Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to

recognize the crew of the Amtrak Downeaster who quickly guided 112 passengers to safety after the train was involved in an accident this week in Maine. With the engine engulfed in flames, two conductors and one engineer reacted calmly and professionally to evacuate the train. Although the tragedy sadly took the life of a truck driver whose vehicle was on the tracks, no one in the train was seriously injured.

This accident could have been much, much worse, and in part we have the crew of the Downeaster to thank that all of these passengers escaped without a serious injury.

Over the last 10 years, the Downeaster has made 30,000 trips between Portland and Boston and transported 3\1/2\ million passengers without a serious incident. And the next morning, the train left Portland on schedule and arrived in Boston 3 minutes early.

We should all take a minute today to think about the men and women who work in our transportation system, who day in and day out make sure we are safe, whether we are driving in our own cars or riding on a bus, plane, train, or, like my hometown, a ferry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. Joseph Littlefield of Ogunquit, Maine. Mr. Littlefield, through lifelong service to his community and state, exemplifies Maine's great tradition of philanthropy. Last year, Mr. Littlefield was named the `Ogunquit Outstanding Citizen.' In addition to his many other generous contributions to the community, Mr. Littlefield recently donated Beach Plum Farm to the Great Works Regional Land Trust. Beach Plum Farm is a 23-acre parcel of land that includes paths, gardens, and beach plums. Residents of Ogunquit will have this wonderful gift forever. Mr. Littlefield's continued passion for life and his generosity to his fellow Mainers is extraordinary. Maine is fortunate to have Mr. Littlefield in our community.

Mr. Speaker, the York River in Maine is the cultural and economic heart of the York River watershed community. Standing on the banks of the river, I heard from community members about what the river means to them and how they have pulled together to protect this waterway. I also heard from the community about how the York River needs additional protections from increasing development pressures. The bill that I am introducing today commissions a feasibility study which will provide a comprehensive overview of the river and will evaluate whether the York River qualifies as a Wild and Scenic Partnership River within the National Park Service's Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Watching two York River lobstermen tie up their boat, I wouldn't have guessed that the York River area is on the northern fringe of the Boston megalopolis in terms of population and development pressures. The towns of York, Eliot, Kittery, and South Berwick recognize that without additional knowledge and management tools, the river's unique cultural, recreational, commercial, and natural resources will be threatened. Support for the York River Study Bill was the result of a partnership between the local environmental community, a local land trust, support from the state, and, most importantly, support from an entire community of Mainers with the foresight to recognize the value of the river to the business community.

The York River is located in southern Maine and runs 11.25 miles from the York Pond in Eliot to the mouth of the river harbor in the town of York. On its way from the land to the sea, this river passes by farms, old mills that date back to the 1600s, wharves and warehouses from the 1700s that tell the story of Maine's rich fishing heritage, public boat launches, working waterfronts, and recreational spots for lunching, fishing and kayaking. There have been concerted and successful efforts over the past ten years by the York Land Trust and the Mount Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Initiative to protect land in the watershed. These efforts have included preserving historic waterfront access, preventing the subdivision of farms, and restoring habitat.

Listed as a Priority Coastal Watershed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the York River watershed encompasses a wide diversity of habitats and ecological communities that support species including the wild brook trout, the Atlantic Salmon, the New England Cottontail, and Maine endangered species, such as the Eastern Box Turtle. Birders come to the York River to see exceptional varieties of birds including the threatened Harlequin Duck, which is seldom seen from shore anywhere in Maine except York County, as well as other species that call

the York River home, like great blue herons, bald eagles and ospreys.

The York River is also a classroom for young environmentalists--a place where students actively learn about the values and ecology of the river habitat through forward-looking environmental curricula developed by the public schools. In addition to its value as a natural setting for young and old learners alike, the river also serves as a recreational center. The waterways of the York River provide fishing grounds for residents and visitors who fish for striped bass and flounder, and the river is increasingly used for sailing, canoeing, and kayaking.

But, the York River is more than a beautiful place with abundant natural resources. It is also a place where people are making their living. Small fishing operations carry on trades that have been practiced on the river for hundreds of years. Sections of the York River are nationally recognized historic working waterfronts, and continue to provide access to the river for water-dependent businesses. Through preservation of historic waterfront access points such as Sewall's Bridge, the York River community has made it possible for local lobstermen to continue to engage in a trade that has shaped and continues to define the spirit of Maine. And, the York River watershed is a place where farmers carry on Maine tradition, growing pumpkins, potatoes and other produce that keep Maine communities healthy. These farmers face the same development pressures that waterfront businesses do, and the York River community has made it possible for farms like Highland Farm to keep providing sustainable local food sources.

