Floor Statements

The gentleman is getting carried away. Let me just cut you off and say that there is no candle that I've lit that was not already lit by the Democratic Caucus. I came here just 8 months ago and much of this work was under way.

You did mention something that caught my attention, and that is that in Philadelphia there is a rail car manufacturer.

Under the present laws of the United States, the Department of Transportation has the opportunity to use our tax money to purchase rail cars made in Philadelphia, or buses made in California or in the Midwest, but they don't often do it. Instead, they use one of four waivers that are in the law that allows our tax money to be spent on things that are manufactured--buses, trains, light rail, subway cars--manufactured overseas

and imported. Our tax money is going overseas. And I'm going, no way, no how.

So what you and I and others are working on is to eliminate three of those waivers and simply say, ``No, no, no, no, no. If it's our tax money, we're going to use it to buy rail cars manufactured in Philadelphia.''

Let's do it and then we can export them, too.

I notice next to you the gentlewoman from the great State of Ohio. She is determined to change from the Rust Belt to the Future Belt. Congresswoman Betty Sutton is joining us. You are right smack in the middle of what once was the greatest industrial section anywhere in the world. Please share with us your experiences and your hopes and where you think we ought to be going.

I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for bringing to us the perspective of things that we have yet to do; the idea of a strategy. You mentioned several pieces of that strategy, one of which the Democrats in this House have already done, the Senate voted for it, it's been signed into law, and it happens to deal with education.

We know that if you're going to have a manufacturing strategy where you compete in the worldwide market, you need a well-educated workforce. And so the Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act was passed here several months ago, was approved over in the Senate, and the President has signed it.

One very interesting fact about the way that bill passed this House. It passed without one Republican vote. Every Republican voted ``no'' or didn't vote at all. Only the Democrats voted to increase the Pell Grants to make it possible for students to enter college, to enter the community colleges. You can't have a first class manufacturing industry unless you have a well-educated workforce, which means education. And that's what we did. It's now the law. Every student and wannabe student across this Nation now has access to that additional money.

You have that experience of women from Ohio, and it couldn't be better, and we certainly appreciate our colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Sutton.

I noticed over here on my left side a gentleman who comes from the Continental Divide. Congressman Perlmutter has been very deeply involved. He was here a moment ago bringing to us a rule from the Rules Committee as a member there.

You were talking to me earlier about the way in which the economy is changing, and Colorado's become a manufacturing State. So please share with us.

Thank you. I just want to kind of set a couple of things in place here. Before I arrived here, my three colleagues and the Democrats in this House passed an energy policy that puts America on the track to renewable energy and puts us on a track to end our addiction to foreign oil. That bill passed this House. It is a fundamental policy direction. We're moving this Nation to renewables. We're moving the Nation away from its dependence on oil. I wish I were here to vote for it, but the special election occurred after that. There will be some follow-ups.

One follow-up, and this is something that just drives me crazy, that policy to build renewables in America actually runs up against our tax policy. The American tax policy allows our tax dollars to be used to buy wind turbines, photovoltaic systems, and even buses that are manufactured overseas. I am going, I don't get it. Wait a minute. That's our tax money. We're using it to buy wind turbines that are manufactured in China? Solar panels that are manufactured anywhere but America? That's stupid.

So one of the things my colleagues and I are working on is to change American policy here so that our tax money is spent on these green technologies that are manufactured here in America. Now, I hope the Republicans join us on this one. It remains to be seen, because they certainly have not joined us on any other job creation program that has been put through this House that's been signed by the President.

Now, my colleague from Minnesota.

Somewhere between California and Philadelphia is where Dr. Kagen is from. And you actually started a major business in America. You know what it is to make things in America. You are a physician, you are an entrepreneur, and you are one heck of a legislator. So please share with us.

Happy cows.

You mentioned Democratic leadership.

Just next to you is our Democratic leader, the Congressman from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I suspect you have a few things you'd like to say, and you may want to cover the 20 or 30 bills that under your leadership and Speaker Pelosi that the Democrats have passed out of this House with no Republican support. But I'll leave it to you to speak on the matter of manufacturing.

But before you do, if you will look over here Mr. Leader, ``Make It in America.'' Now that came from a tremendous leader. Our majority leader said in caucus one day, Make it in America. It's your slogan, it's our slogan.

I yield.

Mr. Leader, thank you so very much.

I notice we're joined by yet another Representative from another State, Mr. Tonko of New York, and you have often talked to me about the manufacturing that occurs in your area. Could you share us with your experiences and how all of this comes together in the great State of New York?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject we're talking about, making it in America, manufacturing matters, the subject of my Special Order.

We've got about 10 or 12 minutes. So we're going to do what we call lightning rounds. So we'll go around and we want to cover this ground as completely as we can.

I notice that our representative from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) has a few more things she wants to add here. So, please, I yield.

This House more than a month ago passed a very, very important tax bill, and what it did is to end the tax subsidies--and the gentlewoman from Ohio was speaking to this--ended the tax subsidies that American corporations get when they offshore jobs. Americans that I talk to say, What are you talking about? You mean the tax policy of America actually allows corporations to take a reduction in their tax, a tax credit when they send jobs overseas? The answer is yes, but if that bill becomes law--and it's stalled in the Senate by the Republicans--if it becomes law, that will end and no longer will corporations be given a tax break to send jobs overseas. It's $14 billion a year.

Mr. Ellison, we've had a debate here with your colleague next to you about which is the greatest State in the upper Midwest. Would you care to join us and answer that really important question?

If you yield for a moment, I assume, therefore, you must be from Minnesota.

I would yield to our mutual friend from the neighboring great State of Wisconsin.

We will not find any unanimity among the Democratic Caucus on that, but let's yield to Dr. Kagen.

Representative Tonko, thank you so very much for bringing us that perspective.

I am going to very quickly run through a scenario of policy changes that the Democratic majority in the House has approved by overwhelming Democratic majority and which the Republican minorities have consistently voted ``no'' on, almost to a person.

First of all, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; 2.8 million jobs created out of that, every single Republican voted ``no.'' This was the stimulus bill.

The Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act; 98 percent of the Republicans voted ``no.'' This was to keep people in their homes, to help small businesses.

The health insurance reform; 100 percent of the Republicans voted ``no,'' and this is the bill that provides a subsidy for businesses that buy health insurance for their employees, keeping their employees healthy.

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, giving students the opportunity to go to school, whether they are 50 years of age or 18 years of age, increasing the Pell Grants; every Republican voted ``no.'' The Democrats passed it.

Cash for Clunkers, keeping the auto industry alive; a majority of the House Republicans voted ``no,'' 95 out of their caucus. Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment, the HIRE Act, which will help create 300,000 jobs; 97 percent of the Republicans voted ``no.''

Credit cards. How many of us have been ripped off on our credit cards, the hidden interest bump that occurs after 3 or 4 months? The House Republicans voted ``no.'' The Democrats passed that, and it's now law with the President signing the Wall Street reform.

And speaking of the Wall Street reform, every House Republican voted ``no.'' The great collapse of the American economy caused by Wall Street excesses. Republicans stood with Wall Street; the Democrats stood for reform.

The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act passed by the House and Senate; 90 percent of the Republicans voted ``no.'' Small business, Republicans voted ``no.''

The Home Star Energy Retrofit Act, how we can improve the efficiency of our homes and put thousands of people to work; 93 percent of the Republicans voted ``no.''

The COMPETES Act, creating an educated workforce. You and I worked on this in the Science and Technology Committee. So what do the Republicans do? They voted ``no.'' This is the law that gives us science and technology education, gives us the resources, the research for the next generation, on and on and on.

We need policies that move the manufacturing of America, that put Californians, New Yorkers, Ohioans, Minnesotans, Wisconsin and every other State, those people need to go back to work. The jobs program, the innovation programs, the manufacturing programs, those are Democratic agenda items. We vote them out of this House, the Republicans vote ``no'' on them, and then it goes over to the Senate where the power of one Senator, usually a Republican, has stalled it all.

We are not finished. We have just begun. We are going to put America back to work. We are going to make it in America, and Americans will make it. That's our agenda. That's what we are all about, and we are going to see that it gets done.

I want to thank my colleagues and thank you for joining us this evening. For the American people, we thank you for your attention.

It's always good to go back to the district. I was there over the weekend. Among the many things was a family wedding.

My 89-year old mother came up to me and said, John, does that Republican leader really mean to cut Social Security to pay for the war?

And I said, well, apparently that's what he means. But I'll tell you this, Mom, and to every other mother and father out there that's on Social Security, no way, no how will the Republicans get their way, either privatizing Social Security, or cutting it to pay for the war. That's not going to happen.

The Democrats have been for Social Security since 75 years ago when it was first established, and we remain strong to that commitment. It is there. It is the fundamental opportunity for retirees to have a foundation. No privatization and no cutting of Social Security, despite what the Republican leader might say.

Madam Speaker, thank you.

Following on Congressman Lungren, my colleague from the neighboring district, I didn't realize that Senator Dave Cox had died. I join him in the eulogy that he so graciously gave here on the floor. An extraordinary individual, represented my mother in the mountain counties, and was dedicated, as was said, to the betterment of California. So I will start with that.

What I intended to discuss here today was jobs, American jobs, and the situation we are faced with today and the extraordinary burden that's placed upon so many Americans who have lost their jobs in the last years of this great recession.

What I wanted to really start with was to try to get a sense of what has happened over the last 3 years, 2\1/2\, almost 3 years now. Beginning in December of 2007, the great American recession began during the George W. Bush period. And we began to lose jobs, largely as a result of the subprime mortgage, the lack of regulation that was going on, loans being made to people that didn't qualify, and all the games of Wall Street that began to unravel and to cause the American economy to literally crash.

