Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for many American families, they will only be able to celebrate this holiday if they forget about the burdens of their daily lives. Some are about to lose their jobs, others are about to close their businesses for the last time; some are worried they can't pay for their health care, others are worried that they're next in the layoff line.

This Congress has an opportunity on this day to address those problems. Yesterday the House took action on a bill that, frankly, isn't going to go anywhere to address these problems, and today is the day we ought to act on a bill that will.

On January 1, everyone who earns wages in this country is facing a tax increase if this Congress doesn't act, a $1,000-a-year tax increase on the middle class. We should suspend that tax increase today.

Many people will lose their unemployment benefits. They will have no income, no check. And to those who say, well, they should go find a job, you should walk in the shoes of those who are in that predicament because here's what you would find: For every one job that's available in this country, there are four people looking for it. So failing to extend unemployment benefits is craven, in my opinion.

On the 1st of January, doctors who take care of our seniors--our grandmothers, our grandfathers, our disabled citizens--will see a 23 percent cut in what Medicaid pays them if we do not act by December 31.

Now, yesterday's bill was deficient in so many ways, but here's two of the real big ones:

First of all, it attached extraneous provisions about whether to build an oil pipeline. Some people are for it, others are not. It doesn't belong in that bill; and

Second, a large way the bill was paid for was to blame the unemployed and to say we're going to pay for what's in that bill by cutting their benefits. That's wrong.

What we ought to be saying is we can hold down the taxes on the middle class, we can fairly extend benefits for the unemployed, we can make sure our doctors will continue to see our seniors and our disabled people if we ask the hedge fund managers and the millionaires and the billionaires of this country to pay just a little bit more.

We will give the House an opportunity this afternoon to vote on that bill. That's the bill we should be considering. If we do, we can then proceed immediately with passing this badly needed defense bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with profound respect for our Constitution and for my colleagues and friends who care deeply about the impact of this bill on that Constitution. It is because I have considered those issues that I would respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues and argue for the propriety and constitutionality of this bill.

I would deplore the idea that an American citizen or a permanent resident alien could be rounded up and put in a prison in the United States of America. This bill does not authorize that scenario. I would deplore a circumstance where any person--even a person who is not here under some permanent legal status--could be rounded up and put in a prison and only a military prison. That is not what this bill authorizes. It leaves open the option that such a person could be detained in a regular civilian prison or in a military prison.

I would reject completely the proposition that any person could be held in any facility--military or civilian--anywhere in our country indefinitely without the right to have the charges that are levied against them heard by some

neutral finder of fact. It is our interpretation that the habeas corpus provisions already extend to these individuals. That is to say that a nonresident or nonlegal person in the country who is held under such circumstances in fact has the right of habeas corpus. I think the law requires it. I think the Constitution demands it.

There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether or not that conclusion is correct. That is the state of present law. This bill does not amend present law in a way that I would like to see it amended by clarifying that right of habeas corpus, but it absolutely does not erode or reduce whatever protections exist under existing law.

So those who would share our view that the right of habeas must be clarified should work together to pass a statute that does just that, but we should not subvert this necessary and important bill.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Ninety-eight days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and proposed to create jobs by cutting taxes for middle class families by about $1,500 per year. For 98 days, the majority refused to take up legislation that would enact that jobs plan. So finally today we have their version of it, which unfortunately does not cut taxes for middle class people the way we proposed but at least avoids a tax increase on those families which is looming on January 1.

But I can't support this bill because of how it pays for that middle class tax relief. First let me say this: I agree as a general rule when we cut taxes here on anyone, we ought to pay for it, not increase the deficit. But the majority has never subscribed to that principle until today.

So when the wealthiest people in America got an enormous tax reduction in their tax rates in 2001 and again in 2003, there was no requirement that we offset that in order to pay for it. But now that middle class families are getting some relief, all of a sudden, there has to be.

Let's talk about what that offset is. One major portion of it essentially reduces unemployment benefits for Americans down the line. And as I understand this, there are some reforms that really ought to take place. When I hear about GEDs and drug testing, I think that is fairly sensible. But it

isn't sensible to say to someone, If you've been looking for work day after day and week after week and trying your best to find your next job, it's your fault if you didn't find it. But that is essentially what this bill says. If you are unemployed, look in the mirror. It's your fault.

I don't think the authors of this bill know many unemployed people. I know they don't know that for every four unemployed people in America today, there is one job. For every one job that's listed as being open, there are four unemployed people for that job. I don't think they understand that even though there is a law against age discrimination in this country, age discrimination in this country is an everyday painful fact of life for a lot of people over about 40 years old in this country.

So I would say to all those who are about to vote to extend middle class tax relief by blaming the unemployed for their own plight that they ought to walk for just a day or a week or a month in the shoes of a 50-year-old man or woman who has been out of work for a year and a half, who has circled every want ad, gone to every Web site, taken every job interview he or she could get, and still cannot find a job. We should vote against this bill.

I'd like to thank the chairlady from Florida and the ranking member, Mr. Berman from California, for their very forceful and effective advocacy.

