Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to thank the committee for putting this bill out.

Lance Corporal Arredondo was a recipient of the Navy Cross with combat V and a Purple Heart. He was nominated for the Bronze Star, and he gave his life for this country on August 25, 2004. As you heard, he was on his second tour of duty in Iraq.

I just want to read a paragraph that was written about one of his actions, his last action, by a lieutenant general that I think sums up what his own colleagues, his other Marines, thought of him.

``On August 25, 2004, Lance Corporal Arredondo gallantly performed the duties of a fire team leader while fighting enemy forces in the old city of Najaf. While moving with his squad to attack and clear a two- story building, the platoon became heavily engaged at close ranges by enemy small arms, machine gun, and RPG fire. He never hesitated as he led his Marines under intense fire through the building, personally clearing rooms and assuming the greatest risk as grenade explosions raised an impenetrable cloud of dust and dirt in each room.

``Lance Corporal Arredondo led his Marines clearing the objective in a superb manner, never slowing down and never showing any fear. After the exhausting attack, when the platoon had gained control of the building, Lance Corporal Arredondo personally emplaced his marines in an exemplary manner while setting up a defense and preparing for further engagements with the enemy.

``After his fire team was set in defense, Lance Corporal Arredondo was shot and mortally wounded by a sniper as he walked the line checking his marines. Lance Corporal Arredondo fought alongside his fellow marines and displayed the highest levels of courage and selflessness during the three weeks of fighting in Najaf. He gave his life fighting for freedom and defending his fellow marines.''

That was not written by me or my staff. That was written by his commander. I think that that alone, that one paragraph, clearly underscores exactly what kind of a person Lance Corporal Arredondo was. For a man to give his life at such a young and tender age is an incredible thing, and I am proud--and I want to be very clear, this is the first time I have been here on something like this. I don't take this lightly at all this. This is not just naming another thing after another person. This particular one is very important to me, to my constituents, and to his family because of the service he rendered for this country, because of the fact that he gave his life fighting for our freedom and our rights. I just want to say thank you to the committee again for bringing this bill to the floor, and thank you to the people who have supported this bill.

Madam Speaker, I am here to support this resolution.

Very clearly, this resolution is simply intended to encourage the Government of the United States and other governments around world to continue pressing to make sure that the resolution that is on the ballot January 9 of next year for the people of south Sudan to decide for themselves whether they want to make their own country or be part of the Government of Sudan. That is all we want. It is an agreement that was made in 2005 by warring parties.

I want to be clear. Before I got elected to Congress 12 years ago, I might have known where Sudan was, not sure. I would not have known where Darfur was. I would not have known that there was a problem in south Sudan. This is not a problem that I have been studying for a while. It is a problem that started to come to my attention after 9/11 when I realized, like many Americans, you trace back who is this bin Laden guy, where is he from. He spent years in Sudan training, recruiting, preparing for attacks like 9/11. That was just the beginning of it.

South Sudan decided that it wanted some freedom. They had a revolution of their own. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Millions were displaced. That same government in Khartoum also, soon thereafter, started a genocide on their own people in Darfur.

All we are asking, in a very difficult situation, with multi-facets that are beyond comprehension, to simply have the United States Government continue what they are doing. The President of the United States went to New York City last week to meet on Sudan at the U.N. The United States has a Special Envoy there. We are paying special attention.

And by the way, it is not just because I have a bleeding heart for people who have been massacred. It is not just that people should have their own right of self-determination. It is also because this particular country, this particular section of the country is in a critically important region in Africa.

I think most everybody in this country have now heard of the Pilots of Somalia. That is right next door. Eritrea, right next door, Ethiopia, right next door. All around them is instability, danger and potential violence that could draw in the entire region. That is what this peace agreement is all about. That is why I am here, for January 9 of next year, to encourage the world to pay attention to this for their own sake, if not for the sake of the people in Sudan and south Sudan.

Madam Speaker, on Sunday, September 26, 2010 Dr. Clifford Scott will be invested as the Twelfth President of the New England College of Optometry, and today I congratulate both Dr. Scott and the College. New England College of Optometry, located in Boston, has been the educational and intellectual center of optometry in New England since 1894. With an enrollment of over 400 students, the student body is the most diverse of any optometry college in the world: more than 25% of students enrolled in the doctor of optometry program received their pre-optometry education outside the United States. The College is committed to the advancement of vision care and exemplifies the highest standards of training for providers of quality, accessible eye care.