As that Wall Street problem magnified and grew, the number of jobs that were lost grew, so between December of 2007, when there is actually some modest job growth, and December of 2008, we saw an extraordinary decline in jobs. So that in December 2008 you are looking at over 750,000 jobs lost.

Now, in January, at the end of January, the Obama administration came in, and again in January we faced another 700,000 jobs lost. But almost all that period of time was the previous administration. And the new Obama administration did not have any opportunity until the last 5 days of the month to even take over the administration of government.

Thereafter, and most every month since then we have seen a decline in the number of jobs lost, so that now in the fall of 2009 we actually began to see the first signs of job growth. So that in September, October of 2009 there is actually a small, very modest increase in jobs, followed the next month by again a decline. But then in the following months since the fall of 2009 to this period, we have actually seen a growth in the number of jobs in America. And that's good news.

We're not anywhere near where we need to be. And I think we all need to understand what has been done to--the effect of all of this job loss. So if I might just go to another chart here so that we can set the foundation for what we're going to talk about, you know, the numbers basically lay it out there.

During the Great Recession, beginning in the fall of 2007 and then continuing on until the fall of 2009, 8 million jobs were lost. Nearly all of those were lost during the George W. Bush administration. For the Americans that depended on their savings, their retirement accounts, $17 trillion in retirement savings were lost during this period of time.

You just compare that to the previous 8 years of the Clinton administration, when 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration. The question arises, why? What was the difference? What happened that caused during the last years of the George W. Bush administration the loss of these some 8 million jobs compared to 22 million jobs that were created under the Clinton administration? We're going to come to that during this discussion. And it's a fundamental question, because it is the question of national policy.

During the prior period of the Bush administration, by contrast, 1 million jobs were created in America. Again, enormous difference--22 versus 1. Why? What's the reason for this? And the policy decisions that were made that led to this enormous difference here.

I'd tell you what we'd like to do for the remainder of this year is create some 900,000 jobs, and we're on course to do that. It's going to take a lot of work. It's going to take a lot of changes in policy.

Beginning with the Obama administration, a series of pieces of legislation were put into place, and I'd like to just review those pieces of legislation and what they were doing. Many of these were designed specifically to deal with the great recession and to prevent the American economy from falling into a 1930 Depression. We were on the edge. We were teetering on the edge of that.

Some of this was done in the last days of the George W. Bush administration, which was the bailout of Wall Street, the TARP program. That program pumped some $700-plus billion into Wall Street. A lot of controversy about it. Other nations around the world were doing the same thing. And the result was a stabilization of the financial industry. For me, I would have liked to have seen it done differently, but it was done that way during the Bush administration, and it did actually stabilize the economy. Now, because of bills that have been passed since that time, we're seeing a good portion of that money returned to the American Treasury.

Now, beginning with the Obama administration, immediate action was taken here on the floor of this House and in the Senate to try to stabilize the job market to try to put Americans back to work. And the very first bill that was enacted, I believe, within the first 30 days was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Now, economists looking at that today have said that that legislation alone created 2.8 million jobs, including teachers, police, firemen, construction workers, and the like. It also provided the American middle class with the largest tax cut ever for the middle class. Ninety-eight percent of Americans received a reduction in their taxes as a result of that, so that today the amount of money collected from the American taxpayers is at a rate that is as low as it was in the 1950s.

There was also a major element of it that was called rebuilding America with clean energy jobs and with infrastructure. So 2.8 million jobs were enacted.

I'm going to quickly go through these others. I'll come back to them during the course of this discussion. But also I want to just tell you the way we're going to do this, and that is we're going to talk about what's going on in various parts of America.

So, from time to time, I'll come back and talk about the other six fundamental pieces of legislation that have been signed into law by President Obama, passed by this House. All seven, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, have created jobs in America and turned around the American economy. So we're growing. Not as much as we should and not as much as necessary, but we're growing.

I'd like now to reach out--well, I guess I'm a Californian, but basically I'm from northern California. I represent a district in the San Francisco Bay Area east of the San Francisco Bay. But there's another part of California that is rather big. That would be the Los Angeles Basin. And specifically, joining me from Orange County is the gentlewoman from Orange County, Loretta Sanchez.

Can you talk to us about what's happening there and the nature of the economy and the job situation.

So thank you so very much for talking about down home and what's going on there.

I will note that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which the economists suggest has created 2.8 million jobs, provided the largest middle class tax cut ever, and also did the infrastructure-- streets, roads, sanitation facilities--and renewable green energy programs. Not one Republican voted for that.

I thank you for bringing up the question of innovation and research. It was a very big portion of that. I'm going to come back a little later to another piece of legislation that has passed this House, yet to pass the Senate. But with regard to the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, once again, it was the Democrats that carried the ball that shouldered the burden and passed and provided the votes. Not one Republican vote.

You mentioned the home-buying situation in Orange County. The first- time home buyer credit, I think it's $6,000, was made available through a piece of legislation that once again was pushed forward by the Democrats in this House and over in the Senate. And 93 percent of the Republicans on this floor voted against that provision that gives first-time home buyers that additional money that they needed for that down payment so they could buy that home.

It goes on and on and on. One of the issues that confronts us, since we're not back where we need to be with our employment, is the unemployment insurance situation.

Now, representing a part of the Nation that has been really harmed by the loss of manufacturing jobs is the Ohio Valley region. Representative Charlie Wilson is from the Youngstown area, and I invite him here to talk to us about his situation in the Ohio Valley and the Youngstown region. Welcome. Thank you.

Thank you very, very much for the view from the great Ohio Valley.

Before we started this 1 hour, you and I were chatting off the floor, and you raised another point and maybe the two of us can kind of talk about this for a second.

We're really faced with a choice. First of all, this is unemployment insurance. This has always been a program in which over time employers pay into a fund for insurance if their workers become unemployed. Because of the downturn in the economy, the Federal Government has had to backstop that insurance program. Presumably over time, we get the economy going, some of that will be refunded. I know it certainly will be at the State level because the States are obligated to make it back up.

But with regard to the individuals involved here, their unemployment insurance has run out. They have not received a check now I think for the last 2 weeks. If this is not extended, what happens to them?

And a person that was working, was receiving insurance, is now going to be on welfare.

So there is no win in this, and once again, where's the Senate? I know what happened in this House. The Democrats almost universally voted for this. We were able to get 29 Republicans to vote for this unemployment insurance program, and only 29 Republicans did so. We were able to pass it; 153 Republicans voted ``no.''

So what's the sense of all this? It really raises the question in my mind because as we go through these bills that have been passed from this House, some of which have been signed into law, passed the Senate, signed into law, the Republicans universally vote ``no'' on these jobs bills and even on unemployment insurance. I don't quite get it. We were talking earlier about the workers, the first-time homeowner buyers, tax relief for small businesses, emergency relief for American families. That bill passed here with only 7 percent of Republicans voting ``yes'' and 93 voting ``no.''

Even on student aid, we're talking about men and women that want to go back to school, that want to be able to continue their education, and one of the most important ways to stimulate the future economy is to have a well-educated workforce; but in that case, that particular piece of legislation that passed this House would have increased the Pell Grants so that kids and adults could afford to go to school. What did the Republicans do? Not one Republican voted for student aid to help students go to school, to continue in school.

I'm curious what's going on here. I just noticed that my colleague from Connecticut has arrived here, John Larson. Maybe you can answer this or just tell us what is going on in Connecticut.

Mr. Larson, thank you so very much. You've brought a great deal of passion to this. I know it's in your heart. I know that you see this problem in your own district among friends and others who are there.

I want to turn back to my colleagues from Ohio and California in a moment. I said there were seven pieces of legislation that have passed and have been signed into law. I'm going to go through them quickly because in their own way each one of these has created economic growth and jobs here in California, in Ohio and in other States across the Nation.

I mentioned the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We talked about the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act; First Time Homebuyers. The gentleman from Connecticut talked briefly about insurance reform, the way in which the insurance system discriminates against women, against people who have preexisting conditions. That insurance reform was embodied in the Health Insurance Reform Act that passed this floor and not one Republican voted for it. There will be a day of reckoning when somebody out there says, My 23-year-old daughter can stay on insurance now because the Democrats and President Obama passed the Health Insurance Reform Act.

Student aid. We talked about that a moment ago. It is extremely important, so that adults can go on to school, can stay there, improve their employability, learn new skills; and as the economy is coming back, will be able to get a job.

This one I found to be personally very upsetting because my old clunker didn't qualify. I actually did not register it in California. By the time you passed this, I wasn't here. It wasn't registered and I couldn't get rid of my clunker. But 700,000 cars were sold as a direct result of the clunker law and it really did help American automobile manufacturing. I know that a lot of people say that Toyota got more than its share, and it did, but a lot of that share were Corollas that were manufactured in Fremont, California; Toyotas to be sure, but nonetheless they were manufactured in California.

We talked about the HIRE Act. Incidentally, 95 percent of Republicans voted against the Cash for Clunkers law. The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, the HIRE Act, created 300,000 jobs. Created. Not some wish list but actually created 300,000 jobs and unleashed billions of dollars of infrastructure across the United States-- streets, roads, sanitation facilities. Cut taxes for businesses that hire new workers that had been unemployed and cracked down on offshore tax havens.

Oh, this one I love. I'm going to come back to this one.

Again, 97 percent of Republicans voted against that program. Three hundred thousand jobs. They voted against it. What are you guys doing? We need to put people to work.

