Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Friday, January 29, and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 2, for morning-hour debate.

I thank my friend, the Republican whip, for yielding.

On Monday the House is not in session.

On Tuesday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

On Wednesday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business and recess at approximately 5 p.m. to allow a security sweep of the House Chamber prior to the President's State of the Union address. The House will meet again at approximately 8:35 p.m. in a joint session with the Senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the President of the United States.

On Thursday and Friday the House is not in session to give time for the Republican Issues Conference to occur in Baltimore, Maryland.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

In addition, Madam Speaker, we will consider H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2009; and H.R. 4474, the Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act, introduced by Mr. Minnick and Mr. Simpson.

Well, I didn't see the Speaker's statement; so I can't comment specifically on it, but I can say this to the gentleman: As the gentleman knows, there are significant, critical differences between the House and Senate bills and we have been working on trying to bridge the differences that exist. We are still in that process.

Well, I thank the gentleman for his question and all of the premises he adopts in prefacing his question. I don't want my silence to be presumed as agreeing to his premises, which I think are inaccurate.

Having said that, first of all, of course, there has been extraordinary exposure of the health care bills, both in the House and Senate, to public discussion, public debate, public information. It has been online for over 4 months, 5 months now, and an extraordinary number of hearings held on it over the last 2 years. As the gentleman well knows, his party's candidate for President and my party's candidate for President, who is now President of the United States, both indicated that they thought health reform was necessary. So it received extensive debate by many other candidates as well during the course of the election.

The gentleman is well aware because Members on his side have talked about

it and Members on my side have talked about it, about the number of Americans who don't have insurance and the number of Americans who are being forced out because of cost and the number of small businesses that are being confronted with 10, 15, 25 percent premium increases.

So the gentleman is well aware of the fact that health funding and health coverage is a challenge for our country and for our citizens.

The gentleman mentions the election. The election, obviously, that occurred in Massachusetts, like every election, dealt with many issues. My own view is that Americans are most focused, as we need to be, on the creation of jobs, making sure that Americans get back to work, have a livelihood that they can support themselves and their families. I think they are very concerned about that.

They are also concerned about the fact that we pass a health care bill. I have just read a poll, an exit poll that indicates that the majority of voters who had voted for Obama but voted for the new United States Senator-elect from Massachusetts believed that we ought to pass a health care bill. So, obviously, their vote for the new Senator was based upon something other than that particular issue.

So obviously, there were a number of issues that impacted on this election. But let me say again that almost all the candidates running for President last time, when they articulated a focus on national issues, focused on health care and the need to make sure that health care was available to all of our citizens.

Now, as relates to the gentleman's bipartisanship, the gentleman was quoted apparently just a few days ago about referring to our meeting. Our meeting of course dealt with a one-page recitation of three or four proposals, many of which are in the health care bill that we passed in this House in one fashion or another. Notwithstanding that, of course, as you know, no Republicans voted for the bill.

I was not surprised at that, frankly, because in February, apparently not based upon the specifics of a proposal, because the specifics of a proposal were not on the table until the summer, your campaign chairman, Pete Sessions said, ``I told Republicans that they need to get over the idea that we are participating in legislation and ought to start thinking of themselves as an insurgency instead.'' He was quoted in the Politico, House GOP Bullish at Virginia Retreat, February 2, 2009, as saying that.

Furthermore, Senator Jim Inhofe on the Hugh Hewitt Show, 7/23/09, said, ``We can stall it. And that is going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election.'' Senator Jim Inhofe, as I said, said that. And then Senator Jim DeMint said, also in July of '09, ``If we are able to stop Obama on this,'' referring to health care, ``it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.''

Very frankly, I tell my friend that I have discussed with him and with Mr. Blunt, my good friend, who was his predecessor, and with whom he worked in the whip organization, and asked him to participate with us. I did that early this year. I did it a little later in the year. Sometime before I met with you as well in trying to discuss was there a way forward to work in a bipartisan fashion? Unfortunately, that did not result in a bipartisan fashion.

I will tell my friend on a smaller, more defined matter, the Children's Health Insurance Program, I spent about a hundred hours trying to work with many on your side of the aisle to try to get--in the last Congress--to try to get bipartisan agreement on moving children's health insurance. And as I am sure you recall, because you weren't with us on that issue, we couldn't get bipartisan agreement.

So the answer to your question is I would like to have bipartisan discussions moving forward on this issue, but I have concluded from my experience over the last year, and not just these--I quote three, but there have been many other statements as well--that indicate that opposition for opposition's sake has been adopted at least by some on your side as a strategy and as a tactic.

I think the losers are not so much Democrats in that context. I think the losers are the American people. They expect us and want us to work together towards resolving the issues that confront them, one of which is health care. They know it is an issue. I read the results in Massachusetts. But I will tell you I have also read the polls which, when asked, not so much about a bill, but whether or not health care reform is needed in this country, a very significant majority of Americans respond they think it is.

They think that when they are denied coverage for preexisting conditions, that is a problem. They think when their child becomes 26 years of age, or now 23 years of age and out of college and doesn't have insurance, they think that is a problem. They think that when they have a very serious illness costing them thousands and thousands of dollars, that an insurance company telling them, sorry, you cost too much, we can no longer insure you, they think that is a problem. When they go deeply into debt for health care costs that aren't covered by their insurance company and have to declare bankruptcy and put their home at risk, they think that is a problem.

