Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my views on the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, H.R 4213. There are four reasons I will vote for the bill.

It extends unemployment benefits for America's jobless workers at a time when they need it most, providing basic assistance for needy families.

It extends the temporary increase in the federal Medicaid matching funds delivered to the states. This provision will give local communities the certainty they need as they enter another fiscal year strapped for cash.

It provides critical assistance to those struggling to pay for healthcare by extending the COBRA premium assistance program.

It extends the Research and Development Tax Credit to the end of this year, a tax credit I have fought to make permanent since entering Congress in 1993. This is a very short extension, but it is better than no extension at all.

Having said the above, I strenuously oppose other parts of the bill.

I believe Sections 411 and 412 on carried interest are bad policy which could cause damage to a fragile economy struggling to create jobs. Jobs are created by risk takers. Venture capitalists launch small businesses. They invest in the communities in which they live. They take significant risks when they bet on the next great American dream. What is so unfortunate about this legislation is that it contains an ill-advised provision that puts the job-creating engine of our innovation economy in jeopardy by stopping inventors dead in their tracks. I oppose the tax treatment in the bill because I believe it is anti-job and anti-innovation.

Section 404 also runs counter to job creation and investing in America. It limits the ability of businesses to bring revenue back to the United States at a time when we can't afford to turn it away. It also changes long-standing international tax law that will put our most innovative U.S. companies at a disadvantage when competing around the world.

I also strongly object to the cost of this bill. More than half of the bill is not paid for. We should and can do better for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote against those most in need, and I won't. But I feel very strongly about the deep flaws in this legislation and regret that the sections I point out are included in H.R. 4213. I hope that by the time a Conference Report reaches us that these policies will no longer be part of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, our country faces a serious challenge. We are in danger of falling behind our global competitors in Europe and Asia in the critical fields of innovation and technology.

Our children have fallen behind the rest of the world in critical math and science skills. We lag behind other economic powers in our investment in research and science, and we rank 26th in broadband penetration worldwide.

The alarm bells are sounding--and we have a responsibility to future generations of Americans to respond.

That's why nearly 5 years ago we began to answer that call to arms. I joined with then-House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and other colleagues to launch The Innovation Agenda: A Commitment to Competitiveness. The policy proposals we developed were the result of extensive consultation and meetings that began at Stanford University from the high-technology, biotechnology, venture capital and academic communities. It was a long-term strategy to invest in the critical areas of science and education to ensure that America will lead the world in innovation.

The original COMPETES legislation, which passed in 2007, contained the key elements of the Agenda.

That legislation laid the foundation for America's future success. It has prepared thousands of teachers in math and science. It doubled the funding for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, NIST, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership over 10 years. It established the new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E, and funded high-risk, high-reward, pre-competitive technology development.

The reauthorization of COMPETES we are considering today keeps these investments in innovation on track.

I've already seen the benefits of the original COMPETES and other government funding first-hand in my District, the heart of Silicon Valley. The types of investments this bill makes have been the catalyst for some of the greatest innovators and drivers of our economy, including Google, Genentech, and Cisco. This legislation will fund the next generation of innovators to ensure that the 21st century is an American century.

Americans of my generation and that of my parents have always accepted it as an article of faith that the United States would lead the world in invention, ingenuity, and innovation. No matter what the challenge, America has risen to meet the competition and we have come out on top.

With this legislation, we renew our commitment to the generations to come that we will plant the seeds today to ensure America's growth in the future.

I applaud Chairman Gordon on this legislation and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the COMPETES Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment No. 42 to this National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Chairman, what brings me to the floor is something that I think should concern every single Member of the House. We all know that our number one obligation as Members of Congress is to secure our country. And as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, it matters not Republican or Democrat, we stand shoulder to shoulder. We may debate different things. We all know, and the full House knows, that this is our first and top obligation. In order to carry that obligation out, that duty done well, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee we must do effective oversight. We have to do investigations. It is the way we do our work.

The reason I offer this amendment is because, unlike all the rest of the committees of the House who can use the GAO, dispatch the Government Accountability Office into the executive branch to make the kinds of determinations on financial issues, financial management, personnel, acquisitions, information technology, whatever it might be, the House Intelligence Committee is not allowed to do that. And in attempting to do it, it has drawn the ire of the administration.

Now, I am a Democrat. We have a Democratic administration. I think the administration is ill-advised in this. These are the prerogatives of the Congress and the jurisdictions of our committees. I think that we need to be able to have the tools that the GAO has, with all of the safeguards in place relative to sources and methods and those things that are the most sensitive in the intelligence community. But I don't believe that the executive branch should be telling the legislative branch what tools we should have and to make that decision for us. That speaks to the separation of powers, and it also speaks to what we, as Members of Congress, in terms of our duty have to carry out and to do.

So my amendment really corrects this flaw, and I think it's an important provision that would restore the GAO's role in congressional oversight. I don't think this is a question of whether the information is too sensitive for the GAO. They have the security clearances. They have dealt with things before, and nothing has ever happened.

