Floor Statements

I thank my friend for yielding.

The hour is late and Members have come back, properly so, to address an issue that we addressed months ago. The Senate sent it to us; we were gone. We thought it our responsibility to ask Members to come back because if we hadn't come back, if we didn't pass this bill, what could happen? 160,000 teachers would be at risk of being laid off and probably would be laid off. What would that mean? It would mean larger class sizes for teachers to deal with, children not receiving the kind of education that they need to be competitive in the global marketplace. What might have also happened? Some 160,000 police and fire personnel, emergency response teams, may have had to be laid off.

That's why we came back. That's why we believe this is so important. And how we paid for this, because we do not add a nickel to the national debt, notwithstanding the previous speaker, we paid for this because we believe if we're going to invest in our future, we also are going to pay for it, not ask our grandchildren to pay for it. Now, that's a concept that was jettisoned under Republican leadership but we've reestablished. So we pay for this.

One of the ways we pay for it is to ask people is, look, if you're going to send jobs overseas we're not going to give you a tax break. I know there are some that apparently are not for that, and they're going to vote against this bill, but my view is what we're doing is making sure that our children have the proper education they need, making sure that our communities are safe, and yes, making sure that we try to keep every job in America so that we can continue to make things in America, so people can make it in America. That's what this bill is all about.

The hour is late. I think everyone knows the issue, and I ask my colleagues, vote for this critical piece of legislation. Keep our teachers, our police, our fire personnel on the job. That's why the Senate passed this bill with over 60 percent majority in a bipartisan vote. Let's follow suit. Pass this bill. Make America better.

Let's consider what would happen if Republicans had their way and this bill failed. Some 160,000 teachers' jobs would be eliminated.

Some 160,000 jobs for police officers, firefighters, nurses, and private-sector employees would go, as well--a total of 320,000 lost jobs. And the impact would extend far beyond the laid-off employees.

Our children's educations would be shortchanged--bigger class sizes, programs eliminated, and summer school cancelled in communities across our country. In our neighborhoods, we'd find fewer cops patrolling the streets and longer waits before first responders arrive at the scene of an emergency.

More vulnerable Americans--already struggling through the greatest economic crisis of our lifetimes--would go without health care.

And don't think that the economic impact would be limited to the 320,000 laid-off workers alone.

It would mean families struggling to pay the mortgage or their student loans; it would mean local businesses losing customers; it would mean businesses forced into new layoffs of their own as a result.

It would mean, in short, a step closer to a double-dip recession.

I understand that States are obligated to cut spending when times are hard; but the fact that States' revenues are largely tied to sources that dramatically shrink in bad times, such as property and sales taxes, creates a vicious cycle that helps prolong recessions.

When States cut spending, the results include layoffs, less consumer demand, and a struggling private sector--making hard times hard for longer. And if Republicans had succeeded in blocking the Recovery Act and other measures to help pull our economy out of recession, State budgets would be even worse off today.

Preventing another vicious cycle of budget cuts and layoffs is exactly why it is both right and smart for the Federal Government to step in and lend a hand today.

This bill will do so--and it will prevent the dangerous chain- reaction of layoffs and drastically cut services for families that I've described. And this bill will do so in a fiscally responsible way: it includes savings for all of the dollars it spends, which means that it adds nothing to the deficit.

In fact, much of this bill's savings can help keep jobs in America: by passing this bill, we can end the tax loopholes for corporations that send American jobs overseas. And that's another way this legislation strengthens our economy and our recovery.

I don't understand how Republicans can add this bill to their year- and-a-half record of obstructing our recovery.

I don't understand how anyone, Democrat or Republican, can be against keeping teachers in the classroom, keeping cops on the beat, and keeping firefighters protecting our homes.

But some who oppose this bill cynically call teachers, cops, firefighters, and nurses ``special interests.''

That's how they will justify their vote against this bill--but with the very same vote, Mr. Speaker, they will vote to protect corporations that exploit the tax code to outsource American jobs.

How first responders are ``special interests'' and those corporations are not, is beyond me--but I'm eager to hear my Republican friends explain it.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this fiscally responsible bill, which the communities we represent desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, I'm amused sometimes when I stand on the floor and I hear my Republican colleagues debate the economy.

Frankly, the Bush administration, of course, did not happen, you understand. That 8 years really wasn't their economic program, and the dire consequences of that economic program are all Mr. Obama's fault. Hoover probably could have blamed it on Coolidge. Maybe Coolidge could have blamed it on Harding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would simply say to my friend--and he is my friend and I believe him to be a very positive Member of the Congress of the United States. I would say to him, I don't want to re-litigate. I do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, and I believe, very frankly, my friend, that the economic policies that you want to pursue have not worked, and I don't want to pursue them again. It's not a question of re-litigation. It's a question of learning from the failures of the past that brought this economy so extraordinarily low. It is time to invest in the creation of jobs. I believe this bill does that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am pleased to follow my friend, Congressman Manzullo, in speaking about the importance of making it in America. Making it in America is not just about manufacturing in America, it's about succeeding in America, making sure that America continues to be the vibrant engine of our economy and the international economy, making things not only for Americans, but for all the world. And I thank Mr. Manzullo for his comments.

Americans have always looked to the manufacturing sector as a source of economic vitality and as a source of pride. I want to thank my friend from Illinois (Mr. Rush), who has been such an outstanding leader in this Congress on behalf of growing our economy, jobs for Americans, good pay and good benefits for all Americans.

America has long prided itself on being a country that makes things. And Democrats, and I know my Republican friends, are committed to making sure that is true in the future. America agrees on the importance of manufacturing to our economy. You just ask them and they will tell you we need to make it in America. Fifty-seven percent of Americans believe it is one of the most important factors in our economic strength, and 85 percent of Americans believe that creating manufacturing jobs is important to our economic recovery. We need to make it in America.

It's true that manufacturing has taken a severe hit in this recession. In fact, it's been taking hits for quite some time, particularly under the previous administration. Over the past decade, America lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs. These three bills are designed to turn that status around.

If we want American manufacturing to be strong again, if we want to emerge from these hard times with a more competitive, job-creating economy, we need to get serious about our manufacturing strategy. That is the impulse behind the Democrats' Making it in America agenda: creating incentives for investments in industry, strengthening manufacturing infrastructure and innovation, strengthening our workforce, and helping to level the playing field for American companies. That's what our focus is going to be. That's what Mr. Manzullo was talking about.

So far, the Make it in America agenda has resulted in the passage of the U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act. It passed the House just a few days ago on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and is at the White House. This helps American companies get the affordable materials they need. And it's passed the Senate and is on the way to becoming law, as I said.