So, yes, I tell my friend that these are issues that we would like to work together on, and we hope that can happen.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

I don't know about counting on. I don't know what you mean by ``counting on.'' I think the Speaker's comments this morning, you asked me if it was an accurate statement. I think she believes that is an accurate statement in terms of where the votes are today. I responded, as I told the gentleman, there is substantial differences. We are discussing those differences, as we have been for some period of time.

Let me make another comment. The gentleman is very animated and very happy, as I would be in his position, about the results of Massachusetts, as we were very happy about the results in New York 23, where the health care

bill was also at issue, as the gentleman knows, in a district that we hadn't won for 150 years just a couple months ago. And as the gentleman knows, we won that district in a district, as I said, unlike Massachusetts, that we had not won in 150 years.

But let me say something. Your candidate who did win supported the Massachusetts plan, which has great similarity to the plan that he now opposes. So it is somewhat ironic that we would take that as a bellwether, because he, as a member of the State senate, actually voted on a plan that, much like our plan, tried to reach the objective of covering all people. So he has already voted for a plan like that. He has indicated he is not going to vote for this plan. I understand that. But it is not like he hasn't got a record of wanting to achieve the objectives that the bills that are under discussion are trying to achieve.

I thank the gentleman for the question. In answer to his question, we passed a jobs bill through this House in December. It is pending in the Senate now. We believe that that would substantially move forward on creating jobs. It is not the answer, but it is one of the answers we think. It focuses, as the gentleman knows, on infrastructure, which we think is a very important initiative that gets people working immediately, jobs here in America. We think that is very important. It also tries to help States so they are not laying off teachers and policemen and firemen. We think that is very important as well.

But let me say something. I get a little confused, and perhaps these facts are not well known to you, but I thought I would remind you of these facts. We pursued an economic program that your party put forward from 2001, 2003 on for 8 years. Now, while the people gave us the majority in the House and the Senate in 2006, obviously President Bush threatened to or did in fact veto any changes that we made in economic policy.

That economic policy, which you were a very strong supporter of and your party was a very strong supporter of, you continue to mention jobs; so I want to make sure you know these statistics.

In the last 3 months of the Bush administration under the economic policies that not only did you pursue then but you still want to pursue, because, in fact, the proposals that you have made essentially mirror the proposals that were made in 2001 and 2003, those proposals were touted by you and others--I'm not going to go through all these quotes--as going to grow the economy, create jobs, and have a robust growth in our economy. In November and December and January, that policy which you pursued lost 2,019,000 jobs in 3 months, and we confronted the worst recession, the ``great recession,'' if you will, worse than at any time in three quarters of a century. And it somewhat confounds me that you still--your party, not necessarily you personally--presents an economic policy which was the poorest job- creating administration, 8 years, since Herbert Hoover, an average of approximately 4,000 jobs per month. You needed 100,000 just to stay even.

Now, I would tell the gentleman, since the Recovery Act, which you nor your party voted for, since the Recovery Act, let me tell you what the last quarter was. Perhaps you know. We still have not succeeded in growing jobs, so we haven't had success, but we've had great progress. Let me tell you how much progress. Remember I told you that you lost, in the last 3 months under your economic program, 2.019 million jobs. The last quarter we lost 208,000 jobs, a quarter, 3 months. That's way too many jobs. We want to be creating, as the Clinton administration did, on average 220,000-plus jobs per month; 22 million in total over 8 years.

So I tell my friend that when the gentleman says we haven't had progress on this, those figures, in my view, belie that assertion. In fact, we made progress. Not only that, the stock market is up 60 percent. It's had a couple of bad days. It's up 60 percent since we adopted the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It had a minus growth under your economic policies during the 8 years of the Bush administration, minus to the extent it decreased in value so that the investment I had in 2001 was about 26 percent less valuable in December of 2008. Contrast that to the Clinton administration in its 8 years. The value of your stock portfolio or investments went up 226 percent. That's a 250 percent difference.

So I tell my friend that we have taken very substantial action. We're going to take more action because until we get Americans back on the job, until we get America growing so that it creates the kind of jobs our people need and must have to support themselves and their family, we're not going to be satisfied.

So, yes, we passed a bill last month which you and your party voted against. We think that's unfortunate. If you have ideas, I would love to sit down with you again and discuss your ideas. Very frankly, however, some of the ideas we've discussed to date are some of the same ideas that, in my opinion, led to not such a robust job-creating economy; in fact, as I said, the worst economy we've seen in 75 years.

I yield back.

Will the gentleman yield just on your assertion that we were in control?

I thank the gentleman.

First, let me observe that the gentleman--I don't blame you at all for not wanting to look back at history. I wouldn't want to stand on that record either, but it's important to look at history so that we don't repeat the same mistakes.

The assertions that were made for the policies that you pursued of great growth and economic expansion--which did not occur. That's why I point it out, because, frankly, your proposals mirror those that have been made in the past, and the premises that you have pursued are the same that you are pursuing now.

