Floor Statements

Thank you, Congressman Garamendi. And I realize there's congressional districts in California that are probably bigger than Rhode Island and Connecticut combined, so I won't hold it against you too hard.

Thank you for taking time on the floor today to spend some time talking about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This really is the moment of truth right now.

Yesterday, the Republican leadership came out with their package in terms of trying to deal with the so-called fiscal cliff, and even though, for months, they have not really fleshed out with great detail where they wanted to see savings, yesterday they did. They came out with a proposal which talked about raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67.

They talked about recalculating the cost-of-living-adjustment for seniors who are on Social Security. It's the so-called chained CPI, which would lower the year-in and year-out increase for people on Social Security in terms of keeping up with the cost of living.

These proposals really need a full, vigorous debate before the American

people before we move in that direction, which I would argue, and certainly you and others here this afternoon, would be the wrong direction for middle class and working family Americans.

You know, in terms of Medicare, I think it's really important, historically, to review how Medicare came into existence.

In 1965, when it was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on the porch of Harry Truman's house in Independence, Missouri, only half of America's seniors had any insurance whatsoever. Because of age, because of preexisting condition, because the insurance company, frankly, just viewed them as too high a risk, and because of cost, only half of America's seniors had any insurance whatsoever. Life expectancy in America in 1965 was 70 years old.

With that stroke of a pen by Lyndon Johnson, the genius of Medicare was created, which created a pool for people above the age of 65 and people on disability, a pool which could spread risk out and make the challenge of covering people at that age much more manageable. And for the following 47, 48 years, we have had a system which now has brought life expectancy for Americans up to age 78. In other words, having people in a situation where they can access needed medical care, in fact, lengthened people's lives and, in some instances, actually added to the economy because some people even continued to work, to a degree, who are on Medicare.

It has really accomplished its mission which was visualized the day that President Johnson signed it into law. It does face challenges. There's no question that demographics, with the baby boom coming on the horizon, is going to increase the number of people in the program, but the way you solve that problem is just make it smarter and more efficient.

When President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in March of 2010, last year there were some really solid, smart changes that were made to the Medicare system to make sure that the cost per patient would be moderated, but not that it would cut benefits or kick people off the program, which is what the Republicans are proposing to do, saying people who are 65 and 66 would no longer be eligible under their proposal.

This chart which I brought along with me this afternoon is based on Standard & Poor's Dow Jones Index, which tracks the Medicare program every single month in terms of per capita spending, and it shows, again, back as recently as 2005, 2006, per capita expenditure for Medicare was actually quite high. It was over 7 percent per patient, and that, obviously, is an unsustainable level under almost really any circumstance, but over time it moderated.

And then this red line shows the day that President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, which put a number of really intelligent changes into Medicare, promoting preventive care services, prescription drug coverage, making sure people will get their colonoscopies and their cancer screenings, and also saying to hospitals, hey, if people show up at your emergency room 30 days after you just treated them, we're going to penalize you. You've got to do a better job of monitoring care in the community. And that change, by itself, is already promoting a lot more collaboration on a much more cost-effective, better way for people.

Who wants to be in an emergency room? You want to be home with your care being provided, not sitting, again, in a hospital room waiting for life-or-death treatment.

So since that date, when President Obama signed it into law, the per capita growth rate under Medicare is now down to its lowest level in the history of program--2 percent per capita growth. And the fact of the matter is we can do more. We can actually build on that success of the Affordable Care Act.

Anybody watch ``60 Minutes'' on Sunday? They had a story about a hospital system which basically was threatening to fire doctors if they didn't admit patients according to certain quotas because they're, again, chasing that fee-for-service incentive that is in old Medicare. I mean, those are the kinds of, in that case, fraud, but in other instances, you know, changing that fee-for-service incentive can actually bring this number down even much more dramatically, and we don't have to touch a hair on the head of any Medicare-eligible senior in America for decades to come if we make those smart changes.

So the fact of the matter is we're seeing great progress just, again, in the last 2 years, 2\1/2\ years. And the fact is that there are very good ideas about ways of making the system much more efficient.

And I will tell you, and I know my Members that are here on the floor will agree with this. When you go and visit a hospital or when you go and visit medical groups, the changes in electronic records, the changes in terms of incentivizing preventive care have been embraced by the medical community. They actually understand how wasteful the high volume fee-for-service system is in terms of just not only taxpayers, but also the resources that are precious and should be really allocated to all Americans, not just those who have good insurance that can reimburse for those procedures.

So the fact of the matter is we can do far better than kicking 65- and 66-year-olds out of the system as a way of protecting Medicare solvency, and that should be the direction that we go with these discussions over the financial future of the public finances of this government.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Garamendi for organizing this discussion here today because it's important to get these facts out.

Again, I think it's important--and you touched on this, John--when the Affordable Care Act was passed in March of 2010, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting out some savings because of the ACA. But they were figuring about 4 percent per capita growth. Again, as you pointed out, this chart now shows we're down to 2 percent. So they have actually been revising their estimates over the last 2 years. And the net savings, the recalculation just in the last 2 years has been hundreds of billions of dollars of lower expenditure than they had first thought was going to be the case.

When you compare that magnitude of savings with, for example, raising the eligibility age to 67, they're dwarfed. It is really just a small portion of what efficiencies in the system are capable of producing. And the fact of the matter is that raising the eligibility age, there's no free lunch. The fact is that even though these are people that will be challenged in the private insurance market, 65 and 66 are still the healthiest population within the Medicare pool. So the ones who remain in Medicare, their part B premiums are going to go up. And that's not just me saying it. It's the Kaiser Family Foundation, which analyzed the impact of raising the age to 67. You're going to raise premiums. You're going to, obviously, leave people in a horrible situation in terms of trying to find any insurance. In the private market, which you regulated, you know that is the roughest area of older working-age individuals. And the net effect in terms of overall health care costs in terms of the system is zero. In fact, there's some that would argue that it would actually add cost to the system.

You're mentioning the fact that there may be some young folks out there who might be of the belief that this is really not a big deal to bump that age up 2 years. The fact of the matter is that some of the folks who, again, analyze the impact of raising the eligibility age say that it would

spill over to young Americans, and here's how:

There are a lot of private employers that have health insurance plans that when people hit retirement age, 65--or their hoped-for retirement age--they are able to, again, move into Medicare. They come off their employment-based plan, maybe get some supplemental coverage as part of their retirement package. But the fact of the matter is that helps move people out of the workforce at an appropriate age of 65 and opens up jobs for younger Americans. To the extent that you now are going to say that Medicare won't be there until age 67, it, frankly, is going to force a lot more people to stay in the workforce longer than I think really most people believe would be the case today. So, in fact, it would create that job lock that would prevent, again, the workforce to continue to refresh itself with young Americans.

So the fact is that having a solid retirement health insurance plan like Medicare helps young Americans because it, again, allows the workforce to continue to circulate people, older Americans out and younger Americans in. That's why, again, the folks who had the genius to have the strength to pass Medicare in 1965, they solved a lot of problems in the U.S. economy, in the U.S. society that really extended far beyond just the patients who that program covers.

Well, again, what's remarkable--and I know both of you are well aware of this--is that Social Security, over the last 3 or 4 years, 2 out of those last 4 years there was no COLA; there was zero percent increase for seniors on Social Security. Again, as we all know, that's a formula that's tied to the Labor Department basket of goods that they spill out every year since the 1970s when COLA was first enacted, and where the economy at that point produced that result.

Now, the last 2 years there have been moderate increases through the COLA formula; but, again, Republicans want to go deeper. They want to come out with a new cost-of-living adjustment formula called the ``chained CPI,'' which would depress the existing COLA formula that already ended up with a zero percent 2 out of the last 4 years and make that even lower for seniors.

As I think many of you know, you go to a senior center and you talk about, how come we didn't get a COLA this year or how come the COLA is so small, and you explain to them how the formula works. Well, the fact of the matter is that Labor Department formula that we use today uses a lot of goods and services that seniors don't buy. They don't buy flat screen TVs, they don't buy laptop computers, where prices have come down because of competition in those areas. They concentrate their spending on food and fuel and prescription drugs, which, if you look at just that basket of goods, the COLA would be higher than the existing formula, certainly not lower.

So for the Republicans to come out with a proposal that says we should depress the COLA formula that we have today that, again, really doesn't match up with the profile of what a senior goes out to the supermarket and buys one week to the next, and is really going backwards in terms of really the economic security of people over age 65.

I know the gentleman from Michigan would like to share his thoughts.

Mr. Speaker, every year the sixth grade class at the Avery Middle School in Somers, Connecticut, participates in the Three Points on Purpose program to emphasize the importance of giving back to the community.

