Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4105. I am an original co-sponsor of this wonderfully common-sense bill, which will permit the Department of Commerce to apply countervailing duty orders to non-market economies like China. While the term, ``countervailing duty order,'' is not one on the tip of every American's tongue, it is an extraordinarily important trade enforcement tool. In times like these, we need to be able to use our trade laws to the fullest extent, so we can protect jobs at home and ensure our trading partners play by the rules.

H.R. 4105 is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will be signed into law by President Obama. It is another step in the right direction for American trade, and it is one that is fully consistent with our World Trade Organization obligations. A flawed decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit weakened our country's ability to protect itself from unfair trade practices, and H.R. 4105 will fix it. Most importantly, the bill will help workers and businesses in my home State of Michigan compete fairly on a level playing field.

I commend my good friends, Messrs. Camp, Levin, Brady, and McDermott for introducing H.R. 4105, and I congratulate House leadership for bringing it to a vote so expeditiously. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to act swiftly, so we can send this measure to President Obama for his signature.

Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4105.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2038, the STOCK Act. I have always stood for the strictest ethical standards for all government employees, and today is no different. Government employees cannot be allowed to profit privately in the performance of their official duties. Indeed, throughout my career, it has always been my understanding that the House Ethics Rules specifically prohibit this sort of behavior.

I will vote in favor of S. 2038. I am very pleased that the bill contains a rule of construction to preserve the Securities Exchange Commission's, SEC, existing anti-fraud enforcement authorities. Nevertheless, I have lingering concerns about the bill's practicability and other unintended consequences. I believe these matters might have been clarified if the bill had undergone regular order. Absent that, Members of the House should have been given a briefing about the bill prior to taking it up. In fact, I requested such a briefing in a February 7, 2012, letter to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, but that request appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

It is uncertain to me whether House Leadership will insist on convening a conference committee with our friends in the Senate to forge a compromise. If that is to occur, I strongly urge House conferees to consider and solve the rather ticklish problem of how the SEC and House Committee on Ethics will interact under the Act. Furthermore, I have deep, dark fears that influential members of the House, Senate, and associated political organizations might exert pressure on the Commission to open or never begin a congressional insider trading investigation for political gain. Such an incident would fly in the face of the STOCK Act's otherwise meritorious intent.

In closing, I can only stress that this matter would have been best addressed in the various committees of jurisdiction and according to regular order. Observance of this institution's rules and procedures has produced well-written laws which have endured for years. I observed regular order as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and held numerous hearings on securities fraud in the 1980s. These hearings produced P.L. 98-376, the ``Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984,'' and P.L. 100-704, the ``Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988,'' which are the only major insider trading laws on the books.

Madam Speaker, I am ashamed to say I was right in predicting that banks would become ``too big to fail'' when I opposed the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act on the floor in 1999. I hope I am wrong in predicting that the STOCK Act, if not subjected to serious scrutiny and amended, will produce an administrative morass and, worse, an enforcement tool subject to the perils of political manipulation.

That in mind, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 2038.

Madam Chjair, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 1173. This bill is yet another in a long list of efforts by the Republicans to dismantle and repeal the Affordable Care Act piece by piece. Despite the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sit in Committee hearing rooms and profess to support addressing our long term care crisis, one of their first pieces of legislation on the floor this session is a bill that will repeal one option to address this crisis.

H.R. 1173 does nothing to protect the security of our country's retirees. Repealing the CLASS Act does not protect the 70 percent of today's 65 year olds who will need some sort of health or personal care in the future. Nor does repealing the CLASS Act do anything for the 40 percent of long term care users between the ages of 18-64.

While I recognize that the CLASS Act is not fiscally feasible in its current form, I also recognize that a lack of a long term care initiative is not financially feasible for Americans. The average cost of a nursing home is currently a staggering $78,000 per year while in- home long term care averages $21,600 per year. We must continue to try and solve the problem of our nation's lack of adequate long term care options, and I call on my Republican friends to come to the table and work with us to do so.

