Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bill.

This issue of great importance to my constituents, as multiple counties in New Jersey--including several in my district--have frequently been declared Federal disaster areas over the last decade because of severe, frequent floods. From Kingwood to Trenton to South River, thousands of central New Jersey residents have seen their homes and businesses ruined by these floods, which are undoubtedly being driven in part by global climate change that is producing more frequent and severe weather across our country.

The bill before us would ensure that the National Flood Insurance Program is reauthorized through 2015, and it includes many homeowner- friendly provisions. For the first time since 1994, raises the maximum coverage limits for flood insurance policies for residences from $250,000 to $335,000. The bill also delays for five years requirement mandating the purchase of flood insurance for homeowners in a neighborhood newly classified as a flood zone--so that these homeowners are not suddenly burdened with unexpected insurance costs. I regret that the House Committee on Rules refused to make in order an amendment I offered that would have frozen annual premium rate increases to no more than 10 percent annually, but I will continue to argue for such a freeze during conference negotiations on this bill.

More broadly, Congress needs to take further steps to help communities mitigate potential flood damage.

Last year, I secured $314,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue Flood Mitigation in the Raritan River Basin. The funding supports the work of the Army Corps of Engineers to protect the region from flooding. As a result of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act, the Army Corps has begun preconstruction on flood mitigation projects that were recommended in the Corps feasibility report completed in September 2002. The project includes the construction of a storm surge barrier, floodwalls and levees, interior drainage facilities, and ecosystem restoration. The project benefits the communities of East Brunswick, Old Bridge and South River. Additionally, I secured $300,000 for the City of Trenton to implement measures to protect its water filtration plant from flood events. Flood damage to the plant could cause devastating service interruptions and have an adverse impact on the drinking water supply. I will continue to support such preventive measures, even as I work to enact policies that will halt the kind of harmful climatic changes that are at least in part fueling the storms and flooding that perennially threaten our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of tile Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

I frequently talk with central New Jersey residents who are frustrated with the reckless way Wall Street and big banks gamed the system with exotic financial schemes, while families and small businesses paid the price.

Wall Street reform will protect consumers from deceptive business practices and hidden fees through the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Reform also will protect homebuyers from some of the worst predatory lending practices that contributed to the financial meltdown of 2008.

Reform finally will restore accountability to Wall Street. Banks no longer will be able to gamble with depositors' savings for their profits. Unregulated derivatives--called ``financial weapons of mass destruction'' by Warren Buffett--will now be traded in the open. Stockholders will vote on executive pay. And hedge fund managers will have to come out from the shadows and register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Reform will prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts of financial giants, establishing an orderly process for liquidating failing companies that will be paid for by their investors and creditors--not taxpayers.

While no bill is perfect, this is the strongest reform since the Great Depression. It will put the cops back on the beat on Wall Street and will help give Americans confidence that the system works for individuals, families and small businesses--not big banks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor the memory of United States Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.

Born in West Virginia, I have known Senator Byrd my whole life. Senator Byrd faithfully served West Virginia in Congress for more than 57 years. Throughout his career in the House and the Senate, he improved the lives and welfare of the people of West Virginia for whom he cared so much. He worked endlessly to fight for democratic principles, defend the Constitution, and ensure that the American Dream was in reach for all families.

Senator Byrd grew up in the southern coalfields of West Virginia, first working as a gas station attendant briefly and then in a local food market. He started his political career in the West Virginia House of Delegates, serving from 1947 to 1950, followed by two years in the West Virginia Senate. After being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1952, he enrolled in night law school classes despite not having a bachelor's degree. In 1958, West Virginia elected him to the U.S. Senate where he became its longest-serving member.

Senator Byrd was an energetic defender of the U.S. Senate as an institution, persistently seeking to preserve its dignity and traditions. He literally wrote the book on the Senate--a four-volume history of the institution that is a treasure. To read his books and to read his speeches is to see Senator Byrd as a self-taught great orator and historian, someone who could readily quote from Shakespeare, Greek tragedies, and the King James Bible.

