Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have the good fortune of representing many bright and promising young people. When they speak selflessly about the need to help those less fortunate and recognize that the federal government has a responsibility to address this need, it renews my hope for a better future.

Yesterday was one such occasion. A young man, Alex Lesser, accompanied by Josh Fixler, Assistant Educator and Youth Director of the Temple B'Nai Shalom Congregation, came to my office on behalf of the Religious Action Center and the Union for Reform Judaism. Alex presented my office with a paper he and his friend, Sam Dixon, wrote jointly on the topic of economic justice and the importance of extending unemployment benefits. Alex's and Sam's eloquent words of reason deserve to be heard by my colleagues. I ask that they be submitted in today's Congressional Record.

Economic Justice

Hello, I am Alex Lesser, and I am Sam Dixon, here on behalf

of the Religious Action Center and the Union for Reform

Judaism. We come from Temple B'nai Shalom in Fairfax Station,

and we are here to talk to you about unemployment insurance.

The economy is still recovering from the economic downturn of

2008. Since the recession started, a total of approximately

8.8 million jobs have been lost. Despite the fact that 2.7

million jobs have been recovered, 6.1 million workers have

not gotten jobs back. The economy is still not in a good

situation. The group that is struggling the most is the

unemployed. And this group is not small: the national rate is

still at 8.5%. Many of these people are food insecure. Being

food insecure means a family or individual does not have the

physical, economic, and social access to safe and nutritious

food and drink. This is an important problem that YOU can

help fix.

As a country that is currently in an economic crisis, it is

not only our duty-but our responsibility to ensure that all

citizens, regardless of economic status, are not at an unfair

disadvantage to one another. However, this does not always

seem to be the case in this nation. We have unfortunately

seen a significant increase in poverty and unemployment over

the past few years, with 3.2 million impoverished Americans

in 2009, and 3.3 million in 2010. With unemployment

insurance, not only will these unemployed individuals be

supported and sustained, but our country as a whole will also

benefit. A recent estimate from the Congressional Budget

Office concluded that for every $1.00 that the government

invests in unemployment benefits, approximately $1.90 will be

added to the U.S. Economy. It seems to me that not only is

this an important step in combating poverty for Americans,

but also a necessary step to get the nation's economy back on

track.

We are here today because Judaism teaches us that this is a

vitally important issue. God commands us in the book of

Deuteronomy that ``if there is a needy person among you . . .

do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your kin.

Rather, you must open your hand and lend whatever is

sufficient'' (Deuteronomy 15:7-11). It teaches us that

providing for the needy is not just a matter of charity, but

an obligation. Judaism also teaches that the highest form of

tzedakah, the Jewish value of charity, is to help a person

achieve self-sufficiency. Unemployment insurance is that

exact type of support that the homeless need to help them get

back on their feet. I think that we can all agree that

poverty is one of the worst fates imaginable. It is one of

the most terrible sufferings. The Union for Reform Judaism

has consistently fought against attempts to weaken the social

safety net. This is clearly a moral choice as well as a

political one.

This past Friday night, we attended a presentation from the

National Coalition for the Homeless, which struck a very

resonant chord in our hearts, all because of one man's story.

Steve, a native Washingtonian and former homeless man, told

us about how he was involved with drugs from a very early

age. As a result of this drug abuse, he lost several high-

paying jobs and his home. Steve mentioned that when he was at

his lowest point, someone offered to help him in his path to

sobriety, and he finally got his life together. After getting

back on his feet, he is now in danger of going back on the

streets due to a debilitating and degenerative disorder. His

story reminded us that this is an extremely important issue

because he was a prime example of a good person whose bad

decisions impacted the rest of his life, making it hard for

him to avoid homelessness. This reminds us that even when it

seems as though someone has hit rock-bottom, the right help

can put them back on the path to success. Part of the reason

that this resonates with me is that we want to make sure that

if our friends and family, as well as those who we will never

meet, will not fall too far if they fall through the cracks.

Clearly, this is an important and timely issue that must be

addressed. Extending unemployment benefits and insurance will

not only help struggling Americans survive this economic

downturn, but will also help the economy grow. We urge

Representative Moran to support legislation that would extend

unemployment insurance for a year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Robert Fitch on the occasion of his retirement as Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, for BAE Systems, Inc. One of my constituents living in Arlington, Virginia, Mr. Fitch has over 41 years of distinguished service to our nation, serving in key management positions in the military, the legislative branch of government, and the aerospace and defense industry.

Prior to his current position, Mr. Fitch served as Senior Vice President, Government Relations, for BAE Systems, Inc. He had responsibility for all legislative affairs and government relations activities for the company's U.S.-based business. He is also a member of the BAE Systems, Inc. Board of Directors. As a senior leader in the company during a period of significant change and growth, he has been recognized on numerous occasions for his commitment to excellence and visionary leadership.