Visitors come to the York River to enjoy its unique recreational, scenic, and historic values, and the York River community welcomes them and recognizes that preserving and maintaining this vibrant landscape is of critical economic importance. The York River community's investments in conservation have been substantial and have resulted in the preservation of natural and historical aspects of the river that draw visitors from throughout Maine and throughout the nation. This study bill will be a vital means of continuing to support these important efforts so that the York River can remain a community resource for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, last month, when I was standing on the banks of the York River in Maine, I learned that the river serves as a home for species like the New England Cottontail, the Eastern Box Turtle and the threatened Harlequin Duck; but the York River is also a place where people are making their livings.

Fishermen depend on the good quality of the water and access to the waterfront, and farmers in the York River Watershed grow pumpkins, potatoes and other produce that keep Maine communities healthy. The natural beauty of the river draws visitors to the area from around the State and around the country.

Mr. Speaker, later today, I am introducing the York River Wild and Scenic River Study Act, which would commission a feasibility study to find out if the river qualifies as a ``Wild and Scenic Partnership River''--a designation that would help preserve the river as an economic and natural resource for generations to come.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would combat the misguided report language written to attack local and regional food systems. By passing this amendment, we will send an important message to farmers, consumers, and community leaders around the country: Local and regional food systems are critically important. They provide economic opportunities for rural communities and healthy food for consumers.

Local food systems are the backbone of economies across the country. In order to ensure local food systems work to their maximum potential, Congress must support research, thriving programs, and devote more, not less, funding to enhance this work.

You know, no matter what group I'm talking to, whether it's members of the credit unions or realtors or teachers, when I start talking about improving the quality of food we serve our kids, improving local food systems, and knowing where your food comes from, I look around the room and everybody is nodding. Across the board, these issues are important to people, and this is where there is real energy for growth in the economy.

The language included in the report was designed to criticize and hamstring efforts that are underway at the USDA to create jobs, to increase farm income, and to bolster the economy through the development of local and regional food systems. The language targets local and regional food system development in two ways:

First, it demands overly burdensome reporting requirements of the USDA's Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative. USDA developed this initiative to streamline the implementation of existing programs authorized by Congress in the last farm bill.

``Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food'' is not a standalone program and does not have its own budget. Creating additional burdensome reporting requirements would delay program implementation and distract the USDA from addressing the economic challenges of rural communities.

Second, the report language expresses concern with USDA research, education, and extension activities associated with local and regional food systems through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative,

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to engage a little bit more in this conversation that we had, both about the previous amendment and about my good friend from North Carolina's concern about this particular program called Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food.

I have the great privilege of serving on the Agriculture Committee. I've heard the Secretary speak to us about his interest in increasing the number of farms in our country, in getting to know our farmers better, and in making sure people have more knowledge about where their food comes from.

I have to just stand back and say for a minute that it's after 8:30 on a busy night. We're still in the middle of debating this bill at a time when our economy is in peril, when we have huge challenges before us, when we are at war in two countries. I just personally have to say I am baffled about why we are even having this debate. I was baffled about why this report language would be there that slows down research on local farming, that tries to stop a program that's not even funded, and that coordinates a lot of good efforts going on in the Department of Agriculture.

I will say, I kind of think back to the way I look at our country. We were based on agriculture and farming. I had the good fortune to be born in Minnesota even though I represent Maine. Both sets of my grandparents were Scandinavian immigrants. They came because there was rich farmland, beautiful opportunities. My grandfather was a dairy farmer. My uncle was a dairy farmer. My cousin still runs a farm and works with livestock. I went to college to study agriculture, and I own my own farm today.

So I think about, isn't this what America is all about--knowing your farmer? knowing where your food came from? understanding what the basic principles are of growing and of using our land? What in the world are we talking about? It's as if black is white and white is black and as if everything is turned upside down.

I grew up in Minnesota and Maine. Both States have a rich farming heritage. We couldn't be more proud of the families and of the people who work hard on the land. We couldn't be more proud of having vigorous farmers' markets, of having people who are able to

go to a farm stand and say to the farmer, ``How did you grow this? What's behind this? Tell me about what's growing in your field.'' I mean, this is America. This is how our country was built.

If there is one tragedy that's going on today, it's the reduction in the number of farms and in the families who can no longer hold onto their farms, whose mortgages are being foreclosed on, who don't have enough markets. If there is anything the Secretary is telling us it is that we want more people to know about their farms, that we want to have local access to farming, that we want to have people come to farmers' markets.

I spend a lot of time visiting school cafeterias, and many of the schools in my district are very engaged with buying food locally. They realize that, if they're going to deal with childhood obesity, one of the things they have to do is get kids to eat more vegetables. One thing that really works is to have those young people know the farmers, and many schools have little gardens out back.