The House has also passed the SECTORS Act, which invests in 21st- century workforce training, to make sure that our people have the skills to make it in America. Bills like these build on the success we have already in rallying America's manufacturing sector under the Obama administration. Since the beginning of the year, our private sector has actually created 136,000 new manufacturing jobs.

This bill, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act, can contribute to that job creation. It directs the President to develop a national manufacturing strategy every 4 years, with input from the private sector, from manufacturing leaders, Federal officials, and State governments. They will analyze all of the factors affecting American manufacturing, from financing to trade barriers, and recommend actions that industry and Federal and State and local governments can take to boost manufacturing and create good-paying jobs.

I spoke about this the other day at the Center for American Progress. And a representative of the National Association of Manufacturers, Mr. Speaker, stood and congratulated us on this effort. And I told her that we were looking to work with the National Association of Manufacturers and others to build manufacturing capacity and to create these good- paying jobs with good benefits and making America work better.

The bill's sponsor, Congressman Lipinski, from the heartland of America, your State, Mr. Rush, Illinois, points out that similar national strategies are widespread. China, India, the UK, Brazil, Canada, and Germany all have manufacturing strategies; and we need one if we want to stay competitive with them.

And as has been true in the past, the ``Made in America'' label will be sought and admired throughout the world. This bill is an important way to take our industries' struggles seriously and begin responding to them constructively.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and the two that will follow to make America a more competitive, growing economy. Make it in America, an agenda that the House will consider this week and the 4 weeks when we return from our break: the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act, which will ensure that clean energy technology firms have the information and assistance they need to stay competitive; and the End the Trade Deficit Act, all on the agenda, sponsored by Congresswoman Matsui, which will develop strategies to combat the trade deficit. Through steps like these we can begin to restore America's pride in its manufacturing and in the solid jobs it creates for middle class families.

Make it in America is not simply a slogan; it is a commitment, a commitment to reestablish a dynamic engine for job creation. Make it in America is a commitment to ensuring that America's future is one in which America competes successfully and profitably in the new global marketplace. Make it in America is a psychology of excellence, a level playing field in trade relations, and the creation of an environment that facilitates manufacturing projects, expansion, and the sale of American products to the world.

America's innovative abilities and the talent and work ethic of our workers have historically led our country to extraordinary economic growth and success. The Make it in America agenda is a commitment, a commitment to making that success not only a proud part of our history, but a reality for our future. We're going to make it in America, and we're going to make it in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and thank Mr. Scott for yielding to me.

I also want to thank the former attorney general from California, Dan Lungren, for working with me on this issue and Jim Sensenbrenner and others.

Two decades ago, Congress responded to the addictiveness of crack cocaine, a terrible drug, and the violence it brought in its wake by establishing harsh mandatory sentences for possessing and dealing it. In supporting that policy, Congress also created a wide disparity, however, between crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences--both addictive, both illegal.

Possessing an amount of crack equal to the weight of two pennies has resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. In order to receive a similar sentence for possessing a chemically similar powder, cocaine, one would have to be carrying 100 times as much cocaine.

It has long been clear that 100-to-1 disparity has had a racial dimension as well, helping to fill our prisons with African Americans disproportionately put behind bars for longer.

The 100-to-1 disparity is counterproductive and unjust. That's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Union of Police Associations, and dozens of former Federal judges and prosecutors. They have seen firsthand the damaging effects of our unequal sentencing guidelines up close, and they understand the need to change them. That's what this is about.

The Fair Sentencing Act does that. It also strengthens sentences for those who profit by addicting others to drugs, as it should do.

This bill has overwhelming bipartisan support. Whatever their opinions on drug policies, members of law enforcement, community advocates, and Members of Congress overwhelmingly support this bill. In fact, it passed the Senate unanimously.

In the words of a letter signed by a bipartisan group with sponsors on the Senate Judiciary--Senators Leahy, Sessions, Feinstein, Hatch, Specter, Grassley, Durbin, Graham, Cardin, Cornyn and Coburn--a very, very bipartisan and broad spectrum group of supporters, they said this: ``Congress has debated the need to address the crack powder disparity for too long. We now have the ability to address this issue on a bipartisan basis.'' They supported this legislation, which is, again, why it passed in a bipartisan fashion through the United States Senate.

My colleagues, I urge support of this legislation. I am pleased that the leadership on both sides of the aisle will be supporting this legislation. We do so for the same reason that Senators Cornyn, Hatch, Graham, and Sessions all support their legislation. It's the right thing to do. It will enhance, not diminish prosecution, and it will lead to better justice in America while at the same time making sure that we penalize and hold accountable those who would addict our children and our fellow citizens.

I urge support of this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.

Speaker Langevin, I congratulate you on taking the podium. I congratulate you on your extraordinary service to the people of Rhode Island and the people of our country. And I congratulate you for being an example of the can-do spirit that has made America such a great country.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to be here on this, the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I'm particularly pleased to be here on the floor with my former colleague and my lifetime friend Tony Coelho of the State of California. Tony Coelho was the Whip on our side of the aisle for a number of years, elected into that position very shortly after he took his seat in the Congress of the United States. He is a person of extraordinary ability, extraordinary energy, extraordinary focus, and extraordinary accomplishment.

But early in his life, he fell off, in a farming accident, a tractor and injured his head. As a result of that traumatic injury, he became an epileptic. And because of that, his lifetime dream of becoming a priest was not available to him. That was something of a great trauma, again, to him.

However, he overcame that, came to Congress, and has made his life's work opening up America to those who had been discriminated against, to those who had been shut out, to those for whom the pursuit of happiness was made either impossible or very difficult by the barriers and prejudice that existed.

Twenty years ago today, the first President Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act. I was proud to help pass that legislation. But much more, I was proud to see our country come together to rededicate itself to the principles of equal opportunity, irrespective of race or color, national origin, religion, or any other arbitrary distinction, including disability.

The ADA made it possible for Americans with disabilities to use the same public spaces that so many of us take for granted and to succeed as their talent and drive allows them to. Fifty million Americans have gone through the doors of equal opportunity that are open. When I first heard that figure, it sounded awfully high to me because I thought about disabilities being somebody who, like Mr. Langevin, as a result of an accident had been forced to use a wheelchair for mobility purposes. I was used to thinking of disability as somebody who used a cane because they had no sight or somebody who used a hearing aid because their hearing was diminished or nonexistent.

Helen Keller, of course, taught us a great and powerful lesson about overcoming disabilities. But I learned quickly that so many of us have a disability that nobody else sees. Mr. Coelho is on the floor. If I asked you to identify Mr. Coelho by his disability you'd be unable to do so because it's not apparent. But the prejudice with respect to his disability was in fact very present.

