Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the number 47, not as in the percentage of Americans, the soldiers and students and elderly and working poor, many of whom are paying more in total taxes than Mr. Romney is paying on his tens of millions of dollars in annual income but who, nevertheless,

he seems to consider to be slackers. No, I'm talking about 47 as in the number of days left before the election, in the context of the fact that we have 1 more day that we will be in session. The most basic and fundamental responsibilities our constituents sent us to Washington to address are being left totally unresolved. Never have I seen a House of Representatives so unproductive and so dysfunctional, and I served during the so-called ``Gingrich Revolution.''

The fact is that today the House Republican leadership and too many of its rank-and-file Members seem to think that economic stimulus, which is vitally needed in this economy, is a dirty word, and that the Federal Government is some kind of alien enterprise. Their approach is to do nothing, and that's what we've done for the last 2 years-- nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) National Trademark Expo. In a time of ongoing challenges for the American and global economy, I want to join the USPTO in its efforts to recognize the vital role that trademarks play in the economy.

The USPTO disseminates trademark information at the Expo to educate the public about the important role that trademarks play in our society and the global marketplace. This year's two-day event will be held on Friday, October 19th, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Saturday, October 20th, from 10:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.

A broad cross-section of America's large corporations, small businesses, governmental agencies, and non-profit organizations will highlight a wealth of valuable information about trademarks: from the various types of trademarks available and their benefits. The Expo will also feature educational seminars, as well as children's workshops and activities. Exhibitors at the National Trademark Expo will include: 5- hour ENERGY; 1000 Cranes, LLC; ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law; AIPLA, Creativity in Bloom; American Girl; The American National Red Cross; Caterpillar Inc.; CMG; Cricket Wireless; Department of the Army; GEICO; Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital; The Hershey Company; HiT Entertainment; Hooray for Books!; Idaho Potato Commission; Indian Arts and Crafts Board; International Trademark Association (Unreal Campaign); Mattel; NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; NASCAR, Inc.; NBC Learn; NumbersAlive!; The Pepsom Group; Rita's Ice, Custard, Happiness; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Travelers; Under Armour; United States Air Force; UPS; U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Government IPR Agencies: Department of Commerce, National IPR Coordination Center, and Customs and Border Protection; Valvoline; Wormwatcher; and Zipcar.

On average, people are exposed to 1,500 trademarks each day. In a time of globalization, counterfeit goods pose an increasing threat to American businesses and jobs, and trademarks assist the public in discerning between authentic and counterfeit merchandise. Counterfeit goods cost the United States billions of dollars and countless jobs annually, as well as undermine consumer confidence in brand integrity when purchasers encounter knock-off goods of inferior quality.

I applaud the USPTO for its continued efforts to educate the public on the important role of trademarks and the benefits of federal registration through the National Trademark Expo. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the USPTO, at this time when trademark protection and intellectual property rights play an increasingly important role in our global economy. And, I encourage the public and my fellow Members of Congress and staff to bring their family and friends to this free, family-friendly event.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join my colleague Ander Crenshaw in introducing the ``International Conservation Corps Act of 2012'' (ICCA), legislation that will mobilize our large and growing community of retired conservation experts, in a voluntary capacity, to support the efforts of developing countries to sustainably manage their natural resources.

There is a significant deficit in the capability of most developing countries to successfully manage their natural resources, which is fundamental to sustainable development, poverty alleviation, conflict avoidance, good governance, and regional security. Countries with a great wealth of natural resources are often cursed with devastating poverty, corruption and civil war arising from disputes over control and distribution of these resources.

The International Conservation Corps Act will harness the vast experience of the United States in natural resource management and connect it with developing countries to help them operate and develop more sustainable programs. Modeled after the Peace Corps, the ICCA program would offer retired land managers, both public and private sector employees, geologists, biologists, and park rangers the opportunity to volunteer their services to the foreign country. The ICCA would cover the expenses necessary to deploy volunteers in other countries such as airfare, food, and lodging. The program will utilize volunteers who have long practical experience and are respected in their fields, and who are enthusiastic about opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills to assist other countries.

Under this proposal, the State Department would screen foreign government requests for assistance. Cleared requests would be forwarded to the Interior Department which would craft a prospectus that awards competitive grants to the nonprofit that assembles the best volunteer team and most meritorious application. Federal administrative costs would be minimal, ensuring tax payer funds are spent almost exclusively on ``boots on the ground.'' No more than $10 million could be appropriated per year. The cost of this program

would be fully offset with savings from unexpended balances.

This proposal will be both a modest commitment and highly effective way to stretch our foreign aid dollars in advancing our national security interests of environmental stewardship, conflict avoidance, sustainable development and poverty alleviation.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Let's take advantage of this unique opportunity represented by the wave of highly qualified retiring U.S. professionals to help developing countries establish good governance.

Mr. Speaker, next week, following Senate action on a 6- month continuing resolution to keep the Federal government funded until March 27 of 2013, Congress is likely to adjourn until after the fall elections.

Really? Seriously. In other words, over the next 53 days before the election, this House will be in session about 1\3/4\ days. It's a sad state of affairs, and the best that this House can do is to punt all spending decisions on this year's budget to the next Congress.

But that's what we just did this week. Before we adjourn, there will be no resolution on the budget, there will be no resolution on the sequester, $1.2 trillion, that is causing disruption throughout the country and particularly among the entire Federal Government, especially the defense industry, which will have to absorb half of that sequester. It could affect directly about a million jobs, about 2 million jobs indirectly, but we're not going to do anything about it.

There will be no resolution on tens of billions of dollars of expiring measures before the election. We'll do nothing on the farm bill. We'll do nothing on postal reform. We'll do nothing on dozens of other important issues on which the public is counting on us to do something. The most basic and fundamental responsibilities our constituents sent us to Washington to address are being left unresolved.

I proudly served in this institution for more than 20 years. Never have I seen this House so unproductive and so dysfunctional. I served during the so-called Gingrich revolution. I served during Mr. Clinton's administration and during Mr. Bush's administration, but this House has never been less functional.

Our Nation is suffering from high unemployment and the residual effects of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Of course, our current situation is the result of two deep tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which primarily benefited those who needed tax cuts the least; two wars, neither of which were ever paid for; and an expansion of Medicare which was not paid for. That's what's put us in this deep hole, plus the fact that we deregulated the financial industry.