So as I said, I believe this issue goes directly to the heart of one of the most important functions of the Congress, and that is effective oversight. That's what this amendment is about.

I want to thank, in particular, Chairman Howard Berman for his work on this issue from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and also my colleagues from the House Intelligence Committee who are sponsoring this amendment: Congressman Holt, Congressman Tierney of Massachusetts, Congressman Thompson of California, and Congresswoman Schakowsky of Illinois.

I rise to offer my amendment #42, to the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act. This Amendment would require the Director of National Intelligence to cooperate with GAO inquiries initiated by committees of jurisdiction.

Oversight of matters in the intelligence community--including financial management, personnel systems, acquisitions, and information technology--is a fundamental prerogative of Congress. GAO plays a critical role helping committees examine the functions of government agencies in an objective, thorough manner.

But despite this expertise, the intelligence community refuses to allow GAO in the door, even when the intelligence committees--the committees that have jurisdiction over them--have asked them to investigate. The Administration has even threatened to veto the Intelligence Authorization Bill because it contained a provision that would restore GAO's role in Congressional oversight.

The co-sponsors of this amendment have joined me in rejecting the Administration's flawed legal analysis that would exempt the intelligence community from GAO's review--even though they review every other federal agency.

This is not a question of whether the information is too sensitive for GAO. GAO has evaluated a number of national security programs, including ones that have sensitive intelligence implications like Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance programs which are known as ISR platforms. GAO has issued classified reports on the Iraq war and parts of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. Their personnel have the appropriate security clearances and they know how to safeguard sensitive information.

In an abundance of caution, the amendment lays out additional safeguards that GAO must follow to be able to have access to our nation's intelligence information.

I believe this issue is one that goes directly to the heart of one of the most important functions of the Congress, and that is oversight. This also goes to the very core of the principle of Separation of Powers.

My amendment would make clear to the intelligence community that they cannot bar the door to Congressional oversight, and it is Congress, not the Executive branch that determines which tools we get to use.

In particular, I'd like to thank Chairman Berman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and HPSCI members Representatives Holt, Tierney, Thompson of California, and Schakowsky for co-sponsoring this amendment. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

At this point I would like to yield to Mr. Berman, my trusted and distinguished colleague from California.

Madam Speaker, it can be said that the word extraordinary has become too commonplace a term used in all-too-ordinary circumstances.

I rise today in appreciation of a man who fully embodies that word, a truly extraordinary man--Joseph W. Cotchett.

He is a man of passion and great intellect, a man of incredible attention to detail, a broad, sweeping embrace for all life has to offer, and a serious man capable of great joy. He has a thirst for fairness, a passion for justice and an unquenchable desire to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

On the evening of May 22, 2010, Joe is being honored with the Notre Dame de Namur University 2010 Community Spirit Award. The event is sold out and will be attended by friends, colleagues and admirers, each with a story about Joe standing at their side in a time of need. Similarly, the Honorary Gala Committee is more than 150 names long and represents every profession and every walk of life that Joe has touched--labor, sports, finance, entertainment, the environment, politics . . . including the Speaker of the House, and, of course, his beloved profession of the law.

Joe embodies the finest values of our great nation. With an abiding love for his country, Joe served in the U.S. Army in the Intelligence Corps, the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and as a paratrooper in Special Forces. After active duty, he remained in the Army Reserve for more than 30 years, retiring as a Colonel.

His generosity is legendary . . . whether making a major gift to his alma mater, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, where he received a degree in Engineering, or the University of California Hastings College of the Law, where he received his law degree. He gives everywhere and to everyone and in countless ways--rebuilding a landmark grocery store in Half Moon Bay, buying a table at the annual fundraising events of dozens of local nonprofits, or serving as a board member to dozens of others.

Then there is Joe Cotchett, the lawyer. He has been named one of our nation's preeminent trial lawyers for more than decade, winning every recognition in his profession. He has won judgment after judgment-- totaling billions of dollars--on behalf of investors defrauded by modern-day robber barons.

Often donating the time and resources of his talented law firm, Joe has defended the First Amendment against corporate bullying, defended citizens against the oppressive hand of government, brought suit on behalf of the dispossessed children of American servicemen in the Philippines and defended the judicial system against Wall Street.

Wherever power is abused, greed runs rampant or injustice flourishes, Joe is there to stand up and to bring to account those who would twist the American system to their own ends.

Remarkably, after decades of fighting the good fight, he has not grown weary.

He has not lost his capacity to get angry.

For all this, he is a man of old-fashioned values . . . carry your own weight, pay your own way, tend to your family and your friends. He has an unending pride in his five children and six grandchildren, who he organizes as if they, too, served in the Armed Forces.

And he does all these things with an endearing quirkiness that can take the form of worrying whether all the chairs in the conference room are facing in the right direction or eliminating every speck of dust around.

Joe is tender and kind. He honors each of us with his presence and does so in a way that makes us feel special when we are blessed to be with him.