I always will remember him for his extraordinary devotion and service to the people of West Virginia. He paid exceptional attention to his constituents and their individual concerns. Staff members told me that at night they would receive calls at home from the Senator, quizzing them on people who had signed his guestbook that day and asking how he could help them. He would recognize people in a crowd and ask them if his constituent service to them years before took care of their problem.

My thoughts and condolences go out to his daughters, his family, and all of his friends and neighbors in West Virginia. Senator Byrd dedicated every day of his service in the U.S. Congress to strengthening the institution and the country that he loved so deeply.

He will be greatly missed. May he rest in peace with his beloved wife Erma.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Obama administration's war strategy in Afghanistan and to the war funding contained in this bill. It is evident to me that this strategy is not working.

Just this past weekend, CIA Director Leon Panetta said on national television that, regarding Taliban insurgents, ``We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation where they would surrender their arms, where they would denounce al-Qaeda, where they would really try to become part of that society.'' One day later, General Petreaus--our newly named commander for the war in Afghanistan--told the Congress ``. . . whether or not very senior [Taliban] leaders can meet the very clear conditions that the Afghan government has laid down for reconciliation I think is somewhat in question. So in that regard, I agree with Director Panetta.''

Substitute ``Viet Cong'' for ``Taliban'' and ``South Vietnamese government'' for ``Afghan government'' and you'll understand why all of this sounds painfully familiar. It's because we've seen this before, and we know how it ends.

I do not say these things lightly, as I voted for the authorization for the use of force in 2001 in order to find and bring to justice the al Qaeda leaders who organized the 9/11 attacks against our country. Unfortunately, the previous administration did not put enough troops on the ground to prevent bin Laden's escape, and nearly 9 years later he and his key lieutenants whereabouts remain a mystery to our intelligence community, as Director Panetta acknowledged last weekend. In other words, the original rationale for going to Afghanistan is gone.

We face a nationalist insurgency that we cannot defeat militarily and that will not negotiate a political settlement with the corrupt Afghan government. We have tripled the number of troops on the ground since the beginning of 2009, and the violence has only soared. Every day we remain only increases our national debt and subjects our troops to needless peril. Indeed, every month we squander enough money on this war that could otherwise be used to put an additional 38,000 police on our streets for a full year, or to prevent massive teacher layoffs in every state, particularly New Jersey. The cost of this war is directly imperiling the hometown security of communities across this nation and the economic security of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, when President Obama asked us to support his new strategy, I did so reluctantly and with this caveat: I would give the President time to show his approach could work, but that my patience had limits. In the nearly 18 months that President Obama has had the opportunity to demonstrate his approach, we've tripled the number of Americans in Afghanistan, our casualties have skyrocketed, and the insurgency has deepened and spread across the country. My patience, and now support for this strategy, have evaporated. We do more harm than good by staying: more harm to our troops and our economy, and more harm to innocent Afghans who too often are caught in the crossfire. It's time for us to go, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to bring our troops home by ending funding for this conflict.

The bill before us makes critical investments in education which are fully paid for by cutting funds from existing programs.

The current economic downturn has hit school districts hard, and many are being forced to cut services. Previously, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made several sound investments in public education to keep teachers in the classroom and help school districts avoid painful cuts.

Most, if not all, of this emergency funding has been spent. Further, at this most critical time, Governor Christie made the wrong call in cutting state aid to our local schools.

The $10 billion included for the Education Jobs Fund will help keep teachers in the classroom and make sure that class sizes do not balloon next fall. This much needed funding will help preserve 140,000 teaching jobs nationwide.

This package also contains almost $5 billion, fully offset as well, to ensure college students who receive Pell Grants, 8 million this year, will have the financial support for college they need.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1359, which calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Gilad Shalit and other Israeli soldiers who are being held illegally by terrorist organizations. On June 25, 2006, Hamas terrorists based in Gaza led an illegal raid into Israel, where they attacked a military post and killed two Israeli soldiers before kidnapping then-corporal Gilad Shalit. Since then, Hamas has held Mr. Shalit without access to medical treatment, legal counsel, or humanitarian organizations. For 4 years, Mr. Shalit has been kept from his family, which has had to watch helplessly as Hamas cynically exploited videos of their loved one.