The American people, the working class Americans, their median income didn't go up. In fact, it edged downward so they had less disposable money. They borrowed from the one asset they had, which had been appreciating real estate, their home, and they borrowed on their credit cards.

Now, after the economy imploded, their home values declined. In fact, almost 70 percent of African American families lost almost 70 percent of their household wealth, Hispanic Americans over 60 percent, white Americans lost more than 16 percent of their household wealth. They obviously don't have the money to be spending again.

They have learned their lesson: they are not going to keep borrowing. Their home values are down, so they can't borrow as much off their real estate. Then you don't get those cold calls from people suggesting that you can borrow more money off your home and consolidate your credit cards. They're not coming. People aren't borrowing, and it's understandable. That's why our economy is in such a deep recession, why it's so difficult to pull out of it.

Now, Mr. Hoyer pointed out that we tried something different in the 1990s from what we tried in the first decade of the 21st century. When President Clinton balanced the Federal budget, those who were in the House majority now all voted against it. In fact, every Republican voted against it. It was a pure party-line vote. The deciding vote was cast by a freshman Member from Pennsylvania who lost her seat as a result, but it passed.

We have some empirical evidence as to what happened. I remember during the debate it was suggested that if this passed that, in fact, we would see deep unemployment, we would go into a recession, millions of people would be out of their jobs, and it was the wrong thing to do. I remember the words of Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Armey and others.

Well, we have empirical evidence, as I say. We know exactly what did happen. We did raise taxes on the people at the top, raised up to 39.6 percent. Those folks in the top tax bracket actually brought home more after-tax income than at any time in American history.

Everyone was better off. About 22 million new jobs were created. That number seems as though it's in a different world today, when we struggled so hard to create jobs but, just think of all the job creation we experienced, one of the lowest levels of poverty. The rising tide lifted all boats. It worked.

But beyond a strong economy and to some extent because of that strong economy, we were able to get control over the Federal deficit and in fact, for the last 3 years of the Clinton administration we had a surplus.

Mr. Gore was derisively scorned for talking about the lockbox, but the lockbox was all about putting some of that surplus aside to pay for the retirement and health costs of the baby boom generation.

I'm a member of that baby boom generation. We haven't all retired. But there's more than 70 million of us. Many of us feel we should pay for our own expenses. That would have enabled us to do so, but that wasn't what happened.

Mr. Gore lost the election. Or at least I should say rather than Mr. Bush being elected, the Supreme Court selected him. But it's done. We took a very different course of action. The $5.6 trillion surplus that was projected at the end of the Clinton administration was almost immediately lost with two very deep tax cuts that, as I say, did not benefit the middle class. They benefited people who needed them the least. Then we declared two wars. You certainly can't pay for two wars with two deep tax cuts.

We expanded Medicare. It cost a lot more than it should have, I think, because we put a provision in that forbid the Federal Government from negotiating with the drug providers in order to get the lowest rate for Medicare beneficiaries, using the leverage of the Federal Government. We couldn't do that. We had to pay retail prices. And so the Veterans Administration, which can negotiate, can use the leverage of such a large pool of buyers. They pay a fraction of the price that we pay under the part D program of Medicare.

But all that was done. It made people happy, temporarily. The term ``sugar high'' was used. Well, this was kind of a ``fiscal sugar high.'' And now we're paying the price. Now we're paying the price for the fiscal policy that didn't work. As I say, we have empirical evidence that it did not work. The question is: Where do we go from here?

Now we hear from the other side what sounds a lot like the campaign of about 12 years ago: more tax cuts is the answer. We're hearing a lot of bellicose rhetoric about getting reengaged militarily in the Middle East. After finally concluding the Iraq war, we're talking about military involvement with Iran. We're talking about deregulation, of repealing Dodd-Frank regulations on the financial industry; repealing the Affordable Care Act, even though this country spends twice as much per person on health care. And yet we don't live as long and we're not as healthy as other countries that spend half what we spend. The reason is that we pay for the quantity of services provided, almost regardless of the quality of the care that we're paying for.

The Affordable Care Act is all about reversing that. It's about using best practices; about reimbursing hospitals and doctors and other health care providers based upon how effective their treatments, their analyses, their procedures are in making the patient well. We reward best practices, and in fact we're going to reduce reimbursement for hospitals that keep seeing the same patient over and over again for the same illness. People get infections actually in the hospital. And for any number of other reasons that drive up the cost of health care in this country, other countries have resolved more efficiently, effectively, and in the better interest of the patient.

So we're going to try to turn that around while we include everyone and while we make everyone pay in the same way that we do with Social Security and Medicare. You pay in advance when you're young and healthy so that you'll have insurance when you're older and sicker. That's the whole idea. That's what the individual mandate is all about. It simply makes sense. It made sense in Massachusetts when Mr. Romney was Governor there. It's working there. People are happy with it. We ought to apply it here and certainly not repeal it. But that's what we're hearing: repeal regulations, repeal the Affordable Care Act, more tax cuts, and more bellicose rhetoric. I think that's what got us in much of this situation in the first place.

On the other side, the President understands that while we're certainly not losing 800,000 jobs a month, as we were at the end of the Bush administration, the glass is at least half full. We ought not drain it so that it's empty again, but we ought to build on our successes. Now if we're going to build on those successes, regardless of who's elected President, the legislative branch needs to do its job. That's why it's so troubling that with all the things that need to be done, now, today, over the next 53 days, Members of Congress are going to be nowhere in sight, at least certainly not up on Capitol Hill doing the public's business. We'll be out in our districts politicking, seeking votes. It's going to be a tough record to run on.

Now, we can go back in history and compare what we're doing now with the past. I do think it's informative to suggest that this is not just unfounded political rhetoric suggesting this is a dysfunctional, do- nothing Congress. We have empirical evidence. We have facts. We have statistics. In fact, in Roll Call--I want to give them credit for this--page B-9 yesterday, September 13, the headline is: ``Congress on Pace to Be Least Productive.'' They have a chart. We have the very good people who support our work, who I hope will get a break over the next 53 days. At least that's something positive.

But they have blown up this chart. I'll read it, because the title is: ``A Dubious Historical Distinction.'' From high-water marks in the 1950s. Remember the 1950s? That was when we passed the GI Bill that put our returning veterans to work, got them higher education, enabled them to buy a home. It really created the middle class, thanks to Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower. And then Dwight Eisenhower followed up by building the interstate highway system, laying down physical infrastructure in this country, employing hundreds of thousands of people in the process.