So the Americans With Disabilities Act not only dealt with actual, visual impairments, but also perceived impairments.

We know that those doors are not all the way open, however. We strengthened the act in 2008, and today it is our job to live up to its enduring principles, whether it's making the House rostrum wheelchair accessible--thank you, Madam Speaker, for your leadership on making sure that Jim Langevin, our colleague, who has the ability to preside, has the accessibility of the rostrum so that he can exercise that ability. That's what the Disability Act was all about.

I thank my colleagues that helped to make the ADA possible. Tony Coelho, of course, in the House was our leader, our spark plug, our visionary, and he enlisted many of the rest of us to assist in this effort. The disability community who fought so hard, who showed so much courage, who spent so much time to let Members of Congress know the discrimination to which they were subjected.

I believe that this act is an act which will continue to make America a better country, it will continue to make America a country that is in fact living out the core of its principle, which is equal opportunity for all under the law.

I want to thank a number of people, some of whom we will see further today. Mr. Markey, who was so critical on the communications issue. I want to thank my friend Jim Sensenbrenner, who sits on the floor here, who was a leader on the Judiciary Committee, a critical component of the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act. I want to thank my friend Steve Bartlett, who himself was a Member of Congress--not now-- but was my partner in coordinating the various committees and subcommittees and worked together with me in an absolutely nonpartisan--it wasn't bipartisan. It had nothing to do with party or politics; it had to do with our country's principles.

I want to thank Augustus Hawkins, who was chair of the Education and Labor Committee; Major Owens; Matthew Martinez; Steve Bartlett, whom I mentioned; Congressman Fawell. I want to thank John Dingell, who chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee; Edward Markey, the chair of the Telecommunications Subcommittee; Tom Luken; Norm Lent; Bob Whittaker; Matt Renaldo; Glen Anderson, who was the chair of the Public Works Committee; Robert Roe, ranking Democrat; and Norm Mineta.

Every time you see a bus that's accessible or train station that's accessible or an airplane that's accessible, remember Norm Lent. Remember Norman Mineta as well, who made that possible. And that was very difficult because there was a cost associated to it, and we wanted to make sure that it was a reasonable cost to be imposed. But we knew that in the long run, that investment would pay off for America.

I want to thank John Paul Hammerschmidt as well; Jack Brooks chaired the Judiciary Committee at that time; Don Edwards; Bob Castermire; Hamilton Fish; and, of course, Jim Sensenbrenner. There are many, many others.

This resolution recognizes the adoption of a bill 20 years ago. Jim Langevin is the living, breathing, participating example of how that statute made a difference.

Not just for Jim Langevin but for all of us who will benefit from the contribution that the Jim Langevins of America will make, and we ought to be proud in America that this bill is now an example to all the world and has been used as a model by many nations in the world that they have followed to

make their societies more accessible and make the lives of those with disabilities fuller and more productive

There is much that remains to be done. Those with disabilities still are more likely to live in poverty. Those with disabilities are still more likely not to be able to get a job. Those with disabilities are still confronted with a lack of access to some facets of our society.

So as we recognize this anniversary, as the President tonight will honor the 41st President of the United States, George Bush, and his son who signed the Amendment Act, so both President Bushes have played a role in making accessibility a reality in America. So as we celebrate this day, let us recommit ourselves as our Founding Fathers talked about equality of opportunity and as we have seen for the 200-plus years of the existence of our constitutional democracy, that periodically we've had to take steps to make sure that the promise of opportunity was the reality of opportunity.

So, Speaker Langevin, congratulations to you. Congratulations to our country. Congratulations to our citizens as we all work together to make this a more perfect union.

I thank the Speaker for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, thank you. Thank you for the courage that you have shown.

I don't know how many of you know Jim Langevin's story. Involved in the police boys club, 16 years of age, at a police station in Rhode Island. Someone was cleaning his gun. It went off by mistake, accidentally, ricocheted off the wall, and went into Mr. Langevin's spine. At 16 years of age, he was rendered unable to walk.

Some people could have given up. Some people could have lamented that accident which rendered them unable to walk and have limited mobility. Jim Langevin, of course, as we all see, did not do that. Jim Langevin decided that he was going to succeed and persevere and overcome. And Jim Langevin sits in the chair today presiding over the people's House.

Think of what an extraordinary example that is to every person of whatever age who has a mobility impairment for whatever reasons, injured in Iraq, Afghanistan, or someplace at the point of the spear, comes back to this country.

My friend Walt Minnick and Mike Simpson just introduced me to a young fellow who in May was injured in Afghanistan and lost both his legs. What an example Jim Langevin must be to him and to millions of others who are similarly situated.

The promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act in July of 1990 was that we would open up the doors of opportunity in a country that prides itself on being the land of opportunity. As I have said a number of times this week, Thomas Jefferson indicated that the pursuit of happiness was a God-given right. But Thomas Jefferson, in his time, had a limited view. And we have found, in generation after generation, that we had to perfect that view.

African Americans, of course, were not given the land of opportunity's opportunities. We fought a Civil War, and we adopted the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments. Notwithstanding that, however, we did not, at that point in time, realize the full scope of the opportunity that we provided in that Declaration of Independence and, theoretically, in that beloved document of ours, the pride of our country, the United States Constitution.

So again we perfected it, and in the early part of the last century we said to those who are women in this body and around the country, no, what we really should have said is men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator, and we want to include you and give you the right to vote. It's almost amazing that 90 years ago, or some 100 years ago that women didn't have the right to vote in this country. And we perfected our country by amending our Constitution to expand, further, the opportunities.

And then in 1964 and 1965 and 1957 and further, we passed acts which have said, look, we said that African Americans were equal, but we still see discrimination. And Martin Luther King, Jr., called our attention to the fact that this was not yet a perfect Union and that work needed to be done.

And 25 years after the 1965 act, we saw a large group of people--we then said 45 million; we now use the figure 50 million people--who have a disability, and because of that disability are excluded, are shut out, are not welcomed in, are not given what this lift is, a reasonable accommodation in the Americans with Disabilities Act. It simply says there are some things we can do to enhance somebody who is challenged with a disability to fully participate. We know that.

Ed Markey is right next to me. We are going to pass a bill that we know that technology now is providing greater access to people who can't hear, and indeed to people who can't see, to fully participate in our society.

Jim Langevin is the example of the realization of the promise of the July 26, 1990, signing by George Herbert Walker Bush that said that we're going to knock down the walls of discrimination that confront the disabled. But what we were talking about was not the disability. We were talking about the discrimination. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court missed that. But fortunately for our country and those with disabilities, the Congress did not.

