Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tonight, several Members wanted to come to the floor to discuss the retirement of a very good friend of ours who deserves our recognition. Because there are so many people with busy schedules, I am going to go right into it and yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the dean of the Massachusetts delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), a former head of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) who represents the town of Falmouth, the Member who, I guess, will represent Barry in different ways, possibly officially at some point.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), another Member with a special relationship with Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Boston (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.

Barry, I wanted to save this until last because, honestly, stuff about life is just stuff. It is all interesting.

You have had an interesting life. Great. For me, I wanted to do this because I consider you a friend, and I don't make friends that easily. I make a lot of acquaintances. I don't consider a lot of people close friends.

To me, friendship is based on whether I think somebody will go through the fire for me like I would go through the fire for them. My judgment on you is that you would. It has a lot to do with the way you were raised. I don't know much about it, but I do. When you were raised in South Boston, I was being raised in Somerville. There was only one place in the world tougher than South Boston at that time, and that was Somerville.

I will tell you that an awful lot of people come out of those situations bitter, with a lot of difficulties, not knowing what to do and angry at the world. A lot of good people come out of it, though, just the opposite--understanding, okay, life can be tough; life isn't fair; make the best of it you can. It is better to go through life with a smile and take yourself a little less seriously than it is to be bitter. You have done that. You have done it with grace. To me, that means an awful lot.

I will tell you that it was always comforting for me to hear the voice on the machine. I think it is a joke. I think it is hilarious. I have actually enjoyed having to catch you up on your proper pronunciation of words. I love the fact that your friends at home called you and told you that the word ``speaker'' isn't spoken the way you have got it. It has been twisted after all of these years. You have got to get it right. Get back up to Boston, and get it straight. I think that is great.

I will tell you that, for me, the relationship started before I even knew it, and that was at St. John's Prep. You are the only person I know who went there besides me. The only difference between you and me is you finished it, and I got kicked out, but in those days--and I have no idea. I never asked why you were there. I know why I was there. I was there to be plucked out of a difficult situation with the hope that things would go a different way. Now, of course, you couldn't take the Somerville out of me, and it didn't quite work out the way my parents had thought it might. The Xaverian brothers mostly were from Somerville at the time, and their beatings were nothing to me--just natural life.

But, to me, that tells me something--you had it right from the beginning. You had a good upbringing. You treat people with respect. You understand the needs of the Members here, and you treat us like human beings. To me, that is more important than anything else. For me, that friendship doesn't go away.

I hate the fact that you are retiring. I hate it. I hate it because I don't take change too well. I like certain, stable things in my life. I love Stephen Lynch, but I hate the fact that Joe Moakley is not with us anymore. I know that life changes, and I know and I hope to God that you have a great retirement. I hope you enjoy yourself. I hope you learn to say your wife's name properly. My wife is also a ``Barbara,'' and there are no ``ah's'' in there. You don't need that letter. It is an extra letter. Just get rid of it.

I hope you have a great retirement. I hope you realize that you are always, always, always going to have friends here. I don't care where I am or where you are. If there is ever anything I can do to help you or your family or if there is anything I can do to ever help--I don't even have to say it because I know you know it. It is what we do. It is what we enjoy doing.

You are my friend. I don't come to this well very often, as you well know. It is a unique experience for me. I think most of what is said here is insincere and read off papers. I just wanted to take a minute to sincerely tell you that I have enjoyed our relationship. I consider you a good friend, and I wish you the best of life wherever you go, whatever you do. It has been a joy working with you, and I am proud of the fact that I can call you a friend.

Thank you for your service, Barry. Thank you for your friendship.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is the exact situation for Boston. We have our Chief's Report. It was 2 weeks past the deadline, and I know that we have already spoken. I know that you are more than willing to help us do what we need to do, and I appreciate that. I am just here to say thank you.