This fall, the sixth grade class chose to raise funds and awareness for Sergeant Micah Welintukonis, an 18-year Army veteran who was critically injured in Afghanistan on July 9 of this year while trying to rescue fellow soldiers. Micah is now back home. He's had six separate surgeries. He's making great strides; but he and his wife, Camilla, who is now pregnant with their third child, have suffered some economic loss which these kids have stepped forward to help with. They've done a walkathon, they've done collection jars, and they've done bake sales. Next week, they will present a check for over $4,000 to Sergeant Welintukonis and his family.

Again, Sergeant Welintukonis' recovery is continuing, and he's making remarkable progress. He has put his life on the line to save his fellow soldiers. He's a true hero. And I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Sergeant Micah Welintukonis' service to our Nation and to the Avery Middle School sixth grade class who chose to dedicate their time and service to helping him and his family.

Madam Speaker, how does $7 for a gallon of milk sound? Well, that's where we're headed on January 1 if we don't pass a farm bill.

Why haven't we passed a farm bill? Because the House Republican leadership has refused to bring it up for a vote on this floor despite the fact that the Senate, on June 19, passed a bipartisan farm bill that protects a safe, stable food supply for this country and saves $23 billion for the Federal budget deficit.

In the meantime, we've had 13 weeks of recess, the 2008 bill has expired, and for dairy farmers who are facing record feed and fuel costs, they have had their complete market collapse beneath their feet. And we're going to have $7 a gallon milk on January 1 if we don't act.

Madam Speaker, let's look at the example of dairy farmers who get up every single day and engage in the hardest work in our economy. Let's get this House to work between now and December 16. Pass a farm bill. Provide a horizon for rural America.

Mr. Speaker, as is obvious in this room, the business for the week has now concluded. This is a week which commenced on Tuesday; and prior to that, the Congress, the House, had not been in session for 7 weeks despite the fact that this country has a to-do list a mile long in terms of the critical issues that affect our health care system.

Whether it's doctors' fees that are going to hit a cliff on January 1, a 37 percent cut for Medicare providers of all stripes, particularly in the physician community, we have the fiscal cliff, where tax rates are going to go up for almost every American wage earner if Congress fails to act. We have the sequestration, which is a measure which will be the equivalent of a chain saw going through the government, cutting .2 percent from every budget, whether it's defense or nondefense issues.

We have a farm bill which needs to be acted upon. We have, again, the 2008 farm bill which was a 5-year measure that has expired; and it's critical for rural America. We need to renew the farm bill. And to give one small example, which the dairy industry has reminded people of, that the price of a gallon of milk starting in January could potentially go as high as $7 if we don't restore and reauthorize the system of price supports that we have in our dairy industry.

The Violence Against Women Act expires. Again, a critical measure so that law enforcement officials all across the country can continue the progress that we're making in terms of the issue of domestic violence and violence against children.

Again, the list goes on and on.

And, incredibly, despite the fact that we have been out of town for 7 weeks--this House convened on Tuesday and is recessing again today for another week's break. And Thanksgiving is obviously an important national holiday for our country and is certainly something that is important to my family, just like every other Member's family--but the fact of the matter is, if you look at the number of legislative days between right now and Christmas--where, again, Congress has never been in session beyond that date--there are literally only 17 potential days; and the Speaker's Office has only scheduled 12.

This is not the way to run a government. And I would just say--as someone who, again, was grateful about the support I received from my congressional district in eastern Connecticut on election day a few days ago--the message that I heard loud and clear is that it's time for this body to knock it off, to start working together, and to try to start getting some of these critical measures dealt with so that the U.S. economy can have a horizon so that employers can make investment decisions, so that employers can make hiring decisions, so that issues of tax policy and budget can give, again, sectors all across the U.S. economy the confidence to move forward.

We have a very fragile recovery that we're going through right now. We are roughly averaging about 100,000 to 200,000 jobs a month, which is not enough to make a real dent in the unemployment rate in this country. And part of the reason, I believe--and I think, frankly, many economists and observers of the U.S. economy today believe--that we have not gotten a faster recovery is because of the uncertainty that surrounds the failure of Congress to act in terms of the fiscal cliff and sequestration.

Again, going back to the farm bill, as one example of a huge sector of America's economy, our agriculture, the Senate passed a farm bill, a bipartisan farm bill on June 19. This was a measure that was a 5-year authorization bill that sets food policy, food security policy, food safety policy. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate--which is, again, one of the most difficult legislative bodies in the world-- actually came together and passed a farm bill. It will reduce the Federal deficit by $23 billion. It reforms the whole system of commodities support so that we're not going to be sending cash payments to farmers but, instead, modify the system in favor of a risk insurance so that producers actually have a little more skin in the game, which is a healthy thing and is a much more market-oriented approach to having a safety net for agriculture.

In the area of dairy, which is unlike almost every other commodity, it is harvested every day--actually two or three times a day. In terms of the herds of cows, the dairy farmers are out there working hard every day with, again, a very challenging market environment. We have a solid reform in the farm bill in terms of setting up a risk-insurance plan. For the first time in American history, we had full support from the dairy industry and dairy providers. Lots of compromise and negotiation. And, again, a $23 billion reduction to the deficit in terms of the last farm bill. That was done on June 19.

Since then, the House leadership has refused to bring a farm bill to the floor despite the fact that the House Agriculture Committee, which I sit on, actually passed a bipartisan measure. So it was teed up and ready for action here on the House floor, and yet we have gone 5 months since the Senate acted. We had 7 weeks of recess prior to this past Tuesday. We have American

farmers who are sitting out there trying to figure out what on Earth is going to be the future in terms of their production and their businesses.

And as I said, if you just look at the one example of milk, without having a farm bill in place on January 1, we are going to see basically the price of milk spin out of control and all the other sorts of ripple effects it would have on cheese products, dairy, dry dairy products, export products. In my opinion, this is not the way to treat some of the hardest working people in America who, by the way, have actually been one of the brightest spots in terms of our economy and economic growth since 2009.

Again, rather than leaving today, what we ought to be doing is taking the Senate bill, which was a bipartisan bill, putting it on the floor, doing our job, working at least partially as hard as the dairy farmers and other farmers across America who don't have the luxury of calling a recess in terms of their operations, and get this done. Just having that one measure would, in my opinion, give us some momentum in trying to start moving forward on the larger issue of the fiscal cliff.

Now, the Senate has also passed a measure regarding the Bush tax cuts. The Senate passed a bill with, again, all the difficulty of the Senate rules which would extend the Bush tax cuts for all income earned up to $250,000, which covers 98 percent of tax filers in America, and would allow the Clinton-era tax rates to revert for income above that level, for income above $250,000. That would reduce the Federal deficit by over $800 billion over the next 10 years. That's from the Congressional Budget Office. That's not partisan talking points. That's actual real nonpartisan data from the Congressional Budget Office. That is sitting, waiting for the House to take it up.

If it was passed, President Obama has indicated that he would sign it within minutes. And that would basically diffuse sequestration, which is that chain saw that's sitting out there which, if we don't get $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction in place by January 1, sectors and programs, critical programs--whether it's FEMA, whether it's the Department of Defense--will no longer be subject to that cut, that cutting process which is going to go into effect on January 1.

I am proud to represent eastern Connecticut, home of the Navy base in Groton, Connecticut, a submarine base that's been in operation for 100 years. We have 8,000 sailors who do incredible work in terms of operating some of the most sophisticated equipment and platforms that the world has ever seen in terms of nuclear submarines.

We have a shipyard, Electric Boat, which has, again, been a proud shipyard that produced submarines during World War II and continues, to this day, to produce the Virginia-class submarine, is now going to be working on the next generation of ballistic submarines, the Ohio replacement program. Again, these are critical workforces, critical infrastructure, which today does not know what the reality is they're going to wake up to on January 2 if we don't deal with sequestration.

But it's not only defense which is subject to the sequestration provision of the Budget Control Act that was passed in August of last year, the preceding year. It's also non-defense that will be subject to cuts and sequestration. And one that is quite relevant to the Northeast is the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, which is the agency that America always looks to at times of natural disasters and catastrophes.

Again, approximately 2 weeks ago, the State of Connecticut, along with New York, New Jersey, and other parts of our country, were struck by one of the largest hurricanes in the history of recorded weather. The size of Hurricane Sandy was a thousand miles wide. When it hit Long Island Sound, where my district is, wind speeds gusted, in some instances, to almost 100 miles per hour at exactly the same time high tide was hitting communities like Stonington, Connecticut; Eastline, Connecticut; New London; and Madison, but all the way down the coastline to New Jersey. The calculation of damages from that storm, which no one could really insure for because an event like that has almost never been recorded, is going to be in the tens of billions of dollars. It may rival Katrina in terms of the need for recovery and infrastructure replacement as a result of that storm.