Finally, one that most of the Republican leadership opposed, eventually it did become law and many, many Republicans voted against this one, which was the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights. Which one of us has not been ripped off by some credit card scheme or scam? But this really gives those of us that have credit cards--and I've got more than I'd like to say in my pocket right now--gives us at least a little bit of an equal footing here on that.

So here are seven bills, all of them in one way or another providing in this case credit, the opportunity to get reasonable credit; hire people; cash for

clunkers, education; health care and other kinds of stimulus. Democrats in this side took it upon themselves to shoulder the burden, to pass the legislation necessary to put people to work.

My final point before I turn back to my colleagues is that the argument that I keep hearing is that it will raise the deficit. Yes. But we ought to understand where the deficit really came from, and we'll go through that. The deficit was really created as a result of three things. Keep in mind that when Clinton left office, this Nation was in a surplus. We were running a surplus of over half a trillion dollars. George W. Bush came in and did three things that created as he left office for the next 10 years, an $11 trillion deficit:

One, he started two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and didn't pay for them; really the first time in American history. Secondly, he started Medicare part D, the drug benefit, I think 700 to $800 billion in 10 years, not paid for. And thirdly the great recession with the financial collapse. Those three things added up, beginning the day that Obama took office, he was handed a $1.3 trillion debt, given to him by the Bush administration. And if you look at the years out, continuing the Bush policy, that would add up to an $11 trillion deficit.

We've got to put people to work. The question that I always ask is, do you want tax takers, welfare recipients, who cannot get a job, cannot get unemployment insurance, or do you want taxpayers? The Democratic House has voted consistently to put people to work so that they could become taxpayers.

Excuse me. If I might interrupt, there is some House business that needs to be attended to. I notice our colleague arriving from the Rules Committee to take care of some House business.

Please continue.

Let's turn to Ohio, and we will continue on with the story of jobs and what it means in our local districts.

I thank you so very, very much for raising the critical role of small business in creating jobs. It is where many of the jobs are created, as you so correctly stated.

You also referred to two bills that passed this House, H.R. 5297, which was the small business lending program,

and it did all of the things you said. There is actually $30 billion in that that would be available to community banks to deliver loans to small businesses, $30 billion made available to them.

There is also a requirement that they would have 10 years to pay back those funds. So it would go on the books of the bank as a loan, but it would be a long-term loan so that they would have the capital. I am told by the small businesses in our area that they were able to get $1 million of capital, which this provided up to $30 billion to small banks. If they could get $1 million of capital, they could then make $10 million of loans. So there is that kind of leverage involved here.

That bill passed this House with 98 percent of the Republicans voting no. Now, I don't know how many times I have sat here on the floor and listened to our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle talk about their support for small businesses. But here where they had a concrete chance to help community banks and small businesses, 98 percent of them voted no.

You mentioned the small business tax incentive program, $3.5 billion of tax incentives for small businesses to specifically help small businesses weather the storm. It also granted tax relief from penalties that they may have had from mistakes that were made in the past. Again, a bill specifically designed to help small businesses.

Ninety-seven percent of our Republican colleagues voted no on that. So don't come to the floor and say you are for small businesses when you had a chance to vote for legislation that would specifically help small businesses.

There is another one that just came to me. We actually passed it and it is a good bill, it is important for many reasons. But I got a phone call last Saturday from a friend who was--``was'' is the right word-- was a home builder in California. He built many homes, high quality homes, was deeply involved in making those homes as green as possible, large energy conservation in solar and the like.

He said, John, you have got to make sure that the HOME STAR programs that provide an incentive for homeowners to upgrade their home so that they can install triple pane windows, insulation, the cash for caulker things. They are really important, because it gives the homeowner a chance to reduce their annual energy bill, whether it is heating in the winter or air conditioning in the summer.

He said, beside that, it is my new business. It is my new business. I am not building homes for a while because of the market in the area in which he was working, but he said I am going to existing homes and giving them the chance to make their homes energy efficient. I can make some money, they will make some money.

There are other programs that are out there that provide additional assistance such as tax credits, and I want to come to that in a few moments.

So when that bill was on the floor, what happened? Where do you stand? Do you stand with homeowners and small businesses such as I just described, or are you standing for Wall Street?

Well, let's find out. Ninety-three percent of the Republicans on this floor voted against the HOME STAR energy program. I don't get it. I don't get it. We are saving energy, helping us consume less energy, giving people an opportunity to work and homeowners an opportunity to reduce their energy bill.

I don't know what that means in Ohio, but I do know what it means in California. It is a chance for a small contractor to change his business model and to move in a direction that is good for him, good for the homeowner, and good for America.

These are the kinds of jobs that really don't require a Ph.D. People can take these jobs that were working on the line in a manufacturing industry or working in the housing industry. They may already have some skills that are available to them. But there is an enormous, enormous potential here. And the other pieces of legislation provide for a tax credit to the homeowner to put in these systems. So we need to really move along on these kinds of things.

I am going to just run through another series of bills here that are very important to us, I believe. Again, this is the Jobs For Main Street Act that creates jobs for firefighters, for teachers, and to rebuild highways and the like, extending health care benefits for those who had lost their insurance because of the downturn, something as sensible as keeping teachers employed, something as sensible as making sure that firefighters are still there.

Yes, it is the Federal Government helping local governments. It is true. And it is a deficit issue. But what if we don't have teachers? What if there are teachers being laid off and the classroom size goes from 20 to 30? What about the next generation's ability to compete internationally, their educational opportunities are stifled? That is not a what-if. That is my daughter's classroom. She is a teacher, first grade. She has gone from 20 to 30.

The economy is down. The State of California is in financial trouble. The Federal Government has the ability to help here, to keep people employed, teachers in this case, others in schools, and, more importantly, make the most fundamental investment, which is the investment in the education of our children.

You may be seeing something like that in Ohio. I know it is a major problem all across this Nation.

Well, these things are critically important.

One more bill that I want to take up before I turn to what we can do next is a bill that dealt with the fundamental reason that the American economy crashed in 2007-8, and that was the meltdown of Wall Street.

The extraordinary greed, the games that were being played, the gamble that was being made with our money by Wall Street led to the collapse. Obviously, the housing industry, the subprime mortgage market, the collateralized debt obligations, the derivatives, all of those games were being played on Wall Street. For more than a year--almost 2 years now--this House, the Democrats, have fought to rein in Wall Street; to force Wall Street to operate with rigorous rules that hold them accountable and responsible. We finally succeeded late last year to pass a Wall Street Reform Act. It went over to the Senate. It took almost 9 months for the Senate to gestate a bill. Conference committee took place. The conferees met. The bill came to this floor. And we added a few provisions to the--the bill came to the floor and it passed with provisions that were added during the conference committee. A good bill. It does rein in Wall Street, does set clear rules. It makes it impossible for a bank to fail and for taxpayers to bail out a bank--a big bank. There are things in it that went beyond that. Providing opportunities for small banks. Some of the additional benefit to small banks. They were given a break so that the heavy-duty regulations that were imposed on the major banks were not imposed on the small banks.

Where do you stand? Do you stand to rein in Wall Street and finally bring to

heel the bankers that brought this Nation's economy to its knees and doggone near tanked the economy, putting us into a Depression equal to 1930? Do you stand with that kind of regulation or do you stand with the Wall Street bankers that said say, Oh, trust us. We'll never do it again.

The Democrats in this House carried the burden of reining in Wall Street, setting in place the regulations, setting in place the rules of the road going forward, hopefully preventing, and I think will prevent, the kind of meltdown that we had. Our colleagues on the Republican side to a person voted ``no'' when it came time to discipline Wall Street. They voted ``no'' when it came time to discipline Wall Street. You know where you stand when you vote here in this House. In this case, do you stand with the regulation of Wall Street or let them continue doing what they did? It's clear where we stood as Democrats.

Now, Representative Wilson, would you like to add to that?

A compromise.

I was back in the district over the Fourth of July week and somebody said, Well, it's kind of like an NFL football game. I said, What do you mean by that? He said, Well, you used to play football at the University of California Berkley and you could have been in the NFL but you decided to go in the Peace Corps. I said, Yeah, it was a good decision. But what's the point here? He said, Well, you know, this Wall Street bunch, before your reform, it was like an NFL football game without any rules, and the referees were sent into the locker room. And you can kind of imagine what the outcome would be. Wild chaos and a lot of mayhem. He said, That's exactly what happened on Wall Street. The regulators during the Bush period stepped out of the room. The rules were not there to prevent the kind of excesses--if there were rules, there was nobody to make them obey it. And we wound up with the problem we had.

Let's move to the future here. So what are we going to do next? In the financial reform, Wall Street reform, there was a provision, and in another bill that we passed earlier there was a provision that is extraordinarily important to the American worker. In existing law today and for the last couple of decades there's been a tax break for corporations who offshore jobs--a tax break that literally gives a tax reduction when an American corporation sends jobs offshore.

You say, Excuse me, did I hear what you said, Congressman? You did hear what I said. What I said is, in the law today there is a tax break for sending jobs offshore. We have twice passed on this floor legislation that would end that tax break and annually restore to the American Treasury $14.5 billion that now sits in the popular corporations that have offshored American jobs. Must stop. It's got to be over. The Republicans voted with the corporations to keep that tax break in place. I'm not there. And I suspect you're not there, Mr. Wilson, either.

So we need to make sure that that bill that's sitting over there in the Senate where the power of one senator can simply stop everything, that it is busted loose and comes back so that corporations--American corporations--no longer get a tax break when they send American jobs overseas. Issue one. Let's get with it, Senate.