Imagine what we would be without an interstate highway system, the numbers of towns and communities that would have been marginalized in our economy without an opportunity to be on a road that led from one place to another and that you could stop and you could buy something and you could stay overnight and you could decide, well, this is a nice town; maybe I want to put roots down here.

But you only do that if it's accessible. The interstate highway system made the whole country accessible. But from the 1950s, Congress has passed fewer bills, enacted fewer laws over time. But even compared with recent years, this Congress, the 112th Congress, has shown a remarkable lack of lawmaking activity.

Now, this is not some kind of partisan rag. This is Roll Call, which is clearly bipartisan, nonpartisan. The 112th Congress, this Congress, during its first year passed the fewest bills, really, in our lifetimes, the middle of the last century. This is public laws enacted. We had a high point up here way back in the 84th Congress. And now look at it; it looks like a ski slope.

We've gone from 1,028 laws to 151.

In terms of bills passed, in the House, here you go, in the 84th Congress, 4,628 bills. Now, maybe not all of those were of consequence, but at least it shows they were doing something.

Here you go. All the way down to this. Now look at this. You get down here to the 100th and then, boom, you drop off a cliff. Less than 600 bills; 4,628 bills back in the 84th Congress to 598, less than 600 bills here today in this Congress. Yet for the next 53 days, we'll be in session for about 1\3/4\ days.

I don't think that I'm talking about something that ought not be of concern to everyone. And I'm not exaggerating. This is unbelievable.

You know, through the course of the history of this Congress, of this institution, really, that's what I mean to say because this Congress is not typical. The approaches have oftentimes been different between the two political parties. But Republicans and Democrats in past Congresses have worked across the aisle. We have found common ground. We have enacted legislation when it was needed to stimulate the economy. We have helped the unemployed. We have helped families struggling. We have reached out to the poor, not with handouts but with a helping hand to create greater opportunity. The outcome is never going to be the same. But people ought to have some sense of equal opportunity, of getting a fair break in this economy.

We've maintained this Nation's infrastructure. Today, there's more than $2 trillion of unmaintained infrastructure needs in this country. Roads and bridges and transit and rail and ports and airports. Seaports and airports are going neglected--$2 trillion. Millions of jobs.

There are jobs in this country. There are skilled jobs. There are jobs that should get paid a good wage. And there are jobs that will pay an investment, a dividend, for years to come. They're investments, not expenditures. They're investments. We'll see the benefit of them for generations to come, and yet we can't even get the American Jobs Act enacted, which is primarily to invest in the physical infrastructure of this country, as well as the human infrastructure, putting money into education and research and innovation and to the things that are going to give us a stronger economy, a more stable society, a more inclusive society, a fairer society. That's what the American Jobs Act does.

But we can't get it through this body.

You know, when Ronald Reagan faced down a recession in the early 1980s, he proudly signed a transportation authorization bill that raised the tax on gasoline in order to maintain our Nation's highways and transit systems, and he called it a jobs bill, and Democrats supported it, and it was enacted. It helped get us out of that recession. It strengthened our economy, and it's still paying dividends for generations to come.

Same thing with President Eisenhower with the interstate highway system.

When President Obama urged Congress more than a year ago to consider the American Jobs Act, because it was a plan to get Americans back to work by investing in our Nation's infrastructure, nonpartisan, apolitical economists estimated that it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an additional 1.6 million existing jobs.

So 4 million jobs were at stake. Yet he was given a cold shoulder, primarily driven by a fairly substantial bloc of what some people refer to as Tea Party Republicans, whatever the proper designation is, an anti-government attitude.

I think that the government has a role, particularly in a recession, to get us back on our feet so that the private economy can take over.

It's not relying on the Federal Government, but is looking to the Federal Government to be there when we need it to give some, yes, and I'll say the world ``stimulus'' to the private sector. That's what the American Jobs Act was all about.

Today, the House leadership and too many of its rank-and-file members think economic stimulus is a dirty word. In fact, you'd think that the Federal Government is some kind of alien enterprise. The Federal Government is us. We should be proud of the Federal Government. People who work for the Federal Government are the least corruptible large civil service in the entire world. The fact is that they consistently have been the most effective in dealing with our problems and making us, enabling us, to have a more inclusive society and a more prosperous economy.

We just had a debate today over the issue that has become the rallying cry for anti-government politicians, Solyndra. Solyndra failed. It's half a billion dollars. The private sector put a billion dollars in. That loan represented some of the less than 2 percent of failures of that guaranteed loan program. The estimate when it was established was it would be about a 10 percent failure rate. It's been about 2 percent.

The private sector saw fit to put a billion dollars of its own money in. The Obama administration deferred to the private sector and said, yeah, if you put your money in, we will not take back what money is left. If in fact they do fail, you get it first. We'll subordinate the government loan. That turned out to be a mistake. It's a preference towards the private sector. I don't think you should argue with the good intent, the reliance upon the private sector; but the public sector, the taxpayers suffered a loss.

Yet substantial advances have been made in solar power and wind energy. The reason why Solyndra went under is that the Chinese Government figured this out, figured out that we can't be so reliant upon fossil fuels, that the future is not with fossil fuels, it's with sustainable forms of clean energy from the sun and from the wind.

So they've already gotten to the point where they can manufacture solar devices that capture the sun and heat and energy from the sun.

In fact, if you go over there, you see that their robots are even more sophisticated than ours. They're likely to put us out of business in that area, too. Their robots go smoothly like that. Ours go like some kind of jerk dance, you know. I can't do it. I can't even

dance the whatever they call it. But the fact is it's herky-jerky motion, many of our robots. Theirs are smooth, very precise because they knew to invest in that kind of technology, and they're investing in solar panels. So they dumped those solar panels on our economy, and that's why Solyndra went under.

We can't lose out to communist countries, to state-owned enterprises. We have to be at the cutting edge.

We've got the best schools. We've got the most creative people. Yet China, they've decided that over the next decade 70 percent of their preschool children from 1 to 5 are going to have at least 3 years of preschool education because they understand that in the earliest years of a child's life, that's when the brain is most absorbent. They're going to invest in early childhood. And yet what does our budget, the budget that was passed through the House--obviously the Democratic side voted against it--what does it do? It eliminates 200,000 Head Start slots, cuts money for early childhood education, eliminates the child care tax credit.

