Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the efforts of two individuals who have been key in the success of St. Mary's College of Maryland. Unfortunately, both of them have chosen to move on to new challenges and will be leaving this summer, so I wanted to reflect on the incredible contributions they have both made to the College.

Jane Margaret O'Brien leaves as the president of St. Mary's College of Maryland, having served in that capacity since 1996. Maggie is a personal friend and I want to salute her years of leadership as President, along with Torre Meringolo, who has served during much of that time as Vice President for Development. Together, they brought to St. Mary's College a strong reputation for excellence in scholarship, research, and community engagement.

Dr. O'Brien received her bachelor's degree from Vassar College in 1975 with a major in biochemistry. She completed a Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Delaware in 1981. In her early academic career she was a member of the chemistry and biochemistry department at Middlebury College where she also served as dean of the faculty. She was president of Hollins University from 1991-96.

Dr. O'Brien received a Kellogg National Leadership Fellowship from 1989-92, served as an International Fellow with the American Association of Colleges and Universities in 1990-91, and was an Eisenhower Fellow to Malaysia and Hungary in 1999. She is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the science honors society Sigma Xi. After stepping down as president, Dr. O'Brien will continue to work for the College with the Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies in Oxford, England.

Dr. O'Brien assumed her post in July 1996 and dedicated herself and the College to the newly adopted Honors College Curriculum. She provided critical guidance to the College's external relations and fundraising, which included the $40 million Heritage Campaign in support of the faculty's academic leadership, the extension of the residential college, and the enhancement of community programs. Fundraising during Dr. O'Brien's tenure reshaped the College's scholarships, professorships, lecture and learning series, and arts, athletic, and community programs. External support made possible the Paul H. Nitze Scholars Program, the annual River Concert Series, over 40 new scholarships, nine endowed professorships and chairs, and many student and faculty awards presented at the annual Awards Convocation.

The Center for the Study of Democracy was established with a $2 million NEH grant and challenge matches. Private funds now support the William Donald Schaefer Internships, the Ben Bradlee Lectures, the Andrew Goodpaster Lecture Series and the Patuxent Defense Forum.

In honoring the successful accomplishments at St. Mary's College under Maggie's leadership, we should also recognize the accomplishments of Torre Meringolo, who has been instrumental in carrying out much of Maggie's vision for the College. Torre also leaves this month after serving most of his 15 years at St. Mary's College as the Vice President for Development. He has accepted the position of vice president for university advancement and external relations at the University of Mary Washington.

Torre leaves a proud record of accomplishment at St. Mary's. Hired originally as director of the library and information services, he directed a comprehensive modernization effort that encompassed library partnerships with the University of Maryland System, raised $2 million for library endowment, and provided the foundation for a contemporary IT system. Torre's previous employment at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Penn State University, and UNC Charlotte brought a strong knowledge of information systems to St. Mary's, which he deftly adapted for a smaller-scale campus with modest resources.

In concert with Trustee Terry Rubenstein, chair of the board's development committee, Torre led a professional development team that successfully completed a $40.4 million campaign. During his time, endowment funds at the College grew to over $24 million. Torre worked to create a modern, professionally run Foundation, which granted over $16 million for the College's programs over the past 10 years. His passion for supporting students with financial needs made possible the graduation of many alumni.

Under Torre's leadership, the Alumni Office now serves 11,000 proud alumni with regular events and mailings to keep alumni involved and informed. His work has led to the creation of major campus events such as Reunion Weekend, Governor's Cup, Madrigals, and now the River Concert Series on the Townhouse Greens, all successful programs that bring thousands of alumni and friends to the College annually.

As Maggie O'Brien and Torre Meringolo depart, St. Mary's College is today a nationally recognized leader. Newsweek has called it ``an Ivy- level College with a public-school price tag.'' It is now consistently ranked as one of the best liberal arts schools in the nation by U.S. News and World Report, and the Princeton Review named it a ``best value college'' this year.

