now do you know what we have? Four dead babies in this child care home care center where a fire consumed them. Unfortunately, because the caretaker made a mistake. This is what I'm dealing with.

And so my question is: you're cutting Head Start, you're cutting child care. People are standing in line to get child care. People are being turned away. They don't know what to do. Young mothers who are trying to do right, are trying to get a job, and they realize this is a problem. It cuts job training. I've had young mothers in job training programs, $4 billion. Are they telling me it doesn't work?

These job training programs are particularly important to women workers, many of them coming out of the home after they've had children and they can place them in a school setting or Head Start. They can now get back to work. They can be contributing to the tax base and to the society and be able to teach their children about the work ethic because they're young and they want to do so.

Cutting that; cutting Pell Grants. When I went out to Lone Star College, what did I see? Young women, some of them young mothers, getting the opportunity of a second life. It halts funding for the implementation of the health care law. I've already spoken about that. Maternal and child health. And then Social Security for women who are seniors. I just don't understand what we are trying to do.

So I would just argue the point in this Women's History Month that there is a breakdown. There's a mental block. Don't let me start talking about the minority women-owned businesses where they're cutting MBDA $1.9 million; and denying minority workers skills training for the 21st century workforce, cutting $3 billion dollars, and leaving our American heroes out in cold, women who have been veterans, cutting them $75 million, who may be homeless. I have met women homeless veterans. I see them every day. And it has only been recently that we've acknowledged that these women have PTSD and other problems. I've met them. They have begged for the programs to continue because they served their country as well.

And then, lo and behold, we've just shut the doors on community health clinics, something that the Congressional Black Caucus worked so hard on, $1.3 billion, cutting 3.2 million patients where they can come out of their homes and go to a doctor and not wind up in the emergency room that pushes up the tax base or the tax cost by the public hospital system and the private hospital system. And yet we continue cutting these programs.

So I'm reminded of Barbara Jordan's words about not being worried about being called a politician. She just said, I want to be called a darned good politician. That's what we should be looking at here in this place as we honor women and Women's History Month, that we can all be good elected officials, good politicians that make a difference. We make a difference on behalf of all of the American people. No party affiliation. That we don't cut and jab into collective bargaining in States around this country when in fact collective bargaining is simply giving someone the opportunity to sit down at the bargaining table; nurses, many of them women; teachers, many of them women, clerical workers; many of them women; municipal workers; women who have come out of the household to support their family and may be the only bread winner.

So let me thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to be able to salute women of all persuasions all over this country. Let me personally thank you for the nurturing that you have given the soldiers and sons that you have sent off to battles throughout the ages; to the Gold Star Mothers, to the Blue Star Mothers that I work with in my district. Thank you for the sacrifices that you have made. Thank you for nurturing those who are still mending and healing those who have been wounded in war, whether it's the war of the ages or the wars that we've just encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And let me thank the mothers and the women of the Mid East, from Egypt to Tunisia to Bahrain to Yemen to Libya--and most of all to Libya. Let me thank the women who have gone into battle. Let me thank the women who have already lost children because they wanted freedom in battle.

Let me thank the peace lovers. And all I would say, as we commemorate Women's History Month, the names that I have just called, they represent the strength and our history. And it is on their shoulders that I stand. It is on their shoulders that I pledge that I will never give up; as John Lewis said, never give out; and never give in, because women today are truly having as the wind beneath their wings all the women who have gone before, all the older women that stand alongside of them.

Finally, Congresswoman, to the young women, let me say that the road is never as smooth as one would like. It is rocky, with mountains and valleys; but take the opportunity to learn and to build so that you can have wings as well.

Women's History Month, I salute you and the women. I believe in your strength, and I believe in your spirit and your history.

Background on Women's History Month

Every March, the country recognizes National Women's History Month. This national celebration and recognition of women's historic achievements began in 1980 when National Women's History Week was proclaimed by Presidential Proclamation. In 1987, this national celebration was expanded by Congressional Resolution to an entire month by declaring March as National Women's History Month.

In the last several years, we have had a number of historic firsts to celebrate in conjunction with Women's History Month--the first woman Speaker of the House, the first female President of Harvard--to name a couple. These historic events speak to the progress we have made in women participating in public service and the political process.

Further, there are now a record number of women serving in Congress. The 112th Congress includes 93 women Members serving in the House and Senate.

The Democratic-led 111th Congress focused on a number of key concerns of America's women, including quality affordable health care, investments to create jobs and stimulate growth, investments in early childhood education, ensuring that our military families are receiving the resources and services that they need, and ensuring equal pay for all of America's working women.