As I have said many times before, only a just, permanent, and peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians can ensure the security and welfare of both peoples. The way forward in the Middle East will require compromises by all parties, but certain things are nonnegotiable. Hamas must end terrorist activities, renounce violence, and recognize Israel. Human rights and international humanitarian law must be respected by all, and Hamas bears the responsibility to meet this standard by immediately and unconditionally releasing Gilad Shalit. I stand firmly with his family and all Israelis who continue to suffer until justice is done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor Ron Gettelfinger for his years of service leading the United Auto Workers.

Mr. Gettelfinger spent his entire career in the car business; his first job was at Ford's truck plant in Louisville, Ky. He has been part of the United Auto Workers since 1964 while he was working as a chassis line repairman. After working all day on the line, he went to school at night for a degree in business. While working on his degree, he made the decision that he would apply his education to helping his fellow workers with their daily problems while remaining close to the assembly line. Holding true to this philosophy, he advanced through the UAW organization, becoming president in 2002.

His time as president came during some of the most difficult economic times in our Nation's history. As president, he has served as an effective partner to the major domestic automobile manufacturers during their restructuring. He steered the UAW through this catastrophic period and played an important role in saving the American car industry and the jobs of the workers in the UAW.

During his presidency, Mr. Gettelfinger has fought for basic American values. He has labored to ensure that workers receive a fair

share when they help a company prosper. He has championed the rights of workers to receive good health care if they get sick. He has worked to make sure that each worker receives a secure pension for their lifetime of loyal service.

Thanks to the work of leaders like Ron and his predecessors, working people have come a long way--an eight-hour work day, pensions, safer job conditions, and health benefits.

Most notably, Ron Gettelfinger has been known for his outspoken advocacy to make health care accessible and affordable for every woman, man, and child in the United States. I agree with him on this goal and long have supported universal health coverage. I am pleased that this year Congress has passed into law health reform legislation that provides secure coverage to almost all Americans and gives workers more control over their health care.

I again congratulate Mr. Gettelfinger on his retirement and thank him again for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. The United States does not deny Iran's lawful right to peacefully explore technologies for nuclear power, but the Iranian regime has provided just cause for skepticism about the peaceful nature of its nuclear ambitions. There is an international consensus that Iran should not attain nuclear weapons capability--a circumstance that unquestionably would accelerate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, threatening both regional stability and the security of the United States.

For over a year and a half, the United States and the international community have worked diligently to achieve a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian regime's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yet the Iranian leadership remains defiant and shows no signs of substantive cooperation. Their actions have left us little choice but to pursue additional measures to persuade the regime that it must live up to its obligations to the international community by suspending its uranium enrichment program and verifiably ending any pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Recently, the United Nations imposed new sanctions on the Government of Iran. The United States joined the European Union and others in taking immediate steps to implement these measures in a way that is consistent with existing law. Now Congress will provide the Administration with new tools that will allow the United States to augment these multilateral efforts.

This legislation will broaden the list of sanctionable activities and provide new mechanisms for the U.S. to sanction responsible entities. Any banks, companies, or other institutions that support Iran's refined petroleum sector or engage in transactions with Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or other blacklisted Iranian institutions will face stiff penalties and be prevented from doing business in the United States. State and local governments will have clear authorization to divest from entities that engage in business with Iran, and private asset managers will be able to undertake similar divestment without fear of breaching their fiduciary responsibilities. The Director of National Intelligence will be required to prepare a list of governments that allow re-export, trans-shipment, transfer, re-transfer, or diversion to Iran of goods or services that could be used for terrorism or the production of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. will work with these governments to strengthen their export control systems, and the President will be required to impose new restrictions on those that fail to improve their actions.

While I believe it is necessary for the U.S. to enact these tough new measures as quickly as possible, it is important to remember that by themselves, they will not be effective. Sanctions are blunt instruments. They rarely

change the behavior of intransigent regimes, but they often harm innocent citizens. I am pleased that this legislation was crafted carefully to target the IRGC and the leadership of Iran, rather than the Iranian people.

The United States continues to stand with those in Iran who oppose human rights abuses and fight for a government that is truly representative of the peoples' will. That is why this legislation explicitly exempts software and services for personal communication and internet access from the general prohibition against exports to Iran. In addition, Iranians who perpetrated or were complicit in human rights abuses against other Iranians on or after June 12, 2009 will be subject to strict new visa, property, and financial sanctions.