Dr. Clifford Scott's career has been dedicated to the New England College of Optometry since he matriculated at the Massachusetts College of Optometry, New England College of Optometry's predecessor. He has been a New England College of Optometry faculty member since 1970, most recently serving as Vice President and Dean of Academic Affairs.

As he and the College enter this next phase in their mutual history, I wish them continued success and preeminence in the field of optometry education and vision care.

I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey. He has been a great leader on this issue and on so many other issues with regard to international matters.

I would also like to thank the majority leader for organizing this Special Order during such an important week.

The reason we are doing this this week, really, is that the President is scheduled to be at the United Nations this week to meet on the Sudan issue. It seems like things are coming to a head. As you've heard many, many times--and I'm not going to repeat the facts, because the facts have been said--we have an election that is scheduled to come up in January which is very critical to this region. Let me be clear:

To me, this may not be the most important issue to most of my constituents. I know that. I realize that. Jobs are more important. The economy is more important. But America has always been and, I think, always should be more than just about business. It has to be about morality and ethics as well. In this case, the morality of a genocide, or the immorality of a genocide--the immorality of keeping people enslaved, literally enslaved at a recent point in the history of Sudan--is something that, I think, only America is qualified to stand up and scream about.

Up until now, the history in this region has been terrible. There have been civil wars. There has been genocide. There has been every form of human degradation you can find, mostly perpetrated either directly or indirectly by the government in Khartoum.

At the same time, I'm one of those people that believes anyone can change their ways on any given day. That's not to forget the past, but it's also the only way to find a way forward. The government in Khartoum is at that crossroads right now. They have a choice, whether to actually move forward and allow the people of south Sudan to make their own decisions legitimately in January, whether they wish to go their own way or wish to remain associated with Sudan, and then to enforce whatever the people of Sudan decide and to do it in a peaceful way. This is important to the American people on a moral side, as I said, but it is also important on a very realistic side. This particular area--I'll be

honest. I don't think--as a matter of fact, I am certain. I could not have found Darfur on a map before I got to Congress. I might have been able to come close to finding where Sudan was, but it would have been a guess. I know that most of my constituents, most Americans are not sitting there knowing all about this, but they will know it if it goes the wrong way, and they will know it because the entire region will go up in flames. There will be millions of people put at risk.

Everybody in America knows where Somalia is because it's a lawless region. They know where Eritrea is, Ethiopia, all difficult parts. This is right next door. It sits in a critical region. If civil war starts again in a serious way, if genocide raises its ugly head again, the entire region will go up. Most countries in that area will be directly affected, and it will directly affect America and the rest of the world. Something like that cannot go on without doing it.

That is why I am here today, to remind the American people, who I think, across the board, agree that genocide is something that needs to be screamed about and stopped whenever possible, agree that people should have their own right to self-determination--that's not the point--but also to put the issue in front.

I also want to thank the administration. The Obama administration has put this issue at the top of its agenda, and I respect them and thank them for that. There are carrots and sticks on the table for Khartoum if they choose to take those carrots. If they don't, none of us really want to implement those sticks, but none of us are allowed to sit back and simply let genocide go forward without doing what we can.

So that's why I came today, to say thank you to the administration, to encourage the Khartoum regime to make the right choices--it's not too late--and to thank the administration for all it is doing and to encourage them to do more. I join my colleagues in asking the administration to meet with Salva Kiir, the leader of south Sudan, at least meet with him and talk to him, hear it directly from him. And I hope that we won't have to be back here in January talking about this issue, other than to congratulate the people of south Sudan and Sudan for having conducted a lawful and thoughtful plebiscite.

Thank you, and I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the ``100,000 Homes Campaign'', an effort to address homelessness in America by providing permanent shelter for 100,000 homeless persons over the next three years. In Boston, the Pine Street Inn, a nonprofit organization in my district that has been fighting homelessness for over 40 years, is acting as the lead local agency for this national initiative. Rosanne Haggerty, President and Founder of the New York based nonprofit Common Ground, launched the campaign in Washington, D.C. on July 12th at the Annual Conference of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. So far 34 communities have signed on to participate. In just the short time since the campaign's start, over 5,000 people nationwide have received housing assistance.

The Pine Street Inn was founded in 1969 and provides low-cost permanent housing for homeless individuals. The organization also assists over 10,000 homeless individuals annually by offering emergency shelter, food and health care related services. Mental health and substance abuse counseling are also available through the Pine Street Inn.