In every step of the way, this has been a bipartisan effort, led by a Republican President, made better by another Republican President, his son, George W. Bush. Jim Sensenbrenner. But let me mention someone that many of you may not know who are recently here. Steve Bartlett, Congressman from Texas, became the mayor of Dallas, worked with me almost every day for almost a full year in making sure that when we adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act it would be workable, affordable, and effective.

Jim Langevin, you are an example of that effectiveness. So I thank you, as I said at the beginning, because you are a representative of literally millions of Americans who had the courage, the tenacity, and the vision to come to Washington or to come to town meetings, to see people in their districts and talk to them about the challenges that they confronted.

So this is a great day to recognize what 20 years ago we, who had the privilege of being here, working with President George Herbert Walker Bush, had the opportunity to do.

The young man to which I referred was just brought in--you are his Congressman, or is Mike? In any event, Mike and Walt Minnick represent this young man.

Jim Sensenbrenner and I and Jim Langevin were with the President a little earlier today. And I took out my cell phone and I punched ``D'' on my phone, and I dialed the phone and I said, ``Hello, Bob,'' because Senator Dole was a critical person in passing this legislation. I passed the phone to President Obama, and President Obama said, ``We're keeping the faith. What you wrought, we're going to continue to make even better.''

Thank you, Jim Langevin. Thank all of those who have a disability who made this happen. God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, the timeliness of my opportunity to speak is sometimes good, and I think this is one of them.

Mr. Hensarling just spoke. I have great respect for Mr. Hensarling. He works hard. He focuses. He's philosophically well-grounded, and he follows his philosophy. I disagree with his philosophy, his fiscal premises. And his fiscal premises that were part of the last administration's approach to the finances of this country increased our deficit by 87 percent, from $5 trillion, essentially, a little over $5 trillion, to a little over $10 trillion. They didn't quite double it, but 87 percent more debt under the Bush administration.

That I called fiscal child abuse. Why? Because it was not done at a time of fiscal crisis with large unemployment. That unemployment was caused by the policies of the last administration.

Why do I say that? Because under the Clinton administration, we created 21 million jobs in the private sector, just a little short of 21 million jobs, 22.8 overall, when you include public employment.

And during the Bush administration, how did it relate to that 20.1 million new jobs in the private sector? One million. How did it relate per month to job production? 216,000 under the Clinton administration, and 11,000 per month under the Bush administrations. That's what their economic policies wrought. Their economic policies of cutting deeply, not $40 billion or $34 billion borrowed money, but trillions, with an ``s,'' of borrowed money to fund tax cuts which they did not pay for.

They weren't continuations of the Tax Code, as Jon Kyl, the second- ranking Republican leader in the Senate, now argues ought not to be paid for; $687 billion, that we just ought to continue that for the wealthiest in our country, not the little children who are worried about whether their parents are going to be able to afford the mortgage or afford to put bread on the table. That's what we're talking about in this bill for literally millions of people who have run out of support.

Now, will they run out of support in this moral country? They will not ultimately run out of support; they'll be put on welfare and food stamps. And they won't be available for the insurance to which their employer and they participated in, providing for the contingency that we ran the economy into the ditch, the worst economy in three-quarters of a century, wrought by the Bush economic policies, to which Mr. Sessions, the chairman of their campaign committee, says that they want to return to the exact agenda.

I'm so pleased I had the opportunity to come and respond to my friend from Texas. It does demonstrate the difference between our two parties. Absolutely.

Jon Kyl, who says, we ought to borrow $686 billion from the Chinese to

give to the wealthiest in America, and Democrats, who say we want to borrow $34 billion to give to the children of America whose families are in need--yes, that is the difference, if my friend from Texas wants to make that the difference.

This is about saying that we have an emergency. And historically, from Ronald Reagan to today, Ronald Reagan, Bush the first and Bush the second, what did you do when you were in charge? You borrowed at times of economic trouble to give unemployment insurance.

We are doing the same thing. Why did we do that? Because we perceived it to be an emergency. An emergency that people in the richest Nation on the face of the earth were about to run out of the ability to keep their homes, buy their food, clothe their children. A moral and great country thinks that's an emergency. That's what this vote is all about.

This vote is also about, as the gentleman from Texas has said, expressing our values. I agree with that. And I'm going to express my values, and I urge the Members of this House to express their values this day on this vote, as millions of people have lost their unemployment insurance because we could not get 60 votes in the Senate. Had almost every Democrat saying we need to help now. People are running out of ability to support themselves now. We paid insurance for now. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

A few months ago, we passed unemployment insurance through this House by unanimous consent. The election wasn't as proximate then as it is today. The deficit is way too high, and we need to get a handle on it. And I just made a speech, and I have been criticized by some on my side of the aisle and some others for saying that we needed to put everything on the table. I reiterate that today. We need to put everything on the table. No sacred cows.

I have three children, three grandchildren, as all of you will get tired of hearing, and one great granddaughter. And I owe it to her personally, as a Member of this House, to say ladies and gentlemen of this House and of our country, we have a moral responsibility to get a handle on this deficit.

A reporter just asked me as I was walking down the aisle, did I agree with Mr. Bernanke's comment that we ought to pay if we extended the tax cuts? And I said to him this: At a time of fiscal crisis, when our economy is struggling to get back from the ditch it was in when this administration took over--how much of a ditch? During the last year of the Clinton administration, we added 1.9 million new jobs, I tell my friend from Texas. Last year, Clinton administration, 1.9 million new jobs in America. And it was a slowdown period.

During the last year of the Bush administration, after the economic policies that were pursued from 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and through 2009, even though we took the Congress we couldn't do anything because the President would veto legislation, and did in fact veto legislation, 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs. That's a difference of 1.9 million new jobs in the last year of Clinton to 3.8 million lost jobs in the last year of Bush, or a 5.7 million jobs turnaround. Is there any wonder why there is a lot of pain in America and families are in great distress and they're angry and they have angst? And we share that.

Today does not solve the problem. But today reaches out to those folks in distress and say in the short-term, on an emergency basis we are going to continue to give you help so you can support your families in this, the wealthiest Nation on the face of the earth. You worked hard. You paid in. And through no fault of your own, you lost your job.

Maybe because of the fault of Wall Street that my friend believes we were too harsh on, we are imposing rules on so they can play by the rules and not squander and take risks that put Wall Street profits before Main Street stability. Yes, and also we're not going to apologize to the BP oil company and say we're sorry that we expect you to be accountable for the negligence that caused millions of people to be in economic distress. We're not going to say sorry. Some people want to say sorry that the President of the United States suggested, hey, you need to help those people.

