Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I congratulate the chairman for the extraordinary work he has done. I thank Mr. Bachus too, who is, I think, one of the really responsible leaders in the minority in terms of issues of substance. And when there are differences, they are honest differences.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor, and when I do, I hear portions of the debate, sometimes not all of the debate. I want to make an observation, though. I listened to the gentleman from New Jersey, and he remarked on what the people were saying. And I think that, frankly, his remarks reflected the difference in the perspective between the two parties.

Indeed, that perspective has been reflected in my three decades here, under Mr. Reagan and others who have served as President and lastly with Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama's immediate predecessor. And that perspective was, if the regulators would simply get out of the way, things would be fine. Mr. Royce indicates that the market will take care of things. ``The market will discipline itself,'' he said. Phil Gramm said that with respect to the derivatives.

Unfortunately, I voted for that bill that Mr. Gramm was for. I made a mistake. Brooksley Born was correct. The market did not discipline itself. In fact, the market took extraordinarily irresponsible steps. What I hear, I tell my friend from New Jersey, the people saying is, Don't let the big guys trample on us. Don't let the big guys put us at great risk. Don't let the big guys make decisions that they take the risk and we take the loss. That's what I hear the people saying, and that's what I think this bill is designed to respond to.

This week Mr. Boehner compared reforming Wall Street to killing an ant with a nuclear weapon. Well, that may sound colorful, but this is the greatest economic crisis that any of us--I'm looking around on this floor--have experienced in our lifetimes. And I am closer to experiencing the last one than any of you, I think, on the floor are. But none of us, even at my advanced age, were alive during the Great Depression. So this is the first time that we have experienced such a deep, deep recession.

But I will tell you, the 8 million Americans whose jobs it took away think it was a mighty big ant that squashed them and their families, or the millions more who saw their savings devastated or the families in every one of our districts who have lost their homes. They're thinking to themselves, Mr. Boehner, that was a mighty big ant that came my way. And not to more than half of the Nation's working adults who report that they have been pushed by the recession into ``unemployment, pay cuts, reduced hours at work or part-time jobs,'' according to a Pew Research Center Survey reported in today's Washington Post.

Now, some of you may think that was an ant that walked through here, but some think it was a pretty big elephant. It squashed them and hurt them.

I don't mean an elephant in the symbol of your party, a respected animal with a long memory.

But we have differences, and the differences are, as I've said before, that you perceive regulation as harmful.

My analogy is, if you take the referee off the football field, I guarantee the split end's going to leave early. He's going to try to get an advantage. And I guarantee the little guys on the field are going to get trampled on by the big guys because there's no referee to say, Time out. You broke the rules.

This bill is about putting the referee back on the field and saying, Obey the rules. Do not trample on the little people. Don't take risks that you will expect them to pay for.

More than half, Mr. Speaker, of today's families have been affected. There is no way to overstate what happened to them, and there is no mistaking the cause of the crisis: The Wall Street culture of reckless gambling, and a culture of regulatory neglect that the last administration wants to perpetuate it, and some want to return to.

I simply think that would be a mistake. I tell my friend from New Jersey, the people I talk to think it would be a mistake as well. They don't like what's happened. They don't want it to happen again, and this is an effort to make sure that's the case.

Never again. Never again should Wall Street greed bring such suffering to our country. And never again should Washington stand by as that greed manifests itself as irresponsible risk taking where a few share the profits, but Main Street bears the brunt of Wall Street's lost bets.

Now, let me say that I voted for that bill--I was wrong--the Gramm bill that said Brooksley Born was wrong, we didn't need to regulate derivatives. And by the way, there were a number of Democrat leaders who said that as well, that we didn't need to, and Mr. Greenspan said it as well. He's admitted he made a mistake, and he was distressed by that mistake.

Now, we can't erase that crisis, but we can work to rebuild what we lost. As Democrats have done every time, we've supported job creation, from the Recovery Act to ``Cash for Clunkers'' to the HIRE Act to the additional tax relief for small businesses, that's, frankly, been obstructed by the minority party in the other body who have made a high-stakes political bet on recovery's failure. That would be a shame.

We can also, just as any responsible family would, ensure ourselves against a repeat crisis and protect America's jobs from another devastating collapse. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which Mr. Frank and Mr. Dodd have led to this point, means an end to the irresponsible practices of the big banks.

And I want to say the community banks, which I think Mr. Royce referred to, he's absolutely right. They were not the problem, none of our community banks. They, frankly, cared that people could pay their money back, and they were careful in giving loans and careful in making sure that people to whom they gave loans could pay them back.

It was those who securitized them, that put them in these big, fancy documents, that didn't care whether they could pay them back because, for the most part, they made their money on the transaction, not on the long-term responsibility of the debtor.

I'm happy that among our financial institutions there are responsible actors who appreciate effective oversight and understand that it stimulates investment, enterprise, entrepreneurship, and job creation. Why? Because people can trust the system because they know the referee is on the field watching, and they know, therefore, the game will be honest.

No bill, of course, can create an economy without risk, nor should it. But this bill will bring accountability to Wall Street and Washington, protect and empower consumers, forestall future financial meltdowns, and prevent taxpayer money from being put on the line again to bail out Wall Street excess.

I want to say to my friend who mentioned that we bailed out Wall Street, how quickly you forget that it was President Bush and Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke, appointed as Chair of the Federal Reserve by President Bush, that asked for that bill; and that your leadership, for the most part, supported and urged its adoption. So, with all due respect, it was President Bush's administration that asked for that bailout, not Democrats.

What Democrats did, when they said there was a crisis, acted in a bipartisan way to respond to that crisis. And, very frankly, I think we precluded a depression.

Americans have an obligation of responsible borrowing, but financial companies also have responsibilities to make loans fair and transparent. By creating a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we can make sure that both sides live up to that bargain.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will strengthen and modernize oversight of Wall Street by putting the functions of seven different agencies in one accountable place. It seems to me that that would appeal to people who want not so much proliferation of various agencies crossing one another.

In addition, corporations like AIG and Lehman Brothers will no longer be able to make the kind of gambles that risk the health of our entire economy and, indeed, the world's. Institutions that place the biggest economic bets will be required to keep capital on hand to meet their obligations, should those bets fail, and not expect the taxpayer to do that.

This bill also reduces the conflicts of interest that allowed credit rating agencies to wrongfully declare such institutions in good health long after they were dangerously overloaded. Of course, the regulators weren't watching. There was a philosophy, of course, that regulation got in the way.

And it prudently regulates the inherently dangerous derivatives that Warren Buffett called, and I quote, ``weapons of financial mass destruction'' for the ability to bring down entire economies when bets go bad.

Should a major firm still find itself on the verge of collapse, this bill insulates the rest of the economy and keeps taxpayers off the hook, off the hook for any future bailouts.

Mr. Speaker, a tremendous amount of irresponsibility in Washington and on Wall Street went into the crisis from which we are still struggling to recover. That crisis, of course, started in December 2007. Actually, it started long before that, as I said, in the late nineties. Middle class families who worked hard and played by the rules overwhelmingly paid the price.

But there's a kind of irresponsibility even worse, failure to learn. We know what greed and neglect can do. None of us can plead ignorance.

Let's show, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this House, that we've learned something from the crisis. Let's keep it from happening again. That is, I tell my friend, what I hear from my constituents. They want to have us stop it from happening again. They're angry about it. I'm angry about it. I'm sure that the ladies and gentlemen on both sides of the aisle are angry about it. This is an opportunity to ensure, to the extent we possibly can, that this tragedy to so many millions of families does not happen again.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his question.

As I said at the outset, I do believe we come from a different place. And I do believe it is accurate to state that all of the Republican Presidents who have served during the time that I have served have advanced the proposition that regulation at the Federal level was overburdensome and it ought to be reduced.

