Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am here today to introduce a bill that addresses a serious problem that affects many retired federal and state employees in Maine and across the nation.

Public servants have performed incredibly important services for their communities and country, but sadly many are being driven into poverty because of the Government Pension Offset, GPO. Of the 5,300 workers in Maine subject to this provision, 3,700 lose all of their Social Security widows or spousal benefits to the GPO. I just don't think that's fair for people who have devoted years to public service.

The effects of the current Government Pension Offset formula are most dramatic on lower income women--79% of beneficiaries affected by the GPO are women. After raising their families and serving the public, these women are devastated by losing most or all of their Social Security benefits after the already overwhelming loss of their spouses to death or divorce.

The legislation I am proposing is targeted at lifting out of poverty those hardest hit by the GPO. It would eliminate the GPO for beneficiaries whose combined monthly pension and Social Security widows or spousal benefits before offset is less than half the maximum Social Security benefit. Others would see a graduated Government Pension Offset. Under this formula, no one would see a reduction in their Social Security benefits and those in the lower incomes would have benefits raised to a livable rate.

I am pleased that the legislation has earned the support of both the Maine Education Association and the Maine State Employees Association. Lorraine Noel, President of the Maine Federation of Chapters for the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, states, ``This legislation is a good first step in addressing the injustices caused by the Government Pension Offset.''

Make no mistake, I remain committed to completely repealing the GPO and the Windfall Elimination Provision, and have cosponsored a bill to do so. But in a struggling economy, measures to overturn these offsets are difficult. I hope this incremental reform will alleviate the worst effects on those most damaged by the Government Pension Offset and bring our vulnerable public servants out of poverty.

Please join me in supporting the Social Security Widows and Spousal Protection Act of 2010. We should not have someone's years of public service be the cause of their poverty.

Madam Speaker, if this Congress does not act on unemployment benefits today, we risk gambling away those critical benefits for millions of men and women across the country. This couldn't come at a worse time.

Just weeks before Christmas, with winter settling in, thousands of people in my State of Maine will see their benefits run out. Although our economy has shown some signs of improving, far, far too many people are still unable to find a job.

Not only are unemployment benefits an essential part of the safety net, they are critical to keeping the local economy moving. When an unemployed Mainer gets a benefit check, he or she turns around and spends that money in the local community, at the supermarket or the gas station or the hardware store. In fact, every $1 of unemployment benefits generates $2 in local economic activity, according to the Department of Labor.

Madam Speaker, for the sake of out-of-work Americans and businesses across this country, I urge my colleagues in the House to come together and extend unemployment benefits so we can keep our economy moving.

Mr. Speaker, a recent investigation has found that the Department of Defense has been denying Purple Heart medals for soldiers and marines who were injured by IEDs in Iraq. Some of these awards were denied because the injured troops received only ``minimal medical attention.''

Mr. Speaker, if you are serving our country and you are injured by the enemy, you are entitled to a Purple Heart, period. It is not something subject to interpretation by a Pentagon bureaucrat. It is not something that can or should be denied based on small print or technicalities. It is utterly outrageous that veterans who continue to pay for this sacrifice with lasting effects of brain trauma are being denied this recognition because they don't have the ``right'' kind of injury. These men and women are defending our country, and when they suffer an injury at the hands of the enemy, we owe them. We owe them appropriate recognition in the form of a Purple Heart.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1640 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1640 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a motion by the chair of the Committee on Financial Services to concur in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion and provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of debate on the motion controlled by the Committees on Financial Services, Small Business, and Ways and Means.

The rule also allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of October 1, 2010. Finally, the rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII which would allow for same day consideration through Friday, October 1, of any measure reported from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, today the House considers a tremendously important piece of legislation that provides long-overdue assistance to the millions of small businesses in our country. The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 grants immediate tax relief to small business owners, increases access to much-needed capital, and enhances the ability of small businesses to export goods overseas.

Today, the House delivers on a promise it made to small businesses. With the passage of this bill, small businesses, the backbone of our economy, will be given the tools and relief they need to expand their companies, to create more jobs and to help this Nation recover from the worst economic recession in decades.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides more than just assistance for short- term economic recovery, which it accomplishes by increasing the amount of money that banks can lend to small businesses, by eliminating certain Small Business Administration loan fees, and by giving States the increased flexibility to manage their own small business lending programs.

This bill is also a blueprint for new and long-term job creation. We have heard the pleas from entrepreneurs and small business owners in our districts, and we closed the legal loopholes which gave multinational corporations an advantage in securing government contracts over HUBZone, 8(a), service-disabled veterans, and women- owned businesses. Everyone is now on a level playing field when it comes to competing for Federal contracts.

Perhaps the most important provision in this bill is the increased access to credit. As a small business owner myself, I know how difficult it is to make ends meet. When I first started my business, long before the credit crunch hit, fortunately I was able to work with a small community bank that was in a position to give me access to capital that was critical to getting my company up and running.

Today, not all small businesses are so fortunate. No one was harmed more in the credit market collapse than small businesses. Throughout my home State of Maine, the stories I hear each week are the same:

``They say the economy is getting better, but I still can't get the capital I need to make payroll or rehire those employees I was forced to lay off, much less think about expanding.''

This bill changes that by providing real relief at the same time small businesses need it the most.

The benefits are not theoretical. This isn't wishful thinking. We know that increasing the 7(a) loan limits from $2 million to $5 million, that increasing the 504 loan limits from $1.5 million to $5.5 million and that increasing the 7(a) Express Loan limits from $300,000 to $1 million will produce growth and jobs in communities all over our country.

In July, the owner of Mount Desert Island Ice Cream, a small business in Bar Harbor, Maine, wrote to me to share her incredible success story. Despite the turbulent economy, she expanded her business and created 10 new jobs this summer because of a Recovery Act ARC loan.

She explained if it weren't for the access to new capital, she wouldn't have been able to expand from two stores to three. She was able to use the Federal loan to manage the debt burden on her existing store locations, which freed up her cash flow, letting her expand.

The results were a mini-economic boom in Portland. Mount Desert hired a staff of 10. It employed contractors and suppliers to retrofit the new store, and it buys more and more ingredients from local Maine producers, all because she had access to government-backed loans.

I will say it obviously didn't hurt, Mr. Speaker, that business is also booming because her store sells really, really good ice cream. I think President Obama even got to enjoy a scoop or two when he went to Maine this summer.

You know, I held a workshop in my district at the height of the recession in June of 2009, before the Recovery Act loans were available; and I invited small business owners from across Maine to attend. The response, frankly, was overwhelming. Hundreds of small, struggling businesses came because they had nowhere else to turn. They needed help to stay afloat and to meet their payrolls. They were adamant that loan limits were insufficient and that lending had dried up.

In Maine, fishermen who run small businesses need capital for boat repairs--to replace gears and engines. Some of our fishermen are having a particularly difficult time gaining access to funds because they are already heavily in debt for their boats and permits, making it difficult for lenders to assess their levels of risk and exposure. Worse, fishermen who want to purchase and increase processing capacity to boost prices for the catches they receive face enormous difficulties in purchasing the facilities they need to process multiple species at once.