Instead of wasting valuable floor time, my Republican friends should take this opportunity to work with Democrats as well as the Department of Health and Human Services to find a solution to this critical issue. We all must continue to champion the effort to create a safe and secure future for our nation's citizens.

It is my concern that if the CLASS Act is repealed, the impetus to implement a crucial

long term care act will fall by the wayside. If my friends across the aisle wish to repeal this provision, it is vital they work expeditiously to implement a substitute for CLASS.

In 2008, 21 million Americans utilized some form of long term care. That number is only going to continue to increase, and it is our duty to protect the quality of life of our fellow Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1173 until we have a viable long term care program to replace the CLASS Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pastor Phillip L. Ferrell, for his 19\1/2\ years of pastoral service to Mt. Hermon Baptist Church and for his eight years of service to the Ministers' Alliance of Ypsilanti, Ann Arbor and Vicinity, where he has served as President. As friends and family and community members gather on Friday, January 27, 2012, I would like to offer my appreciation for Pastor Ferrell's passion, dedication and commitment to Mt. Hermon Baptist Church and the Washtenaw County community.

Pastor Ferrell was born and raised in Ypsilanti, Michigan, and has spent a lifetime working to make our community a better place. His teachings and influence have not been reserved to the church; however, as he has accepted the call to action on several occasions, locally and across the State of Michigan. Pastor Ferrell served as a member of Governor Jennifer Granholm's Faith Based Advisory committee, as a member of the Ypsilanti Public Schools Emergency Crisis Team, as a Board Member of the local N.A.A.C.P., and as a member of the Washtenaw County Literacy Council. He has also shared his knowledge

with our young people as an instructor in the Huron Valley District Congress of Christian Education, and is currently teaching in the Renaissance Christian Leadership School under the National Baptist U.S.A. Sunday School Publishing Board.

Pastor Ferrell has been a trusted leader, a wise teacher, a loving husband, father and grandfather, and a dear friend to many. Deborah and I are not alone in celebrating the long, meaningful and positive impact that Pastor Ferrell and his lovely family have had in my district.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 98, a resolution disapproving of President Obama's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit. We have been through this song and dance several times before, and we have reached the same conclusion every time. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would do irreparable damage to our economy, our financial markets and our credit rating. We know we must raise the debt ceiling to prevent a default on our nation's obligations, avert an international economic crisis, and prevent further harm from being visited upon middle class families. Why are some around here so hopelessly slow--or is it malevolent?

With the coming of the new year, most of us hoped that Congress would reconvene with a

real dedication to getting our economy on track and putting Americans back to work. Yet here we are, rehashing the same tired debate for the third time and continuing to play the same sorry old political blame games. It is no surprise that the approval ratings of this institution are at record lows when the American people see us engaged in political posturing instead of trying to deal with the problems average Americans face every day. People across this country are hurting and are sick of the inaction in Washington.

Instead of passing a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, reauthorizing our Nation's surface transportation programs or federal aviation programs, we are faced with another symbolic vote which has no chance of being signed into law. Why would leadership even schedule this vote? Is it to pander to their base and score cheap political points? Congress has plenty of items to consider which could provide a real benefit to the American people and our country. It is time to stop playing games and get to work, and we might just do something good for America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630. Working Americans cannot wait another minute for Congress to make up its mind and act. The country and its people are ill-served by the House leadership's inability to make up its mind. The economy and its future, as well as our credit rating, are being severely impaired by leadership's failure to lead in finding a solution to this problem and Republicans' followership to follow and support such solution.

While the Senate's solution is less than perfect, it's a desperately needed start. Our failure to prevent an increase in payroll taxes and the expiration of unemployment benefits will cut the legs out from under our country's economic recovery.