Certainly, we ought to reduce regulation that is neither effective and is intrusive to the growth of our economy and to the effective operation of businesses. But with respect to that, I say to my friend, I think what we saw during the last decade was an excessive

commitment, as Mr. Greenspan pointed out, to the proposition, as Mr. Royce stated, Just get out of the way; they will discipline themselves.

Frankly, the split end that leaves 2 seconds early because the referee is not on the field is not a bad person. He is trying to get an advantage. And that's the difference I think between our perspectives. I understand that difference of the perspectives, so I agree with you that we do have a difference in perspective. I believe this strikes the right balance.

And I yield to my friend the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, and I will now leave the stage after a little more than my minute, I will say to my friend that the chairman's answer, I think, reflects my view of our different perspectives.

I thank the distinguished Member from West Virginia, the chairman of our Natural Resources Committee, Nick Joe Rahall, of whom Robert Byrd was very proud.

I also am pleased to recognize the Speaker pro tempore, Alan Mollohan, of whom Robert Byrd was very proud, and who he considered a partner. I thank Congresswoman Capito for allowing me to speak--in fact, out of order--on the passing of the distinguished American who was larger than life in so many respects.

Today, we honor the life of Senator Robert Byrd. History will reflect him as the longest-serving Member Congress has ever seen. But, of course, if it were only longevity that we were honoring, it would simply be the hand of fate that allowed that to happen. But what we really honor is that Robert C. Byrd used his longevity to such extraordinary benefit of the people he served in the State of West Virginia, the people of this Nation, and the legislative branch of government. I doubt that there have been any peers to Robert C. Byrd in standing on the floor of the United States Senate or of the House of Representatives or in any forum in which he was temporarily present, that any more strong advocacy of the equality and separateness of the legislative branch was made clear.

Robert C. Byrd was a giant. He was a giant in terms of character. He grew during the course of his lifetime, which is a mark of a great man. All of us are, to some degree, captives of the environment in which we are raised and in which we live. Robert C. Byrd is no different. But Robert C. Byrd grew. He grew intellectually. He grew culturally. But he did not, in growing, leave his base. He did not forget the values that he learned in West Virginia--the values of courtesy; of kindness; of caring; of helping; of making sure that the people who were not famous, who did not have power, who did not have positions of note were never, never forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I remember an incident that I'm sure was not unique to me. Early on in my career I went over on an appropriation matter--like you, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd invited me in. He was then majority leader. He invited me into his office. We sat down. And for the next 45 minutes--which, as a junior Member of the House, I found extraordinary--he regaled me on the history of the Senate and the books he had written. I was mesmerized in the presence of this giant of the legislative body.

At the end, as I'm sure he did to so many of us, he gave me a rectangular painting of a covered bridge in West Virginia. Mr. Obey is going to speak at some point in time--and Mr. Obey has a similar painting hanging in his office. Now it's not the original because Bob Byrd gave it to so many of us. But I looked at that and I thought to myself, What a kind gesture. How impressed I was, this young Member of Congress being accorded this kind of respect from this giant in the United States Senate.

Robert C. Byrd will be dearly missed by us all, and he will be missed most of all when very difficult issues confront the legislative body and there is a clamor that the legislature agree with the executive, for whatever reasons; a clamor that all too often emanates from fear of this, that, or the other, and that fear would ignore the constitutional role played by the Congress of the United States. It is then that we will miss Senator Byrd's clarity of intellect, of conscience, of commitment to the Constitution of the United States of America, as well to the rules of the United States Senate. He was a passionate advocate for people, for principle, for the Constitution, and for our country. Senator Byrd, we will miss you. But we will remember fondly your contribution and be ever thankful that we had the opportunity to serve with you.

Some of you remember my dog Charlotte. My dog Charlotte was with me for 15\1/2\ years. Some of you will recall for 10 of those years Charlotte came to work with me every day. Charlotte was an English Springer Spaniel. I planted a tree in my yard--it's a dogwood tree--and there's a stone and a bronze plaque for Charlotte. Charlotte was one of the loves of my life. I lived alone with her for 10\1/2\ years after Judy passed away.

The first call I got the day after Charlotte passed was from Robert C. Byrd saying how sorry he was that I had lost Charlotte. That was an indication of his humanity, of his caring for others.

Yes, he was a great man. But he was a man who understood the pain, the aspirations, and the hopes of all with whom he came in contact.

Thank you, Robert C. Byrd, our good and faithful servant.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of one of Maryland's finest, a member of our Maryland State Police, Maryland State Trooper Wesley Brown, who was shot to death without warning while working on an off-duty security detail in the early morning of June 11. He was 24 years of age.

Though his life was cut far too short, Trooper Brown filled the years he was given with service to his community, mentoring young men, and love for his family.

It wasn't enough for Wesley to serve as a decorated State Trooper for more than 3 years. He also founded an organization called ``Young Men Enlightening Younger Men,'' a group dedicated to teaching life and leadership skills to boys in Wesley's Seat Pleasant neighborhood, just a couple of miles from where I grew up in District Heights, Maryland.

Many of them came to regard Trooper Brown as a father figure. ``I became a squared-away young man,'' said one of the pupils at his memorial service, ``and I'll never forget that smile.''

Wesley Brown's death was sudden and deeply unfair, but his community is better because he lived, and the seeds he sowed will outlive him. As the pastor said in Wesley's eulogy, ``He showed us how to serve his brother man, and no one had to beg him to do it.''

May all of those whom Trooper Brown left behind--his mother, Patricia Bell; his father, Sylvester Brown, Sr.; his fiancee, Ebony Norris; his seven brothers and sisters; and his grandmother, Rosella Bell--find comfort in the memory of his service and the greatness of his contribution to other young people.

We are protected every day by those who have the courage and commitment and love of country and neighbors to defend us here, our domestic defenders. Wesley Brown was one of those. God bless his soul.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this piece of legislation.

For more than a century, Mr. Chairman, America has limited the role of private money in public elections. We've done so because we believe that huge sums of money from unknown sources, from unknown sources--I reference that and emphasize it because I'm going to refer to it in some comments of our Republican leadership in years past regarding money from unknown sources--dominates elections; and especially when it does so in the dark, the interests of ordinary citizens are too often the victim.

America's work toward open and fair elections has been, as it has been in every country, imperfect but better here than almost anyplace in the world; but it took a severe blow this winter when the Supreme Court voted in the Citizens United case to overturn longstanding precedent, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of their treasury funds--not of private unions that their employees contributed, which I support, but their corporate funds and their union treasury funds--in unrestrained fashion to influence elections directly.

The gentleman who is my friend, former Attorney General of the State of California and a good friend of mine--we've served together for a long time--says correctly that we do not want to limit free speech. I agree with that. The First Amendment is one of the sacred amendments that our Founding Fathers adopted to make our country not only unique but one of the freest countries the world has ever seen.

But without transparency, without knowing the source of the speech that you hear, without having the ability to analyze who is telling me that this is good or this is bad, what is the source of the interest that is saying that this legislation is bad or this legislation is good--obviously all of us have said from time to time, Consider the source. We all say that. When somebody who we know doesn't like A or doesn't like B says something bad about A or B, we say, Consider the source. But if we don't know the source, we can't consider the source, and if we can't consider the source, we do not know the validity of the information that is transmitted to us.

That is the key to this legislation. That is the essence of what we're saying, not that a corporation or a union can't try to influence the American public to support a candidate or a proposition that it believes to be in its best interest. That's the American way. What we are saying, however, is that given the Supreme Court's decision, that we ought to make sure that citizens know who's talking to them; otherwise they will not have the ability to make a judgment on the credibility of the information they are receiving.

Now, as I said a little earlier, that is a goal that many of my colleagues, including my Republican colleagues, have supported in the past. My friend Eric Cantor, who is the minority whip, said this: ``Anything that moves us back towards that notion of transparency and real-time reporting of donations and contributions I think would be a helpful move towards restoring confidence of voters.'' This tries to do exactly that, restore the confidence of voters that they will know who's spending much money to influence their votes, their opinion, their actions.

