Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition--and I must say honest bafflement--to this so-called ``Protect Life Act.'' I'm baffled because it truly stretches the limits of the rational mind to imagine why the Republican majority--a group of people who supposedly say they make it their mission to limit government involvement in every way possible--why they continue to insert themselves--and the government--into the personal health care decisions of Americans across the country.

What's even more baffling is that for 30 years Federal law has prohibited funding of abortions. It's one thing to say the government won't pay for abortions, but quite another, as we're doing here, to say that women can't use their own dollars to pay for abortion coverage.

Here we are with this absurd song and dance that has no basis in reality, is entirely about scoring political points with the Republican base once again while, as my colleagues have said, doing nothing to help employment and create jobs in this country. If this bill stopped at being absurd, it would be one thing. But more than absurd, this cruel legislation would actually allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman abortion care even if she would die without it.

Now, my colleagues who claim they want smaller government and say they want to get the government out of people's lives, this is a hell of a way to do it or to prove it.

I urge my colleagues to fight for common sense, to protect women from this harsh attack, and to vote ``no'' on H.R. 358.

The gentleman before was talking about public funding being used for abortions. What is that--using taxpayers' money for incest, or to save the life of a woman, or for rape? Would we deny women the right to have an abortion if they were raped or if it would save their lives? I think not. I think the American people can see through this one. This is nothing more than

playing to the base. It's bad policy for this country.

Let's get the government out of people's lives. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on October 10th, the Republic of China (Taiwan), one of the closest friends of the United States in the Pacific, will be celebrating its 100th Anniversary of the Chinese Revolution. I would like to congratulate Taiwan on this historic milestone, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

October 10th, 1911 marks the beginning of what was the Wuchang Uprising, which ultimately brought an end to the Qing Dynasty's 268- year rule in China. The fall of the Dynasty's resulted in the establishment of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which was then immediately recognized by the United States as the sole and legitimate government of China.

In these 100 years, Taiwan has evolved into a shining example of democracy. As the country liberalized and opened up to the world, its political system has progressed into one of the strongest democratic systems in Asia, evidenced most recently by holding free and fair presidential elections. While these significant achievements took place, the U.S.-Taiwan relationship transformed from one based solely on shared interests to one based on shared values. Our mutual respect for human rights and dignity, and our belief in a strong democratic system of government has allowed this relationship to flourish.

I congratulate the Taiwanese on this historic 100-year occasion, and I look forward to helping further develop the close relationship between the United States and Taiwan as we move forward into the 21st Century.

I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding to me, and I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2608, the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012. I oppose playing political games with FEMA disaster funding while American citizens are recovering from recent natural disasters that have wiped out homes, businesses, and lives.

In an unprecedented move, the Republican majority requires an offset for FEMA funding. FEMA must be fully funded so that my constituents can continue recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Irene. By requiring this offset, we're playing politics with the lives of those who need our assistance most.

Let me tell my Republican colleagues that if you want an offset, let's get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That's an offset that you won't want to get rid of.

This bill presents a false choice: that we need to cut off one hand to save the other. The bill slashes funds from a program that would reinvigorate the manufacturing sector and decrease our reliance on foreign oil to fund FEMA. We can do both, and we need not buy in to this ridiculous logic. In times of disaster, we must always take care of our citizens and our country first, period.

Try telling my constituents who are struggling in the aftermath of a hurricane, sorry, you'll have to wait till we find an offset. Sorry, we really don't care about your problems. We have other pressing things to do.

Reasonable Democrats and Republicans maintained the practice of helping constituents in the past. Why this policy has changed is beyond me.

Madam Speaker, disasters are not associated with one political party, and helping our citizens should be a top priority of both.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the CR, and urge the majority to bring a bill to the floor that fully funds FEMA and doesn't harm job creation and does the right thing.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I do know that. Unfortunately, it's been difficult passing things in the Senate because, quite frankly, the minority filibusters everything to death, and getting the 60 votes is very, very difficult.

Madam Speaker, as we speak now, in my hometown of New York, United Nations leaders from all over the world are coming in. The major issue is the Palestinian claim they're going to go to the United Nations to have a declared state of their own.

I have news for the Palestinian leadership. The only way they can have a state of their own is to sit down face-to-face with Israel in face-to-face negotiations and hammer out an agreement, an agreement which is the two-state solution, an Israeli Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state.

The Palestinians cannot try to impose any kind of solution that doesn't work. If two adversaries want to hash out a disagreement to come to an agreement, then they need face-to-face negotiation. This has happened in the past. Each time Israel has accepted it, and the Palestinians have said no.

The United Nations should not discredit itself even more and continue to be the usual kangaroo court against Israel. I'm glad that the United States and the President are standing up and saying that we will veto a resolution if it comes before the Security Council.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and before I talk about these issues, let me first compliment the gentleman from Florida. He hasn't been in Congress very long, but he certainly made his mark very strongly, particularly on the U.S.-Israel relationship. He has been a stalwart supporter and a very articulate spokesperson for the U.S.-Israel relationship. I know that Mr. Deutch has been very, very effective, and it is an honor to do this Special Order with him this evening.