Think about this. Not only is the child care tax credit--and I don't want to digress too much, but 10 million single mothers with small children would go deeper into poverty, but 2 million--that's what I want to focus on--2 million mothers with small children would have to leave the workforce where they're getting paid roughly minimum wage, just enough to support their rent and food on the table, they would be faced with the choice of either giving up their job, going on welfare again, or locking their small children in an apartment because they can't afford child care.

Is that really who we are as a country? Is that where our priorities are? Is that how we're going to compete in the future with countries like China and countries in Asia and Brazil and India? No, it's not. I trust the American people understand that. But that's all related to this Solyndra mess, the way that it's mischaracterized, the reason people don't understand what it's really about.

So, again, the House voted No More Solyndras. They rejected the amendment that was made by Mr. Markey that says if we're going to continue to give $4 billion of tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies that extract oil and gas from publicly owned land--land owned by the taxpayers--if we're going to continue to give these tax subsidies to the industries who are the wealthiest corporations in the world, many of whom pay no taxes because of these subsidies, if we're going to continue to do that while at the same time as this bill that was passed today would take away subsidies for wind and solar power, we should at least reconsider the tax subsidies we give to the industries that need it the least. At least let's be fair about it. Let's save those billions of dollars every year of subsidies going to the wealthiest corporations for extracting natural resources owned by the American people and then boosting the price of oil at the gas pump.

We continue to pay more than we should at the pump. But they're a corporation. They're going to maximize their wealth. They're going to pay the minimum taxes they can get away with. Yet this body wants to eliminate efforts to come up with clean, sustainable sources of energy comparable to what our competitors in the global economy are doing.

I know all that's a digression, but, you know, it's all related.

The fact is that the one thing that this Congress has proven it can do is nothing. For those most dependent upon the Federal Government's willingness to reach out a helping hand to help them climb ladders of economic opportunity, the attitude of the majority in this Congress has been: You're on your own, survival of the fittest, winner take all. That's been the tax policy. That's been the spending policy. As far as I'm concerned, that's not what made this country great; it's what has gotten this country into the economic circumstances that we face today.

Now, there's a drought brought on by a changing climate--climate change. People in the House majority want to deny even the existence of climate change even when it's standing right in front of us, facing us with all these extreme violent storms, with the fact that this has been the warmest year on record. Yet they want to deny climate change because it's brought about by human action, human decisions, decisions made by groups such as the American Congress to protect the fossil fuel industry, which is the primary contributor to global warming. As a result, all of this warmer weather, these droughts, these violent storms are bringing devastating economic injury to thousands of America's farmers.

And what has been the reaction of the House leadership? The Republican majority has chosen to block a farm bill from even being considered on the House floor even though it passed the Senate with an overwhelming vote, bipartisan vote, and yet we can't bring it up on the House floor. Instead, the House leadership has wasted time on the House floor with legislation designed to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, eliminate the prospect of more secure and affordable health care for millions of Americans.

Three dozen times we've had votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, knowing that the Senate understands how important it is to the American people and how important it is in the long run to get a grip on this economy, understanding that our corporations can't continue to pay the kind of money they're having to pay for health care that is less effective than the health care provided by every other industrialized country. The Senate understands it. The House doesn't get it, and so we keep having these votes that are pure political posturing.

Of course the House Republican leadership as well has wasted floor time voting to dismantle just about every landmark environmental law, blaming laws passed in the 1970s and the 1990s as the cause for today's high unemployment rate, laws that were passed, many of them, in the Nixon administration and the George H.W. Bush administration. The Nixon administration created the Environmental Policy Act, and it saved hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of lives, children that have not been afflicted with asthma, people who have not gotten the kind of illnesses that they were vulnerable to because we have had cleaner air and water. But now we can't even update it with the latest technology and the latest information. EPA has been the prime target of these budget cuts.

So we now have--I think it's been about 38 individual votes that have been taken to destroy environmental laws and regulations. Those votes, most of them, have died in the Senate, fortunately, but is that really what this institution should be all about?

When our children look back on the opportunities that this House of Representatives had to secure a better future for them, be it a pathway toward a balanced budget so they don't have to pay off the debt of their parents and grandparents or better, more affordable opportunities for their educational advancement, elementary and secondary education assistance so we don't have to lay off hundreds of thousands of teachers--we've laid off almost a quarter of a million teachers now throughout the country as a result of the recession and as a result of local and State legislators not being willing to invest in education-- or the Pell Grants, which enable lower income families who have students who have worked hard to be able to afford college, those opportunities are being lost, as well as the opportunity to have a cleaner alternative energy future which would have generated more than 40,000 jobs. Instead, in the effort to eliminate financial help for wind and solar power, we've already cut about 2,000 jobs, and I guess it's closer to 3,000 jobs now.

With the elimination of guaranteed loans, we're looking at nearly 40,000 jobs in an industry that represents the future for our children and grandchildren that other global competitors are investing in.

They will look at this Congress and rightly blame us for not seizing on those opportunities. Disappointment would be an inadequate word to describe the public's proper assessment of this Congress.

But, Madam Speaker, it's not over yet. We'll have a lame duck session.

We'll have an election in November. This country will choose which path it wants to go forward. Does it want to revisit the policy, the first 8 years of the 21st century?

Does it want to look at what happened in the last decade of the 20th century, compare the results, and then assess in which direction we need to be going?

The empirical evidence is there. The opportunity will be present on November 6 to choose which path this country will take.

It's clear, Madam speaker, that the path this Congress has been on, this 112th Congress, is not the path that leads to a better, more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to underscore the importance of immediate approval legislation to repeal Jackson-Vanik establish U.S. permanent normal trade relations with Russia.

There is demonstrated and widespread bipartisan support for Russian PNTR among our colleagues in the House, as well as in the Senate. And we cannot and should not wait to pass this legislation which will greatly benefit American business and their employees as they seek entre into the expanding Russian market.

We all share serious concerns with the ongoing human and political rights situation in the Russian Federation, but the maintenance Jackson-Vanik does nothing to address those concerns.

What it does do is deny the United States and our business the ability to fully take advantage of the benefits of Russian accession to the WTO both in terms of market access and trade enforcement.

PNTR will provide the United States with important benefits at no cost to us.

With PNTR, American companies will be able to take full advantage of lower Russian tariffs, stronger IP protections, and other market- opening concessions that the Russians agreed to as part of joining the World Trade Organization.

Last month's WTO accession promises to open that country large and growing consumer market to exporters around the world.

Unfortunately, because we have yet to establish PNTR with Russia, all the members of the WTO except the United States are now fully benefiting from increased access to the growing Russian market, which is the world's 9th largest economy.

