Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

There is nothing in the gentleman's amendment that I think anyone could disagree with. The amendment doesn't speak about Attorney General Holder. It doesn't speak about any particular matter that's been referenced in the comments on the floor.

It just says that you can't use dollars provided under this act to give misinformation to the Congress. I think every Member should support this.

I think, however, I want to, and I think many Members would separate themselves from these accusations that are baseless. In fact, they've been investigated, and there's no evidence that the Attorney General provided any misinformation to the Congress. In fact, he's testified seven times. He's provided thousands of documents.

And what we do know is that this Congress, under Republican control and a Republican administration, started endeavors to track illegal guns that were very similar to the operation that's been referred to, and some of those guns fell into the wrong hands.

But to attack Federal law enforcement that's trying to catch bad guys, who are operating sting operations, even when they go poorly, I think, is just the wrong place for Federal lawmakers to be. I'm in support of Federal law enforcement. And even if their policies in this particular way were wrong, and they've been corrected, that is, in fact, once the Attorney General knew about it, he stopped it. Everyone in the line of responsibility here, those have been removed. So when the gentleman suggests on the floor of the House that no one's lost their job, no one's been changed, that's entirely inaccurate.

But I do want to make this point. We should be in support of Federal law enforcement. We should support them. And to attack career ATF agents who are risking their lives trying to catch bad guys along the border, I think it's the wrong way for us to proceed just because we want to go at this administration.

Now, if there's an election in which there's a change in Presidency, the other side will get a chance to name an Attorney General. Under our Constitution, the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President. And the President has made it clear that Attorney General Holder, and I think in many people's minds, is one of the best that's ever served in this position.

Regardless of what you think about the political appointees in the Department, to attack career ATF agents for doing their job, while they risk their lives on behalf of the American citizens, I think, is the wrong thing to do.

But I support the amendment. There's nothing in this amendment at all connected to these baseless allegations, none of which have been proved. And I think it's wrong to come to the House, defame public servants, say that they've lied to the Congress, when, in fact, there's nothing in the record that suggests that whatsoever.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I join my colleague, the chairman.

I appreciate the offering of the amendment; however, I'm opposed to the offset. We have a need to have loan forgiveness for public servants, both in terms of law enforcement and prosecutors, but teachers, police officers--you can go through a whole range. In fact, embodied in the reconciliation act that carried the Affordable Health Care Act, we created a loan-forgiveness program for public service that will start to take effect in 2014.

This is needed, but we can't use this offset. And I would hope that we'll have an opportunity to work together on this because I do think if we had $4 million last year, we can continue to find additional resources as we go to conference. We are hamstrung by a lower allocation, which means some of the things that Members may be interested in are going to have a lower funding level as this bill leaves the House but a higher funding level when it leaves conference. So it's part of the process, and I appreciate the amendment. I hope that the gentleman would consider working with me and the chairman as we go forward, if your desire is to actually find resources for this important endeavor.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I just wanted to enlighten the House on one small matter. We've had a number of votes on repealing the Affordable Care Act and the like. There's no possibility that the President is going to sign this bill if this amendment was in there. So, you know, we're spending a lot of time, but the election will come in November. There will be an opportunity for the country to sort some of these issues out.

But as for this appropriations bill, what we're trying to do is fund needed law enforcement activities in relationship to the Justice Department, whose principal duty is to protect our country since post- 9/11 in terms of terrorism. I was out at the Terrorist Screening Center. I met with the FBI director and other officials from the Department. It's important that we pass this appropriations bill on time, and I thank the House leadership for scheduling it. This amendment is not going to be a part of this law no matter the result of the vote here today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Since President Clinton initiated the COPS program, there has been a tendency for there to be partisan fights around it. The truth of the matter is there is nothing partisan about cops in your community. Every community throughout our country, no matter the voting patterns or predictions of voting patterns, rely on police officers for public safety.

The Congress--this Congress, under a Republican President and Republicans in the House and Senate, has spent billions on policing in Iraq. We have just seen President Obama make commitments in Afghanistan for security services and resources well into the next decade. Here in America, we should be at least as willing to support police on our streets.

I want to assure the gentlelady from Oakland--her city I visited. I know many of the challenges in cities similarly situated, including my own. I know that the chairman of the subcommittee wants to see more cops on the beat, but we have a difficult allocation. We are hopeful, and I think with some degree of certainty that we will be able to increase the resources put into this area.

This is not partisan. This is a program that works. Ever since the COPS program was implemented, every single year the crime rate has gone down; violent crime has gone down in cities where this has been implemented. So I thank the gentlelady for her offering of the amendment and for her willingness to withdraw it. And I thank the chairman for reserving rather than acting on his point of order.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I'm opposed to the idea that in a country of laws we want to deny the opportunity for our issues to be raised in a court of law. That's how we settle matters in our Nation, and I think it sets the example for the rest of the world.

So this consistent attempt that we see here now, whether on the Affordable Care Act or on other issues, to deny funds for the Department of Justice on behalf of the executive branch to bring issues before a court of law, I think, flies in the face of the American ideal.

I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

As best as I'm able to determine, this is a bipartisan vote of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, just saying that there should be reasonableness in the process of looking at this question.

We have a lot of young people who get themselves involved in circumstances young, at early points in their lives, but we do want them to be gainfully employed and productive citizens in our various States. But, nonetheless, this is a matter that has been litigated in various courts and, to some degree, I think it's helped to bring a more commonsense approach to this process.

But here again, to deny funds for the lawyers of the Federal Government to be able to handle these matters in a court of law I don't believe is the appropriate way to go. So I stand in opposition to this amendment.

I stand for the notion that we should be trying to reengage people in productive lives, in employment, reunite them with their families and build stronger communities, and I think that's the purpose of much of the work that we're doing related to reentry.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I think it would be useful for the House to understand that dozens and dozens--in fact, the majority of bipartisan attorneys general across the country--filed litigation against mortgage investors who had, in their view, improperly led to millions of foreclosures throughout the country, which is what we saw with the housing market collapse. This was joined in by the Obama administration. A settlement emerged. That settlement this week led, for instance, to 200,000 homeowners having their principals reduced, but this is action that is taking place all across the country, over multiple steps, and millions of families will benefit.

The gentleman's amendment says that the people who invested in the mortgage-backed securities are the entities that then hire the servicers, the servicers who were found to have violated the law by improperly conducting their affairs. So they settled with Democrat and Republican attorneys general across the country in a $25 billion-plus settlement that is trying to right a wrong. This amendment says, well, somehow you can't hold the people who are the investors liable for their agent, the servicers, the agents who artificially signed people's names to documents, and on and on and on.

I won't recount the activities because I think they're known well. But more importantly, they've really harmed the entire housing market in our Nation. I think the attempt here to separate out those who are seeking a fortune off of the misfortune of others from those

who acted on their behalf is wrongheaded, and I think that the amendment should be voted down.

This, unlike many others, is not a partisan matter. This is something that was brought by Republican attorneys general across our States and by Democrat attorneys general, and the joining in of it by the Department of Justice and the administration was just icing on the cake. Yet I think that the point here is that this is an activity of our State governments and that there is no reason we should be using the process here on an appropriations bill to interfere with it.

I am not at all certain that this would not have an impact, because there are still other issues that are being proceeded on in terms of banks in this regard. This was just with the largest banks in the country. So I think this amendment could have an impact and could harm the efforts of homeowners in our States to seek redress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Let me say a couple of things.

One is that our country has managed to limp along for a few hundred years. We are the leading Nation in the world. We are the wealthiest Nation in the world. We are the number one superpower. I don't know how we got here with all of these imperfections in our voting system, but we'll try to go forward.

This notion that voter IDs--for instance, in the State of Texas, if you have a concealed-weapons permit issued by the State, that's good; you can go vote with it. If you have a State ID from the State university, that's not good.

In our State of Pennsylvania, we've got 30 types of different IDs that you can and you can't use. The Republican Governors and legislatures throughout our country this year have all come to the same conclusion. It's like a consensus that all of a sudden what America really needs is picture IDs for people to go vote.

I would suspect that when this is over with, after people go to the polls in November, there is going to be some regret. I think that in many areas of our country where there are people who may even cast votes on behalf of the GOP, that there are going to be senior citizens like--for instance, let me give you an example of my own mother. She is 80 years old. She has never driven a car. She's not traveled outside the country. She has no active passport or anything. She doesn't have a picture ID. She doesn't need one. We'll make sure she has one.

I believe that when we get to the final analysis here that there will be more interference in voting in places that don't have the same level of access to what the States have now required you to do, and I think that will be unfortunate. It's not the way for the leading democracy in the world to operate. Those who have promoted these laws and stand in support of them, I believe this will be a point in their careers that they'll look back on and wonder how it is that they got on such the wrong side of history.

I'm opposed to this amendment, which is another limiting amendment, limiting access to the courts for lawyers on behalf of our government, trying to protect citizens' right to vote in States where Governors have decided now you need a picture to go present yourself and cast a ballot.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

My colleague, the gentleman from Texas, was here with me in 2005 when, in fact, we had a President from Texas. This survey was done then. It was done in the same identical way. In fact, this would be the first time that we would act in a way contrary to our constitutional responsibility.

It is important to note that this is an authorized activity of the Census Bureau, not just directly related to our constitutional responsibilities but also Title 13 of the U.S. Code, and it has been judged in numerous courts to be appropriate. It is important for Congress and for our government to be able to act in ways, in terms of public policy, in which we have information.

I'm trying to figure out what's different now than in 2005. In fact, the development of this survey and these questions even happened prior to this administration. So I'm trying to figure out exactly why we're here today and what it is that we're trying to accomplish and why we want to create suspicion about the fact that we need to have information about the population, like the question about toilets that flush or things like this.

We do this with the Millennium Challenge grant, which was set up under the Bush administration, looking at developing countries and looking at some of the challenges in terms of population and when we want to know about the state of our own communities.

So I wonder why we're here. I do know one thing: I'm going to vote against this. I'm sure the gentleman has some reason why this was okay before and now it's not okay. The House will work its will on it.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, maybe Congress will, and you've offered us an opportunity to do so. You pointed out Canada. I guess you're recommending their system and the way they do things. For our purposes, the country seems to run pretty well by having the census data, having a capability of understanding of what the water needs may be, what the transportation needs may be, understanding what the conditions are in American families so that we can get appropriate public policy.

