Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 294, 295 and 296. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 294, 295 and 296. personal explanation

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which will assist victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault in the military. There are countless current and former members of the military who have bravely reported sexual harassment or assault, only to be retaliated against. My amendment would educate these service members about the resources available to them to help them get justice. These brave men and women, who serve our nation with honor and distinction, should not have to live in fear of reprisal for doing what is right. My amendment will ensure that they are informed of the resources available, and the processes in place, to protect them from any retaliatory personnel actions after reporting sexual harassment or abuse. The Board of Correction for Military Records (BCMR) is the vehicle by which a current or former member of the Armed Forces who feels that they have suffered an injustice as a result of error or injustice in military records may apply for a correction of those military records. My amendment will educate current and former military members about the opportunity to apply for relief from the BCMR if they have been previously punished for reporting cases of sexual assault. Applying for relief to the BCMR could help a service member such as a current Marine who is facing an unwarranted Field Fight Performance Board following her filing of a sexual harassment complaint. It could help an Army soldier who was denied promotion, removed from her assignment, and referred for a mental evaluation after reporting a sexual assault, and who received a series of negative evaluation reports after filing a sexual harassment complaint and initiating a Congressional inquiry into her situation. It could help a sailor who is facing involuntary administrative separation from the Navy--which would deny her future medical benefits--because she has been diagnosed with an ``adjustment disorder'' after seeking mental health treatment in the aftermath of a sexual assault. We have made excellent progress recently in dealing with this blemish of sexual assault on the proud and honorable tradition of our armed forces. I am pleased that new protections for victims are in place as a result of last year's NDAA, and that the Department of Defense is moving forward with advanced investigative techniques that will improve prosecution of sexual assault cases. But I am also very concerned about the issue of sexual harassment, which is so often the precursor to sexual assault. This educational campaign is simply a first step in addressing the issue of sexual harassment, and sending a message that this behavior--and certainly retaliating against victims who report it--is absolutely unacceptable in our military. Much is asked of the men and women who dedicate themselves to the protection of our freedoms. We must continue to ensure that we earn that trust and dedication.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, and 223. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 202, 205 and 214. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, and 223.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 196, 197, and 198. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 196, 197 and 198.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, and 243. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye'' on rollcall vote numbers 224, 225, 227, 237, 238, 239, and 240. I would have voted ``No'' on rollcall vote numbers 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 241, 242 and 243.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, and 249. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 246 and 248. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 244, 245, 247 and 249.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 193, 194, and 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 193 and 194. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 195.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 179, 180, and 181. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 179 and 181: I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 180.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, and 192. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, and 191. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 182, 183, and 192.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 152, 153, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 169, 171, 175, 176. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 154, 155, 156, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 173, 177.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 178. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 178.