I visited Longfellow Elementary School in Portland, Maine, just recently. Those kids have a little plot of carrots. It's not that every lunch has one of those carrots on the menu, but it's for those kids to say, ``I grew a carrot, and now I want to eat more of them.'' I was at the Bonny Eagle Middle School. They have a little greenhouse. I sat down to eat with those kids, and they were eating kale, kale and garlic; and they were proudly showing it off to me about how they grow kale, about how they know where it comes from. Many of them have visited with farmers. They've seen the farmers come down the road.

I can't possibly imagine why anyone would want to put language in that says you have to strike a program like this that's not even funded, that's just a way of the Secretary saying this is a good American tradition. It's a tradition in North Carolina, I am sure, where people are proud of their farmers and, in Maine, where we are exceptionally proud of the fact that the average age of our farmer is going down. We have more young people who want to go into farming. We have more and more acreage going into farming, which is a reversal of the trend that has been going on in our country for a long time. This is good for our health, and it's good for our environment. Fundamentally, this is a jobs bill, and that's what we're supposed to be here talking about. Every young person who has an opportunity to go into farming today and every family that gets to hang onto a family farm increases the number of jobs that are going on in our country.

What do we want this to turn into, big corporate agriculture where everything has to be trucked around the world?--where our carrots come from Brazil and our strawberries come from somewhere else in South America and where we buy our food from China? I mean this is America. This is a tradition of our country. How could we possibly think that anything is wrong with promoting or researching local foods and having a program that just coordinates it all?

Absolutely not. As much as I appreciate my colleague from North Carolina, I'm not giving up one second to talk about the fact that in my State, we are proud of our farmers. We are proud of our big farms that grow potatoes and blueberries and that grow apples. We are proud of our fishermen, and we are proud of the fact that more young people want to get into farming.

There are more markets for farming than there ever were before today. Part of it is because people like to buy their food locally because they are so excited about the opportunity of going to a farm stand where you actually see the farmer, where you see how it's grown, where you feel comfortable about what goes into your food, where you know how it was slaughtered, where you know so much more about it, where we're raising our kids to say, ``You know what? Vegetables are good for you,'' and here they are right in front of you.

I can't possibly imagine why this report language was there in the first place, why my colleague would want to strike everything about Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, all over this country, small, independent farmers are making a living by farming in a way our parents or grandparents would recognize--raising high quality food and selling it close to home.

The USDA recognizes the importance of this growing economy and has developed programs like ``Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food'' and research focused on local food systems. These programs are critically important.

Later today, we will take up a bill that is accompanied by a report that will cripple these efforts with unnecessary bureaucratic requirements and by prohibiting research on local and regional food systems. That's right, the committee report actually urges USDA to stop doing research on the benefits of local and regional food systems.

Mr. Speaker, more and more American families want to know where their food is coming from and want to buy it locally. Now is not the time to make it harder for small farmers to give consumers what they want.

I thank my colleague from New York, former chair of the Rules Committee, who I had the privilege of serving under, for allowing me this time.

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak against the rule and against the Republican budget. Last year was a good year for CEOs at America's biggest companies. The average CEO got a 12 percent raise and made about $10 million. Now the Republicans want to give that same CEO a 30 percent tax cut. That's right. While the average American family is struggling with gas prices that went up 93 cents in the last year, while working Americans tried to figure out how to afford health care or how to send their children to college, the Republicans have been busy trying to figure out how to cut taxes for CEOs by one-third.

Of course, you can't cut taxes that dramatically for the richest Americans without cutting spending somewhere else. Someone has to pay for the tax cuts. And in the Republican budget, the people who pay the price are seniors and the middle class. Under their budget, seniors will pay when Medicare as we know it is ended and replaced with a voucher system that will be a windfall for insurance companies but will double health care costs for seniors. And the middle class will pay when deductions for home mortgages or health insurance are repealed to pay for those CEO tax cuts.

Madam Speaker, Republicans simply have the wrong priorities, putting the burden of the budget on seniors and the middle class while giving big tax breaks to the wealthy and handing out handouts to insurance companies. I don't share those values. This is not a budget that serves the American people well.

Madam Speaker, later today we are taking up a bill to repeal funding for prevention and public health. Members will have a simple choice; the choice is to pay now or pay later.

Staying healthy and treating disease will always have a price. In my State of Maine, treating preventable chronic diseases held a price tag of $1.4 billion last year alone. But there is a better way. We can invest in preventing these life-threatening expensive illnesses, we can invest in slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS, and we can promote better nutrition to reduce obesity. That is exactly what the Prevention and Public Health fund does in my State and throughout the country. It invests in prevention and good health, and it reduces chronic disease. Spending just $10 per person in preventative programs will save this country $16 billion a year in health care costs.

Madam Speaker, our choice is not just pay now or pay later; it's pay less now or pay a lot more later. And that's a choice we can't afford to make.