But if you think we can do that better being in the dark in terms of this data, fine. The Census Bureau says even though they don't really enforce the fine, they know for a certainty that absent a requirement, they will get less data back.

I know the gentleman is attempting to help our country. I'm just not clear exactly how this does it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

There's some 309 million Americans, and some 200,000 will be getting this form, right?

So 250,000. First and foremost, it's an opportunity for a sampling. As politicians, we know what sampling is all about. It is to take from a smaller group of people information that you can then extrapolate and make broader judgments about. So if you're only asking less than 1 percent of 1 percent, the notion that this is some intrusive governmental activity, I think--

Will the gentleman yield?

Obviously, it would be a different population if one were asked to volunteer versus one selected through a random sample.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

So we first had an amendment that said that we can't require people with a fine that's never enforced. Now we have an amendment that says you can't do the survey at all.

We've been doing surveys in the long form since 1790 as a Nation. It is critically important. Let me give you a for-instance. The gentleman who just spoke, my good friend from Florida, who served as speaker and as leader in both the House and Senate there, respectively, we're spending $200 billion a year on Alzheimer's alone. There are various forms of dementia as our populations age, Pennsylvania being the second State in the country in terms of aging population. It's important for us to know, unlike what was stated, the survey doesn't ask you whether you are forgetting things; the survey asks whether there are people in your home who might be suffering. It's important from a health perspective because it will guide our efforts. I'm leading an effort on brain research now to try to help us think through how we can develop more appropriate efforts to head off some of these challenges.

But the idea that we don't want to ask a couple hundred thousand citizens a question about something so that we can better plan for a country of 300 million, the idea that filling out a few pieces of paper is too much to be asked for for your country to help create a better Union of a citizen, I think citizens would welcome. In fact, the reason you don't have to fine anyone is because people do fill out the form.

But we know something with certainty. The idea that we are going to lead the greatest country in the world with less information about the conditions of communities and of our families, and that we are going to do that appropriately, defies logic. It is intellectually dishonest.

Now, we have done this survey for a very long time as a country. I suspect we will continue to do it. But for whatever reason, we are here today debating this. I welcome the debate. At least for myself and for my caucus, we stand in opposition.

I am glad to yield to the gentleman.

That is my understanding. And reclaiming my time, any of the Members who are going to run in a competitive race without doing any polling, I assume they'll be voting for this. For those who want information in order to make good decisions, the government needs this information.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Any one of millions of Americans--and we have an increase this week of people filing for new mortgages--have answered all of those questions, plus some. So if you think it's strange that people have to answer questions, if they can do it for a bank, they can maybe do it for their country.

But here's my question: You said this was new and it hadn't been done before. This was fully implemented in 2005 under President Bush. So why would you stand on the House--I mean, I don't understand. This is not new.

Madam Chair, let me seek unanimous consent that we have a recorded vote on this amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

The Congress of the United States, in a bipartisan vote, passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It was signed into law by President Bush. It just suggests that, in Federal procurement, when we're seeking energy, that Departments should use energy-efficient sources so that we don't rely on unnecessary Middle East supplies for oil.

This removes this requirement, and so I would hope that we would vote against it.

This has been a part of the law for a number of years now, and it has helped save taxpayers money. So I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the section that you attempt to strike from the Energy Independence and Security Act that was passed in a bipartisan way, signed by President Bush, does not specify Canadian sand oil. What it says is that you have to use the most energy- efficient source that's available. That is what our government's been doing over a bipartisan administration. It has saved billions of dollars for the taxpayers.

Your offering today, on an appropriations bill--this effort to prohibit really should be handled in the Energy Committee.

I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, we're not trying to decide parochial kinds of decisions about which might be purchased and which not. The law, as passed by a Congress and signed under President Bush, requires the Department to act in terms of energy efficiency and to save taxpayers money. You want to prohibit that on behalf of what you think is a more appropriate way to go.

We should make an amendment to that law, bring it to the floor, bring it through the Energy Committee, and not attach it to a rider on this appropriations bill because we can't have a full debate on the merits thereof.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Rather than attempt to restrict the President's efforts in this regard, I actually applaud the President's efforts. I was at the Coastal Zone Conference when the ocean policy, I think, was applauded by literally thousands of Americans from across the country when it was held in Chicago last year.

We as a Nation have more responsibility for the world's oceans than any other nation on the face of the Earth. There are documented challenges to the oceans' health that have been, I think, well- documented.

If you have a problem with the executive order, the problem is really not with the President of the United States; it's with the United States Congress. We have passed laws giving various responsibilities and duties to over 63 different agencies having to do with our stewardship of the oceans, and the only thing that exists in the executive order is the President's not taking any new action but to coordinate and supervise the implementation of the existing laws as passed by this Congress under the past four Presidents of the United States so that we can try to come to grips with the circumstances that afford such dire conditions in the oceans of the world.

So I applaud the President. I oppose this amendment that seeks to prohibit, essentially, the executive branch from the implementation of congressional laws that have been passed by the Congress. As to this idea that there is any kind of power grab in the executive order, I would invite Members to read it. It does not do anything other than move to more efficiently implement laws passed by our Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Again, this is a little bit different than the optimism in Chicago at the Coastal Zone Conference where the Ocean Policy just had such an enthusiastic response from constituencies all around the country and in other parts of the world.

The development of this is bipartisan: the Pew Foundation, headquartered in my home city of Philadelphia; the Lenfest Foundation, led by Gerry Lenfest, and their investments in studying the oceans. We've seen the work that has been done that's led to this.

I would hope that we would oppose this amendment and we would work to build a further consensus and hopefully have legislation come out of the Natural Resources Committee.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I hope that we vote this amendment down.

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

I had an opportunity to visit, while I was in Connecticut with Chairman Larson, with a brave young soldier who lost his eyesight in Iraq. It was a situation where his ability to function required an animal to help guide him so that he could go about his normal functions of daily life.

What the gentleman who made this amendment neglected to share with the House is that it has been the law that, under the ADA guidelines, you could have any animal--monkey, horse, so forth and so on--that could be of use to someone who was disabled. What the administration has done with this new regulation is limit this to only two types of animals: one are guide dogs--as we would normally know them--and the other are miniature horses that meet certain requirements, including being housebroken and so forth and so on. The reason why people who are disabled in some cases find this a more useful animal to use is that they live three times longer than a dog does and they have perfect vision.

But I see that there has been some, I guess, laughter, as if this is comical. The fact of the matter is, when I met

with this young soldier and his wife and their two kids, he talked about how it just made him feel whole that he could go get the newspaper from out in front of the house, that he could go to the store.

So the idea that this is some new policy of the Obama administration is false, number one. Number two, it's restricting an overly broad set of allowances in this regard, and it restricts it to only two types of animals, both of which can be used by people who are disabled.

So I would hope that the House, even those in the majority who seem to find, for some reason, challenges in this bill, in particular with the provisions that they want to go after that allow disabled people to use pools--and we heard yesterday how every group in the veterans associations around our country opposed this effort yesterday on the pool access, and now we're here talking about whether or not people who have lost their sight or are disabled can have a guide animal.

So I oppose the amendment. I hope the House rejects it.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Reclaiming my time, you are aware, I assume, that this ruling was a restriction from a much broader ruling that allowed any type of animal, including monkeys--and I can go into the different other animals if you'd like.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Let me reclaim my time just so we can clarify this one matter of fact here, okay, in that the regulation prior to this adjustment allowed for service animals of any type--including a dog, a horse, monkey, bird, rat--trained to assist and alert, okay, that's number one. So this is a move by the Obama administration to restrict it to two types of animals. So I just want the House to be able to operate off of actual information because this is an effort to both help those who are disabled, and also to avoid unnecessary circumstances in which regulations are too broad.

I would be glad to yield.

Let me reclaim my time. This is not an assessment; this is a fact. So, this was the regulation. The new regulation retreats and constrains the regulation to two animals versus a multiplicity of animals.

I'd be glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, because we're not talking about an assessment, I want the House to be aware of that. This is not the appropriate place to deal with this matter. But if we insist on it, I would hope that we would err on the side of that young brave soldier who risked his life on behalf of our country, and that he should have whatever assistance that can be provided.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

This is a well-intentioned issue in the sense that all this amendment says is that none of the funds in this bill should be used to violate the Constitution of the United States, the Fifth and the 14th Amendment, so I'm sure there will be those who want to adhere to it.

But this is not the appropriate place to be dealing with this issue. This is an appropriations bill. We've had dozens of riders, one after another, with people trying to get at other issues.

Now, there is no instance, no matter what the purpose, under which we should be condemning law enforcement when they are carrying out appropriate responsibilities, and they should be given the benefit of the doubt. In the same instance, we have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is clear in its delineation that you can't discriminate.

And we shouldn't--it's not good law enforcement practices, no matter who you're looking for, to act in ways in which you close your eyes to other possibilities. If you're looking for terrorists, they don't come in any particular subset or group. And I know that wise law enforcement is aware of this, and that they look across the board at what the vulnerabilities may be.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his steadfastness in trying to protect against religious bigotry or ethnic discrimination or unintentional stepping across the line, however one might want to look at this. But, again, this is a bill in which we're trying to deal with the appropriation of Federal dollars for needed law enforcement activity.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.

In reclaiming my time, the point here is that, with every dollar that we appropriate to the Department of Justice, we operate under the belief that they're carrying out their constitutional responsibilities, so a limitation that says that they have to operate within the Constitution, at best, is somewhat redundant.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

In reclaiming my time, I didn't say that. I understand, from the press reports one could consider this profiling. All I am suggesting to you is that this is not the appropriate vehicle for us to deal with it. Profiling would be improper, and I believe the Justice Department has articulated that their position is not to profile.

I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman. As I indicated, I commend you for raising this issue. I know it's unpopular in some areas.

I'm just suggesting that, when in an appropriations bill, a rider like this, dictating to the Department that it should comply with the Constitution is similar to some other amendments we've seen today. I believe that the Department has an ongoing, everyday responsibility to comply with the Constitution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

It is not inconsistent for us to want to have support for law enforcement and also that the Constitution be followed. We have access to law enforcement. If you want them to come in and brief you on these tactics and to talk this thing through, that's fine; but I don't believe that we should take a position of all the angels on one side. To the contrary, there is no police department that's perfect.