For the first time in my life, I have no intention of being as passionate as the gentleman from New Jersey, and I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

I was going to walk people through this because to me, good people can disagree. Reasonable people can disagree. Even people I disagree with vehemently, that's what politics, that's what government, that's what life is all about. But you're not entitled to forget history or to ignore facts. And for me, there have been lots of misrepresentations in the last week or two because there's a lot of passion, a lot of emotion. But I need to back up a little bit, educational value.

When I'm told that the Democrats have to come to the table and compromise, my answer is: We have, repeatedly. And we will do it again, if necessary.

And people say, Well, no, you haven't. The President is saying no, you won't negotiate.

Well, no, we won't negotiate on this issue at this point in time because we have already gone far enough, and here's why. 2011, the last supercommittee, where did it come from? It came from the budget impasse. We couldn't come to an agreement. We couldn't make a deal. We had taken our corners. What did we do? We created a supercommittee and it was said if the supercommittee doesn't work, do something like Simpson-Bowles or whatever they would come up with, then we would institute a sequester. And a sequester, for all intents and purposes, is an across-the-board cut of roughly 8 percent per year every year for 10 years in a row. That's what it is. At the end of that 10th year if you don't do anything, you would be spending approximately 48 cents of every dollar you were spending when you started.

Now I understand that some people want a government that does that and the programs that would pay for. I don't agree with that, but that's a reasonable position to take. ``I don't want senior housing. I don't want childhood nutrition.'' I don't agree with it, but it's a reasonable position to take, and we should argue about that and we should debate about that, and the American people should have an opportunity to elect people that agree or disagree with them on those types of issues.

We couldn't come to an agreement, so the sequester took place; and the sequester set out numbers each year for 10 years. This is as much as you can spend unless you come up with some sort of agreement to get around it. We haven't been able to do it. We've had the first year of sequester and are about to enter the second year of sequester.

Pursuant to the law that was passed in 2011, a law, by the way, I voted against--I don't like the concept of sequester--but the majority ruled and it passed. Pursuant to that law in this coming fiscal year, we would have been allowed to spend a little over a trillion dollars. Remember, that number is based on an 8 percent cut from the prior year. So this already represents a cut, and, by the way, it represents a massive compromise between Democrats and Republicans to pass that sequester. So it was a Democratic compromise with Republicans to cut the budget for 10 years in a row. That's where we start.

This year, Republicans passed a budget of $967 billion, $100 billion below what the sequester allows. They're entitled to do that. Again, I can disagree, but I respect their viewpoint. If you really think the government can operate and provide the services the American people want on that number, fine. I will disagree, we will vote, pass it, and we'll move on. Of course, the Senate didn't agree with that number. The Senate passed another number. Here we are today.

What's happened? The last week or so, you have heard pretty much every Democrat, pretty much every Democrat say we want to vote on the clean CR, the continuing resolution, that the Senate passed. The average American has no clue what we're talking about. Here's what they passed. They passed a budget that would allow the spending of $986 billion. To me, if you're going to talk about a compromise--sequester allows a little over a trillion. Republicans want $967 billion. The compromise is here, a little over a trillion dollars. That would be a compromise on a compromise. But, no, the Senate says not $986 billion. That's a compromise on a compromise on a compromise. What did the Republican House leaders say? No. $967 billion, our number. By the way, no health care.

For those of you who thought Democrats haven't been compromising, I'm here to tell you, in my opinion, not only have we compromised; I think we have compromised too much from my philosophical viewpoint. I know that I'm the minority view in this House. So be it. I think the sequester was too much. I certainly think $967 billion is too much, and I think $986 billion is too much. You know why? My constituents want senior housing, they want children fed, they want young people educated, and on and on and on. They want veterans benefits. They want all the things that we do. Of course no one wants to pay for that. I get that. I don't either. I pay taxes. I wish everything was free. I'm going out to dinner in a little while, hopefully to watch the Red Sox win the series, and I don't want to pay for dinner, but I guess I'll have to.