Robert previously held the position of Vice President, Government Relations with Marconi North America and Tracor, Inc. Prior to Tracor, he was the Vice President, Corporate Strategic Development for GDE Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Tracor.

During the 1970's, Mr. Fitch served in the U.S. Army. His assignments included the Pentagon as the Army's functional officer for tactical intelligence programs; Germany as the aide to an infantry division commander; the Cryptologic School as a company commander of 300 men and women; and Vietnam as an advisor. His awards include the Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star.

From 1984 to 1993, Mr. Fitch was the Senior Professional Staff Member and Director of the Program and Budget Authorization Staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. His responsibilities included oversight and coordination of staff reviews of national and tactical intelligence activities. Specific areas of specialty included space and airborne reconnaissance, industrial base, acquisition reform and support to military operations. In December 1992, he served on the Intelligence Transition Team for the new administration.

He holds a bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Rhode Island and an MBA from the Graduate School of Management at the University of Dallas. Most recently, Robert completed the Program for Senior Executives in National and International Security at Harvard University.

Mr. Fitch is a member of the George C. Marshall Foundation's Board of Trustees; Ford's Theatre Board of Governors; and the National Cryptologic Museum Foundation's Board of Directors. He is a member of the Sigma Iota Epsilon Business Honor Society, and is a Principal for the Council for Excellence in Government. He has served on the USO World Board of Governors; Board of Directors for the National Military Intelligence Association; and on the Technical Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the efforts and accomplishments of this outstanding industry leader. I congratulate and thank Bob Fitch for his many years of service to this nation and wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, where are the Republicans?

Democrats stand ready to extend tax cuts for 160 million middle income Americans, unemployment insurance, and making sure seniors can keep their Medicare doctors.

But where are the Republicans? The February deadline is rapidly approaching and conferees should be meeting.

But to date, the Republicans haven't called a single meeting to discuss these critical economic benefits. Where are they?

According to the Majority, we are in session. This is an attempt to prevent the President from making critical appointments tasked with protecting American consumers and workers.

But as I stand in this empty chamber it is clear the House is not in session. The Majority cannot have it both ways.

Under Republican rules: pro forma sessions are ``real'' and can stop Presidential nominee appointments, but I'm not recognized to speak on the floor.

Under their rules, critically important bills that would block the debt limit and force our nation to default for the first time in its history can be introduced, but I can't speak.

Under Republican rules, extensions of remarks that reflect the exact words I would speak on the floor can be put in the Congressional Record, but I can't actually be heard saying those words on the House floor.

They can introduce their bill to cause a default but I can't be recognized to talk about extending middle class tax cuts or creating jobs.

This is the absurd reality of the Republican pro forma legislative session.

The clock is ticking on the American people and the Majority seems unconcerned.

Right now, the Speaker and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a member of the conference committee, are in Latin America. No meetings of the Conference Committee have been convened.

The payroll tax cut in effect for 2011 provided $110 billion of tax relief to 159 million American workers. If the payroll tax cut is not extended by the end of February, middle class families making $50,000 will see their taxes go up by $1,000.

Extending the payroll tax cut will boost consumer demand, sustaining our economic recovery and encouraging job creation. Lack of demand continues to be a significant barrier to economic growth and hiring. Consumer spending represents roughly 70 percent of our economy, and consumer confidence is at levels not seen since the recession.

According to the Chief Economist of Moody's Analytics, Mark Zandi, continuing the payroll tax cut for employees will result in $1.25 of economic growth for every $1 of budgetary cost.

Federal unemployment programs are also slated to expire. As a result, over 6 million will lose benefits over the next year.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that allowing these Federal unemployment benefits to expire would hurt consumer demand and thereby cost the U.S. economy 528,000 jobs. And would mean $45 billion less in assistance to unemployed workers, and $70 billion less in economic activity. That reduction in purchasing power would lower GDP by 0.4 percent.

The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that providing extended unemployment benefits is one of the most effective job creation strategies available during a period of high joblessness, stating ``Households receiving unemployment benefits tend to spend the additional benefits quickly, making this option both timely and cost- effective in spurring economic activity and employment.''

The Federal government has never allowed emergency extended benefits to expire when the jobless rate has been anywhere close to its current level of nearly 9 percent. In fact, Congress has never allowed an emergency unemployment program to end when the unemployment rate is higher than 7.2 percent. We must not be the first Congress to do so.