Maybe helping people is a difference between our two parties. I don't necessarily think that. I don't want to say that. But if that's the difference, today is a day when 435 of us can stand up and vote ``aye'' to help millions of Americans in deep distress through no fault of their own.

I urge my colleagues to stand up and let people know that you are on their side.

Will my friend yield on that point?

It's a good point. I ask my friend--that is true--why couldn't you do it when you had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6 p.m. on Monday. The House, on Tuesday, will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills, as is the practice, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider the Transportation and HUD appropriations bill and the Military Construction and VA appropriations bill of 2011. We're also expected to consider items from the Senate, including Senate amendments to H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010. There are obviously other possibilities of bills coming from the Senate, and we will consider those as time permits.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman.

Rather than going into each one of them individually, I will say to the gentleman that each of those bills is under consideration. With respect to oil spills, there are significant discussions going on among the committees of jurisdiction, and we will, if we have a product to move forward, be prepared to do so.

We believe responding to the oil spill is critical. We've done so, as you know, with two bills this week, passed unanimously through the House, and so that we will be proceeding to look at the oil spill issue to try to ensure, to the extent we can, A, it doesn't happen again, and B, if it does happen, that we are prepared to respond to it and the industry is prepared to respond to it.

With respect to the other pieces of legislation, they are under discussion, some in this House and some in the Senate, as you know.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Possibly. I say to my friend that, because next week is our last week and we will be recessing for the August break at that point in time, I would put Members on notice that there will be certain matters that we must complete and that we will complete and, as a result, Members ought to make sure that they have flexibility for next Saturday.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I will be talking to Mr. Obey tomorrow and/or Monday to get his views on consideration of those bills, and at that point in time, I will be able to give you a clearer view on how those bills will be considered.

I thank the gentleman.

As the gentleman knows full well, because he and I have been involved in discussions, I have consistently been for considering the appropriations bills in a timely manner with agreement between the majority and the minority, as occurred in 2006 when Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis reached agreement on the consideration of those bills. The gentleman is accurate when he says that that is my preferred option on the consideration of appropriations bills. But, as I say, I have not talked to the chairman, and I will be talking to him to get his view on how these bills can most effectively be considered.

I thank the gentleman.

The Senate, as you know, has not completed its consideration of the supplemental and are debating other issues, some of which we sent to them, and as a matter of fact, I think some of those have the majority's support. The small business lending bill, in particular, I would hope they would bring to us.

We included a number of things, not the least of which is trying to ensure that 140,000 teachers around the country remain on the job for our children and for our schools. I don't know whether the Senate will include that or not.

We also included money for border security, which was not in the Senate bill. FEMA and Haiti, and oil spill money, I believe, were in the Senate bill initially. We have also included that. There are other items that we have included to try to grow jobs and expand the economy, which, unfortunately, the Senate at least at this point in time has not supported.

But I say to my friend that in light of the fact that the Senate has not yet passed the supplemental, I am not sure what's going to be in it. But I would say to the gentleman, once again, as he knows, it is my intention to ensure that the money for the troops is, in fact, passed before we leave here.

I thank the gentleman.

I am going to give him the same answer: I am not going to anticipate. I find it not a very productive endeavor to anticipate what the United States Senate will do. I have been so disappointed so often on that speculation that I am not going to enter into such speculation today.

However, I will tell the gentleman, as I have said some weeks running now, that it is my intention that we will have a bill pass this House and pass the Senate, for that matter, that funds the troops prior to our leaving for our August break.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Without getting into a long colloquy, and I appreciate the gentleman's trying to truncate this, let me simply say that I think the suggestions of how we can save money, how we can bring the deficit down from whatever source they come should be welcomed by all of us. Whether they come from your side of the aisle, my side of the aisle, from the public at large, Republicans, Democrats, independents, or totally nonpartisan sources whatsoever, we ought to consider them.

We have a very significant deficit problem confronting us. I won't go into the reasons of why I think we have those deficit problems, but we have them and we have been try to go dig out of a deep economic recession, as all of us know. So I simply wanted to say that, as you know, this week we did vote in a very substantial reduction, the Surface Transportation Savings Act, which passed 402-0. We cut $107 million.

Next week I expect that we are going to have at least one vote, maybe others, to cut substantial dollars. Betsy Markey has an idea that she has introduced that would save $703-plus million. We hope to consider that. But I want to reiterate, which is all I want to say, that we welcome ideas on how to bring the deficit down.

I mentioned, of course, earlier that Mr. Kyl indicated that paying for things were not necessary if they were in the tax field. But cutting other things, the problem is, that was $678 billion that he suggested in borrowed money. And so we are going to have to look, as I said in a speech not too long ago, at all items of expenditure, wherever they may be found, to make sure that we are returned to the fiscal posture, frankly, that we were in when we had a $5.6 trillion surplus in January of 2000.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

I thank my friend from California. I thank my friends from Colorado and from Wisconsin and from New York and certainly from Ohio who are on the floor here with us talking about making it in America.

We believe everybody ought to be able to make it in this, the greatest land on the face of the Earth. And we believe one way they're going to make it in America--I tell the gentleman, the Speaker, Mr. Driehaus from Ohio--is to make it in America and sell it throughout the world. Make sure that our manufacturing capacity is as robust as it was in former decades and as it needs to be, and as Americans know it needs to be if our economy is going to give back, and America, which is a great country, can be even greater. And that America, which has been the engine of economic opportunity, will be an even greater engine of economic opportunity for our people. It will create jobs and growth.

Manufacturing is critical, and Americans know it, critical to our economic strength. And Democrats are committed to rebuilding it as a part of America's economic recovery.

Mr. Perlmutter has a chart there which shows that we were handed a debt of an economy, the deepest recession in three quarters of a century. There are only a couple of Members, a few Members of the House, who were alive 75 years ago. There are some.

America understands why they're feeling pain because of this debt left to us by the last administration. You showed the deficit, the figures. I've served with all four of those Presidents, I tell my friend Mr. Garamendi. I served with all four of those Presidents. One of them was a Democrat--the only one who's above the line, the only President in the lifetime of anybody in this institution that has had a net surplus. The only one.

Now we show four Presidents here, but very frankly you can go back for as long as you've been alive, no President ended with a net surplus as Bill Clinton did--a $5.6 trillion surplus left by that administration. An ability to address our problems.