It is equally important to note that this legislation makes clear that the United States stands ready to lift the new sanctions and engage Iran in a productive dialogue if the regime stops threatening its neighbors and verifiably abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Until that day comes, the United States will continue to take action to convince the Iranian leadership that this is the only viable choice. Achieving that goal is the central purpose of this legislation.

I thank the chair of our committee for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5481, which Mrs. Capps has brought before us, that would grant subpoena powers to the Presidential Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Our Nation is in the midst of a great environmental disaster of historic scale--tens of thousands of barrels gushing into the gulf, hundreds of miles of coast line contaminated, thousands of people suffering from the economic impact. With today's news that the cap has been removed, this environmental catastrophe continues only to get worse.

BP has not been forthcoming over the past months--not forthcoming in what they were doing or how it was done or how much oil was gushing out and on and on and on. We owe it to the American people that they have an answer for what has happened; why it has happened; how it will be brought under control; what actions are being taken to prevent future spills. We can't let corporate prevarication and delay and feigned ignorance stand in the way.

I support the President's action in creating a commission to determine the answers to these questions. And as the commission begins to investigate the spill in the coming weeks, we must ensure that it has the tools necessary to succeed. Granting the commission subpoena powers will ensure that they undertake a complete inquiry on the causes of the spill and make meaningful recommendations on how to prevent similar disasters. I urge support.

I also want to point out that we need to ensure that the responsible parties are held accountable for the economic damages they've caused. The Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, which has the support of nearly a fifth of this body, would raise the liability limit for economic damages from the laughably small $75 million. It's my hope that Congress will also act on this important legislation in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116). Our investments in scientific research and education underwrite our national prosperity and success. Economists attribute over half of the growth in our gross domestic product (GDP) since World War II to progress in science and technology. Yet for decades, we have underinvested in our nation's tools for advancing innovation and competitiveness. In 2005, the National Academies issued a call for action in the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report. In 2007, Congress responded by implementing many of the report's recommendations in the America COMPETES Act, and this reauthorization would build on the progress we have made over the last three years.

Basic research is a powerful source of new and unexpected discoveries that can transform our economy. This legislation maintains the doubling path for authorized funding at our nation's basic research agencies-- the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy's Office of Science. These funds support fundamental research in every discipline, maintain our national laboratories, and provide vital training for the next generation of scientists and engineers. Under this legislation, research grants will be awarded on the basis of scientific merit alone and not for any other considerations. The dividends from our investments in research and development are the breakthroughs that yield new industries, drive job growth, and sustain our future economic and technological competitiveness.

The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act includes a number of new programs and initiatives to foster innovation. Regional Innovation Clusters would leverage collaboration between businesses, academic institutions, and other participants to facilitate the transfer of technologies from the laboratory to the commercial sector. The Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Department of Commerce would accelerate the commercialization of research and development by identifying ways to overcome existing barriers and providing access to relevant data and technical assistance. Agencies involved in the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program would be required to develop a strategic plan to address long-term challenges related to information technology, encourage the transfer of research and development into new technologies and applications, and strengthen education in networking and information technology.

Additional assistance for manufacturers and other businesses would promote the adoption of new technologies and improve productivity. The legislation requires NSF to support research in transformative advances in manufacturing. It increases the federal government cost share of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program to 50 percent through 2015, and MEP Centers would be required to inform regional community colleges of the skill sets needed by local manufacturers. A newly established Innovative Services Initiative would assist small- and medium-sized manufacturers in implementing energy and waste reduction technologies, including renewable energy systems. A loan guarantee program would allow manufacturers to access capital for the installation of innovative technologies and processes that will help increase their efficiency and maintain their competitiveness.