FEMA, today, has roughly about $12 billion in its account. If sequestration were to go through, the White House estimates that FEMA would lose about $878 million at a time when FEMA emergency centers are being set up from Rhode Island all the way down to southern New Jersey. These are centers where people who have lost their homes, in some instances lost their businesses, have lost equipment, are now flooding in to try and get relief and help, like any other natural disaster in the past. These are people who have paid their taxes year in and year out and made sure that FEMA was there when the folks down in Louisiana and Mississippi were hit by Katrina.

FEMA is the agency which helps communities pay for police overtime, fire overtime, sanitation worker overtime. These are the folks that we always call on at times of emergency. Yet sequestration, which this Congress has failed to address, is now sitting out there, really putting at risk the ability of FEMA to do its critical job.

Another program which is now subject to sequestration is the Medicare program--the Medicare program which serves our population of seniors over age 65, people on disability. Again, it would lose $4 billion under sequestration. Again, an across-the-board chain saw that would go through reimbursements to hospitals, nursing homes, providers of every stripe.

Education, K-12, higher education, Pell Grants, Stafford student loans, all subject to a sequestration cut of 20 percent over time, according to the Congressional Budget Office, if this body does not act.

Rental assistance for the poor would fall by $2.3 billion; nutrition programs for women, the WIC program, would lose $543 million; the Border Patrol's budget would fall by $823 million. Anybody think that's a good idea? The budget for the border fence would drop by $33 million.

NIH, which is doing critical research for cures to cancer and genome research, is showing incredibly promising results that really, I think, give a lot of folks over there hope that we're going to be able to really eradicate or at least treat cancer as we've never done before, again, NIH, National Science Foundation, all of these programs would be subject to sequestration if we don't act by January 1. Now, again, there is clearly sitting out there opportunities for us to avoid that from happening.

I mentioned the farm bill, which would put a dent in the deficit target that the sequestration law requires us to hit; the tax measure, which has already passed the Senate, which would put a huge dent in hitting that target; and a recognition that both Mitt Romney, when he was running for President, and President Obama, during their last debate, acknowledged the need for us to be funding the war in Afghanistan at the rate of $100 billion a year, which is roughly what is the price tag of that measure. If you can actually put those pieces together, we can avoid having sequestration take effect.

We can make sure that FEMA is able to do its job without worrying about whether or not the rug is going to be pulled out from them on January 1. We can make sure that defense workers, whether it's a shipyard in Groton or a shipyard in San Diego, are going to be able to continue to do their work after January 1. We're going to make sure that hospitals and doctors who would be subject to these cuts are not going to basically wake up on January 2 realizing that they lose money every time they treat their patients.

This is not rocket science. The pieces that overlap on a bipartisan basis to solve the sequestration problem are sitting out there. This is not rocket science to say that the Senate, which passed a bipartisan farm bill, can be acted upon in this body so that farmers in rural America can actually have a horizon ahead of them so that they can continue to do their hard work to make sure that America's food supply stays secure and safe.

What's missing is the political will to get this done. And as I mentioned at the outset, we have very little time to

get this done, if you look at the calendar, in terms of how many legislative days are possible between now and January 1.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there obviously are a lot of pundits that are spending a lot of time trying to decipher the results of the election on November 6. But I think every person in America knows in their heart and in their soul that really what the people of this country are looking for is to have a government which functions, to have a government which does its job, a government which is willing to spend the time and not keep going into recess when so many critical measures have to be acted upon to make sure that this country, again, continues the path of recovery and growth and that our citizens are safe and secure.

That's what people were looking for on November 6. And I think any Republican and any Democrat--and as somebody who grew up in a proud Republican family and ended up as a Democrat, I feel like I have some ability to talk like this. The fact of the matter is that that's what this country is looking for. They're looking for people to work--and particularly to work together--to try and solve these problems. We can do this.

Unfortunately, we're not coming back here until the Monday after Thanksgiving. But, hopefully, folks who are listening here this afternoon are going to take the time to contact their Congressman to say: It's time to knock it off. It's time to get the work done. It's time to stop this part-time schedule that makes it impossible for people to sit down and work together and work out the issues that must get worked out between now and January 1 and allow this country's recovery to move forward.

If we just get that cloud of uncertainty moved out of the way, the fact of the matter is the American people can do the rest of the job easily in terms of making sure that our future is going to continue to be as bright as I think the wonderful people that make up this country give us that opportunity and that blessing.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Connecticut Legal Services, CLS, recognized an outstanding attorney, Royal J. Stark, for 35 extraordinary years of service. It is with great enthusiasm that I join with his colleagues in congratulating and thanking him for decades of his hard work, here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

CLS's mission is to assist those with the greatest need on legal cases ranging from health care to education to housing. Without CLS, thousands of Connecticut citizens over the years would have been rendered homeless or deprived of critical health care and public education. During his tenure, Royal has been a leader at CLS helping the most vulnerable obtain justice and restore dignity across the state while working at its Rockville, Waterbury, and New London offices. Today, he works at the Willimantic office in the heart of my district and focuses on serving individuals with disabilities. At the same time he had a full workload, Royal also helped shape state probate law reforms and clinical teaching at the Quinnipiac University School of Law and the University of Connecticut School of Law.

Mr. Speaker, I have known Royal for over 25 years as a friend and colleague and can personally attest to his commitment to justice, his highly ethical character, and to his understanding of hard work. Royal has made Connecticut a better and more just state, and I would like to thank him for his decades of service.

Mr. Speaker, on October 29, Hurricane Sandy--a 1,000- mile-wide storm--struck the northeastern portion of America, including the State of Connecticut. Ninety-mile-an-hour winds arrived at 9 o'clock that night, coinciding with high tide, flooding communities from Stonington all the way to Madison in eastern Connecticut, knocking out power, destroying property--leaving a wake of destruction in its path.

First responders from Stonington--like George Brennan, the fire chief in New London; like Ron Samuel, the fire marshal in Madison, Connecticut; like Sam DeBurra, and many, many others--rose to the challenge to save lives and to protect human life from one end to the other. There were first selectman and mayors--like Paul Formica from the town of East Lyme, where a regional emergency shelter was put into operation--who worked to restore power. Again, teamwork. The volunteers at the Red Cross and the Salvation Army came together and had one mission, which was to save lives and restore the region.

We need to follow that example here in Congress as we face the challenges that confront this Nation over the next 7 weeks. Thank you to all of those leaders who again rose to the challenge of a historic storm--bigger than in 1938. Let's follow their example to advance the interests of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my friend and fellow co-chair of the bipartisan House Shipbuilding Caucus, Representative Rob Wittman of Virginia, to honor Admiral Kirkland Donald, U.S. Navy, as he prepares to retire upon completion of more than 37 years of faithful service to our Nation.

Admiral Donald has held the position of Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (Naval Reactors), for the last eight years. During his illustrious career, he played a pivotal role in ensuring that nuclear-powered warships continued to meet our global commitments in defense of our Nation's security.

Throughout his many years of service, Admiral Donald distinguished himself at the tip of the Navy's spear. He served as the Commanding Officer of the nuclear-powered attack submarine, USS Key West, Commander of the elite Submarine Development Squadron Twelve, and Commander of NATO's Submarine Forces in Europe. Other highlights include tours at the Bureau of Naval Personnel, the Joint Staff, and as Commander of all US Submarine Forces.

As his time in Washington has shown, Admiral Donald's accomplishments do not end with his excellence as an undersea commander. Nuclear- powered warships have safely steamed over 150 million miles, and operated for more than 6,400 reactor years without a reactor accident. The last 20 million miles and 800 reactor-years have been achieved under Admiral Donald's superb leadership overseeing more than 100 operational nuclear reactors.

Admiral Donald has been particularly passionate about our submarine force and the investment in our current and future undersea programs. At a time when submarines are playing an increasingly vital role in our national security, Admiral Donald has been at the forefront of making the case for the need for robust construction of new Virginia class submarines--and has kept a steady hand on this crucial program at a time when a cooperative effort between the Navy and our shipbuilding reduced the cost and construction schedule of each new submarine. At a time when every corner of our government is challenged to find savings to ensure the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars, Admiral Donald has helped to guide this shining example of acquisition excellence.

Today, these incredible submarines are deployed worldwide, from the arctic to the equator, protecting Americans and our values. Their missions would not be possible without the ships' nuclear propulsion plants, impeccably designed and built by Admiral Donald and his team. I can speak from personal experience about the passion that Admiral Donald brings to this incredible responsibility.

When I first came to Congress in 2007 as a new member of the House Armed Services Committee, Admiral Donald and his team were among the first in my office in those early days to help educate me on the importance of our nuclear powered submarines and the value they bring to our nation. In particular, he invited me to join an ``Ice Expedition'' on board the USS Alexandria--a two day voyage under the Arctic ice which was an opportunity to see firsthand the capability of the these extraordinary vessels.