Unfortunately, we failed to do so. Unfortunately, we had an administration that thought just helping the wealthiest in America, buying things and not paying for them, going to war and not paying for it, doing a prescription drug bill--which has done some good things-- but not paid for, was the thing to do. And, therefore, we find the economy tanked. And in 1 month in America we lost 786,000 jobs. That was the last month of the Bush administration; 3.8 million jobs lost in the last year of the Bush administration.

And what does that mean?

If you look at the last year of the Clinton administration, we had 1.9 million new jobs created.

So Americans know that we've got to put America back to work. And one of the best ways to do that, Americans are telling us--Republicans talk about listening to America--one of the best ways to do that is to start making it in America and sending it to other nations. Not the other way around. Putting our people back to work.

Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that.

In coming weeks we will be bringing to the floor the Make It in America agenda. A comprehensive strategy to boost American manufacturing. It's based on the idea that when more products are made in America, more well-paying, blue collar jobs, white collar jobs, no- collar jobs are going to be created; and it will be possible for more people to make it in America.

This bill, the Manufacturing Enhancement Act, is the first piece of that agenda. It includes hundreds of tariff suspensions and reductions so that American companies will find it easier to obtain the materials they need to produce goods, grow, and add workers, which we passed today. So we've already started on that agenda.

And by the way, I noticed that our Republican friends out of habit voted ``no.'' Then they started talking to one another and said, Hey, you know what this bill does? It starts to grow our economy. By the way, the National Association of Manufacturers are for this bill these Democrats put on the floor. They're for it because they know it helps to build jobs. And, oh, by the way, the Chamber of Commerce is for this bill. Why? Because it starts to build jobs. That's the agenda the Democrats are on. And did you notice how they sort of all talked and said, Hey, gee, maybe I better vote for that bill and we saw those ``noes'' go to ``aye,'' ``noes'' go to ``yes.'' It was a strange experience for them. I hope it's catching.

I hope they will keep doing it. I hope they will keep saying ``yes'' to the American worker. I hope they will keep saying ``yes'' to growing manufacturing capability in America. I hope they will say ``yes'' to the proposition that we can, we should, and we will make it in America.

America is the greatest land on the face of the Earth, and our people are some of the most talented, innovative, entrepreneurial people on Earth, and if we give them the tools and we give them the opportunity, they will compete with anybody in the world.

That's why we, Democrats, are committed to an agenda that says, yes, we can, we will make it in America, and in that enterprise, a manufacturing expansion, more people will make it in America.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

For generations, Americans have looked to our manufacturing sector as a source of pride, a source of economic vitality, and a source of good- paying jobs.

Along with every part of our economy, manufacturing has taken a severe hit from the recession--but more than that, many Americans

worry that industry and the jobs it provides are gone for good.

We have a chance to change that--to emerge from these hard times as a stronger, more competitive company.

That's why Democrats are launching the Make It in America Agenda: a comprehensive manufacturing strategy based on the idea that when more products are made in America, more people will be able to make it in America.

The Make It in America Agenda will create incentives for investment in industry, strengthen manufacturing infrastructure and innovation, and help to level the playing field for American companies that compete globally.

Today, the first part of that agenda passed the House--and, I'm proud to say, it passed with strong bipartisan support.

The U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act will make it easier for American companies to get the materials they need to produce goods, contributing to a more productive economy and supporting job creation.

In the weeks to come, Democrats look forward to introducing a range of similar bills that will help manufacturers invest in clean energy, break down foreign barriers to American goods, ensure that taxpayer money pays for goods made in America, and more.

A strong manufacturing sector means a stronger economy and more secure jobs for all of our constituents--so I hope that the Make It in America Agenda will have support from Republicans and Democrats alike.

I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding, thank her for taking this Special Order, and rise in strong support, as the House has already done, saying that we remember those who are unemployed through no fault of their own.

Nearly 2.5 million out-of-work Americans are without unemployment insurance today. That means they don't have dollars to buy food, they won't have dollars to pay their mortgage, they won't have dollars to buy gas to even look for a job because of one reason: Republicans are blocking those benefits in the United States Senate, period. It's the only reason. We've passed it.

Several Republican Members of Congress and candidates have suggested that unemployment insurance makes Americans too lazy or uninterested in looking for work. This is at a time, frankly, when five unemployed Americans are looking for work for every one job that is available.

One Republican Member of the House even asked, ``Is the government now creating hobos?'' Is the government creating hobos for those, who through no fault of their own, are unemployed. Why? Because the economy was put into a deep spin in the latter part of the Bush administration. If you believe, as I do, that the unemployed are suffering from an economic crisis they did nothing to create, then we owe them a strong policy on job creation. We owe them something better than the failed Bush policies Republicans want to return to, the same policies that resulted in the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover.

We owe the unemployed a hand, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because economists agree that there are few more effective ways to stimulate local economies than extending unemployment insurance. Why is that? Because when somebody is unemployed and has no dollars and they get dollars, they spend them. They buy food. They buy prescription drugs, they buy other items for them and their families, they buy gasoline for their cars. As they do, they help the economy grow. Failing to give them the resources to support their families also undermines our economic situation.

My Republican friends claim that they are for extending unemployment insurance, but simply believe it needs to be paid for. However, frankly, such a claim rings hollow. Because, after decades of treating unemployment insurance as emergency spending, when they were in charge, when no Democrat could determine what came to the floor, they passed unemployment insurance when Bush's failing economy had large numbers of unemployed, and they didn't pay for it.

Both parties, dating back to President Reagan, have passed unemployment insurance unpaid for. Why? Because it's an emergency. It's an emergency not to have a job. It's an emergency not to be able to support yourself and feed your family. It's an emergency when through no fault of your own all of a sudden the boss says, I'm sorry, I can't keep you on the payroll because I can't afford to. That is an emergency.

But at the very same time they claim we can't afford $34 billion for the unemployed, which will go right into the economy to stimulate and try to grow our economy and create jobs, they are pushing for a deficit-busting $676 billion in extended tax cuts for the wealthiest in America. Think of that.

We cannot have $34 billion for those who are unemployed and struggling in our society, but guess what? For those of us who are not struggling in our society, you get $676 billion and, guess what, we don't have to pay for that. How does anybody think that makes sense? How does anybody think that's a moral judgment to make in our society.

Republican leaders are even claiming that tax cuts should never be paid for, and in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that tax cuts don't add to the deficit. Alan Greenspan, of course, put the lie to that. He probably shouldn't have testified that the tax cuts would save money. In fact, he has urged us not to cut taxes. My own view is that for middle-income Americans who are working now and struggling and trying to keep their families afloat, we need to continue those tax cuts.