Former Speaker Gingrich said this, that in an ideal system ``the country knows where the money is coming from. That would be transparent, simple, and fair.''

While he was not speaking on behalf of this bill, that applies to this bill.

Minority Leader Boehner said this, ``I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the money that we raise and how it's spent.'' That's what we're saying in this bill.

When you receive a 1-minute or a 30-second ad on TV, who's talking to me? How are they spending their money? If they spend it through a third party, they do so in many ways to hide the source. Whether it's a special interest on the right or the left or in the middle, a business interest, a labor interest, whatever interest it is, as a voter, I need to know who's talking to me so I can judge the credibility of the information that I am receiving.

I agree with the thoughts that have just been quoted by my three Republican colleagues, and I think they support the passage of this bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Brady for the outstanding leadership he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor. I want to thank my other friends who have worked so hard on this.

And I would be remiss if I did not mention specifically my friend and colleague from the State of Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, who has been tireless in his work on behalf of the DISCLOSE Act. Surely you can do it, surely you can have free speech, you can say anything you want, but tell me who you are. Do not hide under a cloak. Lift that cloak up and find out who's talking. If we do that, America's elections will be better. The people will be better informed and more confident that they can rely on the information they seek.

Consider the source, vote for this bill.

Parliamentary Inquiries

I want to thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, my good friend, for the leadership she continues to show on a repeated basis on this issue and so many other issues. I want to thank Mr. Berman. I very much wanted to get this to the floor to move this week. He has done that. I want to thank Senator Dodd as well for his work. And I want to thank all the members of the subcommittee. I also want to thank Rob Andrews of New Jersey, who was so vital to the central idea of how we could put appropriate pressure on this.

I want to say to my Republican friends who have been talking about the Obama administration, frankly, the Bush administration and the Obama administration have both been working towards trying to resolve this issue with Iran. Frankly, the Obama administration has, for the first time, gotten a strong resolution through the Security Council. We had the opportunity of just meeting with the President of Russia, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, the Speaker and I, and others, and Mr. Berman. He said it was a tough thing to do, but he worked very closely with President Obama and they were able to get it done. So this is not a time for pointing fingers. We're united on this. This is not a difference, but this is a unity, a unity of purpose and commitment.

Every one of us understands the deep danger of a nuclear Iran. That danger includes a new nuclear arms race as Iran's regional rivals scramble to build competing arsenals, plunging the world into a new era of proliferation. No one wants that. The danger includes as well a nuclear umbrella for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to stage more brazen and deadly attacks, especially on our ally Israel, but not exclusively. There are 250,000 Americans in harm's way from Iran as we speak.

And the danger includes, on a more basic level, a new era of fear for all of those in range of Iran's missiles. All of those consequences will be felt even if Iran's missiles remain on the launch pad or if its nuclear weapons remain buried. Could we imagine those weapons being used? We would be foolish not to, as long as those weapons are in the hands of a regime whose President denies the Holocaust, stokes hatred, and openly threatens Iran's neighbors.

Even so, our administration has pursued a dual-track strategy with respect to Iran.

On the one side is the administration's policy of engagement. I support that policy. John Kennedy said that we should never fear to negotiate, but we ought never to negotiate out of fear. I think he was correct. Jim Baker, in the days before we went into Kuwait, was talking to Saddam Hussein to see if the matter could be resolved.

On the one side, as I said, is that policy of engagement. This engagement reversed years of diplomatic silence during which Iran's nuclear program grew. It showed the world our patience; it tested Iran's willingness to negotiate in good faith, and it built international support for sanctions.

Sadly, the time limit for engagement has come and gone. It is time to pursue the second prong of the dual-track strategy--pressure. The International Atomic Energy Agency tells us that Iran has now enough low-enriched uranium for two bombs; Iran has attempted to hide nuclear facilities, and has refused to cooperate with the demands of the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council to suspend enrichment.

Let's be clear: Iran is blatantly defying the will of the international community. This is unacceptable. That is not a partisan position. It is almost a unanimous position of the administration and of this Congress. That is why this is the right time to bring strong economic pressure to bear on the Iranian regime.

I rise in strong support of this resolution. I urge its support.

I, again, thank Mr. Berman and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership in bringing this critical resolution to the floor.

I join my colleagues as well in saying that enforcement of the resolutions that Iran has adopted, that our European colleagues have adopted, and this resolution will be critical, and the understanding that it is to be enforced needs to be understood by Iran.

I appreciate the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Bean) for yielding.

I want to first thank the chair of the Small Business Committee, Congresswoman Velazquez, for the work that she has done on this bill and for others who have worked on this bill.

As I'm sure has been said many times on this floor but bears repeating, small businesses are the job-creating engine of our economy. They employ more than half of all employees in the private sector, and they've created 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. So ensuring that small businesses have the resources they need to

keep innovating, growing and creating jobs is essential if we're going to sustain the economic recovery. And small businesses have been at the heart of Democrats' recovery strategy ever since this Congress convened in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, indeed, the deepest recession we've seen in three-quarters of a century.

The Recovery Act, which cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and is responsible for some 2 million jobs, gave small businesses tax credits for hiring many unemployed workers and helped them make the capital investments that are essential to their growth. Since the Recovery Act, we've expanded Small Business Administration lending, created further tax credits for hiring unemployed workers, and offered immediate and long-term tax credits to help small businesses afford employee health care. And yesterday, the House passed the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act, which will exempt 100 percent of small business capital gains from taxation and increase the amount of startup expenses small business owners can deduct from their taxes, all designed to allow small businesses to grow and expand. That means more investment in small businesses, and more entrepreneurs willing and able to start businesses of their own and hire workers to staff it.

Today, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we can take another step to help small businesses and workers, establishing a $30 billion fund to expand lending to small businesses looking to make new investments in growth at no cost to the taxpayer. Ladies and gentlemen, I know that those of you who have been not only in your own districts but in your States and throughout the country know that every small businessman and -woman in America who wants to expand has a singular complaint, and that is that they cannot access capital. That's what this bill is about. This bill, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, invests capital in community and small banks that were not the problem that caused this financial meltdown, investing in those community and small banks under terms that become more favorable to those banks as they make more loans to small businesses. In other words, carrots for giving money to small business.

The CBO tells us that all of the money in the Small Business Lending Fund will be repaid with interest and that taxpayers will actually make $1 billion profit over the next decade. Now, that's not too hard to believe, I think, when you understand that in terms of the dollars that the Bush administration asked us to put on the table to stabilize the economy back in 2008, that to the extent that the money has now been paid back--not all of it yet--but to the extent that we have gotten repayment, we have made some 12 percent on that money. Unfortunately, 45 percent of small businesses seeking loans to expand or even just stay afloat were turned down last year, and you can imagine how those denials led directly to unemployment.

This bill, ladies and gentlemen of the House, can go a long way towards opening up the flow of credit that helps create jobs. That's what this is about, allowing small businesses to expand, grow their businesses, hire more people, pay good salaries and benefits, and get our economy moving. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to help our small businesses create jobs. I want to congratulate once again the chair of the Small Business Committee, Nydia Velazquez, for her leadership. I thank Ms. Bean from Illinois for her leadership on these issues, and I thank our Republican friends, who I hope will join us in supporting this effort to make sure that small businesses have the capital they need to grow our economy.

Good morning and welcome back.

Many of you, of course, visit on a relatively regular basis. Others of you we don't get to see as often. I now have been here long enough to know almost all of you, and have served with almost all of you. And I am always pleased to join here to welcome you back to the House.