Further, Admiral Donald oversaw the final design and construction of the nuclear propulsion plant for the Nation's next-generation aircraft carrier class--the first new aircraft carrier design in over 40 years. Owing much to his leadership, the USS Gerald R. Ford propulsion plant will triple the electrical power available for transformational technology, reduce reactor compartment manning by nearly 50 percent, and increase ship operational availability by nearly 25 percent.

As Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, Admiral Donald's commitment to environmental stewardship and public health and safety helped foster the highest degree of public trust. He worked tirelessly to develop and implement a robust process of preparing the nation's spent naval nuclear fuel to be stored safely for centuries. His foresight and execution give the American people great confidence that the nuclear Navy will continue to be safe and environmentally responsible for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, Admiral Donald has been a thoughtful, forward-looking and hands-on leader for our nation's Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, and his stewardship of this highly effective, responsive and world- class organization has set an example for all our nation's civilian and military leaders. Along with Representative Wittman and my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I wish him ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' as he completes his honorable and distinguished service in the U.S. Navy, and wish he and his wife Diane the best as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, this year residents of Connecticut's 33rd District will bid a fond farewell to a woman who has served them for nearly two decades. Her colleagues described Senator Eileen Daily as a woman who was concerned with the people she represented, rather than the politics of the day. While serving in Hartford for twenty years, she never stopped personally helping those living in her district near the Connecticut River and along the Long Island Sound.

Prior to being elected to the Senate, Eileen served on the Westbrook Board of Education until 1983 when she became the town's First Selectwoman. When Eileen Daily went to Hartford as a State Senator six years later, she quickly earned the respect of her peers. She became an influential member and was made Chair of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee--a position she held for five terms.

Among her numerous accomplishments, Senator Daily co-authored the Small Town Economic Assistance Program which provided grants for major public works projects. The program was designed to fuel development in small towns that would otherwise be unable to afford funding. She played a crucial role in negotiating components of and funding for an innovative industrial wastewater treatment facility in Clinton.

I am proud of working with Senator Daily to secure funding for a dredging project in Westbrook. A host of destructive storms had caused silt build up and erosion, impacting the marinas along the Patchogue River. Local restaurants and shop owners, dependent on the boaters, no longer have to worry about keeping their businesses afloat. I also collaborated with Eileen to protect the scenic Eightmile River Watershed and designate it within the national Wild and Scenic River system.

In addition to her legislative work, Eileen also serves on the Board of Directors of the Valley Shore YMCA, the Middlesex County Substance Abuse Action Council, and on the Fiscal Chairs Committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 2004, Senator Daily was part of a select trade delegation from the National Foundation of Women Legislators to visit the Kingdom of Bahrain. On her trip, Eileen assisted women who had recently gained the right to vote prepare to run in local elections.

As Senator Daily finishes up her final term, I wish her the best of luck. Although she is retiring from public office, I have no doubt that she will remain an active and beloved member of her community. I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Senator Eileen Daily on her retirement and recognizing her amazing career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great citizen of Connecticut, Bernard ``Bernie'' Rein of Manchester, Connecticut who passed away last week at the age of 90. Bernie, along with his brother Bob and sister-in-law Betty, started Rein's New York Style Deli in Vernon, Connecticut in 1972. The Reins came from a New Jersey deli family, and started Rein's in Connecticut when they realized how much they missed good New York City deli food. He was raised in Union, New Jersey and was an all-state orchestra drummer during high school. Following graduation, Bernie served as Corporal in the Army Air Corps during World War II.

Over the past 40 years, Rein's Deli has served thousands of Connecticut residents and passing travelers from its location on the Hartford Turnpike. Known for its `sour pickles' and its fresh deli sandwiches, Rein's has a devoted following in the Vernon community by serving ``food that feeds the soul and warms the heart.'' The reputation of the deli has grown steadily over the years and became a magnet for the travelers en route between New York City to Boston (and vice versa). On any given day, the parking lot in north central Connecticut is packed with cars bearing license plates from New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. The workforce has steadily grown and has a solid staff of loyal, long time cooks, waiters and waitresses that now constitute the second largest private work force in town.

Even during this period of impressive growth, the top notch kosher quality of the food has sustained and the atmosphere is still friendly and caring. A big reason for the latter, is that over the years Bernie has been a constant presence, visiting with patrons, telling stories and jokes and always sharing his abiding love for jazz. I personally enjoyed many such exchanges as a regular lunchtime diner and like everyone else, always got a kick out of his quirky good humor. Bernie Rein's legacy is not just that of a devoted husband and restaurateur, but also of an engaged and involved citizen in his local community.

Bernie Rein's legacy is not just that of a devoted husband and restaurateur, but also of an engaged and involved citizen in his local community. Rein's has always been a sponsor of youth sports, food drives, local advertising--any cause that helped people in need and investing in Vernon's future.

Bernie will be dearly missed by his wife, Rae Ruby-Rein, his son and his grandchildren, and all those in Connecticut who frequented Rein's Deli. I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning the loss and celebrating the life of Bernie Rein.

Mr. Speaker, the great Hall of Fame Coach Vince Lombardi once said that ``Winners never quit, and quitters never win.''

I was reminded of that quote when the House Republican leadership announced last Friday that they are canceling all session days for the month of October, despite the fact that we have an unfinished farm bill, postal reform bill, Violence Against Women Act, the Cybersecurity Act, we have a fiscal cliff looming for middle class families on January 1, and a sequestration on January 2.

It is true there are passionate differences between the two sides about how we resolve these problems, but you don't resolve it by going home for 7 weeks. As Coach Lombardi said: ``Winners never quit, and quitters never win.''

The American people deserve better than a 7-week recess with these challenges facing the American people. It's time for this leadership of this House to cancel their order and get back to work and solve the problems of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, one of the great football coaches in American history was Vince Lombardi, from Green Bay, Wisconsin, who, again, was very famous for his inspiring speeches to his players and to his staff. And one of his most famous quotes was:

Winners never quit and quitters never win.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership in the House would go back and read Mr. Lombardi's words when they made the decision this past Friday to basically quit on the American people and say that we are going to recess this week after conclusion of business on Friday for the next 7 weeks.

This is at a time when not only the eyes of the country are on this Chamber to get much needed critical decisions made; but, frankly, the eyes of the world are watching this Congress to see whether or not, again, financial markets will have any horizon in terms of tax policy, in terms of budget policy, and in terms of a whole host of basic fundamental issues like the farm bill, like the post office functioning that, when on Friday, this place clears out after Mr. Boehner's decision to recess, are going to be left hanging for the next 7 weeks.

Again, this is not a problem for the House in terms of inaction by the Senate. The Senate passed a farm bill. They passed a bipartisan farm bill last June; and today we stand here with farmers who are getting up in the morning and going out and milking cows or picking crops, and they have programs which literally are expiring every minute. The Dairy Price Support programs expired on August 30, so dairy farmers up in eastern Connecticut, where I come from, whose feed costs are out of sight and whose fuel costs are out of sight, again, have absolutely no structure and no basic understanding of how they are going to continue to survive, because this place won't move forward on a farm bill with the dairy support structure, the Dairy

Security Act, which was built in by the Senate with the bill that they passed.

Again, the Senate has acted; the Senate passed a bill. They have a bill which extends crop insurance for 5 years. So for all those farmers out in the Midwest who have seen their corn crops literally burn up in a historic drought, the fact of the matter is they have absolutely no idea about what the future holds because this Chamber will not take up a farm bill and do its constitutional duty and get its work done.

Again, the post office, which fell into not just technical but actual real bankruptcy a month ago because of the structure of its pension costs, the Senate has passed a postal reform bill which adjusts the finances of that system, again, with bipartisan support and will allow the postal service to have some confidence that its operations and its post offices around the country can have some modicum of a future. This Chamber will not take up a postal reform bill between now and this Friday or for the following 7 weeks.

These are just two basic, sort of fundamental, programs which, in the past, Congress has done on a bipartisan basis without any of the drama and stress that the Speaker's decision to quit, to use Coach Lombardi's phraseology, is now creating. There are much larger issues, of course, which everyone is waiting for this Congress to act on.

Sequestration: I have shipyard workers in Groton, Connecticut, who get up every morning to build nuclear submarines. They don't know whether or not on January 1, whether the chain saw set up in the sequestration mechanism is going to go through the defense budget.

We have a fiscal cliff whereby middle class families don't know what their tax rates are going to be after January. We have physician fees under the Medicare program which, again, fall off a cliff on January 1.

With all of these issues hanging out there, we still, though, have a Republican leadership in the House which has made the decision to go home on Friday for the next 7 weeks.

Again, Coach Lombardi had it right: winners never quit and quitters never win. This leadership is quitting, not only on the Members that are prepared to roll up their sleeves and compromise and do hard work to get measures like the farm bill and the postal bill and budget policy settled once and for all. They are quitting on the American people. That is unacceptable leadership for the trust, the public trust with which they have been given.