Secondly, this one really drives me crazy because this is really California. We've got solar in California. We started that in California. In 1978, I passed a law as a California State Senator that gave a tax break for the solar industry. The first in the Nation. And it started the solar industry. It also started the wind turbine industry in California. Right now, we're spending about $5 billion a year of tax money on buses; we spend billions of dollars supporting the solar industry with tax credits, some of which we've talked about; and the wind industry. We need, in my view, a law that says if it's our tax money, then it will be made in America. It will be used to buy American-made buses, trains, light rail. It'll be used to pay for solar panels and tax credits on the homes of Americans; panels and equipment that are made in America. It is, after all, our tax money. And with the windmills or the wind turbines.

In my district, we have two of the biggest wind farm areas in the Nation. We've got the Montezuma Hills in Solano County, which I represent, and we have the Altamont Pass area in Alameda, and San Joaquin County. Many of the new turbines that are being put up are made overseas--and most of them are made in China. And I'm going, Wait a minute. We're giving them a tax credit, those companies that own these machines? We're giving them a tax credit to buy turbines that are made where? China? No way, no how. There ought to be a law. And I believe this Democratic Party and this floor is going to put such a law together.

I think we've got about 10 minutes left, and I just noticed a colleague from the great Midwest just arrived. Congresswoman Kaptur, thank you so very much for joining us. I know you and I have had conversations about jobs, and I know that your part of the country used to be manufacturing center one. I guess the two of you can debate that. But let's talk about these kinds of things. How do we restore American manufacturing?

I thank you so very much, Congresswoman Kaptur, for joining us.

The heart and soul of America's manufacturing sector was the Midwest, and Ohio at one point was the strongest part of America's manufacturing economy. I know it can be restored. And right here in this area with the rolling stock of America's transportation system, with the new technologies, whether they're wind or turbine, if we use our tax money to support these industries rather than to support industries that are located in China or other countries, I think we can then provide the kind of strength that will return to America once again in the manufacturing sector.

We're nearly out of time, and this has been a great discussion. I just want to turn for a few moments to another colleague from California. We do think that we are the biggest part of the American economy. And a big part of it happens to be where Congresswoman Watson lives, which is the entertainment industry.

Congresswoman Watson, I think we're out of time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule so that we can get on to discussing an extremely important matter, not only the domestic issues that will be included in this piece of legislation which are absolutely essential. We do need to educate our kids. We do need to provide for critical domestic policies.

I also want to get to the issue of the war, particularly the war in Afghanistan, of which there will be some $30 billion allocated for that war. I strongly oppose that appropriation.

The Lee amendments, the McGovern amendments, the Obey amendments all come to grips with that and, in various ways, will cause us to get out of that war.

We have to focus laser beam-like on al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean that we have to engage in a counterinsurgency program in Afghanistan.

$30 billion. The Pentagon estimates that it's $875,000 per soldier in Afghanistan. Roughly $87,000 is enough for a well-paid teacher in America. That translates to 300,000 teachers. If we took that $30 billion and used it in America, we could employ 300,000 teachers.

We have to have a strong economy. We know that economy is in desperate need of a well-educated workforce. Better to spend the money here at home. Better to focus laser beam-like on al Qaeda wherever it may be in this world, whether it's in Aden, whether it is in Saudi Arabia or whether Sudan or Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not engage in a terribly expensive counterinsurgency program in Afghanistan.

Some of us were around for the Vietnam War. And what this sounds like is another Vietnam, a quagmire in which we will ultimately extract ourselves with extraordinary loss of life and treasure. It's time to stop it right now. So I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the rule and support for the two amendments that we'll be dealing with.

Mr. Speaker, thank you so very much for this opportunity.

I've been here for the better part of this last hour and I've heard some astounding, astounding accusations and things that are purported to be fact. And I'm just going, What in the world is happening here?

To think that the President of the United States is to blame for the blowout is the most extraordinary leap of logic you could possibly imagine. For the last 15 minutes, we've heard about the President didn't do this, the President didn't do that, the experts were not assembled.

That's just not true. If you knew what was going on, instead of just flapping your lips, you would know that, in fact, shortly, very shortly, within days and hours after this blowout occurred, the best minds in America were assembled in Houston and in Louisiana to deal with this.

The fact of the matter is there is a very, very good reason for the moratorium and, in fact, my colleagues on the Republican side here said the reason. They didn't know why this occurred. Was it human error? Was it a fact? Was it a problem on the rig? Was it a problem down at the bottom? They don't know. And, in fact, we don't know today, and that's why we have a moratorium. We have a moratorium because we don't know why this blowout occurred. We have pretty good evidence that the blowout preventer didn't work. We have pretty good evidence that the efforts of the various methods, the standard methods of dealing with the blowout didn't work. We don't know exactly why this well failed. And until we do know, we ought not be drilling in deep water because we certainly cannot afford another blowout.

Now, in 2008, in the Republican administration, two T-38 jets crashed within 2 weeks. The United States Air Force put every one of those T- 38s on the ramp and said, You're not flying those airplanes until we know why they crashed. That's called a stand-down. It's called a moratorium. So we have a moratorium.

BP's to blame for this. And I must tell you, I am just absolutely astounded by what the Republican Caucus put together that was actually announced by our colleague from Houston, Texas, the ranking member of the House committee, when he apologized to British Petroleum because the President demanded that British Petroleum put together a $20 billion trust fund to pay for the damage.

The Republican policy is to apologize to BP for the President forcing BP to do what was right, that is pay for the damages. That's just but one issue. I wasn't going to talk about this in great length, but I am just coming off listening to my Republican colleagues here. We have to deal with the facts as they really exist.

Joining me tonight is Congressman Ellison from one of the great northern States in the Midwest. And I think he wants to pick up this issue and maybe carry it a little longer.

If I recall correctly, it's not only the extraordinary economic damage, 11 people were killed in this blowout. Eleven men who were working on that, who had families, who were trying to earn a living were killed as a result of it.

Now, for BP, it wasn't their only accident. They have the worst safety record in the oil industry. So you are quite right, Congressman Ellison, that the issue of where the Republican Party stands on this, it's not just one member speaking out of turn. It was in fact the ranking member of the committee speaking on the talking points developed by the Republican Study Committee, which is the policy development committee for the Republican caucus in this House.

Please.

The thing here, if you would yield for a moment, is where do you stand? With whom do you stand? What side are you on? We just heard an extraordinary rendition of falsehoods, in my view, from the Republican side here that somehow this blowout, this BP accident was the fault of the Federal Government. Hello. Well, the regulations that they were so excoriating are absolutely necessary to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

In fact, the regulations that were relaxed during the George W. Bush administration allowed this company to proceed with minimum safety requirements. And we heard this talk about the governor of Louisiana, and a State that is heavily impacted and tragically impacted by this oil. What is their response plan? Pointing fingers at the Federal Government, which the governor is doing. And at the same time, what is the response plan for Louisiana? It's virtually nonexistent.

The State of California, where I come from, we have a heavy duty response program that goes back 20 years. We make the oil industry pay for it. Does Louisiana have such a program? No, they don't. But they are willing to point a finger. Let's take a look. What is this?

Really? What is it?

Ah, the taxpayers who they were so concerned about a moment ago. They don't want BP to pay; they want the American taxpayers to pay.

Is this the corporation called BP that had a $58 billion profit last year?

Quite possibly they are so well heeled and have such big profits because they cut so many corners that resulted in the death of I think 13 people at their oil refinery in Texas, and another 11 at their rig in the gulf, the Deep Horizon situation, and who knows how many else around the world. This is the company with the worst safety record because they cut corners. It gives them a fat profit. Now it's time for them to pay.

This mantra that started from the Republican Party, I think it was the Presidential candidate, if I recall correctly. It was called ``drill baby drill.'' And what we found out was that this drill baby drill results in ``spill baby spill.'' It is a terrible situation. It's not new, though; and it's not unusual.

In the last 17, 18 years in the Gulf of Mexico in these shallow water, deepwater drilling operations, there have been 38 blowouts. None as catastrophic as this. But this is not a new situation. In the Indian Ocean, west of Australia last year, there was a blowout of similar size by one of the international drilling oil companies. And it took them even longer--I think it was over 120 days, maybe a little longer than that--to drill a relief well to finally stop that blowout.

There was another major blowout on the Mexican side of the Gulf of Mexico several years back that resulted in a huge oil spill for a long time, and there was yet another off the coast of Brazil.

This is not new. But what is new is the extraordinary damage that's taken place and the irresponsibility of BP in this particular case where they cut corners, where they did the least that they thought they needed, instead of maximum, to be prepared; they did exactly the opposite. And now we're faced with this catastrophic event.

Our colleagues across the aisle were talking about nothing happening. In fact, numerous efforts have been made, unsuccessful to date. The capping, the effort to activate the blowout preventer, on and on and on. And hopefully in the next couple of weeks we will have one of the relief wells intersecting the existing well that blew out, and we can bring this thing to a stop.

However, we need to recognize that as long as we drill, we will run the risks. And as we run those risks, we also commit even a greater problem for

this planet, and this is as long as we can drill, we will be dependent upon oil, whether it is domestically produced or foreign produced.

This oil is not only contaminating the ocean and the beaches and the marshes; it's also contaminating our atmosphere, and that carbon doesn't disappear. And it also leads us to more dependence upon oil. It's time for us to break that addiction to oil.