Iran made a choice to ignore international standards and comity and secretly develop a nuclear weapon. Iran made a choice to eschew sincere diplomatic efforts to come up with a deal, an agreement where they could have their civilian nuclear energy program but have the fuel manufactured outside of Iran. Now, Iran must, in my view, be confronted with a choice as to whether it will enjoy economic stability or give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.

I think the time is here to force that choice upon the Iranians. I think it's unfortunate it has to be done, but it has to be done. We cannot let the world's most horrific weapon fall into the hands of one of the world's most horrendous regimes. For that reason, I strongly support the legislation by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Berman and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, 25 days from now, if the Congress doesn't act, every middle class family in this country is going to have a $1,000 tax increase. Twenty-five days from now, if the Congress doesn't act, doctors who take care of our Medicare patients are going to have a 23 percent cut in the fee they get to see Medicare patients. During those 25 days, several million Americans who are out there looking for a job every day are going to receive their last unemployment benefits check.

These are the issues confronting America today, and what are we doing?

We're debating a bill that says that some regulation the government might do someday in the future should have a procedure where Congress can reject it. There already is such a procedure.

And for all these terrible regulations we keep hearing about that have been introduced this year, do you know how many times the majority has brought to the floor a resolution to reject one of those regulations? Once.

So this is such a grave threat to the country's economy that the majority that controls the floor has chosen on one occasion to bring a regulation to the floor.

What we ought to be doing is canceling out this $1,000-a-year tax increase on the middle class. What we ought to be doing is making sure our seniors can see the doctor come January 1. What we ought to be doing is making sure Americans who are diligent in looking for work don't run out of employment benefits. But that's not what we're doing.

This is not only the wrong bill, it's the wrong time. Let's put on the floor a bill that puts Americans back to work and focuses on the real priorities of the country.

Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House should listen to the voices that have been raised about the jobs crisis in our country. These voices are speaking loud and clear.

We should also listen to the quiet voices of desperation of so many Americans who will sit down this Friday night to try to pay their bills and find they have 70 cents worth of income for every dollar's worth of bills that they have. Or the Americans who retired a few years ago and thought that they were set for the rest of their lives but are now looking at the want ads every day because they think they have to get a job to continue to pay their bills in their retirement. Or the quiet, anxious voices of small business owners who are thinking that maybe this Friday will be the last Friday they keep their business open and they shut for good.

These are the voices that should be heard in this country, and they're not being heard by this majority.

Eighty-nine days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and proposed four good ideas to put Americans back to work:

Build more roads and bridges and schools to put construction workers back to work--we haven't taken a vote on that;

Cut taxes of small business people that hire people in the private sector--we haven't had time to take a vote on that;

Take teachers and police officers and fire fighters who have been taken off the job because of this economic disaster at the State and local level and put them back in the classroom, put them back on the job--the majority hasn't had time to vote on that; and, finally,

Let's avoid a tax increase of $1,000 a year or more on middle class families that's coming January 1, in 25 days, January 1--but the majority hasn't had time to vote on that.

We do have time today to vote on the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeship Extension Act of 2011. This is entirely appropriate. Bankruptcy judges are very busy in America today because when small businesses don't have customers and customers don't have money in their pocket and people don't have jobs to pay their bills, bankruptcy judges are very, very busy.

It is one thing for the majority to oppose these ideas the President brought here 89 days ago--that's their prerogative and their right--but it's quite another to refuse to even put these ideas up for a vote.

So I would say, Mr. Speaker, to all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's take this moment. Let's take this bill, let's take this day to put on the floor of the House legislation that would postpone and cancel the tax increase on middle class Americans that's due in 25 days.

Let's not have it. And let's extend jobless benefits for those who are diligently trying to find a job in this difficult economy. Let's find time to do

something for the American people today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Mr. Hal Bruno and his longtime dedication to political journalism and fire fighters across the nation. As a former Political Director and analyst for ABC News, Mr. Bruno's legacy is one that deserves to be recognized to the fullest degree.

Mr. Bruno's journalism career spanned five decades, and he was greatly involved in many high-profile cases including the Cuban Revolution, Watergate, Chappaquiddick, and 9/11. His breadth of knowledge and myriad of resources will remain as testaments to his tenacity as a political analyst.

Equally important in his life was the service he provided as a volunteer firefighter, and later as a Chairman Emeritus for the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. In recognition of his service, the Congressional Fire Services Institute selected him as its ``Fire Service Person of the Year'' in 1995. His passion for fire fighting began in the 1940s, Mr. Bruno's dedication to fighting fires continued until his passing, as he always had an emergency scanner and a bunker gear, helmet, and boots in his car ready to assist in an emergency.

Commended not only for his analysis and service to his community, but also his moderation of the 1992 Vice Presidential debate, Mr. Bruno made certain to maintain a fair environment despite a highly political atmosphere. The debate only reiterated Mr. Bruno's determination to provide the people with fair and balanced information to decide for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, Hal Bruno's incessant dedication to provide assistance to members of the fire fighting community and their families in addition to informing the American public about events of import in Washington, DC is more than commendable. I take this time to remember the services this great man provided our nation. Hal Bruno will be greatly missed. He has left a legacy that will positively impact the fire service for generations in our country.