Madam Speaker, we are facing some very important and difficult decisions in the coming weeks as we debate both the continuing resolution and the President's budget. I would like to talk just a little bit about some of the decisions that we have to make today as we discuss this this morning.

As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, the proposed continuing resolution that the Republicans have put on the table has draconian cuts that will not move our country forward. Whether it's cuts to the National Institutes of Health and investigating important research that we have before us, cuts to our infrastructure or education, arts and culture, cuts to our police protection and fire protection in our home communities, this budget does not do what the American people need, and it will not move us forward.

The proposed continuing resolution has made one particular cut that I want to discuss in more detail. For a party that refers to itself as ``the party of jobs'' and says they want to move the economy forward, I am very disturbed to see that they are slashing the funding for the Economic Development Administration, and I am here to say that doing so will pull the rug out from the very people who are creating jobs and helping turn our economy around.

Last year, I brought the administrator of the Economic Development Administration to Maine; and he saw firsthand, as he well knew, how EDA funding could help make it possible to build a new freezer facility in the city of Portland. This is a critical infrastructure improvement for our already struggling Maine fishermen. This

would make it possible so that they would not have to send their catch off to another State or even another country to be processed. If we can build that freezer in Portland, hundreds of jobs could be created, and our working waterfronts could be strengthened.

Also in Maine, the community of Brunswick has been hit by BRAC, a base closure; and they have worked long and hard to develop economic development opportunities that will strengthen that community and reuse the base. They have successfully attracted exciting new projects, including an aircraft manufacturing facility using carbon fiber, high- technology materials and the highest technology in new engineering and building on the site of the former air base.

But those projects and the hundreds of jobs that they will create are counting on the EDA funding to help transform what was once a former Navy base into a civilian economic engine. The economy is just starting to turn around, and eliminating the critical investments we need to keep it going is the last thing we should be doing right now.

I want to say a couple of things too about the President's budget. The President has put forward a budget on the table that does many of the things that we need to have done: investing in infrastructure, science and technology, education, the very kinds of things that will make our country competitive and move us forward. There are many good things in this budget, whether it's eliminating the tax breaks for big oil companies, or no further extensions of tax cuts for the wealthy, or making sure we do increase the Economic Development Administration and invest in economic development.

Investing in health care, continuing to implement the health care reform bill where we are putting money into the critical training of 4,000 more primary care providers--I know that's a huge need in my State and so many other States--as well as working to move forward on the permanent fix to the SGR so that our physicians are adequately reimbursed.

Investments in housing, making sure that the homeless veterans are no longer on the streets anymore and that people have more choices to move forward in housing. Eliminating tax breaks for big oil companies. Making our commercial buildings more efficient, even cutting defense in strategic ways. Up to $78 billion in wasteful spending is cut out of the President's budget. Cutting of the alternative engine for the F-35, which is just wasteful, unnecessary while at the same time he is making sure that our military personnel get a pay raise and that they are recognized and supported.

I do need to discuss one issue in the President's budget that will be a problem for my constituents in Maine. The President's budget proposes to cut LIHEAP funding. LIHEAP funding helps nearly 70,000 Maine households make ends meet by offsetting home heating costs. Funding is especially important for Maine. We have some of the country's oldest housing stock, and we are heavily dependent on oil for heating. In fact, we are the most dependent State in the Nation on oil heat.

The cost of heating oil is going up, from a low of about $2.25 at the beginning of the economic downturn to about $3.35 now. Maine communities are still struggling in the down economy. Slashing funding for this program would not be appropriate, and it must be changed in the President's budget.

Mr. Speaker, repealing the historic health care legislation that we passed last year would pull the rug out from under millions of Americans and add billions to the deficit.

We can and should talk about CBO scores, tax credits, and unemployment numbers. But what this health care reform is really about is improving the lives of millions of Americans. It's about children with preexisting conditions who can no longer be denied coverage. It's about senior citizens who can now afford to get screened for diabetes or get a mammogram. It's about working families that no longer have to worry that their insurance will be canceled if they get sick.

It's about people like Geralyn from South Portland, Maine, who wrote to me. She said, ``My son turned 19 last May and promptly lost his insurance coverage. He has high blood pressure and had to go to the doctor a number of times to get his medication right. It was a struggle to keep up with the bills. He works two part-time jobs, and that doesn't get him health care. As of December 1, I was able to get him back on my insurance and it is a relief knowing he is covered. If this was repealed, it would hurt my son's health.''

That's why we need to stick with the health care plan and vote ``no.''

I thank my colleague from Iowa for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, it's hard, after a long day like this when all of us are feeling so sad and discouraged about the challenges that have been faced by Gabby and her family and others, to actually think of anything that hasn't been said. But I want to reiterate what so many of my colleagues have said, so many of us who consider ourselves friends of Gabby, who are so proud of the work that she has done, who know what a hard fighter Gabby is and hope that she continues to pull through every day.