The point here is that the effort is one, I believe, to comply with the constitutional restrictions that you do not operate without due process and probable cause. Let's see if we can find a way other than with this amendment to see if we can get to the heart of this.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.

Climate change is a big issue in the world we live in. It affects our economy, our ability to move goods. We've had the most severe weather season we've had in history over the last 12 months at a cost of a billion-plus dollars. Our ability to understand the weather and the climate and its impact on business and industry and agriculture is critically important. I think that the National Science Foundation-- which is an entirely merit-based system of scientific awards in which they fund less than one out of every five meritorious pieces of research proposals. There is absolutely no politics. The National Science Board, which is confirmed by the Senate, reviews these proposals, they make selections. The idea that we don't want to know more or learn more, I think is interesting. I would hope that the House would reject that, and that what we would do is seek knowledge as a way to retain our global leadership as the leading Nation in the world.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

If the gentlewoman will yield, I thank the chairman, and I thank the gentlelady from Florida.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I have no higher priority in the Commerce section of the bill than MEP. I have visited with them in their meetings with local manufacturers. I visited with them in Orlando with over 1,000 manufactures from around the country. I know intimately the work that they're doing. The National Innovative Marketplace, which the gentleman refers to, has been very helpful.

This is the only program in the last year that left the House at a higher number than the Senate and left the conference committee at a higher number than the House or the Senate. So you can tell it rose to its highest level of funding at $128 million. This program started under Senator Hollings at $5 million. It's very, very important.

But not only would we accept this amendment--and I thank the chairman--but I think you have to look at what we've done in this bill in total in terms of manufacturing because the chairman has been focused on this. Over $140 million in the National Science Foundation with the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative. We have money in this for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortium.

We, with the chairman's leadership, have an onshoring initiative funded at $5 million to help businesses think through their cost- benefit analysis of coming back home. And we actually held a hearing, as the last hearing of the subcommittee before we marked up our bill, focused on manufacturing. I've said there's nothing more important to the country or to my caucus than this matter. It's not a partisan issue. Manufacturing, making things in America is of importance to our national security and is important to our economy.

I want to thank you for your leadership. And I also agree with the amendment.

I will yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I'm going to be brief.

This amendment seeks to intervene or prohibit a court-supervised settlement of an 18-year running litigation having to do with some very delicate issues that he has I think articulated around an endangered species of salmon. To do this at this hour of the night on this bill I think is not prudent. I'm opposed to it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

As best as I could determine, this prohibits the spending of funds; no funds would be expended under this fiscal year. So I know that the gentleman is quite energized about this, but I think it is better handled in the authorizing committees since he has legislation, and that hopefully will one day get passed and signed into law to deal with this.

If the Congress could manage buildings and deal with the utilization, you know, the Capitol Visitor Center, I mean, we can go through a whole laundry list of our own. We spend a lot of time criticizing other agencies--the GSA for conferences. You should look at what we spend. I mean, you could go through it. We could point fingers forever.

I would rather see, rather than curse the darkness, that we light a candle. We're trying to finish an appropriations bill. I'm in opposition of this amendment because it prohibits the use of funds spent on employees in a courthouse that won't have any employees this year.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman from Georgia, I thank you. And we'll be together tomorrow morning at the prayer service--8 a.m.

But let me say this: Georgia has benefited from this effort, and Arizona has benefited, Pennsylvania has benefited. The report language you see is just the work of the committee to ensure oversight for the funds that are now being provided, for a report on those funds and what States benefit so that when we have some other gentleman on the floor wanting to cut this program years forth from now, that we'll have an opportunity to be able to specify, as I've done, the great work that this program is doing.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

So hope springs eternal, but here I am again opposing my friend's amendment.

Let me say, this program has been around for over 30 years, and a lot of political change has swept across the world from the time that this program started.

I think that it may appear to be costly, $11 million out of a $7 billion funding for the National Science Foundation, but I think that however expensive an education may be, ignorance will probably cost our country more.

It is important that we understand the political dynamics, radicalization of populations around the world, how political parties operate in the former Soviet Union, all of the other issues that are being studied.

I can see that you could probably bring a list of studies in front of the Congress from the National Science Foundation and get a laugh on any day. But these studies are important. They're merit based. They're decided on merit only.

The fact that some of the best funded universities win has to do, in part, with the fact that they're able to have very good faculty who put together very good research projects, and they provide our country and our society a great deal of intellectual benefit.

Now, there's some advantage, I guess, politically to appear to be anti-intellectual, to have some desire to know little or less about what's going on in the world about us. But it is not worthy of a great Nation.

Now, Singapore has 4.8 million people. They put $7 billion in the National Science Foundation. We put $7 billion, and we spend our time tonight debating whether we want to cut some money, trying to understand how their political system got to the point of understanding that even in a very small country, it was critically important for them to become indispensable in terms of having a thirst for knowledge.

I would hope that this House would reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

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

Let me just make a couple of comments. I think that we've seen why this is not the process for these types of riders on a bill. In States that are not covered by section 5, there have been outrageous circumstances as it relates particularly to African Americans and access to the franchise. In Philadelphia, Octavius Catto was beaten to death just a few blocks from my childhood home when he tried to exercise his right to vote.

But our country has come a long way. We've made a lot of progress. But section 5 is there for a reason. In these States in the South, Nazi prisoners of war were treated better than African Americans who had served in the war.

For the party of Lincoln to be on the floor of the House today on this issue, when there were really Republicans that had joined in in the passage of the Voting Rights Act, where Members of my party refused to be willing to grant these rights to African Americans and to others, I think, is unfortunate. But I think we may be at a point where we can move forward.

To my friend from Georgia, who we are going to be in worship together tomorrow morning at 8 a.m., I yield to you.

The hour is late. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank you for withdrawing your amendment. And I thank the chairman for his previous statements in this regard.

Reclaiming my time, I thank you very much.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I want to start out first and foremost by thanking my colleague and the chairman of the subcommittee, Frank Wolf, for continuing to be a model chairman for the Appropriations Subcommittee. He is a professional; he's principled, and he has involved us, the minority, in every level of the distributions as we've developed this bill.

I would also like to thank my staff and the committee staff on both the majority and minority side for their work on this bill, along with all those who have had input in it.

Now I start out in this process with a number of priorities. First and foremost in the science arena, neuroscience. And I want to thank the chairman--I will speak about it in some detail in a minute--but for his collaboration and this effort around brain research.

Manufacturing. We will talk about the support in this bill, the hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to position our country in terms of manufacturing. We now lead the world in manufacturing, and we want to continue that, but we have real competition that we have to contend with.

And then also in the area of steering our young people away from antisocial activity, youth mentoring. And the chairman, in the chairman's mark, as passed in the subcommittee and the full committee, and as we bring this bill to the floor, again makes significant improvements in our investment around youth mentoring.

So let me start with the Department of Commerce. There are healthy funding levels for research at NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and for the NOAA satellite programs, which are so important to our weather forecasting challenges as a Nation.

In the chairman's mark, he very wisely rejected the proposed cuts that were going to be made in both the technical capabilities and the personnel at the National Weather Service, including air quality and the tsunami warning system and wind profile measurements, in which we've already invested tens of millions of dollars as a Nation.

The bill provides funding at or near the requested level for the Department of Justice law enforcement agencies, including an increase above the request for the FBI and to augment its capabilities in terms of cyberinvestigation and surveillance. I know that all of the members of the committee and all of the Members of the House understand the very significant challenges that the country faces in terms of cybersecurity. And the chairman has appropriately focused resources in that regard.

The bill provides an increase for the Office on Violence Against Women grant programs. Of course these are programs that we are dealing with the authorization of in a different part of our processes, but they are very important in terms of support for women who face abuse. And also, there's a small increase for Crime Victims Fund programs.

The chairman's mark in the bill, as passed from the full committee, provides a healthy increase for the National Science Foundation, the world's premiere national entity focused on basic scientific research.

The bill makes a strong commitment, as the chairman has noted, to NASA science and also fully funds the James Webb Space Telescope and makes a significant investment in commercial crew and in space technology. And even though I don't go as far as the chairman, I do support the idea that we need to move as rapidly as possible to this new focus on having American enterprise compete for opportunities to participate fully and at a much more cost-effective level in terms of our space exploration. The bill makes a significant increase in terms of future robotic missions to Mars, and we make a requirement in the language that this be part of a sample return mission, as the National Academy of Sciences' report indicates.

Due in some part to the limits on the allocation, there are a number of areas in the bill which we should try to improve as we move through this process. And we'll hear some of that in the amendment process, and we will do as much as we can in the conference process that will follow. But because this bill is based on the Ryan budget, it is less than the Senate counterpart, which was moved out of committee $731 million higher in its allocation. This will have to be reconciled in this process.

I hope that as we go about that, we can look at the EDA, the Economic Development Administration, and look at the Census Bureau. And most importantly, to me, the Legal Services Corporation and the COPS program are areas where I hope that we are able to raise to additional levels of funding. The State and local grant programs also take a significant decrease off of what we would hope that they could be.

But I want to focus a little bit of my comments on the fact that in full committee, there were a number of nonfinancial items added to the bill. One related to firearms, another related to swimming pool regulations for the disabled. There are always going to be disagreements around regulatory issues, but I'm not sure that this bill is the appropriate place. In fact, I would suggest that this bill is not the appropriate place to try to reconcile those issues. And I'm sure that as we move through, there will be additional input as to how we might deal with this question.

But let me talk in some detail for a minute about some of the great initiatives that I think we were able to come to agreement on. And again, I want to thank the chairman and the staff. For our country and for my caucus, there's nothing more important than manufacturing. And we see that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership receives $128 million, with a special carve-out for the National Innovative Marketplace, a Web-like portal that will help our manufacturers compete for manufacturing initiatives at the Federal level. I think it's very important. The $21 million requested by the President was met in this bill for a new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program at NIST. And also, we provide $149 million to the National Science Foundation for their advanced manufacturing initiative.