I want to congratulate Maggie and Torre for their contributions to higher education. Their accomplishments at St. Mary's College of Maryland have greatly benefitted their community and our State of Maryland. Both of them will be sorely missed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mark this day, June 26, 2009. My colleagues, we have an opportunity to serve in a historic session of the Congress of the United States. We have an opportunity to take action that will make a major difference in the security and independence and environment of our globe as well as our country.

We have been given the privilege by our fellow citizens to serve at a time of historic change and meeting challenges that were the subject of this past Presidential campaign. And in this past Presidential campaign there were three major candidates. You could perhaps name more, but there were two, certainly, at the end.

And the campaign of Senator McCain and Senator Obama had something in common. They were both for comprehensive cap-and-trade legislation, the candidate you supported and the candidate I supported. They put an agenda of action before the American people that they would pursue if they were elected President of the United States. Only one could be elected, but presumably both would have followed through on their commitment, as this President has, and we are today.

This is a transformative moment. This is a moment to build a clean- energy future for our country. This is a moment to create jobs in America. This is a moment to take on, at long last, a defining challenge of our time--global warming. I know my colleagues can seize this moment, if they only will.

The substitute talks about a Manhattan Project. I think the sentiments expressed in the substitute are good ones. The objectives are good ones. But Americans voted for action, not additional studies. America voted to make a difference, not to make a point. America voted for the change we could believe in. That's what this bill represents.

I know they can look back from a future in which America is independent of foreign oil. There has been much talk about taxes. Tragically, almost every debate we have on this floor devolves into: We're going to raise your taxes.

My fellow Americans know about having their expenses raised and because the foreign potentates who hold us hostage because they provide so much of our energy gave us a new tax at the gas pump--and every American remembers it. Why? Because we have not taken the action necessary to become energy independent.

And so our gasoline prices at the pump for my commuters who drive sometimes an hour or an hour and a half to get to work to support their families paid an additional $2.50 per gallon tax imposed by those from abroad who provide us energy.

This bill is about making sure that foreign interests cannot raise the expenses of our families. This bill is about making sure that we in America provide our energy, efficient energy, clean energy, energy that will not bring our globe to a heating process that will drown out what the Navy calls the littorals, the seashores, where most of our people live.

My colleagues, this bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, is a true turning point. This is one of the historic actions we will take not just in this Congress, but as Members of Congress, for however long a tenure we may have.

It's a complex bill because we face a complex problem. But we can sum up its outcome simply: new American jobs, less dependence on foreign energy, a reduction in the carbon pollution that causes global warming.

How does this bill accomplish those goals? Among its most important provisions are a requirement that utilities meet 20 percent of electric demand through renewable sources and energy efficiency by 2020.

I'm old enough to remember the lines of the seventies when you waited in line an hour or two or three to put gasoline in your car so you could get your child to school, get to work, pick up your child from child care. America should have acted, but we did not. Today, we're going to act.

Significant new investments in renewables, carbon capture and sequestration, electric vehicles, and cutting-edge energy research, all of that is in this bill to take action, change that America can believe in. And energy savings standards for buildings, appliances, and industries.

This bill also creates a clean-energy bank to fund promising energy projects across America. Investment in America's ingenuity and innovative entrepreneurial spirit, that's what this bill is about. That is why it's so important to America.

It invests in high-tech transmission lines to build the essential foundation for a more efficient grid. That is essential if the energy we produced can be delivered to those who need it in businesses and in homes.

New transmission lines comprised of superconducting cable and other efficient wires will carry more power within existing rights-of-way with less land use is included. The result will be a more secure, environmentally friendly grid. That's what this bill does.

I worked with the chairman and Representative Inslee to ensure that those transmission provisions were included because they are such an important part of a more cost-effective, energy efficient future that our country needs.

Of course, the bill also includes the reduction of our carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020. Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less. But we have reached a compromise. That is the legislative process. And it is compromise that can pass this House and pass that Senate and be signed by the President and become law. And make progress. That's what our responsibility is. And then, more than an 80 per reduction by 2050.

We can fight global warming with the same kind of market-based cap- and-trade solution that was so effective in combating acid rain at minimal cost in the 1990s. Global warming threatens every one of us. There was disagreement on that for a long period of time--some 7 years in the Bush administration, until the last year, President Bush, our President, decided that, yes, global warming was in fact a challenge that must be met.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue on which we have reached consensus. Global warming threatens every one of us. It will affect the kind of lives our children will lead and the kind of prosperity our country and our world will enjoy.