One Maine fisherman explains it to me this way: ``The main problem is that, when most of us took out loans for our businesses, it was some time ago, and we could operate like a normal business. Now the struggle is getting even harder. Banks that I have dealt with do not seem to realize or care that things are different, and they still have fairly rigid rules that are based in the past about financing these operations. They pretty much laugh us out of the room now when they see the income from the last few years, mostly due to a lack of price for the fish we catch. We need some kind of low-interest loan program with very affordable payments if we are to keep the fleet in Maine until rebuilding occurs.''

The loan guarantees included in this bill will make it more attractive for local lenders with the experience and know-how to provide access to the financing to our Nation's small business owners, and the reduced fees will make it more affordable for small businesses to grow, expand, and create jobs. This is why those at SBA support this bill, because they are able to work closely with lending institutions to assist our small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the recovery is under way, but we are certainly not out of the woods yet. Unemployment in my home State of Maine is about 8 percent. That means almost 56,000 Mainers are out of a job. Passing the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act will provide much needed help. If the number of Maine small businesses with fewer than five employees added just one employee, then we could cut unemployment in half in our State. If every small business in Maine hired one more person because of the benefits in this bill, then we would certainly be on the road to recovery.

This bill will also stimulate long-term job growth, once the economy is back on track, by implementing provisions that small businesses have long sought:

There are numerous tax benefits that will entice rather than discourage our budding entrepreneurs from starting their own businesses;

This bill will allow a taxpayer to deduct up to $10,000 in trade or business start-up expenses, an amount currently capped at $5,000. Allowing owners to keep more money and to reinvest it in their companies at the outset, as they work to grow and expand their businesses, is critical;

This bill also allows owners to write off up to $500,000 in capital expenditures in 2010 and 2011, subject to a phase-out when they exceed $2 million. It also eliminates all capital gains taxes on certain small business investments for the 2010 tax year. For owners who have held off on hiring or making significant investments in their businesses, these tax provisions will allow them to act this year or next instead of continuing to wait;

When it comes to competing for Federal Government contracts, we level the playing field for small businesses by closing loopholes that previously gave large companies a built-in advantage in seeking those contracts;

We require a regular review of size standards to make sure that small businesses that are fortunate enough to expand don't retain an advantage over their smaller competitors in competition for small- business-only contracts;

We treat those in the aquaculture industry on par with other small businesses, and we make those companies eligible to receive SBA economic injury disaster loans.

Could this bill be better? Of course it could, but small businesses demand our help now. They can't wait, and we have an obligation to act swiftly to pass this bill today to make good on our promise to reward innovation, to loosen outdated limits on lending, and to encourage entrepreneurs to go to the SBA for help in starting and building their own businesses.

I look forward to the passage of this critical bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleague from the other side of the aisle made about the 1099 issue and the impact with the health care bill. I do want to remember that only recently we had that bill on the floor. The people on my side of the aisle actually voted to repeal that provision and the people on the other side of the aisle opposed that. So we have had an opportunity to fix that, and I'm not clear about why the other side of the aisle wasn't with us on that, and I'm a little confused that he is bringing it up this morning.

I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 gives immediate relief to struggling small businesses across the country. It combines more than $12 billion in tax relief with increased access to critical financing so that our Nation's small businesses can move forward on new or delayed expansion plans.

Small business growth means job creation. Our economy will only continue to improve as our businesses bring back laid off employees and hire new workers. One of my constituents, the owner of the popular Allagash Brewing Company in Portland, Maine, describes the increase in the expense allowance under section 179 as a ``great idea''--something that will enable him to invest in his brewery and expand his brewery, which means hiring more employees.

Allagash Brewery is the perfect example of who will benefit from this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Fifteen years ago it began with a few employees working together in a 4,000-square-foot building financed by SBA loans, which were used to purchase the tanks and the equipment necessary to brew some exceptional beer. They did most of their own welding and manufacturing, and they produced 120 barrels of beer that first year.

This year they employ 28 people in a brand new facility and are on track to produce more than 22,000 barrels of beer each year, and they are still growing. With the increase in the section 179 expensing allowance, Allagash can invest in new equipment, expand operations to meet its tremendous demand, and hire several new employees. If not for this bill, expansion plans may have

been put on hold and no new jobs would have been created.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill that should be supported by every Member of this House. It ensures that small businesses, not big corporations, have the tools they need to expand and grow, and it ensures that regular Americans on Main Street take part in the economic recovery.

The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 spurs short-term economic recovery while paving the way for long-term business growth once the economy is back on track.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1640 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill

(H.R. 5348) to amend title 5, United States Code, to reduce

the number of civil service positions within the executive

branch, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally

divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the

Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may

accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in

the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed

shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of

rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5348.

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

I thank my colleague for yielding. I rise today in support of the underlying rule and to the bill itself.

Madam Speaker, the vote we will take today is a vote for preserving jobs in America and a vote against sending them overseas. It will be a vote for keeping jobs in our country by saving the jobs of over 140,000 teachers, 700 them in my home State of Maine.

Allowing for further cuts in teachers' jobs would be devastating, not only to our children but also to our local economies in Maine and across the country. The loss of 700 jobs in my State means 700 fewer paychecks being spent at a local grocery or hardware store on the goods and services that support our local economy.

Local property taxpayers are already carrying too much of the burden, and local school districts have already made too many drastic cuts. Taxpayers need some relief, and schools need a helping hand.

Madam Speaker, this bill is also fully paid for, in part by cracking down on corporations that have been claiming a tax credit for sending good-paying American jobs overseas. Large multinational corporations have been getting away with paying billions less than they owe in taxes. This bill will close the loopholes that have allowed this abuse to go on and allow American jobs to be shipped offshore.

It is outrageous that these companies have been getting a tax credit while companies doing business in America are struggling to hire and retain workers. It is time to put an end to this practice immediately.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1574 provides for consideration of H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010, under a structured rule; and H.R. 5851, the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010, under a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, April 20, 2010, became a day that will live in history as one of the worst environmental disasters in decades. When explosion and fire ripped through the Deepwater Horizon, the first priority was saving the lives of the crew. Sadly, for 11 men it was too late.

As the oil flowed out of the well and as BP unsuccessfully tried to stop it, the Nation watched, captivated by the story and by the untold damage to gulf coast communities. We learned a new language, the language of the offshore oil and gas industry. Terms like ``blowout preventer'' and ``top kill'' became common words to the American people, to news shows and on the House floor. The evening news was soon filled with pictures of oil-coated beaches, dead pelicans, and fishermen who were afraid that their way of life was slipping away.

Today, as we debate these two very important bills, I wonder why it has taken us, Congress, so many years to act on the issues we are taking up today. The problems and challenges facing the management of our resources, like offshore oil and gas, are not new. In 2007, before I was elected to this body, Chairman Rahall recognized that we needed to reform the dysfunctional system that allowed BP to run the Deepwater Horizon rig without regard to the safety of their workers or to the health of the environment. Additionally, the ideas behind the CLEAR Act are not new. They are commonsense reforms that should have happened years ago. Maybe, if they had happened, the workers on the Deepwater Horizon would still be alive and the gulf would not be soaked in oil.