It is instructive, I think, for the American people and for us who represent them to look at what worked and what didn't work. Your party unanimously opposed the Clinton economic policies. Mr. Armey, an economist who was your majority leader, said that they would fail miserably. In fact, they succeeded mightily. They created those 22 million jobs that I said. In fact, in the last year when there was a slowdown, they created 1.8 million jobs as opposed to losing 3.8 million jobs under the last year of the Bush administration. I think it is instructive to see what worked and what didn't.

So that is why I refer to it, not because I think that will solve our problems going forward. I agree with the gentleman. What is important is: What are we going to do now? But we would be fools, as the writer said, to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.

So I say to my friend, when he asserts that we were in charge in 2007 and 2008, he and I both know that economic policy was not changed. Why? Because the President of the United States, who had the veto pen and the votes to sustain a veto, even when we tried to give 4 million children health insurance in America, that veto was sustained. They were not given that insurance until President Obama signed the bill, which was one of our first bills.

So I say to my friend, looking back is useful only to the extent that you ensure that you do not repeat the mistakes of the past. The Clinton economic program worked and the Bush program did not.

I want to tell my friend on his points for recovery, this so-called free recovery, supply-side recovery, if you will, one of the first things you want to do is stop the deluge of rules and regulations. Very frankly, I tell my friend one of the reasons we faced such a crisis was the last administration took the referee off the field. As a result of the referee's being off the field, the players on the field went wild and did irresponsible things and, unfortunately, the taxpayers of this country, in order to prevent a great depression as opposed to a great recession, had to respond. The good news, hopefully, is that we are going to get paid back. The President has made efforts to make sure that happens. I hope, and you hope, I'm sure, that we do get paid back.

You want to block tax increases and cutting taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, as I'm sure you know, in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You want to freeze investment in items like job training, infrastructure, and education to rein in deficits and debt. You want to freeze investments in giving people new skills so they can get the jobs that are being created. We don't think that's good policy. Your program says you want to reform the unemployment system by requiring people to participate in job training. We agree with that, but you have to make sure that the job training is available to them.

Approving the free trade agreements, as the gentleman knows, I am a supporter of the free trade agreements. I don't think it would create those 250,000 jobs tomorrow or the next month or the month after, but I agree with the gentleman that that's a good policy. It's controversial policy, I say to my friend, as he well knows, on both sides of the aisle.

You want to reduce tax barriers that inhibit domestic job creation. The Recovery Act, as you know, had tax cuts for small businesses to do exactly that. Your side didn't support that.

You say address the housing crisis by giving regulators incentives to deal responsibly with banks and their borrowers; however, as I pointed out earlier, in fact, and history shows that, regulation and oversight and the referee's being on the field was a policy that the previous administration thought got in the way. Well, I think that referees that get in the way of the game are not useful, but referees that make sure that people play by the rules are essential.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I've heard that rhetoric for 24 years here, and I've certainly heard it for the last 8 years. The gentleman likes to put words in my mouth about previous administrations of what I might say or did say.

We're talking about policies that you want to replicate which have been pursued. That was my point. It remains my point. I think it's a valid point.

Did your policies work? You can argue all you want and say the Bush administration policies worked. You have not in any way said that the figures I have said on this floor, and not only today, but you've had many opportunities to look to see whether I'm accurate on those figures, are wrong. In point of fact, they did not produce what you said they were going to produce. We need to adopt policies that do produce.

The reason I compared the Clinton administration and the Bush administration is that, under the Clinton administration, you said the policies wouldn't work. I don't mean you personally. Your party said the policies wouldn't work. In fact, it's the only administration--not the Reagan administration, not the first Bush administration, certainly not the second Bush administration--that produced surpluses. After 8 years, they had a net surplus. No administration in your lifetime has had a net surplus after 8 years other than the Clinton administration under the economic policies we pursued then. not one. So from that perspective, it's not a question of failure.

I will tell you here--and again, these statistics you don't like. You'd prefer that I simply look at the problems that we're confronting now. Why are we confronting these problems? Because your economic program did not work and plunged us into the deepest recession we've had in 75 years. Now, I raise my voice only because you simply ignore that. You say that's just carping. You say, Oh, we don't want to look at what happened. We don't want to look at what our policies produced for 8 years. We want to look into the future. We do, too. What we want to do and what we have been doing, as I pointed out to you, is trying to bring this economy out of the ditch in which we found it, in which the American people feel very stressed, properly so.

So we've got to get them back the jobs. The first thing we had to do was to stop losing so many jobs. Again, I would point out, in the last 3 months of the Bush administration, we lost 2 million jobs. In the last quarter, in the last 3 months, we've lost 200,000. It's way too many, but it's one-tenth of what your policies produced or did not produce in the last 3 months of the Bush administration.

So what? you say.

Let's not repeat those mistakes. Let's invest in our future, which is what we did in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Mark Zandi says that we saved over 1 million jobs--1.6 million, I believe is what Mark Zandi says--which we would have lost had we not passed that bill. So did it work perfectly? It worked better than the policies we were pursuing, frankly, that we inherited. That was my point. I think it is a valid point. If the gentleman disagrees with my figures, I'd be glad to be corrected. I think they're accurate.

Oh, let me say one additional thing because you talked about certainty.

Well, you took back the time. I really didn't yield back, but if you don't want me to continue, I won't.