Yes, use this catastrophic event to call our attention, to focus our minds on what we must do to break America's addiction to oil. This is not a new effort. We have been at this since the 1970s with the first oil crisis. We have yet to break it. In fact, we've continued the addiction. We must move away from this, and our energy policy must move us in a different direction.

I know you've spent a lot of time working on these issues, and let me put up another one. As horrible as this spill is, we need to understand what the oil industry is all about. The oil industry has been operating in America for about 140 years, maybe a hundred. Since the turn of the last century, 1900, it really got under way. And for a century now, the oil industry--well, let me just ask a question because this is what this asks. Which of these industries receives the most Federal subsidies? Read tax dollars. Subsidies are tax dollars. You want to talk about taxes, my Republican friends? Where do your tax dollars go? Well, let's find out.

It looks like solar panels, right? Okay. Do they get more? Do they get the most subsidies? How about windmills? Well, let's call them wind turbines, the modern word for them, wind turbines. This is an interesting one. It has been around for years. This is using the ocean, the waves and the ocean or the current in the ocean or even in the rivers. And this is an interesting one. This is really a brand-new one. And these are algae, algae-producing biodiesels. Or the oil industry.

Now, my question to you, Mr. Ellison, is which of these receive the greatest subsidy, read tax dollars, from the public?

You are a brilliant legislator and a fine arbiter of the question. It turns out you're right. It is the oil industry.

And let's take a look at this.

Our tax dollars: Where do they go? Let's see here. This side is the oil industry, and this is from 2002 to 2008. So we got some numbers up here for fossil fuels between 2002 and 2008. This is the oil and a little bit of the coal: $72.5 billion of direct subsidies, our tax money, being taken out of our pocket and given to the oil industry-- $72.5 billion in just 6 years.

So where does it go? Let's see here. Traditional fossil fuels. Oil and coal. There you have it.

Now, on the other side, renewable energy. Well, we have the corn ethanol industry, and they have received about $16.8 billion. And then the traditional renewables, these would be solar and wind and the like, about $12.2 billion. So taken together $29 billion for renewables in the same 6-year period that the oil industry received $72.5 billion.

Now the question of public policy is this: What if we flipped this over? What if we flipped this around and we took the $72.5 billion and spent it on renewables and we can continue a little bit of the subsidy if they really need it, which they really don't--not if you have $58 billion of profits. Doesn't seem to me they need much help. But, okay. We'll just flip it over, and they'll take $29 billion, and we give the renewable industry the $72 billion. What would happen?

It would be a very, very good thing. And most economists who look at the international markets and the next great industries don't look to the 19th century energy industry, coal and oil, as being the growth industries and where the jobs will be created. Those economists and futurists who look at these things tell us that the great energy industries of the future are the energy industries of this century, the renewables of all kinds. All that we had up here and even more than I had on that little chart. That is where the jobs will come there.

And our policy ought to be to encourage those industries and those things, the wind turbines, the solar, even the nuclear systems and the rest, that they be built in America.

Let's bring this issue that you just raised right back to this Chamber in the present moment.

We have voted here three times, I believe, on what are called programs for energy conservation. One of them was called cash for caulkers. We had the cash for clunkers, which really helped the auto industry. And we decided, well, let's try something, cash for caulkers, which is exactly what you talked about. It's about bringing about energy conservation. And in doing that, two good things happened: we're employing people. Taking our tax dollars. Get this back up here. We don't have conservation on here, but if we were to add conservation, taking our tax dollars instead of giving them to the coal and the oil companies, give it to men and women in the communities that are doing the insulation, doing the window caulking.

As that is done, homeowners and renters see their energy bills drop.

What happened on this floor when those bills came up? What is your memory of how the votes turned out?

My recollection is that the Democratic side said, Let's give people jobs. Let's use the public's tax money to employ people to do energy conservation. The Republicans, to a person, voted ``no.''

Whose side do you stand on? Are you going to take those tax dollars and continue to give them to the oil industry and to the coal industry or are you going to take those tax dollars and put people to work, achieve the energy conservation and allow homeowners and renters to see their energy bills go down?

The Republican Party made a very clear decision on who they stand with. They do not stand with the homeowner. They do not stand with those who could get the jobs. Instead, they voted ``no'' on those three conservation programs that would put people to work.

You are quite correct.

I am going to go through a list of specific things to help the economy,

but before I go to that, I think we ought to set the stage here. There was a lot of talk in the previous hour about deficits and where the deficits came from.

Oh, brother.

Where did the deficits come from?

Well, first of all, let's understand that public policy doesn't change the moment a President comes into office. There is the continuity of the previous years' policies that stay in effect for a while until those are changed. Even then, it isn't an immediate night to day. It takes a while for the policies to go into effect. So the charts that were shown earlier are just plain disingenuous, if not outright false.

The George W. Bush administration came into office with a significant surplus that was created in the last 3 years of the Clinton administration. I think it was about a $500 million annual surplus that was projected to go on into the future. The George W. Bush administration, together with the Republican-controlled Congress and Senate, did four things that created the deficit that we have today, which the Republicans want to pin back onto Obama and the Democrats. Here are the four things they did:

First of all, they instituted one of the largest tax cuts ever in American history for the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, not for the everyday workers--not for the people who are out earning salaries day by day or who are earning hourly wages--but for the wealthiest. That is fact one.

Fact two, the prescription drug benefit for seniors was not paid for, and they specifically put in a provision that prevents the Federal Government from negotiating prices with the pharmaceutical companies.

Fact three, two wars were started and paid for with borrowed money--a most unusual event. That is fact three.

Borrowing money, reducing taxes, starting two wars. Right now, those wars have cost us well over $1 trillion, nearly $1.1 trillion.

Fact four, the continuing escalation of health care costs, okay?

Those are the four reasons we have the deficit today. Let me give you a fifth reason.

The fifth reason is the crash of the American economy.

Those all happened during the George W. Bush administration, and they didn't stop the day Obama came into office. We are now changing those policies. For example, the health care reform, which not one Republican in this House voted for--not one--will, over its lifetime, actually reduce the deficit because it reins in the cost of medical care. In my view, it's not enough, but nonetheless, it does that.

Secondly, the other policies have been allowed to continue. Now, the tax policies of the Bush administration will expire. That will help. As for the prescription drug benefit, we are working on that. That was part of the health reform also. The wars continue. Fortunately, the Iraq war is winding down while the Afghan war escalates.

So we have to understand how we got to this place we are today.

How we got there were through the basic policies of the Clinton administration. It left a surplus, a continuing surplus, for the George W. Bush administration. Had they not changed the policies, it is estimated that, by the middle of this decade, we would have wiped out the American debt--period, gone, history--but, no, they changed the policies, and now we are saddled with this debt.

The crash. The crash of this economy was caused by reckless action on the part of Wall Street, by reckless, irresponsible action on the part of Wall Street, basically driven by the grossest greed you could possibly imagine. There were all kinds of inducements to homeowners to engage in mortgages they could in no way possibly pay.

I know that you are faced with this in your community. There was action taken on this floor not more than 5 hours ago--and we will be coming to that in just a moment--but share with us the experiences in your community about mortgages, about all of the problems of the housing industry, about the crash, and about what has happened in your community.

The gentleman is absolutely right. I know I see this in my own district, and in fact in my own neighborhood and in the families of my staff. We have on my staff families who have lost their home; who have had to do the short sale; who got into these mortgages that they couldn't possibly pay. They had these readjustments. All of those things. Now what was causing that? It was Wall Street. Wall Street was making it happen by creating these collateralized debt obligations, by the fancy financial manipulations. And why were they doing this? So they could make a big profit. And they did.

Now, today, on this floor today we took up the Wall Street Reform Act and Consumer Protection Act. And it's very, very interesting how the Republican leader characterized the effort that the Democratic Members of this House and the Senate have made to address the excesses of Wall Street. This is the most substantial reform and adjustment of the horrendous Wall Street practices that took this country to the very edge of an extraordinary Depression. And yet our Republican colleague-- let me just get this chart because it is so interesting.

You said something that caused me to pull up a chart that I wasn't going to use. The financial meltdown nearly bankrupted the world. Not just America, but the entire world's economy came very, very close to a total meltdown. What it meant to mom and pop back home, what it meant to their 401(k)s that instantly became 201(k)s was this: $15 trillion of wealth destroyed in the last 18 months of the Bush administration. Say whatever they want on that side but the fact is that's what happened. What's happened since then is we put into effect the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and we're beginning to see the stock market come back, we're beginning to see the wealth return. The fundamental problem still remains in the housing industry, and that we have to address.

Once again, all of the legislation dealing with the mortgage markets, all of the effort to try to rebuild the housing industry has been done by the Democratic side. We have had no help from the Republicans. Just say ``no'' is their mantra. The result is that we push forward with great difficulty. The Senate is a major problem for us because you have the power of one senator over there that can stop things. But, nonetheless, we pushed forward with an effort to try to restore the housing markets with various plans and mortgages. And today it's time for us to come to what happened today.

Today, on the floor of the United States Congress, the most far- reaching, most important revamp of the financial industry in this Nation's history since 1936 took place, and it was a vote on the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In that very important piece of legislation there are several sections that deal directly with the housing market, outlawing--outlawing, making illegal the kind of liar loans, the kinds of revamp and mortgages that were the genesis of the problems. Also, in the housing market, holding brokers responsible. Holding them accountable. Holding the banking industry accountable for what it does and setting up a consumer protection agency.