Unlike the United States, other countries also have the ability to use the WTO's dispute settlement process to help ensure Russia honors its new WTO commitments. This is particularly important in a market such as Russia's which is relatively new to market capitalism and continues to present serious problems for foreign businesses.

Anders Aslund and Gary Hufbauer from the Peterson Institute for International Economics predict that U.S. exports to Russia should double within 5 years after accession to the WTO. Evidence from countries that joined the WTO between 2000 and 2010 suggest this statistic to be true, and maybe even a conservative estimation. If Exports to Russia grow at the same rate as they did for exports to Ukraine and the Baltics, exports could triple, approaching $30 billion. This would place Russia among America's large second tier-markets, such as Australia, India and France.

Every day we have not passed PNTR is a day where we put this opportunity in jeopardy by according a competitive advantage to non- American companies doing business in Russia.

We have the opportunity now to pass bipartisan legislation that advances American economic interests, which should not dither and continue to allow the partisan politics of election season to prevent us from grasping that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to submit an article printed in the July 27th issue of The Hill that came to my attention. Entitled ``Native American tribal leaders: Indian Country shouldn't be hostage to far-off conflicts'' and written by Native American tribal leaders Eric Bruguier and Lloyd Irvine, the authors lament the fact that the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act (H.R. 2362) failed to secure the necessary votes to pass under a suspension of the rules.

As a cosponsor of this measure, I am also disappointed this measure failed to pass. With the unemployment rate on American Indian reservations averaging between 40 percent and 50 percent, with poverty that transcends generations and incomes and educational attainment all well below the national average, this bill would have enabled foreign investors to partner with Native Americans on reservations to create new businesses and generate income where little to none exists today.

Native American Tribal Leaders: Indian Country Shouldn't Be Hostage to

Far-Off Conflicts

(By Eric Bruguier and Lloyd Irvine)

Being able to conduct business easily internationally is

the lifeblood of the American economy. Trade provides new

markets for American products and know-how, providing choices

to foreign consumers and growth and prosperity at home. Yet

apparently Congress does not feel that Native Americans

deserve to participate.

This week, the House voted on H.R. 2362, a simple yet

important piece of legislation that would have allowed Native

Americans to do business with foreign companies from any of

the 155 countries that are members of the World Trade

Organization.

Despite earning the support of 58 percent of House

members--and the backing of the National American Indian

Housing Council, the National Congress of American Indians,

and the National Center for American Indian Enterprise

Development--the bill failed to meet the two-thirds majority

needed to pass under the expedited process known as

suspension. It failed not because of any substantive

arguments against the bill's merits but because of pressure

from two ethnic lobbies with a history of grievances against

Turkey. And once again, Native Americans are left to suffer.

Current regulations and red tape prevent Native Americans

from taking control of their own economic development. If a

business wants to lease property to open a store or a

factory, that business must first go through a multilayer,

multiyear review process required by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, a process that can take up to six years--six years

to complete paperwork that takes a week to complete in the

rest of the country. Business cannot operate under these

conditions. This bill would have changed that.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the only Native American member of

Congress, introduced this legislation with the sole intention

of creating economic sovereignty for Native Americans. He has

firsthand experience of the challenges faced by tribes.

Native Americans suffer from the highest poverty and

unemployment rates in the country. Compared with the rest of

the United States, they are

more likely to suffer from drug and alcohol addiction and

have less access to quality healthcare.

It was a shock to see a positive and seemingly

noncontroversial bill fall short. After all, the bill would

provide a clear avenue for foreign investment in Indian

Country, streamline archaic and incredibly inefficient

regulations that add years of delays to potential business

deals, and for the first time allow tribes to enter into

business deals as sovereign entities, much like every state

in the country can already do. It would do all of these

things at no additional cost to the federal government.

H.R. 2362 was also designed to complement H.R. 205, the

HEARTH Act, which easily passed the House and Senate and will

soon be signed into law. The bills are complementary but

different. H.R. 205 was specifically designed to address

housing needs on tribal lands but makes no mention of

investment from foreign companies. H.R. 2362 invites

companies from all 155 WTO countries to invest in Indian

Country. It establishes a demonstration project that will

help us learn best practices for future business deals. Once

we work the kinks out, we would open it up to all tribes.

So why the opposition? One word: Turkey. Turkey and Turkish

Americans helped bring this bill to fruition through years of

business exchanges and negotiations on how to best facilitate

trade and investment with Indian Country. Turkey was the

first and only country to send an official delegation to the

Reservation Economic Summit, the premiere tribal business

conference. Turkey is the only WTO country that has

demonstrated an active economic interest in tribal lands.

Turkey was mentioned in the text of H.R. 2362 in recognition

of these efforts.

But the word ``Turkey'' in a tribal economic development

bill turned into a call to action for special interests.

Rather than focusing on the bill's many economic benefits for

tribes and all WTO countries, these communities focused on

the word ``Turkey''. In the process, they hijacked a bill

that has nothing to do with their centuries-old grievances

and put an end to promising new economic opportunities for

some of the most impoverished people living within America.

Native Americans have too few--not too many--tools for

economic development. We need to give them as many options as

we can. Tribes should have the power to choose which tools

they wish to use to grow their economies.

H.R. 2362 is a good bill that would have spurred economic

development on tribal lands. Instead, it was killed by

special interests that chose this opportunity to advance

their own agenda. An agenda that has nothing to do with

tribal sovereignty.

(Eric Bruguier is the chairman of economic development for

the Fort Peck Tribes. Lloyd Irvine is a councilman for the

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the two bills before us on human rights in Vietnam. These bills will enhance U.S. efforts to promote media and religious freedom in Vietnam, while communicating our concern and desire to protect the courageous advocates for freedom who risk everything to change their country for the better. I urge my colleagues to support both.

H. Res. 484 condemns the increasing repression by Vietnam's government of community organizers, bloggers, and democracy activists. Across the world, social media has empowered people to push for the rights that should be inherent in their citizenship. It has been like a wind filling the sails of movements pushing for more freedom, stronger accountability, and greater commitment to justice.

But we cannot forget that behind these social media are courageous individuals who risk everything to achieve those goals. This bill will make it clear to the government of Vietnam that their use of vague national security provisions in the penal code has been noted, and that the U.S. Congress will continue to press for freedom for people who are swept into prison under such shameful circumstances.