Mr. Speaker, we need to continue responding to the disaster in the gulf and not forget that catastrophic environmental damage has been done. We need to clean up and repair the gulf, to hold BP accountable for its oil spill, to enact stronger environmental, technological, and spill response standards, to conserve our natural resources, and to invest in an American clean energy future.

We must also remember that, in addition to cleaning up the mess, repairing the damage, and cracking down on big oil companies, we also have to get serious about ending our dependence on oil and creating new sources of clean energy. If we had a clean energy economy, powered by wind and solar and tidal power, we probably wouldn't be here having this discussion today.

Frankly, it is almost impossible for me to imagine what would have happened if my State, the State of Maine, had experienced a massive oil spill that had polluted the Gulf of Maine. It is almost impossible for me to imagine the devastation to our fishing families, to our tourism, and to our beautiful coastline if millions of gallons of crude oil were to begin washing offshore, but it is possible for me to imagine the same Gulf of Maine dotted with floating offshore wind turbines, wind turbines which would create good-paying jobs and provide an endless source of clean energy without the risk of environmental disaster.

Today, we are considering two bills that will help address some of our most egregious problems. This bill will provide protection for whistleblowers who alert the government to dangerous violations of Federal law. Nobody should be forced to choose between his or her job and reporting unsafe conditions. It will also improve the leasing process, making sure all companies follow the environmental and safety rules, and it will ensure royalties are paid on all oil drilled or spilled.

The CLEAR Act reorganizes the Department of the Interior to provide better management of the Nation's energy resources located on Federal lands and water. The act eliminates conflicts that arise when the same agency which is in charge of the environmental reviews of leases, of issuing leases, and of making sure the leaseholders and rig operators are in compliance with safety and environmental laws, then turns around and collects royalties from these same companies.

The disaster in the gulf makes it clear that we should be working to transition our economy to a clean energy future. Investments in clean energy will help in the recovery of our economy, and supporting renewable energy projects, like offshore wind, will strengthen the economy and help create good jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

I am glad that language is included in the bill that will reform royalty collection. I am proud of the work that we have done on this issue, and I thank Chairman Rahall for working with me on language included in this manager's amendment that will guarantee that BP pays royalties on every drop of oil spilled in the gulf.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I very happily yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire if my colleague has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker for my side, and I am going to reserve my time until the gentleman has closed.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the spring and summer, the public outrage has been palpable--in Washington, among the pundits and talking heads, in my own State of Maine and, truly, everywhere in this country.

In Maine, we have a special understanding about the impact the BP oil spill is having on the people of the gulf coast. Just like them, our lives and livelihoods are closely linked to the ocean. Off the Maine coast, there is an amazing renewable resource--strong winds and tides that can power our economy and create good-paying jobs and reduce greenhouse gas pollution. I think it's time for us to start using it.

As someone from a community who relies on its working waterfront, I am asking that we stand with the hardworking men and women of the gulf coast in their time of need and make sure that those responsible are the ones that pay for the spill and that we strive to ensure that a spill like this never happens again.

I urge my fellow Members to vote for the rule and 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.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to commend Chairmen Waxman and Rush for introducing H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemical Safety Act, a bill that will for the first time require the chemical industry to prove that the chemicals in our products are safe.

In America, we have too long failed to regulate chemicals and consumer products--even those that we know have links to cancer, learning disabilities, reproductive disorders, and other serious health problems.

Under the old Toxic Substance Control Act, 62,000 chemicals were grandfathered in. Only six chemicals have been banned since its passage. Not even asbestos--a widely known carcinogen--could be taken off the market.

Maine has always been the leader in toxic chemical regulation, passing new laws phasing out mercury, lead, and flame-retardant chemicals in everyday products. In 2008, our legislature passed the groundbreaking Kid-Safe Products Act that establishes a new statewide system to identify and phase out the most toxic chemicals that endanger our children.

It is time for the Nation to follow Maine's lead. It has never been more important for Congress to pass the strongest and most effective toxic chemical bill possible.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1559 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I appreciate the thoughts of my colleague from Arizona.

I would say that I wouldn't stand up here and criticize nurses, dairy farmers, small breweries, which I have many of in my State, or even the pollinators. I actually have a daughter who's a beekeeper, and I think we all recognize the importance of pollination.

But let me get serious here. Once again, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I think, are trying to block important legislation by using a procedural tactic. They want to prevent this rule and the underlying legislation from going forward without any opportunity for debate, without an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself.

I think that's wrong. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not kill it with a procedural motion.

I say, let's not waste any more time on unrelated parliamentary measures. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass the bill today.

I have the right to close but, in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to the questions of my colleague from Arizona, I have to say you have far more experience in this body than I do. As you know, I'm a freshman Member. So I have only operated under the current process that we have today. I can't speak to what the process was like in the past.

I can say, as a member of the Rules Committee, a tremendous number of amendments come before our committee. And if all of them were allowed to come to the floor, and if this were an open rule, I'm sure there would be some advantages and some opportunities for greater debate.

On the other hand, on the issues that we're about to take up today, the essential issue of veterans benefits, which I'm going to look forward to speaking to in a few minutes, assuming that we vote down this current point of privilege, I am looking forward to the opportunity to move forward on taking better care of our veterans. And if we had a tremendous number of amendments before us today, I am not sure we would ever get there.

In fact, when I look at some of the information that I have before me, I am reminded that during the DOD appropriations bill in 2009, when I was sitting on the Rules Committee, we actually had 606 amendments come before us. Many of them were just there, I think everybody would agree on both sides of the aisle, many of them were just there to score political points. So do our constituents want us to take up our time today with listening to political back and forth taking up day after day with 606 amendments, or do they want us to get right to the heart of the matter, and that is to move forward on the issue of taking better care of our veterans?

And let me make one other point. You know, you've talked about earmarks, and you are very eloquent on the topic of earmarks; and I appreciate that. I think a lot of our constituents have great concerns about earmarks, how are they handed out, how does the budgeting process work here. But I do have to say as a freshman Member, I have taken great care to have a tremendous amount of transparency around the topic of earmarks.

We hold appropriations meetings in our district. We invite individuals with any kind of issue to come before us that they would like to see appropriated, whether it's a highway bridge, or whether it's a community center, or whether it's a particular project that might benefit anyone in our district, the university, or some system. We actually ask each person who comes before us with an earmark request to make a 3-minute video. Then we post it on our Web site. Then we ask our constituents, do you have opinions on this?

So while I understand much of the concerns about the earmark process, I have to say as one Member who I can't say is in the top 13 percent of the highest recipients of earmarks, I still appreciate the process which allows me to take my constituents' wishes before the Appropriations Committee and say, you know, this would benefit my district, this would benefit my university, this would create more jobs. And I do it in a fully transparent manner. So I believe my constituents have the benefit of knowing all of the information around earmarking and doing the very best we can with making sure that process isn't handled in back rooms or in the dark of the night, but is actually a very transparent process.

So I appreciate the concerns that you have brought before us today. I look forward to moving forward on the debate on this rule so that we can move forward on what I think is a vital part of our appropriations process, that's taking care of our veterans.

So again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1559.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1559 provides for consideration of H.R. 5822, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2011, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report. All points of order against the amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI are waived.