To preserve our leadership in scientific and technical fields and strengthen our competitiveness in the 21st century economy, the U.S. must continue to produce the world's best scientists, and we must ensure that every student is exposed to the fundamentals of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act would establish an interagency committee to coordinate federal STEM education programs and a separate advisory committee on STEM to present recommendations on how to better align federal programs with the needs of states and school districts. Updates to the NSF's Robert Noyce Scholarship program would allow more schools to participate and more qualified STEM educators to reach high-need schools. Support for graduate students would be strengthened, and academic institutions would be awarded grants to reform graduate education to emphasize preparation for diverse STEM careers. New grant and fellowship programs would encourage research in STEM education, help transform undergraduate education in STEM fields, and expand educational opportunities in energy systems science and engineering.

Women and minorities remain underrepresented in STEM fields, and this legislation would provide grants for institutions of higher education to increase recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups. Federal science agencies would be required to carry out a series of workshops to minimize gender bias in academia, and a uniform policy would be developed to assist federally funded researchers with care giving responsibilities in maintaining their research programs. It also would ensure that smaller, minority-serving institutions will be more fully integrated into research partnerships with major universities and prioritize the inclusion of these institutions in grants to establish regional university-industry partnerships for research and innovation.

In the energy field, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act includes a first-time authorization for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, which is the nation's largest supporter of physical sciences research. Reauthorization of the Advanced Research Projects agency for Energy (ARPA-E),

which is modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), would help us pursue high-risk, high-reward energy technology develop that might not receive support otherwise. The newly established Energy Innovation Hubs would provide for multidisciplinary collaborations on research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of advanced technologies designed to tackle technological barriers to our national energy goals.

Finally, I am pleased that this legislation incorporates two amendments that I offered. The first expresses the sense of Congress that the importance of peer-review and the role of scientific publishers in the peer-review process should be taken into account by the new National Science and Technology Council working group on the dissemination and long-term stewardship of unclassified federally funded research. The second amendment would help stitch together the diverse initiatives in the COMPETES Act by requiring the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to prepare a comprehensive national competitiveness and innovation strategy. I look forward to receiving that plan for evaluating and strengthening the U.S. position in the global economy.

The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act makes long overdue investments in the foundations of our national innovation system. It would create jobs in both the short- and long-term, support manufacturers and businesses in commercializing new technologies, help us pursue a clean energy economy, improve STEM education, and strengthen our international competitiveness. I commend Chairman Gordon and the Science and Technology Committee for their hard work on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, for the time and also for dealing promptly with this legislation.

There is a more than $1.5 billion today in the trust fund, but the Coast

Guard and the other government agencies cannot access that because of existing limits on the per incident expenses and because of the cap on using this for natural resources and economic damages.

The trust fund exists so that we can get on with the work at hand, and I'm pleased that the chairman and the ranking member are moving promptly to give the administration the tools that they need to deal with this. There is work to be done, and it must be done quickly. This will take care of immediate expenditures.

We have also dealt with, here in the House, increasing the total capacity of the trust fund, and we must rapidly build up those collections from the oil companies in that trust fund. And then, of course, we must recover from BP and the other responsible parties the money that is used from the trust fund.

So spending this money now, and I hope the chairman has been clear for our colleagues, spending that money now does not absolve BP of any responsibility. It just allows the work to get on, and the funds will be collected from BP.

Also, because this only deals with the immediate incident, there is still a need to, I would argue, pass the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, or something of the sort that I've introduced along with a number of cosponsors, to deal with this long term, to raise the liability limit so that we can collect everything that is necessary from oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, the events that transpired in the Mediterranean off the coast of Israel on May 31st were profoundly unfortunate and the loss of life is deeply regrettable.

We await a full and credible account of what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara, yet we know that Israel has the right and obligation to protect her citizens and borders, in this case by enforcing a legal naval blockade to allow certification of peaceful end use of goods transported into Gaza.

In the days since the incident, Israel has released all people detained and has inspected and trucked the flotilla aid cargo to Gaza, where I understand it awaits permission from Hamas to cross.

Sadly, last week's confrontation could have been avoided. Israel offered the flotilla organizers the chance to have their cargo inspected at the Port of Ashdod and transported to Gaza. Five of the six ships in the flotilla complied nonviolently, but the Mavi Marmara, loaded with over 500 people, refused.

The sequence of events that subsequently led to violence is disputed, but it is obvious, to me anyway, that the actions of the Mavi Marmara were needlessly provocative.