People like Nguyen Quoc Quan, a peaceful democracy activist and a U.S. citizen, who was arrested while visiting his home country. Recently, his prison sentence under one article has been extended four months under another. He was charged with terrorism under Article 88, and then the prosecutor rescinded that judgment and extended his jail term for ``attempting to overthrow the government'' under Article 79. We call this what it is: arbitrary, cruel, and unfair, and with this bill we call on the Vietnamese authorities to release all political prisoners, especially activists, writers, and bloggers who have been imprisoned under these provisions of the Vietnamese criminal code.

H.R. 1410 emphasizes that, while the United States will continue to work together with the Government of Vietnam on important issues of mutual concern, we will not increase our commitment of assistance until and unless they make substantial progress on media and religious freedoms, minority rights, access to U.S. refugee programs, and ending trafficking in persons.

This bill will bring hope to Vietnam's courageous democracy advocates that the United

States values their efforts and will keep human rights at the center of our relationship.

The United States has taken important steps to demonstrate that that we hope to build a common future with Vietnam built on cooperation, development, and peace. In recent years, we have maintained a robust program of bilateral aid to Vietnam because it is in our national interest and it is in the interest of the people of Vietnam.

But Vietnam cannot reach its potential as a nation if its people are denied basic rights. And sadly, the government of Vietnam is taking the country backwards in terms of human freedom. These two bills make clear that a good relationship requires progress on this critical issue.

Madam Speaker, our governments and our people have successfully prevented the tragedy of 11 years ago from being repeated, but we need to be mindful of the fact that it does little good to protect ourselves from without if we allow ourselves to become weakened from within.

When our families aren't adequately employed, when our government isn't adequately funded, when our economic potential is so unfulfilled, we do a disservice to the people we were elected to serve and to protect. When the majority in this House refuses to take action on a real jobs bill or on any of the other important issues that we should be legislating, we have no business being out of business for 49 out of the next 56 days before the upcoming election.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia on obtaining their National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations accreditation from the Community Foundations National Standards Board.

The Community Foundations National Standards Board was established as a supporting organization of the Council on Foundations, a nonprofit membership association of grant making foundations and corporations, to administer the National Standards. This board is responsible for upholding the quality, value, and integrity of the National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, the first and only accreditation program of its kind.

In the United States, community foundations serve tens of thousands of donors, administer more than $40 billion in charitable funds, and address the core concerns of more than 700 communities and regions. With such a presence--nationally and within local communities--comes responsibility.

Achieving confirmation and reconfirming compliance with National Standards is a rigorous process, guaranteeing that every community foundation that receives the designation has adhered to excellent philanthropic practice. This program requires community foundations to document their policies for governance, donor services, investments, grant making, community leadership, and administration.

The Community Foundation for Northern Virginia has obtained its National Standards accreditation by demonstrating a commitment to operational quality, integrity, accountability, and adherence to the highest standards for grant making.

On behalf of the residents of the 8th Congressional District of Virginia, I congratulate the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia on receiving its National Standards accreditation and commend the foundation's dedication to service to the 8th Congressional District and the communities of Northern Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the nation's Better Business Bureaus (``BBB''; originally known as Advertising Vigilance Committees).

The BBBs came into being at the annual meeting of the Associated Advertising Clubs of America in May, 1912, following an editorial in Printer's Ink magazine challenging false and misleading advertising. The first such Vigilance Committee was organized later that year by a group of industry leaders in the fight for truth in advertising and selling.

BBBs are private, non-profit organizations collectively constituting the United States' oldest and largest grassroots business self- regulatory organizations and pre-date the creation of the U.S. government's Federal Trade Commission by two years. Today, they consist of 116 independent BBB offices serving every market area in the United States, an additional 10 international offices serving Canada, and a national coordinating office located in Arlington, Virginia.

Over the past 100 years, BBB's have sought to foster an ethical marketplace where buyers and sellers can trust each other--advancing marketplace trust by creating communities of trustworthy businesses, setting standards, encouraging and supporting best practices, celebrating marketplace role models, and denouncing substandard marketplace behavior.

Throughout the 1920s--at a time when pernicious investment frauds and schemes threatened to undermine public trust in securities markets-- BBBs across the country served the nation as a de facto securities regulator until the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the nation's BBBs were nearly alone in their fight to promote ``Truth in Advertising'' and protect the public from the myriad frauds and schemes that preyed on the nation's beleaguered consumers. During the 1940s, BBBs conducted a relentless effort to educate and protect families on the home front from a number of war-related schemes and provided major technical assistance to the U.S. Government's efforts to coordinate war relief. As U.S. and Canadian soldiers returned from the war, and throughout the dramatic economic expansion of the 1950s, BBBs helped educate veterans and their families on a wide variety of marketplace trust issues-- significantly expanding ``truth in advertising'' review, consumer complaint handling and the availability of consumer information--all at no cost to North American taxpayers.

The BBB system responded to the challenges of the consumer revolution of the late-1960s by merging activities of its National BBB and its Association of BBBs--under the leadership of businessmen Henry Ford II and Elisha (``Bud'') Gray II--into a single, international organization--the Council of Better Business Bureaus. In the period following the creation of that new coordinating body, the BBB system:

Launched its National Advertising Division and National Advertising Review Board (in a

partnership with leading advertising industry associations) and created a special Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) to evaluate child- directed advertising and promotional material in all media against its own standards and relevant laws;

Created a National Consumer Arbitration Program to provide consumers and businesses with a fast, fair and free method of resolving disputes without resorting to overburdened courts;

Consolidated BBB's long-standing role--reviewing publicly-soliciting charitable organizations against a set of standards--into a single Philanthropic Advisory Service (now the BBB Wise Giving Allilance);

Served as the organizing body to create the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals in Business (SOCAP) to ``. . . provide for and promote the exchange of ideas, expertise and opinions relevant to consumer affairs'' and ``to aid business in anticipating, recognizing and responding to consumer needs, desires and expectations''; and

Began the process of utilizing emerging computer technology to better understand consumer dissatisfaction with the marketplace and provide timely, fact-based data for business, consumer groups, regulators and the public.

The BBB system accepted a major challenge in 1983, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and General Motors Corporation (GM) signed a consent order, agreeing to use BBB AUTO LINE'--a consumer mediation and arbitration program--to resolve disputes arising out of certain specified component parts of GM vehicles. In 1991 (when the consent order was to expire), the FTC noted that more than 233,000 consumers received in excess of $68 million from GM through BBB arbitration and millions of other owners received settlements from GM through BBB conciliation and/or mediation. A similar consent order was signed by Volkswagen of America in 1988, also providing for arbitration through the BBB. Today, 28 manufacturers continue to participate in BBB AUTO LINE' nationally, with others participating on a state- by-state basis.