I sit near Gabby on the Armed Services Committee, and I have never seen Gabby walk into a hearing room without a pile of letters that she plans to sign, a few things that she is going to read, prepared to ask good questions and keep her eye on the conversation and the debate the whole time we are in there. That is just Gabby; she is always working, she is always thinking.

You turn to her and ask her a question. She always has a smile or a little joke or is ready to make a plan for some kind of an outing or a field trip or something that we could all do together. She is a wonderful colleague, as

we can see today, well respected by both sides of the aisle, well regarded by all colleagues, whether they agree or disagree, and highly well regarded back in her home community where she had another hard- fought election but came through.

Our thoughts and prayers are with her. I know Gabby is on the Armed Services Committee because she's a fighter. She's a fighter for the people she represents, and I do believe she's fighting in her hospital room today, fighting for her life alongside her husband.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the others who died alongside where Gabby was lying, who came to that event and were injured, innocent victims--a young woman and a staff member who was dedicated.

Many of us realize when we take this job on that we take a risk, but we often forget the risk of those who serve with us, those young people who come out and stand beside us, the risk that they are also taking just to be with us everywhere we go.

I also want to mention someone else who I was asked to mention who wasn't appearing in the resolution that we talked about earlier today, but Dr. Steven Rayle, a former emergency room physician was just a few feet away from Gabby when the shooting began. In the terrifying moments after the shooting, Rayle was able to use his trained first responder skills to triage what I can only imagine was a terrifying scene. And we owe him a great deal of gratitude.

I just again want to thank Dr. Rayle for his heroism and for his being there with Gabby in the first possible moments. We owe him our gratitude, and everyone else who worked so hard to make sure that people were safe as quickly as possible at that scene.

And I echo the remarks of my earlier colleague, Dana Rohrabacher. I hope this all reminds us to think about how we speak, to think about how we speak with each other, how we conduct our business, and how we move forward. This is a solemn week. We will have many solemn weeks ahead of us, and we have a lot of work to do.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the District of Columbia for its recent enactment of the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District.

Just a few weeks ago, Mayor Fenty signed this important legislation, which was passed by unanimous consent by the D.C. Council. National Popular Vote is now law in 7 jurisdictions, and has been passed by 30 legislative chambers in 21 states.

The shortcomings of the current system stem from the winner-take-all rule. Presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the concerns of voters in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign visits and ad money in just six closely divided ``battleground'' states. A total of 98 percent of their resources went to just 15 states. Voters in two thirds of the states are essentially just spectators to presidential elections.

Under the National Popular Vote, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill assures that every vote will matter in every state in every Presidential election.

I look forward to more states, all across the country passing this important piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1764 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1764 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the majority leader or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965 with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. The rule waives all points of order against any consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read.

Madam Speaker, the time has come to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We have all heard the arguments, the studies have been done, the hearings have been held. The men and women of the armed services have spoken and their leaders have weighed in. There are no more excuses not to repeal this misguided and harmful policy. There is no more reason to delay this any longer.

Madam Speaker, for gay military personnel, how much longer do we ask them to serve in silence? How many more hearings and how much more testimony are we going to ask for before we finally hear what the men and women of the armed services have just said: Just because someone is gay doesn't make them any less of a soldier, an airman, or a marine. How many more times can we just turn our

heads and pretend we don't see the damage this policy has done to our military's readiness? And how many more competent, talented, and patriotic men and women will be kicked out of the service before this misguided and harmful policy is forever banned?

The results of the comprehensive study of the attitudes of military personnel are clear and unequivocal. It is right here.

When they were asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a coworker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92 percent of the military personnel stated that the unit's ability to work together was ``very good,'' ``good,'' or ``neither good nor poor.''

When they were asked about having a servicemember in their immediate unit who said he or she was gay and how that would affect the unit's ability to work together to get the job done, 70 percent of servicemembers predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or absolutely no effect.

And it is not just the men and women who make up our Armed Forces who are urging Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell; our Nation's military leaders also believe it needs to come to an end.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, ``I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our Nation, and for our collective honor.''

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, agreed. He said repeal would not keep us from ``accomplishing our worldwide missions, including combat operations.''

And Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, said it simply: Repeal ``will not fundamentally change who we are and what we do.''

Madam Speaker, it wasn't that long ago that women were not allowed to serve in combat. When we debated ending that ban, the critics predicted that if women were allowed in combat, that discipline would dissolve and unit cohesion would crumble.

The arguments against allowing women to serve in combat were exactly the same thing they are saying today about allowing openly gay men and women to serve. But after two wars where women have served ably and bravely alongside their male counterparts, none of the grim predictions came true. Discipline has not suffered and our military remains the most powerful and effective in the world.