Reasonable differences of opinion, no matter how dramatic they may be, a $100 billion difference, are realistic, they're honest, and the American people have a right to take sides. They don't have a right to say Democrats haven't compromised. This was a compromise. This would have been a compromise. This is a compromise. This is not. This is uncompromising. That's why I wanted to come up here.

By the way, there's one little point of historic note. I've been in the House 14\1/2\ years. This is my first Special Order. And, as I said, I probably missed the first inning of the Red Sox game, which in my district is close to a cardinal sin. But this is more important.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that my side is right or the other side is wrong. People have their opinions. I know that. You're probably not going to change them. I am here to say that there is a difference between compromise and capitulation. We have compromised one, two, three times to get where we are. To get to this number would be the fourth. To get rid of health care would be fifth; and not just fifth, it would be the ending. As far as I'm concerned, this Democrat will not compromise further on these issues. It's time for the other side to compromise off of what they think the world should be.

Thank you for yielding, Mr. Garamendi.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. James Mandell's achievements as the Chief Executive Officer of Boston Children's Hospital. Dr. Mandell has served as the CEO of Boston Children's Hospital since 2000. I often talk about how proud I am to have Boston Children's in my district: the institution is unmatched in terms of reputation for clinical care, research, teaching and dedication to the Boston community. Today, I want you all to know t how proud I am to call Jim Mandell a friend, and to represent him and his remarkable hospital in Congress.

Throughout his long and distinguished career as a pediatric urologist, a surgeon, a professor of medicine, and hospital executive, Dr. Mandell has advocated tirelessly for children. He has a unique ability to both understand and explain the impact of public policies on the day to day work of the hospital, its staff and the many families who rely upon them for care. For the past thirteen years, I have relied on him as a partner in ensuring that the best interests of children are represented in the legislative process.

In the past thirteen years, Boston Children's Hospital has survived some challenging economic times and adapted to a changing environment for health care. Under Dr. Mandell's leadership, the institution has provided the highest quality care for children and he leaves it prepared to continue its scientific and clinical excellence well into the future. It is also important to note that his advocacy efforts have gone beyond the walls of the hospital and indeed, beyond the city of Boston, particularly through his leadership as a past Board Chair of the Children's Hospital Association.

Children's hospitals across the nation face many shared challenges, in areas which range from research to workforce stability, and Dr. Mandell has been at the forefront of bringing those challenges to the attention of lawmakers and working collaboratively on solutions. Early in my tenure as a Member of Congress and Dr. Mandell's tenure as CEO, we worked together to establish the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education program. This is an important program that continues to make it possible for children's hospitals to train the next generation of pediatricians and pediatric specialists.

The children of Boston, Massachusetts and the nation have benefited tremendously from Dr. Mandell's service. Those of us who worked alongside him have also benefited from his passion, his commitment and his thoughtful leadership.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the all of those who had the honor of knowing and working with Dr. Mandell during his remarkable tenure at Boston Children's Hospital, I want to thank him for his tireless service and dedication to the healthy well-being of our children. We will undoubtedly miss him and wish Dr. Mandell the very best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life and honor the achievements of Genie Beal whom I was honored to represent in the House. Genie Beal lived 92 years with grace and purpose. Her Memorial Service will be held, fittingly, in the Arnold Arboretum on September 26th. She was an urban environmentalist and untiring in her commitment to a principle important to me: city dwellers need to see and experience Nature. Loving the earth does not mean only cherishing wilderness. City parks must be made and maintained and, if necessary, fought for politically. Genie Beal was a pragmatic visionary, engaged and astute, and above all persistent. Her tact and charm served her well, and everyone who worked with her knew that her silken manners cloaked steely determination. My friend, Mayor Tom Menino, eulogized her as ``the mother of green space in the City of Boston.''