Madam Speaker, as we stand here today, I would like us to pause for a moment and think about an American family who is not here. The husband works in a Home Depot, the wife works as an administrative assistant in a hospital, and they make together about $50,000 a year. And they're among the fortunate Americans who have jobs, but they're frankly very worried because it seems like the harder they work, the less ground they gain. They're going backwards the harder they work.

The House needs to understand that a month from tomorrow, unless this House acts, that family's taxes will rise by $1,000. A month from tomorrow,

unless the House and the other body and the President act, that family's taxes will go up by $1,000 a year.

President Obama has said he will sign legislation that prevents that tax increase from happening. The Democratic leader of the other body, Senator Reid, has said he will move and support legislation that prevents that from happening.

Last night the minority leader, the Republican leader of the other body, indicated that he was now moving to a position in favor of legislation preventing that from happening. House Democrats are prepared at this moment on this bill, on this day, to support legislation that will postpone that tax increase on middle class families.

The American people want us to work together, and I would trust that the vast majority of American people would say that in these economic times working together to suspend a thousand-dollar tax increase on a $50,000-a-year family is something we ought to work together on. President Obama agrees. Senator Reid agrees. It looks like Senator McConnell agrees. Leader Pelosi and the House Democrats agree. But we don't have that bill on the floor this afternoon.

This is our opportunity, colleagues, to move away from the daily back-and-forth of Republican versus Democrat politics and do something for which there is broad agreement and, I think, urgent need.

Now, we have 30 days to get this done, and our track record is not very promising on meeting deadlines around here. My suggestion is let's move this agenda on this day at this time and put before the House a bill that would suspend this thousand-dollar tax increase on middle class families, all wage earners, across the country. Certainly this is something on which we ought to agree, certainly this is something the House should be able to devote its time to, and certainly we should act on it here today.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would just ask the gentleman, then, if he is prepared to tell us whether the majority will put on this floor before the 31st of December a bill that suspends this tax increase on middle class Americans.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am most certainly not in favor of that. I would frankly make up for the lost revenue with a surtax on people making more than a million dollars a year to cover it.

Let me ask the gentleman another question.

I understand that there are differing views in his party, and frankly ours, as to whether an extension of the cut for middle class families should continue. And I'm not asking him to say it would pass. That's beyond the reach of any Member, even the Speaker.

But is the majority prepared to make a commitment to the American people to at least get to vote on it, that it will let the majority work its will and either vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on avoiding this tax increase on middle class Americans?

Will the gentleman yield?

Those income tax reductions, of course, were extended to December 31 of 2012. So there's not an urgent imminence to addressing that issue the way there is with this.

I would just again put the question this way. I fully understand there are different views as to whether or not we should avoid this middle class tax increase. I'm simply asking whether the gentleman supports giving us a clear up-down vote on having that happen.

I thank my friend from Georgia for engaging in good spirit in this dialogue.

I would simply want to make it clear: I think it's the position of our party very clearly the House should vote on whether to avoid this thousand-dollar

tax increase on the middle class. That's our position.

I think you can hear that the majority position is a little more nuanced than that. It is a yes-or-no question. We think there ought to be a vote on avoiding a thousand-dollar tax increase on the middle class. And we're ready to put our cards in the machine and do that.

Mr. Chairman, for years the American Dream has been based on a basic deal: If you go to work every day and work as hard as you can, you will make a decent wage. If you get sick and have to go to the hospital, you'll have health benefits that mean that you won't lose everything you have because you got sick. At the end of the 40th hour of the week, your time belongs to you and your family, not to your boss, unless your boss is willing to pay you time and a half. And you don't have to work until the day you die because you can earn a decent pension and spend the golden moments and days of your life taking care of your grandchildren and your family. That's the deal.

None of that existed for most Americans before collective bargaining existed. America has a middle class because America has collective bargaining.

This bill is not about the number of days before an election or the size of a bargaining unit. This bill raises the issue of whether you truly believe in collective bargaining. And what this bill does is say to the minority of employers in America--and I think they are the minority by far--who would choose to subvert an election process, who would choose to intimidate and coerce their workers into voting against the union, this bill gives them a roadmap of exactly how to do that. It is a subversion of the American middle class because it's a subversion of collective bargaining.

Our grandfathers and grandmothers stood on picket lines to fight for collective bargaining. The people of Ohio stood on election day to fight for collective bargaining. Colleagues, let us together stand today against this legislation and for collective bargaining and the American middle class.

I thank my friend for yielding.

My friend from Minnesota, the chairman of our committee, says that Congress shouldn't be picking winners and losers. I think the Congress has already picked a lot of winners in the last number of months. They've picked the people who are the subject of Mr. Boswell's amendment, those whose bonuses are 10,000 percent more than the average salaries of their workers. They've picked them for the largest tax cut in American history.

They picked a winner by saying that if that person manipulates a hedge fund or financial institution, the regulators will look the other way as our 401(k)s become 201(k)s and our home values shrink.

Most decidedly, this Congress has picked a set of winners, and those winners are those at the very top of American society who have gotten 93 percent of the pay raises. Ninety-three percent of the pay raises given out in this country have gone to that top group.