But those two wars have taken their toll on recruitment and retention. Our military is stretched thin, and the last thing we should be doing is kicking out skilled men and women who volunteered to fight for our country. The last thing we should be doing is telling troops that we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train that we don't need your services anymore. And the last thing we should be doing is saying that no matter how brave you are, no matter how dedicated you are, no matter how patriotic you are, if you are gay, we don't want you to wear the uniform of the United States.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell threatens our national security. It wastes precious resources, and it goes against the values that our military embodies: integrity, honesty, and loyalty.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the other side of the aisle for his thoughts on this. He is getting ready to retire from Congress. I just want to say I've enjoyed the opportunity to serve with you on the Rules Committee and appreciate the thoughts that you bring to the issues that we have to deal with.

With all due respect, I want to disagree with you on one particular point, as I did earlier today in the Rules Committee, and without questioning anything that you had to say today, I will just say that my experience on the issue of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, whether it is in my position as sitting on the Armed Services Committee or with some of my colleagues on the Rules Committee who have questioned this particular bill as the vehicle, it is that sometimes I feel like people run out of substantive arguments and they go back to process and they say, well, there's something flawed about this process.

And over the 2 years that I've been here, as we've been discussing a piece of law that no longer works, that shouldn't be in law, that tells people who are gay or lesbian that they can no longer serve in the military, for the past 2 years I've heard over and over again, well, this is a flawed process. So as a member of the Armed Services Committee, even though my good colleague Representative Davis held subcommittee hearings on this issue and there has been much discussion of it, people said, well, we need to have a study.

So we got a study. It's a big, thick study. It's a wonderfully well done study. And when I had the opportunity just recently to sit in the Armed Services Committee and listen to the briefing by the military on the work they had done in this study, I have to say, I was very impressed. Something like 150,000 people participated in this study.

Now, as my colleagues know, when you're a Member of Congress or a challenger running, you're lucky to have a poll of 400 people to get their opinion. Maybe sometimes the poll has 1,200 people, and we take that as public opinion. But to ask 150,000 people associated with the military ``So, what do you think?'' is quite a piece of work, and I think it was extremely well done.

And what we were told that day in that briefing was, overwhelmingly, our military said, you know, this is just fine. Many of them said: I already know. I serve alongside someone who is a gay or lesbian member of the Armed Forces, and it doesn't bother us at all. It isn't interfering with unit cohesion or ability to fight. People said overwhelmingly: What is taking so long to change this particular provision in law?

So I look at this and I say, whether it's the vehicle that we have before us today--today, in some of the final days of this particular Congress; today, when I think we have to act with urgency here in this House, after this House has already passed this provision in the Armed Services, in the general authorization bill. We've already passed this once. We've already shown that we're in favor of this here. Now, it's back again as a standalone to make it easier for people to deal with this as an individual issue--to go back and say, well, it's all about the process, we haven't had enough process, I think shows great disrespect to those members of our Armed Forces and their leaders who have said to us: Change this, move on, get it done so those 13,000-plus soldiers who have already been told they can no longer serve in the military and we've lost the ability to use their expertise and their training and their patriotism in this country, to say that there isn't urgency today and that we should somehow allow a process argument to slow us down doesn't make any sense.

I very proudly come from the State of Maine, and something like 17 percent of our 1.3 million residents in Maine are either active duty personnel or veterans who have served this country. I go home and hear the people in my district, whether I'm talking to a veterans' group or someone who's just on their way to serve in Afghanistan or coming back or, sadly, sometimes at a military funeral, and people do not say to me, Prohibit gay and lesbian people from serving in the military. People say to me in my home district, in a State that is very dedicated to serving the military, they say, When are you going to end this process of discrimination?

And that is why we are here today. We are here to move forward on the

rule, to make sure that once and for all this House of Representatives, again, says let's repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Let's remember that this is a threat to our national security, that it's disrespectful of all of our soldiers, that there will be no serious ramifications of this, and, in fact, our military is very well prepared and has good plans to move forward on this transition.

Let's remember that this is the patriotic vote to cast. This is the vote for national security. This is the vote for respecting the investment we have made in these soldiers. This is a vote for increasing recruitment in our military and saying to even more members who currently are unsure, saying to more people who are unsure about whether or not they should join the military because they worry that they would possibly be out of it, it's a measure to say we welcome you.

Our Armed Services will be only stronger when we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1745 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1745 provides a closed rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of December 3, 2010. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and put

American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires. This should be our priority and shouldn't be a tough choice to make. Today we can focus on economic growth to help those who are suffering from this recession and to provide permanent, equitable tax relief for the middle class.

These should not be controversial positions. They aren't and they shouldn't be. The economic growth that all Americans can share in ought to be a top priority for every elected official, and lowering the tax burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight.