Madam Speaker, I agree with everything that every one of my colleagues said. Let me first say, because we are Democrats having this Special Order, there has been a lot of fighting in Congress, but one thing we don't fight about, Democrats and Republicans, we agree that the U.S.-Israel relationship must remain strong. If there is one thing that unites this Congress and unites Democrats and Republicans, it's strong support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Many of my colleagues have made very, very good points, many of which I want to reiterate, but I think the most important thing to reiterate is this: If there is a dispute anywhere around the world, the only way you can resolve that dispute is getting the two adversaries face to face in direct negotiations to hammer out all of the areas of disagreement and hopefully come to a peace agreement.

That happened in Ireland, in Northern Ireland, a place that we never thought would get peace but did, because both sides made the commitment that they preferred peace over war and over misery that had gone on for far too long. So they sat down face to face, with a little prodding from other countries, including the United States, and were able to hash out an agreement. That, I'm convinced, is the way that the Middle East difficulties will come to fruition, only by face-to-face negotiations.

The Palestinians, in my estimation, have attempted to throw so many preconditions at Israel before they will even sit down and negotiate that it has made it impossible for Israel to be able to sit down and talk with them. Boundaries like 1967 boundaries or settlements or expansion of neighborhoods, all these are final status issues. These are not issues where one side says to the other side, you have to unilaterally agree with our position before we will even sit down and negotiate with you. That makes no sense whatsoever. So face-to-face negotiations are the only way that we can have peace.

I would argue that going to the United Nations by the Palestinians actually sets back the cause of peace because if the United Nations were to declare a Palestinian state, say on the basis of the 1967 lines, which is what the Palestinians want, well, that is a guarantee that there can never be peace with an agreement like that. First of all, if the United Nations were to agree to that, no Palestinian leader in the future could ever accept anything less. And the Israelis can never accept, and will never accept, a return to the 1967 borders, which were indefensible. Israel fought wars because those 1967 borders were not defensible. And so these preconditions, and this going to the United Nations, actually sets back the cause of peace.

Now I just think a little bit of history is important because it's so easy to go on college campuses or to try to delegitimize Israel and the United Nations or to have statements that aren't really true. The fact of the matter is that Israel has always been prepared to make painful concessions for peace. I was in this Congress during 2000-2001 when President Clinton helped negotiate what we thought was a peace, the Oslo Accords, and what we thought was a peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I remember in 1993 on the White House lawn with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shaking hands. I remember being there with my 8-month pregnant wife in 95-degree weather, and we all had such high hopes.

But what has happened? Abba Eban used to say the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And there have been many opportunities for peace. In 2000-2001, Israel agreed to a peace. Arafat, who was the Palestinian leader, said no. And what did Arafat turn down at that time? He turned down a Palestinian state, part of Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and billions and billions of dollars of aid. Israel said yes. He said no. I think it's important to put that in perspective.

Then the Palestinians talk about the right of return. They want to flood Israel with Palestinian refugees--not refugees that left in 1948, when Israel was founded--but their descendants. And that's a pipe dream because that could never happen. It would undermine the essence of a Jewish State of Israel.

So if there is going to be peace in the Middle East, we need to go back to what the partition of Palestine in 1948, the original resolution, said in the U.N. It said Palestine is to be partitioned into an Arab state and a Jewish state. And here we are, some 63 years later, and the Palestinians and most of the Arab world won't even recognize Israel as a Jewish state. That's where the problem lies, not with Israel. And the attempt to go to the United Nations and sort of do an end game around Israel will not work.

Finally, and then I'd be happy to discuss this further with my colleague from Florida (Mr. Deutch), let me just say this, and we have heard some rumblings about it with some of our colleagues here. This Congress will not continue to fund the Palestinian Authority. It's not going to be a blank check. If the Palestinian Authority doesn't want peace and doesn't show that it wants peace, we are not going to continue to fund them.

I introduced a resolution in the Foreign Affairs Committee which came before the State Department markup which passed unanimously on a roll call vote withholding money, ending money to the Palestinian Authority if they come to the United Nations for a vote. It passed unanimously-- every Democrat, every Republican. And so this Congress is not going to be a fool. Either the Palestinians want peace or they don't. But they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they want peace and refuse to sit down and talk to Israel face to face at a negotiating table.

So, Mr. Deutch, I want to thank you for doing this. I think it is very, very important that all people of good will, Democrats and Republicans, stand together in support of Israel. I think the President's speech today at the United Nations was a very good speech where he talked about the bond is unbreakable between the United States and Israel.