Now, this is something I understand. I was the insurance commissioner in the State of California, elected statewide twice--1991 to 1995, and again 2003 to 2007--and I built a consumer protection agency. It's absolutely essential. The capitalistic market is driven by profit motives. Now, wise companies understand they've got to take care of consumers. But the profit motive drove this Nation and this world right to the edge. You need a countervailing power. And the consumer protection agency in this bill would do it by setting out a series of regulations to protect consumers and allow consumers to speak out, to get assistance, and to get help. It didn't exist--only in the insurance marketplace--which was regulated previously by the individual States. But not in the financial and banking markets.

Now when the Senate acts, which hopefully they will do in the next couple of days, we will have a bill going to the President that will be the most important reform of the financial markets in more than 80 years now. It has to be done. Otherwise, we're going to slip right back to where we were. This is not big government. This is wise government. This is the kind of government that we need to set the boundaries.

Think of it this way, Mr. Ellison. NFL football. Now you play that in Minnesota, don't you? What's that team in Minnesota?

The Packers.

Okay. We've got the Packers playing the Vikings. They do that on occasion, don't they? Imagine that if the sidelines were erased and imagine if the referees were put back in the locker room. What would happen?

I played football for the University of California in a bygone era, and of course we would never engage in such a thing if the referees weren't there. But that's the analogy of exactly what happened in Wall Street. The regulators were absent during the Bush administration. They simply left the playing field. The referees left the playing field. They put the rule books aside and it was Katie bar the door, because anything was allowed.

This bill that we voted on today puts tough new regulations in place, regulates this market, and puts in place the referees, strengthens the Securities Exchange Commission.

Mr. Ellison, please.

Absolutely true. Similarly, we have a well-regulated financial market, which we will when this bill is finally is signed, then we will. The point that I want to make is this, and that's why I brought this thing up: Where do you stand? Where do the Democrats stand? We clearly voted today for a major overhaul of the banking industry, the financial industry, and the mortgage markets, to put in place strict rules and regulations. That's where we stand--to protect consumers with the consumer protection bill.

Where do the Republicans stand? Well, why don't we just quote the Republican minority leader, whose name I won't mention, but let's just say he represents the Republicans in this House. He is their leader.

So in an interview with a newspaper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he said that this bill was a nuclear weapon to kill an ant. I have got the exact quote here. Maybe I should just read that. I don't want to misquote him because what he said was so outrageous.

Let's see. Oh, that's the Social Security which we ought to come to here in a moment. And Social Security, just touching on it, he said, ``We ought to raise the Social Security age to 70 so we can finance the Afghan war.'' Oh, wait a minute. Did you really mean that, Mr. Leader?

He said, ``This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon,'' when referring to the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection bill. ``Killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.'' Well, I'm sorry, but it is a clear indication of where the Republicans stand. They're clearly standing with the big banks. And on the Senate side, in the last 2 days, the financial regulation to pay for this was going to be paid for by the big banks. But the Republicans in the Senate said, No, no, no, no, no. You can't make the banks pay for the regulation. You can't make the NFL football team pay for the referees. No, no, no, you can't do that. What you've got to do is to make the taxpayers pay for regulating the banks.

Whose side are you on here? It's perfectly clear, when you look at all of these, whose side you are on. When the minority leader, the Republican leader, says, The effort to rein in Wall Street and protect consumers is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon, well, I'm sorry. Wall Street is not an ant. The five, six biggest banks control about 70 percent of all of the financial markets. These are not ants. These are gigantic anteaters, and we're the ants that they're eating. So we've got to get this straight: Whose side are you on?

The financial meltdown, the biggest downturn since the Great Depression, 8 million jobs lost. It's not an ant. This is my neighbor who lost his job. This is the homeowner who lost their home, and this is the unemployed person that's begging for our help in continuing the unemployment insurance because this economy has not yet turned around. These are very, very serious things.

There are a couple of other things we really ought to get here. And if you can work with me on this, we talked earlier a little bit about health care reform. It's not Big Government. In fact, health care reform is exactly very similar to the reform in Massachusetts which was authored by a Republican Governor who went around this Nation taking great credit for it until it became a national model. This is really insurance reform. It's not a takeover of the health care industry, not at all. And it's not anywhere even close to socialized medicine.

In fact, the public option is not in the legislation at all. It is a reform of the insurance marketplace. It's the kind of reforms that allow my 23-year-old daughter to stay on my health insurance rather than becoming uninsured. It's the kind of reform that allows the young baby that's born with an illness to be able to get insurance. It's the kind of reform for a 50-year-old individual who has lost their job to be able to buy an insurance policy at a reasonable rate. It's the kind of reform that ends the discrimination that every single woman in this Nation faces when it comes to getting insurance. If you were a woman in America prior to this health care reform, you had a preexisting condition that could, and probably would, keep you from buying a policy.

Those discriminatory actions by the insurance companies are over as a result of this reform.

Thank you so very, very much for making that clear. You go through all of these pieces of legislation, and the Democratic Caucus is there. On the other side of the aisle, on the Republican side, they're standing with Big Oil, big banks consistently, and the big health insurance industry.

Now, let me make this point perhaps more clear, and that is, the Republican minority leader not only said that we ought to take on this issue of Wall Street reform as though it was some sort of a nuclear weapon killing an ant. He also talked about health care, and he said that if the Republicans take control of the Congress after this next election, if they win enough seats after this next election, they are going to do everything they possibly can to stop the Patients' Bill of Rights and other health reforms.

They are out to repeal the reform that Americans desperately need so they can get affordable health insurance. They want to kill those reforms. They want to turn back women's opportunity to get an insurance policy and say, We don't care whether you have a preexisting condition; you are at the mercy of the health insurance company. If they deny you, that's your problem. You shouldn't have gotten sick in the first place. If you are a 23-year-old, you will lose the ability to be on your parents' benefits.

That's what the Republican Caucus wants to do is to repeal all of the efforts of consumers and to build into this system a method of keeping us healthy.

So, okay, whose side are you on? There is a string here. There is a logic to all of this. One more thing--and I couldn't believe this when I heard this, and it just came, I guess, in the last day or two. Now, Social Security is an insurance policy. You and I pay into Social Security. As Members of Congress, a certain percentage of our pay goes for Social Security, and so it is with every other person in America who is working legally. They are paying into Social Security.

Mr. Boehner, the Republican leader, has said that what he wants to do is to increase the retirement age from 65 to 70 and use the savings to finance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And I'm going, Excuse me, wait a minute. That's my insurance policy. That's my mother's insurance policy. That is the insurance policy of the working men and women out there, and you want to take it away to finance the Afghan war. I don't think so.

But that's once more sign, a signpost--we're following a path here--a signpost of where the Republicans stand. Big business, ending Social Security; and in fact, their budget, put out by the Republican Study Committee, their budget called for the end of Medicare, the privatization of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

That's their policy. If that's what the public wants, then those folks are going to win this election and they're going to come and they're going to control this House and they're going to try to do it. I think this would be a serious problem for every American. Medicare, Social Security privatized? I don't think so.

Let's just go through this. Who's side are you on? Democrats supporting jobs and bills. We talked about the Cash for Caulkers and other programs and the jobs bill, every single one of them opposed. No jobs bills.

Unemployment insurance. People are losing their unemployment insurance because of the Republican Party. What are they going to do? The economy hasn't come back. They're going to lose their jobs. They're going to lose their home. We're going to start another downward spiral.

We talked about the health care effort. Not one Republican voted for the health care bill. Excuse me. One in this House. One Republican voted for the health care bill.

Wall Street. We talked about Wall Street reform. Republicans vote against it; the Democrats vote for it.

We talk about the Consumer Protection Agency. The Republicans are opposed to it; the Democrats support it.

We talk about small business reforms which are in this bill and in other bills. The Republicans consistently vote against small business, the increase of the Small Business Administration.

We can go back through the major bills that this House has voted on. The American Recovery Act, known as the stimulus bill, Republicans voted against it.

You look at the energy and climate to break our addiction to oil. Democrats vote for it; Republicans vote against it.

You look at the Wall Street reform and the Consumer Protection Act. Democrats vote for it; Republicans consistently and in en bloc vote against it.

You talk about the gulf oil spill, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Republicans blame the government and want to apologize rather than the instigator of the problem, BP.

On Social Security, the Republican leader wants to extend the age to 70 in order to get Social Security.

You talk about health care reform. We've discussed that already. The Republicans vote against it. They want to repeal it. They get into power in this House, they're going to repeal the reforms.

And unemployment and jobs, every single jobs bill they vote against. Every effort we have made to put people to work, whether it was in transportation--and that is in the American Recovery Act--or in the current jobs bills, keeping teachers employed, we want to employ teachers. They talk about the next generation, yes. But you don't educate that next generation, we're in trouble.

All of these things add up and it is, as you say, there's a string, there's a path, there are road signs here. Who's side are you on?

The Republicans have consistently sided with Big Oil, big health insurance companies. It's time for us to recognize the difference.

We are.

The final point is this: In the 8 years of the George W. Bush administration, about a million net jobs were created. In the last 8 months to 9 months, more jobs have been created than in the entire George W. Bush administration. Now, that's a fact. Read it any way you want.

We're on the right road here. We want to continue that path.

Mr. Ellison, thank you so very much. And it's good to know that the Packers are your team.

But remember, in an NFL football game, you need a referee, and on Wall Street, you need a referee also.

It's time for America to end its addiction to oil. Our national security is at stake. We spend $1 billion a day sending our money overseas to the oil companies, many of them owned by foreign nations, some of whom are not at all friendly to America.

I hear a lot of whining from the Republican side of the aisle about, well, we can't do that. Well, we cannot continue doing what we're doing today. We see the risks--$20 billion worth of economy destroyed along the gulf coast. Big Oil has had its day, $12 billion. You want to save some money on that side, let's retrieve the $12 billion subsidy that we send to the oil industry every day.