The American people deserve a House Majority prepared to work for them.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to join the chorus in commending Chairman Rogers, Chairman Simpson, and our ranking member, Norm Dicks, and the phenomenal work of the appropriations staff on both sides. Rich Healey and Shalanda Young, for example, have been working on this bill for the last several months, sometimes through the night. But all the pros on the appropriations staff, they are led by David Pomerantz; his deputy, Lesley Turner; Bill Inglee. They are pros, and they all deserve special recognition.

Mr. Speaker, this is a vast improvement over the Interior and Environment bill considered by the House in July. The agreement provides $1.7 billion more than the initial House allocation. And $8.4 billion is provided for EPA, it's 1.3 over the House bill. The agreement maintains basically level funding for the operation of the National Park Service, and it restores funding for the science programs in USGS land and water conservation front programs are increased by $22 million over last year's level. And it's important to note that we've restored funding for endangered species and critical habitat listings.

Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson spearheaded a bipartisan effort in support of funding for Native American programs. And as a result, the Indian Health Service is increased by 6 percent, important increases in education, public safety, and tribal government. This agreement doesn't abandon our commitment to the arts.

In fact, NEA and NEH are each given $11 million over the House allocation. It's equal to the President's request.

Just as important, though, as what is included in this agreement is what is not. The conferees dropped more than two dozen unacceptable environmental riders that were a part of the House bill. Gone are the greenhouse gas, the Grand Canyon uranium mining, the mountain top mining removal riders to name just a few. This is not to say that the bill is completely devoid of any environmental restrictions, but this is a compromise. And I can say that in nearly every instance what has been included is significantly improved over what was originally proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this. This is the way things were meant to be done in this body. Politics was meant to be the art of compromise, with people acting in good faith for the betterment of their country. That's what this omnibus appropriations bill is all about. And so it deserves to be passed unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, today, I come before this body to give praise and express gratitude to Dottie P. Marshall, National Park Service Superintendent for the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Dottie is retiring this month after close to forty years of service with the National Park Service. She began her career in 1971 as a member of the Youth Conservation Corps at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. She went on to direct one of the service's Youth Conservation Corps camps. Over the years she has been a budget analyst, administrative officer, Deputy Superintendent, Associate Regional Director and Superintendent.

I first met Dottie when she began work at the George Washington Memorial Parkway more than 12 years ago. The Parkway is the largest contiguous property in my congressional district. It includes Arlington House, the Robert E. Lee Memorial and the Women in the Military Service for America Memorial, more than 29 sites and resources. They all enhance the lives of my constituents on a daily basis. Of course, throughout our acquaintance there have been dozens of contentious issues we have had to deal with over the years. But, almost all of them have been resolved amicably. And in the pressure cooker that the Nation's capital can become, she has deftly managed to solve problems large and small before any lids were blown. Dottie epitomizes ``grace under fire.''

Recounting them now is like a walk down memory lane. From standing with her when rumors about the imminent closure of the popular Belle Haven Marina generated a large and angry turnout to discussing which type of plant would be the ideal buffer between a residential neighborhood and Jones Point Park, Dottie has shown leadership and wisdom. In every circumstance and on every occasion, Dottie has been fair, honest and dedicated in her commitment to resolve whatever matter was at hand. In fact, long ago she earned my respect, trust and appreciation.

I am particularly proud of several major projects that she successfully completed, including restoration of the Slave Quarters at Arlington House, improving the ramp from the 14th Street Bridge onto the northbound lanes of the parkway and honoring the World War II veterans who finally received their long overdue recognition for their intelligence work at the secret interrogation facility known as ``P.O. Box 1142,'' today known as Fort Hunt.

I wish her the best in her future pursuits. Dottie can take pride in knowing her skillful management will ensure that of many of our Nation's treasured historic, cultural and natural resources will endure long after we are all gone.

Dottie, congratulations on a job well done, and thank you for your exceptional service.

Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of religious freedom, I share the desire of many of my colleagues that our international relationships and foreign policy should reflect our values. A legacy of intolerance and violent conflict is still palpable in Turkey, decades after the upheavals and population transfers that took place as the Ottoman Empire collapsed. Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, and others still live with this legacy, and for many decades Turkey's government failed to account for it or to take any steps to recognize it.

Yet, Turkey is undergoing profound and very hopeful changes today. The current Turkish leadership demonstrates an understanding of these changes. They are challenging entrenched, conservative orthodoxies and facing the past in ways that I believe we should encourage. That is why I cannot support the resolution before us today. It is out of step with the reality of today's Turkey, the U.S.-Turkish alliance, and the political realities in the Eastern Mediterranean.

I am concerned that H. Res. 306 would not only send the wrong signal, it would cause the deterioration of a relationship with an important ally without advancing the laudable goal of religious freedom.