And we have to make sure that the Palestinians live up to their commitment. Israel is willing to live up to its commitments. Israel wants to live in peace. We're now waiting to see what the Palestinian and the Arab states want to do.

Finally, let me say this. There are two factions in the Palestinians: One is Fatah, which is Abbas' faction, and one is Hamas. Hamas controls Gaza. Hamas is a terrorist group. Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas certainly doesn't recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist. How can we expect our ally Israel to sit, negotiate, and make peace with an entity that denies its very right to exist and an entity whose whole reason for being is to destroy the Jewish state?

We wouldn't ask that of ourselves. We shouldn't ask that of Israel.

Thank you, Mr. Deutch for pointing that out because, unfortunately, I said before that the U.N. had been a kangaroo court against Israel time and time again. Israel cannot get a fair shake in the United Nations. I do hope that we are able to block the votes in the Security Council where the United States, the Obama administration, has said that the President will do a veto of any kind of resolution, and I hope that it won't even come to that because I hope that they do not get the requisite number of votes to even pass it.

And then the Palestinians might then go to the General Assembly. They say they are going to do that. And while the General Assembly cannot admit a Palestinian state, it can upgrade their status, which would allow them to run around and harass Israeli leaders in the different international courts.

I just think the U.N. better be careful. It sits in my hometown of New York, and we have always been proud that the U.N. is in New York. But I think the U.N. is on the verge of discrediting itself very, very badly.

There was resolution 242, which talked about land for peace in the Middle East. I would say that the Palestinians, by trying to get recognition unilaterally in the U.N., they are repudiating the land for peace. They're certainly repudiating the Oslo Accords,

which said that both states have to sit down, the Palestinians and the Israelis have to sit down and hammer out an agreement. As I mentioned before, it even repudiates the very basis of the initial partition of Palestine in 1947 and '48 into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

And we talk about the Palestinian refugees. They have been used as pawns by the Palestinian leadership--and frankly by all the other Arab states in the world. And we ought to mention this because it's very, very important. Jewish refugees from North Africa and all over the world, from Europe, from all over the world, came to Israel and were integrated into Israeli society through the years. The Palestinian refugees could have and should have been integrated in the various Arab countries, but the Arab leaders decided to leave them in these horrendous conditions in these camps, to use the Palestinian refugees as pawns in the Palestinian camps.

It wasn't done by the Israelis. It was done by the Palestinians themselves and by the Arab nations themselves to use them as political pawns. So I think we should look at the people who are really suffering here and say why they're suffering. They're suffering because they've had a leadership that has failed them for more than 60 years.

So I'm very proud of the United States of America. I'm proud of our country for standing up for freedom. I'm proud of our country for standing with Israel. I'm proud that the President said the bond between Israel is unbreakable. We have to understand that this is not a fight between two groups that are sort of equal in being concerned about democracy. Israel shares our values. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. What's important to Israel is important to the United States. That's why we have to stand with Israel because if we don't do it, nobody else will. We've shown time and time and time again that the international community, particularly the United Nations, is biased against Israel; and unless the United States stands squarely with Israel, Israel will never get a fair shake.

So I am proud that we are doing that now at the United Nations. I am proud that we have taken a stand. I am proud of this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, for taking a pro-Israel stand. The United States--and I would say this to the people of Israel--will always stand with our friends and allies, Israel, who care for the basic human rights and concerns and democracy and democratic values that we care about as well.

So as we see this unfolding, I would just say to the Palestinians, if you really want your state, if you really want a two-state solution-- which I believe you are entitled to--then sit down with Israel face to face across the negotiating table, no preconditions, and talk peace. The Israelis are ready to do it. We're still waiting for the Palestinians.

Thank you, Mr. Deutch.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I came back from a trip to Israel, and I wanted to share with my colleagues some of the things that are going on currently in the Middle East and some of the things that will happen within the next couple of weeks.

First of all, it's always a pleasure to visit Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. It's a pleasure to watch. Last Saturday night there were demonstrations throughout Israel, the young people, in the democratic way, voicing their feelings about important issues, just like we do here in the United States, and the people in Israel who are doing this. In a region where you have governments in Syria killing their own people, demonstrations and soldiers firing on people in Libya and Egypt, in Israel you have peaceful demonstrations and no fear of the police or the military the harming people because Israel is a full- fledged democracy, just like we are, just like the United States is, and it was a pleasure to be in that country.

There are several things that are happening during the next few weeks, and a number of them are at the United Nations in my home city in New York.

The Palestinian leadership has decided that it will go to the United Nations to try to get a declaration of statehood. Now, that is something that I believe, and any reasonable person believes, should be decided in face-to-face negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

In any dispute anywhere in the world, the only way that you can resolve the issue is if the two adversaries sit down and hammer out the issues--not by going to the United Nations, which is, frankly, a kangaroo court against Israel. There are so many resolutions that get passed year in and year out against Israel. Israel can never have a fair shake.