Too many Americans are struggling with homelessness and this initiative will help reduce the ranks of the homeless throughout the country. I commend the Pine Street Inn and Common Ground for their tireless efforts and their compassion. Their combined work and the efforts of so many dedicated organizations throughout the country will help make the ``100,000 Homes Campaign'' a success.

Madam Speaker, due to the passing of my mother, Mrs. Rita Capuano, I was not present during the week of July 19, 2010 to vote on rollcall Nos. 448 through 466. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 448; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 449; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 450; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 451; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 452; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 453; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 454; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 455; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 456; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 457; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 458; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 459; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 460; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 461; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 462; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 463; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 464; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 465; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 466.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ron Gettelfinger and his masterful 8-year tenure as president of the United Auto Workers. Confronted with the leanest membership in the Union's history and the bankruptcy of two of Detroit's three automakers, the UAW required an effective leader who could balance the interests of members and the needs of their employers.

In Ron Gettelfinger, the UAW certainly had a wise and steadfast leader who could come to terms with this troubling dynamic and act accordingly.

He understood that saving the imperiled union would require a little sacrifice, and also he convinced his union to give up some of the jobs and benefits it had accumulated over the years for a better future. Mr. Gettelfinger thus played a crucial role in saving one of the United States' biggest industries during one of the nation's darkest economic hours.

Today he continues to be an outspoken defender of fair labor laws and better workers' rights, and I hope that he is as successful in his future endeavors as he was these past few years.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that this bill is one of the best bills I've ever been involved with in the 12 years I've been in Congress. Like any bill, it doesn't give me everything that I want. I don't think anybody would say that, including Mr. Frank. But it is a bill that moves us back towards thoughtful oversight of the financial institutions of this country.

For 70 years, from the Glass-Steagall Act until about the 1980s, 1990s, depending what you count, we had the best financial institutions, the best financial system in the world. Every other country tried to emulate us.

What happened? Slowly but surely, this country, through its Congress and its President, decided that we wanted to deregulate everything. Let's look at nothing, let everything go. What was the result of it? A financial meltdown. That was in the economic sector. What was the result of it in the gulf? An oil spill of ultimate proportions.

The concept that government can't regulate has been proven wrong time and time again. Nobody argues for overregulation. That's a fair argument. Where is the appropriate line?

In this case, in the financial institutions case, we went years with loans that nobody knew what the standards were. We went years with credit rating agencies giving everybody a AAA rating without having a clue what was behind those papers. We went years with people betting, literally betting with our money, our pension fund money and other money that we didn't want to do, on things that didn't exist. They didn't exist. The result of it was a financial meltdown.

This bill brings us toward a more thoughtful regulatory regime that will ensure the stability of our economic system. And that's what this is all about. It's not about raising revenue. It's not about killing anything.

My district has a very vibrant financial sector and we want to keep it that way, but I also want be to make sure that it's stable. That's more important than anything else. This bill accomplishes that, and that's why we should support it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1216) congratulating Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin on his 10th year of service as Chaplain of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous matter on House Resolution 1216.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the Reverend Daniel Coughlin. Where is he?

Come on, Father. Come on up if you're watching. We want to see you.

This resolution recognizes the service of Rev. Daniel P. Coughlin as the Chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rev. Coughlin was sworn in as the 59th Chaplain of the House of Representatives on March 23 of the year 2000. The passing of that date this year marked a decade of providing spiritual counseling and prayer to both Members and staff. Rev. Coughlin follows in a tradition that has served this House since May 1, 1789, when Rev. William Linn was elected Chaplain of the House.

I urge all Members to support this resolution and to support Father Coughlin.

I would like to mention that Father Coughlin is the first Roman Catholic to serve this House, and as not necessarily the best Roman Catholic in the world, I will tell you that I have the deepest appreciation for what Father Coughlin has done for this House as our Chaplain, as a friend and also in service to this country. I've had many personal discussions with him, and I will tell you, in my opinion, if more of our religious leaders had the same demeanor, the same personality, the same openheartedness, the same attempt to understand the differences between us, and the same obvious willingness to forgive our differences and our difficulties, I think this world would be a much better place.

I will tell you that I not only want to congratulate him on his 10 years, but I also want to personally thank him for the many services rendered to so many Members of this House and for his ability to stand in such an esteemed position and to earn the respect of the Members here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the author of the resolution, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

I yield 1 more minute to the gentleman.

I yield 1 more minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, we've heard lots of goods things about Father Coughlin, but there are still a few mysteries left that he has to help us unravel. I will tell you, Father, with good faith, with a lot of prayer sometime, and a good team, the Cubs will actually win a World Series. As a Red Sox fan, I can tell you it works.