The fact is, the Turkish government is moving in the right direction on this issue, and of their own accord. Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey announced last August that his government would return hundreds of properties that were confiscated from religious minorities by the state or other parties since 1936, and would pay compensation for properties that were seized and later sold.

I don't think such a gesture should be repaid by a sense of Congress that claims that ``the Republic of Turkey has been responsible for the destruction and theft of much of the Christian heritage within its borders'' and which accuses our strongest Muslim ally of ``official and unofficial acts of discrimination, intolerance, and intimidation.'' This is a government that has fought beside our soldiers in Afghanistan, and has provided training, overflight and logistical support that have been critical to the United States in Iraq.

While we debate this resolution, we can't ignore the fact that Turkey has taken important steps forward regarding civil and political rights, and is even now developing a new constitution to reflect Turkey's diverse society and its aspirations to become a more active member of the global community. This orientation should be encouraged. The resolution before us, in my view, does nothing to encourage Turkey on that path, regardless of what its backers are claiming.

Only in the last few months, Turkey has taken some very difficult and controversial steps that support the foreign policy of the United States. Perhaps the best example, and least well-known, is in Libya. While U.S. and N.A.T.O. forces were protecting Libyan civilians from a depraved dictator, the Republic of Turkey agreed to serve as a ``protecting power'' on behalf of the United States. In that capacity they represented the United States in Libya, including acting as consular officers on behalf of U.S. citizens in Libya and looking after American diplomatic facilities in the country. They also fully supported our goal of protecting the Libyan opposition, and pledged financial and material support to NATO to bring about a free, democratic, secure, stable, and united Libya. Is this how we repay them?

Another example of Turkey's positive role in the Mediterranean region is their government's decision to host a U.S. radar warning system in the southeastern region of the country. This is a landmark agreement for the alliance. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the installation a ``critical contribution'' to the Alliance's efforts to address the growing threat of proliferation. This effort is not inconsistent with Turkey's leadership on issues of international security--only last month Turkey hosted an important international security conference on Afghanistan, and Turkey continues to participate in military and civilian efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And Turkey has also demonstrated a willingness to challenge undemocratic and despotic neighbors, despite the risk to its own economic interests. The Turkish government has imposed sanctions on the Assad regime in Syria, and erected trade barriers that will make it harder for the dictatorship to remain in place. And the Erdogan government has also distanced itself from Iran by pushing for secular, democratic governments in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. These are not easy steps for the Turkish government to take--Iran and Syria account for much of Turkey's eastern border and a large part of its trade. But they are pushing ahead, because they share our concern for democratic values. Turkey's government is showing that there can be no real peace without moral principles.

The resolution before us seems utterly ignorant of these critical developments. I cannot

support it, despite my profound wish that Turkey fully embrace the full diversity represented within its borders. Further, I would like to see the current government of Turkey--as well as the governments of Greece and Armenia--fully and fairly recognize the enduring pain that conflict and hatred have wrought in its territory. I feel that under Prime Minister Erdogan, that process of acceptance and accountability has begun. We in the United States Congress can support a process of authentic reconciliation, and we should.

Turkey is our strong ally and friend. By shoring up our friendship, we can have discussions about the shortcomings we see in our ally. But this resolution fails to meet the basic standard of an enduring alliance, and therefore must oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, in June 2010 President Obama signed into law the most far-reaching and carefully targeted sanctions ever imposed on Iran. Later that same month, the Administration also succeeded in bringing the United Nations Security Council to issue further, multilateral sanctions. In May, the United Nations issued a report demonstrating that these multilateral sanctions were having a serious, deleterious impact on Iran's ability to pursue nuclear weapons.

The reason these sanctions are having such an impact is that they have garnered the cooperation of allies around the world, who saw that this Administration was willing to engage Iran. If those allies now deem that we are turning back from that posture of engagement, and returning to the unilateralism of the Bush Administration, I am concerned that our effort to isolate the Iranian regime will collapse. It is the comprehensive diplomacy of the Obama Administration that has unified our European allies and brought them on board. That could end.

And in addition, the sanctions called for by H.R. 1905, are less targeted and more indiscriminate. They will have an impact, but that impact will not be directly related to our justified concern over human rights or Iran's nuclear military goals. Rather, they would hurt Iranians of all walks of life, including those we hope will become an effective opposition to

the current leadership. The recent IAEA report shows that Iran is not complying with its obligations under the treaty. We urgently need to keep a united front on the goal of preventing Iran from advancing its nuclear military capability. These sanctions could undermine that effort.