Thank you. I just wanted to say something about certainty.

I agree with you. We need certainty. We tried to give certainty in the estate tax. Your side voted against that. We tried to give certainty in tax extenders. We tried to extend the tax extenders, and your side didn't vote for that. I don't think you did either, but I agree with your premise and wanted to make that clear. That's one of the reasons we tried to pass making sure that doctors treating Medicare patients knew what they would be getting years out so that Medicare would have the stability that it needs.

I yield back.

Mr. Cantor, this is a scheduling colloquy. It has gone on for a long time, and it is a very political colloquy, more political than I was involved in with Mr. DeLay, I think. That's good rhetoric. None of those are scheduled. The gentleman knows none of them are scheduled.

The gentleman doesn't like the figures, and he harks back to the, you know, we were in charge in 2007 and 2008. He knows well what we are not talking about is blame; we are talking about what policies were in force. The gentleman says we changed the economic policies in 2007 and 2008. I'm glad to hear what policies we were able to change and that President Bush signed on to. That's the issue. The gentleman wants to avoid that issue. The question is not blame; the question is what policies worked and which policies did not.

I suggest to the gentleman that of all of the issues to which you referred in your question about the so-called ``death tax,'' the estate tax, which affects approximately half of a percent of the American estates, as the gentleman knows, and which we wanted to, frankly, increase by $2.5 million permanently from what it will be under your policies of 1 million and 55 percent January 11--it's now at zero, as you know. That was not intended to be the permanent policy, and you simply said you'd revert under the bill that you passed, not you personally. So we want to make that certainty.

So the answer is, yes, we want to make that certain. We think that $3.5 million per person is a reasonable amount and will cover all but one-tenth of 1 percent of the estates in America or thereabouts.

The other items to which you refer, which animate your party and some in my party as well, are not scheduled, as the gentleman knows. I'm not going to make assertions on what we will or will not schedule at this point in time, but I can tell you we don't have them scheduled.

Will the gentleman yield on that issue?

Does the gentleman believe that America spoke in November of 2008? Not just a State, not just Virginia, not just New Jersey, not just Massachusetts. Does the gentleman believe that America spoke in 2008 in voting overwhelmingly for the policies that this President put before to respond to the crisis that confronted our country? Frankly, none of us even at that point in time perceived how deep the crisis was.

We understand about votes. All of America voted handily for this President, who has put policies before this Congress to try to address the issues of bringing our economy back, giving Americans health care they could count on, making sure that we were energy independent.

You know, you talk about votes. This President was elected just approximately a little over a year ago to carry out the policies that he has been presenting, and notwithstanding that election, as I recall, your party has not supported his policies at all.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 26, 2010, for morning-hour debate.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and congratulate her for her leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus and her service on the Appropriations Committee, and for the focus that she brings to making sure that we do not forget those who are less fortunate than we.

We all join together in expressing our sorrow over last week's earthquake, which shattered the lives of so many of the people in Haiti, and as has been mentioned, others who were visiting Haiti. I do so fully knowing that no words we say here can rebuild a collapsed home or heal the wounds of the living or bury the dead.

At times like these, we say words fail; they fail to capture the true scope of devastation and suffering, and they fail to effect any change for the better. Nevertheless, it is still important to express the responsibility we feel to the 3 million Haitians killed, injured or displaced by this disaster, the same responsibility we hope that others would feel toward us in a time of need. That is why America is joining with the

international community, NGOs, and the United Nations to provide disaster relief and aid in rebuilding. That is why President Obama has pledged $100 million in disaster aid, and why American personnel are on the scene saving lives and aiding in the recovery.

The Los Angeles Daily News reported this week on the California firefighters whose backbreaking work gives us all something of which to be proud. I quote from that article: They were bone weary from digging through the rubble for 5 hours Sunday, losing faith fast. When the cheering began, it was like a shot of adrenalin, ``USA, USA,'' the large Haitian crowd standing in the street yelled as Los Angeles County Fire Captain Bill Monahan and his search-dog rescue team finally freed a young woman trapped under her collapsed hotel for 5 days. ``Bill said it brought him to tears,'' said Debra Tosch, who is the executive director of the Search Dog Foundation.

We know that there are stories of grief and loss to go alongside such stories of hope. We know that Haiti's crisis goes far deeper than the earthquake. But we also know that when our words fail in the face of a tragedy of this scope, it is our responsibility and our honor and our moral duty to act.

I urge the House to pass this resolution. I urge the Obama administration to give its urgent attention to coordinating and overseeing America's part in the relief effort. And then, when some degree of civility and stability has returned to that country, let us not forget that the road ahead will be long and difficult, but it is a necessary one if the Haitian people are to return to a life which will give them the kinds of opportunities and stability that we wish for ourselves.

I thank my friend for yielding.

There are times in life when you get a call and you are shocked, you are saddened, you are stunned. That was such a call for, I am sure, all of us when we learned that Paula Nowakowski had passed away.

Shakespeare said, ``She should have died hereafter. There would have been time for such a word. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.''

Paula will not see those tomorrows, and we are sad. And we share the sadness and loss that her family has experienced.