So Mr. Boswell is trying to create a significant disincentive that says, you know what? If you pay yourself 10,000 percent more than your average worker, maybe there should be a separate set of circumstances you have to abide by and live by. It's a novel idea around this Congress, very novel idea that those at the very top of American society should have to live by a set of rules that protects the rest of American society.

For that reason, I strongly support Mr. Boswell's amendment and would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, when the sun rose over the country this morning, a lot of Americans got out of bed to go to a job that doesn't pay them enough to support their family. They're working part time to pay full-time bills. A lot of other Americans who have good jobs, good full-time jobs woke up this morning and worried if this was going to be the day they got their pink slip and got their layoff notice. And far too many Americans, at least 15 million of them, got up this morning and didn't have a job to go to.

Ninety percent of the people surveyed in a recent survey of this country said the American Dream is either dead or on life support. Because, see, the deal in the country has always been, if you work as hard as you can and do your fair share, then the country will give you the opportunity to move your family forward. People don't buy that anymore. They don't believe in it anymore.

And so what are we doing about it here this morning? We're having a debate about a bill that changes the rules for the way people decide whether or not to have a union in their workplace. This is an important consideration; it's a worthy consideration. I think the bill is a very bad one, but it's a credible debate to have. But it's the wrong debate to have.

Members of our caucus have gone out over the last month and have spoken to thousands of small business people, the real job creators in this country who create two out of every three jobs created in America; and here's what they've said: We're not hiring people largely because we don't have enough customers; and if we think we do have enough customers, we can't get loans from banks that we bailed out with our tax money.

That's what we ought to be discussing here today.

Now, the other side will say, no, no, these small business people aren't hiring because of their deathly fear of regulations. Well, here's what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says: When they interviewed employers who had laid people off in 2010 and said, Why did you lay people off, about 40 percent of those employers said, We laid people off because we don't have enough customers. Two-tenths of 1 percent said they laid people off because of regulation. That's what the facts are.

How do you get more customers for businesses? One idea would be to put construction workers back to work building schools and libraries and roads and bridges so they'd eat in the restaurants and buy in the stores. There's a bill pending before the House to do that, the President's jobs bill; but we're not voting on that today. We have something better to do. Another way would be to avoid a massive tax increase on the middle class of this country.

I thank my friend.

If we don't act by January 1, there will be a $1,500 tax increase on every middle class family in this country. The President says we should postpone that tax increase so people have more money to spend, but we're not voting on that bill today. We have something more important to do.

How about the idea of a tax cut for small businesses that hire people? That's in the President's jobs bill. But we're not voting on that today because we have something more important to do. How about saying to teachers who have been laid off from the classroom, firefighters and police officers not on the job because of tax cuts in local government, how about saving their jobs so they can serve their communities and spend more in the stores and restaurants and on products in this country? That's in the President's jobs bill, but we're not voting on that because we have something more important to do.

There's a reason why 90 percent of the people of this country think the Congress is not doing a good job. It's because the Republican leadership of this Congress is voting on the wrong bill at the wrong time, and today's another sad chapter in that reality.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress doesn't want to do something, it forms a committee. We tried, and that doesn't appear to be working. Then when it doesn't want to do something, it kicks the can down the road and sets up a process where somebody else does the hard thing. That's what we're doing here tonight.

If you want to balance the budget, then vote to tell the Federal- operating Departments to do with 5 or 10 percent less money than they got last year. I'm prepared to do that.

If you want to balance the budget, then save money in the Medicare program by saying Medicare can negotiate prices of prescription drugs the way the VA does, and save billions of dollars on prescription costs. I'm prepared to do that.

If you want to balance the budget, bring the troops home from Afghanistan sooner. Since we have the ability to blow up the world 24 times, let's not pay for weapons that blow it up a 25th time. Let's not have 90,000 troops in Europe and Korea who are defending against an enemy that largely doesn't exist anymore.

If you want to balance the budget, then vote to tell the hedge fund managers and all of these other people who are making all this money that maybe they should just pay a little bit more in taxes into the Federal Treasury.

All the heartfelt, pious speeches tonight won't save $1, but the things I just talked about would. They're difficult; they're controversial; but they're real. So let's not fool the American public that some process that somebody else someday might follow will balance the budget. If you want to balance the budget, vote to cut spending. You may have ways that I didn't outline. I'd like to hear them. If you want to balance the budget, then vote for some people who can afford to pay more.

Do something real.

That will create the balanced budget, the confidence, and the jobs the American people need--not just another empty, hollow, meaningless political debate. The right action is to balance the budget, and the right vote on this bill is ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity, and I would like to thank the members of the House staff that are staying beyond voting hours for our opportunity to speak, and I promise that I will reward your efforts with brevity.

This is the end of another difficult week for a lot of Americans. For too many Americans, it's another week without a paycheck. For many Americans, this is the week their unemployment benefits will expire and they will have no income next week. For many Americans, this is the last weekend they'll be in their home because the foreclosure is about to be executed upon. And sadly, for many Americans, this might be the last time that he or she closes the doors on their business. This time they close it for good.

Our constituents and neighbors are hurting, hurting desperately, and I think there has been far too little attention paid to those problems here in this institution. I hope that when we return after what is, parenthetically, our 12th recess of the year, we will get to work on the jobs problem for our country and try to put our people back to work.