Eugenie Beal was born to privilege in New York, grew up in Westchester County, and travelled widely in Europe even before she entered Radcliffe College. She spoke French and German well enough to qualify for a Harvard graduate seminar on linguistics. She was thus permitted to enter the stacks of Widener Library, then closed to Radcliffe ``girls,'' to carry out her philological researches. Her college years gave her an abiding love of Boston and she eventually settled in Massachusetts.

She was active in the League of Women Voters which she encouraged to champion environmental causes. She convinced Mayor Kevin White that Boston needed a Conservation Commission, and in 1970 became its Chair. For the next forty years, her energy animated virtually all efforts to preserve open space: she served as the first director of the city's Environmental Department and on the Central Artery Completion Task Force, co-founded the Boston Natural Areas Network, and helped create the Emerald Necklace Conservancy.

Today, I join with all my constituents to honor her as we reflect on the difference she has made in our surroundings, and, thus, in our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Look, this bill is not going to create jobs in America. This bill is all about foreign swaps. If we're going to create jobs, we're going to create them in foreign countries.

By the way, Dodd-Frank exempts foreign swaps activities from derivatives regs, except when they have--and this is a quote from the bill--``direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States.''

Other than that, if they don't affect us; they're not subject to regulation. Simple. But if they're done in a foreign country and they affect us, if it's just a way to get around our regs, they're subject to United States regulation. It's really kind of simple.

By the way, according to The Wall Street Journal, the sixth largest banks of the United States combined have 22,621 subsidiaries. That's an average of 3,770 subsidiaries each. Why? In order to get around this kind of regulation.

I don't blame them. I'm not against swaps. I'm not against swaps conducted on foreign soil. I simply want them subjected to United States regulation. I don't think it's that difficult. I don't understand why we have to do this, except to say, Here's a big open door. This is a huge hole to the regulatory process of the United States of America.

I understand that some Members of this body don't like any regulation, and I respect that. But get up and say it.

What this bill says is if you do this activity in the United States of America, you'll be subject to certain regulations. If you do the exact same activity through a subsidiary in a foreign country, you will not be subject to our regulation. That's an open invitation to move American jobs offshore. It's an encouragement to move American jobs offshore. It is blatantly obvious. How that is good for the American economy, I don't know. Why would we want to say to any American company some foreign regulator is better than us?

Now I know we are going to have this debate in other matters later on this week, saying just the opposite. So in this case, foreign regulators are better, but in other cases, they're not. It's kind of stunning. We actually did it this morning on another matter.

I want to join with the AFL-CIO in making a pretty clear warning to my colleagues: if this bill becomes law, I regretfully agree that there will come a day that you'll regret this vote, as many of us, not me, but many of us regret the vote for the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, I missed several votes on Monday, and I wish to state for the record how I would have voted had I been present: rollcall No. 161--``yes''; rollcall No. 162--``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I missed several votes today to attend an Interfaith Service in Boston. I wish to state for the record how I would have voted had I been present:

Rollcall No. 113--``Yes''

Rollcall No. 114--``Yes''

Rollcall No. 115--``Yes''

Rollcall No. 116--``Yes''

Rollcall No. 117--``No''

Authorizing the Clerk to Make Corrections in Engrossment

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the people in Boston who lost their lives and the many others who were seriously injured today. I hesitate to call what the event was; but whatever it was, it was a terrible tragedy. No matter how you measure it, whether official or unofficial terrorism, anyone who acts in such a manner is clearly an evil person and deserves to be called as such.

I know that today the rest of America stands with us, as we have stood with others before us, hopefully to never have to do it again. This event was not just a Boston event. The Boston Marathon is an international event that draws people from around the world. I would not be shocked if many of the people injured today were not just from Massachusetts. They're probably from other States and possibly-- probably--other countries.