In 1997, the BBB system launched BBBOnLine' at a briefing at the U.S. Capitol for legislators and regulators with business and consumer leaders. This BBB program was designed to take advantage of Internet technology to provide timely information to the millions of people who were becoming ``wired'' through emerging Internet technologies. In 2004, the BBB system launched BBB Military Line to provide free, specialized resources to support military communities in the areas of financial literacy and consumer protection through education, outreach to service members and their families, information, data collection and BBB complaint-handling and dispute resolution.

100 years after the first BBB launched in Minneapolis, BBBs will likely have responded to over 100 million requests from consumers for BBB assistance, will accept, process and attempt to resolve roughly one million consumer complaints and will be supported in that effort by over 400,000 BBB Accredited Businesses and national partners representing many of the world's largest advertisers. In addition, BBB will very often be the ``first responder'' to Wed the public to new and fast-moving frauds and schemes that increasingly use high technology to prey on victims.

This fall, from September 30--October 3, 2012, BBBs from the United States and Canada will gather to celebrate their centennial anniversary in Washington, D.C., highlighting an extraordinary century of service to business and consumers with events in both the District of Columbia and at Mt. Vernon, the home of America's first President. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the BBB, and that this Congress:

(1) Recognizes the 100th anniversary of the advertising industry's ``fight for truth in advertising'' that culminated in the founding of the Better Business Bureau; and

(2) Honors and praises the Better Business Bureau system on the occasion of its anniversary for its work to advance marketplace trust on behalf of businesses and consumers, in cooperation with government and the local, state and federal level, through a transparent process of voluntary self-regulation, public education and marketplace conflict resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise and give gratitude to Jacqueline Bowens, who, after serving for 25 years as Executive Vice President and Chief Government and External Affairs Officer, is leaving Children's National Medical Center.

Jacqueline Bowens joined Children's National to make a difference. She established the first-ever government and community affairs program at Children's National. She and her team played a pivotal role in recruiting support from regional and national leaders, as well as federal agencies, to make sure the hospital kept pace with growing demands for more beds and increased specialized services for the region's children. Following 9/11, she spearheaded the effort to build the region's first pediatric decontamination and quarantine facility at the hospital, so that in the event of another national emergency, children and their families could be treated together.

Under her stewardship, facilities at the hospital were built, expanded and greatly enhanced to address a commitment to patient- and family-centered care. The emergency room at Children's National was expanded and the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, NICU, was enhanced and grown, as was the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, PICU, and the Cardio Intensive Care Unit. Additionally, the East Inpatient Tower was built, the Children's Research Institute was established, the Child Protection program was created, and Children's most-recognized logo--Dr. Bear--was born.

Jacqueline's professionalism and graciousness earned Children's National favored reviews from Congress, the White House, and visiting dignitaries and diplomats from around the world who recognize Children's National as an esteemed, world-class pediatric institution.

I will personally miss working with Jacqueline and can't thank her enough for her tireless dedication and commitment to the children and families of the entire metro region, the country, and the world. While we wish her all the best, she will be greatly missed, as she has become Children's most visible and committed advocate. Ms. Bowens has been the voice for those too little to speak and for their families too consumed with the day-to-day trials that go along with caring for a sick or physically challenged child.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the moment of silence that we extended the victims of the Aurora, Colorado, massacre yesterday. But the more telling silence is this body's refusal to address the issue of gun control. As a result, a comparable number of Americans will be killed by firearms every day. There are 10,000 homicides by firearms in America every year, 19 times the number of firearm deaths in all civilized countries combined.

Today is the anniversary of the shooting deaths of two of our Capitol policemen. We responded to those killings with remorse and even more heartfelt condolences after our colleague Gabby was shot, but 60 more multiple murders have been committed since then.

Thirty-two innocent students at Virginia Tech were massacred, and Virginia's legislative body actually weakened the State's gun control laws, suggesting that the fault was with the students because they weren't carrying firearms themselves. A similar comment was made by a Member of this body after the Aurora killings that there should have been a shootout in that darkened theater.

This is domestic terrorism, Madam Speaker. We ought to stop being so soft on such crime. If this shooting had been committed by foreign terrorists, we'd send the marines out after them, but foreign terrorists don't buy their weapons from dealers who are members of the

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, I support President Obama's proposed offshore drilling lease plan. I will vote for it, but I suspect that it will garner little support, and that's the reason why it was scheduled for consideration today. But unlike the Republican majority in the House who favor drilling above all else, Interior Secretary Salazar and President Obama are acting more responsibly in a balanced fashion.

Their 5-year leasing plan attempts to balance the full range of public and private interests. Their 5-year leasing plan attempts to ensure that our coastal waters will continue to be a shared public resource. They were never meant to be the exclusive domain of the oil and gas industry.

Introducing drilling in new areas, as the gentleman from Washington State's bill would do, will disrupt established industries like commercial fishing and beach tourism. There is no question about that. And there is no need to rush forward and open our entire coast to drilling when 75 percent of our offshore oil and gas resources are already available for drilling. In fact, more oil is in production today under the Obama administration than at any time during the last 14 years. And more of the public's lands and waters have been leased for drilling today than at any previous time in American history.

Onshore, oil companies hold leases on more than 73 million acres of the public's land, though they choose to keep 45 million of those acres inactive.

Offshore, more than 37 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf have been offered for lease, although the oil industry has bid on less than 10 percent of these new available leases. As of June 1 of this year, there were 1,980 rotary drilling rigs operating on U.S. lands and waters, more than all other countries combined.

Now, the President's plan does open up areas in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Alaska's northern coast to oil and gas development. I do have strong misgivings that adequate safeguards have been established to respond to a future oil spill disaster in these seas because drilling will be done in a harsh environment in a remote area where disaster response capabilities are extremely limited and could be compromised by severe weather conditions, which in fact are the norm up there.

But I am in strong agreement that the 2012-2017 plan excludes lease sale 220 that covers waters in the Mid-Atlantic, especially off the coast of Virginia. In addition to commercial fishing interests and tourism, lease sale 220 threatens military readiness, our national security interests, and it intersects shipping lanes for the Atlantic's two busiest commercial ports--Hampton Roads and Baltimore. The U.S. Atlantic fleet is based at the Norfolk Naval Base and operates in these very same waters that the President wants to protect. He wisely proposes simply postponing oil and gas development primarily for that purpose.