As vital as that jobs crisis is, we can never put our country in a situation where we are not paying attention to threats to our security here at home and around the world. And I do want to spend a few moments this afternoon talking about what I think is a very significant threat, and that is the threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

It is to the credit of the chairwoman of the international relations committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and the senior Democrat ranking member, Mr. Berman, that yesterday Republicans and Democrats on that committee came together to pass what I consider to be very powerful legislation that would work against the propagation of nuclear weapons by Iran. I hope that legislation is something that will be brought to the floor promptly and supported by Members from both sides. I think it is important to understand what more we could do and why it's so important to do it.

This is another productive day throughout our country. People are going to work in our cities and in our small towns and our suburbs. They are going to classes at universities and schools. They are visiting their loved ones in hospitals. It is, thank God, a normal day in America where we can do the things that we want to do. But, you know, a day 10 years ago in September of 2001 started like a normal day, too. September 11, 2001, was a beautiful, blue sky, crystalline day, and it ended as one of the worst days in the history of our country. The pain of that day is felt by people around this country not just in the New York metropolitan region, not just in Washington, D.C., not just in Pennsylvania, but around the country and around the world.

I fear and dread that a similar day could come from a scenario almost too terrible to imagine. Imagine a group of terrorists who are able to assemble a substantial amount of money but not an impossible amount of money--let's say about $2 million--and they're able to commandeer the services of scientists who are evil enough or hungry enough that they would lend their skills to the destructive task of making a small nuclear device, what we call a small improvised explosive device, a nuclear IED. And they don't need a missile to deliver this nuclear IED; they need a U-Haul truck. So they assemble the IED and they load it on the back of a U-Haul truck, and they drive it to a place where there's a lot of innocent Americans: The National Mall right outside of this building, a sports arena for an NFL football game, Times Square, or a church or a synagogue or a mosque where people are about to

worship. And they detonate the IED. The consequences are huge numbers of deaths in the immediate area of the explosion, a significant number of people sickened and eventually dying from nuclear poisoning, the contamination of the area of the explosion, and a devastating blow to the psyche of the United States of America.

How could this happen? Is this possible?

Well, it's possible only if terrorists get access to what's called fissile material from which you can make a nuclear bomb. Fissile material can only come from three places: You can make it, and it takes a very significant industrial complex to do so; you can steal it, and that's a problem that we're working on trying to prevent; or you can have a government that gives it to you because that government is committed to a terrorist agenda.

My colleagues, understand that the risk of Iranian nuclear proliferation includes firing a missile at U.S. troops or U.S. allies in the Middle East. It most certainly includes that risk, but it's not limited to that risk. I think the greatest risk of Iranian nuclear proliferation is the risk of fissile material being handed off by the Iranian Government to a terrorist organization that then assembles a small nuclear IED and brings havoc and death to innocent people in the United States of America. How do we stop that? How do we prevent that from happening? That was the focus of the effort of the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, and I think it should be the focus of our country and civilized countries around the world.

Now, it's important to understand the history of this problem, the context of this problem, the risk of this problem, and what I believe is the solution to this problem. The history is this:

Of all the Nations in the world, only one has conducted a nuclear weapons research program and systematically lied about the fact that it has done so, and that one nation is the Republic of Iran. The source, it's a document from the IAEA, the international agency that monitors nuclear development, from September 24, 2005, when that organization said that they were uncertain of Iran's motives in failing to make important declarations over an extended period of time and in pursuing a policy of concealment until October of 2003. This is not a political view of an American legislator or an ideological position of a journal. This is the official statement from the international agency that watches nuclear weapons. That's the history. A long history of deceit and concealment.

What's the context? How is Iran behaving in the present state of world affairs? First of all, they are killing United States troops in Iraq. Here's what the State Department's 2010 country terrorism report had to say about Iran:

Despite its pledge to support the stabilization of Iraq, Iranian authorities continue to provide lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups that target U.S. and Iraqi forces.

This is a country that is actively engaged in an attempt to kill American soldiers in Iraq as we speak today.

Secondly, their brutality extends to their own people systematically. Let me highlight just one chilling and horrifying example reported by Amnesty International on October 11, 2011. An actress named Marzieh Vafamehr has become the latest individual to face a sentence of flogging--flogging. She was sentenced on or about October 8, 2011, to a year in prison and 90 lashes.

This is not the Middle Ages. I'm not reading from a historic treatise from the year 800. I'm reading from a sentence passed down by an Iranian court less than a month ago. What was her offense? Her offense was she appeared in a film called ``My Tehran for Sale'' in which she appeared in one scene without the mandatory head covering which women in Iran are required to wear and appears to drink alcohol in another. Her husband denied that she had consumed any alcohol, but the exact charge was levied, and this woman is in prison as we speak and once a month is beaten because she appeared in a movie in a way that was culturally offensive to the regime. This is the regime that is seeking a nuclear weapon.

What else in the context, what else are they up to? Well, let's listen to the statements of the President of Iran. Now he's not the person that really runs the country; the so-called Revolutionary Council does. But he's involved in its government, President Ahmadinejad, and here is what he said:

``Thanks to people's wishes and God's will, the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards, and this is what God has promised and what all nations want. Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.'' This is the regime that is attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon.