And thinking the Palestinians are thinking that if they go there somehow or other they will have a state, in reality it will make it even worse.

Because what happens is if the United Nations declares a Palestinian state, that shows that there need not be any negotiations. And down the line, the Palestinian leadership will not be able to settle for anything less than what the resolution says. And no Israeli government, frankly, can agree to what a likely resolution is likely to say. And it will set back the cause of negotiation and the cause of peace even greater.

So I would say to the countries of the United Nations not to do a knee-jerk reaction, but to think about what will really bring peace to the region. A two-state solution, which I support--a Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace--that is what we want. And I should say the Jewish State of Israel and an Arab-Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace.

If the Palestinians truly want peace, they can get it. They can get it by face-to-face negotiations, not by running to the United Nations and having a resolution that will set back the cause of peace for many, many years to come.

Now, another thing that's happened in the region has been frankly the belligerence of Turkey with Israel. Turkey is a NATO nation, but for some reason the leadership in Turkey has decided that they want to look away from democracy. They want to look towards Iran and towards the Middle East. So they have become increasingly hostile towards Israel.

And we have, of course, the flotilla incident where Israel has a blockade of Gaza because the Hamas terrorist organization is in Gaza and in control of Gaza, and Israel has to be very, very sure that it protects its citizens from terrorism. We have had rockets and rockets and rocket barrages fired into Israel from Gaza, Israeli citizens being killed. No country would ever allow that to happen.

If we had a situation where terrorists were firing missiles at us from any of the border countries, Mexico or Canada, we wouldn't stand for it for a second. We would go in and clean out the terrorists that are threatening our civilian population.

Israel has the absolute right to do that. And the United Nations, in a rare instance where it agreed with Israel, just came out with a report saying that the Israeli blockade of Gaza to prevent weapons and weaponry from killing Israeli citizens was legal.

So of course we had the flotilla. It came from Turkey. And there was an incident that they were trying to break the blockade. And there was an incident. And of course what happened with it was the people were killed. And Turkey has used that as an excuse to be belligerent against Israel.

I would say to Turkey they ought to stop the nonsense, act more like a NATO country, and act more like a country that wants to go into the European Union, not a country that is sympathetic to extremism and not a country that is saying the most belligerent things. Just tone down and scale back its diplomatic recognition with Israel. I ask Turkey to act like a NATO nation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us here to work together and are tired of the partisan bickering and the finger- pointing. I think it's very important tonight, as we listen to the President talk about creating jobs, that we work together to work with him; and I hope my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle don't summarily reject what the President is saying just to play politics.

We need to create jobs in this country. Many years ago, Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided that, in order to get America back to work, he would create infrastructure jobs from the government. I think that is something that we should do, and I hope the President mentions it tonight. We have crumbling roads, crumbling bridges, and all kinds of things that could put America back to work.

Let's not have a repetition of what happened a month or so ago when Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States in terms of finances. Let's work together. Let's work with our President. Let's support him as he tries to create more jobs.

Less finger-pointing, more working together. That is the American way.

I thank my friend from New York for yielding to me.

I rise today in opposition to the Budget Control Act amendment. Over the past months, I have been urging for a clean vote to raise the debt ceiling, a vote that has taken place 75 times since FDR was President, 18 times under Reagan, eight times under Bush. And I think that's what we should have done, and then put our heads together.

You see, I disagree with my friends on the other side of the aisle. It isn't just entitlement reform that we need;

although, we do need entitlement reform. It isn't just for government to spend less that we need; although, we do need government to spend less.

But what happened to fairness? Why are we asking this bill to balance our budget on the backs of the middle class and poor people? Why do we not have anything in this bill that makes millionaires and billionaires, who can afford to pay a little bit more, pay a little bit more? Why don't we close tax loopholes so that Big Oil and gas and other corporations pay their fair share? Why don't we do any of that whatsoever?

So this bill is unbalanced to begin with. Now we are talking about some supercommittee, even amounts of Democrats and Republicans, even amounts from the Senate and the House. To me, that's a recipe for gridlock. And I guarantee you, my colleagues, we're going to be here at that point after Thanksgiving when nothing is going to happen, and we are going to wind up with entitlement cuts that are going to hurt my seniors and your seniors with Medicare and graduate medical education in New York, which is so important. Hurt that, hurt the providers.

Who are we kidding? We're going to cut from the providers, the hospitals and think it's not going to impact on patient quality and patient care? What about the doc fix, when our doctors say, We're not taking Medicare patients anymore?

This bill, to me, is a pig in a poke, and I'm not willing to buy a pig in a poke.

Here we're on the brink of economic disaster and we're wasting time with symbolic political theater at its worst.

We want compromise and solutions and to protect Medicare on the Democratic side. Why don't you try working with Democrats? The American people want us to meet in the middle. They don't want this nonsense.