Father, the other great mystery, as a good Irishman myself, you're going to have to explain to me Coughlin versus Coughlin. That will come later.

I wanted to do this today because of my respect for Father Coughlin as a human being and as a priest. But I think to be a good priest you have to be a good human being first. I don't think it's the other way around.

And I will tell that in the 10 years he's been here I've come to consider him a friend. I've come to see him as somebody in my mind who is one of the best representatives of the Catholic faith that I have ever known.

And I will tell you, Father, from my perspective I want to thank you, not just for your service to this House, but for being such a good person. From somebody who's gone from the streets of Calcutta to the Vatican to the House of Representatives, you have maintained your modesty, you have maintained your dignity. And as far as I'm concerned, you're a fine and wonderful human being that I am proud to call both the Chaplain of this House, but also my friend and someone I look up to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I would urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, in 1910, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. opened its doors in Boston, on Congress Street, with just a handful of partners and infinite potential. That company became Peat, Marwick & Mitchell, and is known today as simply KPMG LLP. This year marks the 100th anniversary of KPMG LLP's relationship with Boston and I rise this afternoon to recognize the indelible contributions KPMG has made to the city, its residents, and its businesses; as well as to the health, strength and well being of American capital markets.

Over the last 100 years, Boston has developed a reputation as more than just the birthplace of America. Today, it is firmly positioned as a leading center of culture, intellectualism, business innovation, and commerce, and KPMG is recognized as playing a leading role in Boston's expansion and growth. KPMG is one of the oldest and best-known professional services firms in the city, employing 600-plus professionals, headquartered at Two Financial Center, and providing audit, tax, and advisory services to the public and private sectors. Just as important, KPMG's partners and employees serve as officers, directors, and volunteers for many of Boston's charitable and philanthropic organizations

In celebration of its 100th anniversary, KPMG launched the 100K Project, encouraging Boston alumni, partners, and professionals to clock at least 100 hours of volunteer service during this centennial year. Moreover, the firm has spearheaded more than 100 fundraising drives and community service projects over the past two years to beautify and green the city; feed and clothe the city's poor and homeless, raise monies for our world-class medical research facilities and patient care; teach, tutor and provide clothing, books and toys to Boston's neediest children; as well as generously donate to dozens of local and global causes.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to KPMG and its people for 100 years of service to Boston, for its contributions to the growth and health of the city's commerce, and for its many efforts benefiting our community's quality of life.

I thank the gentleman for calling me valued. It's nice to be valued. He didn't say how much, but we will leave it alone--high value.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for this legislation

and look forward to it. This legislation is long overdue. It's something that we have been working on now for, well, as long as I can recall. It has lots of important issues in there in the FAA and it also has an additional fix. As I see it, it's not even about the amount of money for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. From my perspective, it is about an equitable issue. That's really all it is. It's a matter of equity.

We were put in a position to pass a bill that had other good job provisions in it that did not have equitable provisions in it, but we did it because this economy needs a boost. And like every bill we ever vote on anything, there is some good and some bad. So that particular bill, in my opinion, had some bad things in it.

This bill has good things for the FAA, has good things for the country, has good things for all of us who fly, but it also had some provisions in there that will level the playing field for the people of this country, and that's why I wanted to come over this morning.

Again, there are times when I usually get called on to ask when there is a fight going on. In this particular instance, there is no fight here. I am not sure exactly who the fight is with, and I am a little uncomfortable speaking when we are all on the same side, but it's nice for a change. I won't get used to it too often, but I do enjoy it on occasion when it happens, so I wanted to come over and express my support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution introduced by my colleague, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, with the aim of bringing an end to the U.S. troop commitment in Afghanistan. I am a cosponsor of this resolution because, while not perfect, I believe it initiates a debate that is long overdue in Congress: what is our military strategy in Afghanistan and what future mission or missions are planned for our troops there? How long are they to be deployed and what are they being asked to accomplish? Do we also have a coherent diplomatic strategy for South Asia, involving not just Afghanistan but both Pakistan and India?

For some time now, I have advocated the development of a U.S. exit strategy for Afghanistan. I voted to authorize use of force in 2001 against those responsible for the September 11 attacks. President Bush rightly determined that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was providing shelter and material support to al-Qaeda, and he sent U.S. forces to Afghanistan to root out the terrorists. But the terrorists have now been largely driven from Afghanistan, and yet, President Obama seeks to increase our troop deployment to over 100,000 men and women in uniform. Given the statement from General Jim Jones last fall that there are currently fewer than 100 al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan, I have to question why a troop build up is necessary if our goal is to pursue the terrorists. In fact, I think all of my colleagues should question this.