We continue a program authorized under the America COMPETES Act that we funded last year to help small manufacturers bring technology onto the plant floor. And I would note that the chairman held, as his last hearing, a hearing on manufacturing. And I think it really brought light to the subject of what the country can and needs to do in terms of helping our manufacturers compete with competitors abroad and much larger countries that are trying to overtake us in terms of manufacturing.

I would like to personally thank the chairman for fully funding the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House, which has taken the lead in this neuroscience initiative that has been a bipartisan agreement to really try to build a collaboration of Federal agencies focused on some of the challenges that we have in terms of brain research, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, autism, and addiction, which is a big issue for the chairman of our full committee, Chairman Rogers, and for many of the people that we represent. There are issues related to traumatic brain injury affecting our veterans. So this collaboration is critically important, and I want to thank the chairman for fully funding that office, which is leading this effort, and the other important work that it does.

There is a lot more that I could say. Let me conclude, however, because we're going to spend a long time on the floor, and I will have plenty of chances to speak about the Youth Mentoring Initiative, which funds a variety of national groups that do work. But I think the shining light at the very top of the pyramid is the Boys & Girls Clubs, with some 4,000 clubs all across our country, on all of our military bases, and also in sovereign Native American reservations and lands, working with over 4 million young people, along with Big Brothers and Big Sisters and a number of other organizations which work to help American youth move in positive directions in their lives.

So I think that the bill that we bring to the House, even though it is not the bill in every respect that I would bring--and obviously there is room for improvement, and that's the part of the process that we'll go through on the floor and in conference--this is a bill that had complete unanimous, bipartisan support out of subcommittee

and was voice-voted out of the full committee. And I am happy to join my colleague, the chairman, as we present it now for House action.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the great State of Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad there is a recognition of the importance of manufacturing, and the chairman has done a yeoman's job in making sure we, in a number of ways, attack this.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

I would note that the chairman and I are both in a significant minority on this floor in voting for the Bowles-Simpson proposal, so we're for a balanced fiscal approach, but we also know that we have to make important investments.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) to enter into a colloquy on an important matter related to marine science.

I yield 2 minutes to my fraternity brother, the gentleman representing the great State of Michigan (Mr. Clarke) to talk about the importance of science and STEM-related education.

On behalf of the Democrats, I yield back the balance of our time. We have no further speakers.

I move to strike the last word.

In part, I rise out of a desire to have my cake and eat it, too.

I agree with the gentleman, Mr. Peters, that trade enforcement is critically important. This administration has put a premium on it in that regard, bringing case after case--the tire case--against the Chinese. We could go through the laundry list. There is an $11 million increase embedded in the bill, as it has come to the floor, over last year's appropriation. I am not sure you can find a part of this budget in which there has been a more significant increase. However, it is not at the level of what the administration had requested.

I could support moving additional dollars in this direction, but this target of the Cross-Agency account at NASA, which we're going to see repeated dozens of times on the floor, I think is not the appropriate way to go. We don't want to rob our space agency of the important resources it needs to protect our astronauts, to protect its cybersystems. We have to be careful here.

So I would say to the gentleman that, no matter what the result on the amendment, I will be glad to work with him as we go forward in the conference to try to find additional resources for trade enforcement. I think this administration has done a great job in fighting the good fight, but they do need the resources. The chairman has provided $11 million in additional resources, but if we can find a few more dollars in that direction, I think it's a worthy investment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Let me give just one example, and then I will just stand in opposition to the amendment.

On page 30, line 15, this amendment would cut the FBI by $245 million. Now, we know of the important work being done on behalf of the safety of Americans throughout the world by the FBI and, most particularly, here in our own country. Our job under the Constitution is to figure out what appropriations are needed. Under our Constitution, the Ways and Means Committee is responsible for figuring out how to pay for it. We can't say that somehow the safety of our citizens is too expensive for the wealthiest, greatest country on the face of the Earth. I stand in opposition to this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

In reclaiming my time, you are, indeed, a person who provides a lot of leadership here in the House, and you lead our Thursday prayer efforts. I want to thank you for all the work that you do, but in this instance, I disagree with you.

I have met with Director Mueller right in my office. The FBI needs additional resources. The chairman has provided $128 million in this committee bill. This cuts $245 million when we're trying to deal with the principal responsibility for the world these days in providing protection against terrorist attacks. We just saw in the news today a new device that was attempted to be used to bring down an American commercial airliner. If such a device were to go off, it would cost our economy more, not just in lives, but in real economic costs if we had to reshape our airline industry. It would be, I think, foolish of us as a Nation to retreat from investments at this time in the FBI.

On that point, on page 30, line 15, I oppose this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Less than 1 percent of American businesses export to any other country. We've been engaged in a process to increase the level of exports, in part with the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. A number of these other activities are connected. But this is an activity that has borne fruit. I've met with businesses and the people who run these efforts around the country, and they're doing real work, helping real businesses all across our country, and it creates real jobs.

I'm against the amendment. And I guess if you don't think that we should be focused on jobs and exports, you could oppose it. As for myself--and I would ask those who want to support American jobs--partly we have to do that through selling to the 90 percent of consumers who are somewhere else other than in our own country. So I support continued funding for this effort.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We would agree to the amendment.

I rise in support of the spirit of this amendment, and I move to strike the last word.

I also have reservations about the offset. But let me talk first about EDA.

It's critically important--and I'm sorry, I want to apologize to the gentlelady from Ohio--we don't want, in this debate, to substitute insult for insight. I think that what we want to do is focus on the issue at hand. We do need to create jobs.

The EDA is a program that I think almost everyone should be able to support because it's local decisionmaking, investing in communities of interest. It's worked in every State of the country to help communities work through difficult economic circumstances when plants close and the like. It's a return of taxpayers' money to their communities for economic development activities.

What we need to do as we go forward is think about how we pay for this. This is a $38 million increase that the offset of the census will have political attractiveness. But the truth is that we can't substitute that for our constitutional responsibilities to conduct a census and to do it properly. And we have to prepare for it.

So I want to work with the gentleman as the bill goes through the process to try to find additional dollars for EDA, but I hope that at the end of the day we're able to provide more revenues for the census, to do our job as a Congress to fully fund our constitutional responsibilities to have a census and to do it correctly.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

And I think the gentleman might be in opposition. Last year he voted to increase by $80 million to EDA as we went through this process; and today he comes and says he wants to zero it out.

Let me just put this in some context. We have seen gas prices go down for the last 5 weeks in a row; 200,000 homeowners today have their principals being reduced. We have 4.25 million jobs created over 26 months by the private sector. Our economy, unlike those in Europe-- Britain has slumped into a double-dip recession; we have 25 percent unemployment in Spain--America is coming back. So this notion that somehow we need to kind of just stop trying to help communities move in the right direction I don't think makes a lot of sense to me. So I join the chairman on the majority side asking that we oppose this amendment.

If there are some people somewhere who don't want economic development assistance from the Federal Government, they don't need to apply. These are merit-based competitive grants, locally decided; and it is helping communities all across our country. We had testimony in the Appropriations Committee from Members on both sides of the aisle about work being done by EDA in Alabama and all across our country. So the notion that we should support this amendment to zero this Agency out, to me, doesn't move us in the right direction. We want to go forward as a country. I move to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We are prepared to accept the amendment.

I rise to oppose the amendment.

My colleague mentioned small businesses. It brings to mind that, in today's financial times, it shows that we have the highest enthusiasm for hiring and economic optimism in the small business community that we've had in this country in a very long time.

Over $70 billion was made available through the Obama administration for small business loans, through 2009 and 2010, and we now see the results of it. We see millions of private sector jobs being created. Our economy has seen a decrease over 11 months from an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent to now 8.1 percent, and most economists agree it's going to drop into the 7 percent number over the next few months.

This notion that we can cut programs and, therefore, we should cut administration sounds like a lot of common sense. But when you think about it, whether one Member comes over to the floor today or 100 Members, we still have to have staff on the floor. There's still security; there are still lights. There are still expenses in an agency when you have to run any part of the program. So if you have to run a loan program, if you have to run other programs, you need the expertise and the staff to do it. Whether you cut the program back a little bit-- it's like a classroom in a school. Unless you're going to eliminate an entire classroom, you need to hire the teacher; you need to have the lights on.

So I would just suggest that, even though the gentleman may be focused on trying to do something, he says, about the deficit, that, in reality, unless he's actually trying to cripple the Commerce Department as it competes with much larger countries like China and India, economic competitors like

the European Union, trying to work on behalf of the American businesses, our Commerce Department, we cannot afford to be cutting back and cutting in a way that actually does harm to our economy. So I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of the amendment.

This amendment, in all likelihood, is not going to pass in the House today.

The chairman is correct that the appropriations request from the administration was fully met in the bill, but I do want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlelady from New York.

I share a birthday with Dick Durbin, who is the majority leader in the Senate, and with the gentlelady from New York. We all happened to be born on the same day, but at least between me and Durbin, she is at least the best among us.

This effort to increase our focus on underserved communities is an important one, and that is why I am happy that she, along with the gentleman from Tennessee, have brought this amendment forward. I think that, in order to increase economic opportunity in our country, we need to be focused on this agency. It's not so much whether we save an office here or there. Rather, it's that we need to put increased focus on loans and technical assistance and contracting opportunities for businesses that have been left out. I know the chairman agrees with me in this regard. We need to continue to look for ways to increase the opportunities for this agency in order to serve these communities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I also can support this amendment.

I led the effort in the Pennsylvania legislature to create drug courts in our State. I'm a big supporter, and I think that the chairman--in the bill before us, we've already increased this account, but I think that the amendment as offered by my colleague is something that we would support.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Madam Chair, there is nothing more important in our country than the revival of manufacturing. Over the first decade of this century, we lost so many manufacturing jobs.

At the front edge of this recovery is manufacturing. So that's 370,000 new jobs. To take our Federal laboratories, which we invest billions of dollars that we have--I've visited Sandia and Los Alamos and the Fermi Lab and the Argonne Lab. We have tens of thousands of scientists and researchers there. This consortia program will allow them to work with local manufacturers and communities to help build our manufacturing base so that as we compete across the globe to build it here and sell it everywhere, that we have the manufacturing capabilities to do it.