To be clear, I am not at all comforted by the Senate's compromise on extending unemployment benefits. By not addressing the contentious ``look-back'' issue, it is all but certain that states with persistently high unemployment rates that have improved very marginally--like my home state of Michigan--will all of a sudden find themselves ineligible for emergency federal benefits. As far as I'm concerned, that's like taking a sick person's medicine away because he's gotten slightly better.

That's not to say the bill is all bad. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 also extends for two months the critical section 508 hospital reclassification and will allow us more time to find a workable and sustainable solution to the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate reimbursement levels.

I urge my colleagues--particularly those on the other side of the aisle--to do the right thing by the American people and vote in favor of the Senate's amendment to H.R. 3630. The House leadership cannot continue to move the goalposts every time Congress appears close to a deal. The GOP strategy of trying to keep America down to win elections endangers the country, our people, and our future.

In short, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and punish hardworking Americans in the process. We cannot in good conscience go home to our districts for the holidays without passing this bill and committing to coming back here in March to enact a full one-year extension of UI benefits, the payroll tax cuts, and Medicare physician reimbursement rates.

The Congress's dithering around has brought us to the brink again, but we have an opportunity to salvage this situation tonight. We will be foolish to let it pass us by.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act. While this legislation is not without problems, it still provides the necessary resources and support to our men and women in uniform. As our nation winds down one war and continues to fight another, giving the troops the resources they need to succeed should be a top national priority. The legislation before us today accomplishes this important goal.

H.R. 1540 does the right thing and gives our service members a pay raise of 1.6 percent. It also ensures that we are taking adequate measures to protect our troops which are still in the theatre of combat by authorizing $2.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles, which protect our troops from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Additionally, the legislation provides $3 billion for directly combating IEDs in Afghanistan, and increases the Abrams tank program by $255 million. All of these important increases will have a real impact on the safety and wellbeing of out troops overseas, and it would be irresponsible to not support this legislation because of that fact.

The provisions relating to military detention for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists has generated much discussion, and rightfully so. Any effort which deals with civil liberties and constitutional rights must be taken very seriously. H.R 1540 simply restates what has become law on this issue through court decisions and executive actions over the last 10 years. It provides for military custody for foreigners who are members of, or substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, but gives the president wide latitude to try any such suspect in civilian courts. Specifically, the president is granted the authority to issue a national security waiver to authorize a trial in civilian courts. The legislation also explicitly states that U.S. citizens are not subject to military detention, which is a vitally important safeguard. Finally, H.R. 1540 includes language to ensure that the FBI can continue with their investigations of terrorists on U.S. soil. While this language is certainly not perfect, I believe it strikes a fair compromise between national security and civil liberties as it simply restates what our policy has been over the last decade.

Decisions about war and our national defense should never be taken lightly, and this is especially true in this instance. This legislation makes the necessary investments to keep our troops safe and deserves to be supported.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with disappointment over the legislative package put before us. As American families struggle to heat their homes, find jobs in their communities, and save for retirement or their children's education, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using this package to provide assistance to these families to insert controversial policy riders. Like all members of the U.S. House of Representatives, I agree that we must pass a sensible solution to fix the way providers are paid under Medicare, an unemployment extension, and tax relief for middle-class families, but I cannot in good conscience support H.R. 3630 as written.

Like my colleagues, I agree strongly that we must address the Sustainable Growth Rate, ensuring that our medical providers are paid sufficiently for the coverage they provide under Medicare. However, H.R. 3630 will address this problem for only the next two years, leaving us to once again deal with a massive payment cut--37 percent-- in 2014. I believe strongly that we must come together and find a way to permanently address the way we pay our doctors rather than kicking the can down the road time after time. Further, I cannot stomach though the drastic cuts to our healthcare programs. H.R. 3630 will pay for these extenders by increasing Medicare premiums for some beneficiaries and increasing the number of beneficiaries required to pay increased premiums. It also cuts over $21 billion from Affordable Care Act programs, endangering the implementation of health reform, increasing the number of uninsured by 170,000 people, and breaking our promise to American families, seniors and children that they will have access to affordable health coverage.