And, finally, we were all, I think, stunned by the reports last week that individuals who allegedly had ties to the Iranian Government were indicted in the American court system for allegedly plotting the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States on U.S. soil. Now, Madam Speaker, I would hasten to point out, as you well know, in our system these are allegations, not facts, and so we cannot say that these things are true. But I can scarcely think of a time in the history of our country where we have indicted foreign nationals or U.S. citizens for an alleged conspiracy to murder a foreign diplomat on our soil. Perhaps these individuals will be found not guilty. Perhaps they will be found guilty. But the fact that there was probable cause to make such an assertion is deeply shocking and disconcerting. This is the regime that is attempting to achieve a nuclear weapon.

Now how close are they? Here's a report from May 24 of 2011. The world's global nuclear inspection agency, the IAEA, frustrated by Iran's refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it, meaning the U.N. agency that watches nuclear weapons, it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon. This is the regime that says it is trying to acquire centrifuges and nuclear power plants to create nuclear power for its people. But the quote that I just read is from the international agency, not from U.S. intelligence, not from our allies, not from those who oppose the Iranian regime, but from the neutral international agency, which, frankly, has criticized the United States on occasion, from the neutral international agency talking about what the Iranians are up to.

Now it's classified information as to how close they are to receiving this, and we are all under an oath not to talk about that classified information, but the public record is replete with information that the Iranians are aggressively pursuing such a weapon.

And here's an academic analysis that talks about how such a weapon could be used by a terrorist group that would be the beneficiary of an Iranian handoff of fissile material. Based upon this professor's analysis, and this is written by the executive director for the Project on Managing the Atom, Jeffrey Lewis from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, the article is called the ``Economics of Nuclear Terrorism.'' Here is what Professor Lewis has to say: A terrorist organization like al Qaeda could plausibly build and deliver a nuclear weapon for less than $2 million. Two million dollars. Now, of course, that's $2 million after you've received the fissile material or bought it. Well, such an organization would now have a willing partner in Tehran that would own and be able to produce such fissile material.

We have an urgent economic crisis in our country. We need to fix it. We have a lot of other problems we need to fix. But this is happening. And we cannot let our attention to our economic crisis take our attention away from our duty to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening to innocent people in the world.

So what do we do about it? What's the solution? How do we go forward in a way that stops the Iranians from getting this fissile material? To the credit of this Congress, both parties, and President Obama, the United States imposed bilateral sanctions on the Iranians about a year and a half ago. And

to the credit of the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations Security Council imposed modest sanctions on the Iranians about a year ago, and there is some evidence that these sanctions are beginning to work.

The United States sanctions, which were led by then-ranking member Ros-Lehtinen and now chairwoman, and by then-Chairman Berman, now ranking member, and frankly that relied upon the work of Senator Kirk in the Senate, focused on a gasoline embargo. It's an odd fact, but Iran, which is a country which exports crude oil, imports about 40 percent of its gasoline because its economy is so dysfunctional that it cannot refine its own products. Before the U.S. sanctions were imposed, the price of a gallon of gasoline heavily subsidized in Iran was 38 cents a gallon. Today it's $1.58 a gallon.

Now what does this mean? It means that an Iranian citizen who used to have to work 1 hour to fill their gas tank once a week now has to work 5 hours to fill their gas tank once a week. This is not a huge sacrifice, but it's making a dent in the economy of Iran.

It is our intention, obviously, not to in any way punish or jeopardize the well-being of the Iranian people. They are our friends, and we want them to be our friends and allies for years to come. But the simple, and I think compelling, logic of these sanctions is we are compelling the Iranian leadership to choose between pursuing their nuclear weapons ambitions but suffering economic consequences or abandoning those nuclear weapons ambitions and having the opportunity to restore their economy to some basic degree of health.

By the way, at a time when crude oil prices were rising, the Iranian economy stagnated. They had a negative growth of 1 percent last year, and they had stagnant growth the year before that. So at a time when they should have been enjoying robust economic growth because of rising crude oil prices, they were stagnant because of the effectiveness of these sanctions.

Perhaps the best evidence of effectiveness was from President Ahmadinejad himself, who this week stood before their parliament defending a cabinet member of his who is accused of some wrongdoing and said that one of the reasons why they had to engage in the wrongdoing was their economy was in bad shape because ``we can't do international banking transactions anymore.'' Well, there's some good news.

What I'm suggesting here is that the House should move rapidly to embrace and support the legislation that the Foreign Relations Committee marked up yesterday. And I think that legislation will enjoy broad Republican and Democratic support, as it did yesterday. I believe it was approved unanimously by the committee. I would then urge our administration to work with the Congress and sign such legislation and implement it.

Now, listen, Madam Speaker, I fully understand that sanctions alone may not be sufficient. And I'm not here today to argue for that proposition. What I am here today to argue for is the proposition that the sanctions we have imposed thus far have shown some signs of success. I think this is the time to intensify those sanctions, not to weaken them. I think this is a time for us to intensify our unified national resolve on this question. And despite our very profound differences on matters of economics and social policy, which is what a democracy ought to have, there should be no difference between us on the question of standing in a unified fashion in favor of more intense sanctions against Iran. The need is urgent and compelling.