And, John, we share the loss that you have experienced. All of us who have staff know that they become family, not just staff, not just bureaucrats or somebody that we rely on to do this, that, or the other. They become alter egos, in many respects, particularly those who lead our offices. Paula Nowakowski had that relationship to John Boehner and, indeed, to others as well.

Since 1995, Paula was an important and positive part of Leader Boehner's team, and in that time she earned respect throughout the Congress for her political skill, for her work ethic and her dedication to her ideals.

I particularly remember her kindness and cooperation during the transition from a Republican majority to a Democratic one in November and December of 2006. Clearly, a difficult time for those who were moving from the majority to the minority. I have been there. I understand how it feels. It was a disappointing time for her and for Mr. Boehner, and for her party as well. However, throughout that time she maintained a professionalism, a courtesy, and a kindness that I will always remember.

Paula's premature passing reminds us all of the uncertainty of our future and the importance of today and now, and how important it is to be nice to one another, respectful of one another so that we do not lament tomorrow what we did not do today.

The absence she leaves behind reminds us that Congress is not simply an inanimate branch of government, but a living and vibrant community of public servants and, quite often, friends, a place for very talented Americans who love their country and seek to serve it well. Paula Nowakowski was such a person, such a fellow citizen, such an American. She was a valued friend of many, a loyal and effective leader of Congressman Boehner's staff, and an outstanding example of the dedication and hard work displayed by so many who serve this House and our country. Paula's absence will be felt in this community and especially in Leader Boehner's office for years and years to come.

So my thoughts are with you, Mr. Leader, at your loss. And our thoughts are with her family as well. We are pleased that they are here. They loved her.

It is important for them to know that although Paula was a partisan, as all of us for the most part are on this floor, she rose above partisanship. We rise above partisanship in our respect and love and sense of loss.

I yield back my time to the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of January 6, 2009, providing for morning-hour debate be extended for the remainder of the 111th Congress, except that House Resolution 1000 shall supplant House Resolution 10 and the date of May 17, 2010, shall be used in lieu of May 18, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if a veto message on House Joint Resolution 64 is laid before the House on this legislative day, then after the message is read and the objections of the President are spread at large upon the Journal, further consideration of the veto message and the joint resolution shall be postponed until the legislative day of Wednesday, January 13, 2010; and that on that legislative day, the House shall proceed to the constitutional question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to salute a Washington correspondent, Dave McConnell, who is a good friend of mine and who this month is marking his 45th anniversary with WTOP radio.

Since 1965, Dave has been a Washington radio institution; and since 1981, he has been reporting full time from Capitol Hill. I dare say that every one of us in this Chamber has had an opportunity to talk to our friend, David McConnell. He has reported with the insight and impartiality that typified journalism at its best.

In that time, Dave's career has been repeatedly recognized by his colleagues. His honors include, among others, the A.I.R. Lifetime Achievement Award, Maryland and Virginia AP Broadcast Journalism Reporting Awards, and induction in the Society of Professional Journalists Hall of Fame. Decades of listeners have turned to Dave for inside knowledge on how their Congress works.

Along with many other Members of Congress, I am glad to call Dave a friend. We share our home State of Maryland and an abiding love of the institution of the House of Representatives. And I trust that that love will inspire Dave's works here for many years to come. As he has often said, and I quote, ``As long as I have a seat covering the greatest show on Earth and can witness history being made, I'm going to keep reporting.''

Dave, we hope you do. You do it well. God bless you and congratulations.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

A little over a year ago, Mr. Boehner and I spoke on a bill that I said would be noted as a day of consequence in the House of Representatives. That bill was to, at the request of President Bush and Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke, give some $700 billion to the Treasury to try to stabilize the financial sector of our economy. Mr. Boehner voted for that. My friend, Mr. Blunt, voted for that. I believe Mr. Cantor voted for that. Others of you voted for that. And many on our side voted for that bill. It failed.

And we came back here a few days later, on Friday, and that bill was called up again. It was called up again because we knew that there really wasn't an option. Mr. Bernanke, President Bush's appointee as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said that we were at risk of going into a depression if we did not vote for that bill. Nobody wanted to vote for that bill on either side of the aisle. That was a bill that we ultimately concluded on that Friday, approximately half of the Republican side of the aisle, a little more than half on my side of the aisle, was a bill that we needed to pass to avoid the risk of depression.

Since that time, over the next 4 months, we saw an erosion in the economy, not a depression, but the worst recession we had seen in 8 years. Now I have a speech here that we've prepared. I'm not going to give it because it, to some degree, points the finger at one another. And I agree with Mr. Boehner. There's blame to go around. We have been concerned about cutting revenues and increasing spending during the first part of this decade. You have been concerned about the spending that we believed was necessary to make to try to create jobs and bring our economy back.

Mr. Boehner and I disagree on the impact of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Since its passage, the stock market has gone from 6,500 to 10,500.

Anybody who opens up their 401(k) or Keogh or Thrift Savings Plan believes that we've made progress on that because their value has gone up about 60 percent. That's progress, but not success. We want to get back to where it was in terms of the value of those plans.

In addition, in the last month of the Bush administration, we lost 741,000 jobs, after adopting a policy that many believed, on your side of the aisle, would lift our economy. And, in fact, it did for a while. But it did not create the kind of jobs you wanted. And, in fact, on average, over the 8 years of the Bush administration, it produced approximately 4,200 jobs per month, on average, in comparison with the 216,000 jobs, on average, per month that the Clinton administration saw during its term.