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for his kindness yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee did fine. It was open, and it allowed all the budgets, as he said, to be brought to the floor. It's what we have to work with that is concerning to me because the budget's a reflection of our values and, through that prism, the Ryan budget that we're considering today is morally bankrupt. The budget that the majority proposes today puts corporations and the wealthiest Americans above the needs of working and middle class families. It increases military spending while slashing the safety net for the middle class and protects tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas. In short, this extreme, partisan proposal takes a hatchet to the notion of shared responsibility and places the financial burdens of a generation upon the shoulders of seniors, the poor, and the middle class. Under this budget, the millionaires will receive multiple tax cuts totaling at least $300,000, and not a single corporate tax loophole will be closed. Under this budget, we would see the end of Medicare as we know it. In its place, seniors would be offered the option of a fixed price voucher with which they may go into the market to find their own insurance, with no guarantee that the voucher you receive will come even close to covering the cost of the health care. Meanwhile, the landmark Affordable Care Act, which is the first law to start addressing the soaring cost of health care, would be repealed. Repeal of the law would mean that children under 26 could no longer be insured by their parents, and millions of Americans suffering from chronic diseases could once again be denied care. I don't think many Americans--certainly, I didn't know it-- understand--I learned this during the Clinton health care debate--that most policies have a yearly and a lifetime limit. As a matter of fact, at that time, when we were debating the Clinton health care plan, that limit was about $1 million, which means that an emergency like head trauma from a car accident, a bike accident, or just a workplace error on a construction site, could lead you to reaching your limit, and you would no longer be eligible for health insurance. Let me say that in another way. Once you reach that limit with your preexisting condition, you would be uninsurable in the United States for the rest of your life. The health care bill that everybody's talking about now does away with that, both yearly limits and lifetime limits. Right now, most individuals still face this danger, but thanks to the Affordable Care Act, lifetime and yearly limits will be phased out in 2014. That's a very important part of this bill. People who want to repeal health care have said absolutely nothing about what they expect to replace it with. We would assume that people with preexisting conditions could no longer get coverage. Under the Republican budget, those protections would be taken away, and the vulnerable Americans would be left to figure out how to survive on their own. We talk about the mandate to buy insurance. Right now, under the present law, we are all paying for people who are uninsured. Those people who choose not to buy insurance, who have to go to the hospital for emergencies, or any other reason, are paid for, they are treated, by the law, but we pay the cost. It is estimated in some areas that we spend $1,000 a year more, those of us who are insured, simply to cover the uninsured. Now, you can continue doing that and paying everybody else's health care costs, or we can keep this health care bill which is so important to us. The Republican budget not only takes from the poor and gives to the rich, it even fails to fulfill the promise of a balanced budget. Just this morning, Politico published an article entitled, ``Ryan plan puts GOP in long-term budget bind.'' In the article, the author writes: It is a bold, even bellicose election-year challenge. But the strict revenue limits could postpone for a generation the conserve promise of a balanced budget. Even the majority themselves admit this plan will add $3.11 trillion to our deficit between 2013 and 2022. Under the majority's plan, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that all government spending, except for Social Security and paying down the debt, will have to be cut by one-third in order to balance the budget by 2040. This draconian approach means that seniors and the poor will receive worse health care, our children will continue to learn in crumbling schools, and we will all travel, as usual, on a failing transportation network with bridges that are substandard and roads that are cracking, that is inefficient and totally out of date. This vision does not reflect the ideals of a better America nor the hopes for a brighter future. It is neither a reflection of the values that I hold dear nor the values of the people that whom I represent. I join many of my colleagues in supporting the Democrat alternative being offered by Mr. Van Hollen. The Democrat alternative budget supports the creation of jobs in the high-tech and construction fields. It invests in our future by prioritizing education, as we must, also prioritizing health and the economy, and reduces the deficit through responsible spending cuts, with revenue raised by having everyone pay their fair share and by closing corporate tax loopholes. The Democrat alternative is a thoughtful, balanced approach, one that does not place the entire burden of sacrifice on the backs of seniors, the poor, and the middle class. I urge my colleagues to oppose the misguided and dangerous proposal before us and, instead, consider one of the numerous alternatives that protect the middle class while reducing our deficit in a responsible way. I reserve the balance of my time. [From POLITICO.com, Mar. 27, 2012] Ryan Plan Puts GOP in Long-Term Bind (By David Rogers) Call it the 19 percent solution. As House debate begins Wednesday, that's the bottom line of the new Republican budget blueprint, which breaks with the August debt accords and substitutes a vision of capping revenue at 19 percent of gross domestic product and scaling back government to fit into that suit. It's a bold, even bellicose election-year challenge. But the strict revenue limits could postpone for a generation the conservative promise of a balanced budget. At the same time, deep cuts to health care and education most likely will make it harder for GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney to appeal to independents and women voters in the presidential campaign. Indeed, it's a tight box that Republicans have put themselves in and one that literally requires a transformation of government to escape. Just an upward adjustment of revenue to 20.25 percent of GDP would bring Washington into balance by 2023 under the same House plan. But the party's anti-tax stance precludes that, and it is not until 17 years later that an extended forecast by the Congressional Budget Office shows a modest surplus in 2040. By that date, all government spending--except Social Security and payments on the debt--would have had to have been cut by more than a third to reach this goal. Even in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget tilts heavily toward defense spending at the expense of domestic appropriations. In a show of unity, Romney endorsed the House plan last week, but his campaign ducked questions from POLITICO this week. If elected president, he would face almost immediate pressure to cut nondefense appropriations by 20 percent in his first budget, rolling back spending to a level that predates George W. Bush's administration. ``It's not the budget I would have written,'' Rep. Mike Simpson told POLITICO. And the Idaho Republican--and former speaker of his state Legislature--represents an increasingly restless element in the party going forward. It was Simpson's vote that allowed Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to get the resolution out of his committee last week--and Simpson will stand again with the leadership on the floor. But there's no hiding the fact that he and many Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee are furious with the course taken in this budget and more willing to lend support to those who feel revenue must also be part of the equation. ``This is going to be the most partisan debate of the year and it will set up the election for the year,'' Simpson said. ``But I don't think it's the balanced plan to get us out of the hole we are in. Ultimately, the only thing that is going to solve this problem is not a Republican plan, not a Democratic plan, but a bipartisan plan that has buy-in from both sides. That's when we stop going out and shooting one another.'' An early test in this week's floor debate could be the fate of a new entry sponsored by Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), also a member of the Appropriations panel. Their proposal would present an updated version of the 2010 presidential debt commission's recommendations, a combination of entitlement savings and $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years. And having shied away in the past, Cooper told POLITICO that he was now encouraged enough by the reception to proceed--the first real time the ideas have been put to a floor vote. ``My view is this is where they are going to wind up at the end of the year anyway, so we might as well start talking about it,'' LaTourette said. ``Anybody who thinks you are not going to have to have a pot of revenue and pot of cuts is thinking funny.'' Matched against this fragile center will be more traditional warring alternatives on the right and left. The Republican Study Committee Tuesday announced its menu of still deeper appropriations cuts and Medicaid savings--all in the hopes of reaching balance in five years. At the same time, the Congressional Black Caucus weighed in with a deficit-reduction package that also exceeds Ryan's plan but is heavily dependent on what appears to be $3.9 trillion in additional revenue--including a novel financial speculation tax--not in the White House's own budget. Republicans hope to embarrass President Barack Obama by having one of their own call up the White House's February budget submission--for certain defeat. And the House Rules Committee late Tuesday made in order such a proposal to be offered by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), who already is backing both Ryan and the more severe RSC alternative. Democrats will have their own alternative claiming greater war savings than Obama's--it would end all overseas contingency operations funding after 2014, for example. But the 10-year deficits are still almost double those in the Ryan plan, and Republicans jumped on the fact that the resolution cancels the $1.2 trillion sequester mechanism under the Budget Control Act--without spelling out a clear substitute. By contrast, the Ryan resolution would also tamper with the first round of automatic cuts due in January but seeks to offset most of these reductions, about half of which would come from defense appropriations. Six House committees would be ordered to come up with prescribed savings by the end of next month for floor action in May. Armed Services is exempted, frustrating the design of the Budget Control Act, and there is the risk of splitting even traditionally bipartisan panels, like the House Agriculture Committee. Ryan's budget demands savings of more than $8 billion in 2013 from Agriculture--an effort to target food stamps. And the challenge for Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) is to navigate these waters without jeopardizing the partnership he wants with the minority in writing a farm bill later this year.