The rule provides that for those amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, the question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the question. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule provides that after consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate. Finally, the Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 9 years our country has been engaged in two conflicts halfway around the world. The number of wounded military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan has put a financial strain on the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA expects to treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2011, including more than 439,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the constant training, deployment, and redeployment of our troops have put a significant burden on our military.

H.R. 5822 appropriates funding for military construction, veterans programs, and four related agencies. Our troops have performed admirably wherever they have been deployed, and Congress has an obligation to provide the care and compensation to every eligible veteran. This bill also provides additional funding for the Guard and Reserves to address critical unfunded requirements as a result of prolonged and repeated deployments. In my home State of Maine, thousands of Guard and Reservists have made invaluable contributions to our national defense, and I am proud to see this funding included in the bill.

H.R. 5822 renews our commitment to redevelop closed military bases and their surrounding communities. The bill provides necessary funding to implement the 2005 BRAC and address the enormous backlog of environmental cleanup projects from previous BRAC rounds. This funding is essential to communities across the country, including the towns of Brunswick and Topsham in my district, which are already experiencing economic difficulties from the closing of Brunswick Naval Air Station. We must do everything we can to support the communities that the BRAC bases leave behind.

While the investments in military construction are vital, they are only a small portion of this bill. The vast majority of legislation is devoted to veterans' programs. The bill provides the necessary funding for veterans' medical care, claims processors, and facility improvements, including increased funding for mental health services, assistance programs for homeless veterans, and innovative services for veterans in rural areas.

The military construction projects in this bill are vital to ensure that the

missions of each installation are carried out in the most efficient manner possible. One great example is the funding contained in this bill for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. The shipyard provides world-class overhaul, repair, and modernization of nuclear submarines. The yard has a reputation of delivering subs back to the fleet on time and under budget.

This fall, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard will welcome the first Virginia-class submarine to Maine for an overhaul. This bill contains $11.9 million to modernize the structural shops at the yard, which will improve the equipment layout and streamline process flow within the shipyard. It will help workers at the yard continue to do high quality work while increasing their efficiency. And this funding is essential to this mission. Increasing maintenance efficiencies and eliminating redundancies will no doubt make the yard more competitive for Navy sub projects in the future.

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is an economic success story in Maine. The yard is in the middle of adding approximately 160 new jobs this year, jobs like painters, sheet metal workers, electricians, welders, and engineers. And the construction work that this bill will fund will be done by outside contractors, bringing even more jobs to the area. The funding in this bill will help this economic engine in southern Maine remain competitive and create new, good-paying jobs.

Finally, I am very proud of what this bill does for our Nation's veterans. Their service has earned them world-class health care and benefits, and Congress has a moral obligation to provide the best benefits possible.

This bill is an example of what happens when politics is put aside and veterans come first. I strongly support this rule which provides for consideration of this essential legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to

the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I appreciate the words of my colleague and far more experienced Member from California. Thank you very much.

I take your criticism that perhaps, although you didn't hear my words earlier today, that had I been here for the amount of time that you had or had the previous experience, I wouldn't have said exactly what I said about the political posturing that could go on under an open rule.

You are right, 18 months I have been here. I have never had any experience in this legislative body about the process of which of you speak. So, far be it from me to say what the differences were from then until today, but I will say a little bit about my own experience.

I have the good fortune of sitting on the Rules Committee, and perhaps some day, if I am here long enough, and I move my way up the chairs and I am the ranking member or the chair, I will want to advocate for doing things differently. But I only know the experience that I have had up to today, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee.

Now, I see frequent meetings of the Rules Committee. I see a tremendous number of amendments come before us. As my fellow members well know, Mr. Speaker, we often spend hours listening to potential amendments that could be heard here on the floor. I think this afternoon we will have the pleasure of joining the other members of the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, and hearing 120 or more amendments to the next potential appropriation bill that could come to the floor.

I hear lively debate. I have been there to submit amendments. Sometimes they are accepted; sometimes they are not. I see amendments come to the floor that I agree with and I disagree with. So I see a lot of back-and-forth about the number of amendments. Perhaps it's not an open rule. You are right, I have never had the experience of an open rule here in this Chamber, but I have also had the experience of a tremendous number of amendments, some of which are politically motivated, some of which could take up a tremendous amount of our time, and I feel that generally the Rules Committee pares down the number of amendments to a reasonable number from each side, probably more for the majority than the minority, and I am sure that happened when the other party was in control, too.

But the fact is, I hear a lot of lively debate. I have only the experiences that I have had, and I can't defend what might have happened in the past or what may happen in the future.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank my friend for those words.

I happen to enjoy many of the meetings we have when we have the time consider both sides, the rules on both sides and the opportunities for what discussion will come to the floor. I appreciate being a member of the Rules Committee and being a part of that filtering process. I don't know if the process will change in the future, but I will say today we have a goodly number of amendments that will be considered on this.

From my perspective, the most important thing that we are doing today is moving forward on this rule, which I hope will pass with a great majority, and moving forward to the consideration of this bill which, I will remind my colleagues, holds a tremendous amount of benefit for our home communities and our veterans, and that is actually why we are here today.

I wouldn't want to see extensive consideration of so many amendments that we never got to the point of what people asked us to do. In this case, it's taking care of our veterans and making sure that they get the services that they deserve after they have served our country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of this rule is a vital step towards improving our military infrastructure and ensuring that the quality of care for our veterans and their families is worthy of their sacrifice.

My home State has one of the highest populations of veterans per capita in the country. In a State of 1.3 million people, Maine is home to over 155,000 veterans.

These men and women have served without question, without politics and without hesitation. We must make a promise to them and to all of our veterans that we will do the same. We must provide them with the health care and the benefits that they deserve--without question, without politics, and without hesitation. By passing H.R. 5822, we will begin to keep that promise.

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.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a bill that will make it easier for schools to buy local food. In America, we have slowly moved further and further away from feeding our children healthy, nutritious food in school. At the same time we have watched while thousands of family-run farms have literally disappeared.

In Maine, many of our schools go out of their way to purchase food from local farms. But dwindling school budgets and competing priorities have resulted in less money for local food options in cafeterias.

My bill frees up money for schools to buy locally produced food by giving them the option to spend 10 percent of what they receive for government commodities on food from local farmers. This will not only bring healthy, high-quality food into our schools, it will also pump more money into our local economies.

On average, an apple travels 1,500 miles from farm to school. This bill gives schools the freedom to buy apples from their neighbors and keep every dollar spent in the community instead of traveling across the country and back again.

I look forward to working on this bill with my colleagues, and I thank those who have already supported it.

Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago Frances Perkins, a wonderful woman who came from a long line of Maine farmers and craftsmen, addressed the Nation as the Secretary of Labor. In addition to being the first woman Cabinet member in our Nation's history, she was also the person President Roosevelt put in charge of creating the Social Security system. In her address, she talked about creating a system to ``provide safeguards against the misfortunes which cannot be wholly eliminated in this man-made world of ours.''

Nearly 300,000 people in my State now receiving benefits are living proof that for 75 years Social Security has done just what Frances Perkins hoped for--assuring a decent standard of living in good times and in bad for seniors and for countless others.