Why? So we could continue to grow our economy and not put them deeper in a hole. This is a political party, on the other side, that wants to reiterate and return to the Bush-era fiscal thinking that wiped out a record surplus of $5.6 trillion and replaced it with deep debt, large annual deficits, lost jobs and the worst economy since the Depression.

Republicans have made their priorities crystal clear: Billions for the well off, but no help for the longtime unemployed.

Sixty-two percent of the American people reject that reasoning and the neglect of families in need through no fault of their own. As we have in the past, let's help those families and our economy at the same time. Let's extend the unemployment benefits.

Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for taking this time to focus on this issue. Hopefully, hopefully, the other body and the Republican Members of the other body will see their way clear to making sure that Americans who have worked hard, played by the rules, and through no fault of their own are unemployed, will get the help they deserve and need, and that will help our economy as well as help those families.

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6 p.m. On Tuesday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of all suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider Mr. Taylor's bill, H.R. 1264, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2009. We're also expecting to consider several items from the Senate, including Senate amendments to H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act; and Senate amendments to H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, we expect to consider several bills addressing the oil spill in the gulf, including H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act; and H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act.

I say to the gentleman that will, again, depend on what our colleagues in the Senate send over to us and whether or not we can complete the business that we have before us that I've announced by Thursday. In the event that we don't have legislation coming back from the Senate that we needed to deal with on Friday, or our business that is scheduled does not take longer than Thursday, then it is possible that we would not be in session. But, again, I would caution Members that we have 2 weeks left to go and those days will be scheduled and will be utilized if needed.

In addition to the bills that we've already mentioned for next week, including the unemployment extension, the supplemental coming from the Senate, and the Science and Technology bills addressing the oil spill, we'll also likely consider a number of other bills addressing oil spill legislation. In addition, I expect we will consider several bills from the Appropriations Committee. I've talked to the chairman about which bills would be most likely for floor action before August, and he's looking at the Veterans and Military Construction and the Transportation-HUD bills.

As the gentleman I'm sure knows, they have marked up now seven, I believe is the accurate number of appropriations bills--excuse me. I think it's nine because they marked up two today, or are in the process of marking them up today, and I expect by the end of the day there will have been nine appropriation bills marked up. They will proceed. But I think those two bills are probably the first ones that will come forward.

Those bills, as you know, have not been reported out of committee yet and I've not discussed with the chairman his plans on how he would hope to bring those to the floor. I will be discussing it with him probably the latter part of next week, and perhaps we will have more information for you next week. Again, we expect the bills to come to the floor not next week, but the week after.

I thank the gentleman for his question and for his observation and for his assurances as well in terms of the number of votes we may have available for that alternative.

I say to the gentleman that it is my intention that certainly by the time we leave here that we will have made sure that the troops have the resources they need to prosecute the mission that we have given them as a Congress and the administration. There's no doubt that we will have 218-plus--a large plus, I think--of votes to accomplish that objective.

As the gentleman knows, however, we have passed a supplemental which does fund the troops. It wasn't the Senate supplemental. The House obviously has its own view on policy, and I'm sure the gentleman would want the House to prosecute its policies and redeem the majority of the House's view and try to reach agreement with the Senate.

The House acted on the supplemental before the break, including all of the President's request for troop funding, as the gentleman knows. It also included the administration's request for FEMA, Haiti, oil spill, and border security. In addition, as the gentleman knows, we added money to take care of almost 140,000 teachers and offset the additional money with spending cuts. So those were paid for. I'm hopeful that the Senate will not make significant changes to the bill that the House passed and will be able to pass that bill before the August work period begins. Again, however, I want to emphasize that I am fully committed and intend to ensure that the troops have the resources they need.

With respect to the gentleman's observation, he is absolutely correct. I was hopeful we would do it before Memorial Day, and then I was hopeful we would do it before the July 4th break. Interestingly enough, however, as we kept going along and I kept in contact with the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks, as to when the funding was needed, the date kept moving. And the date that we now have, as the gentleman probably knows as well as I do, is August 7. But certainly I want to see us pass the funding for the troops and for the prosecution of the effort that the Congress has supported and the administration has set forth for our troops prior to that time.

I thank you for that effort. We will look forward to working with you to make sure that our troops are fully funded.

Will the gentleman yield?

We have a very strict leave policy in my office, but we were convinced that getting off for his wedding was an appropriate use of that leave. Austin is a wonderful member of the staff. I am very pleased that you mentioned it. He has a wonderful new bride. His demeanor has changed markedly. He is much happier, and we're all happier to work with him. So Austin, congratulations to you.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 20, 2010, for morning-hour debate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to thank Mr. Lynch and certainly my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Sarbanes, for his leadership and for his efforts on this bill. I also want to thank those members of the subcommittee and Mr. Issa for facilitating this bill coming to the floor.

I have been working on this issue along with Frank Wolf for a very long time, indeed over two decades. Congressman Wolf and I, Congressman Wolf from Virginia, a Republican, and myself served on the Treasury and Postal Committee, which is now called the Financial Services Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. That committee many, many years ago, and interesting enough John Berry, who is now the director of the Office of Personnel Management, was on my staff at that point in time. And we worked on this issue of telework, which makes so much sense for so many reasons. It saves gas. That's an important issue. It helps the environment in doing so. Reduces road congestion, lowers commuting costs for all drivers, helps employees balance work and family, and saves employers money.

Now, let me speak about the family aspect of this. Think to yourself the average commuter certainly in the Washington metropolitan area spends some 35 minutes on the road. If you are in my district, you spend 45 minutes to an hour on the road. Mr. Connolly is shaking his head. Many of his constituents do the same. The gentleman from Virginia is in the same aspect. Think of that time that is not necessarily very productive, but could be family time. And a less stressed-out worker could be performing their services, when now we deal with so much work being done from a technology aspect where you don't need to be at a given site. That is what this legislation seeks to enhance.

And again, I congratulate Mr. Sarbanes from my State for his leadership and for the bipartisan leadership. It would bring flexibility to 21st-century Federal workers by creating guidelines for increased teleworking, or telecommuting as some call it.

With today's technology, many employees perform at least some of their work, and indeed some all of their work, functions at their homes or at an alternate worksite closer to their homes, eliminating or reducing the need to commute. That's what the gentleman from Virginia was talking about in terms of a secure site, which could be--we had one in Prince Frederick. We have one at the community college in Waldorf, Maryland. I don't know whether they are secure sites. I think they are not. But a secure site for a group of employees who need such a secure site closer to their home effects all of the same kinds of efficiencies that I have talked about.