According to a report issued by the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Readiness, there should be no lease sales in 72 percent of the proposed 220 lease area since it is in conflict with live ordnance, air surface missile/bomb and gunnery exercises, shipboard qualification trials, carrier qualifications, and follow-on testing and evaluation. An additional 5 percent would interfere with aerial operations and shouldn't host permanent surface structures.

In summary, 78 percent of proposed lease sale 220 that the President wisely postpones would be in areas that conflict with our national security needs; and a good deal of the remaining 22 percent would be within the shipping lanes to the ports of Hampton Roads and Baltimore.

Madam Speaker, our coastal waters are a shared resource that host a number of competing and sometimes incompatible uses. In the interest of the oil and gas industry, and to perpetuate a myth that somehow we can drill our way to lower gasoline prices and energy independence, the Republican majority is demonstrating a disregard for our other economic interests and the livelihood of millions of Americans employed in the fishing and tourism and national security sectors. Their livelihood is needlessly placed at risk in a drilling-above-all-else policy.

So I encourage my colleagues to support the President's balanced legislation and reject the other drilling bill that is on the floor today. The President is trying to do the right thing, and he should be supported. The other bill will have unintended, unforeseen, but inevitably adverse consequences to our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from New Jersey for yielding to me.

I have a few facts that we need to put on the table here:

One, this bill isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be accepted by the Senate, let alone be enacted by the President;

Secondly, we could create more jobs and a more sustainable future if we dropped the subsidies for oil and gas and we redirected them into wind and solar power;

Thirdly, this will have no impact upon the world oil price.

The fact is that we have a good deal of experience that shows that no matter how much production comes out of the United States, it, at best, has a negligible impact upon what consumers pay at the gas pump. Let me introduce some numbers to that effect to prove the point.

We currently consume about 18.8 million barrels of oil a day, and we produce about 5.4 million. Despite the concerted efforts of former oilmen President Bush and Vice President Cheney and a Congress that embraced the ``drill, baby, drill'' mantra, total oil production actually dropped from 2.118 billion barrels in 2001, when President Bush and Vice President Cheney came into office, to 1.812 billion barrels in 2008, when they left office. Under the friendliest, most pro-oil administration, U.S. production declined, despite technological advances in drilling and despite the lifting of previously restricted areas to drilling on land and at sea.

Ironically, oil production today, under the Obama administration, is higher than at any time during the last 14 years. I'll mention that once again. Oil production today is higher, under the Obama administration, than at any time during the last 14 years.

Onshore, oil companies hold leases on more than 73 million acres of the public's land; offshore, more than 37 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf have been offered for lease since 2012.

More of the public's lands and waters are available and have been leased for drilling than at any previous time in U.S. history. It's worth repeating. More of the public's lands and waters are available today and have been leased for drilling than at any previous time in U.S. history.

As of June 1 of this year, there were 1,980 rotary drilling rigs operating on U.S. lands and waters, more than all other countries combined.

But all this activity has had no impact on prices. The fact is we have 36 years of data to show that it will have no impact on the price of oil.

Why are we doing this? That's the real question that needs to be answered. The Associated Press undertook a statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production. The study found that there was no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

U.S. oil production this past spring has been steady, yet the price of regular gasoline has fluctuated by more than 50 cents a gallon over a three month period.

The price spike this past spring can no more be attributed to President Obama and

the false claim that he is failing to drill more than he can be credited with the recent drop in the gasoline prices.

This bill moves us in exactly the opposite direction of what the bipartisan National Oil Spill Commission recommended: that current environmental reviews be more thorough and that oil spill response plans cover all contingencies.

It did not call for an arbitrary mandate to open all areas offshore on an unrealistic timetable, and it did not recommend drilling applicants be granted fast track approval.

This bill dismisses the work of the commission and pretends the trauma we all experienced in 2010, watching day-after-day and month- after-month, as more than 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf didn't happen.

It pretends the suffering and economic losses thousands of residents and local Gulf businesses experienced didn't happen.

This bill returns to the lax regulatory climate that existed before the disaster. It should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate on American Indian reservations averages between 40-50 percent, and it is intergenerational. Income, employment, and educational attainment are all well below the American average. As a member of the Interior Appropriations Committee, I am very much aware of that, as Mr. Cole is. But the fact is every Member of this body should be as intensely aware as Mr. Cole and those supporting this legislation are, of the immense needs in Indian country and the serious shortfall the Federal Government confronts in meeting its obligations to Native Americans and Native Alaskans.

Some have suggested that private enterprise on reservations may help substantially in alleviating that poverty. And with rising income, many of the social and health-related ills that Native Americans confront in disproportionate numbers will decline. That ought to be a national responsibility, and, really, an obligation. The fact is that this act would test the theory by enabling foreign investors to partner with Native Americans on reservations to create new businesses and generate income where little to none exists today.

The legislation complements other legislation that Congress has already passed, allowing tribes to simplify leasing arrangements to address their housing needs. Go to a reservation and see the housing needs. This bill will bring new capital into reservations and simplify the arrangements under which long-term leases with private investors can be executed. While the proposal may initially have focused on foreign investment from one country, Turkey, it has been amended to include all 155 World Trade Organization countries.

I applaud the government of Turkey for coming up with this original proposal and for what is a genuine offer of assistance and friendship.

I understand the objections that have been raised that really have very little to do with this legislation.

I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate the additional time to make a further point.

Turkey and Israel have long enjoyed amicable relations. Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize the State of Israel. The two states remain active trade partners. Their bilateral trade volume is almost $3 billion. It is Israel's sixth-largest trading partner. Israel exports chemicals, agriculture products, and high-tech manufacturing machinery to Turkey. And Turkey exports textiles and transport equipment to Israel. Israel needs Turkey as a trading partner.

The fact is that, according to the Israel-Turkey Business Council, bilateral trade between the two nations increased 35 percent between 2010 and 2011 despite the diplomatic tensions that emerged in 2009. The reality is that they are working together. They want to work together and transcend politics. Bilateral trade is in the interest of both nations.

This is in the interest of the Native American nations. Gosh sakes, they deserve this kind of help after we turned our back on one treaty after another, as has already been said. This is a unique opportunity. We ought to seize it.