This morning's New York Times has a story: ``Congress Nearing the End of a Session Where Partisan Input Impeded Output,'' and they show the numbers that this is the least productive Congress in a century.

Back when Harry Truman was President, he campaigned against the do- nothing Congress. That Congress enacted 906 bills in the 2 years during which it was convened. As of this week, this Congress has enacted 173, a quarter of the do-nothing Congress which Harry Truman made infamous and famous in American history.

We can do better as a Nation. We can get a farm bill passed. We can pass a postal reform bill which will keep that system alive. We can do budget policy. We can create a horizon for this country, which the American people sent us here to do, not go home and campaign.

Mr. Speaker, in a few short hours, a giant in the State of Connecticut, Coach Jim Calhoun, is going to announce his retirement after 26 years of leading the men's basketball program.

When he arrived 26 years ago, it was an also-ran program. Today, he has secured three national championships, he was inducted into the Hall of Fame, and the NBA is populated with graduates like Ray Allen, Emeka Okafor, and Kemba Walker, who are all-stars and really make the State of Connecticut so proud.

He also has performed hundreds of acts of personal kindness, small and large, Coaches vs. Cancer, the Yukon Cardiology Health Center program, and his latest passion, which is to help families with the scourge of autism.

Coach Calhoun is not just a great coach, he's a really good person. To him and his wife, Pat, on behalf of the people of the Second Congressional District, I want to extend my congratulations for his great leadership and career, and wish them all the success in the world as they begin a new chapter in their wonderful lives.

It is. Thank you for, again, taking the time tonight to speak on the floor of the House.

This is a place where the eyes not only of the country but the world are on us right now in terms of whether or not this body is going to have the strength of will to act and deal with, again, all of the ticking clocks which you've mentioned earlier: the fiscal cliff at the end of this year; sequestration; and at the end of this month, a farm bill reauthorization.

Again, for those watching tonight, I think it's important to have a little context here, which is that up until this year, every 5 years since the end of World War II, Congress has acted to enact a farm bill which is a 5-year policy bill that sets up all of the ground rules for a vast array of issues that surround producers in this country, the folks who get up every morning and milk the cows and plant the crops and harvest the crops.

It deals with issues of rural development. Small-town America depends on USDA rural development funds and programs to build everything from sewers, hospitals, health clinics. Again, all of the infrastructure, which again, small towns by themselves really don't have the financial means to create.

Conservation programs, forestry, food policy, nutrition policy.

Again, the farm bill is a profoundly important measure that sets up both producer and production policies and agriculture but also consumer ends in terms of food safety, food security, et cetera.

Incredibly, we are at a point right now where at the end of this month, at the end of September, the last farm bill will expire. If Congress does not act, then farm policy will revert to what the state of the law was in this country in 1949. Again, that statutory construct is so completely disconnected from the reality of what farms and agriculture is today in the 21st century that it defies, really, the powers of any Secretary of Agriculture to implement.

But, again, as you point out, when you look at the U.S. economy today, agriculture is leading the way in terms of growth, in terms of exports, in terms of renewed activity even in New England, which is not viewed as sort of a big farm State. But the fact is that specialty crops, which I'm sure in upper State New York we're seeing again growing farmers markets, are really the renaissance and movement towards making sure that foods that we serve our kids in cafeterias are on the dinner tables in American homes.

Again, people have just a heightened interest in terms of making sure it's local and fresh, and the farm bill sets up the policies that make that movement continue to grow.

Well, where are we tonight? The Senate passed a farm bill. They passed a farm bill back in June. It was a bipartisan measure, hard- fought. It took 3 weeks to make its way to the Senate floor, getting through all the procedural hurdles. Yet Republicans and Democrats in the Senate came together with a farm bill which does great things in terms of reforming agriculture policy in this country. It eliminates direct payments to farmers, which saves the taxpayers $23 billion over the next 5 years. So it actually helps the deficit in this country by passing the Senate farm bill. It reforms dairy price supports, which is critically important right now because, again, the structure that is in place today really was shown to not be adequate in 2009 when milk prices crashed during the recession. It sets up a new risk insurance program, which will allow dairy farmers to actually have some confidence and security about their future.

It does, again, a great job in terms of protecting and maintaining the network of food supply for Americans who are struggling to put food on the table. It's a good, solid, bipartisan measure that really addresses all of the challenges of the 21st century.

In the House, we actually reported out a farm bill out of the House Agriculture Committee with a strong, bipartisan vote. It has problems. Frankly, it cuts too deeply into nutrition. But this is an issue which, again, people who are close to it are very confident can be worked out in a conference committee if the House floor will take up a farm bill. And the Speaker, to this moment, has refused to even signal that he will schedule a vote for a farm bill to move the process along.

So, literally, as the clock ticks towards the end of September, farmers and producers all across America are, in horror, looking at this Chamber, looking at this Speaker, and saying: Are you kidding me? You won't even schedule a vote so that we can work through a bill on the floor and send it to conference committee so that we can actually get real movement and get a farm bill passed?

A couple of hours ago I was with the National Farmers Union just down the block here, where, again, we've got farmers from California to Maine who are gathering here in Washington, D.C., the American Farm Bureau, specific commodity crop producers who are flooding the Halls of Congress saying we need a farm bill.

This should not be a partisan issue that should gridlock, again, one of the most vibrant and critical components of America's economy. And yet to this moment we have still gotten no signal from Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership that they will even schedule a vote. It's incredible. I mean, the Agriculture Committee in the House produced a bipartisan bill. They did their work. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson--I was there for the 13-plus-hour markup to get that bill through the floor--they did a great job in terms of navigating and getting a bill to the floor. This was done before the August recess. The Speaker refused to bring it up before we went home for 5 weeks. Five weeks have passed. Farmers all across America are demanding action. We're back in town, and yet nothing has been scheduled in this Chamber to bring up a farm bill that we can send to the conference committee and get some real action and results. Totally unacceptable.

Let me just finish before I throw the baton back to you. At the end of August, dairy price supports expired. Again, the last farm bill had a measure, it was called a Feed Adjuster Index, which would basically allow farmers who were facing high feed costs to get help and relief. Anybody who looks in the financial pages can see that corn prices are hitting record highs because of the drought out in the Midwest; feed costs have gone through the roof; fuel costs are going through the roof. All the input costs for running a dairy farm are at record highs, and yet, as of a couple of weeks ago or a week and a half ago, the dairy farmers of America had basically the rug pulled out from under them because this Chamber did not move and do its job back in July and get a farm bill passed out of this Chamber and sent to conference committee.

So they were sort of the first wave of victims of Republican inaction in this House to move a farm bill. At the end of this month, it will be the rest of American agriculture that will have the rug pulled out from under it and revert back a statutory structure to 1949, which is the state of the law, if we don't move forward and get a farm bill done.

So I'm glad you scheduled this session tonight, Congressman Tonko, because I think the American people need to hear that Democrats stand ready to roll up their sleeves, get to work on this floor, pass a farm bill, send it to the conference committee, work with the bipartisan majority in the Senate to pass a farm bill, and help the American farmers and producers who every single day are making sure that the system of food production and supply works. It is a very fragile system, as we're seeing with the drought out in Iowa, and people in this Chamber are treating it with just, in my opinion, outrageous neglect by not really doing their constitutional duty, showing some leadership, and bringing a farm bill up for a vote in this Chamber.

And just to follow up on that point, again, the Senate farm bill included within it disaster relief assistance--not just for a short period of time, but for 5 years. Again, the House did bring up a so-called ``disaster relief'' bill right before the August break-- something which the American Farm Bureau dismissed as inadequate in terms of actual agricultural policy in this country--used as a pay-for taking money out of conservation, which, again, as critical a priority as almost anything else in the farm bill. Again, it was just an almost pathetic attempt to provide political cover for people who knew that, again, with the catastrophe happening out in the Midwest, they couldn't possibly leave town without at least trying to make some small gesture towards acknowledging that that was actually happening.

But, again, the Senate measure includes a full disaster relief. The House committee bill which came out has full disaster relief. That's what, really, the American agriculture community is looking for.

Tomorrow, on the steps of the Capitol, there will be a huge rally with farm groups from all across America gathering on the steps. Senator Stabenow and Congressman Collin Peterson from Minnesota are going to be out there leading the charge. We understand that some Republican Members are going to show some courage and get out there on those steps and join those farmers in saying we need a farm bill now to be voted on in the House of Representatives. And it's time for the Republican leadership to listen to the people who, again, are out there busting their tail every single day making sure that there's food on the table for this country.

It is of course. And again, another example of a measure that really is just teed up and ready for action in the House is the postal reform. We have a postal system right now which is both technically and substantively in bankruptcy. The obligations of the postal system in terms of its expenses and pension costs now exceed the revenue that's coming in.