Today is a holiday in Massachusetts. It's a State holiday called Patriots Day. It's the day that we celebrate the actions of our patriots back in 1776 that started the Revolution that brought to birth this country. We remind ourselves regularly what it is to be an American, what it is to be a patriot, what it is to be a member of a society that cares for each other.

I know that the Members of this House will join me in wishing well all those people who were injured and sending our deepest condolences and sympathies to those people who were killed, as well as wishing well our men and women of law enforcement. I have absolutely full faith and confidence that they will find the people that have done this and bring them to justice so that we can all rest a little easier at some point.

Mr. Speaker, rise today to address a matter of great concern not only for my congressional district, but for the future of science research in the United States. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, has been a leader in fusion energy research for decades, and I would like to clarify congressional intent regarding the continued operations of its Alcator C-Mod fusion energy experiment.

While the President's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request contained a substantial increase for the international fusion energy project ITER, based in France, it dramatically reduced domestic fusion energy funding as a trade-off. As part of this effort, the President's request would schedule the Alcator C-Mod tokamak for closure. I want to be clear: at no point in the appropriations process has Congress approved of or authorized this closure.

The Continuing Resolution before us today, H.R. 933, directs the Department of Energy, DOE, to continue virtually all policy and funding provisions included in currently enacted appropriations legislation for FY 2012 for DOE, including its Office of Science. The Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee has previously expressed profound concern regarding the need to maintain a balance between domestic and international funding in the Department of Energy's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, as well as the need to maintain the US fusion talent base and leadership. Although the President's budget for FY 2013 proposed a major shift in funding from domestic fusion programs, including for the C-Mod fusion facility, neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations Committee approved those changes. It is my understanding that it is the intention of the Appropriations Committee that funding for all major domestic magnetic fusion activities should be continued under H.R. 933, just as they were in FY 2012. Under this Continuing Resolution, the Office of Science should neither start nor stop programs, subprograms, or activities, including those within the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences. In MIT's case, this means that over the course of FY 2013, the Department should provide sufficient funds for operations and research for C-Mod and other domestic fusion facilities consistent with FY 2012 levels, minus sequestration.

MIT's emphasis on American innovation in fusion energy and the training of our next generation of fusion energy scientists is vital to the overall success of our Nation's program. Congress has not approved a closure of the Alcator C-Mod tokamak, and its continued operation through FY 2013 is provided for in H.R. 933.

Mr. Speaker, due to constituent obligations in my district, I was unavoidably detained in Massachusetts on February 4, 2012. I was therefore unable to cast a vote on rollcall votes 31, and 32. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 31, and ``yea'' on rollcall 32.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory and the heroic example of Rita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Senator-for-Life of the Republic of Italy. My constituents in our district's universities, research institutes and teaching hospitals join me in this homage. Dr. Allen Mitchell, Professor of Epidemiology and Pediatrics at Boston University, studied with her and with her mentor, Victor Hamburger. Everyone, he remembered, recognized the ``enormity of her contributions.'' ``But,'' he continued, ``those of us privileged to interact directly with her saw Dr. Rita Levi-Montalcini as a role model who combined scientific passion and rigor with a great sense of humanity.''

Edward A. Kravitz, George Packer Berry Professor of Neurobiology at the Harvard Medical School recalled that Dr. Levi-Montalcini was unfailingly kind and gracious to young researchers, welcoming them to her lab and her circle of distinguished colleagues. He was touched by her warmth and inspired by her eagerness always to know more.