I have my own Connie Morella from Maryland and Bev Byron. You know the story about Bev Byron. We met in 1962. She was wondering who this skinny kid was who had written to her husband, ``Dear President Byron.'' He was president of the Young Democrats of Maryland. And I signed it ``Steny Hamilton Hoyer,'' and she has not let me forget the officiousness of that letter.

But I am so pleased to be with all of you. I have lamented on numerous occasions welcoming you here that when I first came here it was 1981, and clearly the partisanship was starting to elevate.

All of you know, because I have said on so many different occasions, what respect and deep, deep affection I have for Bob Michel. Respect in the sense that I thought he brought the best of what the American people want and represented to the House of Representatives. He brought a philosophical judgment as to what policies we ought to support, direction the country ought to go, but he also brought a deep conviction that what the American public expected of us was to work together, respect one another, and try to do the best that we could for the American people.

Unfortunately, as all of you have seen, we are a deeply polarized Congress. That does not mean that we don't sit down together and talk about issues from time to time. Leader Boehner has just walked in. He and I are working on a joint enterprise that we think may have some real positive effect. And hopefully, we can win the day on that issue. But for the most part, we are not working together as collegially as I think the American public would like us to do.

The problems that confront our country, as all of you know, are very, very substantial. We have an immediate crisis, the oil crisis, which has given to the American public a sense of almost helplessness that their government is not responding in a way that can stop this oil from leaking. Clearly, BP and the entire oil industry has extraordinary incentive to do that. They have been technically unable to do it. We are in deep water both figuratively and literally on this issue.

John and I were on a television program on Sunday morning together on which we both agreed that, A, BP ought to be held responsible, and B, we need to do everything we possibly could to not only stop the oil, but to help those who have been hurt, which nobody can contemplate exactly how broad that will be.

The other issue that we are grappling with that I feel keenly about that has gotten cumulatively worse during the 30 years that I have been here, and that is the fiscal crisis that confronts our country. We are in deep debt. We are approaching or about at 90 percent of GDP in terms of our debt load. We are moving towards 100 percent. No country in the world can sustain that kind of debt load for very long and remain healthy, vibrant, and growing.

So we need your continued wisdom and counsel. Notwithstanding the fact you are not voting, you are all very, very influential people in this country and in your States and in your districts still. And your voice is needed, as we try to reach some bipartisan consensus on how to achieve a more positive fiscal picture confronting our country.

But notwithstanding those serious issues, as someone who just turned 71 yesterday, and I am sending the message to my constituents that I have no intention of retiring; I hope they have no intention of retiring me. I enjoy my service here. I continue. And I enjoyed serving with all of you on both sides of the aisle.

So on behalf of Speaker Pelosi, John will speak for himself, obviously, but I know in a very bipartisan way we welcome all of you back here. We enjoy seeing you. We enjoy reminiscing about the good times, about the challenges, and about how we got things done, and how we might apply those lessons of the past to the solving of the problems that confront us today.

So thank you all very, very much. Enjoy this day, and make sure that you come back on a regular basis to give us, as I said, not only advice and counsel, but perhaps even encouragement. Not everybody in America, as you have noticed, is giving us encouragement.

You know, the bad news for Democrats is that we are very low down in the polls. The good news for Democrats is Republicans are there with us. They don't like any of us. They don't think any of us have got it. So working together, perhaps we can reinstate their confidence and reinstate a positive, more confident America as we move forward, as you have done when you served America so well in this body. Thank you very much.

I now, if I might, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, I know he wants to recognize him, but I would be pleased to yield to my friend with whom I from time to time have the opportunity to work together, but always try to have a cordial and positive relationship with, the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

I appreciate your confidence, Mr. Speaker.

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 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business and recess immediately for the Former Members Association annual meeting. The House will reconvene at approximately 11:30 a.m.

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. The complete list of all suspension bills will be announced, as is the custom, by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010; and possibly H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act; and, again, possible action on H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.

In addition to the legislation I have announced for next week--the Small Business Lending Act, the DISCLOSE Act, and the supplemental--we will also consider in the future a Wall Street reform conference report.

As the gentleman knows, the conference is having its first session today as an open conference, full participation. I expect that to hopefully conclude within the next few weeks, perhaps sooner. And I expect to have that bill on the floor and to the President by the July 4 break.

In addition to that, we have the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, which is being considered by the Senate now. We passed this bill, as

you know, 2 weeks ago. The Senate, however, had left town, and they could not take action to extend unemployment benefits and to preclude cuts to Medicare payments to ensure seniors would get their doctors. I know the Senate is now working on this bill. And if they amend it, we will look at that and see what House action might be necessary.

In addition, we are looking at a budget resolution. We are still working with Chairman Spratt on a budget resolution that shows we have cognizance of the concerns that all of our Members have, A, about the deficit and also about constraining spending. As the gentleman knows, the President has sent to us a budget that for nondefense, nonsecurity spending is frozen not only for this year but for 2 years to come. So we are considering that.

In addition, the gentleman and I have been working very hard on Iran sanctions. I was at the White House today. I congratulated the President on the administration's success in having passed through the Security Council the Iran sanctions legislation. It is good legislation. Hopefully, all nations will abide by it, have its impact.

On the other hand, I think the gentleman and I both agree there need to be additional efforts made. We urge the Europeans, who will be meeting shortly, to do the same and hopefully have an even stronger resolution.

And then it's my expectation--I have talked to Mr. Berman, and I know you have talked to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--my hope is that we will have--and my request, more than a hope, my request is that the conference report be brought to the floor the week of the 21st. And I have indicated that that is my expectation.

I want to also congratulate Ambassador Susan Rice for the job that she did in drafting the resolution that was adopted and successfully passing it yesterday. I am looking forward to working with the gentleman.

In addition to that, as you know, we have a supplemental that we want to have considered. We need to fund our troops that are in harm's way and make sure they have the resources necessary to carry out the mission they have been given. And I expect the supplemental to be on the floor possibly as early as next week. I would hope that we could get it that early, but certainly I expect it to pass before we leave.

It is my understanding that funding is available into July so that we have some flexibility, but my view is that we will pass it. And I will be pushing very hard to pass the supplemental, make sure our troops are funded. And I would hope that we could work on that on a bipartisan basis.

That is not all that will be done, but those are the significant parts of what I expect the agenda to be for the next 3 weeks.

I thank the gentleman for his question.

As I am sure most people know, the gentleman and I agreed--I made a statement on the floor last night, and I made a statement immediately after--Israel, like any other nation in the world that is assaulted by a terrorist organization that wants its demise, wants to kill its people and push it from its country, any nation on Earth, including ours, would defend itself. That is what they did.

They gave 2 weeks' notice, of course, as the gentleman knows, to the Turks and to the individuals who were undertaking this so-called humanitarian mission.

And I might say that the gentleman and I share a humanitarian concern about the plight of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, they are ill-served by some of those who have, by force, taken over their leadership in Gaza.

But Israel did what any nation would do. It gave notice and said, if you will deliver those to Ashdod, the port, we will offload the humanitarian material and make sure that it's delivered to its recipients, not to a terrorist organization that would use it for purposes of terror and attacks on civilians, but use it for the purposes of relieving those in some distress.

I would point out, as the gentleman well knows, international reports are that, in fact, there are sufficient food and medicine in Gaza today. It is my view that that mission, in effect, accomplished its objective, and its objective was to create confrontation and to put at risk the security of Israel and its people.

So that the answer to your question is that I have talked to Mr. Berman and I want to talk to you, as well, so that we can determine what is the best course of action for us to take.

I thank the gentleman for his question.

None of us want to commit to not talking to one another privately, I think. I think that's what the chairman was referring to. I am sure he and Mr. Dodd will speak. I am sure that he and the gentleman from Alabama, the ranking Republican, Mr. Shelby, may be speaking. The chairman and I both served with Mr. Shelby, and I am sure that there will be discussions with the ranking Republican from our side.