I think this is an amendment that is unwise. We have a budget that is built not only on the agreement last year, but on the Ryan budget. We're operating within the 302(b) allocation. So for people to rise and say we don't have the money, no, this is money that's been allocated by the majority Republican Congress to spend on behalf of moving our country forward. So we should have a debate on what's important. I think manufacturing is important. I hope that we will reject this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Let me try to make a broader point here. We fund the Department of Justice to deal with crime and the protection of our country and our citizens. The crime rate has gone down each and every year of this administration. Violent crime is down. Homicides are down. The Department of Justice is intertwined in inextricable ways with the prevention of terrorist attacks on our homeland and on our citizens, and they have had an extraordinary record.

Now there may be occasions in the House for committees to do whatever it is that they need to do. I know there have been seven hearings in which the Attorney General has testified. I know that thousands of pages of documents have been turned over. But the last thing we should be doing is stripping away resources from a department whose responsibility to all of its agencies is to protect the people who have elected us. They have a responsibility in terms of antiterrorism.

I was out at the opening of the Terrorist Screening Center in Virginia, and to see the various organizations under the mantle of the Department of Justice working hand in hand to make sure that some 300- plus million Americans are safe, I think it has been an extraordinary job done by Attorney General Holder. I think anyone in our country knows this is a political matter. What we need to do is to do our actual work here, and our work here is to deal with appropriations to figure out what the resources are that the Department of Justice needs to do its work.

And yes, there will be a day for politics. That day is on the first Tuesday in November. Today is not the day for

that. Today is the day for this Congress to do its work. I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the ranking member.

We rise in opposition because the offsets we think are ill-advised in terms of its cuts, particularly to the Civil Rights Enforcement Office, and a number of others. We request a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

I totally support the efforts of this amendment to increase the resources we've put into mortgage fraud. And I've written to the Attorney General on this, and we have about $11 million, I think, appropriated in the bill in this regard. We need to find more.

I'm opposed to these offsets, and the idea that they won't do damage to NASA programs, I think, is wrong. It's easy to go after NASA.

I think that there's broad agreement, however, that the mortgage fraud that took place, as evidenced by the settlement that Attorney General Holder and attorney generals from dozens and dozens of States brought together with the largest banks that are helping to redress some of these problems. So we need to do more. We'll work together to try to find that.

I am opposed to this amendment, as written.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I'll be brief. Earlier on in the career of the gentleman from Chicago, I flew out to Chicago early one morning to meet with a whole host of people he had convened as he was developing the concept for this bill. I think the entire country is appreciative and has benefited from the work of Danny Davis and Bobby Scott on the Second Chance Act. I was one of the original cosponsors. It's a very significant statement.

The chairman is right when he says that he's one of the bigger supporters of this effort. There's a confluence of energy around reentry, from the most conservative sides of the political spectrum to the most liberal. We all realize that some 90-plus percent of the people who are incarcerated are coming home, and the only question becomes: Are they going to come home in a position not to further victimize and end up being re-incarcerated?

This is an important effort. This is a program that's probably one of less than a dozen in this bill that has gotten an increase in this bill, and the Senate is significantly lower, with a higher allocation. I guess preachers preach to the choir when only the choir shows up at church on Sunday. But I think the point has been made.

The use of the program that we want to cut the money from is probably not one that we would support at the end of the day because it's also needed, but I think the spirit of this amendment will be reflected in our conference deliberations.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Assuming this role from my caucus, the first visit I made was to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Virginia. This work is very, very important that the gentlelady from Florida has pointed out because of the pervasiveness of the Internet and the need for more resources.

The Senate bill has a carve-out of some $21 million. This would be a carve-out of $30 million. I rise to say that I also support this amendment, and I thank the chairman for his agreement.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Obviously we are dealing with some fairly sensitive matters in terms of the Justice Department appropriations. There is an ongoing case somewhat related to--and I think directly related to--the spirit of the comments of the last two gentlemen. So I don't want to comment on the actual case at hand, but I think that there is a great deal of concern in many sections of the country about what the circumstances are under which a shooting and a killing can take place when you have an unarmed teenager. So this is an issue that is being handled in our court of law. We are a country of laws, and we need to let the judicial process take its appropriate course.

But I thank the two gentlemen for offering their points of view and for withdrawing the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I join the chairman in saying that there are two things that are going to happen when this bill becomes the law of the land. There's going to be additional dollars for COPS, and NASA's not going to be cut.

So I understand that the makers of the amendment have to find an offset. It's an offset that's not going to be acceptable when we come to a final resolution on this bill, but you need an offset to come to the floor.

And you came to the floor to make a point that needs to be made, which is that when people call 911, there needs to be a cavalry on the way and not just the hope that there might be some help. So we thank you for bringing the amendment forward.

When we finalize this bill, there will be additional dollars for the COPS program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

We had this discussion in the full committee.

You have on one side the Paralyzed Veterans Association and the National Association of Blind Veterans--every veterans group you can imagine. On the other side, you have hotel owners, who say, Look, we either can't afford it or nobody will ever want to use it or we can't get the equipment. What we have in the middle is a set of facts, which is that this regulation has been developed over a long period of time, starting back in 2004, in that, if you have a financial hardship and if you can't do it, you can waive it. If the equipment is not available, if it's not achievable, there are tax credits for it.

The issue here is really whether there is enough heart among the hotel owners to make sure that Americans who are disabled have the same opportunities. That's the real question here. So we don't have a vote on this. There is no amendment pending. I just want the House to be clear that one of the reasons you don't authorize on an appropriations bill is that this is a matter for the Judiciary Committee. They've held a hearing on it.

There is a set of facts that gets kind of bottled up when we're dealing with this spending of dollars; but there is no reason here for a country as big as ours and as wealthy as ours to have so little heart and compassion for those who are less fortunate, who are disabled, so that they can have access as they travel and deal with public accommodations.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield for a moment?

Have you called the Paralyzed Veterans of America or any of those types of organizations? Did you just call the hoteliers?

If the gentleman would continue to yield, so you are saying that the groups that have been identified as being for these regulations, you have convinced them to the contrary?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The last I heard, the Paralyzed Veterans were for these provisions.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I move to strike the last word.

Even though I agree with my colleague from Arizona about some of the issues related to trade embargoes with neighboring countries, in this matter I absolutely oppose him.

Now, he says that the National Science Foundation, we should cut it; we should cut it to some mathematical certainty to the 2008 number. Let me just take a minute because I don't want the House to act without information.

This is the premiere science research agency in the world. It is not the only one. We are not shadowboxing with ourselves. We have a country of 309 million people. Singapore, which is a country of 4.8, less than 5 million people, probably less people than in the Phoenix area alone, invests some $7 billion in their National Science Foundation. They're stealing talent from us today, hired away some of our top cancer researchers and other scientists, right? We have China, a much larger country. It's built over the last 5 years 100 science-only universities.

The nation that leads in innovation and science will lead the world economically and militarily. The notion that we can unilaterally retreat in terms of investments and the development of future generation of scientists--now, the gentleman and I agreed in committee that when we have nonnative-born students here who are foreigners but who are in school here who get terminal degrees, we should invite them to stay. If we follow through with his cuts at the National Science Foundation, what we're saying to American-born students is, if you're pursuing terminal degrees in the hard sciences, that somehow we're going to cut the legs from up under you.

I think this works at cross purposes. The idea that we would retreat in any respect, in terms of scientific research, should be rejected by this House if what we're trying to do is to ensure America's global leadership.

Now, if this is a math exercise, we should just zero out the National Science Foundation. If we're just trying to save money, then let's zero it out. If we're trying to lead the world, as we have, in science, then we have to make these investments. We should even do more.

I thank the chairman for where he set the bar, and I hope that the House, on a bipartisan basis, rejects this notion that we should cede to our economic competitors scientific superiority for our children and grandchildren and their generations that will follow.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise to join the chairman in opposing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, under our Constitution is the idea that, in a land of laws, we will not deny people an opportunity to have representation as they seek redress. We have thousands of veterans who have returned home after service who have faced foreclosures and have gone to the Legal Services Corporation to seek redress to hold onto their homes. We've had women who have been faced with abuse and who are in need of restraining orders and other types of assistance who use Legal Services. In fact, three out of four of the clients for Legal Services are women who are seeking an opportunity through a court of law to gain their rights.

To deny them this opportunity in a situation where we are already underfunding Legal Services--and to cut it, to zero it out in terms of Federal support--makes no real sense except if you think poor people have too much access to quality legal representation or, as some would suggest, that they need fewer food stamps or less job training or affordable housing. There seems to be some kind of notion here that poor people have it going too well for them in our country and that what they need is some kind of opportunity to pursue liberty without any kind of assistance or a hand up.

I'm opposed to this amendment. Legal services is one of the proudest accomplishments of a Republican administration, but we come to a day where for some reason there seems to be some partisan approach to this matter. In truth, I think all of us should hope that people throughout the country could have access to lawyers when they are in need of them, because our system requires legal representation in a court of law. And not for Democrats and Republicans, but for Americans seeking to have their case heard.

I hope that we reject this amendment. And I think the House will reject it because even in a Republican majority House, I think there's an understanding that in our Constitution that not having access to the courts really in some ways strips away people's opportunity to truly be an American and for America to live up to its ideals.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I hope that the House would handle this amendment appropriately, relative to what has been said about Legal Services.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I support my colleague in his amendment. Hopefully, he'll withdraw some of the other ones, and we're in business.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'm trying to clarify, your amendment is amending page 78, line 17, of the bill?

Okay. It would seem to me that you are limiting the committee's oversight of their ability to receive information about what is taking place; is that accurate? Is that your intent?

Is it your intent to deprive the Appropriations Committee of this important information?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If the gentleman would yield for a second, or if you run out of time, I will take time and I will yield to you, either way.

Just so we can clarify, so section 505 begins on line 4 on page 78, ``none of the funds.'' It ends on page 79 on line 3, but lines 1 through 3 say, ``approved by the Congress; unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance.'' So everything that precedes this says you can't use any of these funds unless you notify us ahead of time and we don't disapprove.