The debate now focuses only on spending cuts, without closing tax loopholes, and that still isn't enough for some. No wonder The Wall Street Journal said the Republicans don't look like adults to whom voters can entrust the government.

The Democrats want to compromise in the middle, and if the President needs to pull the 14th Amendment, I think he should do that because the Republicans have shown they don't want compromise at all.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the career accomplishments of my cousin, David Lertzman, who retired this year after 41 years as a teacher and coach in the Los Angeles Unified School District. A native of California, David began his career in 1970 and would go on to teach and coach at numerous high schools in Los Angeles.

David's academic career revolved around teaching World History, U.S. History, and Physical Education. His passion for education and history led him to participate in a local State University Education Department program that prepared students for a career teaching U.S. History. This program was highly successful, and David would watch many of his former students go on to have distinguished careers in teaching and coaching.

In addition to his teaching accomplishments, David had a very successful coaching career. He coached football, boys gymnastics and girls volleyball. In doing so, he reached many significant milestones. At Hamilton High School in Los Angeles, he holds the record for most wins in school history for the football team and the boys gymnastics team, while at Birmingham High School he holds the record for most wins in school history for girls volleyball. He also served as a founding member of the Los Angeles Volleyball Coaches Association and the Los Angeles Football Coaches Association, and the President of the Los Angeles Coaches Association.

As a former teacher myself, I want to join my cousin Lynne, who has been David's wife for 36 years, their two daughters Stephanie and Carolyn, and their son-in-law, Scott in congratulating him on such a successful career. Teachers hold a special place in our society, and David Lertzman has proven to be at the top of his profession. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

I thank the gentleman.

You know, this is political theater at its worst. This bill has no chance of becoming law. It's extreme. It was put together so that the Speaker could pick up the last two or three votes from the extreme element of the Republican Party. We refuse to be held hostage and the American people refuse to be held hostage.

Let me say to my Republican colleagues: Why don't you try working with us? Why don't you try to work with the Democrats? Why don't we kind of move to the sensible middle and have a bill that can pass? This is what the American people want us to do. They are sick of the political posturing. They are sick of this day in and day out. We are now bringing our country to the brink of financial disaster because of cheap political games. Meet us in the middle.

In order to balance our budget, we need to have a cut in spending, yes, but we also need to have those who can afford to pay more pay a little more, and we need to close corporate tax loopholes, not protect the rich. My Republican friends want to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, want to tell seniors that Medicare as we know it will be destroyed, want to tell our students that they cannot get Pell Grants. We don't want to do this.

Pass a clean debt ceiling. That's what we need to do. We did it 18 times under Reagan and eight times under Bush. We ought to do it again now and stop the political charade.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I want my colleagues to hear some of the things that I'm hearing from my constituents back home. People want to know why we cannot compromise. People want to know why we cannot work together. I don't know the answers to that because I think we should.

What I see happening here is something that I haven't seen in the 23 years that I've been here. It's that people do not seem to want to move to the center and to compromise.

I know some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, particularly the Tea Party-backed freshmen, have signed a pledge never to raise taxes. Well, I want to say what Senator Coburn said the other day. He said, what am I upholding my pledge to? I uphold my pledge to abide by the Constitution, not upholding my pledge to abide by what a special interest group wants.

People want us to meet in the middle. People don't understand why there seems to be intransigence.

You know, we have spent too much over these past decades. And you know what else? In order to get back to where we can balance our budget and pay our bills, we can't do it all with just spending cuts. It has to be three things. It has to be spending cuts, for sure. It also happens to be and should be closing tax loopholes for the very wealthy who get away with paying no

taxes at all, for large corporations who pay no taxes at all, for special subsidies to businesses that move their jobs overseas, to special subsidies for companies like Big Oil that don't need the subsidies.

We also need to make sure that those who can afford to pay a little bit more pay a little bit more, because that's how we get our budget back in balance. But if my Republican friends only say, you know, all we're going to do is cut, and we're not going to meet the Democrats halfway, then I'm afraid we're moving to fall off a cliff.

President Obama was absolutely right yesterday when he said that one side seems to be saying, my way or the highway; tax cuts forever, even if our budget is not balanced.

We, as Democrats, are saying let's do it a compromise way. Let us cut spending, let us close tax loopholes, and let those who can afford to pay a little more, millionaires and billionaires, pay a little more.

We are here because the American people sent us here. I know my constituents are concerned about Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and the New York Graduate Medical Education. I didn't come here to devastate those programs, and I want my constituents to know that I'm going to fight like crazy to preserve Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and GME. We cannot balance our budget on the backs of senior citizens.

I want to remind my colleagues that when President Clinton, the last Democratic president before President Obama left office, we had record surpluses. President Bush came in and we have red ink deficits as far as the eye can see.

And I want to remind my Republican colleagues that 6 of the 8 Bush years Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, and had the presidency for 6 years. If they wanted a balanced budget amendment they could have had it. If they wanted to try to balance the budget they could have done it.