Israel should lead an impartial, transparent, and prompt examination of the incident. And inquiries may show how the interdiction could have been accomplished without loss of life.

It seems to me that the Israeli soldiers were right to defend themselves from the brutal assault. We saw this on video. It does not seem clear that the situation had to unfold as it did, however.

Israel announced yesterday that a highly respected team of experts will review the investigations that are now under way, with a report expected in about a month. The United States should assist our ally in this endeavor, and the world community should withhold judgment until a reliable inquiry is complete. Yet many around the world, once again, are rushing to blame Israel before fully examining all the facts.

The United States, correctly, voted against a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution that called for an independent fact-finding mission, while at the same time, prematurely condemning Israel's actions. This apparent bias cannot be allowed to inflame an already volatile situation.

I have called for increased humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza for more than a year now. Legitimate humanitarian needs cannot be ignored. However, continued interference and provocations by any nation or faction in the region are unhelpful and dangerous.

The United States, the Arab states, and others must continue to facilitate vigorous and sustained diplomacy until lasting peace is achieved. Ultimately, only a just, permanent, and peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians can ensure the security and the welfare of all in the region.

I thank my good friend from Virginia.

I, too, want to pay tribute to the work that our colleague from Oregon has done under the umbrella of liveability, having to do with transportation, housing, I mean, even such things as the location of post offices in town.

There are so many things over the years that Mr. Blumenauer has worked on to try to make communities livable and sustainable-- sustainable in the way they produce and use energy, and livable in the sense of getting the best quality of life through our transportation decisions, our housing decisions.

What is so heartbreaking about the catastrophe that is under way in the Gulf of Mexico right now is that it did not have to be.

As I left to join you here on the floor, they were showing on one of the news networks fish flopping sadly, trying to get air, trying to get out of the oil, clearly doomed. We have seen the birds washing ashore.

It did not have to happen.

The oil spill is unprecedented in scale, but it is not unprecedented in kind, in our experience. In fact, I was talking with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency yesterday, and she said, do you know how many oil spills we're dealing with essentially daily? Not on this scale, but it should be expected, it can be expected, in fact it must be expected that, if you drill, you will spill.

As our colleague from Oregon was saying, for BP to go into this with no preparation whatsoever--I mean, they talk about they are a company that manages risk. Well, if they manage risk, they know, by definition, things can go wrong. That's what risk means: There is a down side. Well, what preparations, what plans, what studies, what research did they do for the down side? None.

Now, we are in the process of not only extending the liability limit--and today we removed the per-incident limit so that the Coast Guard is not constrained by the $150 million limit, which they are already pushing up against--but we also must make sure that there is an enforcement of standards within the Minerals Management Agency separating those who grant the leases from those who collect the royalties on the leases from those who enforce the standards. We haven't done that. So we must do that, and we must do that soon, so that if any oil drilling is going to continue, that preparations are made for the down side.

I hope, in fact, that we wean ourselves from this archaic fuel as soon as possible. I mean, what does the word ``fossil'' mean to most people? That means out of date. What we are talking about here, what these companies have been developing ever-more-sophisticated technologies to do is to bind ourselves more strongly to an archaic way of powering our society and our economy. It is archaic. We should be moving away from it as rapidly as possible so that this won't happen again, because it need not happen again.

I thank my friend for drawing our colleagues' attention to this and talking about those things that we will be doing over the next couple of weeks, lifting the liability limits to put in place research programs and regulatory programs for the future.

I thank the gentleman.

You spoke earlier about the liability, a very important principle that has been to some extent and should be to the full extent of American law in this area, which is, ``polluter pays.'' That has been the basis of the Superfund program. That should be the basis for the oil liability legislation.

BP has said they will pay reasonable costs and that sort of thing. We shouldn't have to take their word for it. We shouldn't have to take the word of a company that has flagrantly cut corners in the past at huge cost to life and natural environment, whether you're talking about the Texas City refinery, whether you're talking about the blowouts on the North Slope of Alaska, whether you're talking about the blowouts on the pipeline in Alaska, whether you're talking about failure to level with the American public and even with the Coast Guard and the experts on how much oil was escaping from this very well. The number keeps shifting, and the oil company, I think, has not been fully forthcoming.