In another act of blatant cynicism, my Republican colleagues seem to be blaming the recession on the unemployed by slashing their benefits. America's working families didn't cause our country's economic troubles, yet the Republicans seem bent on making them pay all the same. We're not out of this recession, and my friends on the other side of the aisle want us to swallow an unheard-of 40-week reduction in benefits for people struggling to make ends meet? As if that weren't enough, Republicans seek to ensure that state agencies can engage in all manner of bureaucratic rascality to deny the truly needy the benefits they must have to keep the heat on and put food on the table. This GOP strategy to keep America down so they can win elections next year sickens me. The people in Michigan are hurting badly and need more help, not less. The Republicans' solution to the economic woes of working men and women would do Ebenezer Scrooge proud.

The final nail in this legislative coffin is the decision by the Majority to roll back efforts to protect our environment. I believe it is important that the Clean Air Act's health-based and air quality standards be protected. The federal government has a system already in place to keep our air clean and maintain the health of our citizens and rather than dismantle this system, we must bolster it. I agree any solution to air pollution issues must represent an equitable balance among all affected industries and parties. The existing Clean Air Act is such a solution and before we take any steps to alter it, as the so- called ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act'' does, we need to know we have developed something much better to put in its place. In hearings on this and other bills to change the Clean Air Act, I've asked my colleagues to come up with real solutions but instead their only idea is to indefinitely postpone Clean Air requirements without any regard to air quality or health effects. As we work to improve our fragile economy, it is important that we support businesses so they can have the tools to create and maintain jobs and put Americans back to work. However, it is also important that we not cede ground in our efforts to keep our air clean; the health of our citizens is too important.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another in a long list of partisan bills that my Republican colleagues have brought to the House floor with the knowledge and understanding that it is dead on arrival in the Senate. If Congress is to govern properly--by producing balanced plans to reduce our deficit, investing in our Nation's infrastructure, and creating jobs--then we must set aside the extreme ideological agenda and come together for a common cause. The American people want and need the federal government working to restore our economy, increase our competitiveness in the global marketplace, and provide American families with the opportunity to succeed. When this bill fails to move in the Senate, I hope my Republican colleagues will realize that we cannot spend the rest of the 112th Congress legislating from the fringes of the political spectrum.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2845. This is a bipartisan bill, somewhat a rarity, and the more welcome for that reason. It's going to help instill public confidence in our Nation's pipeline safety system by increasing safety standards without overly burdensome actions towards industry.

The legislation shows that bipartisanship is possible in this Congress, and that we can conduct the business of the American people if we will but sit down and work together. I first want to thank Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman and my friend, Mr. Larsen of Washington, for their hard work. I also want to recognize and thank Jeff Baran and Garrett Golding of the committee staff for their hard work, as well as Greg Sundstrom of my personal staff, who worked with great diligence and skill on this matter. Chairman Mica, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and Mr. Rush also deserve recognition for their hard work as the two committees have worked harmoniously together to forge an agreement on the final product we have before us today.

The inclusive process used in this case is an excellent model of how Congress should move forward on a host of other issues, and I hope that the instructive character of it is accepted by my colleagues. Recent accidents in California, Pennsylvania, Montana, and my home State of Michigan each highlighted serious deficiencies in our pipeline safety laws. H.R. 2845 incorporates the lessons learned in these incidents and strengthens laws in the areas of concern.

Specifically, the bill expands the integrity management program to improve inspections while phasing out our class location requirements, thereby putting stronger safety standards in place while taking steps to remove redundant regulations.

The leak detection, automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valve, and maximum allowable operating pressure provisions are a step in the right direction and will do much to improve safety. Pipeline safety is not a partisan issue but, rather, is something that impacts all Americans. We have an obligation to protect the American people and the environment from harm while maintaining a system that transports our energy resources efficiently.