It's time for us to move to renewables. It's time for us to protect our coasts. On the west coast, we do not want new Federal oil leases, and therefore the West Coast Oil Protection Act must be passed. No more Federal leases off the west coast. Move to renewables. Let's retrieve our $12 billion annual subsidy that we give to Big Oil. Let's not send $1 billion a day of our money to the foreign countries.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, who will be along shortly, but before I launch into the issue of national security and of our dependence on oil, I would like to just address what my colleague from California was talking about, give an example of why disclosure is important, and would like to recognize the fact that it was the Republican Party mantra for nearly 20 years that the solution to campaign finance reform was disclosure. Now, apparently, they want to stand up and say they don't want disclosure after having, for 20 years, said they want disclosure.

Go figure.

The fact of the matter is, in California, in an election held just 2 weeks ago, disclosure under the State law has played a critical role in stopping Pacific Gas & Electric from ripping off the ratepayers of California and has played a critical role in stopping Mercury Insurance Company from doing the same to their customers.

The California law required disclosure. PG&E spent over $40 million in, what I think, was blatant, false advertising, and at the bottom of each one of those ads, they had to read, ``Paid for by Pacific Gas & Electric.'' Similarly, with Mercury Insurance Company, the public took one look at those ads, which they saw repeatedly, and said, Oh, that's who's behind it. Well, I'm a ``no'' vote.

Disclosure works, my Republican colleagues. It's what you wanted for more than 20 years, and now that you're about to get it, you don't want it. Well, I think not.

National Security and Dependence on Oil

Let me go to the subject at hand that we are to talk about this evening,

which is really the issue of national security.

For more than 40 years now, America has talked about energy independence, about literally breaking our addiction to oil. America is addicted to oil. We consume more than 25 percent of all the world's oil supply. Yet we have a very small portion of the reserves. We are literally sending overseas $1 billion a day, with much of it going to countries that are actively supporting people who don't agree with us and people who are actually--well, perhaps--supporting terrorist organizations. Certainly, our national security is dependent upon going after the terrorists, and no one is going to do it more aggressively than the Obama administration, which has increased the antiterrorist activities of this Nation far more than during the Bush period--but back to oil.

If we doubt for a moment that our Nation's security is at risk with the current way in which we produce oil, you only need to take a look at the Gulf of Mexico. In the last 20 years, there have been more than 38 blowouts, none of them as large as what we now see with the Deepwater Horizon situation. Nonetheless, it is, in fact, a common occurrence, which has averaged more than one and a half per year over the last 20 years.

So is it safe?

Well, not so much. We just heard that saying from our Republican colleagues that the moratorium imposed by the President is somehow wrong. Hello? When two Air Force jets crashed within a month several years ago, the United States Air Force did what it calls a ``stand- down.'' They grounded the entire fleet until they found out what was wrong. They corrected the problem and went on their way. That is exactly what President Obama has done. He did a stand-down of additional drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because, hey, there is a problem. This is an extraordinary blowout, one that is now exceeding everybody's estimate. The result: Oil on the beaches, dead birds and, according to The Wall Street Journal today, hmm, ``Oil Spill Delivers Recovery Setback.'' This is specifically looking at the real estate industry along the gulf coast. They cite five or six projects here that may be jeopardized because of the oil spill.

This is a national security issue in the sense of how we get our oil, in the sense of our addiction to oil. It is time for us to recognize that. Because we have, in the past, consumed all of the easy oil, we are now going to the most difficult, the most dangerous, and the most risky places in the world, certainly to the deep waters. The Deepwater Horizon blowout is, perhaps, as much as 60,000 barrels a day. This is a very serious problem, and it deserves our attention.

Last night, the President spoke to the problem and committed his administration and this Nation to everything necessary to clean up and to plug the well. My colleagues on the Republican side mentioned that, just 37 days ago, they started the relief. That's not true. They actually started the relief program on the very day of the blowout. It took a while to get it going, and it is going to take even longer to get it done.

So where are we going to go with this?

I've been joined by a couple of my colleagues today, and I would like to ask my colleague from California, Congresswoman Judy Chu, to give us her thoughts on this situation.

Representative Chu, thank you very much for your statement and also mentioning the end of new oil leases off the West Coast. We call it the West Coast Ocean Protection Act. And it would prohibit new leases off the West Coast of the United States. This is a $32 billion a year industry along the West Coast--California, Oregon, and Washington--that is dependent upon the pristine nature of that coast. In addition to that, the West Coast has a much different environment than the Gulf of Mexico. It's downright dangerous out there. High waves, high wind, and earthquakes, and a lot of other things that we'd say, Oh, that's not a good place to be drilling.

It's not enough to talk about the West Coast. I see my colleague from New York here, and I know that he, too, along with the residents of New York, are terribly interested in what is happening and in our natural energy policies and our move away from oil.

Congressman Tonko, if you would, please join us.

Representative Tonko, thank you once again for being both eloquent and right on the target of the issue that's out before us. When you talk about the nature of the spill, this map is a recent one from the US Geological Survey and NOAA--actually, NOAA. And if you look at the size of that spill, it looks like it's getting about the same size as Louisiana itself, and of course, the Gulf Coast along here is seriously threatened and the extraordinary wildlife and habitat of the Mississippi Delta is at risk and already seriously hurt by it.

You mentioned BP--and maybe, maybe, but I'm not convinced that BP has actually gotten the message that their first task is to clean up. Their $50 million PR campaign, I've seen some of the ads. If they had spent that $50 million on the proper blowout protector and actually had put in the most modern protection at the well head and not cut the corners, as is becoming increasingly obvious, in the drilling techniques and in securing the well itself, they wouldn't have to be spending multiple billions of dollars cleaning up.

They absolutely must put that money into a trust fund. BP is not to be trusted to adequately distribute that money to the people that have been harmed. So the President is right. Create the trust fund. Put an independent party in charge of it and let the money go to those that have been seriously harmed by this, as well as the wildlife and the damages there.

By the way, we really ought to pass a bill to increase the liability limit. And I know that bill will be moving through here.

Joining us from--well, my neighbor in California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who about 2 years ago, you experienced an oil spill on the shores of your district.

Representative Lee, thank you for joining us.

Thank you very much, Representative Lee. And thank you for all the work you did dealing with that problem in the San Francisco Bay when the ship hit the bridge. We had our own little spill over there.

I had pulled this placard up with the pictures of the oil and the birds. And I didn't realize until you started talking about the escalation and the estimate of the amount of oil that spilled--my staff put this together actually about 4 weeks ago--and they said by Father's Day it would be the worst spill ever. At 60,000 barrels, it was actually the worst spill after about the first 3 weeks. So in any case, we have got a real serious problem there.

I notice that I have fortunately been joined by three Representatives from a wide, diverse part of America. From the west coast, in the great metropolitan area of Los Angeles, Congresswoman Watson, if you would care to join us.

Thank you so very much for your eloquent comments on what has happened, what we must do.

I notice that sitting next to you is a Representative from the other side of the American continent, Representative Moran from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. Moran, how correct you are: never let this happen again. It is not just drill, baby, drill. What we have seen is spill, baby, spill. There have been 38 blowouts in the gulf between 1992 until 2009. You used the words irresponsible actions, corners being cut, and decisions being made that led to this blowout. You mentioned the $500,000 that could have been spent and should have been spent on an acoustical switch.

I was talking to one of our colleagues here who was a former Federal prosecutor, and the colleague said to me, if there is evidence that two of the BP executives worked together to circumvent a law or regulation, it may very well be criminal conspiracy. To that end, the Obama Justice Department has initiated a criminal probe of BP's actions with regard to this spill. We know that this is not the first time BP has been involved in a serious accident that has cost lives: 11 at this drilling rig; at their refinery in Texas, another large number of employees were both injured and killed. It is time for this industry to get its act together.

I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) has been involved in this for very long. If you would pick this up and carry us for a little while.

If I might interrupt you for a second, well, maybe more than a second.

We prepared a little diagram here, and let's consider this a quiz for the American public.

Which of these energy sources gets the most Federal subsidies? Would it be solar, maybe the algae, the new technologies of algae-producing fuel? How about wave action? Or maybe it is wind? Or maybe it is the oil industry? Which ones?

I am going to let people ponder that for a few minutes while I turn to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who has been a champion of protecting the ocean for many, many years.

Congressman Farr, thank you very much.

I am going to go back and answer the question about where did the Federal subsidies go in just a moment, but I see our colleague, Representative Jackie Speier, arrived with the next generation that is going to have to live with our decisions that we are making right now with regard to climate change and the extraordinary consumption of carbon-based fuels.

You know, that's really, really interesting. And if I recall the vote, when that was on the floor, the Republicans voted against that. They didn't vote for one of the most important conservation programs we have that not only would save all that energy, but help each homeowner's utility bill. Go figure.

You mentioned this. We've got to go back here because I've got to answer this question. Please help me with this. Who gets the most subsidies; solar, algae, wave, wind, or oil?

The answer is oil. If you take a look, 2002 to 2008, where did the subsidies go? Well, the oil industry got over $70 billion of taxpayer money in direct tax subsidies, $72 billion. The green renewable energy got $12.2 billion over that same period of time, 2002 to 2008. And in addition to that, the ethanol industry got $16.8 billion.

So we really, if we took this money, this subsidy, $70 billion over a 6-year period and shifted it over to this side, particularly up here to the renewable energy--this is solar, wind, advanced biofuels like algae and the rest--where would we be? Where would that young lady's future be? Renewable energy of all kinds. You shift the subsidies around.