This bill is the wrong move for the global economy as well. In the middle of a very fragile economic recovery, these new sanctions could wreak havoc in the world oil market, right in the middle of winter, a time of our highest consumption. Already, we see oil prices rising. According to the Wall Street Journal, new sanctions could increase the price of oil by up to $1 per gallon. That would be terrible for U.S. consumers, businesses and the economy. But it would be very good for Iran's leaders.

In fact, the sanctions would do more to help Iran's Supreme Leader and President than hurt them. Last week, the fierce competition between President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei was threatening to boil over when an embezzlement scandal roiled the Iranian leadership. The Washington Post reported this week that President Ahmadinejad admitted that the country is having a hard team with sanctions, and that now is not the time to shake things up in the government. In other words, external pressure unified rival factions, and helped the repressive regime to achieve a united front.

These sanctions could also hurt Iranian Americans. Sanctions on Iran's Central Bank will make it hard for Iranian Americans to send money to relatives in Iran. That could mean that an Iranian living in the United States has no legal way of helping his parents or grandparents. It could force them to pursue unsafe and illegal channels to send legal remittances to family members. That would be a terrible injustice, and it would be bad for U.S. interests. The Iranian American community is our best way to reach out to people in Iran, and we should not be making it harder for them to do so.

The sanctions could also hurt innocent Iranians in other ways. Aside from making it harder to import food and medicine, this bill bans the licensing of sales of spare parts for civilian airliners. Iran's airlines are already among the most dangerous in the world because of the difficulty in maintaining them under sanctions. Over 1,000 people have died in air crashes in the last ten years.

Lastly, this bill is wrong because it would be an expression to the world that the United States is not interested in having a relationship with the people of Iran. As it stands now, we have very little understanding of what is really happening inside Iran. The Obama Administration has strengthened our capacity to know what is happening inside the country by adding to a network of diplomats in missions around the world focusing on developments in Iran.

But we have a long way to go. Recently Admiral Mike Mullen said that this absence of contact is hurting us. At a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event shortly before he retired, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said: ``Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran, so we don't understand each other.''

I agree with Admiral Mullen: we need more contact with Iran--about Afghanistan, the drug trade, and human rights--not less. Ambassador Tom Pickering, in a recent Newsweek essay, also criticized this bill because of the constitutional questions it raises about the separation of powers.

CISADA sanctions and U.N. measures are having a serious effect, and intensifying rifts in Iran's leadership. This bill would close those rifts as Iran's leaders circle their wagons, and would give them an excuse as to why things are bad on the economic front. I can't support it as it is written.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which we will be voting on today.

The bill does include provisions that are vital to our national defense, but it also includes provisions that present a false choice between our safety and our values.

Section 1021 would authorize the indefinite military detention of all terrorism suspects. Allowing the United States military to detain individuals, some of whom may be innocent, without charge or trial during this endless war on terrorism undermines our most defining principles as a Nation of individual freedom and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, our civilian law enforcement agencies have proven themselves capable of apprehending, interrogating, and prosecuting terrorism suspects. In fact, civilian courts have overseen the successful prosecution of more than 400 terrorists--the military courts only six.

This Congress should not impose these law enforcement duties upon our troops. It is un-American and unconstitutional. We should reject the false choice between our short-term security and our long-term survival as the leader of the free world.

I thank the very distinguished former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

This Republican bill is neither effective nor responsible. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, eliminating Federal agency rulemaking as we know it is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

Mr. Chairman, despite what the House majority would like you to believe, our Federal regulatory process is a model the world over. Delegations from other countries frequently visit our government agencies to learn how their governments can best ensure public involvement while maximizing government effectiveness and efficiency. Why? Because our regulatory system is the most open and the most fair system in the world.

Current law already guarantees that proposed regulations get widely published and receive extensive public participation. The proof of that is that proposed Federal regulations receive hundreds, thousands, even millions of public comments. The U.S. Forest Service, for example, received over 1.6 million comments on its roadless rule and held over 600 public meetings.

And public involvement doesn't stop there. Federal agencies are required by law to consider and respond to each comment received. Commenters frequently request and receive comment-period extensions. And when agencies learn of legitimate problems with their proposed regulations, they change or withdraw them to address those concerns.

As an additional check on Federal rulemaking, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act. This law already provides a 60-day waiting period before a final rule becomes effective. And during that delay, Congress can disapprove an agency rule by joint resolution.

The fact is that Federal agencies already have the right attitude about regulation. I think Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke summed up agency regulatory philosophy best: We seek to implement the will of Congress in a manner that provides the greatest benefit at the lowest cost to society as a whole.

This bill takes America in the wrong direction--one full of risk and cost that will put the public's health and safety at great risk.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join Chairman Conyers in opposing this wrong legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the American Society for Training and Development, ASTD, as the largest association dedicated to the training and development profession, recognizing them for their annual Employee Learning Week, held December 5 through the 9, 2011.