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Ms. DeLauro has just reminded me that when we began the debate on health care, that eight States in the United States and the District of Columbia considered violence against women to be a preexisting condition, and a woman who had been beaten to a pulp could not be insured because she would be apt to have that happen to her again. And we changed that in that bill. I think all of us, too, are familiar with the phrase ``rule of thumb,'' but I'm not sure a lot of us understand what it means. The rule of thumb was the size of a man's thumb and the stick with which he could legally beat his wife. So every time you use that, I want you to remember what that means. Since VAWA's enactment, we've all seen that domestic violence has fallen over half. Policemen have been trained and the courts have been trained to understand it better. There was a time in the United States when it was simply considered a private manner and police would not always take away the offending partner, leaving a person again to be beaten one more time. I don't think anybody in the House of Representatives wants this to expire. I'm sure they don't. Everybody has mothers, sisters, daughters, and nieces that they want to protect. This is such a simple thing. It doesn't hurt the budget at all. We have tried our best to get this bill brought up in the House; and we're terrified, frankly, those of us who have spent a good bit of our time in Congress trying to deal with this act, that it will expire. As I've pointed out many times, I've been at this since 1994. It's such a serious thing, that shelters for battered women are never revealed as to their location because of fear that the offending spouse will find them and make them come home or other things. This past 5 or 6 years, we've seen a number of spouses being killed; and we always look at what goes on in those houses, and nobody ever realized before what was happening there. More women obviously need to know that there is someplace that they can go and someplace that they can get help. Let me give you a figure because we're pretty much concerned here about the deficit, the budget, and costs. In studies recently released, they have shown that just a 2-minute screening of domestic violence victims in a yearly checkup can save nearly $6 billion in chronic health care costs every year. The screenings are provided for in the Violence Against Women Act, which trains health care professionals to recognize and address the signs of domestic violence, because obviously most women who are trying to cover it up simply attempt to live with it and are not going to bring it up themselves. Approximately 2 million women are physically or sexually assaulted or stalked by an intimate partner every single year; one out of every six women has experienced an attempted or completed rape at some point in her lifetime; one in four women in the U.S. will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. This is terrible. The Congress has a responsibility to ensure that rape prevention programs are fully funded, that law enforcement has the resources, that battered women's shelters are open, and that victim advocates have the training to stop the violence against women. With all this authorization expiring before this year's end, we're in danger of letting these responsibilities go unfulfilled. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I was expecting one additional speaker, but I believe she is not here. So I am prepared to close. Let me say, Mr. Woodall is a generous and kind man, and I know he understands what we are talking about here today. My speaker is here, so let me yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts the rule, it will bring up H.R. 4271, a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA. This is a vital law that I coauthored with Pat Schroeder in 1994 and of which I have been an original cosponsor each time it has been reauthorized. Since VAWA's enactment in 1994, the cases of domestic violence have fallen, and over 1 million women have used the justice system to obtain protective orders against their batterers. To discuss this proposal, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me take about 30 seconds just to say that I appreciate what my colleague from Georgia is saying. However, we are not giving a choice whether we are going to do the budget or violence against women, but we're going to have an attempt to do both on the rule. What we can do in the vote for the budget--when we vote for the rule, we would like to have the previous question be defeated so that we can add VAWA to it. That's all we are trying to do here today. The bill is about to expire. It would be a dreadful thing to think that women and children and the other spouse would be growing up with violence because we have failed to provide the resources to stop that, after it has been so successful since 1994. Now I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the previous question for all of those women who live in fear and for all those children who witness that violence. Violence against women changes people's lives forever, mentally and physically. They will never, ever be the same. For heaven's sake, let's reauthorize this bill. It does so much for them. I urge everyone in the House to please vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we continue to provide support to the millions of women who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater honor or privilege than to serve the American people. As Members of Congress, every day we work to remain worthy of the tremendous trust bestowed upon us by our constituents. While the spotlight is often focused on us, there are people who serve this great body and the American people without fanfare and recognition. In many ways, they are the backbone of this institution--without them, we could not do the People's work. One of the finest examples of this selfless commitment and tireless service can be found in our House Parliamentarian John V. Sullivan. Following his graduation from the United States