This whole section, 505, if the gentleman would follow, is a requirement to prenotify, for instance in this instance, the Republican majority here

in the House, that an administration official is planning to do something. Right? And what you do by taking this out would say if they planned on doing a private contract, they wouldn't have to tell you. They wouldn't have to notify Chairman Wolf or the committee or the staff and they could go ahead and act, and there is no way that you would know about it.

So all I'm saying is that this language actually is a notice to our committee of administrative action as delineated on page 78. And so I just think that the purpose of your intent and what you are actually accomplishing are two different things.

I'm saying if you go over to page 79, the top three lines, ``as approved by Congress; unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance.''

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to my good friend from Texas.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Let me speak briefly on this matter.

I thank the gentlelady for bringing this amendment.

The Constitution of our United States, which was written in Philadelphia, suggests three branches of government--the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch.

I would oppose an amendment like this in a Democratic-majority Congress trying to impede a Republican administration's Justice Department from acting to, in their belief, represent the legitimate, authentic view of the Constitution in a Federal matter.

To fight in court is one thing. To take away someone's right to have a lawyer--that is to say, the Justice Department can't go into court on behalf of the executive branch when they feel the Constitution is being violated--I think is a bad precedent. I think that for those who are interested in protecting and upholding our Constitution, to support it, this is a vote that you will regret having on your record as you look back on your service in the Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Let me sum this up because there is a lot of passion. The Constitution might be an inconvenient thing, yet it is the basis for all of our law, but let's move beyond that.

This is an appropriations bill. This amendment, no matter what its result, is not going to be in this bill and this bill have the President's signature. So this is the beginning of a whole set of amendments having nothing to do with how much money we're going to spend but, rather, having to do with various political passions. Most, if not all of the amendments, are going to be stripped from this bill. So we're going to spend hours here, and we're going to debate these things, but they're not going to be part of the bill as it finally becomes the law of the land. We're not going to resolve immigration policy in this bill.

So I am going to recede from using all of this time, and I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. The truth of the matter is that this is actually an appropriations bill, and these matters are going to get settled in some other way.

I thank the gentlelady for offering the amendment. It does violate, within the Constitution, the notion of the separation of powers. I believe that, even in a Democrat-controlled Congress and with a Republican President, I would vote against denying the executive branch the right to have its lawyers go to court and argue whatever point of view they wanted to argue.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on the last amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I think that maybe if the gentlewoman would withdraw the amendment, we would work with her to make sure that we think we've met what is needed to make sure that every one of these kits is analyzed. And if that's not the case, then we can revisit it between now and conference. But the chairman and I would be glad to work with you to make sure this is done because, as he said, we agree that this is vitally needed. We think we've met the requirements as needed.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I just want the House to be aware that this would be a cut in the FBI budget of close to a hundred million dollars. There will be a cut to the DEA. We just had a major incident in which the Federal Government and our law agencies are working right now involving a mother and three children from Tennessee, where there's been a murder and kidnapping and trying to track these people down.

The idea that cutting a dozen agents doesn't affect our ability to apprehend criminals or to protect the public, I think, really would be malfeasance on the House to just pass an across-the-board cut. If you want to cut an amount of money, let's examine where you want to cut it at. But it's very easy to come and just say, Well, let's slash across the board.

It is true that we've held lots of hearings. It is true that we visited with our law enforcement agencies. I've been out to the counterterrorism training center. I've met with Director Mueller. This will be a cut that has an impact.

So this is not frivolous, and the House Appropriations Committee has the responsibility of figuring out what needs the Nation has that need to be funded. It is the Ways and Means Committee, under our Constitution, that is supposed to figure out how to pay for it.

I don't hear anyone running to the floor asking for an across-the- board tax increase because they see that as being onerous, but to cut FBI agents who are in hot pursuit of criminals, we think that's fine.

I think it's wrong. I ask that we oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I was trying to figure out if we cut 12 percent of the weather satellites budget, how would the satellite actually function with 12 percent less of its capacity?

We have, in Georgia, which the gentleman is from, and from many of our others States the most severe weather that the country has ever seen over the last 20 months. We've had more billion-dollar-plus incidents than we've ever had. And when we have forecasting through our satellite systems that we're launching through the Weather Service, we actually save lives and money by being able to delineate exactly where the storms or tornadoes or

hurricanes are going to hit. And it takes time to be able to evacuate people and the like.

So his cuts to the National Weather Service under this 12 percent approach, especially with exempting certain agencies, would have a disproportionate effect. And I think that for farmers and for others, the lack of weather information would be very problematic in our economy and would actually threaten lives.

So I would reject this amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it. I hope the House has the wisdom to also reject it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment affects fisheries under the jurisdiction of NOAA, as written in the actual amendment in the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England, Gulf of Mexico fishery management council areas; and it prohibits these catch shares from any funds being used.

Now, I believe that the 15 Federal catch shares programs have worked well. I think that they have had a great deal of social, economic, and biological benefit. They deal with the essential challenge here, which is overfishing. And it also deals with some of the dangerous conditions related to kind of this race to fish, or derby kind of atmosphere because it creates some order. And order is useful, and is done at a local level.

Now, our committee is an appropriations committee. It is not the place for this to be worked out. This is not the hour for it to be worked out. But if the House has to take a vote on this, I think that we should understand our responsibilities in terms of stewardship here.

There's a difference between saying, well, it shouldn't be the regional council, it should be the fishermen and saying that there should be no funds of NOAA used to organize these catch shares. They're two different things. They are not the same.

So I join the gentlelady from Maine, I join my ranking member from Washington State, and I ask the House and I'll be asking members of my caucus to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the tenacious spirit, remarkable expertise and admirable accomplishments of Geneva A. Black in providing high-quality and compassionate in-home, community and center-based services for elderly and vulnerable residents in West Philadelphia.

As Ms. Black begins a richly deserved retirement as Executive Director of Haddington Multi-Services for Older Adults, Inc., where she has served our senior citizens for 41 years, it is time to reflect upon and thank this outstanding leader. In 1970 Ms. Black joined the Haddington Leadership Organization as its housing coordinator and two years later became Executive Director. At the time, Haddington had three employees. Now the renamed and expanded Haddington Multi-Services for Older Adults, Inc. has a fulltime staff of 25 and a million-dollar- plus budget.

Along the way, under Ms. Black's leadership, the Haddington organization purchased the vacant firehouse at 5500 Haverford Avenue and converted the building to a showplace center for senior activities, serving over 30,000 West Philadelphia seniors since 1975. It is only fitting that Philadelphia City Council recently named the stretch of Haverford Avenue adjoining the firehouse as ``Geneva Black Way.'' This is where Geneva Black's way on behalf of older Philadelphians has been making a difference for decades--and that service will be her legacy into retirement.

Having her ``Way'' is only one of the many tributes flowing toward this remarkable leader. The Board of Directors of Haddington Multi- Services, in recognition of her valued contributions, will honor Geneva A. Black with a celebration on Friday April 27, 2012, at First District Plaza in West Philadelphia.

I invite my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in saluting and congratulating a great Philadelphian, Geneva A. Black, and to wish her good health and long life upon her retirement as Executive Director of Haddington Multi-Services for Older Adults Inc.

I thank the gentlelady, and I applaud her work on the Joint Economic Committee.

I come this evening to suggest that it would, indeed, be cheaper for our country if we want to subordinate this great Nation to other nations in this world. If we want to educate less of our children, if we want to invest less in innovation, if we want to do less in terms of providing for the well-being of our country, we could try to operate on the cheap.

I don't think it's worthy of our House to consider a budget that would cut off America's global leadership position. As we see China, India, other countries, the European Union rising to become more and more economic competitors to the United States, this debate between Democrats and Republicans is much too small for this body. We need to be thinking about our country, thinking about the future of our country and its position in the world.

No one can intellectually argue that somehow it would be better for our Nation to educate less of our children, to have less scientists or engineers or to invest less in manufacturing and innovation. So I would ask the majority this evening, after we get finished with this part of the process, that we try to come together, to think about not our party but positioning our country for future greatness.

We have a grand legacy as a Nation, and for us to come here and to say, well, the way we're going to solve this problem is we're just going to cut, cut, and cut--this is a budget that cuts trillions but doesn't get the budget in balance for the next 30 years. Really, they are using the fiscal circumstances of the country to go after programs that they never supported anyway.

This is not a worthy proposition for our House. I am prepared to support the Democratic budget. I am prepared to support Simpson-Bowles. I'm prepared to support raising additional revenue. The majority of our country believes that we should have a balanced approach, that is, we should cut programs we don't need and we should raise the revenues we do need.

We're at a 60-year low in tax rates, and the young lady who spoke on the other side said earlier that any economist will tell you that by raising taxes you will lose jobs. Well, let me tell you what the facts are:

When, under the Clinton administration we raised taxes, we invested in education, we invested in clean energy, we created close to 23 million new jobs in this country, and every sector of our society improved. Yes, the rich got richer, but every other group of Americans also did better. Those are the facts. Facts are stubborn things.

I hope that, as a Congress, we can rise to meet the needs of this great Nation.

I rise in support of this bipartisan budget that's being offered that would approach this in a balanced way, that is, with both cuts and additional revenues. It is the basis under which there is a majority support in our country. We have a responsibility to rise to the occasion, and I would hope tonight that we would have Members of this House that could rise above party and do what's right. Let's move the country in a responsible way so that we can continue to make the investments we need so America can live up to its responsibilities to its citizens and to global leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an accomplished and distinguished member of the United States Senate who is achieving a milestone worthy of recognition in this body.

Senator Barbara Mikulski is the longest-serving woman in congressional history. Before being sworn into the Senate in 1986, Senator Mikulski served in this chamber for five terms. She has now served the people of Maryland for more than 35 years.

Senator Mikulski is the daughter of Polish American small-business owners, who taught her the meaning of hard work. She attended Mount Saint Agnes College and the University

of Maryland, where she earned a degree in Social Work. The inequities she observed during those years are what drove her to become a voice for her community. An activist, she organized community members to stand up against a local plan to build a 16-lane highway through neighborhoods in Baltimore, indeed she was successful.

Her career as a government leader began in 1971, when she was elected a member of Baltimore's City Council. Prior to becoming the first Democratic woman sworn into the Senate in 1986, she served ten years as a Representative of Maryland's 3rd Congressional District.