From disability insurance and survivors' benefits to providing a cushion during retirement, Social Security has allowed Americans to retain their independence and their dignity. It must be preserved.

I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act.

In Maine, FEMA is remapping York and Cumberland counties. The new maps will help homeowners and businesses assess the flood risk they face.

In Portland, the initial models FEMA used showed much of the city's waterfront would be damaged by waves during a bad storm. FEMA's models turned out to be more appropriate for exposed or standing shorelines. Portland Harbor is not a barrier island nor is it a community built on shifting sand or even walled off from the sea by levees. Rather, Portland Harbor is a working, thriving waterfront that has endured for hundreds of years.

After working with the city, FEMA recently improved the accuracy of their model, taking into account the impact of the city's working waterfront on the wave action as well as new data provided by the city. In the next few weeks, FEMA will issue preliminary maps that are a result of hard work by the city and the Maine congressional delegation.

Together, we were able to save Portland's working waterfront, but other communities in York and Cumberland counties in my State face similar issues and do not have the resources to hire engineers and collect new data. Our working waterfronts are the economic and cultural hearts of our coastal communities. We need to make sure they are treated fairly in assessing the risks they face.

In Harpswell, one boatyard just spent thousands of dollars to show FEMA they were not in a flood zone and that the maps were wrong. In Rockland, many of the buildings on the working waterfront probably can not be rebuilt if they burn down, and a new herring processing facility had to be built so far away from the water that they put the herring on a truck and drive it across the parking lot to be processed.

You know, FEMA may be correct in their models--that these piers and buildings are in a flood zone and at risk for being damaged or destroyed in a once-in-a-lifetime storm. Frequently, though, sheltered harbors like Portland are relatively protected, and even during a bad hurricane or nor'easter, they may flood and do not get battered by heavy waves.

Our Nation's working waterfronts, like all of our communities, deserve to be mapped using the best science FEMA has available. That's why I worked with the City of Portland to craft language that was included in the manager's amendment to show how these models are applied to working waterfronts and to study how it is done.

We owe it to the American people to make sure that all of our communities receive accurate information about flood risks they face, and all of our communities deserve to work with FEMA in a true partnership.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule, the manager's amendment, and the underlying bill.

Today, the House will consider H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act. In

Maine, FEMA is remapping York and Cumberland counties. The new maps will help homeowners and businesses assess the flood risks that they face. Unfortunately, in some places the remapping process is not as accurate as it could be.

For example, in Portland, the initial models FEMA used showed much of the City's waterfront would be damaged by waves during a bad storm. FEMA's models turned out to be more appropriate for exposed and sandy shorelines. Portland Harbor is not a barrier island nor is it a community built on shifting sand or even walled off from the sea by levees. Rather, Portland Harbor is a working, thriving, waterfront that has endured for hundreds of years.

After working with the City, FEMA recently improved the accuracy of their model, taking into account the impact of the City's working waterfront on the wave action as well as new data provided by the City. In the next few weeks, FEMA will issue preliminary maps that are the result of the hard work by the City and the Maine Congressional Delegation.

Together, we were able to save Portland's waterfront but other communities in York and Cumberland county face similar issues and do not have the resources to hire engineers and collect new data.

Our working waterfronts are the economic and cultural hearts of our coastal communities. Because businesses in working waterfronts like boatyards are located on the water's edge and often have piers that stick out into a harbor, they are more susceptible to storms and inaccurate models.

In Harpswell, one boatyard just spent thousands of dollars to show FEMA that they were not in a flood zone and that the maps were wrong. In Rockland, many of the buildings on the working waterfront probably cannot be rebuilt if they burn down and a new herring processing facility had to be built so far away from the water that they put the herring in a truck, and drive it across the parking lot to be processed.

FEMA may be correct in their models--that these piers and buildings are in a flood zone and at risk for being damaged or destroyed in a once-in-a-lifetime storm. Frequently though, sheltered harbors like Portland are relatively protected and even during a bad hurricane or nor'easter, they may flood but do not get battered by heavy waves.

Our nation's working waterfronts, like all of our communities, deserve to be mapped using the best science FEMA has available. Our nation's waterfront businesses need accurate flood maps that don't needlessly place our businesses in the restrictive flood areas such as V or A zones and stifle the economic activity on the waterfront.

This is why I worked with the City of Portland to craft language that was included in the Managers Amendment. This language will help protect our nation's working waterfronts and improve the accuracy of FEMA's flood maps in our harbors by requiring FEMA to study how their models and the assumptions that motivate those models are applied to working waterfronts and harbors.

We owe it to the American people to make sure that all of our communities receive accurate information about the flood risks they face and all of our communities deserve to work with FEMA in a true partnership. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, the Managers Amendment and the underlying bill.

I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the $37 billion in this bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I oppose this war funding, and I believe that our presence in Afghanistan is not strengthening our national security. Instead of spending this money on a war that doesn't make us any safer, I believe we should be reducing the deficit and investing here at home.

After the events of 9/11, the United States went to Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and dismantle al Qaeda, not to occupy the country or to build the Afghan government, a government that has proven time and time again to be one of the most corrupt in the world.

June was the deadliest month for our U.S. military personnel since the war began in 2002. And while the loss of one American servicemember is tragic, the loss of over 1,000 brave Americans for a cause that doesn't make America any safer is something we cannot tolerate.

Military and intelligence officials have said there are now only 50 to 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, which begs the question, why do we need over 100,000 troops over there? Does the United States really need 1,000 troops and $1 billion a year to fight each single member of al Qaeda?

We are pursuing a failed strategy in that country and have somehow confused nation building with fighting the war on terror. We have watched too many times as our colleagues here on the other side of the aisle and in the Senate vote not to extend unemployment benefits or pass funding that would help keep firefighters and teachers on the job because they said we can't afford it. Isn't it time to start asking whether we can really afford a war that costs $7 billion a month? It is time we really need to support our troops and deploy them from Afghanistan.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to strip out the wasteful and unnecessary funding in this bill. The American people and our brave servicemembers deserve to know our intentions in Afghanistan. That is why we need the administration to develop a timetable for withdrawal immediately.

The American people want us to end this war, and it is time for us to bring our men and women in uniform safely home.

Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced legislation to make sure that BP pays royalties on all of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The Spilled Oil Royalty Collection Act, H.R. 5513, will ensure that BP pays royalties on every gallon of oil spilled without the administration having to determine whether BP was negligent or violating MMS regulations. Royalties on oil drilled at offshore locations are paid to the Minerals Management Service, MMS, in an effort to compensate taxpayers for the use of publicly owned resources. Under current regulations, leaseholders like BP are only obligated to pay royalties on gallons of oil sold. This legislation is part of responding to the disaster in the gulf and holding BP accountable.

We need to clean up and repair the gulf, holding BP accountable for its oil spill, enact stronger environmental, technological and spill response standards, and invest in an American clean-energy future.

BP CEO was on television saying that his company will ``make it right,'' but we should have more than just a television commercial to go on. We need the force of law to make sure they pay every penny they owe to us. I hope you will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1436 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1436 provides for consideration of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, under a structured rule, with 1 hour of general debate with 30 minutes controlled by the Committee on Financial Services and 30 minutes controlled by the Committee on Small Business.