Madam Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me and the community

of friends who will gather in an expression of appreciation for Joseph W. Cotchett--a lion of the courtroom, a lover of life, a benefactor, a patriot and a great American.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3333, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010. I'm pleased that the Senate finally passed its version of a

bill that the House passed last December, and I look forward to enactment and implementation of much-needed improvements to the laws governing the transmission of satellite signals to American consumers.

Among this bill's many consumer-oriented regulations is Section 207, which ensures that satellite providers do not discriminate against noncommercial high definition signals. I drafted this language to protect the rights of consumers to receive federally funded programming broadcast by America's Public Broadcasting Service, PBS.

Without this provision, PBS stations cannot compete for viewers with commercial stations favored by satellite contracts. This problem is particularly troubling in the case of DISH Network, which covers 93 percent of U.S. households but only carries local PBS HD broadcasts in Alaska and Hawaii--where they are legally obligated to do so. The behavior of DISH contrasts with Direct TV, which voluntarily offers 106 PBS HD channels in its regions of operation.

With the enactment of this bill, 14 million satellite viewers will have a date certain when they will receive PBS HD signals, and PBS stations will have an even playing field when their signals are distributed via satellite providers.

My language is a simple and direct solution to a problem that undermines consumer rights and shortchanges PBS carriage:

Carriers will give their customers local non-commercial HDTV transmissions when carrying other locally broadcast HD signals.

It provides for carriage compliance for 50 percent of the stations by the end of 2010, with an extra year for the remainder, thus accelerating the FCC 2013 date.

When new service is initiated, noncommercial stations will get equal treatment.

Carriers will have one last opportunity to sign a contract prior to the date of enactment to receive a safe harbor from the hard deadlines in the bill.

I look forward to final passage of the Satellite bill, and especially the anti-discriminatory section which is so essential to America's consumers.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Barbara Clark, a pillar of the community in East Palo Alto, California who passed away at the age of 79 on April 10, 2010, surrounded by those who loved her.

Barbara was born in East Palo Alto, California on March 16, 1931 to Bert and Clara Richards. She attended Ravenswood Grammar School and graduated from Sequoia High School in 1949. She met her husband, Clyde Clark, EN 1 USN in November 1949 and they married on June 17, 1950. They have 3 sons; David, Glenn and Bert.

Barbara Clark was a friend and mentor to many in East Palo Alto. She was involved in school PTA work, joined the Community Association for the Retarded (now Abilities United), and joined P.A.R.C.A./Special Olympics as a volunteer lunch coordinator overseeing the food distribution for 2000 people for their annual Field and Track event over a span of 25 years.

She joined the California Federated Women's Club of East Palo Alto and later joined the Redwood City Club. Her late husband, Clyde joined the Veterans of Foreign Wars and she became a member of Auxiliary Post 2310. Barbara was a member of the East Palo Alto Grange for 43 years. In 1993, Clyde founded the Veterans Employment Committee of San Mateo County and Barbara became a charter member. Other positions she held were President for VFW Post 2310/Auxiliary, Chaplain for VFW District 12 Auxiliary, First Vice President for California Federated Women's Club Past Presidents and Board Alumnae, Treasurer for California Federated Women's Club of Redwood City, Correspondence Secretary for the Veterans Employment Committee of San Mateo County and a member of the East Palo Alto Grange #409.

Madam Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life and accomplishments of Barbara Clark. How privileged I am to have known this magnificent woman and to have called her friend. Her decades of contributions to her community in East Palo Alto stand as lasting legacies of a life lived to the fullest. She will always be missed, but never forgotten.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and work of my mentor, teacher, and dear friend David Nichols who passed away at the age of 81 on March 11, 2010. David is survived by his four beautiful children . . . Mark of Oregon, Paul of Hillsborough, Beth DeGolia of Alamo, Stu of Los Altos, his beloved seven grandchildren, his daughter-in-laws and son-in-law. His beloved wife Edie preceded him in death.

David Nichols was born in Turlock, California and received his Bachelor of Science and Master's Degree in Business Administration at the University of California at Berkeley. David was the captain of the varsity basketball team at the university and it was also where he met the love of his life and future wife, Edith (Edie) McEwing who was then the Student Body Vice President.

When he graduated from Cal, David took his first job in Contra Costa County as an Assistant Administrative Analyst. This position was followed by a 35 year career of distinguished public service that shaped the lives of residents of Sonoma and San Mateo Counties. In 1955, David went to Sonoma County as an Assistant County Administrator, and in 1968, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors appointed him Chief Administrative Officer. In January 1977, David became the County Manager of San Mateo County where he remained until his retirement in 1989. There was a point in time when David, as San Mateo County's Manager and his son Paul worked in the same building as a Deputy District Attorney. His son mentioned that even though they worked in the same building they would rarely go out to lunch because David would instead have lunch at home with Edie.

Throughout his distinguished tenure in county government, David was involved in a number of professional organizations, regional governments and regulatory bodies. They include the Association of Bay Area Governments, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Coastal Commission, Bay Vision 2020 Commission and the National Association of County Administrators, where he served as President in 1977. While he was actively participating in all these organizations, David remained a staunch supporter of the University of California Alumni Association and the Bear Backers who support athletic programs. Beside his family, Cal was without a doubt, the other great of his life.