Members of ASTD come from more than 100 countries and connect locally in 125 U.S. chapters with 20 international partners. They work in thousands of organizations of all sizes, in government, as independent consultants, and as suppliers.

Established in 1943, ASTD is a leader in the training and development field. As businesses seek competitive advantages and growth, learning and development professionals make sure an organization's best asset, its employees, have the skills they need to help achieve business growth. ASTD serves this important community of professionals with research and resources.

To further these goals, ASTD has declared December 5 though December 9, 2011, as ``Employee Learning Week'' and designated time for organizations to recognize the strategic value of employee learning. I applaud ASTD and its members for their dedication to developing knowledgeable and skilled employees during Employee Learning Week.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting policies that commit to maintaining a highly skilled workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Peggy J. Baggett, who will retire as the Executive Director of the Virginia Commission for the Arts (VCA) on November 30, 2011. During her more than 30 years of service with the Commission for the Arts, Ms. Baggett directed the organization in an honest and innovative fashion, ensuring that all needs were met with the utmost attention.

After receiving her Master's degree in Arts Administration, Ms. Baggett joined the Virginia Commission for the Arts in 1976 as their Regional Coordinator. Her long list of responsibilities included: publicizing the programs and services of the Commission; providing assistance to arts organizations in applying for funds; evaluating activities funding by the Commission; coordinating the statewide Artists-in-Schools program; and consulting with non-profit arts organizations on a wide range of management problems.

In 1980, after only four years at the organization, Ms. Baggett was appointed as the Executive Director by Governor John Dalton. Her capacity to handle complex and long-term projects has been exceptionally impressive. Ms. Baggett's accountability oversaw the investment of state and federal resources in the arts and built a multi-tiered review system that is regarded as effective, fair, and consistent by leaders in the arts across the state. She has effectively worked with key legislators on both sides of the aisle on issues of importance to arts and culture while working in the administrations of three Republican Governors and five Democratic Governors. Ms. Baggett is nationally hailed as an expert on state resources, keeping the administrative costs of the agency low while focusing on providing the best possible service to the people of Virginia.

Peggy Baggett's long list of accomplishments includes numerous recognitions and awards. On January 8, 2011, she was awarded the Leadership in the Arts Award by the Virginia Center for the Creative Arts (VCCA) ``for her dedication and inspiring leadership in the arts of Virginia for over three decades and eight governors.'' Additionally, she garnered the Anne Brownson Award for Service to the Museum Profession from the Virginia Association of Museums in 2002, Award of Distinction from the Folk Art Society of Virginia in 2001, the Gary Young Award for Leadership in the State Arts Agency field from the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies in 1999 and, in 1992, was named an Outstanding Woman of Virginia by the James Madison University Woman Faculty.

Along with her work at the Virginia Commission for the Arts, Peggy's clear dedication to the arts extends far beyond her regular working hours. From 1981 to 2009, she was on the Board of Directors of the Mid Atlantic Arts Foundation, which provides arts programs from Virginia to New York. During that time, she sat on the Board of Directors for the Richmond-First Club, serving as their President from 1995 to 1996, and was also on the Board of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies from 1989 to 1995. From 1983 to 1985, she served on the Board for the Virginia Women's Cultural History Project. She has been also been a member of the Board and Chair of the Advisory Board for the Center for Arts Administration at the University of Wisconsin several times.

Ms. Baggett has continually and generously lent her skill and expertise to others by volunteering as an Advisory Panelist for numerous National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) programs during her career. Additionally, she has worked as an Advisory Panelist and expert for other arts institutions across the country. Her recent accomplishments are a reflection of her work at the VCA. Ms. Baggett's planning, oversight, and coordination surrounding the 2008 Governor's Awards for the Arts, the first Virginia Heritage Awards in 2009, and for MINDS WIDE OPEN: Virginia Celebrates Women in the Arts, the Commonwealth's largest collaboration in history in the arts and cultural community, were exemplary. Her industrious oversight and coordination of the distribution of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds for the arts in Virginia was well-executed and effective. Throughout her career at the VCA, Ms. Baggett has continued to promote the growth of the arts and cultural districts in localities across the state through conferences and training.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Peggy J. Baggett upon her retirement from the Virginia Commission for the Arts as their Executive Director. She has brought joy to countless individuals through her support and development of the arts in Virginia. I sincerely thank her for her service, and wish her the very best in all of her future endeavors.

I will try to take full advantage of those extra 56 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, and I want to speak on its behalf.