That may not be in the context of the conference itself where there will be cameras, where there will be an open opportunity to offer amendments and fully debate and discuss various options. Frankly, I've not been too pleased personally with the fact that we don't have a lot of conferences. I think conferences are good. I think they accomplish a worthy objective of bringing reconciliation between the two Houses and frankly giving an opportunity for each perspective that's represented on the conference to be articulated. And I think this will be, from that standpoint, a model conference.

And I think Mr. Frank does intend, as he has said, to have an open conference with full debate and voting in the light of day on various different proposals.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have not discussed specifically what actions Mr. Obey--Mr. Obey is looking at the supplemental. It was sent over to us. And he's discussing it with the various subcommittee chairs, I know. I don't know whether he's discussed it with Mr. Lewis at this point in time. But I do know that, as you know, he had a markup scheduled on our supplemental the week before we left. That was canceled, so it didn't go forward; and then the Senate passed its bill.

But I would certainly hope that your side has input on what they want, what you want, what you think ought to be in there. Obviously, we want to respond to some of the crisis not only offshore in Iraq--well, this is mainly Afghanistan and Pakistan as the gentleman knows, but my belief is Mr. Obey will want to have input as well.

So I can't give you specifically because Mr. Obey has not indicated to me at this point in time what his specific plans are. But I understand the gentleman's interest.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As you know, Mr. Spratt and I and others have been working on this for many months now to try to see if there is a budget that can garner majority support. There was some indication, I will tell the gentleman--he's usually at the White House with us. He wasn't with us today. But Mr. Cantor is usually joining us at the White House in our meetings with the President.

But the fact is that the Senate Republican leader indicated he'd like to see some bipartisan agreement, at least on spending levels and observed that he thought the spending levels the President had sent down for our consideration were--he would like to see a lower number but he appreciated the fact that that number was sent down and was a constraint on spending, in fact, froze non-defense, non-security spending at last year's levels and did so for a number of years. So I made the observation at that point in time that I was hopeful that we in fact could perhaps reach some bipartisan agreement. I will be discussing with the gentleman probably early next week that possibility.

But I will tell you that Mr. Spratt continues to work very, very hard at trying to see if he can come up with a budget resolution that reflects something that can get agreement.

I want to tell the gentleman that one of the problems we have, as the gentleman knows, is we have created a situation of where the budget will have some very tough numbers on it. They are realistic numbers. They are the numbers. They are what they are. We are where we are. As the gentleman knows, I believe that we need to work very, very hard to get back to the place where we were when we started in 2001 when we had a balanced budget and a surplus projected.

I would call attention to a statement of Doug Holtz-Eagen, as I am sure the gentleman knows, who was with the last administration and indicated that this budget would have occurred under Senator McCain as well no matter what he did. We inherited an extraordinarily depressed economy, an exploding deficit and a substantial decrease in revenues. So we have an extraordinarily difficult situation that we've inherited that we're trying to deal with.

The President, as you know, has appointed a commission to try to deal with that. We put in place statutory PAYGO to try to constrain spending so that we can get back to where I said we were in 4 years before the Bush administration where we had 4 years of surplus. And, regrettably, we're not there now; but we're working on it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to tell my friend that I don't seek contrition. I do seek reconsideration of policies that have not worked, of policies that were projected to grow the economy, bring the deficit down and make us a healthier, wealthier country. Frankly, the policies that we pursued in 2001 through 2006, and actually through 2009 because we couldn't change policy although we were in charge of the House and the Senate, we couldn't override a Presidential veto--again, not contrition, but recognition that the policies did not work.

Benjamin Franklin said, It's not a good thing to be penny wise and pound foolish. I tell my friend that he and his colleagues from 2001 and 2006--I think he voted for each one of these--voted for over $2 trillion in unfunded spending. That is the real problem.

The gentleman is probably prepared to support, as I am--he and I will probably vote together, I hope, on a supplemental that provides for funding our troops. That won't be paid for. We will expect our children and grandchildren to pay for that. Mr. Obey has suggested a tax to pay for this war. If it is worth fighting, if it's worth protecting this generation, it is worth paying for. I tend to agree with that.

As the gentleman knows, I'm a lot older than he is. I have three grandchildren, and I have a great-granddaughter. Tragically, history tells us that my grandchildren and my children are going to have their challenge from a security standpoint, from a health standpoint, from a natural disaster standpoint as we have today, and they're going to have to have resources to respond to that.

I don't criticize the gentleman and I applaud him for asking the American public what we all ought to ask the American public, what do you think we ought to cut. The fact of the matter is that your side, your ranking member, has prepared a budget. As I've told you before, I think it's a budget with a great deal of integrity, great deal of political courage, and the gentleman's indicated it's a 75-year budget. It's a budget that affects today, tomorrow, but yes, it has a vision. I applaud Mr. Ryan. As you know, I'm a big fan of Mr. Ryan's. I don't agree with Mr. Ryan, but I don't have to agree with somebody to have great respect for their intellect and their political courage and their willingness to be real, to put something on the table that really will make a difference.

My side, for the most part, doesn't agree with his treatment of Social Security, Medicare, and some other things. But I asked the gentleman last time if he wants me to put that budget on the floor with whatever we put on the floor on our side so that both of those can be considered. We're prepared to do that.

But my friend, I will tell you, I'm not looking, as I said before, for contrition. I am looking for recognition that we need to work together and be honest. Be honest with those American people that you're asking questions to. The items you put on your list are worthy of consideration, but they will not get us to where we need to get.

As Mr. Eakin, who was one of McCain's advisers, former Republican director for the OMB, as the CATO Institute indicates, the policies of the Bush administration dug a very deep hole. You have contrition about it but that doesn't solve it. What's got to solve it is us coming together and being honest with the American people. That's what the commission is hopefully going to do, and it's going to give us tough recommendations, and we will have to clasp hands together frankly if those recommendations are real, honest, and effective because they will be politically controversial because the medicine doesn't always go down very well.

Will the gentleman yield just to clarify?

We all voted for more spending than that over that period of time, given the size of our budget. What I said was, to be precise, you voted for $2 trillion of unpaid spending.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Tuesday, June 15, for the Speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

I thank my friend for yielding. I thank my friend for leading this effort at my request, and I thank those who have joined in in raising our voice to defend actions that really need no defense, actions that any nation on Earth would take if it were similarly threatened, any nation on Earth.

Mr. Speaker, in the early morning hours of Monday, May 31, Israel naval forces intercepted six ships carrying mostly Turkish demonstrators attempting to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip. There was no confusion. That's what they said they were going to do. Israel gave them notice 2 weeks prior to this that they would not allow that to happen. So there was no confusion here about what was happening.

Five of the six ships complied with the IDF requests. The largest of them, however, the Mavi Marmara, refused, clearly bent on violent confrontation as it was boarded by Israeli defense forces, as they knew they would be. There was no confusion. These IDF troops were violently attacked with knives, clubs, and other weapons.

Let me remind you that in five of the six in this flotilla there was no violence. There was something in common on all of those ships. IDF forces were on all of those ships. But five of those ships, knowing full well that the blockade would not be allowed to be breached, offered no violent resistance.

At the end of the skirmish on the Marmara, seven members of the IDF had suffered injuries, including gunshot wounds and head trauma, and nine demonstrators, tragically, on the Mavi Marmara had been killed. No one wanted that result. I think not even those who were committing the violence on the IDF forces wanted that. But once violence is initiated, one cannot predict the outcome.

Those deaths are tragic. The events leading up to them deserve a full and scrupulous investigation. But this much, ladies and gentlemen, is clear. To call all the passengers of the Mavi Marmara nonviolent peace activists would be a victory for propaganda, not for fact. Peace activists don't launch attacks with knives and guns, and they certainly don't do so while chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews as an al Jazeera broadcast showed. Not an Israeli broadcast, but an Al- Jazeera broadcast showed the chants from those ships, from this ship, Kill the Jews.