Madam Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life of David Nichols and that we express our deepest condolences to the Nichols family on their loss. I am especially blessed to have had him as a mentor, a teacher, and friend during the many years I served on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, with David as County Manager. David Nichols had a deeply held regard for public service. He treated all employees with respect and made sure those who worked with him were always faithful in the execution of the public trust. He lifted all of us to a higher standard and it was his unquestioned integrity that established a `gold standard' in everything we did in service to the people we represented. We are indeed a better country and a better people because of David Nichols and his extraordinary legacy of public service, as well as a life with values. America was blessed to have him as a son and a servant of the people.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5019, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010. This sensible legislation addresses two of the most pressing issues of our day: our immediate need for jobs and our future energy reliance.

At its heart, the bill is simple--it will provide rebates to homeowners who make energy efficiency improvements to their homes. But the effects of this simple legislation will be anything but modest. Homeowners who participate in the rebate program will purchase American energy efficiency products and employ American workers to install these products, creating almost 170,000 jobs in the construction and clean technology industries.

Homeowners who purchase the improvements will save money in energy costs--nearly $10 billion over the next decade and the energy equivalent of 6.8 million barrels of oil next year alone. These past few weeks, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has reminded us of the truly destructive power of our energy habits and the urgent need to reduce our dependence on 20th century fuels.

I also know personally just how important energy efficiency renovations can be and how much money they can save. I'm very proud that my District Office in Palo Alto is now the only Congressional office in the country that is Green Certified by the Bay Area Green Business Program. The improvements and policies we've introduced in my office save taxpayer money and reduce pollution and energy usage throughout our District.

H.R. 5019 will help homeowners throughout the nation achieve similar improvements, rewarding them with lower costs and providing our nation with more jobs and greater energy independence. It is simple, sensible legislation that will move us forward on two critical priorities.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of my legislation, the Restitution for Local Government Act of 2010. This legislation will require the Department of the Treasury to assist public entities that lost taxpayer dollars when Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy in September of 2008 . . . the single largest bankruptcy in the history of the United States.

More than 40 municipalities from around the country lost close to $1.7 billion when Lehman collapsed.

In my Congressional District, San Mateo County and its public institutions were severe victims, and still are, of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.

San Mateo County is required by California State law to hold operating funds, reserves and bond proceeds in an investment pool. Their investment pool held funds for the county and local cities, school districts, transit agencies and the community college district. They invested in the most highly-rated, conservative Lehman securities. They were not `playing the market' or rolling the dice. They are victims of some of the worst abuses and deceit of a financial institution that was considered to be one of the soundest and safest in the Nation.

When Lehman collapsed, San Mateo County lost $155 million. As a result, the county and its 735,000 residents are now reeling financially. Teachers are being laid off. Schools are not being built or renovated. Roads are not being improved. Transportation plans are being scrapped, and critical upgrades in public safety have ceased.

The financial plight of San Mateo County was recently profiled in detail in a February 24, 2010, Wall Street Journal article entitled, Lehman's Ghost Haunts California. (Madam Speaker, I respectfully request that this article be included in the Record.)

My legislation will require the Secretary of the Treasury to use any profit made by the sale of troubled assets acquired through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to be used to purchase the securities, bonds, and other financial instruments issued by Lehman Brothers which were held by local governments on September 12, 2008. The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $1.7 billion remediation fund, and grants him the authority to assist the public entities affected by the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Under my legislation taxpayers will get their money back and will know where the money goes. My legislation specifically states that any local government which receives money from this new fund must report back to the federal government on how this money is being used, and demonstrate job creation, retention, and economic activity equal to the amount of funds received.

Financial institutions were deemed ``too big to fail.'' Today, we should not overlook those who are being treated as though they are too small to help.

It's time to serve the best interests of the American people. They lost their hard-earned taxpayer dollars which were specifically intended to be invested in their community for vital services, and I urge my colleagues to join in this critical effort.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 24, 2010]

Lehman's Ghost Haunts California

(By John Carreyrou)

San Mateo, Calif.--Little more than a year after the worst

of the financial panic, Wall Street is bouncing back. But in

this county just south of San Francisco, pain from the

financial system's near-collapse is still felt every day.

San Mateo, a scenic swath of peninsula between the Pacific

Ocean and San Francisco Bay, saw $155 million evaporate when

Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in September 2008. On top of

deep budget cuts brought on by California's fiscal crisis,

the loss on Lehman securities means San Mateo's 735,000

residents are taking a hit.

Public schools here have laid off dozens of teachers and

delayed or canceled renovations. Local community colleges are

slashing classes and scrapping new facilities, even as

enrollment surges because of the bad economy. The county

trimmed its commuter rail service and shelved plans to build

a new women's jail to alleviate overcrowding.

The biggest factor behind San Mateo's trouble is

California's spending cuts. But its Lehman losses make a bad

situation worse. The problem underscores the diverging

fortunes of Wall Street and Main Street and helps explain the

populist anger still simmering in many parts of the country.