Rita Levi-Montalcini was born in Turin in 1909, one of four children of an educated family, her father an engineer and mathematician, her mother, like her twin sister Paola, a gifted painter. The arts were thought appropriate pastimes for young ladies, but science was not, and her first struggle was convincing her father to let her study medicine. She graduated, summa cum laude, in Medicine and Surgery in 1936 and began a specialization in neurology and psychiatry. Two years later, Mussolini promulgated racial laws based on those already in effect in Nazi Germany, barring Jews from universities. Rita Levi-Montalcini's second and most remarkable struggle was to continue her research alone and in secret. She cultivated chick embryos in her bedroom and studied them closely. Her inspiration, she always acknowledged, came from a paper by Victor Hamburger, pioneer of experimental embryology. Hamburger, like many of the most prominent German and Italian scientists, was at that time already in the United States. She chose to remain in Italy, confident that her country would return to its democratic principles. She was associated with the struggle for Liberation and, in the time of greatest danger, moved her laboratory into the countryside where she and her family found refuge. When Florence was freed, she practiced medicine, for the only time in her

life, among refugees fleeing the fighting that still raged in northern Italy.

After the war, Dr. Levi-Montalcini joined Hamburger at Washington University in St. Louis. There began her collaboration with Dr. Stanley Cohen with whom she shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1986. Together they studied the biochemistry of nerve growth and revolutionized the study of cell growth and development. She flourished at Washington University but always maintained close ties to Italy and to a new generation of Italian scientists. She helped found the Institute of Cell Biology in Rome and became its first director. She died in Rome on December 30 at the age of 103. She continues to inspire us, and we do well to remember her brave advice, ``Above all, do not fear difficult moments. The best comes from them.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I generally don't do a whole lot of work on this stuff, but I've known these two gentlemen a long time. I met them both in 1976 when I was in law school and had the good fortune of getting a work study job at the statehouse. They were both there already. They were both already well recognized and influential at the statehouse; and I will tell you, from the day I met them, I started learning from both of them.

I want to be very clear. I want to echo everything Richard Neal said. I hold public service up in high regard, and I know that everybody in the Mass delegation does as well. These two gentlemen not only have served in Congress; they've served at the State level, and they were both educators. They didn't do this because that's what they could do. One has a Ph.D. from MIT. The other has a law degree from Harvard. Either one of them could have done anything he wanted to do and been well compensated in doing it, and they could have had much more comfortable lives in never having read their names in the newspapers as bad people on different occasions. The fact is that they gave of themselves right from the beginning as young men. They didn't go out and make $1 million and then come in.

I think it's an amazing thing because, for those of us who have followed a similar path, the first several years of doing public service, no matter what you're doing, are not lucrative--they're usually a difficult struggle--and then to stick to it for as long as they did. Between the two of them, if you add up not just the years they served in elective office--because elective office is only one way to give back to the public--but if you add to that the years they served as staff members or teachers and if you add that together, combined, we're talking 100 years, guys.

I'm sorry, between the two of you, it's 100 years of public service to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That's something that's amazing.

As I said, I started learning from them both at the statehouse. It didn't stop. I moved beyond the statehouse. John was still there. Barney had moved to Congress. I kept learning from them. I'll be honest, in my job at the statehouse, I went on to become a full-time employee.

You know it, but most people listening don't know it.

In Massachusetts, most of the committees are joint committees--house and senate. I was on a joint committee payroll, but everybody knew that I worked for the house. John happened to be the senate chairman of the committee I worked for, and since Massachusetts is such an overwhelmingly Democratic State, my job was, really, to do everything I could to stick it to John Olver on behalf of the house and get everything we wanted and not what the senate wanted. It was kind of funny because, now that I'm in Congress, it's amazing in that those fights were really nothing more than just the epitome of family fights. They were nothing compared to the fights we have here that are based on deep philosophical differences of opinion.

Even then, I loved working with John because, as Richie said, I remember once we were at 2\1/2\ and we traveled in the State, arguing against the limitations of local rights. John went on for about 20, 30 minutes at some hearing about the evils of this particular proposition. Everybody was kind of getting tired and moving on.

John broke and said, I'm awfully sorry that I'm kind of running on about this issue, but you have to understand that I'm a college professor. I think in 50-minute blocks.

Then he went right back in and did the other 20 minutes. I don't know if he convinced anybody, but he made me laugh the whole time because he knew who he was; he knew what he was; and he knew the subject better.