You know, Madam Speaker, if someone had stood in this Chamber in the mid-1990s and said, If we don't focus our intelligence efforts on an obscure group of former mujahedin rebels in Afghanistan called al Qaeda, if we don't do that, the day may come when we will have a domestic Pearl Harbor, when the World Trade Centers will collapse, when thousands of people will perish, when the Pentagon, our own air space, will be attacked by civilians in our country, I think one would have thought that the Member was auditioning for a Tom Clancy film. It would sound very fantastic, very unlikely, and almost like science fiction or a spy thriller.

I wish September 11, 2001, had been fiction--I wish. That we had not had to go to those funerals and comfort those families who suffer today, I wish that were the fact. And there will be some who will say that the scenario we talked about earlier, about a nuclear IED exploding in Times Square or the National Mall or an NFL football game, is too provocative or too sensational or too scary. I hope they're absolutely right; I hope it's total fiction.

But I think we ought to know better. I think we ought to know better that there is a regime which has demonstrated its deceit, which has manifested its evil toward its own people and to our troops in the Middle East, that has used language that is more than just purple language, that is language that goes beyond the pale about the annihilation of Israel and of all those who would stand with Israel, and that now stands accused--or persons alleged to have been tied to that regime now stand accused in our courts of participating in a conspiracy to assassinate a foreign diplomat on our soil. These are people we should be concerned about.

And as we look at the question of whether such an attack could happen, I think the question is unequivocally: Yes, it can. Our responsibility is to, with equal equivocation, say, no, it won't, no, it won't; that we will use the resources at our disposal--our international alliances, our economic leverage, our diplomatic skill-- to try to move the Iranians to the point where they would accept a reasonable deal which says if you want to have nuclear power plants in your country, that's your sovereign right; but you must buy your fuel from outside the country and you must abandon your ability to manufacture and synthesize fuel. That's a reasonable and fair settlement. We should use every tool at our disposal to encourage the Iranian Government to accept such a settlement.

And as any wise President should do, as President Obama has done, as President Bush did before him, as President Clinton did before him, as President Bush did before him, as Presidents Reagan and Carter did before them, any prudent American President must reserve the right to defend our sovereign interests with whatever tools are necessary should the need arise. I pray that the need will never arise. And I think if we act intelligently, forcefully, but urgently, I think that we can avoid that day and avoid a situation like I described earlier.

So, Madam Speaker, thank you for this time this afternoon. I'd like to again thank the staff for its indulgence. I commend the chairwoman of our committee and the ranking member. And I look forward to supporting their legislation, broadening our unified, bipartisan national effort to stand strong against the tyranny and evil of this regime and for the welfare of innocent people throughout the world and throughout our country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this ends yet another week for the House of Representatives without consideration of a meaningful jobs bill. More meaningfully, though, this concludes another week where a nightmare is about to come true for our constituents. This is another week without a paycheck for a lot of Americans. It might be the week that their unemployment benefits expire. This might be the day that someone shuts down their small business and closes the doors for the last time. This might be the week that the foreclosure notice is executed and someone loses their home. This has been a bad week for a lot of Americans. It's been a bad time for a lot of Americans. But what they have lost is not simply their job, not simply their business, not simply their health insurance or their pension. Many of our neighbors have lost their basic faith that America is fair.

Mr. Speaker, 50 percent--50 percent--of the American people recently surveyed said the American Dream was either dead or on life support. They see in the halls of big institutions, they see on Wall Street and they see in the Halls of Congress a basic sense that America is not fair anymore, that the basic deal that if you work as hard as you can, give as much as you can and do as much as you can that you can go as far as your abilities will take you, too many of our constituents no longer believe that.

My motion makes what I believe is an improvement to a good bill. I'm going to support this bill that says that no small business person should have to make an interest-free loan to the Federal Government to do business with the government. I think that's exactly right. But here's the improvement it makes. It recognizes that some who would take advantage of that provision are taking advantage of our tax system and not paying their fair share.

When I say ``not paying their fair share,'' I'm not talking about policy or arguing about tax rates. I'm talking about someone who is delinquent on their taxes and cheating the rest of us. So when someone looks at their pay envelope this afternoon and sees what's taken out in FICA and Federal withholding tax, they're paying their fair share. Some like it, many do not, but they're paying their fair share. Why should it be that someone who is not paying their fair share to support this country should take advantage of this very good bill? I say they shouldn't.

So my improvement to this bill is very simple. If you run a barber shop or a software company or a delicatessen or a manufacturing plant, you no longer have to make an interest-free loan to the government to do business with the government. I agree with that, and I salute the authors of the bill. But if you are delinquent on your taxes, if you haven't paid your fair share, if you are cheating the rest of the community, then you may not take advantage of this opportunity.

This amendment is not just about improving the revenue flow to the Federal Government. It's about making the country a little more fair again. It's about saying that those who follow the rules, our small businesses, our middle class citizens, those who follow the rules can take advantage of the law, but those who do not follow the rules may not take advantage of the law. I think the American people want to see that in big hospitals and insurance companies; I think they want to see that on Wall Street; and I think they want to see it right here on the floor of this Chamber.