Without a doubt, Senator Mikulski's admirable leadership trajectory is reflected through the varied roles she has held in Congress. She has advanced initiatives involving women's reproductive rights and women's health issues. She is currently a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families. She is also a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee. In my work as the House CJS Subcommittee's leading Democrat, I have been grateful for the partnership of my companion in the other chamber.

Senator Mikulski is a pioneer who has paved the way for many women. Throughout her career she has served as a mentor for women in congressional leadership and continues to create partnerships to focus the spotlight on women.

Her contributions go beyond the walls of Congress and she continues to be an integral part of her community, greeting constituents and lending a hand to empower and help make a difference. She continues to fight to give Maryland the resources necessary to compete in a global economy.

I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring this notable woman who is making history and extend our gratitude for her service and wish the senior Senator from the State of Maryland good health and good times.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished member of the Philadelphia clergy who is achieving a milestone that is worthy of recognition and admiration in the people's House.

The Reverend Canon Thomas Wilson Stearly Logan, Sr., will celebrate his 100th birthday on March 19, and even more remarkable, he is still going strong.

Reverend Canon Logan's career as one of Philadelphia's most prominent and honored Episcopal ministers is highlighted by 44 years as Rector of Calvary Northern Liberties Church and its predecessors, St. Michael's and Calvary Monumental churches. Since reaching mandatory retirement age in 1984, he continues to be active and holds the title of Rector Emeritus. He remains on the go, known by all for his lively and friendly manner and a voice that commands attention.

Reverend Canon Logan's life has been one of accomplishment from his birth in Philadelphia in 1912, the son of a minister and a

teacher and one of eight siblings who would ultimately finish college. He is a 1935 graduate of Lincoln University, and was ordained for Episcopal Church ministry in 1938 upon graduation from General Theological Seminary. He went on to earn a Master of Sacred Theology from Philadelphia Divinity School, doctorates in divinity and theology, and two honorary doctorates.

Throughout his life, Reverend Canon Logan has been a fighter for civil rights, an NAACP activist, a friend and advocate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a demonstrator and a trainer in the tactics of non- violence. In addition to his stint at Calvary, Reverend Canon Logan has served the Episcopal Church in numerous leadership and missionary roles. He has been a veritable ``Mister Fixit'' in Philadelphia as interim priest at five parishes, chaplain for the Philadelphia Presbyterian Hospital and Philadelphia Police Department.

Reverend Canon Logan's contributions to his hometown go beyond the life of the church. He is a past president of the Philadelphia Tribune Charities and Rafters' Charities and one of the founders of the Afro- American Museum.

He is a life member--and an active member--of Alpha Phi Alpha, the oldest intercollegiate fraternity founded by African-American men, which he pledged in 1933 at Alpha Omicron Chapter as a student at Johnson C. Smith University. Just last summer, the good Canon attended Alpha's 105th anniversary convention in Chicago, accompanied by his wife Hermione, who had reached the century mark a few months ahead of her husband. It goes without saying that Reverend Logan is Alpha's oldest living member.

Even today, as he approaches the century milestone, this remarkable man of God carries the title of associate priest at the African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas, 6361 Lancaster Avenue in Philadelphia, the nation's first to be established by and for black Episcopalians. St. Thomas, under the leadership of the Reverend Dr. Martini Shaw, traces its founding to 1792 and its first pastor, the pioneering Reverend Absalom Jones. It is fitting that St. Thomas will be the venue for Reverend Canon Logan's 100th Birthday Celebration Mass on March 18, 2012--his 99th year, 364th day upon this earth.

I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring this remarkable man, extending best wishes, good health and good times to the Reverend Canon Thomas Wilson Stearly Logan, Sr.

Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of my colleagues-- and not just those who are basketball fans--that on March 2 in Philadelphia we will celebrate a once-in-the-universe athletic feat that occurred precisely 50 years ago.

On March 2, 1962, in a game between the Philadelphia Warriors and the New York Knicks on a neutral court in Hershey, Pennsylvania, Wilt Chamberlain--perhaps the greatest

and most influential player in basketball history--scored exactly 100 points. No one had done it before. No one has done it since. No one ever will.

But for Wilton Norman Chamberlain, born in Philadelphia August 21, 1936, and already a national superstar when he played for Overbrook High School in the early 1950s, astonishing feats on the hardwood were the commonplace. Basketball has been utterly and permanently changed since he first attracted notice on--and above--the courts of West Philly in neighborhoods I have been privileged to represent in Congress.

Even in the quintessential big man's game of basketball, Wilt Chamberlain towered over his on-court contemporaries and truly loomed larger than life. These days, ``game changer'' has become a cliche. Wilt might as well have authored the term. Not just 7-foot-1 but agile, competitive and creative, he transformed ``the city game.'' He invented and perfected a style that has become another cliche: ``above the rim.''

The Warriors-Knicks game that historic day was otherwise unremarkable. The Knicks were in last place. The ``crowd'' in Hershey was 4,124. There was no TV or video, and press coverage was scant. The Warriors' statistician Harvey Pollack was drafted to cover the game for the Philadelphia Inquirer and two wire services--and he's the guy who penciled ``100'' onto scrap paper for the iconic post-game photo that's gone 'round the world. Wilt said later he had been up all night the night before, and was a bit embarrassed to have taken 63 shots to reach 100, with teammates feeding him the ball and Knicks fouling him at every opportunity.

It seemed like no big deal at the time--Wilt scored at least 70 points five other times, and that season averaged 50.4 a game. But it's a big deal now in his home town, the subject of ESPN and NBA TV specials, and exalted wherever fans gather. Philadelphia's team, the Sixers, will be hosting Wilt's old team, now the Golden State Warriors, on the night of March 2, with an amazing giveaway--two-inch squares of the long abandoned Hershey Sports Arena oak-wood court where Chamberlain scored those 100 points.

Leading the tributes in Philadelphia is Donald Hunt, the respected and tireless sportswriter for the Philadelphia Tribune, who has led efforts to commemorate the game and have Wilt Chamberlain honored on a U.S. postage stamp. Keep putting up those shots, Donald.

Basketball has come a long way since that evening a half century ago. The American game has gone global, from Belarus to China, from Argentina to Zaire, at the Olympics, on aircraft carriers, against garage walls and on a million playgrounds, wherever a hoop can hang and a roundball sent skyward. Its heroes and innovators are figures of historic and cultural import. Wilt Chamberlain, take a bow.

Mr. Speaker, the Philadelphia arts community is losing a highly talented administrator and dedicated advocate with the retirement in February of Cheryl McClenney-Brooker as Director of External Affairs for the Philadelphia Museum of Art after a remarkable 28 years of service.

Ms. McClenney-Brooker, born, raised, and educated in Chicago, has worked in the cultural field and the museum profession for more than 40 years. Her professional involvement with arts and culture began in New York City as Curatorial Coordinator at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum from 1970 to 1974, then two year stints as Assistant Director of the Museums Collaborative Cultural Voucher Program and Assistant Commissioner of the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. She moved to Washington D.C. to serve for five years as Director of Humanities Projects in Museums and Historical Organizations at the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Then in 1983 Ms. McClenney-Brooker arrived on the scene of Philadelphia, the city of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection, to begin this most notable stage of her career at the Philadelphia Museum of Art--and seemingly everywhere in the cultural community. She has shown a special gift for leadership and inspiration in African American and Multicultural arts and culture, both in Philadelphia and as a roving ambassador around the world.

Here's just a sampling: Ms. McClenney-Brooker is a member of the boards of directors of Citizens for the Arts in Pennsylvania, African American Museum in Philadelphia, Multicultural Affairs Congress of the Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau, Philadelphia Commission on African and Caribbean Immigrant Affairs, and The Jonathan Phillip Ford Memorial Foundation for Bipolar Disorder Awareness. She was Co-Founder and, from 1990 to 2005, Chair of the City-wide Philadelphia World AIDS Day/Day Without Art observance. She has served on federal, State and municipal funding panels, corporate and foundation funding committees, and works with several national, State, and local professional and community groups.

Ms. McClenney-Brooker's honors include: a National Scholastic Art Magazine scholarship to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago; International Council of Museums' travel grant to Europe; Partners of the Americas' museum travel grant to Brazil; Leadership Pennsylvania Certificate; African American Women of Achievement Award from the African American Museum in Philadelphia; Individual Achievement Award for Arts Administration from the Pennsylvania Federation of Museums and Historical Organizations; and the Share the Heritage Award from the Multicultural Affairs Congress of the Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau.

One thing we know for sure about this tireless and selfless lady: As she transitions to ``official'' retirement with her husband, artist and art professor Moe Brooker, with the love of daughters Misha and Musa Brooker, she will simply have more time and energy to devote to the arts and culture projects that have consumed her life. I ask my colleagues in this House to join me in wishing good health, good times, and a productive ``retirement'' to Cheryl McClenney-Brooker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to the recent innovative vision developed by the Khan Academy, a non-profit educational organization. The organization's mission aims to decrease the disparity of educational resources, by using the internet as a tool to revolutionize the way we approach knowledge. In their attempt to mobilize a free, world-class education, they have compiled over 2,700 videos in the subjects of math, biology, chemistry, physics, history and art. The production of these videos is helping adults and children fill in gaps of knowledge they either forgot or never learned. I know that the Khan Academy recognizes the importance of technology in education and I commend them for their effort to develop creative strategies to help our children learn.

Salman Khan is the founder and visionary of the Khan Academy project. After graduating from Massachusetts Institution of Technology, he pursued a career in finance and quit his job in 2009. While he assisted his cousin with the subject of mathematics, he designed tutorial videos and eventually published them online. He received a successful response from over 20,000 users, which ultimately led to his interest in crafting a media tool that would help revamp traditional classroom techniques. Currently, the Khan Academy receives about $2 million in support and continues to expand videos and programs. Most recently, the organization decided to make the material available in community colleges and charter schools in the United States.

By recognizing the importance of technology in education, we have a responsibility to make sure that more people have access to the intemet. If we fail to pave the road for this access to pioneering technologies, we run the risk of furthering economic disparities and barriers to equal education. I encourage my colleagues to become familiar with the Khan Academy's website and use the fresh approaches in technology to elevate their knowledge about the world.