So I don't think lectures are important now. I think there's plenty of blame to go around on all sides. We had the Bush tax cuts, we had wars, and we had reckless spending. And it was done under President Bush with Republican majorities in the House. So we need to put our heads together and move to the sensible center in terms of what the American people want, to get us off this precipice that we're about to fall into.

I think there's one other thing the President should do. If he sees, in a few days, that there's no progress being made, and we are about to approach August 2 and we're about to have this train wreck, the President should invoke the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment says the public debt shall not be questioned and, in my estimation, gives the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling by himself. I think the President should do that if we cannot come to a compromise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the Report on a Trip to Cairo, Egypt, written by R. Leslie Deak, and presented to the Policy and Planning section of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Deak is an American businessman who has spent the last nine years living part of each year in Egypt. He is on the Board of Advisors of the Center for a New American Security and is a Trustee of the National Defense University Foundation.

This is an interesting and important document, and I commend it to my colleagues.

Egypt Assessment: Report on Trip to Cairo, Egypt

(By R. Leslie Deak)

Presented to J-5 JCS, May 11, 2011

(Pentagon--Policy and Planning for Joint Chiefs of Staff)

I just returned from two weeks in Egypt. During my trip, I

spent most of my time in Cairo reestablishing existing

contacts and developing contacts with new players in the

emerging power structure.

I met with informed figures in the business, political,

legal, journalism and religious fields. I also had extensive

contact with our people over there to get their assessment

and to gauge their views against those from the Egyptians.

The country is a transition that will likely end in a

manner not to our liking. There are some efforts that can be

undertaken at this time to help try to impact the outcome if

implemented rapidly.

I have summarized the current situation, explored in more

depth the key areas of concern and suggested actions that may

help impact on the outcome.

First Impressions

The fall of Mubarak's regime is widely welcomed. There is a

palpable relief among people that the repression and

corruption are finally easing. This is mixed with an

uncertainty about what the future holds. This is very a much

an Inch Allah moment at all levels that I had contact with.

The impression of the US is poor. We are viewed as a

contributory factor to the problems because of our prior

support for Mubarak and our wavering during the early stages

of the revolution. Our direct involvement in their affairs is

not welcomed. Our operating in the background and providing

support is more acceptable.

The society in general is fascinated with the unfolding

spectacle of arrests, incriminations and the extent of the

corruption. Politics and then soccer are the subjects

discussed, in that order. Since there is uncertainty about

the future, most attention is focused on the past and day-to-

day life.

Prices are up by thirty percent from before the revolution

but people seem to take it in stride. The Government is

raising public employee salaries dramatically and is hiring

unemployed workers in great numbers in order to try to

maintain social stability. Continued and worsening inflation

in the near term is inevitable and the population is reacting

accordingly--retaining or acquiring property, jewelry,

hoarding, converting pounds to foreign currency when

possible, etc.

Withdrawal of Egyptian Pounds was just liberalized. Foreign

currency withdrawals are restricted to the equivalent of

EL10.000 per day in foreign currency. Transfers abroad are

restricted to $100,000 maximum per account and need

individual approval from the Central Bank.

Tourism, second largest source of external funds after

Suez, is off by 85%. Although the recent lifting of the USDOS

Travel Advisory initially helped increase interest in travel

from the US to Egypt, the recent sectarian conflict has been

a new setback. The consensus opinion is that travel will not

recover until the Fall at the earliest assuming that the

security situation stabilizes by that time.

Recently, traffic police have returned to the streets in

Cairo but regular police, special police, detectives and

prosecutors have not yet returned. Our people have been

informed by sources they consider reliable, that police

presence is back up to 65%. Reliable Egyptian sources I spoke

with put the figure closer to 50%. Police salaries have been

increased ten-fold (to EL 3,000-4,000 per month) and law

school graduates are being recruited to become police.

Internal security is nonoperational and is supposedly being

overhauled. All US assisted police training programs have

been suspended over concerns of working with bad actors.

While Cairo is safe during the daytime, at night there is

occasionally sporadic gunfire. Travel outside populated areas

carries dangers of hijacking. There is widespread carrying of

firearms by the population and no apparent consequence or

prosecution for use of deadly force in self-defense.

Politically, the general belief is that things will work

out and that the Muslim Brotherhood will play a role in the

country's future but will not dominate. Unfortunately, I do

not agree with this assessment.

Where Things are Heading

The following analysis is conjecture on my part. However, I

vetted the conclusions against all of my sources in Egypt and

here and, sadly, found that none could refute them.

Economics

The country seems to be sliding towards a modified

socialism with the government set to play a significantly

increased role in the economy. We can expect that most, if

not all, of the economic reforms implemented over the last

five years to be rolled back.

The government is already beginning to abrogate contracts

and seize properties implicated in any dealings with the

prior government. Since the Mubarak regime and their cronies

were involved in every aspect of the economy, no prior

business arrangement is immune--this is especially true where

deals were based on the use of or access to State assets

(land, businesses, natural resources, etc.)