So let's cast a vote today not just for an improvement to this bill, but let's make America a little more fair. Let's

make the American Dream a little more alive. Let's stand for the proposition that those who play by the rules benefit from the rules, but those who break the rules do not.

The question raised, colleagues, by this amendment is this: Where do you stand? Do you stand with small businesses and middle class people who follow the rules, or do you follow with those who would violate the rules and pillage the American system?

The American people have had enough of this. We need to do far more than this to restore fairness to our country, but this is a good start. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.

As we meet this afternoon, 15 million Americans are unemployed. The President has a proposal to put people to work modernizing 35,000 schools in America, but we're not voting on that bill.

The President has a proposal that would avoid a $1,500 a year tax increase on middle class Americans January 1 if we don't act, but we're not voting on that bill.

The President has ideas to help the real job creators, the small businesses of this country, get bank loans from the people they bailed out with their tax dollars in the TARP bill a couple of years ago, but we're not voting on that bill.

Now, we are voting on a bill that we should support that says that businesses should not have to make an interest-free loan to the government when they do business with the government. I'm for that. But you do need to understand the way this bill is paid for.

This bill does have an offset, meaning it will not add to the deficit. I think we're all for that. But it's important to understand the way we make that decision. There were two options as to how we might take care of that offset. We said let's go to the industry that's had the most successful year in its history, the oil industry, and stop giving our tax dollars to the oil industry when they're making record profits. That idea is not up for a vote.

What is up for a vote is a provision that may make some sense. It may make some sense. It essentially deals with the adjustment formula for benefits under the new health care law. But we're not really sure exactly how the proposal will operate. There is a risk that some deserving middle class people will pay higher health insurance premiums if this is not done in the right way.

So understand this: The first way we could have paid for this bill would be to go to the oil industry and say you've had enough time at the public trough, you're making record profits, no. Or we could say let's roll the dice and let's try this experiment with the health premiums of middle class people. Guess who won?

Now we thought it would be a good idea to at least put the two ideas up for a vote, but this rule doesn't do that. So the House will have to work its will today on the underlying bill. I'm going to vote for the underlying bill, but I'd really look forward to voting next week--and let me say one other thing. The plan for the House the rest of the year is to be here another 14 days between now and New Year's Day, and take the rest of the year off. A lot of Americans are going to have the rest of the year off, too--involuntarily, because they're out of work. Let's get to the business of creating an environment where small businesses create jobs for the people of this country. Let's put Americans back to work after we do this good business of today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Bill Orth's years of tireless public service to Pennsauken Township, New Jersey. A beloved former Mayor and member of the Township Committee from 1981 to 2011, Mr. Orth has gone above and beyond in his dedication and commitment to his community.

Mr. Orth was determined to use his position to invigorate the township, spearheading a successful downtown revitalization campaign. He was instrumental in dedicating a monument and park to Pennsauken's veterans, and erecting a memorial sculpture in honor of the victims and heroes of 9/11. He has represented the township of Pennsauken and the state of New Jersey with enthusiasm and care, and Pennsauken and this Congress are proud to recognize him for the work he has done.

Mr. Orth also made it a priority to bring performers from far and wide to Pennsauken, and his devotion to widening the musical experiences of his community will be remembered for generations to come. His talent and loyalty to Pennsauken's musical theater community made Pennsauken's productions large-scale events.

In addition, Bill began the charitable organization, Pennsauken Neighbors Helping Neighbors, which gives small grants to community members in need to better their lives in times of financial difficulty. The charity's goal is simple: help Pennsauken residents help each other. This selflessness and desire to help others are perfectly representative of Bill Orth's attitude towards life.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Orth's endless dedication to Pennsauken Township should not go unrecognized. I join the township and all of South Jersey in paying tribute to this exceptional man.

I thank my friend for yielding.

What I'm hearing from the people in my area, I think most Members are hearing this, is the American people want the divisiveness to stop and the jobs to start.

This bill tonight does the opposite. It's the most divisive issue we could really put before this House and this country.

There was a carefully balanced compromise that's been the law of the land--and is the law of the land--for a very long time that says that taxpayer money should not pay for abortion, but that a woman who chooses to have an abortion with her own money has that right.

This bill upsets that balance but, more importantly than that, I think this bill ignores the opportunity for us to come together and stop the divisiveness and start working on the problem the country wants us to work on, which is the creation of jobs.

Tomorrow will be yet another Friday without a paycheck for millions of Americans. It might be the day that a small businessman or businesswoman closes their shop for the last time. It might be the day that the mortgage foreclosure is executed and someone loses their home.

This country is in crisis. There is an emergency around this country that needs to be dealt with right now.

People feel very, very deeply about the issue of abortion on both sides. I respect both sides. The law respects both sides with the compromise that we have.

What we ought to collectively respect is the urgent demands of the American public to come together and get to work to put the country back to work. That should be the agenda of the Congress, not this bill. Let us work our will, and whatever it is tonight, I'll be voting ``no.'' But can't we work our will on a plan to work together and put the country back to work?