The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 5297, as reported by the Committee on Financial Services, with the addition of Title 3, which would establish at the Small Business Administration a program to provide equity financing to support early-stage and high-growth small businesses. It also includes a manager's amendment which makes a number of important changes to the base text.

The rule makes in order 17 amendments, which are printed in part C of the Rules Committee report accompanying the rule. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 5297, with or without instructions.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5486, the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means.

In addition to paying for the cost of the Small Business Lending Fund Act, it will provide a number of important tax breaks to our Nation's struggling small businesses.

The rule also provides one motion to recommit H.R. 5486, with or without instructions. The rule then provides that these two bills will be combined upon adoption before being sent to the Senate.

Additionally, the rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which would allow for same-day consideration through Friday, June 18, of a rule providing for consideration of any Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the Americans Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.

Finally, the rule also allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through June 18.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House will take up two very important pieces of legislation that will directly help small businesses around the country. These bills will provide much needed support for the small businesses that make up our communities and are the backbone of our economy and our economic recovery. These bills will help small entrepreneurs grow and create jobs. As President Obama said last fall, supporting small businesses needs to be our highest priority because ``when small businesses are succeeding, America succeeds.''

In order for small businesses to succeed, we must give them the tools they need to grow. One of these tools is the ability to access capital.

When I go back to Maine each week, I hear often the same story from business owners across the State. When the credit market dried up, they were hit hard. Now as the economy has started to make a recovery, they are still unable to access the credit they need to expand, rehire, and grow. About a year ago, I hosted an event focusing on helping connect small businesses with capital. The response was overwhelming. Hundreds of small business owners showed up, in fact, so many that we need an overflow room to accommodate the demand. There were businesses of all types and sizes, and many of these small business owners had driven hours to come to the workshop. They came to this meeting because they felt they had nowhere else to turn.

As a small business owner myself, I know what a challenge it can be to make ends meet. When I started my last business before the credit crunch, I was fortunate that I had a small community bank to work with that gave me access to capital I needed to start my business. But for many who have tried to get the money necessary to start, operate, and expand a business over the past few years, it hasn't been so easy. Today, we have an opportunity to make credit available to millions of small businesses across the country.

Today, we can assist the small lenders who know firsthand the difference those businesses make to a community. Today, we can make it easier for companies to get access to the financing that will help them grow, expand, and create jobs. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the investments made by this bill will stimulate $300 billion of lending to small businesses.

Small business owners and bankers alike have told me they think this bill is a good idea. As the economy recovers, it will help increase lending by our local financial institutions in Maine. As the owner of Rumery's boatyard, a small boatyard in Saco, Maine, told me, it is imperative that we support our small businesses and ensure that they are ``ready to go once the economy fully recovers.'' The folks at Rumery's make a good point.

Although we are now seeing signs of economic recovery, economists tell us that we could still face a double-dip recession if we aren't careful. Without access to capital, I'm afraid the recovery will be limited to Wall Street and not Main Street. By investing in small businesses, we can keep the momentum going and make sure the economic recovery turns into jobs for people in my State and across the country.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little bit more about what I've heard from the people who live in my State. One person in my district who helps small business owners told me recently that he is ``convinced that the inability of small businesses to access capital is the number one impediment to economic growth for our Nation.'' He also said that he works with ``successful entrepreneurs who survived the recession but are having a difficult time reestablishing their credit lines or accessing money for growth even when they have real, profitable opportunities. The banks are not necessarily lending unless you have hard collateral, and they are shutting down credit lines to customers who pay their bills on time.''

For example, over the past 17 years, one small manufacturing company in Cornish, Maine, has grown from a sole proprietorship to employing 17 people. They have borrowed money to invest heavily in the machinery and technology necessary to produce a high-quality product. But as the economy stalled out, they were facing a shortfall in receipts and needed to refinance, but have been struggling to find the capital they need. They are continuing to provide jobs and ship product all over the world and pay for their operating costs of doing their business. If they had access to capital, they could also continue to make innovative new designs. Demand for their product is increasing daily, and without financing, they are unable to grow their company and provide new jobs.

Small businesses are desperate for credit to expand and to grow. And

that's why this bill is so important. As the economy picks up, small businesses in Maine and elsewhere in this country need to have the capital to expand and grow their businesses. Without access to capital, these businesses will not be able to grow. I look forward to supporting this important legislation later today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Carolina has talked a little bit about the content of this bill, and I know it will be debated at great length after we have finished the debate on this rule. But I just want to mention a couple of points from my perspective, why I am here supporting this bill today, and why I somewhat disagree on her notion that we're just doing the same thing over and over again. I am not actually doing the same thing over and over again. I am a freshman Member of Congress. Unlike my colleague, I wasn't here last year.

When the President from the former administration, President Bush, proposed the TARP to Congress, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle actually voted in favor of that bailout of Wall Street. Many believed it was critical to reviving our economy, just as I believed it was critical to support the Recovery Act to make sure that we did, yes, in fact, send a considerable amount of money back into our home districts, whether it was for infrastructure construction or to shore up the jobs of our teachers and firefighters, to make sure that we were continuing to build projects in our own districts, continuing to make sure that we supported our education system.

I am pleased to see that the economy is making some improvement. Now, I would be the first to say it's not improving fast enough, the jobs aren't growing fast enough in my home district. We have lost too much in our manufacturing segment. We have given too many jobs away in offshoring, and we have done so many things over the last two decades, I believe, in this country that has hurt our fundamental economy.

But I will say that what I think is different about what we are doing today and what made me very pleased when I first heard the President announce this is we are finally looking after some of our small businesses. For my year and a half in Congress, as I mentioned before, I have been meeting with small businesses, meeting with the bankers that loaned them money, holding a workshop, as I did around access to capital. I was floored with the number of people who came to that workshop, with people who drove from all over my State, even outside of my district, because they were so desperate to make sure they got more information about how to access that difficult capital, whether it was someone who was ready to start a small business, even in a tough economy; or it was someone who said to me, You know, I want to do a little expansion. I want to build my own infrastructure here while I have the opportunity, or I am just trying to survive long enough until the economy improves so my business can still be there when, I hope, things get better.

Well, I desperately hope things get better. In my home State of Maine, frankly, we hope for a very sunny summer. We hope that the tourists will be busy in our State, that the lobster fishermen will harvest a lot of lobster, that all of you will come and stay in our hotels, eat our wonderful seafood, and spend a little bit of time, maybe even purchase some real estate and build a new home. For us, that is critical. For many of our small businesses,

who I hear from regularly, they still can't find the capital that they need.

We have a huge boat-building industry in our State, and we have met with the boat builders who say, The floor plan lending proposal and what we are able to access through the Small Business Administration isn't enough. Our banks aren't able to access enough capital. We sit down and meet with those very bankers that you mentioned. We meet with those bankers, many of whom are on solid footing, who give good loans to people with good credit, but they say to me, You know, we wish the SBA had a little bit more.

When you talk about the sort of government programs that don't do us any good, I just want to remind us, we are talking about the Small Business Administration. My guess is that there are a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are very happy to go to the ribbon-cutting when a new business is opening, backed by a loan guarantee from the Small Business Administration. I am very confident that many of you meet with your bankers, and you hear your bankers say, I wish we could just access a little bit more of that support from the SBA. My guess is that many of you, while you are proclaiming that this is some kind of Democratic left-wing liberal agenda, are happy to go back to your districts and say, We want a little more SBA lending. We want to make it a little bit easier for businesses to thrive and flourish.