Another current problem for the private sector is that

there is no place to get a reliable or binding decision on

which to make business judgments since the current Cabinet is

transitional and their decisions are subject to change in the

future.

The public sector is growing dramatically both in terms of

cost and size as the Supreme Council races to prevent

uprisings from the lower class.

They recognize that they are going to soon be facing a

massive external liquidity squeeze and are casting about for

any sources of foreign funds available in order to be able to

continue to import essential staples. Their foreign policy

reflects this with their playing off the U.S., Iran and Saudi

to see who will give them money first.

I believe we can expect increasing economic and,

eventually, social instability due to the deteriorating

economic trends.

Politics

In my opinion, I see little likelihood of the Muslim

Brotherhood not becoming the dominant force in Egypt in the

near term. This will occur despite the desire by the

population as a whole to have a more representative secular

government.

To understand this conclusion, some background is in order.

For the last eighty years, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has

been providing social services to a growing sector of the

population. They provide health care, education, food,

shelter, counseling, adjudicate disputes, etc. This impact

has become especially pronounced over the last thirty years

as increasing resources were diverted from government

services and wound up in the pockets of corrupt officials.

During this time, the MB had developed a highly efficient

network that is well integrated into the society throughout

the country and especially in the poorer areas and in the

rural areas in Upper Egypt (the South) and the Delta.

The military, which is a conscript army, is largely drawn

from this lower socio-economic half of the population.

Accordingly, they are familiar with, and are largely

sympathetic to, the MB. They do not currently view them as a

threat. In fact, virtually all of the Military officers I

have met over the years are religiously conservative as are

their families.

An alliance with the MB does not pose an issue for the

military and in fact helps solve two critical issues that the

military faces.

The first issue is complicity--the military leadership is

assumed to be complicit in all of the corruption and problems

of the old regime. They have been able to shelter almost all

of the ex-military from prosecution, but pressure is mounting

to throw them to the wolves. This does not bode well for the

current leadership and they are focused on protecting

themselves from prosecution with any new civilian government

that they allow to emerge. I believe that they have reached

this accommodation with the MB.

Secondly, is the issue of the patronage system. The

military controls thirty percent patent of the economy and

much of the land in Egypt. The proceeds from these

enterprises and sale of land are used to provide benefits and

perks to the officer corps so as to maintain loyalty and

discipline. If anything interrupts this arrangement, the

senior staff faces the danger of possible insurrection from

the junior officers. I believe the MB recognizes the need to

maintain this system and has reached an accommodation with

the military to continue it.

With these two issues apparently resolved, I believe that

the military cleared the path for accelerated elections in

September knowing that the MB would dominate the elections

despite the desire by the opposition forces to see a more

balanced and secular (civil) outcome. They then dissolved the

NDP in order to further strengthen the MB.

Unfortunately, barring a change in the timing of the

elections or a suspension by the Military due to security

concerns, the MB will sweep the elections simply due to their

organizational capabilities. They recently raised their

public target from 35% to 50% of the seats. I personally

believe that they will ultimately win more than 70% of the

seats. This will place them in position to dominate the

process that will result in a new constitution that has been

mandated as part of the recent referendum.

Except for the MB, there is no organization with the

capability to get out the vote. The opposition is highly

fragmented and disorganized. There is a possibility that the

old parliamentarians may run for election independently and

serve to weaken the MB, but it is unlikely. The old members

benefitted from their positions in Parliament and under the

current environment will most likely not run (as one told me,

it cost him EGP 5 million to win each election but he could

make EGP 50 million through his position--he has no interest

in exposing his past activities of running again with no

prospect of recovering his investment--I believe this is

representative of the situation in general).

While this has been going on in the background, much

international and public attention has been kept focused on

the Presidential election. This is a diversion since the new

President will have very proscribed powers. The MB has

indicated that they will not run, but they are negotiating

with the candidates and will throw their weight behind the

one that will assure their interests.

The recent issue with the Salafis is largely viewed as

manufactured by the MB in order to make the MB appear more

moderate. I would personally expect that the MB and the

military will resolve the Salafi problem once it has served

its purpose.

What Can be Done

The first thing that needs to be done is to improve our

image with the Egyptian people. We can do this through

several actions.

First, we could use our current available resources to help

locate and freeze funds that belong to the long list of

individuals under detention or indictment. Publicizing our

efforts to assist in this manner will be front page news

throughout the Middle East and will have an enormous positive

impact on public perception of the U.S. in Egypt. I recommend

this while at the same time acknowledging the broader impact

such an action may have on investors from other countries.

Secondly, we should remain neutral and supportive of the

election process and their right to set their own destiny

regardless of the outcome. It will be very important for us

not to be seen as judgmental of, or in opposition to, the

outcome of the election. Any perceived effort on our part to

influence the election will backfire and both damage our

reputation and adversely impact any individual or group

perceived to be supported by us.