I heard about a conversation that Bill Clinton had with Steve Jobs. Apple Computer has about 200,000 employees outside of the borders of the United States, I understand. I believe it's Walter Isaacson in his biography of Steve Jobs who talks about a conversation he had with President Clinton, where the former President asked, What would it take to get all these employees back into the United States? Mr. Jobs said, You give me 30,000 highly skilled workers in the United States and we'll bring those jobs back.

And that's what this is about. It's having access within the United States to the most highly skilled engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, who will in turn generate the kind of economic activity that we all want in terms of job creation and national economic growth.

In the northern Virginia area, we're very fortunate to have a strong high-tech sector.

But for that tech sector to continue to grow and expand, we have got to have a workforce not only adequate in terms of quantity, but particularly in terms of quality. We know how important technology firms are going to be in the global economy of the 21st century; but I don't think we fully take into account how important it is to continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world who, in fact, do want to go to graduate school here and do want to continue residing in the United States and to work here applying their talents and skills.

Now, under current law, employment-based and family-sponsored immigrant visas for the natives of any particular country can't exceed 7 percent of the total of those visas made available that year. That cap hinders the ability of high-tech firms in the United States to hire the top talent from countries like India and China who have a disproportionately large number of individuals with the education and the experience that are sought after by many of these technology companies. It doesn't make sense to continue enforcing outdated, arbitrary caps that make it harder for companies to hire the employees that they need and that we need to grow and prosper within the United States.

This legislation eliminates per-country limits on the allotment of high-skilled green cards without adding a single additional green card to the system. It also increases per-country limits from 7 percent to 15 percent--more than double--in the family-based immigration system, helping reduce substantial backlogs in the family-based system as well. It doesn't add any additional visas but, rather, it more rationally distributes the allotment already available.

I will try to be judicious in using that time. I very much thank my good friend from Memphis for yielding me the time.

This legislation is modest in scope, but it is very important because it puts this country in the right direction of economic growth.

Now, I want to say I wish we would set our ambitions higher in the whole area of immigration. Our immigration system is broken; it needs a fundamental overhaul. We ought to have comprehensive immigration reform that makes strategic investments in border security, improves workplace verification of employees, and establishes a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants currently in the country. But maybe we can use this kind of a debate to reflect upon the much broader benefits to our country that would accrue by improving our immigration system and continuing to pursue a comprehensive solution.

But regardless of whether we can get the more ambitious legislation, the bill before us today fixes a real problem that today harms our Nation's competitiveness. That's why it has bipartisan support; that's why it's the right thing to do; and I think it's terribly important for the area of our economy which is going to produce the most jobs in the future, the most competitive jobs, with the highest profit margins that we can then sell to the rest of the world.

So, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the sponsors of this legislation and would hope that we would get unanimous support for it.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have to rise in opposition to this balanced budget amendment. I did vote for a similar measure in 1995, but the events over the last 15 years have brought to mind the axiom ``fool me once, your fault; fool me twice, my fault.'' I could never have imagined back in 1995 the chaos we experienced this summer.

Despite the fact that we only needed to obtain a simple majority vote to raise the debt limit, which we'd raised 17 times during the Reagan administration, that would seem like child's play compared to what we would have to go through if this balanced budget amendment passed.

The events of these last 15 years have proved to us that this bill would have dramatic and dangerous consequences for our economic future. It would force the Federal Government to worsen economic recessions. Since Federal revenues fall while human needs rise in economic downturns, this bill would force spending cuts and tax increases at precisely the point when the economy is reeling, potentially turning a

manageable downturn into a depression. Essentially, this bill would forbid countercyclical spending.

Had this amendment been on the books in 2009, for example, we would not have passed the Economic Recovery Act, which proved to be a critical response to the economic catastrophe that followed the financial crisis. One of the reasons that the Recovery Act was necessary is that State balanced budget amendments forced States to rely on Federal funds in order to make up for budget shortfalls that would have prompted cuts right at the time when State economies could least afford them. The Federal Government was effectively borrowing on behalf of the States that were constitutionally prohibited from doing so; but they desperately needed to in order to maintain their law enforcement, their transportation, and their other responsibilities.

Even in Texas, where Republican Governor Perry and the legislature opposed the Recovery Act, Federal stimulus funds were used to close 97 percent of that State's budget gap. Now that those dollars are gone, many States face a very serious budget crisis.

I thank the gentleman.

Furthermore, House Joint Resolution 2 would require a three-fifths majority to raise the debt ceiling. This would only increase the likelihood of a catastrophic debt default like the one we barely avoided this summer.