However much we lament those nine deaths--and we do so--the fact is that the IDF was faced with an organized, violent assault and responded in self-defense, as we would expect any of our own forces to do wherever they may be sent to defend our country. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, this incident has renewed international condemnation for Israel's blockade of Gaza from countries I suggest to my colleagues that would do exactly the same thing.

I cannot believe there's a country in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in South America, or on the North American continent that would not say, If you breach this blockade that we have in place for our own security, we will confront you and stop you.

But that blockade exists for a reason: to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and to random attacks on Israeli civilians.

Mr. Weiner has been pointing out the map. Probably most of us on this floor who are going to speak have been to Sderot. Some of us have been in the gymnasium that is an armed camp where it is the only safe place for the children of Sderot to play. Some have been with me to Sderot.

The attack on Israeli civilians has continued without abatement. I don't mean that it hasn't lessened from time to time, but never has there been a time when Israelis felt that the violence was concluded, because Hamas has made it clear that it will not conclude.

Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and to random attacks on Israeli civilians. The blockade was launched with the cooperation of Israel's neighbor Egypt when Hamas staged a violent coup to expel its political rivals and seize total control of Gaza. Who were its political rivals? Palestinians. The elected leadership of the Palestinian Authority.

And the blockade could end today, my friends, if Hamas recognized Israel's right to exist--as is the principle of the United Nations-- gave up its commitment to murdering civilians, and released the Israeli soldier it holds captive.

To the extent that life is hard for those in Gaza, the prime cause is the terrorist organization that keeps them hostage, holds power through violence, and monopolizes the food and humanitarian supplies that Israel allows across the border.

Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, pay close attention to this point. Indeed, it is Hamas, not Israel, that is currently preventing the humanitarian goods from this very flotilla from reaching the Palestinians in Gaza. Not the blockade, but Hamas.

Finally, the United States should and will resist all one-sided attempts to condemn Israel at the United Nations. The UN, a body committed by its charter to universal human rights, has for much of its history, unfortunately, been sadly fixated on singling Israel out for condemnation--the only democratic nation in that region of the world that recognizes human rights. And we see the Supreme Court of Israel saying, time after time, you cannot do that government. That is a nation of laws. Yet it has been singled out for condemnation as much more serious crimes and crises have gone unaddressed throughout the world.

The biased record extends beyond the infamous 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism. The U.N. General Assembly has convened an emergency special session 10 times. Not, I would suggest to you, when the North Koreans killed, obviously premeditatedly, 46 individuals in their ship of South Korea in South Korean borders.

Six of the times that they met out of 10 have focused on one small besieged nation, Israel, while no emergency session was ever held on the Rwandan genocide, not held on the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, not held on the genocide in Sudan.

The 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism neglected racism around the world to again single out, almost exclusively, Israel and Zionism. The U.N. Human Rights Council, whose members include Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba, has only one permanent topic on its official agenda. Now, I have mentioned three genocides that have occurred. They are not on that agenda. Israel. Even Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the Human Rights Council for its ``disproportionate focus on violations by Israel.''

Should Israel comply with international law and the mores and values of the international community? Yes. Does it? Yes, yes, it does. And like every Nation, however, it enjoys the right to self-defense.

This troubled history is exactly why I'm skeptical that the United Nations will treat Israel justly now. What happened on Mavi Marmara needs a real investigation, not one colored by years of one-sided bias.

Mr. Speaker, despite what happened last Monday, the fundamentals of this conflict remain just as they were the day before. The overwhelming majority of Israelis want to live in peace with the Palestinians side- by-side in two States. So I believe do most Palestinians, but the extremism and hate of groups like Hamas stands in the way.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, there were those on those ships who sought this confrontation. Again, not for the purposes of humanitarian relief but for propaganda and for putting Israel at risk from those who wish its destruction. It is not a secret wish. It is an articulated wish. All the world knows the intent of Hamas: to destroy Israel and remove Jews from the Middle East because they say so.

Let us not be confused, Mr. Speaker. Finding a way to peace is fiercely difficult. It should not be made more difficult by those who see more propaganda value than human values and these loss of lives.

I thank my friend from New York for leading this Special Order that is so important so that our voices are heard here and around the world as it relates to our commitment to the sovereignty, security, and safety of Israel.

I thank my friend for his comments and thank him for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the women's lacrosse team of my alma mater, the University of Maryland, on its record tenth national championship. In the March 31st championship game, Maryland defeated Northwestern University, a lacrosse dynasty in its own right, by a score of 13-11.

Congratulations are especially due to Coach Cathy Reese, who was rewarded with success after returning to coach at her alma mater; to senior Caitlyn McFadden, who starred in her last collegiate game with two goals and an assist, and was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Player; and to the Maryland fans,

who turned out to support their Terrapins in record numbers. This championship is the product of outstanding athletes and coaches, untold hours of hard work, and the passionate support of the University of Maryland community. The University of Maryland demonstrates excellence in both academics and athletics, and I'm proud of this team for contributing to that legacy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the St. Mary's College of Maryland Varsity Sailing Team on winning the Inter- Collegiate Sailing Association's Team Race National Championship. This year's event was held May 29-31 on Lake Mendota in Madison, WI.

Unlike traditional fleet sailing, the team race event pits three boats against three boats. This event is often described as ``chess on water'' as sailors use unconventional tactics like slowing down and trapping their opponents to help teammates who are trailing to catch up. To win a race, the team of three must have a winning combination of finishes which total 10 points or fewer.

In the first round of competition, in which each team competes in six races, the Seahawks went undefeated in Group 1. In the second round among the top eight teams, the Seahawks had the best record with 11 wins and three losses. At the end of final round of the four winningest teams, the Seahawks went one and two, had a final record of 12 wins and 5 losses, and won the event.

I want to extend my congratulations to the following members of the Varsity Sailing Team who competed in this event: Ted Hale, Francis Kupersmith, Michael Menninger, Kelly Wilbur, Jesse Kirkland, Madeline Jackson, and Mike Kuschner. I want to commend Head Coach Adam Werblow, who has been with this program for 22 years, and Bill Ward, Director of Sailing, for their leadership of this team.

I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the entire St. Mary's College sailing team for their diligent training, teamwork and dedication to the sport, and for continuing the legacy of excellence in racing at the college.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to thank Chairman Levin. Chairman Levin has worked, along with his staff, Janice Mays, the staff director and other members of an extraordinary staff, around the clock. And I am sure Mr. Camp would say his Republican staff has worked around the clock, too. We thank all of them for the work that they do. I thank Mr. Levin for his leadership, for his focus, and his tenaciousness in bringing us to this point.

Let me make a couple of observations before I speak pointedly about the bill. First of all, ladies and gentlemen of this House, the public understands that there is no bipartisanship in this House. All Republicans are going to vote against this bill, my presumption is. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. But my presumption is they'll vote to a person against this bill.

They have voted almost to a person against every bill that we have passed over the last 16 months to try to bring this economy back from the extraordinarily deep recession, the deepest that we have had in 75 years, resulting from the economic policies that they put in place when they were exclusively in control.

Yet they come to the floor and talk about deficits. Democrats of course, when we controlled the Presidency, created one of the highest surpluses, and indeed the only administration that had a net surplus after 8 years, the Clinton administration. The Republicans will say, yes, but for 6 of those years we controlled the Congress. And my response is, yes, and for 12 of the years you controlled the Congress, and 6 of those under a Republican President, George Bush.

Unfortunately, every year that I have been here serving with a Republican President, every year without exception, we have had large deficits. Every year. However, under Bill Clinton we had the only 4 surplus years that I have been here. We had 4 surplus years as a result of an economic program that was adopted. Again, it was adopted exclusively by Democrats. No Republican voted for that in 1993 either in the House or in the Senate.