Let me thank the gentleman for yielding. And in this Christmas season, let me wish all of my colleagues a merry Christmas and a happy Chanukah. And for our country, there is good news. It has just been reported that unemployment has dropped in 43 States. This is the most States that we've seen unemployment drop in 8 years. The policies that have been put in place by President Obama are working. Car sales are up, home starts are up, and the stock market is above 12,000. How better off would we have been if we would just get the majority here in the House to agree to work with the President?

We have three caucuses out of four that have agreed to move forward on keeping in place the Obama tax cuts that make work pay. That is a tax cut on their payroll taxes. And we have one caucus that's decided they want to go their own way, that somehow they know better and they want to go their own way. But the other three caucuses have agreed, let's put in place a continuation of this tax cut, and let's work toward a 1-year extension.

I hear my colleagues complaining that they didn't get everything they want. Well, there are going to be Christmas trees all over our country, and there are going to be presents under those trees; but we can't always get everything that we want. We need to have common sense and an ability to cooperate.

I would ask my colleagues, my friends, in the holiday spirit, can't we come together and help this President who is lifting this economy through policies that are working? In 43 States, unemployment has dropped--the most we've seen since 2003. These policies work. Let's keep them in place, and let's ask our Republican friends to come on, let's put partisanship aside and put America first because counting against this country is a bet that you really shouldn't place. America is coming back, and it's coming back stronger than ever.

Mr. Speaker, Pennsylvanians in need of affordable housing, and those of us who advocate for quality, safe housing accessible to all, have a quiet superstar in our midst.

Since 2003, Brian A. Hudson Sr. has served as Executive Director and CEO of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, the agency that turns the portfolio of affordable housing programs into brick and mortar. His ascension to leadership is well deserved: he has worked at the agency for three decades.

Brian Hudson's work frequently brings him into Philadelphia where PHFA has accomplished near-miracles in public-private-nonprofit partnerships and Brian Hudson is legendary for the art of the deal. Those deals provide affordable housing for seniors, for young families, for veterans, for low-income families, for individuals facing substance abuse and Philadelphians with disabilities.

Brian Hudson may not be well-known by the public but those who work with him and his agency hold the man in awe. Mr. Hudson's presence at a ribbon-cutting or turnkey dedication or groundbreaking is a welcome sight, and I've been pleased to share that podium with him on many occasions as an advocate in Congress for these critically needed programs. When Brian Hudson is on the scene, it means the hard work has been done, and it's been done right.

Most recently, on October 31, Mr. Hudson and I, joined by Mayor Michael Nutter and a ``who's who'' of business and community leaders as well as older residents who were already in residence, dedicated The Apartments at Cliveden in Philadelphia's Germantown neighborhood. The NewCourtland Network's latest development is a $14.6 million project, launched with major help from Brian Hudson and PHFA, to provide 62 units of affordable, dignified, modern living for seniors 62 and older.

Brian Hudson's list of credits--and responsibilities--in the housing field is long and impressive. He has been a Director of the federally chartered Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh since 2007. He has served as Vice President and on the board of the National Council of State Housing Agencies. He is a member of the Consumer Advisory Council at The Federal Reserve System.

Since its founding in 1972, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency has financed more than 130,000 houses and 54,000 apartment units while assisting 40,000 homeowners threatened with foreclosure.

In recent months Mr. Hudson's PHFA performed an astounding feat of public service under extreme deadline conditions. PHFA was able to administer and distribute more than $100 million made available to Pennsylvanians under the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program (EHLP) by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development--within less than six months.

I sponsored the EHLP program in Congress and secured its inclusion in the Wall Street Reform Act. This emergency assistance was based on an earlier program, the Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (HEMAP) that I developed as a young legislator in the Pennsylvania General Assembly in the early 1980s. That's just about the time a young housing whizkid named Brian Hudson came to work for PHFA, helping that agency turn HEMAP into the nation's premier state-based emergency mortgage assistance program.

Over a quarter century HEMAP provided more than $433 million in emergency mortgage assistance loans. Nearly 90 percent of Pennsylvania homeowners receiving this assistance have avoided foreclosure. Those clients were Pennsylvanians who had been making their mortgage payments until, through no fault of their own, they lost a job or other income stream and tumbled toward default. Thanks to HEMAP, 17,000 Pennsylvania families were able to stay in their homes, get back on their feet, and even to repay HEMAP for that home-saving loan. In fact, over its lifetime, HEMAP actually turned a modest profit for the taxpayers!

That outstanding track record was worth duplicating, and it became the model for the EHLP program I introduced. This federal program provided up to $50,000, or 24 months, of continuing financial assistance, to families who were in danger of losing their homes due to lost income from involuntary unemployment, under-employment or medical expenses. Unfortunately we were able to fund EHLP only for FY2011. Faced with the rapidly approaching Sept. 30, 2011, deadline and a complex set of regulations for homeowners in need of emergency assistance, Mr. Hudson oversaw the processing and approval of 3,056 applications in Pennsylvania, with distribution of $108 million in emergency home-saving aid in less than six months. That's more than 10 percent of the EHLP funds made available coast to coast.

We will be working to bring EHLP back to life. Meanwhile, Brian Hudson and the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency have plenty of work to do. They've been funding a housing locator service for state residents dislocated by Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. They are expediting affordable housing developments everywhere in the Commonwealth involving a myriad of municipal, state and federal programs.

The record builds, and tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians are already saying thank you. Through it all, the simple formula for

Mr. Speaker, on December 16, advocates for educational excellence in Philadelphia will be celebrating the service of a dear friend of mine, Carol Fixman, the soon-to-retire Executive Director of the Philadelphia Education Fund. Together, Carol and I have worked to make the dreams of Philadelphia's school children a reality and to brighten the future of our city.

Under Dr. Fixman's direction, the Ed Fund has been actively engaged in issues of school reform, teacher quality, college access, and community engagement in support of public education. Prior to her appointment at the Ed Fund, Dr. Fixman was Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty at Philadelphia University, where she provided leadership for more than 40 undergraduate and graduate programs in business, design, architecture, engineering, science, and health.

She has held positions directing international programs at Temple University and at the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. She has also served as Director of the Philadelphia Education Fund's College Access Program and the Philadelphia Scholars, a citywide initiative to improve access to and success in postsecondary education for Philadelphia public school students. Dr. Fixman has played a critical role in GEAR UP, the nation's premier early college awareness and readiness program and CORE Scholars, a place-based scholarship program serving students in Philadelphia--two programs that I am proud to have launched, nationally and locally.

Dr. Fixman has a distinguished academic record in addition to her achievements in the field of education. She holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in German literature from Brown University and a B.A. in Russian literature from Indiana University (Bloomington).

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge Carol Fixman's dedication and perseverance toward improving the quality of public education in the Philadelphia region so that underserved youth are prepared for college and careers and thank her for making Philadelphia a better place.

As she retires from the Philadelphia Education Fund, she will surely be missed by all. I urge this body to recognize her contributions and continue to support her work.

Mr. Speaker, Philadelphia's educational advocacy community will be losing one of its most respected and versatile leaders with the retirement of Thomasennia Amos.

Thomasennia Amos is stepping down as the Director of the College Access Program at the Philadelphia Education Fund, where she has served the cause of public education since 1999. Ms. Amos also has directed the Student Success Centers, a partnership between the College Access Program and the School District of Philadelphia to create a sustainable college-going culture within local neighborhood high schools. In addition, she has supervised the Scholarship Coordinator of the Ed Fund's Philadelphia Scholars.

Among her earlier assignments at the Ed Fund, it is noteworthy that she served as Director of the GEAR UP Initiative (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs). GEAR UP, which I developed and guided into law in 1998, has been a national as well as local success story, impacting the educational prospects, jump-starting the higher education opportunities and improving the life chances of 12 million young people in 49 states plus U.S. territories. The GEAR UP partnership of the Ed Fund and the School District of Philadelphia has been a particularly fruitful one.

The Philadelphia Education Fund is simply the latest stop for Thomasennia Amos in her rich and varied career throughout my home town. Before joining the Ed Fund, Ms. Amos served as an instructional supervisor in the School District of Philadelphia. Throughout her career, she has worked in professional development, supporting new teachers and introducing and coaching instructional best practices to school communities. She served under several superintendents in a central office capacity.

Ms. Amos is a dedicated educator who has supported students and teachers in every region of the School District of Philadelphia. She has served as an Adjunct Faculty member at Temple University, University of Pennsylvania, Arcadia University, Drexel University, and Chestnut Hill College. She is also certified as a Principal, and has a strong personal commitment to improving education for Special Education students.

Ms. Amos holds an M.Ed. in Special Education from Arcadia University, and a B.S. in Elementary Education and K-12 Special Education from Pennsylvania State University. She has won countless honors for educational achievement and advocacy, including, in 2010, an award from the Philadelphia Alliance of Black School Administrators.

I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Thomasennia Amos on a lifetime of hard work, dedication and success instilling generations of Philadelphia's young people, especially those from underserved communities with the tools, the will and the incentive to succeed. For an educator as talented as Ms. Amos, transitioning to retirement, this is the highest honor of all.

I thank the gentleman and I thank the House.

There is a time, a place, and a season for everything. I would argue to the House that this is not the time for us to be playing around with the financial fortunes of 160 million Americans that are enjoying a tax cut today that we'd like to extend and the President would like to extend going forward over the next year.

Now we've had some 21 consecutive months of private sector job growth in this country. Now, I know that the President has almost had to lift this economy single-handedly since the GOP has decided they don't want to do anything to help move the American economy forward; but the idea that you would actually stand in the way of, at a minimum, keeping this tax cut in place, and to do it in the holiday season--as we prepare our Christmas tree at home and my wife and daughters have been decorating it--we all need to understand that in this Christmas season that it is wrong for us to approach the holidays and to create this uncertainty.

We've got so much concern about uncertainty in the business community but no concern about uncertainty in the homes of 160 million Americans.

Now, if we want to pass any bill on any day, you have a majority, you can do it. You don't have to merge the pipeline with this tax cut. You don't have to tie the fortunes of 160 million Americans' economic fortune together with the pipeline.

We could move this today. The President is prepared to sign it. I would urge my colleagues, let's do this in the appropriate way.