Last week, Barclays PLC reported that its 2009

profit more than doubled to $14.7 billion thanks in part to

its acquisition of Lehman's North American operations.

Lehman Brothers' collapse is ``old news for most of

America,'' says Richard Gordon, a member of the county's

board of supervisors. But in San Mateo County, he says,

``It's a continuing story that continues to unfold.''

A report by Beacon Economics, commissioned by the county,

estimates that the Lehman losses reduced local government

spending, especially on construction projects, by $148

million over two years. The consulting firm says this

resulted in 1,648 jobs lost or not created. County

unemployment now hovers around 9%, double what it was 18

months ago.

Dozens of cities and counties around the country, from

Sarasota, Fla., to Boulder, Colo., lost a total of $1.7

billion when Lehman went under, because they held Lehman

bonds or other securities. The two worst hit states are

Florida and California. Florida public agencies lost a total

of more than $400 million, mostly from a state investment

pool. California municipalities lost a total of $250 million

across some 28 cities and counties.

San Mateo County's loss was the biggest of any

municipality. Under state rules, the county government, city

governments and area school districts hold their operating

funds, reserves and bond proceeds together in an investment

pool that lost about 6% of its value when Lehman went under.

The investment pool owned highly rated Lehman bonds and

notes, which currently trade around 20 cents on the dollar.

Any recovery from the bankruptcy process will take at least

another year. A recovery of 20 cents on the dollar would

leave the pool with a loss of roughly $125 million.

Much of the anger in San Mateo is directed at the Obama

administration and, specifically, at Timothy Geithner, the

Treasury secretary. Mr. Geithner has declined to use funds

from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP,

to bail out municipalities.

``There's too big to fail, and we're too small for them to

care,'' says Mary McMillan, the county's deputy manager.

Before Wall Street's crash in late 2008, San Mateo County

was on track to balance its $1.7 billion annual budget within

five years. California's cutbacks and the Lehman collapse

torpedoed that.

The county government lost $37 million when Lehman Brothers

went under. That's on top of a $100 million deficit due in

part to state cutbacks. San Mateo County has limited power to

increase taxes: Boosting sales taxes requires two-thirds

voter approval, and two efforts have failed in recent years.

The schools were hit hard, too. In one typical case,

Lehman-related losses at the Sequoia Union High School

district, one of 25 in the county, totaled $6.2 million, an

amount equivalent to 7% of the district's annual budget.

Meanwhile, the state cut its funding to the Sequoia district

this school year by $1.9 million and is cutting it again next

school year by another $3.4 million.

San Mateo ranks among California's most diverse counties.

Home to software giant Oracle Corp. and biotechnology pioneer

Genentech, it encompasses both wealthy enclaves and working-

class, immigrant cities such as Daly City and East Palo Alto

that depend heavily on county services. In East Palo Alto,

unemployment is 20%.

When Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy-court protection

on Sept. 15, 2008, the news was met with a mix of panic and

disbelief by local officials. The county's schools took the

worst hit, losing $38 million overnight. Two county school

districts, the Sequoia district and the Menlo Park City

Elementary School District, had just sold more than $90

million worth of bonds to fund renovations and expansions and

deposited the proceeds in the county investment fund. The

lost bond proceeds totaled nearly $8 million, a debt local

taxpayers will be paying off for the next 30 years.

Jean Holbrook, the county's superintendent of schools, says

the Lehman losses came on the heels of deep funding cuts from

the state that had already cost the jobs of 91 of the

school's 681 employees, including 21 teachers. In the ensuing

year, 60 more school employees would have to be let go,

resulting in larger class sizes and fewer elective courses.

San Mateo's board of supervisors ordered an independent

review of the way the county investment fund was run, but

found no wrongdoing. In keeping with rules California passed

in the mid-1990s (following Orange County's disastrous

experiment with derivatives), San Mateo's treasurer had

invested in highly rated securities and put no more than 10%

of the fund in any single issuer.

With Lehman bonds trading at pennies on the dollar, county

officials held little hope of recovering their investment

through bankruptcy proceedings. So they opted for a two-

pronged strategy: They sued former Lehman Brothers executives

for fraud, and they lobbied their state congressional

representatives to insert language in TARP legislation that

would let municipalities tap the federal rescue program.

Though such language was included in the final bill,

bailing out municipalities was low on the list of the federal

government's priorities in late 2008 as the financial system

flirted with collapse.

To rally support and keep the issue alive in Washington,

Ms. McMillan, the deputy county manager, began reaching out

to other counties and cities ensnared in the Lehman

bankruptcy.

In May 2009, as financial institutions began to stabilize

and the specter of a depression subsided, the House Committee

on Financial Services agreed to hold a hearing on the matter.

In their testimony before the committee, Democratic Reps.

Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier, whose districts span parts of

San Mateo County, argued that the $1.7 billion municipalities

were asking for amounted to just one-quarter of 1% of TARP

funds and paled in comparison with the hundreds of billions

of dollars the Treasury Department had provided to banks.