Unfortunately, in the 112th Congress, the GOP-led House has moved in the opposite direction--failing to pass measures to create

jobs and promote economic growth. Not only have Republicans failed to create jobs, they have passed a Spending Bill that is projected to destroy up to 700,000 jobs and reduce economic growth by up to 2 percentage points, as well as cut services particularly vital for America's women.

How Healthcare Reform Benefits Women

Ensures being a woman will no longer be treated as a ``pre-existing condition,'' with insurance companies banned from denying coverage for ``pre-existing conditions,'' beginning in 2014. Currently, many women are denied coverage or charged more for such ``pre-existing conditions'' as breast or cervical cancer, pregnancy, having had a C- section, or having been a victim of domestic violence.

Bans insurance companies from dropping women when they get sick or become pregnant, as of 2010.

For women in new plans, provides free coverage of important, life- saving preventive services, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, as of 2010.

Improves the care of millions of older women with chronic conditions, by providing incentives under Medicare for more coordinated care.

Bans insurance companies from requiring women to obtain a pre- authorization or referral for access to ob-gyn care, as of 2010.

Ends the common practice of ``gender rating,'' charging women substantially higher premiums than men for the same coverage, beginning in 2014. According to a recent study, the women on the individual market pay up to 48% more in premium costs than men.

Ensures that children up to the age of 19 cannot be denied coverage due to a ``pre-existing condition,'' as of 2010.

Provides greater access to affordable health coverage for women, with the establishment of new Health Insurance Exchanges for the millions who do not have health insurance through an employer, beginning in 2014. Currently, less than half of America's women can obtain affordable insurance through their employer.

Republican proposed cuts that will harm women and their families

Eliminates Funding for the Title X Family Planning--Entirely eliminates funding for the Title X Family Planning Program, which received $317 million in FY 2010. For more than 40 years, the Title X Family Planning Program has provided family planning services, breast and cervical cancer screening, and other preventive health care to low- income women in need. Title X-funded health centers serve more than 5 million individuals each year, at 4,500 community-based clinics. Six in 10 women who obtain health care from a Title X-funded family planning center consider it to be their primary source of health care. Grantees include state and local health departments, hospitals, community health centers, and private non-profit organizations.

Eliminates all federal funding for Planned Parenthood--In addition to eliminating all funding for the Title X Family Planning Program in the underlying bill, House Republicans also adopted an amendment by Representative Mike Pence (R-IN), by a vote of 240-185, to specifically prohibit any federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The Pence amendment would have a devastating effect on women's access to health care across the country. Planned Parenthood health centers currently provide preventive services to millions of women in need of health care, including the provision of contraception, cancer screenings, breast exams, and HIV testing. In fact, over 90 percent of health care offered by Planned Parenthood is preventive. Many low-income individuals depend on Planned Parenthood health centers for the majority, if not all, of their health care.

Cuts Nutrition Programs for Pregnant Women and Their Children--Cuts $747 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, better known as the WIC program. The WIC program provides nutritious food, counseling, and other supports to 9.6 million low-income pregnant women, new mothers, and infants each month. This program makes a real difference; studies have linked WIC participation with higher birth weight and lower infant mortality.

Cuts Head Start and Child Care--Cuts $1.1 billion from the Head Start program and $39 million from child care, causing hundreds of thousands of children to lose early learning support. Head Start, Early Head Start, and the Child Care Development Block Grant are our key federal early learning investments. These initiatives: (1) allow low-income children to start school ready to succeed, and (2) support and enable parents to work. Funding is already insufficient and these cuts will result in even fewer children benefiting from early learning programs.

Cuts Job Training--Cuts more than $4 billion for job training programs that are critical in preparing workers for employment in growth industries. For example, funding under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is zeroed out--eliminating a $1.4 billion program serving 1.7 million youth and adult workers. These job training programs are particularly important for women workers, many of whom are concentrated in low-wage and low-skill jobs without opportunity for advancement.

Cuts Initiatives That Help Students Pay for College--Cuts the maximum Pell Grant amount by $845--from the current level of $5,550 to $4,705 for the coming academic year. Pell Grants provide the basic foundation of federal student aid and help millions of low-income American women afford to attend college. The bill also entirely eliminates federal funding ($757 million in FY 2010) for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which provide additional grants of up to $4,000 to the lowest income Pell recipients and reach 1.3 million of the Nation's neediest students. Cuts to these programs will make college less accessible for low-income women.

Halts Funding to Implement the Health Care Law--House Republicans adopted a series of amendments on the House Floor that essentially stop any funding to implement the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law enacted last year. The GOP bill, as amended, therefore takes away critical new patient's rights, many of which are critical to America's women. As a result, under the GOP bill, lifetime caps could once again be placed on coverage, young adults up to age 26 would lose the assurance they could stay on their parents' plan, pregnant women could once again be thrown off insurance rolls, and being a woman could once again be considered a pre-existing condition.