After the last administration and the previous Congress spent billions of dollars starting two foreign wars and bailing out the big banks that ran roughshod over our economy, isn't it only fair that we do more to help out those who are struggling to find work and to make ends meet? Today we are simply voting on whether or not to protect the middle class and to make sure working families do not suffer needlessly as winter approaches. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is not political showmanship or a partisan game. We are doing the work the American people asked us to do. We are not voting on whether or not to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. We are only voting on extending tax cuts for the middle class, and this is something I sincerely believe we should all agree on.

One of the biggest pieces of misinformation about ending tax cuts for the wealthy is that it would hurt small businesses, which is simply not true. The bill we are talking about today extends tax cuts for incomes up to $250,000. That covers 97 percent of all small businesses in the United States. And let's be clear about another thing: For all small businesses, the cuts continue for their first $250,000 of profit.

If we really want to help small businesses, let's offer real direct benefits. Let's help them access funding to grow, offer larger tax deductions for purchasing equipment or create incentives to hire more workers.

I am glad many business owners in my State, the State of Maine, have been able to see through this misinformation. Jim Wellehan, who owns one of the largest shoe store chains in the State, has recently come out against tax cuts for the wealthy because they offer no benefit to his business or his employees. He recently said it makes no sense from any perspective to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. It will just increase the wealth gap and create more of a social and economic problem.

Jim hits on a critical point. Over the last 30 years, the wealthiest have gotten richer and richer compared to everyone else. In 1980 the average income of the country's top .01 percent of earners was 180 times that of the bottom 90 percent. Today that number is 1,000 times. Meanwhile taxes for the rich have gone down dramatically. So as the wealthiest take a larger and larger piece of the pie, they have given less and less back to the public infrastructure, to our communities, and to the people who helped create that prosperity.

The truth about tax breaks for the ultra rich is that they are very, very expensive. Cutting taxes for those making over $250,000 will add $700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years alone. That's about the cost of the entire stimulus bill, and most economists agree it would do very little to stimulate the economy.

In January of this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed 11 policy proposals and ranked them by how effective they would be in fueling economic recovery.

Number one on that list was extending benefits for the unemployed because those dollars go immediately into local economies and spur more spending. If only that was the bill we were voting on today.

What was number 11? Number 11 on that list was extending tax cuts for the wealthy. The benefit of those dollars going to the rich was marginal, because that money would be mostly saved, not spent. That's just not right.

I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me today in supporting this commonsense bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to one of my colleagues, I want to answer a couple of things that my good colleague from California mentioned. Soon his party will be in power, and I am confident he will be the chair of the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee will be very open perhaps at that time to have more open rules and to change the process. So I look forward to, as a sophomore Member, learning how a different process will be conducted by the other side of the aisle.

I do want to remind him that during 12 years when his party was in control, there was never a tax bill that came to the floor which allowed for amendments. I don't know if that process will change in the future. It certainly wasn't that way in the past.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you for making that point. I think it is slightly different from the other point of saying that tax bills never were allowed to be amended in the last 12 years. But I look forward to modified open rules or open rules or whatever process we will be working with in the future. That isn't what we have before us today.

I do want to comment that while you were kind of referring to this as political theater, I also recall that you asked for 3 hours of debate on this; and if it is truly political theater, that would be tying up a lot of the people's time to have us conduct this debate for 3 hours if, in fact, you do not consider it serious debate. I mean, in my opinion, you and I just have a strong disagreement. Our two parties and many of our Members disagree on where the appropriate place to have tax cuts is.

We are putting this bill on the floor today because we believe it is important to extend tax cuts for the middle class, that that has the greatest benefit to our economy. And as the OMB and other studies have shown us, tax cuts for the wealthiest to the country just do not stimulate the economy. The money does not go where we think it needs to go to create more jobs, and it is not a good expenditure of $700 billion, which is what this will cost us over the next decade in a time when we are clamoring to find ways to reduce the deficit.

So I find it unfathomable that there would be any objection to taking a vote on what is clearly the most agreed upon part of our tax cuts here and then allowing for other debate on the rest of the package. So for me, this is a logical way to bring this to the floor. I am pleased that we have this opportunity here.

I am a little frustrated every time I hear this tried to be portrayed as the real argument is only about small businesses. You know, 2 percent of the small businesses in our country are the ones that will be affected by this.

I disagree with your statement that Democrats love employees and dislike employers. Many of us on this side of the aisle are employers. I am an employer. I have a small business, and I actually feel pretty good about myself.