Ron Galatolo, chancellor of San Mateo's community colleges,

told the assembled congressmen that he felt it was ``highly

inequitable to use TARP funding to shore up banks and to bail

out failing corporations but fail to protect agencies'

taxpayer dollars, such as ours.''

After the hearing, Rep. Eshoo sought a meeting with Mr.

Geithner, but says the Treasury secretary didn't respond to

her letters and phone calls for months.

Rep. Eshoo finally met with him on Oct. 28, followed by a

second meeting on Dec. 2. She says Mr. Geithner told her that

TARP was intended only for financial institutions and that

rescuing municipalities would open a Pandora's box of claims

from other investors.

Rep. Eshoo invoked the passage inserted a year earlier in

the TARP bill, which refers to ``the need to ensure stability

for U.S. public instrumentalities, such as counties and

cities, that may have suffered significant increased costs or

losses in the current market turmoil.''

She says Mr. Geithner said the passage fell short of

mandating use of TARP funds to bail out municipalities.

While declining to comment on the meetings, a Treasury

spokeswoman says: ``There are countless well-intentioned

ideas for deploying TARP funds, but we determined that making

Lehman Brothers' creditors whole is not consistent with what

Congress intended for TARP funding.''

In San Mateo, reverberations from the Lehman losses were on

display on the campus of Canada College, one of the county's

three community colleges, earlier this month.

Students held a two-day teach-in to protest faculty

layoffs, course cancellations and fees that jumped 30% this

year.

Lilliam Castellanos, a 35-year-old student majoring in

Latin America studies to become an interpreter, said she

could no longer afford textbooks because the funding for a

program that handed out book vouchers to Hispanic students

had been cut sharply. Other students complained about long

wait lists to get into courses and a reduction in the number

of counselors.

Mr. Galatolo, the chancellor, says the colleges' $25

million Lehman loss compounded funding cuts made by the

state, forcing him to slash the colleges' annual budget by

one-fifth, to $100 million from $125 million.

Of the $25 million loss, $20 million had been earmarked for

new buildings and classrooms that he says now won't be built.

The remaining $5 million came directly out of the colleges'

operating fund.

Mr. Galatolo says he's angered by the return of

multimillion-dollar bonuses on Wall Street ``while we can't

make ends meet for our students.'' As for Mr. Geithner, he

says, ``He had the ability to help us, and he chose not to.''

On the other side of the peninsula, in the wind-swept,

rural community of Half Moon Bay, Robert Gaskill,

superintendent of the Cabrillo Unified School District, says

his district's share of the Lehman loss was $1.4 million, out

of an annual budget of $28 million.

Mr. Gaskill says he had to lay off five teachers and

projects that 20 more will be let go in the 2010-11 school

year, out of 177, because of state funding cuts. The district

is also paring back summer school.

Michael Bachicha, former director of the schools' special

programs, sat through the school-board meeting at which his

job was eliminated in April 2009. Because he had tenure, Mr.

Bachicha was able to land another job teaching at the

district's ``continuation'' high school for students who are

falling behind. But his salary dropped from $105,000 to

$72,000. Around the same time, his wife lost her job as a

kindergarten teacher at a local private school.

Mr. Gaskill, the district superintendent, says the teaching

job that Mr. Bachicha took bumped someone else less senior

off the payroll, resulting in one of the five teacher

layoffs.

Ms. McMillan, the deputy county manager, hasn't given up on

getting the Lehman money back. She holds conference calls

every two weeks with officials from other affected counties

and cities to plot strategy. On last week's call, 35 people

dialed in from across the country.

In the meantime, the county is gearing up to dismiss

hundreds of employees this spring, the first time it has had

to resort to mass layoffs, according to Mr. Gordon, the

member of the board of supervisors.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the authors of this resolution honoring our Chaplain, Father Daniel Coughlin.

Mr. Speaker, when I think of Father Coughlin coming to the House, I think of the moment 10 years ago when our previous Chaplain had retired and the Speaker and the Minority Leader appointed a committee to come up with a recommendation. There was some turmoil that was a part of that. But I have always believed that the Spirit's hand was in this. And who came forward but Father Coughlin from Chicago?

Everyone has spoken about what he did before he came here. But essentially, Father Coughlin was a parish priest. And so from all of the experience that he had in tending that flock, he came to tend a new one, and that is the United States House of Representatives. And tend this flock he has.

As Mr. Sensenbrenner said, there are many constituents that have asked why does the United States House of Representatives need a Chaplain? Look up above the Speaker's chair. It says, ``In God we trust.'' But many times what happens to human beings really shakes that trust. So the Chaplain of the House is the one that tends to each one. How important that is in not only the dark times, the dark periods in individuals' lives where they need the spiritual guidance, the support, the love, the quiet time, the trust with someone that will never break that trust. That is what Father Coughlin has done on an individual basis with Members throughout the House.