That's why this bill is such an important encouragement to the Federal Government, one of the world's largest employers, to effect this efficiency. It is also I think a lesson that we have learned from the private sector, many of whom telecommute or telework. Many insurance agencies, when you call your insurance agent for information, you have no idea where they are sitting, and don't care. All you want to know is that they respond to the question you have and can access the information you need, which of course they can do on their computer. So this is a very effective, efficient, family friendly, environmentally friendly action for us to take.

I commend Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Lynch and the committee for their leadership on this, and I commend Mr. Issa as well for his leadership.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this rule. This is a difficult rule. It is a difficult rule because it deals with an extraordinarily important subject. This is an extraordinarily important rule. It is important to every Member of this House, on either side of this House, of whatever ideology they bring to this House. It is extraordinarily important to the American people.

It deals, as I said, with the lives and welfare of our young people. It deals with the security of this Nation. It deals with the safety of our people. It deals with the objective of not only teaching our children, but in eliminating terrorists who would put them at risk.

I rise in support of this rule because I think that the very difficult line of trying to give every Member the opportunity to reflect their point of view, which, of course, in a body of 435 people is very difficult, but I think this rule attempts to do that.

We know that the fiscal course that we are on will ultimately lead to bankruptcy unless we act to change it. That is why this rule also projects fiscal discipline in the budget enforcement resolution that is included within the ambit of this rule.

Whenever you hear someone blame our debt on this Congress' so-called out-of-control spending, you can be sure they're more interested in pointing fingers and scoring political points than solving problems. That's especially true when you hear those complaints from those who presided over a lot of debt. Some of us voted for a lot of debt along with them, some of us did not.

In the long term, our structural deficit stems from the retirement of the baby boomers and spiraling entitlement costs. It is therefore in the budget resolution that we tip our hat in a favorable way to the commission that has been established by the President. It's said that we are hopeful that they will come up with substantive recommendations that will get us from where we are to where we need to be--a return to fiscal balance.

It also says that our committees ought to look carefully at the ways and means that we can save dollars, eliminate waste, and make more effective use of the tax dollars--indeed, save tax dollars. The American people want us to do that.

This budget enforcement resolution included in this rule will also say that we will honor statutory PAYGO, that we will pay for what we buy, that if this generation deems something an important priority for us to purchase that we will pay for it so that our children and our grandchildren will have the option of making their priorities and will not have their priorities made for them by us.

In addition to this bill, it provides for the consideration of domestic spending priorities, largely to save jobs. Particularly, we have teachers in this country who are subject to layoffs because of the severe recession that we have been involved in and because of the precipitous falling of revenues to States, therefore putting the education of our children at risk.

The administration asks for far more money than Mr. Obey has been able to include. They also ask for it to be unpaid for, but if we are going to be honest about PAYGO, we need to pay for

things. This bill will pay for the increase in teacher assistants. Mr. Obey scrubbed all of the appropriation accounts and has come up with sufficient dollars to do that. I think that is what the American public wanted us to do, and that is what Mr. Obey has done. I congratulate him for that.

This bill will provide for additional border security on our southern border. We understand there is a crisis on the southern border. This President has responded to it. This bill responds to it.

In addition, we provide, obviously, for FEMA money. FEMA is running out of money. We have had a number of natural disasters around this country, and FEMA has responded. This bill provides for the dollars necessary for FEMA to have the resources to respond to those emergencies.

This rule provides for an amendment which will provide money for Haiti. It provides for other priorities of our country. Some will, perhaps, disagree with those priorities, and others will agree with them; but we will consider them on this floor.

I say to my friends that this rule provides for three options, as Mr. McGovern, I think, will explain further, so I will not go deeply into them.

There will be, perhaps, those who will say we ought not to fund the effort in Afghanistan at all. They will have that option. There will then be an option that says, no, we will appropriate this money, but we need to limit it to extricating ourselves--drawing down our forces from Afghanistan.

Mr. McGovern and Mr. Obey have another alternative which will provide for the administration's providing us with information both in a National Intelligence Estimate and in a plan for withdrawal. They will expand upon that; but that gives, I think, almost everyone in this House the opportunity to express their views as to what ought to be done.

I urge my colleagues at this hour, on this, perhaps, last day of our session before the July 4 break to approve this rule, which, I believe, gives Members the options that they can be comfortable with in voting ``yes'' or ``no.'' I will urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and certainly a ``yes'' vote on a number of pieces of this legislation. I will not vote for every one of these amendments, but they ought to be made in order.

I appreciate the work that Mr. McGovern has done. I appreciate the work that Mr. Dreier has done. I want to thank them both. They may have different views, but it is my understanding that this was brought to the floor in a reasonable and considered way.

In closing, I want to thank David Obey. No one in this House works harder. No one, frankly, is under more pressure than Mr. Obey. Everybody in every State, every locality, every city and every person who wants a road, a bridge or a public facility talks to Mr. Obey on a regular basis. I know that Mr. Boehner and I, as the leaders, have a lot of people talking to us when we come on this floor, but nobody talks to anybody more than they talk to Mr. Obey. Mr. Obey has focused on this, has worked on this, and has brought to the floor, I think, a bill that we can be proud of, that we think will move America forward, a bill that will help stop the loss of jobs, particularly in our educational community. So I thank Mr. Obey for the leadership that he has shown and for the commitment that he has made.

Now, I want to tell my friends on our side of the aisle that the administration is not happy with some of the pay-fors which we are committed to. The administration and our side of the aisle overwhelmingly were for statutory PAYGO, saying that we would pay for what we bought. The administration, understandably, has some reservations about some of the offsets. However, nobody is ever happy with all of the tough decisions that have to be made. So I would urge my colleagues to pass this bill and to pass the amendment that Mr. Obey will offer on domestic discretionary spending. I would ask us to send this bill to the Senate.

I regret that the Senate has gone home. I am sorry that the Senate has gone home. I am sorry the Senate is not available tonight or tomorrow to consider this legislation. I understand that we have lost a great Senator and a dear friend in Robert C. Byrd. I will be going tomorrow to the memorial service for Senator Byrd, and then I will return here. I would have returned ready for business, as I think we should complete this piece of legislation, and I would have hoped that that might have been the case.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. I urge my colleagues to let us move forward on this important piece of legislation, not only for the safety and security of our troops, not only for the effort to ensure that terrorists are hunted down and defeated, but also to ensure that, here at home, we take care of the people and that we pay for those who we take care of here at home. We are not going to pay for the emergency that exists overseas, but this is a good rule. The options are clear for all, and the effort that we make here is important for our country and for our people.

I urge adoption of the rule. I urge adoption of the Obey amendment. I urge the careful consideration of the other three amendments that will be offered as well.