Cuts Maternal and Child Health--Cuts $50 million from the Title V Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Title V-supported programs provide prenatal health services to 2.5 million women and primary and preventive health care to 31 million children each year. Cuts this deep will severely harm state and local programs serving women, babies, and children.

Eliminates Funding that Helps Schools Comply with Title IX-- Eliminates the Women's Educational Equity Program, which promotes education equity for women and girls and helps educational agencies meet their obligations under Title IX, the law that requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding.

Cuts Funding for Social Security Offices and Supports for Women Who Are Seniors--Cuts funding for the Social Security Administration by hundreds of millions of dollars. These cuts will force thousands of layoffs and furloughs in offices across the country, which means delays in processing applications for Social Security benefits Americans have earned. The bill also cuts funding for a range of supports for seniors, including senior employment services (cut by $525 million) and Administration on Aging programs (cut by $65 million). Women are a majority of Social Security recipients and more than two-thirds of the elderly poor--so they will be disproportionately harmed by these GOP cuts.

Undermines Food Safety--Cuts funding for USDA food safety inspections by $88 million--making it impossible to conduct daily inspections of meat and poultry plants. This would force many meat and poultry plants to shut down for more than a month in 2011, resulting in estimated economic losses of up to $11 billion. Furthermore, the bill cuts FDA funding by $241 million. This would lead to furloughs and/or RIFs of hundreds of FDA staff including those who inspect our domestic and imported foods.

Blocks Public Database on Safety of Consumer Products, Designed as ``Early Warning System'' for Parents--House Republicans adopted an amendment by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), by a vote of 234-187, which prohibits any funding for a new public consumer safety information database, opposed by Big Business, which is particularly designed to warn parents about potentially defective products aimed at children.

republican spending bill impact on minorities

Inhibiting the Creation of Minority Businesses

Slashing $1.9 million from the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), the sole agency dedicated to fostering growth and innovation among minority-owned firms, creates barriers for minority businesses to employ more than the 6 million Americans they did last year.

In 2010, the MBDA generated $3.3 billion in contracts and capital for minority-owned firms.

Denying Minority Workers Skills Training for a 21st Century

Workforce

Cutting $3 billion from the Workforce Investment Act eliminates access to essential job training initiatives that have helped millions of minorities gain the skills to compete in our nation's job market.

In 2009, Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs helped approximately 8,370,000 people, with minorities making up 43 percent (714,314) of the WIA Adult Program, 38 percent (384,106) of the WIA Dislocated Worker Program and 68 percent (186,809) of the WIA Youth Program.

Ensuring a Second Rate Education for Minority Communities

Taking away $1 billion from Head Start denies 200,000 children an early childhood education and forces them to begin kindergarten less educated than their classmates. This cut disproportionately harms minority children with Latinos making up 36 percent and African Americans 29 percent of the nearly 1,114,000 children that receive a quality early education from Head Start funding.

By cutting $580 million from special education programs, Republicans are shifting the federal government's obligation to educate up to 324,000 children with disabilities onto our already burdened states, 45 of which are already running deficits. This cut will hurt special education programs where Latino children make up 19 percent, African American children 15 percent and Asian Americans and Pacific Islander children 4 percent of students.

Eliminating Health Care Services to Minority Communities

Eliminating $61 million in funding from the Maternal and Child Health Block Grants forces doctors to decide which of the millions of mothers they serve will not receive the prenatal care they need to give birth to healthy babies. In one year, these grants assisted over 4 million mothers, including 1 million Latinas, 723,000 African Americans and 195,000 Asian Americans who gave birth to healthy babies.

Cutting $1.3 billion from Community Health Centers will deny critical health care to nearly 3.2 million new patients. Currently, Community Health Centers provide quality, affordable health care to 20 million people 36 percent are Latinos, 22 percent are African Americans and 4 percent are Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Leaving Our American Heroes Out in the Cold

Revoking $75 million from veterans' housing programs will leave up to 10,000 homeless veterans without a roof over their head despite patriotically serving in our Armed Forces.

African American and Latinos make up 56 percent of the estimated 156,000 homeless veterans though they only comprise 11 percent and 6 percent of the veterans' population, respectively.

Finally, I can not end, without saluting Nancy Pelosi, the first women Speaker in the History of the United States. Many little girls will aspire to great heights because of her leadership and strength. Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for all of your work over the years. Along with Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Coretta Scott King, Maya Angelo, Rosa Parks and Dr. Dorothy Height the women of Presidents, every U.S. President sought her counsel, we are blessed because of their fight and their victory!

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

First of all, the gentleman from Alabama was arguing the merits of the legislation. These are findings that pertain to the results that would occur from the language in the bill.