It is my hope that the Senate will take up this legislation promptly and that the Obama administration will implement these changes in a meaningful way. We will all be watching to make sure that this happens.

Together, we have come up with a sound piece of legislation which has the support of both industry and safety advocates, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I would also like to observe, when one of these things lets go, it's quite an event. You will see something that looks a little bit like hell with the fire and flame and explosion and blasts and dead people and scorched automobiles, homes and the environment. I am delighted to see that we are doing this because we are protecting us both from gas and oil spills, and the evil consequences of that.

Mr. Chairman, this is a magnificent solution to a nonexistent problem. But it's made a lot of money for a lot of lobbyists, and a lot of industrial polluters are going to enjoy this, hiding behind the supposed benefit that it's going to give to the farmers.

In a nutshell, this legislation is not going to help the farmers; it's going to help the people who farm the farmers. And the end result is that, when this nonsensical bill gets over to the courts, the courts are going to look at it and say, Just what, in the name of common sense, is the House trying to do with this legislation?

Nowhere in the Clean Air Act is a word about nuisance dust, but it's very prominently put here in the legislation. And lo and behold, it also has something do, supposedly, with some kind of action that the EPA is supposed to take. But diligent looking at the legislation doesn't reveal what that might be.

The question here, then, is: We have a solution in search of a problem. We've got a job crisis in our Nation, crippling debt, excessive deficit, and the gaping inequality between the poor and the well-to-do is putting democracy at risk. And when this country needs us to focus on serious problems like deficit and national debt, we are here busily scratching around to try and fit a solution on a problem that doesn't exist.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were the last major changes to the original Clean Air Act of 1970; and, unlike what we are piddling around with today, those legislations were needed, and they have served us well. The Congress held lengthy hearings and did a tremendous amount of work to understand what it was. Eighteen months or so of consideration of the legislation led finally to its enactment, and it has cleaned up the air for our people.

While the amendments of 1990 were truly bipartisan, only four of the 120 sponsors of this legislation are Democrats. Ten amendments were considered in the committee, but only one Democratic amendment was adopted. The final adoption of the legislation occurred strictly along partisan lines. It should be clear to anyone that this is not compromise legislation.

Supporters insist the legislation is necessary due to uncertainty regarding EPA action. There is no uncertainty here. The Republican author of a similar Senate bill, a former Secretary of Agriculture, takes a different position. In one of his weekly columns, the Senate sponsor stated, ``I asked only for clarity from EPA, and this week Administrator Jackson finally provided it.'' It's obvious to our friends in the Senate and from the EPA Administrator, herself, that EPA will not implement stricter regulations.

Even newspapers in the sponsor's home State have questioned the logic of this legislation. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader wrote that the bill is fighting ``against a made-up problem'' and that it's time for the sponsor ``to let the phantom issue of dust regulation settle.''

The Yankton Daily Press and The Dakotan gave a ``thumbs down'' signal on the bill, in which they say it is unnecessary. The two local papers wish that those who had sponsored this legislation would stop trying to stir the fear of farmers and ranchers and, instead, spend time fighting real problems rather than those which are imaginary.

This bill does not help the farmers and ranchers. It helps the people who farm the farmers and a fine collection of well-to-do lobbyists down on K Street who are profiting mightily on selling a nonsensical piece of legislation which wastes the time of Congress and does nothing for the farmers or the ranchers or the economy or the jobs.

So I hope that the House will reject these half-baked bills that are poorly written, contain no solutions, deal with no problems, help no one, and that the two parties can sit down and find real, important, reasoned compromises to real problems.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10, the REINS Act. This misguided piece of legislation would do nothing to put people back to work, it would do nothing to reinvigorate the economy, and it would do nothing to rein in our debt and excessive deficit. Worse yet, it would serve to make our government even more dysfunctional. By prohibiting all major regulations from going into effect unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval, the REINS Act would put up a major roadblock for implementing important consumer protections, including regulations which help keep our food safe and prevent Wall Street from rascality that could bring our economy to its knees again.