So this company asks us to take their word for it that they will pay, that they will pay for the cleanup, that they will pay for the environmental damages, they will pay for the economic damages and dislocation. I want that established in law. The liability limit should be raised to many billions of dollars, if there is a limit at all.

Now, some here in the Congress, particularly from the other side, have said, ``Well, but you'll drive out the mom-and-pop, you'll drive out the small independents.'' Well, you have to have the ability to prevent and repair and pay for any damages when you go into business.

The point of the oil liability legislation is not to protect small businesses; it's to protect our environment and the life of American citizens and the well being and economic opportunities for American citizens. And that means that the consideration should be how much damage can be done, and the liability limit should be large enough to cover the damage that can be done, not to ask whether this is going to put too much of a burden on a small company. The consideration should be, what is the damage? And there should be adequate liability to cover that.

I'm hopeful that, in the next week or so, we will raise this liability limit from the laughably small number of $75 million to at least $10 billion. And I thank the gentleman for joining me in this effort. The American public is crying for it. They want to know that in law and in fact BP will be held responsible for the damage they have done.

Mr. Speaker, the 2008 economic meltdown had some roots in consumer finance. Financial lenders steered families into mortgages they could not afford to repay, steered them into subprime loans, then packaged those loans and sold them to investors in the securities market. Credit card companies used unfair and deceptive practices to exacerbate nearly $1 trillion in nationwide credit card debt.

So it is important that we have a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency, such as we passed in the House last year. Putting this under or in another agency won't really protect the consumers.

The new CFPA must have the independence both to write and enforce regulations that will truly protect American families from abuses. This is our chance to reform Wall Street and stand up for ordinary Americans. And this is our chance to get it right.

I urge House leaders to insist on the stronger, more independent House-passed version of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Our constituents deserve no less.

Madam Chair, as I listen to the arguments of those who wish to continue the policy of driving gay or lesbian soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines out of military service, I am reminded that the people of the United States are a pragmatic people.

Those who wish to exclude gays tell the American people that the inclusion of gays would harm the morale, cohesion, and effectiveness of the military in defending our nation. They ask everyone to ignore the unmistakable parallels between their arguments and the arguments made in the 1940's against the racial integration of the services. Never mind, they say, that the same arguments about morale, cohesion, and effectiveness were offered to preserve the despicable policy of racial segregation. Never mind, they say, that back then it was claimed that it would devastate our Army's effectiveness if white soldiers had to share a barracks or bunkhouse or showerhouse with a black man.

Those who want to continue the practice of driving gays out of military service ask everyone to ignore that gays do and always have served in the U.S. military.

Suddenly all of American history became clear to me. Now I understand the devastating effect of gays in our military. Now I understand why we failed to win our independence from the British. Although I could never understand before why the United States lost two wars to the Germans and the Axis, now I realize it was because our military could not be effective. The presence of gays, despite our nation's material and economic might, so crippled our military morale, cohesion, and effectiveness that we were helpless and hopeless. Now I understand that is what happens if we allow gays to serve in the defense of our nation.

I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for joining me in this. And I also want to recognize the cosponsors, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Himes, for their support of this amendment, which seeks to address a serious gap in our military suicide prevention efforts, a gap that cost the life of one young constituent of mine, Sergeant Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey, and has cost the lives of an unknown number of others.

During two tours of duty in Iraq, Coleman saw the horrors of war firsthand; and like others, he sought treatment for post-traumatic distress disorder when he returned home in 2004. Unfortunately, because Coleman was a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, neither the Army nor the VA would take the lead on treating him. Tragically, only months after returning from his second tour in Iraq, Sergeant Coleman Bean took his life in September 2008.

Our amendment seeks to prevent future such tragedies by requiring the Secretary of Defense to ensure that members of the IRR or those who serve as Individual Mobilization Augmentees who have completed at least one tour in either Iraq or Afghanistan receive a counseling call from properly trained personnel not less than once every 90 days so long as the servicemember remains in the IRR or as an IMA, to take whatever follow-up measures are required to help identify at-risk Reservists, and to report to Congress on the program's effectiveness.

I ask my colleagues to support this important and I think very necessary amendment.