The bill is eliminating the existing funds or leftover funds for FHA refinance. The amendment clearly lays out the impacted persons connected to the elimination. Therefore, this is germane because it relates to the language of the amendment and the intent of the amendment.

Twelve million people left behind, thousands of homeowners in different States, and the fact that there is no other solution to these homeowners except FHA refinance, it is a germane amendment. The findings are simply laying out the impact. We do that in all of our bills to put findings on what the impact of legislation would be.

I ask the Chairman to consider the gentlelady's amendment being germane. The findings are germane, and it is doing simply that of listing the elements of the impact of this legislation.

I ask for a waiver of the point of order.

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

I am very sorry that Congresswoman Maloney's amendment was subject to a point of order. I would like to simply add that you need to put faces on what this legislation is doing. It is a simple act. It guts and eliminates all remaining funding. It does say that if you are in the midst of the program you might continue.

But everyone knows how solid FHA is. Whenever you hear FHA, you know that there is a framework that really provides for protection for the Federal Government and a fiscally responsible program that provides the Federal Government with protection for those who are able to utilize it.

But even traveling through airports, Mr. Chairman, I had a man with a family who indicated that in the midst of the holiday season, even though he had been told by the banking institution that his mortgage was intact, they would allow him to continue to pay, he was keeping up but having difficulty looking for modification, a few days into the new year, January 6, he was foreclosed on, and a few days later, or at least on that day foreclosed with a sign or a notice on his door, ``Vacate in 3 days.'' These are the faces of individuals who probably would have fared better under FHA.

At the same time, a law enforcement, a police officer came to me and said the very same thing, naming an institution that I had never heard of, had no national standing, some fly-by-night. Here is a law enforcement officer, a local police officer putting his life on the line every day, and he needed to sell his home. He had managed to find a buyer. He had communicated that to the bank. But lo and behold, the lowlife thing to do was what this financial institution did. And I would call it not a bank, but probably a mortgage entity. They took the house right from underneath a man that goes out every day and projects himself into the community and could lay his life on the line.

I am against H.R. 830 and H.R. 836. It doesn't make sense when we've got hundreds of thousands of individuals who are in need of this program. I will venture to say that if a program needs fixing, have we ever heard of fix it, don't end it? Mend it, don't end it? Of course it is always important to do due diligence and have oversight over these programs. But I would think that the Financial Services Committee, under our past chairman and now the ranking member, working with the chairman now, could come up with the genius to make FHA work better if that is the case.

But the nonsensical plan of eliminating it, not helping the underwater mortgagees, the individuals who have these mortgages, with homes that are distressed, with mortgages that are worth more than the homes--we know there are many communities like this, and my colleague mentioned some, but let me cite three States again because it's so enormous, and we have heard so much from them: Florida, 2 million; California, 2 million; Nevada, 390,000. They are still in distress.

Everyone knows that the housing market has a lot to do with this economy. And even without the help of my good friends on the other side of the aisle, we still saw the unemployment go down and 192,000 jobs created. But I can tell you that this does nothing to create jobs. It simply puts Americans out on the street. It devastates families. And who knows, with the lack of sales of homes and remodification or modification of these, it puts people out of work, not in work.

So I argue vigorously, a little too late on the gentlelady's amendment, but I want to thank her for her astuteness, carefully defining what impact this bill would have. And it's unfortunate that the good work of FHA that requires documentation, a current job, a decent salary, all that is needed is

now thrown to the wolves with no other plan. So we go home, and constituents will ask us about modification or the viability of FHA, which has been in place for a long period of time. All we have to do is give them our empty hands and our blank face, saying obviously greater minds than you, who knew this was a good program, decided to eliminate it with no substitute in place.

So Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by simply saying to the hundreds of thousands of borrowers, have faith, because this is only the first step. We know this is wrongheaded, the wrong direction. Thank goodness for the Founding Fathers that gave us the House and the Senate and a President. I can be assured that this legislation, I hope, is destined for a route of no return.

Announcement by the Chair

Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago I had the privilege of listening to Janice Kay Bobholz, a deputy sheriff from Wisconsin; Courtney Johnson, a teacher from Ohio; Ryan Fagg, an electrician from Indiana; Lynne Radcliffe, a school support staff from Ohio; and Tom Guyer, a U.S. Army veteran and a parole officer from Ohio, all of them pleading with this Congress to intervene or to cease the nonsense of their Governors who are union busting and breaking the backs of middle class Americans.

They all explained how the unions were eager to work with these States on health and pension benefits; but yet, because of special interests and large corporate donors and private conversations of the Governor of Wisconsin talking about breaking the backs of the special 14 who are trying to stay out to help the working middle class, they are in trouble.

Rather than creating jobs, rather than creating jobs as we are trying to do as a Democratic Caucus working on behalf of the American people, what we have is, frankly, a horrible undermining of rights in this country.