To those who complain about the cost of the bill, I answer that we are all paying the cost of carbon emissions already, and certainly, as I pointed out earlier, paying the cost of being hostage to those abroad who provide our energy.

The longer we wait to act, the more we will pay year after year after year. But if we take action now, we can get jobs, growth, clean energy, and energy independence for less than the price of a postage stamp a day for each of us, according to the EPA and CBO.

And with this bill passed and signed, the United States will finally be able to argue persuasively and credibly for global action on a challenge that knows no borders. We understand that if the Chinese do not act, or the Indians don't act, the air that they belch will soon come to this continent and our children and families will be at risk.

This is a global problem. But America is the leader. America must lead. America must set the example. This bill does exactly that.

At the same time, action on global warming will send a powerful job- creating price signal to the private sector, spurring innovation in every part of the renewable energy economy. Jobs, jobs, jobs. That is one of the reasons

why the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a business coalition dedicated to fighting climate change has argued that ``the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change both nationally and globally''--and that this coming change represents an excellent opportunity for economic growth.

And that is why another coalition of 19 businesses, including the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Duke Energy, National Grid, H.P., Starbucks, and Nike wrote to President Obama that this bill ``will drive investment into cost-saving, energy saving technologies and job- creating innovation, create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy and will provide the predictability we need to plan for future business success.''

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of leaders in the corporate community in America who know something about innovation, enterprise, and free markets.

It has long been understood that acting on global warming is a moral necessity as well as an intellectual necessity. But now, more and more of us are realizing that it makes powerful economic sense as well.

Madam Speaker, let me as an aside thank you for your presiding at this time on this historic bill and for presiding over so much legislation in such a fair and effective fashion.

This House will miss your service, but the country will enjoy your continuing service. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, a future of clean energy is well worth the price. A Republican governor, inaugurated in the State of Maryland, in his inaugural address said that the cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress.

The cost of failure for the last three to four decades has cost this country. Progress will be far less expensive than failure. My children, my grandchildren and the generations to come will be either the beneficiaries of our stewardship or the victims of our neglect.

I urge my colleagues this day to reject this substitute, not because it is bad for the words that it incorporates, but because its effect would be to stop action so desperately needed by this country and this globe.

I urge my colleagues, defeat this substitute, pass this bill, and take this historic opportunity for our children, our grandchildren and generations yet unborn.

Madam Speaker, on Monday evening, as millions of Americans were making their daily commute home, tragedy struck in our Nation's Capital. The collision outside of the Fort Totten station in Northeast Washington, the worst in the 33-year history of Washington's Metro system, claimed the lives of nine people and left more than 80 injured.

Among those lost were Ana Fernandez of Hyattsville and Cameron Williams of Takoma Park from my State of Maryland. My heart and my thoughts, as I know all the Members' thoughts, are with the loved ones as well as all of those suffering the sudden loss caused by this tragedy.

Those include the family and friends of train operator, Jeanice McMillan, and passengers, Lavonda King, Mary Doolittle, Veronica Dubose, Dennis Hawkins and Ann Wherley and her husband, Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. Let me also extend my gratitude to the first responders and medical professionals whose work at the scene was so critical in preventing further tragedies.

While the cause of this accident is unknown at this time, we do know this: The safety of our citizens is our highest priority, and we must take every precaution to make sure this loss of life does not occur again.

In the very near future, I will be joining with my colleagues from the region in introducing the final measure required to authorize $3 billion in dedicated Federal and local funding for Metro. Millions and millions of tourists from throughout this Nation ride on this system as well as tens of thousands of the employees who work for this country.

We received formal notice from the Governors of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of the District of Columbia that the jurisdictions had amended the WMATA Compact to enable such funding just last week, and I hope we can move quickly to pass this legislation critical to meeting Metro's capital and maintenance needs. We don't know that that was the cause, but certainly it is a consideration.