Air Force Academy and the Indiana University School of Law, John served 10 years on active military duty. His service in the House began almost 28 years ago when he became Counsel for the Committee on Armed Services. In 1987, he began what would become a distinguished career in the Office of the Parliamentarian, serving as an Assistant Parliamentarian and Deputy Parliamentarian. In 2004, he was appointed to the position of Parliamentarian of the House. The Office of the Parliamentarian is commonly known as the nonpartisan umpire for the House. Continuing this tradition throughout his tenure, John has been a shining example of integrity and fairness. John has served under six successive Speakers, both Democratic and Republican. He has truly been an innovator in the House--being the first to incorporate computer technology into the Office of the Parliamentarian. His ability to offer procedural guidance on the workings of this Chamber has earned him the respect and admiration of Members across both sides of the aisle. During my tenure as Chair of the House Rules Committee, John and his Office were invaluable resources to the Rules Committee and me. John Sullivan has served the House with distinction during some of the most important debates of recent history. His unparalleled knowledge of parliamentary procedure helped guide us through the debates on the Affordable Care Act which ensured quality, affordable healthcare for millions of Americans, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which is helping to create new jobs and encourage investment in our economy, and the Emergency Stabilization Act which has been credited for preventing the collapse of our financial system. While I join the chorus of voices in offering my best wishes to John on his well deserved retirement from the House, I will certainly miss his warmth, his sense of humor and his humility in this Chamber. Those are attributes that are far too rare these days. Fortunately, John is leaving the Parliamentarian position in the able hands of Tom Wickham, who I am confident will do a wonderful job. However, I am sure even Tom will agree that he has some rather large shoes to fill. On behalf of a grateful chamber, I'd like to wish John the best of luck, as he starts the latest chapter of his distinguished life.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, I was really honored to serve as the chair of the House Committee on Rules and bring this historic Affordable Care Act to the House floor. It was one of my proudest moments. I'm standing here today, equally proud to defend that law from the ongoing war on women. When it comes to health care, women are classified as a preexisting condition. For decades, women have been routinely charged more for health insurance than a man who seeks the very same coverage. Did you know that if a business employs more women than men, it can choose to raise everybody's premiums, regardless of gender, to cover the higher cost, which is, in their mind, of insuring women? Women not only pay for standard insurance coverage, but they also pay a separate cost for maternity coverage. In Illinois, a 30-year-old woman must pay $278 a month and an additional $270 a month for maternity coverage in case she needs it. Insurance companies claim that these added costs are because women are more likely to visit doctors, get checkups, take prescription drugs, and have illnesses. Everyone knows that preventative care-- everyone but the insurance companies, apparently--saves us money in the long run. We women in the majority of the United States are tired of being second-class citizens.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my colleague (Mr. Bishop), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume. We begin yet another week of inaction in the House of Representatives. Last week, our colleagues in the Senate, working together in a bipartisan fashion, approved a transportation bill that would be the biggest job creation measure this body has considered in this Congress. But are we talking about a bipartisan job creation bill in the House? No. Instead of creating thousands of jobs through a bipartisan transportation bill that has already passed the Senate, and just awaits our action, we are talking about an $800,000 earmark to benefit a single county in a single State. And if somebody talked about the day's work that we were getting around to, this is it. In other words, instead of creating the millions of new jobs that would result from a strong bipartisan transportation bill, we're spending the entire day debating a bill that affects 32 acres of land in a single State. No other community in America has received the kind of special treatment that is provided to a single community in this bill. This earmark hardly seems like a fiscally responsible way to create jobs and to protect the tax dollars of our hardworking American citizens. This is not the first time the Federal Government has had to make decisions about transferring public lands to new uses. Fortunately, there is an established procedure in existing law to ensure that the taxpayers get just compensation in such cases. We are being asked today to ignore that. Instead of letting the National Park Service and the local community handle the transfer of this land in the tried-and-true way, the majority proposes making a one-time exception--an $800,000 earmark for a single community. If this majority were serious about job creation, we would right now be discussing the Senate-passed transportation bill. But instead, as I said before, we've spent an entire day of this week debating 32 acres of land. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.