Given the polarization that we're currently experiencing, I have severe doubts that the required supermajority could be secured either to respond to crises or to raise the debt ceiling. This would give preference to military action over economic crises, requiring only a majority for deficit spending for a war--such as the Iraq war, which was never paid for--but a three-fifths majority to respond to a domestic economic crisis. If this were enacted in 2012, it would require drastic cuts that would have unintended, but dire, consequences for our struggling economy.

It's the wrong medicine for today's ailing economy.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, the first reason this bill should be defeated is that it usurps State authority and replaces it with a lowest-common-denominator Federal directive.

This is a radical piece of legislation. In fact, today 43 States are not in compliance with this law; 38 States today prevent people from carrying concealed weapons if they have certain dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions; 35 States require the completion of a short gun safety program.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has weakened its gun laws over the past 2 years, allowing concealed guns in bars and renewal of permits by mail. I disagree with these actions, but I would never question the general assembly's authority to make these decisions.

But this bill makes our State legislature's judgment irrelevant. This is a Federal power grab coming from a majority that claims to be a defender of States' rights.

The second reason that this bill should be defeated is that our law enforcement professionals oppose it. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association, the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police all oppose this bill. Why? Because they know that it will be nearly impossible for police to verify the validity of 49 different carry permits, placing officers in potentially life-threatening situations.

Some States don't even keep verifiable databases of those who have been issued concealed-carry permits. Law enforcement is trying to curb illegal gun smuggling, but this bill allows traffickers with concealed- carry permits to transport firearms into destination States and present an unverifiable permit if stopped by police.

This is a blatant legislative overreach, presumably because it was next on the NRA's legislative wish list.

We should defeat this bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Sergeant Major Henry Welford Jackson II for 33 years of exceptional service to the United States Army. Sergeant Major Jackson plans to retire from active duty on December 3, 2011.

Henry W. Jackson II entered the United States Army on July 5, 1977. His extensive military education and training has allowed him to excel as both a soldier and a teacher. He received an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, Hawaii, a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Criminal Justice from Park University in Parkville, Missouri and is currently pursuing a Masters in Criminal Justice with Troy University.

Since 2004, Sergeant Major Jackson has served as the Inspector General Sergeant Major with the Office of the Inspector General, where he worked with utmost distinction as the senior enlisted advisor and assistant to the Inspector General, Senior Noncommissioned Officer, and Senior Assistant Inspector General.

His outstanding leadership during his final tour of a distinguished 33-year active duty career exemplifies the highest traditions of service while positively influencing virtually every major aspect of the Army. During this period, Sergeant Major Jackson's record of accomplishments set a standard of excellence in keeping with the proudest traditions of military service. As the principal enlisted advisor, his candid and insightful counsel was essential in informing senior Army leadership on issues impacting the force and representing the Soldier's perspective on these issues.

Within the Agency, he supervised readiness and training of IG offices worldwide for attendance in the Army's premiere training institution-- the Inspector General School; and he was instrumental in the selection of senior non-commissioned officers for Inspector General assignments across the Army. He also served as a trusted confidant to the Sergeant Major of the Army, advising him on all aspects of Army and Soldier issues. During his time with the United States Army Inspector General Agency, he personally mentored and inspired over 4,230 officers, non- commissioned officers, and civilians to graduate from the Inspector General School. He meticulously ensured that Inspectors General across the Army provide only the finest support to the Army's senior leaders, and that those personnel selected to be Army Inspectors General were only soldiers and civilians of the highest caliber. He has continuously trained and mentored Inspector General Personnel across the Army, ensuring they maintain the highest degree of professionalism and expertise in their assignments as Army Inspectors General.

Prior to his current assignment, SGM Jackson served as the Chief Operations Sergeant and the Assistance and Investigations Non- Commissioned Officer for Headquarters, Fifth United States Army at Fort Sam Houston.

SGM Jackson has served in a variety of staff and leadership positions both in the states and overseas. Throughout his military career, he has served in a variety of units such as Airborne, Light & Mechanized Infantry assignments. Additionally, he has served as a Rifleman, Drill Sergeant, Senior Drill Sergeant, Platoon Sergeant, Operations Sergeant, and as an S-2 Non-Commissioned Officer.

He has honorably been decorated with numerous awards and decorations, all of which are a true testament to his hard work and commitment to making our country a safer, more peaceful place.

I would like to give my utmost sincere thanks to Henry for his 33 years of service. SGM Jackson's decisive leadership and mentorship has left a lasting impression on the thousands of Soldiers he has interacted while in service, helping to develop Army Values and Warrior Ethos within all of them. Throughout his entire career, he has embodied the Noncommissioned Officer Creed and ensured mission accomplishment while always taking care of soldiers. I congratulate Sergeant Major Jackson on the completion of an exemplary active-duty career and wish him and his wife Jennifer well on the next phase of their life.