It may not be realistic to withdraw all of our troops by year's end, and I believe we should retain the ability to take limited military action in concert with the Government of Afghanistan in certain circumstances. However, the time to change course and start concluding this war is now. We must plan for the orderly redeployment of troops and rethink our approach to fighting terrorism globally.

I thank my colleague for introducing this resolution and encouraging a fresh look at U.S. military policy. I know that we will continue to raise this issue until it has registered at the highest levels and we are able to bring our men and women in uniform home.

Madam Speaker, out of respect for Jack, I will be very brief. Great American, great patriot, but for me he was a friend. He was my buddy.

The truth is, he was my buddy not because we shared a philosophical view--we probably disagreed on more than we agreed on--but because we respected each other. In my world, the best thing you can say about anybody is he didn't forget where he came from. Jack never forgot. He represented working men and women to the utmost. Even when we disagreed, his motivation was pure.

He was the epitome of a politician. He liked helping people. I disdain politicians who think that we won't or that we shouldn't help people. That's what we are here for. Jack knew that from the day he got here to the day he left. He was my friend. I'm going to miss him. I think America will miss him, but I will miss him.

Jack, I will tell you that I am not looking forward to it, but when my day comes I'm going to be looking you up. My hope is that you'll be up there with a whole bunch of the good old boys and hopefully you'll welcome me then as you welcomed me when I got here.

I'm going to miss you, Jack.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Representative Frank Wolf to recognize an important milestone. January 9, 2010, marks the 5th anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended a decades-long civil war in Sudan. While this agreement represented a groundbreaking achievement when it was signed, many benchmarks are overdue as we approach two vital deadlines: April 2010 parliamentary and presidential elections (already pushed back from

2009) and the 2011 referendum on independence for Southern Sudan. Sudan's democratic and geographic integrity hang in the balance--as do the lives of its people.

While the United States has consistently taken the lead on Sudan issues--from first declaring genocide in Darfur in July 2004, to playing a major role in brokering the CPA--we must once more engage at this crucial juncture. No one doubts that Special Envoy Scott Gration is earnest in his determination to seek peace for all of Sudan; however, the new U.S. policy articulated in October 2009 remains vague due to a lack of specifics on benchmarks, accountability, and sanctions. Ensuring security for the people of Darfur continues to be a struggle for UNAMID peacekeeping troops. Basic governance and infrastructure must be improved in Southern Sudan so that it can function either as a contributing region of Sudan or as a successful independent state, depending on the outcome of the referendum. Unfortunately, the outlook is bleak. Tribal violence in the South is increasing and must not be allowed to disrupt the process. We cannot afford to turn our attention away from Sudan at this crucial and dangerous moment. Instead, the U.S. needs to doggedly pursue CPA implementation while also doing our best to ensure that aid and diplomatic efforts target security, development, and reintegration programs wherever appropriate.

As we observe the anniversary of this landmark pact, we should note that the job is far from done and the U.S. bears a responsibility to the people of Sudan. Let us rededicate ourselves to this cause of bringing peace to Sudan.

Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment is actually quite simple. As Mr. Kanjorski said, it's absolutely essential to this bill. Without this particular amendment, credit rating agencies will not be held accountable for anything they do. Simply put, the SEC has failed to do anything, and any limited action is limited by the First Amendment. They have got a decision in the courts of law that their provisions, that their expenditures have been protected by the First Amendment. You cannot sue them.

All this does--and it's a very high standard--it holds them to the same standards--and we'll read it--the same standards with respect to knowledge and recklessness as everybody else. If they know what they're saying is bad, or they know it is wrong, they should be held accountable. If they are reckless by not looking at an accounting report, they should be held accountable. That's all this does. It's actually a pretty high standard. I would actually like it a little lower because I have a lot of trial attorneys that need the work.

But more importantly, what Mr. Kanjorski said is 100 percent right. All this does is protect the American economy, a minor little thing. And we have to go back many, many years. Tell me the last time a credit rating agency was held accountable for giving a AAA rating to a piece of junk. Enron, junk bonds, credit default swaps, credit default options squared; they're never held accountable. All this says is they have to actually look at the books, they have to use anything they know, and they cannot be reckless about it. That's all it says.

It doesn't say they're held accountable if they're wrong, nor should they be. A legitimate error is fine. All this says is they have to be held accountable to the American public when they basically don't do their job.