So we created surpluses. We got the economy moving. And then my friend on the other side talks about jobs; we should have had hearings about job creation. Frankly, the worst period of job creation in the last 30 years was the 8 years of the Bush administration. Without exception the worst. Stark example: the Clinton administration, 216,000 jobs created per month; the Bush administration, 11,000 jobs per month. That's 205,000 jobs per month, over 2 million per year.

That is why, of course, because of that disastrous economic performance, we fell into this extraordinary ditch that we have tried to pull ourselves out of. And we are coming out of it. That's the good news, Mr. and Mrs. America, my colleagues. We are coming out of it. It's slow, it's not as fast as we would like, but it's successful.

Now, I give you an interesting fact: over the last 4 months of an economic program, the Recovery Act and other jobs bills that we passed, we have created 573,000 jobs in the last 4 months. All positive months. If the next two-thirds of the year replicate that production, we will create more jobs this

year after this deepest recession any of us in this Chamber have experienced ever in our lifetimes, we will create more jobs this year, if we replicate the first third of the year, than the Bush administration created in its 8 years. Hear that statistic and check me if I am wrong. About 1.7 million jobs versus a little over a million jobs over the 96 months were net created during the Bush administration.

So when we talk about jobs and deficits, I think we have some credibility. We have some credibility because we created surpluses; the only 4 years of surplus, again, under the Clinton administration, that we had in my 30 years in Congress. And in terms of jobs, Bill Clinton created 21 million private-sector jobs during the course of his Presidency. George Bush? Approximately a million. A stark difference in the impact of the economic policies pursued by the two parties.

I would hope some of you would say to yourselves that--not because we're trying to place blame, but because we're probably trying to learn, hopefully, from our experience. And you might come to the conclusion at some point in time, You know what? What they have suggested works. What they have pursued works, contrary to what Mr. Armey, who was your former majority leader who, when we adopted that program in 1993, said we would have deep deficits and exploding unemployment. We had exactly the opposite. We had declining deficits and 4 years of surplus and an explosion of job creation; 216,000 a month.

We continue to pursue creation of jobs. That's what this bill is about, creation of jobs. We're also pursuing closing tax loopholes and making sure people don't offshore jobs so we keep jobs here in America, since inheriting the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and an economy shedding almost 800,000 jobs per month. That's not creating jobs; that's losing. During the last 3 months of the Bush administration, we lost about 750,000 jobs per month, 1\1/2\ million in 3 months, as opposed to creating 573,000 in the last 4 months.

President Obama and the 111th Congress have been dedicated to standing up for the middle class, its interests, and its future. The work continues today with the American Jobs Closing Tax Loopholes and Preventing Outsourcing Act, which will support millions of American jobs.

This bill is a significant investment in America's entrepreneurs and its workers. It helps to restore the flow of credit to small businesses, which hire the majority of America's workers. It extends the important R&D tax credit, research and development, which helps businesses innovate, grow, and create jobs. That's what we need to be about, creating jobs for our people.

It invests in the successful Build America Bonds and Recovery Zone Bonds, which create jobs and build much needed projects, like schools, hospitals, roads, and public transit. It puts young people to work with summer jobs programs so that they're not out in the streets, so they start to learn some skills, so that they have something to do with their time. That's good for them to learn job skills, that's good to get projects done that need to be done, and it provides for idle hands having work.

This bill also protects the safety net for Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. It extends their unemployment insurance and helps them keep their health coverage. That's not only the right thing to do; it is also one of the most effective ways to boost local economies.

In addition, by preventing physician reimbursement rates from falling, it ensures that millions of seniors, military retirees, and people with disabilities can continue seeing their doctors.

Now, let me say something about what the ranking member said, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He said the docs don't like this. I don't like this. Unfortunately, none of your colleagues in the United States Senate voted for a bill that we sent to them. I don't think any of you voted over here for it either, which made a permanent fix to this doctors' roller coaster of pretending that we're going to cut doctors' reimbursement. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do it because we want to make sure that our seniors, that our folks with disabilities and others have access to their doctors. So we're not going to do that.

So we play a game. It is a game of dollars, of course, an important game. But we play a game that we're somehow not going to do it, so we do it in short stretches. You did the same thing when you were in charge. We're doing it again.

We should do this permanently. The Speaker is for permanent fix. I'm for permanent fix. And if we need to pay for it, I will vote to pay for it. And we do need to pay for it. Now, whether we need to pay for it immediately all up front or we pay for it as we do sporadically, but either way, we all know we're going to do this.

So I say to my friend, I understand the doctors are not pleased. I am not pleased. The Speaker's not pleased. Mr. Levin is not pleased. And certainly Mr. Waxman is not pleased. And my colleagues on this side of the aisle are not pleased. I presume your colleagues are not either. But, frankly, this is what you did when you were in charge. And we're doing it for the same reason: We need to get the votes. And I'm hopeful that we can join together in a bipartisan way at some point in time, and because we don't have a bipartisan way, frankly, we've got to carry the load ourselves.

I've been in the minority. It's easy to say ``no.'' It's much easier being in the minority. When I was the minority whip, nobody ever asked me did I lose by 1 or did I lose by 20. They assumed I was going to lose, and it didn't matter how much I lost by. Now, of course, if I lose by 1, they know that and I get a lot of flack, properly so.

So we could do better policy if we would do bipartisan policy, if we could do a broader outlook. So I invite you to engage. I don't think you'll do so today, but I hope you will in the future. That's not the only right thing to do. It's also one of the most effective ways to boost our local economies.

In addition, by preventing physician reimbursement rates from falling, it insures that millions of seniors, military retirees, and people with disabilities can continue seeing their doctors. We hope you don't vote against that. It will be a separate vote. You won't have to vote for the rest of the stuff if you don't like it, but vote for the SGR. Vote at least for the next 19 months to say to doctors, We're going to reimburse you at a proper rate to serve seniors, military retirees, and people with disabilities. At least vote for that one if you think docs ought to be reimbursed. Or if you think docs ought to have a 21-percent cut, vote against it.

Those are some of the many steps this bill takes to create jobs and protect Americans struggling in hard times. But just as importantly, this job creation is funded by efforts to close unfair tax loopholes and enforce corporate accountability. This bill would close the loophole that enables Wall Street fund managers to pay taxes at a rate 20 percent lower than the rate for ordinary working Americans. We differ on that. I understand that. And a lot of people have talked about how we can tweak that, if you will. It's a question, however, of basic fairness of taxing people on money they earn at similar rates. And I want to say something on that, because I think there's been some misinterpretation.

I can't speak for every one of my Democratic colleagues, but I'm a strong believer that if people take money out of their pocket, take capital at risk, that there ought to be a differential tax rate, and there is and there will continue to be. At least with my support, there will continue to be.

Further, this bill closes the tax loophole that lets multinational corporations profit by shipping jobs overseas and putting Americans out of work. I believe most of you on the other side of the aisle, my friends and colleagues, don't believe that's a proper thing for us to do. I hope you will join us on that.

By taking advantage of the foreign tax credit, these corporations are able to avoid American and foreign taxes, giving them incentives to move offshore and take jobs from people here at home. Again, tax fairness and the needs of our middle class both urge us to close this loophole. Another loophole for the privileged that Republicans have defended for years.

Finally, this bill takes the first step to hold the oil industry accountable for

the historic mess it made in the Gulf of Mexico. British Petroleum will be millions of dollars in debt when this concludes. It increases the amount the oil industry must pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It's a good bill for jobs. It's a good bill for closing tax loopholes. It's a good bill for dissuading people from taking jobs overseas. Take this step for America, and continue to build on the economic progress that we have made over the last 17 months.

I thank the Speaker for yielding.

I have the honor of representing Herb in the Congress of the United States. He was born in Aquasco in April of 1936. In my view, he's a young man. For those of you who are much younger, I want you to know he's still a young man.