And once again we have a situation where the Senate has already acted. They passed a bipartisan postal reform bill. My colleague from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, Senator Joe Lieberman is the chair of the committee that put together, again, a significant bipartisan coalition to get a postal reform bill through which would provide stability in the finances of this system, which, again, is in bankruptcy.

Nothing has happened on this side of the campus, of the Capitol in terms of any action in terms of bringing a bill to the floor to make sure that, again, the postal system, which goes back to the birth of our country, is not going to capsize into hopeless bankruptcy. I mean, just totally inexcusable to have an issue like this, which, I challenge anyone to point to any time in American history where the postal service has become sort of a partisan political football. Yet this Republican leadership has done nothing to bring a postal reform bill to the floor.

Violence Against Women Act, again, a measure which is really a law enforcement measure in terms of giving our police and court systems and victim advocates the tools they need to eliminate the scourge of domestic violence in this country. My wife is involved, actually, in multidisciplinary teams back in Hartford, Connecticut, in terms of dealing with this issue as a pediatric nurse practitioner.

Again, the Senate passed a good, strong bipartisan bill. We had a partisan measure that just turned the clock back in terms of protecting victims who, again, are here on temporary visas, again, as some kind of statement, I guess, about immigration. And yet this is a measure which has not been sent to conference by this side of the Chamber, and we have a situation, a priority such as domestic violence which has traditionally been completely nonpartisan since it was first enacted back in the 1990s, and no action is being taken by this Republican leadership who seems intent on going home pretty soon and just basically leaving town until election time.

I mean, it's just stunning that, you know, farm bill, postal reform bill, violence against women, we should be able to do these things tonight and give this country some confidence.

And I would just say that the inaction of this leadership--today we received an ominous warning from Moody's Investor Services which warned that basically that Congress's failure to strike a deal on the fiscal cliff some time within the next 6 months or so will lead to a downgrade of this country's financial rating. Again, Moody's preserved the Triple A status last August when we had the last self-induced crisis by the Republican majority on the default issue. And so the warning is out there. Incredibly, the Speaker, when he was asked about this later in the day today, basically said he has no confidence that we can strike a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.

I mean, again, we're talking--it is September 11, a day when we should be coming together and reflecting on our unity as American people. And to have that kind of negativity at a time when we've been, the same day we were warned that the country could capsize into a downgrade, and just basically throw up his arms and say, well, he has no confidence we can put that deal together, I'm reminded of the old military saying, which is, you know, lead, follow, or get out of the way.

And really, for a Speaker to basically say, at this early stage, that he has no confidence that this body, which has gone through world wars, depressions, a civil war, and has always been able to really show that the genius of the Founding Fathers to create a structure where decisions can be made is somehow incapable of dealing with the issue that we're confronted with today is just a, really, just shocking admission of abdication of leadership. And really, it just--it signals that, you know, we need to have a change here in this Chamber, one way or another if we're going to deal with the problems that are looming on the horizon, which was your opening comments.

I think, as Moody's indicated, with the fiscal cliff at the end of this year and with the sequestration on January 1, there really is only one place where this can get resolved, and it's right here in this room. There are ideas that are on the table which, I think, clearly show a middle ground--in fact, more than a middle ground--as a way of solving these problems.

The President has put on the table an extension of the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans that would entirely protect their present tax status with no increase in taxes. Obviously, the cliff will cause middle class families all across America to pay more if there is no action in this Chamber. In fact, it provides for 100 percent of all Americans the extension of the Bush tax cuts on incomes up to $250,000. Any income above that would revert back to the Clinton era rates. That change would provide about $1 trillion of deficit reduction for our country at a time when the structural deficit that the Bush tax cuts created is obviously scaring investor services like Moody's.

This is a proposal which is not a 50/50 deal. It's a 98 percent deal in terms of protecting those existing tax cuts, and it's a 100 percent deal in terms of protecting people's taxes up to $250,000.

Six nights ago, we saw someone get on the floor of the convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, and very methodically and with great clarity explain exactly the points that we're talking about here tonight.

President Bill Clinton, someone who today enjoys a 69 percent approval rating, got on the floor of that convention. While he was President, the public finances of this country came into balance for the first time in over a generation, and 22 million new jobs were created under his watch. If anyone has credibility in terms of a perspective on economic and fiscal policy in this country, it's President Bill Clinton.

What we have talked about here tonight is about reverting to the Clinton era rates on incomes above $250,000. We know as a Nation that that does not smother and punish success. It will not smother and punish our economy. Those rates were in place when 22 million jobs were created in the U.S. economy in the 1990s.

Today, what's interesting is that Mr. Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate, is very careful not to criticize President Clinton. In fact, he tries indirectly sometimes to even embrace him. Well, he ought to embrace his positions on fiscal policy because, if he did, we could pass a bill on this floor in no time flat, solve the fiscal cliff, defuse sequestration, and get this country back on track with more than just policies: with a new infusion of confidence, both within our country and, frankly, in financial markets around the world, that this place is capable of actually making some decisions and that this place is actually capable of action.

The former President's comments in Charlotte obviously got a rock star reception all across the country because that's what people are hungry for--reasonable solutions coming from people who have demonstrated that they actually can administer and be good stewards of the U.S. economy. I think that, for the Republican leadership of this Chamber to ignore that type of compromise and reasonable approach to solving the fiscal problems we face today is politically very dangerous.

Again, if you really look closely at the Romney campaign, they are loath to even say anything negative about Bill Clinton or his time in the White House. Do you know what? They're very careful also to avoid talking about his policies, which basically President Obama and the minority here, even with some significant modifications to accommodate the other side, are prepared to move forward on. Let's really, I think, heed the advice that he gave this country six nights ago and move forward with these policies.

Thank you for taking the time tonight to really set the record straight on a lot of these issues. I would note that Bloomberg News actually did a fact check of the Clinton speech the other night and basically came back and gave it a clean bill of health. Frankly, if you contrast that with the speeches that took place in Tampa and if you go to PolitiFact and go through some of the remarks that were analyzed by that Pulitzer Prize winning service and the number of pants-on-fire lies that they ascribed to some of the comments that were made on the floor of the Tampa convention, there is a sharp contrast.

Again, I just want to thank you for taking the time to remind the American people this evening about the fact that there are items that we can move forward on today. Literally, we could reconvene the House here at a quarter of nine on 9/11 and pass a farm bill, pass the postal reform bill, get moving on the Violence Against Women Act, and we could deal with the fiscal cliff if people with reasonable and nonpartisan scorched Earth partisanship came forward and saw what is obvious, which is that the tools are there to fix these problems. Thank you for your leadership and for holding this session this evening.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here we are today on September 10, 5 weeks since Speaker Boehner pushed

through a motion to recess for 5 weeks at a time when our Nation faces so many challenges, so many ticking clocks in terms of must-do items, some of which have already cleared the U.S. Senate, like the farm bill. And yet despite that need out there from the country, looking for some action and certainty out of this Chamber, the majority again said, Nope. We're going home for 5 weeks. And we're going to leave dairy farmers whose price supports expired on August 31 left hanging in the breeze--despite the fact that the U.S. Senate has passed a farm bill with Dairy Security Act provisions that reforms the price structure, saves the taxpayer money, and provides some horizon so that the folks who are getting up every morning and milking cows could have some certainty in terms of whether or not their business, their operations, have any sense of future.

They are losing money every day in New England. The feed costs, the high energy costs. And the Dairy Security Act, which was part of the Senate farm bill, and by the way was also incorporated in the House Agriculture Committee in its committee bill, will, in fact, provide that sense of security and future for dairy farmers. Yet the Speaker put through a motion to recess for 5 weeks.

August 31 has come and gone, and these guys and women are out there and they are faced with total fear, and those are the faces that I saw when I was home in August about the fact that this Congress, particularly the House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans, refused to take up a farm bill despite the fact that we had weeks of time to do it before the expiration of the price supports for dairy farmers.

Obviously, American agriculture is far broader than just the dairy industry. It also includes commodity crops in the great Midwest, which are facing a historic drought right now where the security of crop insurance is so important.

Joining me here this evening to report in from the Midwest is a great Congressman from eastern Iowa, my colleague and friend, Congressman Bruce Braley, and I would like to yield to him to talk about what the lack of a farm bill means in your great State.

Will the gentleman yield?

I think your last point about the fact that we are now at a place where the Democratic minority is finding itself in a position where they really have almost no choice but to seek a discharge petition.

The fact is is that this week the majority, Speaker Boehner's office and the House Majority Leader, Congressman Cantor, issued their agenda for the week which lists the bills that they are proposing to take up for votes. And for those listening around the country, I think it's important to remember that the Republican majority controls that agenda. I mean, that is something that we have no control in our caucus of adding or subtracting.