Supporters of this legislation claim that the Obama administration's excessive regulations are crippling our economy. However, the conservative columnist David Brooks of The New York Times recently pointed out that in a recent poll by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 13 percent of companies said regulations were a major factor in why they laid off workers. Interestingly, this number has stayed steady over time. If overregulation is what is hampering our economy, you would expect a big spike in this number. This leads Mr. Brooks to conclude that ``Obama's regulations may be more intrusive than some of us would like. They are not tanking the economy.'' I would urge all members to read this column to help dispel some common myths about the impact regulations are having on our economy today.

It is important to note that Congress already has the authority to review regulations before they go into effect. The Congressional Review Act of 1996 allows Congress to pass a joint resolution to overturn a regulation to block its implementation. Additionally, all regulations must be subject to a public comment period, giving this body and members of the general public ample time to weigh in with their concerns. Given that these safeguards are already in place, it makes you wonder if the supporters of the bill seek simply to kill all regulations, including those that keep pollution out of our air and water, our armed forces safe, our commerce uninterrupted and our foods safe to eat.

H.R. 10 is a crass attempt to stop important consumer protections by those who are fundamentally opposed to any government intervention in the private sector. I urge all members to oppose this flawed legislation, and get back to work doing the business of the American people--producing a balanced plan to reduce our deficit, invest in our infrastructure, and put the American people back to work.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. This bill should be defeated because it does nothing to help create jobs or put this country back on the path to sustainable economic recovery. Rather, H.R. 3094 is an unconscionable assault on the right of every American worker to organize, a right that I have defended for my entire congressional career.

The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is a partisan reaction to a recent rulemaking by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning union elections. This one-sided bill carries on in the fine Republican tradition of stifling any attempt of working men and women to gain any leverage on management by unionizing. This frightens my Republican colleagues to no end, and while they will tell you that H.R. 3094 allows workers equal opportunity to hear both sides of the story, the hard truth of the matter is it will not. The bill we consider today allows employers to use all manner of litigious rascality to postpone union elections and fire workers for objecting to having to listen to anti-union propaganda. That is neither democratic nor fair, and is certainly undeserving of our support at a time when our country's middle class is being decimated.

Vote down this bill, and stand up for America's working families.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is certainly worthy of our support. H.R. 2112 represents a fair compromise between both parties and is an example of how we can achieve concrete results for the American people if we roll up our sleeves and get to work. Earlier today, I called on Congress to skip the upcoming planned recess so we can accomplish the business of the American people. Passage of this bill will represent the first step forward in that regard.

There is much to be proud of in this legislation. H.R. 2112 provides $2.5 billion for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is $334 million above the House-passed version of the legislation. This bill will give FDA the necessary resources to continue the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, of which I am the author and will help keep tainted food off of our shelves. We will also restore our commitment to the most vulnerable among us by providing $6.6 billion for the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) nutrition program, which is $570 million over the House-passed level.

I have called on my colleagues to pass legislation that will invest in our infrastructure and H.R. 2112 will make small progress in that area. It includes $500 million for a third round of TIGER grants, which have been critical in helping state and local governments to move forward on large, regional projects that will have significant impacts on their communities. The federal-aid highway program will receive $39.8 billion, which is $12.1 billion more than the House proposal, an investment that will result in 400,000 more jobs than what House Republicans supported. This bill will also include $10.5 billion for transit programs, $2.5 billion more than the House bill, which means DOT will be able to continue to support projects that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide commuters with an alternative to their personal vehicles when traveling to work or to run errands. I am, however, disappointed that this bill contains no funding for high-speed rail. I would remind my colleagues that we are continuing to cede innovative ground on this development to the Chinese, Japanese and French, and it is imperative we do not halt progress on President Obama's vision to create national high-speed rail network.