When I got to Congress, my first assignment, per one of my many friends

and mentors, Joe Moakley, was Financial Services. Barney was already there. I can't tell you how much I learned from him. We share a philosophical view, as I think most of the delegation does, particularly in the matters of financial services. Housing is a passion of mine. It has been for a long time, as it was for Barney. The truth is that it really became incredibly easy for me. I was able to cut a step back on the details of a lot of the major housing policy because Barney was such a champion, and I was able to focus on some of the holes that I saw in some of the policies that maybe some of the other Members of this Congress didn't see.

That's true about many, many things--of the financial services bill. Barney just carried that bill like you can't believe. It allowed me the opportunity to not worry about the big stuff because Barney was going to take care of it. I got to focus on some of the smaller details that we got engaged in. I learned so much from him as a member of the Financial Services Committee.

I hope I can be one-tenth as successful as you have been, Barney, in bringing people together but in not forgetting who and what we are and who and what we believe in.

Then I got on the Transportation Committee. John, by that time, was already the cardinal of the Transportation Subcommittee and Appropriations. It's true. I thought I knew a fair amount about transportation. I'm kind of one of those guys who thinks, Don't tell me about my district. Nobody knows my district better than I do. I know the needs. I work with them. That's one of the reasons I'm such a vocal and public proponent of earmarks, because no one knows my congressional district better than I do except John Olver when it came to transportation matters.

I've got to tell you, John, it made me angry a couple of times when you came up and you told me things about my district's transportation needs. You were right and I hadn't realized. I was like, Oh, geez. He got me again.

I can't tell you how many times I've worked with him to try to improve transportation policy for my district but, in turn, for the Commonwealth and, in turn, for the country. So I just wanted to come up tonight to thank both of them for their service on behalf of the general public, but also on a personal matter.

Both of you have been guiding lights for me. I have learned a lot from both of you--different approaches, similar philosophies, different personalities, different attitudes. I'm a little different than both of you on some things, but I'm alike on some things as well. I will tell you that, as a lifelong resident of Massachusetts, I am proud that you served us. I am proud that I've had the opportunity to work with you before Congress and in Congress; and I will tell you that I am proud to call you both colleagues and friends. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'd like to thank the majority for bringing this bill up. This is a nice way to honor the longest-continuously-serving Speaker in the history of this country.

For those of you who didn't have the pleasure of knowing Mr. O'Neill, I'd just like to remind everybody that I don't look at him as the historic figure up on the podium. I look at him as a man that I knew a fair amount of my adult life, anyway, and as a man who never forgot where he came from. And I know that's in a phrase that people hear all the time; but for me personally, when people say that of them, it's probably the nicest thing they can say. Everyone who serves in Congress

knows that many of us on a regular basis get treated like something special. Somebody opens the door for us, somebody calls us ``Congressman,'' people we don't know call us ``sir.'' And that's all well and good, and it's respectful for the office.

But at the same time, we all came here for the very simple reason of trying to make the world a little better place for the people that elected us. It's a simple thing. And we all have different views on how that gets done. Mr. O'Neill never forgot how to do that, even when he reached the pinnacle of power in this great body. And I will tell you that for me that's the most important historic aspect he could ever leave for us. All the great accomplishments, all the meetings with Presidents and Kings and Queens are very important. I don't want to diminish them. But at the end of the day, if you've forgotten who you represent, then I think you've stayed here too long. Mr. O'Neill never did.

I knew him even after he retired; and even then he would talk to me about regular, ordinary people--the barbers, the bakers, the truck drivers that I now have the privilege of representing in the district that he once represented. To me, that's the most important reason to recognize anyone--someone who gave of themselves to fight day in and day out.