Looking at that agenda this week, I was hoping when I got back from the 5-week break that the Speaker's office would have responded to what is happening all over the country, which is a hue and cry demanding action on a farm bill.

But the fact is, as I think the gentleman from Iowa knows, is that there is nothing on that agenda that indicates we are going to take up a farm bill this week. Incredible. I mean, just amazing, that, you know, at a time when the American Farm Bureau has been doing a circuit throughout the Midwest holding hearings, holding events, drawing attention to this fact. Even in New England and Connecticut, which is not viewed as a sort of agriculture powerhouse, I mean the fact is I had roundtables with the Connecticut Farm Bureau who are just dumbfounded that an issue like this could get sort of swept up in just sort of the do-nothing record of the Republican majority in this Congress.

I also think it's important for people to remember the Senate farm bill which passed, as the gentleman indicated, on a bipartisan basis actually saves the taxpayers $23 billion over the next 5 years.

It came in with a lower cost than the baseline from the last farm bill, so it actually helps the deficit situation.

The House Agriculture Committee bill that you mentioned that got reported out also reduces the deficit. Again, I think it went a little too heavy in terms of the reductions on the nutrition side, but I am confident that that can get worked out in a conference committee if the House would take up a bill and send a bill to a conference committee.

But the fact of the matter is is your leadership, in terms of bringing out a discharge petition, is probably not something that you woke up thinking you'd love to do 6 months from now, but it's really an act of necessity because this majority will not even send a signal that anything is even being planned to take up a bill this week.

This week, I think we are going to see the impact outside of the beltway, because it's my understanding that over 30 to 50 groups are going to be converging on Washington, advocates of American agriculture ranging from the real traditional American Farm Bureau to the Farmers Union, to specific commodity crop groups who, as you point out, sometimes have some pretty heated disagreements about regional issues and about allocations within the farm bill; and they may still have some today in terms of the way the Senate bill was voted out in the House committee, but they all agree on one item, which is that it is time for this House of Representatives to act.

This is not a debate club here that people were sent to, and it's also not a place where political strategists can sort of play games with people's lives about how the agenda is handled. I mean, this is a place where so many sectors of American society depend on us, again, at the end of the day, rising to our constitutional duty, sometimes having to really compromise on some very difficult measures, but, nonetheless, we have a duty to act. We have a duty to really make sure that the people who sent us here can rely on the fact that we're not here just to fight and sort of try and get political gain out of every issue that comes to the floor.

Again, what the Connecticut farmers were saying to me when I was back home is that they just cannot believe that the farm bill has now become a partisan issue, but the Republican leadership controlling this House apparently believes it is. They won't even bring up a bill for a vote.

To follow up on that point, one of the aspects of this farm bill which I think is actually so exciting is that there's a major reform in terms of how we're going to reduce, to some degree, the American taxpayers' liability for crop production in this country. We are definitely eliminating crop subsidies once and for all, direct cash payments to farms, in both the Senate bill and in the House Agriculture Committee bill. We are eliminating direct payment subsidies. That's where the largest portion of savings are actually being generated, the $23 billion in the Senate and the roughly $33 billion in the House bill. We are basically going to be using much more of a crop insurance, risk insurance model where the farmers have a little more skin in the game. The producer is going to have a little more skin in the game and the taxpayer is going to have a little less.

From almost every angle, when you look at the hard work that's been put into the measure this year in terms of, again, lowering costs, trying to wean the system away from direct cash payments, doing some important, I think, exciting reforms in terms of promoting farmers' markets and marketing specialty crops--which, again, I'm sure Iowa is just like New England and California and other places where there has just been this renaissance of local agriculture. Food security issues and the growing awareness about the fact that healthier foods for school cafeterias or family dinner tables is something that people are just really engaged in as almost never before.

This farm bill promotes all of that positive change in terms of nutrition habits all the way to school cafeterias, but also, again, helping producers deal with a different structure in terms of how their business model is going to run. As you point out, you can't do that with a 3-month extension or a 9-month extension or a 12-month extension. We need a 5-year farm bill. We need something exactly along the lines of what the Senate produced on a bipartisan basis.

Again, it is just incredible that this leadership, the Republican leadership, doesn't hear what is out there right now both on the producer side and on the nutrition side. People want this Congress to get this item done, and it just should not be a partisan issue.

Just to kind of put the period on that is that right now the House Republican leadership is looking like we've only got 8 days of real, full floor action for the whole month of September. Again, incredibly, after basically leaving town and passing a motion to recess, the Republican leadership, now that we're back, has only scheduled 8 full session days, which, again, really shows why your discharge petition for the farm bill is so critical in that we really need to get this thing moving, because there clearly will be a conference. There's going to be some disagreement with the Senate. But on the fundamental structure of the bill there really isn't. I mean, the reform of subsidy payments, there's overlap in both bills.

The savings that that will generate, the dairy issue which I mentioned earlier, how we are again going from a historic change in terms of an industry that's had total cash payment subsidies to a risk insurance model, which, again, commodity crop folks like yours have dealt with that for decades. We're now putting dairy into that same model.

But 8 days does not give us much margin for error in terms of the way this place operates. And again, that's the Republican schedule which came out.

I know, as far as yourself and myself and our colleagues on our side of the aisle, you know, we're prepared to roll up our sleeves and stay here as long as it takes, and frankly, we've got other issues which I think all of us would be more than happy to plunge into, whether it's the fiscal cliff, whether its sequestration, whether it's the postal reform bill, which the Senate has passed, whether it's the Violence Against Women Act that again, incredibly, even though law enforcement leaders all across the country are imploring Congress to move on the Violence Against Women Act, the leadership hasn't set a conference group to get that bill done.

This is stuff that should be just baseline givens, in terms of just running the country. And yet we have got an agenda this week which, other than maybe doing a CR to keep the government from closing on October 1, that's it in terms of what the Republican leadership has put forward.

And it is a shame because really, if you look at the U.S. economy right now, particularly in terms of balance of trade, agriculture is probably the brightest spot, even with all the challenges that have happened this summer. I mean, export of American farm products, whether it's beef or commodities, is actually really helping the balance of trade for this country.

There was a story this morning in The New York Times about Mexico, about how their rising middle class now--I mean, made in America, particularly for food products, is something that the consumer market is really stampeding towards.

And again, to allow this September 30 deadline to happen and to suddenly, you know, have complete almost chaos in terms of pricing mechanisms, in terms of, again, insurance payments, in terms of cash payments, which, presumably, would somehow have to continue, really would hurt growth in this country, which American agriculture has actually been helping sort of pull up for other sectors.

I want to thank the gentleman for joining me here this evening to talk about that point.

Again, there was a Bloomberg News report also earlier today that said that telemarketers now have a higher approval rating than the U.S. Congress. And again, the colloquy we just listened to this evening about the farm bill, it's no wonder. The work schedule which the Republican majority has put forward over the last 18 months would make Homer Simpson blush.

I mean, the fact of the matter is we've had repeated recesses. We've had a work product, in terms of actual numbers of bills that have been discussed and brought forward on the floor, at historic lows. We've had a shutdown crisis in April of last year where, literally, the country was on the edge of its seat in terms of whether or not the U.S. government was going to shut down last April of 2011.

We had, for the first time in American history, the prospect of a default on the full faith and credit of this country, when the debt limit issue was run up to, again, the final seconds before Treasury would have no authority to sell bonds to pay the bills for this country. First time in American history we confronted that prospect.

Under Ronald Reagan, the debt limit was extended 18 times with little or no fuss, yet this majority has intentionally sort of pushed these sorts of pressure points over the last 18 months, 2 years, to score political points. And that's something which Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority Leader, made very clear was the number one priority of the Republicans in Washington: to cripple this President and to deprive him of reelection in a second term.

And now, as we stand here on September 10, we are now looking at another cliff that's facing this country, the fiscal cliff which is at the end of December, the Tax Code reverts back to pre-2001, raising taxes for middle class families all across the country.

President Obama has put out a plan which would protect the income of all Americans up to $250,000. And I want to repeat that. Every American would still retain their tax cuts from 2001 up to $250,000. For those who are fortunate enough to be above that threshold of adjusted gross income, then the rates would revert back to the Clinton era for people to pay a little bit more. And the Congressional Budget Office has scored that change as helping the deficit by roughly 800 to $900 billion.

You know, a couple of nights ago we had an opportunity, as a Nation, to listen to William Clinton, to President Clinton talk about his record in office, when his fiscal policies put the Nation's public finances in the black for the first time in decades.

I mean, a lot of us who grew up in the fifties and sixties could not sort of remember a time when America was paying its bills and paying down its debt. President Clinton presided over policies which got us to that point.

It was also an economy which produced 22 million jobs. We had unemployment rates below 4 percent in many States like my own, in the State of Connecticut, where unemployment was between two and three percent in 1998 and 1999. And he did it in way that was fair and balanced.