H.R. 2112 will also invest in innovation by providing an increase of $173 billion, or $7 billion, for the National Science Foundation. This investment is critical to ensuring that the United States is supporting high-risk, high-payoff ideas that the private market cannot or will not invest in. Such innovation will also be supported through an increase in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps small to medium-sized manufacturers to become more efficient and more competitive in a globalized economy. It also maintains funding for research efforts in the Great Lakes, a national treasure we must preserve and which provides countless opportunities for recreation, conservation, and jobs.

Compromise is never perfect, and quite often neither side is fully satisfied with the outcome. But everyone will need to make sacrifices if we are to adequately address the unfinished business of the American people. And that is what this bill is--unfinished business. H.R. 2112 will ensure that Congress is back here to have the same debate on a different set of appropriation bills on December 16th. If Congress had passed the 12 appropriations bills individually, we would not be debating H.R. 2112 today.

We were elected to be civic leaders who could put public interests before self interests. It is not in America's best interest to sit here refusing to support a bill that does not mirror each of our individual priorities. What is in America's best interest and helps move us forward is to come together today and support a compromise that, while imperfect, gets the job done. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to serve that purpose by supporting this bill and continue to find ways to make meaningful agreements to pass legislation that will put Americans back to work and help rebuild our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the honorable Suffragan Bishop Harry S. Grayson, who is celebrating his 60th birthday and 20th year of service as the pastor of The Messias Temple Church, as well as the 70th Anniversary of the Church in the community of Ypsilanti, Michigan. As friends and family and community members gathered last Saturday on November 12, 2011 to honor both anniversaries, my wife Deborah and I joined the service to honor the church and Pastor Grayson's service and care to the Ypsilanti community.

Time tends to show us what is really important in life. Since the founding of the Messias Temple on November 10, 1940, four pastors have dedicated their lives to spreading the Gospel and ministering to the well-being of the congregation and the community. As the church family grew in size, so did the church's community outreach and it was the spirit and leadership of these ministers, including Pastor Grayson, that have made the difference.

Over the past 20 years, many programs that promote the joy of giving have been initiated under the fine leadership of Pastor Grayson. They include the sharing of hot meals, holiday food giveaways, and vital prison, shelter, and re-entry ministries. I also applaud his commitment to promoting education in Ypsilanti through tutoring, financial assistance programs, and educational children activities. Pastor Grayson and his lovely wife Mary have raised their three children in the same place where he came of age and found his call for the ministry. His compassion, tireless efforts, and loving care for the Ypsilanti community is extraordinary and I am not alone in celebrating the amazing positive impact the church and Pastor Grayson have had in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Ronald Haddad, Chief of Police in Dearborn, Michigan, for being named a Public Official of the Year by Governing Magazine. As a resident of Dearborn, I can say that Chief Haddad is very deserving of this honor. His commitment to the safety of the residents of Dearborn and his emphasis on community policing is admirable and worthy of all of our praise.

Chief Haddad is the first Arab-American police chief in the State of Michigan, and he is an excellent liaison with Dearborn's large Arab- American community. The reforms he recently spearheaded have turned the Dearborn Police Department into a model law enforcement agency which other cities have sought to replicate. Specifically, the BRIDGES program, which entails regular meetings between leaders of the Arab- American community and government officials, has done much to promote trust and understanding in Dearborn, as well as Southeastern Michigan as a whole. Due to the good efforts and hard work of Chief Haddad and the entire Dearborn Police Department, Michigan's 15th Congressional District is a better place to live and work.

We all owe Chief Haddad an enormous debt of gratitude for his leadership and contributions to our society. Governing Magazine was very wise in choosing Chief Haddad as one of their honorees. I wish him all the best of luck in the future, and I am proud to represent Chief Ronald Haddad in the House of Representatives.