So we could point fingers, but that would not be particularly useful. I have listened to this debate, and I am chagrined. And I want to plead guilty, because I've demagogued this issue as well. We had a quote presented about the morality of incurring debt. It was taken a little out of context, but we all say things that we look back on. And I voted against increasing the debt. It was a demagoguing vote. I voted four times against raising the debt. It was a demagoguing vote. I want to admit that and tell people. Why? Because I didn't believe then, nor do I believe now, that not paying America's bills is an option that Americans expect of us. Americans expect us to pay our bills. Some Americans would like us not to incur some bills for war, but if we do incur bills for war, they would like us to pay for it. Some Americans would not like us to incur bills for nutritional programs or education or whatever else may be, too much, too little, but if we do incur those bills, Americans expect us to pay the bill.

I have a list here of everybody who spoke who was here who voted to increase the debt limit four times during the time that you were in charge of the House and of the Presidency. And we didn't support it. My suspicion is that we will find ourselves in the same place today. You all are not responsible for the running of the government or the passing of policy. We are. I understand that. And so my presumption is, perhaps, to a person, as we did on this side of the aisle, you will vote against this bill.

And so I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, the American people have given us a responsibility. The American people have reposed in us a trust. And this year, in meeting that confidence and trust, we have taken some very tough votes. One of the things I said that was quoted that was immoral, that's the quote you used, and if you take out the whole quote, which a lot of times none of us do, we take the part of the quote that we like, I said that not to pay for what we buy, and to jettison PAYGO, was not right.

One of the reasons that we find ourselves in this position is because we haven't adopted a statutory PAYGO, and we should adopt statutory PAYGO. I understand my friends on this side of the aisle are not clapping. And the reason you're not clapping is because you believe, correctly, that that will constrain you in effecting tax cuts, because you believe that cutting taxes does not create debt.

The tragedy is, during the 8 years President Bush was President and you were in charge--because we couldn't pass any economic policy past President Bush's budget veto--you incurred $2 trillion of debt as you cut revenues and increased spending at a greater rate than was increased under the Clinton administration, and you were in charge of everything. But Mr. Boehner is correct, my grandchildren and his don't care whether you did it, we did it, or we did it together.

But my colleagues on this side of the aisle, if we take seriously that oath to protect and preserve this Nation, there is no one on either side of the aisle, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, who will rationalize that America's not paying its debt is a good policy, because all of us know it is a disastrous policy and that the consequences of not passing this bill, in the stock market, globally with our creditors, and, yes, with Mom and Pop running that store in my town and your town, will be very substantial and unacceptable.

So we come, as I said on the TARP vote, to a day of consequences. Not every day is a day of consequence in this House, the people's House. We vote on suspension bills and post offices and this, that, and the other. And even the bills that we'll consider next, we'll send it to the Senate or we won't send it to the Senate, and the world will little note nor long remember, as Abraham Lincoln said. But if America and its duly elected Representatives say to the rest of the world, We will not pay our bills, that will be of consequence.

It is not about pointing fingers. It is about taking responsibility. It is about showing courage to do what all of us know. Whatever the rhetoric on this floor has been today, what all of us know is the only option for a responsible country, for a country that is perceived around the world as the wealthiest country on the face of the Earth, and for us to say this day, We will not pay our bills, that the consequences in January to the person who receives Social Security, the consequences to the Defense Department--not that they won't pay their bills. They're going to have to under the emergency clause. But the fact of the matter is, my friends, this is absolutely essential to do.

Therefore, on my side of the aisle, I ask us to do it. And don't point fingers at their side if they don't do it, because we didn't do it. And very frankly, my friends, we have to stop that. We have to stop it for whoever is in charge, because Americans expect better of us.

I ask you, therefore, as we consider this, we ought to vote on it not because we agreed with policy A or policy B or tax cut Y or tax increase Z, but because we know--and I tell my young friend who spoke on the floor about fiscal responsibility who is here for the first time--as we debate these issues on spending and cutting, that they are legitimate to debate, discuss, and vote however one believes is necessary.

But in the final analysis, when the roll is called as to whether America will be a responsible debtor, whether we incurred that debt as a result of decreasing taxes, which we did, or increased spending, which we have, it matters not. What matters is that America pays its bills. Vote for this bill.

I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for her leadership as well.

Madam Speaker, every Member of this Chamber understands the deep danger inherent in a nuclear Iran. That danger includes a new nuclear arms race as Iran's regional rivals scramble to build competing arsenals, plunging the Middle East into an ever-greater instability and the world into a new era of proliferation.

The danger includes as well a ``nuclear umbrella'' for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations who may take any advantage of their state sponsor's protection to stage more brazen and deadly attacks on Israel, certainly, but on all the rest of us as well.

And the danger includes on a more basic level a new era of fear for all those in range of Iran's missiles, fear that could equal or surpass what we ourselves experienced during the worst days of the Cold War. And all of those consequences, Madam Speaker, 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 its neighbors and the United States of America.