I do appreciate that, and I am glad to know that dear Senator Tsongas' wife has corrected you on the appropriate way to use that quote. But either way, it was something that you brought to the floor to make the point that somehow you think this bill is put forward so that Democrats can show their disapproval of employers. And I can speak

personally that I work closely with employers in my district. I am an employer and think there are employers who will benefit under this as well. That is why I quoted, in my own remarks, Jim Wellehan who owns a chain of shoe stores in our State who said: I am not in favor of a bill that would give tax cuts to the wealthy because it doesn't do anything to help my employees or my business. And that, in fact, is what he is concerned about. You know, employers need customers, which are those employees, and that is why we consider it so critical to make sure that we do something to benefit those people who will be purchasing.

Just one other comment that I had in my notes here today from a small business owner in Lincoln, Nebraska. People talk about the $250,000 without talking about that as net profit. Here is how he described it: A lot of people don't understand how small business works. We reinvest in our business. We try to minimize the amount of taxable income we have. I went out and bought an $80,000 piece of equipment. I did it so I could reduce my taxes. The only people I can think of who could honestly call themselves small businesses that this would affect would be stock brokers and lawyers.

That is what Rick Poore, owner of a Lincoln, Nebraska, clothing firm who employs 30 people thinks about this.

Well, if in fact the 2 percent we are trying to help today are stock brokers and lawyers, I don't think the American public is clamoring for them to have another tax break, and I think people aren't explaining and displaying an understanding of how business works. This is about net profit for small businesses, which even reduces further the number of businesses who will be affected by this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would just say again that I think we have a difference of opinion on the semantics here.

You want to argue that, if we don't continue tax cuts/tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country that we are increasing taxes. I would say it is time we let those tax breaks end, those tax breaks that went on for too long and that did nothing, in my opinion, to stimulate the economy.

I also just want to add my own comment.

You know, there is a lot of interpretation about November 2. The voters cast their votes. Things changed dramatically. Many of us who have been in politics over time know that sometimes you're in the majority, sometimes you're in the minority; sometimes your ideas come out on top, and sometimes they don't.

But I have to say personally, in interpreting my own district, voters heard me say every day that I pledge to continue the tax breaks for the middle class but that I will not vote to extend them for the wealthiest in this country. I debated my opponent, and it was written about in the newspaper. There were endless interviews when I made it very clear as to what my point of view was and why I thought it was important. I come from a State where small business rules, where I am a small business owner, and where I said to people, You know, this isn't a small business issue; this is about helping the wealthiest people in this country.

I just have to say, when I go back and look at the November 2 election, oddly enough, I'm still here, and I intend to be here on January 5 and to be sworn in again. Somehow, the voters in my district said, Go for it. We don't want to see any more tax breaks for the wealthy. We, in fact, only want to see tax cuts for the middle class.

So I am interpreting November 2 to mean we are doing the right thing on the floor today. We are putting forward the one measure that allows us to make sure we can separate the tax cuts for the wealthiest from the tax cuts for the middle class. That is what we are doing here today.

Let me just close, Mr. Speaker.

Ten years ago, Congress passed a package of tax cuts with the lion's share of the benefits going to the wealthiest of the wealthy. The stated intent was to grow and secure our economy. Today, millions of families across this country are struggling. They are worried about finding work. They are barely covering their monthly expenses.

I have to ask my colleagues: Do your constituents feel more economically secure than they did 10 years ago?

Since these cuts took place, we have gone from a balanced Federal budget to troubling deficits. We have seen the middle class weaken, and we have experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The billions we have given in handouts to the super rich have been major contributors to all of those realities.

Today, we have a historic opportunity to support the middle class, to show real Americans that we as Members of Congress are hearing their frustrations and their anger. We can stand up today and say that we are going to help the vast majority of Americans, that we care deeply about the economic security of the middle class and that, for once, Congress is going to act in the best interest of the middle class.

I strongly stand behind H.R. 4853, extending the tax cuts for middle class families and businesses who make up to $250,000. They need a break, and we should be doing even more for them. It is simply outrageous to suggest that we should hold these tax cuts hostage in order to continue a failed policy that has weakened our economy, has placed a bigger burden on working families and has only been effective in making the rich richer. I urge all of my colleagues to support middle class Americans and to vote for the underlying bill.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in the remaining days of this Congress we have some choices to make, and those choices couldn't be more clear. Are we going to extend tax cuts for the rich, giving millionaires an average break of over $100,000, or are we going to continue unemployment benefits of about $245 a week for out-of-work Americans? Are we going to approve a giveaway to high-paid CEOs that the Congressional Budget Office puts at the bottom of their list of what would stimulate the economy, or are we going to extend the unemployment benefits the CBO puts at the top of that same list? Are we going to hand out tax breaks to the wealthy that will add $700 billion to the deficit, or are we going to continue funding unemployment checks that generate $2 in economic activity for every $1 in benefits paid?

The American people sent us here to set priorities and make tough choices. Putting American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires should be our priority, and it shouldn't be a tough choice to make.