Even then, with all the fighting that we do around here, it's amazing to me that even at home today, with all the differences of opinion we have, I get the same questions I'm sure we all get: Well, gee, is it really as bad as all that, and do you hate each other? And the truth is, for me, no. I see the Speaker sitting over there. We disagree on probably most every major point. But I like him. I think he's a good man. And I think he's here for the exact same reasons that I'm here: to make this country a better place to live. And I think that way about virtually everyone in this body.

And Speaker O'Neill not only represented that; he spoke it loudly all the time. He loved this body not for all the difficulties that it presents, not for all the messes that we create and then try to fix, but for the fact that we have a lot of people who come here trying to work on the most difficult issues in the world with passion and with commitment and with respect for each other.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the once, and future, Speaker of this House, the current minority leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Nicky Joe Rahall.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the dean of our delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I apparently have no more speakers, but I'd just like to close out by thanking those Members who spoke on behalf of Mr. O'Neill. Thank you very much to the Speaker and the minority leader for bringing this bill to the floor and congratulating the O'Neill family.

I will tell you that I know most of the O'Neill family, and I will tell you that Tip would be proud of them. He was proud of the ones that he knew. But of the ones he didn't know as well, I will tell you he would be proud of them. Every one of them that I know is good, solid stock people who know what they're doing and know who they represent in their lives because they see me on a regular basis. And I want to thank them for being so tenacious in trying to remind us of Tip O'Neill, who he was and what he was, and for living in his shadow and living the type of life that he would have been proud of.

I would also like to just close out by simply saying ``thank you'' to this Congress for providing, not just me, but for all of us, the opportunity to come have these debates, have these discussions, have these fights. There's nothing wrong with a good fight over important issues and to understand that each of us brings to this body exactly what Tip O'Neill brought to this body and what the people who come after us will bring to this body: a commitment to this country, a commitment to their State, a commitment to their district and the people they represent. Tip O'Neill epitomized it all, and that's why we're there today, to say ``thank you'' to him, to recognize through him what this entire body stands for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about my friend Congressman Jerry Costello of Illinois. Jerry is retiring at the end of this session and we wish him well.

By the time I arrived in Congress, Jerry was already a senior Member. I did not know him and had never heard of him. We met through our mutual friend, Congressman Richard Neal. We had a fair amount of mutual background--having been elected executive officials from our home states and having a deep respect for the art of politics and government.

First and foremost, Jerry serves his constituents. We usually sit together during votes and we discuss most of them. I want to hear his opinion and I want to argue with him because we often see things differently. I know for certain that the most important factor he weighs for every vote is what is in the best interest of his constituents and what they would want him to do.

Jerry embraces the concept of compromise. Many newer Members see compromise as defeat--but they are wrong and, hopefully, someday soon they will realize their folly. Compromise is essential to advance any society--our founders knew it, democracy demands it. Compromise does not mean declaring victory on every aspect of every issue--it means having a clear goal and knowing when you cannot achieve it, it means recognition that some progress is usually better than none, it means that you accept the fact that other people have valuable opinions that they hold as dearly as you hold yours. Unless your constituents want no changes to anything in life, compromise is essential.

Jerry is also a true friend. To me, a friend is not the person who simply tells you how wonderful and correct you are all the time. A true friend knows how to tell you when you are wrong. A true friend stands by you when they can and doesn't hurt you when they cannot. Jerry is a true friend.

Finally, Jerry Costello has his priorities straight--God, country, family, constituents. Religious beliefs are personal. I have told you what he has done for his country and his constituents. But a complete person also has a private life of friends and family. As a friend, I have often heard Jerry boast about his entire family--his parents, his wife, his children, and grandchildren.

As you can see by now, I think Jerry Costello is a wonderful person. I will miss him on the floor. I will miss him in Committee. I will miss sharing an evening meal together. But more importantly, Congress will miss him. America will survive and prosper after he leaves Congress; thankfully, none of us is that important to this House. But Jerry Costello will not be easily replaced in these halls and he will be remembered as a good Member of Congress and a good man.