Herb, let me say to you, as the Speaker has pointed out, Herb has served with seven Speakers of the House, from Speaker Albert to Speaker Pelosi. For those of you in the Republican Cloakroom, I've had the opportunity to come over to your side, and I love the folks that you have working on your side. Like Herb, they treat us all alike. There are no Republicans or Democrats for them. They're just Members of Congress who serve together and work together on behalf of our country.

Herb, you have been a wonderful friend, and you have made everybody's day brighter every time they come in contact with you. You have been someone who has been so thoughtful, so courteous, so kind that all of us have been advantaged and our lives have been made better by your service. And Herb, as you leave--not our hearts, but this House, at least the Cloakroom--we know that you will hopefully come back from time to time and visit with us, and we will be again enriched with your presence and your demeanor.

We wish you God speed. And we say to you, thank you, good friend.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to thank the chairman, who is one of the giants on behalf of national security, military defense, quality of life for our troops, who for decades has been one of the outstanding spokespersons for making sure that we had the defense we needed and that our troops had the equipment, the resources, the quality of life that we would expect to have our young people have. So I congratulate him. I thank Mr. McKeon, as well, for his cooperative spirit in bringing this bill to the floor.

Democrats in Congress have worked closely with President Obama to fight our enemies, promote our interests, and support our troops and their families, compiling a record of securing our Nation in stronger and smarter ways. We have strengthened America's military by putting new and better weapons into the battlefield, like more aerial drones. We have killed or captured much of the top leadership of al Qaeda and the Taliban. And for the first time, there is a clear plan for a way forward in Afghanistan, which, frankly, was neglected for years under the previous administration.

Democrats, often in the face of Republican opposition, have increased funding for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity, and security for our skies, our ports, and our borders. All of this was necessary and appropriate. We are looking out for our troops, our veterans, and our families.

Again, I say there is no Member of this body, and almost every Member, indeed, of this body on both sides of the aisle has worked together to maintain the quality of life for our troops and give them the resources they need; none more so than Chairman Skelton, however.

Democrats are making sure that our troops get the body armor and mine-resistant vehicles they need when they are in the field, and the health care and opportunity for college education they deserve when they return home. That's good for them and it's good for our country.

Today's defense authorization bill builds on that record, authorizing crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011. It promotes efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks and strengthens the ability of our special forces to act directly against terrorist organizations. It increases our international cooperation against terrorists, especially against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

At the same time, it also insists on accountability, requiring semiannual reports from the administration on the status of the Taliban and the capacity of the Afghan Government and security forces. That accountability is important and necessary.

Because the threats we face have changed in a post-Cold War world, this bill also supports ballistic missile defense and nuclear counterproliferation, including the President's effort to secure all of the world's known vulnerable nuclear material in the next 4 years. The conference the President convened here in Washington was an extraordinary step forward in that effort.

Further, this bill invests in the well-being of our troops and the strength of our Armed Forces. It keeps TRICARE strong and ensures that the military families can keep their children on TRICARE policies up to the age of 26, just as all Americans can do under the health reform law that we passed.

It also reduces strain on our forces by providing for 7,000 more personnel for the Army and 500 for the Air Force, while helping all of the services rebuild the equipment and weapons systems that have been severely worn down by two wars. Now, maybe because there is an agreement on that we haven't talked about it very much.

Finally, the bill strengthens our military by providing for a process to repeal a discriminatory provision. Now, I want my friends to listen to this, and they are not going to be happy with me. I am 70 years of age. I was in college in the late fifties and early sixties. Now, Bill Clinton was in college in the late sixties. His generation of Americans were motivated by the Vietnam

war one way or the other. Now, frankly, I was a member of the State senate and supported that effort in the State senate.

But in the late fifties and early sixties, the motivating force for young people in this country was civil rights. It was about living out the promise of American equality. It was about a commitment of this country, which was the bedrock of this country, that all men were created equal and endowed not by us, but by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And I will tell my friends, I have some rhetoric here that was used in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, when there were some Americans you didn't have to ask, they didn't have to tell, because you knew they were African Americans. There was no hiding that. And we segregated them.

And I heard Strom Thurmond stand on the floor of the Senate, he was a Democrat, speaking about discriminating against people because of the color of their skin. Separate but equal. I have heard the same rhetoric. Let me read some of it.

``The Army is the wrong place for social experiments. Keep African Americans in their place.''

I was angered in the 1950s and 1960s when I saw that kind of rhetoric because I thought that was not the America that I was so proud of. Hear that language that was used back in 1948 and read the transcripts today.

In 1990, I was the sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act. There was an amendment offered that said people with AIDS could not be waiters and waitresses. Why? Because people wouldn't come into restaurants if they knew that somebody with AIDS was serving them. Of course all the scientists, all the medical personnel said there was no way to transmit AIDS by handling plates or food. And I pulled out some rhetoric, interesting enough, from 1965, when the public accommodations law was considered on this floor. And guess what they said? They said, If we have African American waiters and waitresses, people won't come into our restaurant. That's why we don't have African American waiters and African American restaurants.

That was not the America for which I stand.

Strom Thurmond, however, said, and other Democrats--now, he didn't stay a Democrat, as all of you know, throughout his career--said no, we will keep people separate. And because you are driving down Route 1 from New York to Florida, and you stop and your little girl asked when the Howard Johnson's comes by, ``Can I have an ice cream cone?'' And you say to your little child, ``I am sorry, you can't go in there. You are the wrong color. Can't stay at that hotel.''

Now, in their era they thought they were being good Americans, I presume, and there were filibusters after filibusters to stop treating people as people with their God-given, unalienable rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, look to your hearts and your conscience. Look at the debates of 1948.

Is there one of us, is there one of us that would say General Powell, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, undermined the morale and the effectiveness of the United States Army? Is there one of us? I will yield to anybody who wants to say that he undermined the morale of our services. No one? No one? This is not a social experiment any more than that was a social experiment.

Anymore than 1990 when we wanted to deal with those with disabilities. It was a social experiment. It was the bedrock of what America is.

Now, I think it's unfortunate that we've spent so much time on this issue. Almost every speaker. In the beginning of my talk, I talked about the substance of this bill: fighting terrorists, keeping America safe, making sure that we have the strongest Armed Forces in the world bar none, that technically they are able to confront any enemy, anywhere, any time because we owe that to the American public to keep them safe. That is what we're committed to, a strong defense.

Barry Goldwater said when this issue came up, I care whether they can shoot straight, not whether they are straight. Why? Because he wanted to look at the content of their character, the content of their ability, the content of their commitment to this country and to their service. They were patriots. And he thought if they're patriots and they shoot straight--now let me tell you, something, friends. I don't want anybody bothering me. I don't care who they are. You hear me? And I don't want any male member of the Armed Forces bothering any female member of the Armed Forces, and I don't want anybody else bothering anybody else. Why? Because that's against the law, and it's against morality.

But I tell you, my friends, this bill is about our national security. This bill is about people who perform their service to our country. This bill is about making sure that America is safe. This bill is about making sure that we defeat terrorism and keep America safe. Let's focus on that. Let's not be distracted. Let's focus on protecting America, defeating terrorists, and taking care of our troops.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I agree with my friend. As a matter of fact, I talked to Bob Gates today, and I talked to him 2 weeks ago about this issue. I was concerned about this issue and shared his view that we certainly ought to solicit the views of how and why we ought to proceed.

That is why I worked to make sure that this amendment, which was the exact same amendment adopted in the Senate Armed Services Committee a little earlier today, did in fact provide that both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen--who has made his comments on this pretty clear, as you know--Secretary Gates, and the President of the United States have to certify that the processes are in place. I understand the difference of opinion here is that, and I am sympathetic with your view.

I smile only because that rhetoric was the same rhetoric that was used in 1946.

I didn't quote Mr. Powell. I referred to him.