And the speech that he gave in Charlotte the other night reminded us that when you actually invest in the middle class, when you make sure that middle class families have the tools to raise their family, to educate their children, to cover their health care needs, to buy a house and afford a house, to provide the means so that seniors over 65 won't be bankrupted by health care bills, the fact of the matter is that's the formula for success for growth in this country.

And, again, the 1990s is Exhibit A for the success of those policies, which the President, when he gave his acceptance speech, reemphasized that, again, he is willing to extend the tax cuts for income up to $250,000 for all Americans, rich and poor, that we would revert the rates back to the Clinton era, which now even Mr. Romney is talking very positively about the Clinton years and praises President Clinton's tenure in office.

Well, he ought to adopt the plan that President Clinton is suggesting.

That's a plan which will put the public finances of our country back into better balance and which will provide a more solid footing. Even more than that, if we were able to come together with that reasonable compromise--averting the fiscal cliff--it would give this country and particularly the business community the confidence of knowing that their tax exposure--that the fiscal status of this country--is not literally going to be driven up to the cliff, up to the brink, over periods of short, monthlong time periods, just as it was in 2011 and 2012.

That really, unfortunately, sadly, is the legacy of the 112th Congress under Speaker Boehner's tenure. That's why telemarketers are more popular than Members of the U.S. Congress, which is according to the Bloomberg News report that came out earlier today. We have a leadership which has shown itself quite willing to defy all of the hopes of the American people that we would get people working together and compromise and extend a horizon for people so that they can make decisions to invest and to hire. Rather, we have seen under the direction of folks like Mitch McConnell that the number one priority is not what matters for the American people; the number one priority is to bring down this President.

That was the number one issue everywhere I went when I was home over the last 5 weeks: When are we going to see some compromise out of the Republican leadership to come together for fiscal policies that will avert the fiscal cliff? When are we going to come together to diffuse the sequestration chain saw that's sitting out there on January 1, which is going to cut through the Federal Government both on the defense side and on the nondefense side?

I think it's important to remember nondefense interests, whether it's hospitals or medical providers, are looking at a 2 percent across-the- board cut in Medicare payments if sequestration goes into effect. Education, whether it's K through 12, whether it's student loans, are also going to get hit with that chain saw. We're going to see it with the National Institutes of Health, which is doing incredibly exciting work in terms of coming up with cures for cancer by using genome research. That chain saw is going to cut through NIH in terms of the great research projects that are going on in that institution. We would also see the chain saw hit defense.

In industry after industry in which you need to have a horizon, whether it's building F-35 fighter planes, whether it's building surface ships down in Virginia or nuclear submarines up in the State of Connecticut, the fact of the matter is the sequestration option, as Secretary Leon Panetta--the Secretary of Defense--has said, would be catastrophic for the national defense of this country. There are proposals on the table which would avert the implementation of sequestration. I sit on the Armed Services Committee. We had a hearing with leaders from the aerospace industry. We had leaders from the administration--the head of the Budget Office, the Undersecretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who handles budget policy.

If you look at the budget which President Obama put out in January and if you look at Paul Ryan's budget resolution in 2011, what you will see is, in fact, there is overlap between the two that could easily get us to the point of diffusing the sequestration chain saw that I mentioned out there. We have to hit a target of $1.2 trillion in terms of deficit reduction to avert sequestration from going into effect. If you look at the savings from the drawdown in Afghanistan, which Paul Ryan and the Republican majority put in their budget resolution in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it totals roughly about $800 billion, and that's post-2014. That was in the Ryan budget. President Obama, in his budget plan, had exactly the same measure, which would save roughly $800 billion. If the two sides would come together and agree that we could pass a measure that locks in those savings, then you've really gotten to about two-thirds of the sequestration target set up under the Budget Control Act.

We can do this. We can do this this week if people would actually, basically, put down their cudgels--again, 8 weeks away from an election--and say: Let's do something that's for the benefit of the country; let's eliminate that uncertainty that's hanging out there; let's tell those firms that are wrestling with whether or not they have to issue WARN notices, layoff notices, to their workers because of sequestration sitting out there on January 1.

Let's come together. Let's get this thing done. Let's look at the President's budget, and let's look at Paul Ryan's budget. Let's find the areas of common agreement, which do exist, and let's get this thing fixed so that the American economy is not facing another one of these runups. Unfortunately, the majority back in April of 2011 was willing to push this country to a government shutdown, and later, in August, was willing to default on the full faith and credit of this country. Let's not do that. Let's allow the American people the opportunity to have some security, which is that their jobs, that our national defense, that health care providers, that educators, that people who are in the critical areas of research and development over at NIH are not going to have the rug pulled out from under them because of sequestration, which was part of a package from which Speaker John Boehner proudly announced he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Again, when the Budget Control Act passed, the Speaker was interviewed, and he was boasting about the fact that the Republicans got 98 percent of what they wanted. Within that package was the sequestration mechanism. Mr. Ryan, the candidate for Vice President, actually also publicly boasted about the fact that sequestration was a compromise which the two sides agreed to.

So everybody has got their fingerprints on it. The fact of the matter is that it's sitting out there, and it's creating uncertainty in the U.S. economy. There are measures that are both within the Ryan budget and the Obama budget which overlap and from which we could easily implement a compromise to diffuse that sequestration chain saw that's sitting out there. All it takes is the willingness of this Chamber, led by the Speaker, who is now trying to distance himself from the deal that he embraced back in August of last year, to come forward and say, okay, let's sit down and hammer this out. You could do it on the back of an envelope within a matter of a day or two in terms of the areas of agreement that exist between the Obama budget and the Ryan budget.

The failure to do that--the failure to bring up a farm bill, the failure to bring up a postal reform bill, the failure to bring up a Violence Against Women Act for conference and for final resolution, the failure to implement budgets on the health and labor and education subcommittee, which the majority just basically, I guess, decided they're just not going to do--is why Bloomberg News came out with

their report today saying that Congress is now less popular than telemarketers.

This is one of the most despised Congresses in American history, and it has been led by Republican leaders who, again, have shown that they are more interested in trying to weaken this President than in trying to strengthen our country. This is with regard to issue after issue, whether or not it's the farm bill, whether or not it's the postal reform--where we have a system that is literally now technically in bankruptcy--whether it's the Violence Against Women Act, whether it's getting budgets done in regular order, whether it's diffusing sequestration, whether it's averting the fiscal cliff.

We went home for 5 weeks without acting on any of these measures because of a recess motion that the Speaker put forward. The country is basically sitting there, waiting to see whether or not we have either a short-term future or a long-term future, which all of these issues are so critical to determining. We are going to be watching this agenda over the next few days. What we saw today from the majority leader's office indicated no farm bill, no postal reform bill, nothing related to any measures to try and deal with sequestration. We have seen a do- nothing agenda this week by the majority following 5 weeks of being back in the districts.

The American Farm Bureau was doing a cross-country barnstorm about the fact that we need to get that measure passed so we can create some certainty and horizon for the men and women who are getting up every morning and milking cows and planting crops and harvesting crops, those who desperately, particularly with the drought conditions in the Midwest, need to have some certainty that there is going to be crop insurance in place to make sure that they are not going to go bankrupt.

We have a measure which passed in the U.S. Senate--it's a bipartisan bill--which saves the taxpayer $23 billion, and yet we have a leadership which won't even bring up a farm bill for consideration. The bill that came out of committee wasn't perfect, but it is a measure which we need to act on to send to conference so that the agriculture sector of this country can have some confidence about what kind of future they're going to have beyond the next few weeks or until September 30, which is when the law of this country reverts back to that of the 1949 farm bill.

So that's the message which I certainly heard on my break and that Mr. Braley heard on his break. I think we're going to hear it this week when representatives of commodity crop groups--the American Farm Bureau, the American Farmers Union--are going to be gathering in the U.S. Capitol and demanding action so that we can at least allow one sector the ability and the confidence to know that they have some future, both short term and long term.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in exactly 5-months' time, the tax rates for every tax filer in this country will go up in the event of the so- called ``fiscal cliff,'' which most mainstream economists believe would push our country back into a double-dip recession.

There is hope, however.

Last week, the U.S. Senate passed a measure which protects the incomes of every tax filer up to $250,000 and allows rates for incomes above that point to

return to the Clinton-era rates. This is a plan which will protect 98 percent of the tax filers in this country from any tax increase. It will help balance the budget and will give confidence to the financial markets, which are terrified of the inability of this town to get its business done.

We should act on the Senate's plan. The House Republican leadership has a choice: let's compromise; let's get something done; let's help the economy--or let's push this country into brinksmanship, which for the last year and a half has been the trademark of the 112th Congress.

We can do better as the House of Representatives. Let's pass the Senate measure. Let's provide some confidence for the American people and for the U.S. economy to grow.