It matters not, as was said before, what faith background any Member comes from, and even if they don't have any faith background. That guidance feeds the soul and it helps to heal each person here that has gone through something traumatic in order to resume the public duties that are filled with burdens and blessings as Members of Congress. But there are national times of stress and burden, and he has been with us throughout those times as well.

Fifty years as a priest. I can't help but think of the words that are said at ordination. ``Thou art a priest forever.'' And 50 years. What a great blessing. An even greater blessing for your mother, Father Coughlin, to be present when you were ordained, throughout your priesthood, and 50 years, 10 years of that priesthood here with the United States House of Representatives. We honor you and we thank you for it.

And as a Roman Catholic, I want you to know that you are a special source of pride. But that pride I think is really felt by the entire House. Thank you for your quiet faith, for your steely faith, for the prayers that you offer here that when each one of us take those to heart it's a road map. It's a road map because it is faith that calls us to everything that we do in life. And today in 2010 in the 21st century those words of faith are our reality. And it calls us to do better for our country and people around the world.

So God bless you and thank you for your 50 years and your 10 sterling years here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support passage of H.R. 3125, The Radio

Spectrum Inventory Act. I'm proud to be an initial cosponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to seeing it enacted into law. Thank you, Chairman Waxman for your leadership on this bill, and I appreciate the important bipartisan work of the Ranking Minority Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton.

We pass this bill at an opportune moment. This past month, the Federal Communications Commission released its National Broadband Plan. The FCC pointed out what many of us already have known for a long time--broadband rollout requires an increasing amount of spectrum.

We're already seeing competing industries squabble over spectrum, and we are in danger of having an all-out range war between the wireless industry and broadcasters. We can head it all off at the pass by doing the obvious--review our resources first, and reallocate second.

That doesn't mean I want the FCC to stand still while we review the spectrum chart. There is plenty of spectrum already available, like the Advanced Wireless Spectrum, that should go for useful purposes like a free national wireless broadband lifeline. So the FCC must keep moving and deploy what they can as expeditiously as possible.

We've also had to make some compromises on this bill to comply with essential national security issues. As a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I recognize the essential need to document spectrum use and prevent channel hoarding, and as the Chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management, my views are likewise shaped by the need to safeguard channels that our intelligence, security and military agencies may need in the future. Our very lives may depend upon it.

I believe this bill finds that happy medium. It will spur economic growth and innovation while keeping America safe. The FCC and NTIA can review our spectrum assets in a judicial manner and develop informational resources that will guide us as we implement the National Broadband Plan.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I feel so privileged to be part of a Congress that is on the threshold of making history. Since Teddy Roosevelt and all Presidents forward, we have struggled in our country to provide something for our people that has eluded them. As the Catholic sisters said as they urged us to vote for this legislation, they called it ``life affirming.''

I think the step that we take this evening will perfect the union in our country. Why? Because the human body holds the soul. And when we help to cure, when we help to heal, when we recognize the dignity of every single American, that they have first-class citizenship and that they should indeed have health care coverage.

This is a landmark piece of legislation. I feel privileged that my constituents have sent me here to cast a vote for it, and I urge everyone to do so.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the landmark comprehensive health care reform that is before us.

For the first time in history, Congress will pass legislation to finally insure all Americans. This legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years and $1.2 trillion over 20; eliminate discriminatory insurance practices, and open the insurance market to millions of Americans who have been priced out.

More than a century has passed since Teddy Roosevelt first called for health care reform. Nineteen presidents later, we stand on the threshold of history as we prepare to vote on this historic legislation. The American people have been waiting for this. The American people deserve this, and the status quo is no longer affordable or acceptable.

To those who say we can't afford health care reform in the current economy, I say we can't afford not to. We spend more on health care than any other country in the world and the costs are crippling to our economy. If we do nothing, in 2015 health care spending will jump by 34 percent. By 2020, health care premiums will double and in 2010 alone, we're projected to spend more than $2.6 trillion on health care.

A vote for this legislation is to stand on the right side of history. I feel privileged to serve in Congress and to participate in this historic effort. We stand on the shoulders of those who toiled for decades, including Senator Edward Kennedy, to bring us to this moment.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate San Mateo, California, Police Chief Susan Manheimer on becoming the first woman President of the California Police Chiefs Association, which boasts 338 of California's top cops in its membership. The Chiefs Association was founded in 1966, and its membership represents municipal districts containing 78 percent of the state's residents.

Chief Manheimer received her Bachelor of Arts Degree in Business Management from Saint Mary's College in Moraga and a Master's Degree in Educational Leadership from San Diego State University. From 1983 to 1984, Manheimer was a broadcast journalist for KCBS radio.

Before being named the top cop in the City of San Mateo, Chief Manheimer served 16 years with the San Francisco Police Department from 1984-2000, where she did robbery decoy work, gang and violent-crime suppression. Her last assignment was as the Captain of the Tenderloin Task Force, a tough inner-city neighborhood in San Francisco. She was among the first group of female captains and lieutenants promoted in the San Francisco Police Department. She was appointed Chief of Police for the City of San Mateo in May of 2000, and became the first woman to head the San Mateo Police Department, which was also a first in San Mateo County.