In the months since last summer's election, we have seen the character of the Iranian regime more clearly than ever. We have seen it in the dissent silenced, in opposition leaders threatened and jailed, in peaceful protesters beaten and shot for the crime of demanding that their votes be counted. We have seen a regime founded on violence and on violent disregard for the opinion of its people and the opinion of the world community.

Even so, our administration has, and I think correctly, in my view, pursued a policy of engagement with Tehran. That engagement reversed years of diplomatic silence that did little to slow Iran's growing nuclear program. It showed the world our patience and our commitment to addressing the common threat through diplomacy. And it gauged Tehran's honest willingness to resolve the crisis at the negotiating table. America's policy of engagement always came with a time limit, time for Tehran to negotiate in good faith or, as so many Members have said on this floor today, to show that it was only using talks as a cover for continuing enrichment of uranium.

Sadly, time is running short and there is still no diplomatic agreement. The enrichment continues and the threat grows. The past months have brought revelations of secret Iranian facilities, a lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a refusal to comply with Security Council demands to suspend enrichment.

Just today The Washington Post reported that ``Iran has learned how to make virtually every bolt and switch in a nuclear weapon, according to assessments by U.N. nuclear officials, as well as Western and Middle Eastern intelligence analysts and weapons experts.'' That language is in the paper today. That is why this is the right time to bring strong economic pressure to bear on the Iranian regime.

None of us want military conflict. Economic sanctions are not as effective as we would like them to be. But we just recently heard from a leader, the Chancellor of Germany, that a nuclear armed Iran was unacceptable. Angela Merkel spoke from this rostrum. This is not only a perception of the United States; it's a perception also of those who live in Europe, even more proximate to the nuclear threat that would be caused by Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

The bill was designed by Chairman Berman and his committee to target Iran's economy at one of its weakest points by penalizing companies that help Iran import or produce refined petroleum products. Even though it is an oil producer, Iran imports a great deal of the refined petroleum that powers its economy.

So these sanctions that are proposed will increase the high cost of Iran's self-imposed isolation from the international community. They are also a proportional response because they're exclusively tied to Iran's nuclear program. We should never take sanctions like these lightly.

Even as we stand with the protesters facing down repression at the hands of their own government, we understand that these sanctions will affect the lives of many ordinary Iranians for the worse. But we know that economic pressure has worked before to alter the behavior of outlaw regimes, especially when such pressure is widely supported by the international community, as certainly we must hope these sanctions are. We know that these sanctions are our best tool against the nuclear proliferation that risks the security of millions in the Middle East. And let me say that we have 250,000 or more Americans within range of Iranian missiles.

We know that Tehran can choose at any point to negotiate in good faith, abandon its aggressive nuclear pursuit, and rejoin the community of nations. We shouldn't hope for a change of heart from that regime, but we can hope for a change of behavior: a cold understanding that as long as Iran builds the capacity to catastrophically attack its neighbors, its economy will suffer deeply. These sanctions have the power to force that choice.

I therefore urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. It is time. It is time to do more than talk. We are willing to talk. We want to talk. But talk without action is not acceptable. Let us pass this resolution, support the administration in moving ahead with the international community on imposing sanctions that will make not only the Middle East but the international community safer.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I want to, first of all, thank Mr. Minnick. Mr. Minnick is an extraordinarily able Member of this body, and he represents his district and our country well as a Member of the Congress of the United States.

This amendment, I think, has brought up an important discussion on the perspectives that we all have. I am one of those who believes that previous administrations had two very deep failures:

One was fiscal irresponsibility. We did not pay for what we bought, even at times when we said the economy was in good shape. We continued to borrow at record rates, taking a $5.6 trillion surplus and turning it into a $10 trillion deficit.

The other major failure, I think, of the previous administration was regulatory neglect. It had the power, as

Chairman Frank has just pointed out, in a 1994 bill, to intervene, to try to put a check on two things--number one, on subprime lending. It did not. Mr. Greenspan testified just a couple of years ago that he thought that it was a mistake. He thought people would not take risks beyond that which were appropriate, and therefore, did not step in to regulate the subprime market. As a result, we confronted crisis.

The second big bipartisan mistake was with the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress. The Clinton administration was, obviously, led by President Clinton and Phil Gramm in the Senate. They said, We don't need to look at the derivatives market. The derivatives market will take care of itself. The head of the CFTC advised heavily and tried on her own authority, because she had the authority, to regulate the derivatives market.

The Congress stepped in, and I think I probably voted for the bill. It was an extraordinary mistake on my part. Phil Gramm led the effort which said, No, we don't need to impede this robust market that was apparently making all of us so much money.

Now, Mr. Frank advises me--and I, frankly, am not an expert on it-- that most of the employees of which we are talking are going to be transferred employees, not new employees.

On regulatory neglect, I think the administration did this: They said, essentially, The free market left to its own devices will grow the economy and will create jobs, and we ought not to impede that growth and that expansion. As a result of taking the referee off the field, all the little guys got trampled on. That's not unusual. I guarantee you, if you take the referee off the football field, the split end is going to leave a second before the ball is hiked, not because the split end is a bad person but because the split end is in a competitive field and wants to take an advantage. We don't have to cast aspersions here, but people want to take advantage.