And somehow you get down here and this turns into a left-wing Democratic agenda because you are not interested in voting for it today. I have to say, sometimes I am completely confounded about exactly which party I am in. I feel pretty much like I am in the party of common sense. Like we are listening to our constituents, our small businesses, who everybody proudly proclaims is the backbone of the American economy. In my State, it is the backbone of our economy. We listen to them, and they say, We are still having a little trouble accessing the capital.

The President comes before us and he says, let us make sure that $30 billion goes to small business, not just Wall Street and big business, let's not just bail out the big banks, as was done under the Bush administration, let's direct this very money to our small businesses who have been asking for this for a year and a half.

I, frankly, am confounded about why anyone would vote against this, why anyone would say ``no'' to small businesses, why anybody would believe that this economic recession is over, that it is okay to just walk away and use all kinds of excuses about why you don't feel like voting for something anymore, why you don't want to continue helping our struggling businesses, why you don't want to continue to build jobs in this country. That is what people are desperately asking us to do, and it is my belief if we stop too soon, if we don't help our small businesses, frankly if we don't help our States that are struggling, that have loan guarantee programs themselves who have done an excellent job supporting businesses and economic growth, if we are not there to say to those entrepreneurs who have a good idea today, or who are already in business and want to expand with a creative new idea, we shouldn't be surprised that so many other economies are starting to move ahead of us in this difficult time.

Frankly, I cannot understand why anybody would not support this rule or the underlying bill. I hope that Members change their minds, think about the Small Business Administration and the small businesses we can help today, and the great good we can do to help support jobs in this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, my colleague continues to act as though we don't have a problem out there with our economy. That somehow, as happened in the last administration, we can just take this laissez-faire attitude; we can just say it will get better on its own, we don't need to do anything or somehow this recovery has already been good enough. Well, I don't hear anybody saying it is good enough, that there is enough jobs and enough support.

I want to quote from a couple of things I recently read that reinforce this issue that there isn't enough credit and lending going on, particularly to help our small businesses who are, as I have said before, are one of the important engines to drive this economy.

A report by the U.S. Congressional Joint Economic Committee that was released in May found that small businesses have been severely hurt by the tighter lending standards that resulted from the 2008 financial crisis. I want to quote a couple of sentences from that report: The tightened credit conditions experienced by small businesses have curtailed their ability to meet payroll or produce the products and services that are in demand. In 2009, small business hiring was 20 percent below its 2001-2007 average.

As further evidence of the impact that tight credit markets are having on small businesses, hiring in mid sized and larger establishments has been increasing since the middle of 2009 while small business hiring continues to decline. I don't know how much more evidence we need than what we hear every weekend, but it is clear small businesses in our districts are still struggling.

There was some question about whether or not the bankers even wanted this to happen, whether banks already had plenty of money to lend, people were just not showing up to take it. I want to read a letter from the Independent Community Bankers of America. They say: This act would offer capital to interested community banks to use to increase small business credit. It goes on to say: Notably, leveraging the $30 billion in funds with community banks would potentially support many times that in loan volume to small businesses, as much as $300 billion in additional lending.

Well, I don't know anyone who analyzes our businesses out there who says it wouldn't be good to have more credit, more availability, more lending, more growth in our businesses. We haven't been going on that path, we haven't been growing fast enough, and we haven't done a sufficient amount to support availability of credit and growth in our small businesses.

Now we have done, according to this report, a fair amount for some of our bigger or midsized businesses, but yet we are always the ones who say, and now I am going to quote from Professor Campbell Harvey of Duke University, his quote, ``Small and medium-sized firms are the drivers of employment growth in the economy, and they are being squeezed.'' He went on to say, ``Results show an extraordinary 44 percent of small businesses restricted their capital spending below desired levels because of borrowing difficulties. These capital projects create jobs both today and over the longer term.'' He concludes by saying, ``Analysis suggests we need to refocus our efforts on the root of the problem. Businesses are not spending on capital projects because of borrowing difficulties. Fixing the credit problem goes a long way toward creating the conditions for robust employment growth.''

We can talk around this all we want, but it's a relatively simple problem that we have all known about ever since this economy started going bad. Banks tightened up on their lending. There hasn't been enough credit availability. Businesses have been struggling. Many of them just want to hang on. Some of them actually want to grow.

And here is Professor Harvey telling us, ``Results show an extraordinary 44 percent of small businesses restricted their capital spending below desired levels because of borrowing difficulties.'' Borrowing difficulties, that's almost half of small business reporting this, borrowing difficulties mean they can't get enough money to borrow. They want to borrow money. These are legitimate businesses, many with good credit ratings, who just can't get enough out there.

And here are the bankers saying to us, yeah, this would put potentially $300 billion in additional lending into our economy at a time when we are just starting to chug forward, where people are just starting to feel a little bit hopeful, where consumer credit is going up just a little bit, but we are not doing enough.

It's easy to stand back and say, oh, no, no, this isn't the government's job. But remember what happened before we started assisting in this terrible recession. We were going nowhere. We were losing a tremendous amount of jobs.

I don't like spending this money any more than anybody else, no matter what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say. Nobody likes to increase the deficit or feel we are spending more money. But are we really going to turn our backs on our small businesses and on our community

banks when they are saying to us, Almost half of us are having trouble accessing the credit we need? Couldn't you just give us a helping hand?

We helped out Wall Street. We helped out the big financial institutions. Now, we finally have a bill before us to help the backbone of our businesses and we are going to say ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few things in conclusion.

We have debated a little bit today about whether or not this bill is important, and I just want to say this is a critical need that we are fulfilling today. This bill will support small businesses when they need it most--access to the financing they need to survive, to grow, to expand and create the jobs that will drive our economic recovery.

I don't really know how anyone could oppose this. I know this is essential because I hear it from businesses throughout the 125 towns in my district, and I know this is essential because I have owned a business myself for much of my adult life. For many years, I owned a knitting company that sold our products around the country.

I grew the business, and eventually employed 10 people in a town of just 350 year-round residents. And like many women who start their own businesses, I know what it is to argue with a banker to get more access to credit, to start your business or expand your business on a credit card, or to have to go to your husband to cosign on a loan.

Now I own an inn and a restaurant that uses vegetables grown on our island and locally caught seafood, and I still know what it is to meet a payroll and argue with the bank about borrowing the money to expand.

Mr. Speaker, I have been lucky to own a business that's been an important part of my own community, but it never would have been able to survive without cooperative bankers in my community or access to the investment that the business needed to grow.

When businesses are coming to us and saying this is their problem, how could we possibly tell them no? And when facing a tough economic crisis like this one, it is vital that we do everything in our power to support the small businesses that create 64 percent of new jobs in this country, that comprise more than 99 percent of all employer companies, and that are the backbone of the communities that most of us live in.

This bill is an important step in supporting those small businesses, ensuring that they have the necessary capital to stay in business and to expand as the economy recovers. This bill is more than just simply an investment in small business. Frankly, it is an investment in American job growth. And what could be more important at this moment in time?