Chief Manheimer continues her commitment to neighborhood policing and has implemented many innovative programs, such as the highly successful Homeless Outreach Team and the Adopt-a-School program. She has also led the way in forming creative partnerships with the community and allied agencies including the Tongan Interfaith Council for Central San Mateo County, the Juvenile Hall Assessment and Diversion Center, and the countywide Gang Task Force which she helped to found. Chief Manheimer serves on many county-wide initiatives, including the Juvenile Justice Advisory Group and the Domestic Violence Council.

Chief Manheimer previously served as the Acting President of the California Police Chiefs Association, is a Governor's appointee to the State Advisory Group for Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Crime Prevention, and is on the Board of Fight Crime Invest in Kids California, the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, and the University of San Francisco Law Enforcement Leadership Institute. In 2006, Chief Manheimer was recognized by Jewish Women International as a ``Woman to Watch'' and in 2008, she was chosen as a Women's Hall of Fame Honoree by San Mateo County which honored her as an extraordinarily dedicated woman who has left an indelible imprint on the history of San Mateo County.

Chief Manheimer resides in San Mateo County with her husband, Michael, and adult children Sarah and Jesse. She is active in the Police Activities League, the Military Mom's Association, the San Mateo Rotary, and enjoys skiing, hiking, rowing, and service to her community.

Madam Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in offering our warmest congratulations to Chief Susan Manheimer on becoming the first woman President of the California Police Chiefs Association and extend to her our gratitude for her visionary leadership to keep our neighborhoods safe, and her service to the community which strengthens California's justice system and our nation's as well.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I oppose this resolution.

I have serious reservations about the presence of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. I opposed the President's plan to send additional troops into that country, and I opposed funding for the surge. I was reassured when the President said that he wanted to begin withdrawing U.S. troops beginning in 2011. I joined 137 of my colleagues to vote with Representative McGovern to demand that the President provide a plan for withdrawing from Afghanistan, and have been deeply concerned that the mission for our troops there is not clear. If their mission is not well defined, how can we expect to judge success?

I do not support an open-ended commitment without clear goals. But I also cannot support a sudden withdrawal without a plan to protect American lives and American interests. And that's why I will vote against this Resolution.

This Resolution directs the President to remove all U.S. forces from Afghanistan 30 days from adoption, unless the President decides it is not safe to do so. He would then have until the end of 2010 to remove all U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

This language is absolute and provides no exceptions.

It does not provide exceptions for U.S. forces that might be necessary to safeguard U.S. embassy personnel.

It does not provide exceptions for our intelligence community or Special Forces so they can continue to support Afghanistan and Pakistan in the search for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

It does not provide exceptions for U.S. military personnel who are engaged in training the Afghanistan National Army or Afghanistan National Police to provide their own security.

We should not be involved in a civil war in Afghanistan, but there are a few, limited missions in Afghanistan that may be necessary to protect our national interests. This Resolution does not allow us any flexibility to address those missions, and this is why I cannot support a policy that endangers the lives of U.S. personnel on the ground and allows al Qaeda to continue to destabilize the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and potentially strike us here at home.

I hope Representative Kucinich will refine his legislation and work with the President to present us with a plan to bring our troops home safely and in a timely manner.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Chief Justice of California Supreme Court, Ronald Marc George on the occasion of his 70th birthday and to thank him for his years of extraordinary public service to the people of California and beyond.

Chief Justice George is married to his beloved wife, Barbara and they have three children . . . Eric, Andrew and Chris, and two grandchildren, Charlotte and Maya, daughters of Chris and his wife Rebecca.

Born on March 11, 1940, Chief Justice George received his A.B. from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1961, and a J.D. from Stanford University in 1964. Currently serving as the 27th Chief Justice of California, he heads the Supreme Court of California as well as the Judicial Council of California.

Chief Justice George has had a long and distinguished career. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of California in 1991 by Governor Pete Wilson after serving on the bench in the Los Angeles Municipal Court, the Los Angeles Superior Court and on the Court of Appeals. He also served as Deputy Attorney General in the California Department of Justice where he prepared six oral arguments and briefs for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief Justice George served as the President of the Conference of Chief Justices, Chair of the Board of Directors in the National Center for State Courts, President of the California Judges Association, as well as many other activities and associations outside his work on the bench. He has been honored by numerous organizations including the Consumer Attorneys' Association of Los Angeles' Roger J. Traynor Memorial Award in 2009, the Bar Association of San Francisco's Champion of Justice Award in 2008, the American Bar Association's John Marshall Award in 2007 and the Legal Writing Institute's Golden Pen Award in 2007. His accomplishments and recognitions are simply too many to name. In addition to his judicial commitments and volunteer activities, he takes time to lecture at numerous judicial education programs, law schools and events around the country to share his experience and legal expertise.

Madam Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in offering our best wishes to Chief Justice Ronald George on the very special occasion of his 70th birthday, and extend our gratitude for his integrity, his love of the Constitution and his exemplary leadership which strengthens California's judicial system and our nation as well.