The philosophy of the Bush administration was: Don't get in the way. Regulation is bad. It undermines business. It undermines growth. Your no-cost-jobs program at its heart says, Get out of the way. Reduce regulation. We have a real difference on this issue.

Franklin Roosevelt came in and said, The reason we had a stock market crash is because there were no referees. Under his leadership, we created a lot of referees. Very frankly, for 60 or 70 years, they kept this country pretty much on track, but we got way off track. My friends, when you wring your hands about the cost of this referee, which is called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency--and I don't accept the costs that you use, but let's say there is a significant cost. Let's say it's a couple of billion dollars. You say it's $4 billion. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it's a couple of billion dollars.

It pales into insignificance in the $1.5 trillion that we have borrowed to get this country out of the deep, deep, deep hole caused by the failure to regulate properly. And it wasn't the rich guys on Wall Street that paid that price; it was every one of our taxpayers that paid that price.

So when you talk about cost, the cost of doing nothing, the cost of not having a referee on the field, skews the game so badly that the little guys, the guys who sent us here, the guys who asked us to protect them from those over which they have no power to protect, they said, Protect us.

That is what this debate is about. The administration has sent down and said, Look, the SEC has its responsibility, the FDIC has its responsibility, CFTC has its responsibility, all have responsibility to make sure that our economy can grow, that trading markets can be open, honest, transparent and fair.

They look to the people who are in those markets. Most of the people are not in those markets. They are our people, the little people, the average guy who goes to work, works hard, who tries to pay his mortgage, keep his family fed and clothed and his kids educated.

He doesn't know about what all these guys are doing in the derivatives market. Nobody knew what was going on. The people who were investing in the derivatives market didn't know what was going on. There was no oversight.

Madam Chair, the distinguished lady from Prince George's County, Maryland; Montgomery County, Donna Edwards, as we know, one of the central causes of our economic crisis, as I have said, was abusive consumer lending, signing Americans up for loans that they had no way of paying back. Nobody said, Time out; you're offsides; penalty. Nobody said that.

Why? Because if we did that, that would impede business. That would undermine the growth of this free market economy. That's why we have antitrust laws, so that we don't have some big guy ultimately take it all, because they can underprice and shove out. We saw that with, frankly, our friends in Microsoft who did an extraordinary job in building our economy, but at some point in time said, Time out, you've got to have competitors in this business.

For years, that practice went ignored by Washington regulators. And for a financial sector that placed massive bets on subprime mortgages, the results were eventually and tragically, for our people, catastrophic. The same abusive practices are at work in payday lending, in money transfers, and in many credit card policies, as Chairman Frank has so ably pointed out.

In each case, Americans can wind up trapped in debt. While we do expect responsibility from anyone taking out a loan, we also must ensure that those loans are fair, transparent and written in plain language.

I'm a Georgetown lawyer. I think I'm reasonably bright. I've gone to real estate settlements and we have all gotten these forms and disclosures. I bet there is nobody here who has gone to a settlement who has read all those papers. Period. I think they are way too much paper, because I don't think, even if they read it they would understand it. Very frankly, if they read it, understood it and didn't like paragraph 5, called up their lender and said, I don't like paragraph 5, the lender would say, That's fine, you don't get the money. You sign it or else.

They're counting on us. This is a time when they are counting on us. This is a time when we can respond. That is exactly what the Consumer Financial Protection Agency would do. That is its purpose, to protect them.

I understand there are concerns about it, and I congratulate Mr. Minnick for raising this issue and I appreciate his perspective. I simply disagree. It would take up the oversight responsibility that I think has been abandoned. It would safeguard consumers from exploitation and it would protect our economy from another collapse.

On the face of it, abandoning the CFPA and replacing it with a Consumer Financial Protection Council sounds like a superficial change, but in my opinion it is a very clear substantive change and not one that I would support. The council would be made up of 12 existing regulators who have already demonstrated, not the individuals, but the institutions, that they did not step up to the plate and say, you're offside; there's a penalty.

Rather than concentrating a wide range of oversight functions in a single body as a CFPA would do, the council would be an unwieldy and slow-moving bureaucracy. We talk about bureaucracy, we want somebody to focus and have a singular responsibility of making sure people don't get offsides so the little guys get hurt. It would not enhance, in my opinion, national consumer protection laws. It would undo this bill's expanded protections over the abusive practices that endanger the economic security of millions. Those abusive practices did lasting damage to Americans' lives, and we cannot let them down by watering down this bill.

I want to congratulate Chairman Frank. I want to congratulate the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. This, I think, is a critical decision that we will make. Americans sent us here to, in effect, be their referee, to call time out, to say we want to make sure the game is fair. We want to make sure that the little guy doesn't get hurt, with all due respect to my friend, who I think does an extraordinary job. On this we disagree.

I ask the Members of this House to reject the Minnick amendment.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we here like to refer to ourselves as the House of the people, the ``People's House'' as Bill Natcher used to refer to it. We exercise what our Founding Fathers set up as a free democracy, where the people can speak through freely elected Representatives. And very frankly, we are that because we have brave men and women who are willing to serve us in the Armed Forces of the United States.

From time to time, they have an opportunity to visit with us. It is not, under the rules, appropriate to directly address people who are in our gallery, but it is always in order to pay honor to those who serve us and serve us so well.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a joint resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.