Is that possible? Can we do that? What do you think?

Duh. Why didn't the Republicans vote for that? It makes eminent sense.

I wasn't here at that time. I got a special election last November. You are telling me that it was just less than a year ago?

About 18 months ago they sat here and they said, ``Drill, baby, drill''? I heard the same thing tonight. They said, End the moratorium on deepwater drilling. Drill. And I am going, You want another oil spill? Thirty-eight in the last 18 years in the gulf plus this big one. That's not the solution.

The solution lies in moving to a new energy source, the green technologies, the renewable energy, so that it is the sun that gives us the power in the future so that that young lady doesn't have to face the extraordinary impact that climate change will bring. We have to move away from carbon-based fuels.

Would you agree with that?

Let's see, that fellow Murphy was right. Everything that can go wrong will go wrong. And BP didn't plan for what could go wrong. In fact, they ignored it. They put together an application that just ignored the possibility of the worst case. In situations like this, we must force the industry to assume the worst case will happen. We have seen it. No more.

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for the time. I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a very interesting 1-minute presentation that didn't make much sense. We have a world of hurt. People are unemployed. People are going to lose their jobs in local governments and State governments, and teachers are going to be laid off across this Nation. And to simply say we need fiscal discipline doesn't solve this problem.

The Democrats put out, without one Republican vote, an American Recovery Act a little more than a year ago, and it really worked. People did get jobs. Things were done. Infrastructure was built. We need to continue that, and we need to keep people working.

Yes, we need fiscal discipline, and I would be welcoming any idea from the Republicans on how they are going to do that other than simply say there ought to be. Yes, there ought to be, but we need right now to put people to work.

There is a program that's available that will be coming up that will stimulate small businesses. It puts forward major programs for the Small Business Administration to support loans. We also need to support the local governments. Yes, it's going to cost us some money in the short term, but we have a choice: We are either going to put people to work or we are going to have welfare. I want people to work. I want them to be taxpayers.

I was going to speak on a subject, and I will, but after listening to the previous speaker, I think a few comments are in order.

I think it was that great socialist, Richard Nixon, that happened to sign the Environmental Protection Act and the Clean Air Act. So maybe that's what you're talking about.

But to make the argument that somehow the environmental movement is responsible for the demise of American industries is just fallacious. It's a stretch of the imagination. In fact, there are many, many things involved, including free trade acts and international competition that's coming our way.

And if my colleague on the Republican side was so interested in this, he would have voted on the bill last week that would have brought back foreign earnings and closed the tax loopholes on those American corporations that have gone offshore--instead, bringing those back. I think, if I recall correctly, we didn't get one Republican vote on closing those loopholes that have allowed American corporations to offshore jobs. But I really wanted to take up another issue, and I will do so now.

I rise today to express my support for the right that all nations have to secure their borders in self-defense. Our close ally, Israel, shares a border with Gaza, a region controlled by the terrorist organization Hamas. Since 2001, thousands of rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel, killing more than a dozen Israelis and wounding hundreds and terrifying that nation. We also know that Hamas receives material support from Iran, an international pariah that oppresses its own citizens while funding terrorist organizations throughout the region. For all these reasons, Israel has chosen to restrict imports to the Gaza Strip, insisting that all deliveries must be inspected to make sure that weapons are not smuggled into the territory.

Today, I call on Hamas leadership to reject their past support for terrorism, renounce violence, and embrace the two-state solution so that Israelis and Palestinians can live their lives freely, in peace, and security.

I also call on all powers in the Middle East to value human life and to do everything to avoid bloodshed. The loss of life in the flotilla incident was tragic, and I look forward to the findings of the recently formed Independent Public Commission, which will examine such issues as the naval blockade of Gaza, actions taken by the commandos during the flotilla incident, and the identities and conduct of the organizers and participants in the flotilla.

In the meantime, we must focus on avoiding escalation, preventing more violence, and continuing the peace process. The greatest tragedy would be to allow the flotilla incident to end the region's prospects for peace.

Congressman Farr, thank you for your leadership on this. This is not a new issue for you. I remember your days in the California legislature, where you carried such legislation. You do represent one of the most pristine and one of the most precious parts of the California coast, the Monterey Bay. Therefore, it's appropriate for you to carry and it's appropriate for this Congress to act on this resolution, recognizing World Ocean Day and, beyond that, recognizing the critical importance of oceans to all of us.

It is the birthplace of life. It is the place where we find our climate, our oxygen, a lot of our food, and our commerce. It's also the place that we have over the years trashed. Trash is flowing into the ocean, sewage is flowing into the ocean, pollution of all kinds, and now the ultimate pollution of a blowout of an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.

It's time for us to not only pay attention to the ocean, which this resolution does; it's also time for us to protect the oceans. We know that climate change,

the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is leading to the acidification of oceans. And that will kill much of the life of the ocean if it were to continue to increase.

What are we doing about it? Well, we are recognizing it today. We will take this as step one. Yes, the administration needs to be forthcoming with information. But we also need to rein in the oil industry and make sure that any drilling in the oceans is done in a maximum safe way. For the west coast, I have authored the West Coast Ocean Protection Act that would prohibit new leases off the west coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. That is the maximum protection. More needs to be done. This is a starting point.

This is a recognition of our responsibility as Members of Congress to take action not only with a resolution recognizing this day, but with solid laws that require the protection and provide the protection necessary for the ocean.

I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding.

I was elected in a special election last November. One of my opponents was an extraordinary young man, an African American. Raised in Fairfield, California, he went to West Point. Very successful, he served in Iraq two tours and came out a captain. He took his team there twice. On both those tours, all of them were in very dangerous circumstances.

He came home. He came back to America and could no longer tolerate the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. He came out of the closet. An extraordinary loss. Fortunately, I had another idea about who might be the next Congressman. But this man could have been a general leading the entire Army, an extraordinary person.

We lost that talent because of this policy, and it is time for this policy to end. If only the President had the power that Truman did when he said, enough already, we are going to integrate the Army.

We need to complete that integration. The Murphy amendment is absolutely essential.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I am sure the admiral is able to read the amendment and would understand it doesn't go into effect until the command structure, including the President of the United States, says it is okay and the review has been completed.

Mr. Speaker, I'm astounded. I'm astounded with what I just heard. This is a problem that was actually created nearly a decade ago by the Republicans as they were playing financial games. And to stand here on the floor and say this has to be fixed now, yes, indeed it does, but indeed it is the Republican Party that has prevented us from fixing it. That's going on right now as the negotiations take place on the American Jobs Act and corporate tax loophole closing-- closing the tax loopholes on corporations that are in fact shipping jobs offshore.

I would ask the Republicans in this House to stand with us and do a permanent fix. It can be done. But it's not going to be easy. We need to raise the tax revenue. A good place to raise it is from those corporations that are shifting jobs offshore.

Madam Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congressman George Miller and Congressman Jerry McNerney, to recognize Paul Maxwell, Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Chief Deputy Executive Director and most recently its Interim Executive Director, and congratulate him as he approaches his retirement.

Paul joined the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) in April 1990 as its first Deputy Director for Projects bringing a wealth of knowledge of transportation planning, programming, and funding, having previously served 13 years in the region at the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. As Deputy Director for Projects at CCTA, Paul has been responsible for the Authority's participation, project management and delivery of over two billion dollars of capital improvements. His service to Contra Costa County residents has included oversight and management of the development of state highway expansions, local street improvements, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District rail extensions, transit centers, bicycle bridges, trails and other facilities. Further, as part of his responsibilities with CCTA's Congestion Management Agency, Paul advocated for state and federal transportation funds for crucial Authority projects and worked closely with staff in the development of those project priorities, including State Route 4, BART, and the Richmond Parkway, to name just a few.

Most recently he has worked tirelessly on the combined efforts of the CCTA, Caltrans, and the Alameda Congestion Management Agency to deliver the Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore project; the largest American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded transportation project in the United States to date. He has also worked with BART, Caltrans, Contra Costa County, and East County cities to deliver the expansion of State Route 4 East and the eBART extension. State Route 4 and the Caldecott Tunnel, located on State Route 24, are two of the major commute and freight corridors connecting the East Bay Area to the coast and the Central Valley. Their improvement is essential to the economic vitality of our region and I know my friends, Mr. Miller and Mr. McNerney, and I are very grateful for Paul's efforts on these major projects.

Throughout his tenure, Paul has maintained strong relationships with those involved in various CCTA projects and is well-respected by his colleagues, agency staff, Board members and stakeholders. In 1996, Paul was named Chief Deputy Executive Director where he oversaw the coordination of all Authority sections. And in December 2009, he was named and has acted as the Interim Executive Director until his retirement this month.

Prior to this distinguished record at CCTA, Paul served as the Manager of Planning and Programming at the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission where his responsibilities included transportation finance, air quality planning, multi-modal transportation corridor studies, and the Regional Transportation Plan. He served as the primary liaison between the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the California Transportation Commission. He has also worked with the Metropolitan Washington, DC, Council of Governments and DeLeuw, Cather and Company, an engineering and construction firm here in Washington, DC.

Paul holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. He also achieved his Masters of Science in Transportation Engineering from the University of California--Berkeley.

Madam Speaker, we invite our colleagues to join us in honoring Paul for his tireless and dedicated service to the people of California, the Bay Area, and especially Contra Costa County. We also join his family, colleagues and friends in congratulating Paul on a successful and fulfilling career, and a very well-deserved retirement.