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.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1404 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

All time yielded during consideration of the 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 to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1404 provides for consideration of H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, under a structured rule.

The rule makes in order 82 amendments and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee may offer amendments en bloc, debatable for 20 minutes, and may offer germane modifications of amendments. The rule allows the Chair to recognize for consideration amendments out of order printed in the Rules Committee report if 30-minutes' notice is given by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee.

The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, provides that the Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee, and provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

The rule provides that, in engrossment, the text of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Act, as passed by the House, will be added as new matter at the end of H.R. 5136.

The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee, against rules reported from the Rules Committee through June 1, 2010.

Finally, the rule provides that measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time through May 30, 2010, and that the Speaker or her designee will consult with the minority leader or his designee on the

designation of any matter for consideration under suspension of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 5136 favorably to the House, by a unanimous vote, after nearly 13 hours of debate. As a member of that committee, I am proud of our work, but I can say firsthand that crafting this bill was not easy.

The needs of our country are endless and challenging; the threats to our security are numerous and always changing, and the resources we can devote to these problems are precious and limited.

In the end, the bill that we will vote on later today will strengthen our national defense, will give our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs and will take care of them and their families. The bill also invests in military infrastructure and technology, which will create jobs here in the United States and will stimulate growth throughout the economy.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important in this bill than the provisions that address men and women in uniform. They deserve the best care and the best benefits, and this bill meets both of those requirements.

The bill provides a 1.9 percent pay increase for active duty soldiers, increases the family separation allowance for servicemembers who are deployed away from their families, increases hostile fire and imminent danger pay for the first time since 2004, and expands college loan repayment benefits.

Earlier this year, we passed historic health care reform legislation, which included a provision requiring private insurance policies to cover adult children until age 26 on their parents' policies.

I am very pleased to see that this bill incorporates those changes for TRICARE and CHAMPVA beneficiaries and that it will give retirees and veterans the option to extend coverage to their adult children until age 26.

I am also proud that this bill contains a provision I wrote, which will guarantee that retiring National Guard and Reserve personnel will get a full explanation of the benefits due to them. This provision will require the Department of Defense to brief retiring personnel on benefits like VA health care and TRICARE.

Too often, members of the Guard and Reserve leave the service without a clear picture of the benefits that are owed them. Given all that we ask of them, that's not right. They have made great sacrifices, and I believe that Congress has a moral obligation to educate those heroes on the benefits they have earned. This is just one way we can begin to repay them for all they have done to protect this country.

I am very encouraged and pleased by the fact that this rule allows for an amendment to be made in order by Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania, which, if passed, will finally put the military on the path to repealing the misguided and outdated Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I am looking forward to voting for the amendment and to seeing the end of this discriminatory policy once and for all.

Though, while there is much in this bill that I support, there are also parts of it I strongly disagree with.

I am extremely disappointed that this bill contains an authorization for an additional $33.1 billion for the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the surge in Afghanistan as well as $159.3 billion for fiscal year 2011 for overseas contingency operations, the majority of which will, no doubt, be spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We are pursuing a misguided strategy at a tremendous cost to the American people. The loss of one American service man or woman is simply too high a cost for a mission that does not strengthen our national security.

An astonishing half billion dollars is included in this bill for an alternate extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. In 1996, the Department of Defense conducted a competition to choose the engine for this plane, and Pratt & Whitney won it. The engine they make meets the program requirements, and it is perfectly adequate. Unfortunately, a major defense contractor, who by 2012 would have had 90 percent of the military engine industrial base, lost the competition, doesn't want to take ``no'' for an answer, and has been lobbying hard to keep a program for a second engine funded.

The Bush administration opposed the funding for this extra engine, and the Obama administration opposes it. Secretary Gates has said that the funding for the extra engine will be detrimental to the overall Joint Strike Fighter program. If Congress decides to ignore those in the Defense Department and those in the administration on this, estimates show that we will be forced to purchase 50-80 fewer planes, which will definitely affect our national security.

Let there be no mistake. Spending half a billion dollars to build an engine that isn't needed and that the Pentagon doesn't want is a colossal waste of money. This rule makes in order an amendment, which I have sponsored, to strip the authorization for this program, which I believe is the right thing to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chair of the Committee on Rules.

I am glad to yield another minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), also a member of the Committee on Rules.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, I do have to disagree with the previous speaker for a whole variety of reasons, and I won't take up a lot of time. But this is not about being overt about your sexuality. This is about people who have been denied the right to talk about exactly who they are.

This is about 14,000 members of the military who have served this country, many with extremely vital skills, who have been asked to step down and leave; many people who choose not to go in the military for the fear of what could happen to them after they've served this country.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), one of my good colleagues and a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews.)

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my closing, but I want to say this is a major piece of legislation, and its effects will be felt across the country.

I am extremely proud of this body today, as I know we will be poised to finally repeal the issue we have had so much discussion about this morning, that is, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This has had a lengthy process. Fourteen thousand members of the military who have served this country honorably have been forced to leave strictly because of their own personal status.

This is a long process. It will not be changed until the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have had time to certify it will not disrupt the military, as we have heard from some of our colleagues.

This has happened in many other countries, whether it's Israel or Australia or even the United Kingdom. If they can do it, so can we as well.

I am proud to know that my colleagues are debating this topic, as well as making sure today that we remember, on top of everything else, to respect our military, to thank them for their service and to make sure they are well compensated.

I want to thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon and all my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for all their tireless work.

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

Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the underlying bill and to highlight a number of very important provisions related to DoD's energy usage.

Last year, the Department of Defense consumed nearly 6.9 billion barrels of oil to power everything from bases to fighters. But every day, the services are proving that this dependence no longer needs to tether us to supply lines.

In the last year, thanks in large part to efforts by the Armed Services Committee, the military has begun to take aggressive action.

At Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in my District, the Air Force completed construction of the largest solar community in America.

Last month the Navy flew a fighter jet for the first time on biofuel.

The Army continues testing battlefield energy solutions at Fort Irwin.

And today, we will have an opportunity to move forward with additional responsible energy language I have worked with the services to develop and with the Committee to move forward.

The Defense bill requires DoD to develop a testing and certification plan for the operational use of aviation biofuels.

I have also added language that integrates the hybrid drive platform that the Army developed for Future Combat Systems over the last decade into the vehicles of today.

We included $130 million for Energy Conservation projects at bases across the country that save the military and the American taxpayer millions of dollars.

In theater, we reduce basic energy consumption by cutting waste. During a DoD pilot program to spray foam insulate facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, fuel consumption was reduced by nearly 75% on average. These projects had a return on investment of less than six months. The Defense bill seeks to expand this program by seeking a comprehensive review of all facilities to identify low cost, energy-saving solutions.

New Energy Performance Goals, new implementation plans and new studies of how to more effectively supply the force make the energy provisions in this bill stronger than in any previous year.

The NDAA specifically addresses many of the battlefield energy challenges our servicemembers face in-theater every day. And the overwhelming bi-partisan support these provisions received at the Committee level validates the continued need for aggressive, smart and responsible solutions.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and join me in passing the Defense Authorization bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.