This does not mean that we have to sit back and accept the

long term impact of the elections.

If we hope to see the situation improve, then the next, and

immediate, focus should be to ramp up our efforts to work

with groups that can bring influence to bear on the

constitutional process. These include the opposition groups,

the youth groups, the emerging parties, the Copts and the

military and possibly the new President once we know who it

is.

The only way to short-circuit the MB dominating the

constitutional process after the election is to help the

opposition organize to focus the issues and bring people out

in to the streets again. We can also try to work in the

background to convince the military that it is in everyone's

interest to assure a balanced and open constitutional

process. The street protests will help in this effort.

To the extent that our assistance is requested, we can also

work with those domestic change agents with whom contact has

already been established in order to help them work towards

an open process so as to assure a fully representational

political process in the future.

As long as the constitutional process can be opened up so

that it is representative, it is likely that the MB will be a

one-election phenomenon and that we will see an outcome like

Kuwait. Any group that wins this election is doomed to fail

because of the deteriorating economic and security situation.

The only real concern we should have is what happens next. I

believe that we can have an impact on that outcome which will

serve the interest of both Egypt and the U.S.

However, our window of opportunity is closing quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to call my colleagues' attention to the Hudson River School of Painters, the first American school of painters that contributed to an appreciation of the American landscape and conservation of this country's natural beauty. At the time of its operation in the 19th Century, it was a significant achievement in American art and culture that commemorated American landscapes in a manner unseen before by American citizens and others around the world.

Recently, I had the distinct honor to unveil the first of a series of historic bronze markers along the Hudson River. These bronze markers are designed to indicate where painters put their easels in order to create a panorama and vista of the river itself. The historic bronze marker, created by Greg Wyatt, Director of the Academy of Art at the Newington-Cropsey Foundation in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, honor the sites where painters such as Jasper F. Cropsey, Thomas Cole, Frederic Edwin Church, and Asher Durand stood to create paintings reflecting their unique perspectives on nature. Additional sites are planned this coming year at Hook Mountain State Park and Newburgh, New York.

In light of this occasion, I would like to commend my colleague Representative Maurice Hinchey in his long record of support for both the rebirth of study of this first American school of painting, and for his determination to present to Congress and the American people the importance of the Hudson Valley to our cultural heritage.

I also would like to commend the Architect of the Capitol for displaying two paintings purchased by Congress after the Civil War from the famous 19th century Hudson River School painter Albert Bierstadt. They are entitled ``Discovery on the Hudson'' and ``Entrance into Monterey,'' and are available for viewing in the Capitol Visitors Center. I urge all of my colleagues and their constituents to appreciate these wonderful pieces of art.

Mr. Speaker, Maureen Silo, beloved spouse of Susan McMillan, daughter of the late Mary Agnes Burns and the late James Thomas Hanlon, sister to Jean Marie Bruno of Sarasota, FL and James Francis Hanlon of

San Antonio, TX and aunt of Matthew Hanlon of San Antonio, TX, Jena Kolt, Kairi Kolt and Lucian MacMillan of the Bronx, passed away on July 17, 2011 at Calvary Hospital, Bronx, NY.

A native of the Bronx, Maureen entered military service in the U.S. Army in 1974. After leaving the Army, Maureen moved back to NYC and became the first female high rise window washer in the City of New York! Maureen worked at the Bronx VA where she met her spouse Susan in 1992. Susan and Maureen became official domestic partners on April 19, 1994. They were legally married on October 4, 2008 in Wellfleet, MA.

Always a humanitarian and champion for the underdog, Maureen found her calling in helping others. She became a social worker after getting her B.A. in Social Work from Lehman College and then graduated from Yeshiva University with an M.A. in Social Work. She worked in the burn unit at Jacobi Hospital during her undergrad internship and at the NYC Gay and Lesbian Anti-violence Project during her graduate internship. She continued to work at AVP after receiving her M.A. for four more years. She then went to work for NYC HRA in July of 2001 as a social worker for victims of domestic violence. She transferred to the Department of Homeless Services in 2004 and became a supervisor/ manager.

Maureen also volunteered with the American Red Cross as a mental health worker. She was on the Bronx Disaster Response Team for three years. She worked in Mississippi for two weeks after Hurricane Katrina.

Maureen was a great lover of animals and rescued and provided a safe, secure, loving home for six dogs and four cats with her spouse Susan over a period of 18 years.

In Judaism there is a phrase about a Woman of Valor and Maureen Silo was such a woman. Through her actions she had shown us all how to live with love and grace even through life's most challenging times. I join with her family and friends in their time of grief and am grateful for her dignity and courage. As said in the Bible: ``Who can find a virtuous woman for her price is far above rubies?'' Well, that woman was Maureen Silo.