Hundreds of thousands of people rely on Washington's Metro system every day, from the Federal employees who keep our Government running to the visitors from every corner of the country who come to our Nation's Capital. Let it be our tribute to those we mourn today to ensure America's subway is safe for all who use it.

I know my colleagues join me in expressing our sympathy and prayers to all those who were struck by tragedy the other night.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Chuck McCall as he retires from the Official Reporters, a division of the Office of the Clerk, after 33 years of service to the House of Representatives.

During his long career with the House, Chuck has been responsible for providing a broad range of technical support for the electronic systems that make the operations of this body possible. His responsibilities have included the Electronic Voting System, the House Publication System, and the daily production of the Congressional Record. He has contributed to the design, configuration, software development, installation, system testing, vendor contracting, operations, maintenance, user assistance, training, and system documentation of these valuable House systems.

Chuck came to the House in 1976 as a Courier and Production Control Specialist in the HIS Computer Center.

In 1977, he became a Computer Operator tasked with supporting the Electronic Voting System, the Member Correspondence System, and the House Publication System.

In 1980, Chuck was named a Computer Programmer and his projects included the House Legislative Information System, the House Committee Meeting Scheduling System, and the Legislative Database System.

In 1984, he was named Senior Systems Specialist for the Electronic Voting System and the House Publication and Communications System.

Chuck joined the Office of the Clerk in 1989 as an Operations Supervisor and, in addition to his EVS responsibilities, became involved in the House Document Management System and the House Floor Audio System. He was named Technical Manager in 1996.

It was in 1999 that Chuck assumed his present position with the Office of Official Reporters as System Analyst. In that role, he has been responsible for the daily transmission of the Congressional Record to the Government Printing Office each evening, often working into the wee hours of the morning to ensure timely publication of the Record. It only seems appropriate that we honor his service in that Record today.

After dedicated service to this House for 33 years, we wish Chuck the very best as he now has the opportunity to spend more time with his wife, Mary, and his beautiful daughter, Kathleen. He will retire to his home near the Chesapeake Bay and will enjoy fishing, boating, camping and, we hope, strumming his guitar.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

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

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider H.R. 2892, the 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act. We will also consider the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The two appropriations bills are two of the 12 appropriation bills that it is my intention to see us send to the Senate by the end of next month. Obviously, as the gentleman knows, the fiscal year ends on September 30; therefore, in order for us to get these bills completed and do them individually rather than bundled in an omnibus, which I think is a far preferable process, it's necessary for us to move these bills in a timely fashion. The rules, therefore, will try to accommodate both the Members and the time frame and the time constraints that we confront.

I would say to the gentleman that we tried to reach, over the last 2\1/2\ months, some agreement on time constraints. Indeed, I offered to have a choice of amendments by your side after we reached a time agreement. We were, as the gentleman knows, unable to reach such agreement. In fact, I was told by your leadership that no such agreement was possible.

In 2004, on the bill that we did yesterday, when the majority was then your side of the aisle there were 16 amendments in total offered to the bill we did yesterday, 10 by Republicans--of course it was your bill and you were in charge--and six amendments offered by Democrats. We asked for preprinting of amendments so we would have some idea of what amendments would be pending, and your side filed 102 amendments. That is more amendments total than were filed by either party in 2004, 2005 and 2006, so it was clear that if we had had a rule that provided for the 5-minute rule, with 434 Members having the right to 5 minutes on each amendment, that it would have been impossible to finish that bill, much less 12 bills, by the end of July, very frankly, so that ultimately we had to do a structured rule to accommodate doing the people's business in a timely fashion.

I'm sorry that we couldn't reach agreement. There have been no further discussions, although I did talk to Mr. Cantor, who is not here today--or at least not here this afternoon--I did talk to him on a number of occasions about this as recently as the night that we went to the Rules Committee to get the structured rule. I have not heard from him or from Mr. Boehner with respect to any option available to us for time constraints.

In fact, Mr. Obey, as you know, had a colloquy with Mr. Lewis on the floor on the rule that was essentially an open rule. And the colloquy essentially asked by Mr. Obey, Can we reach time agreements? And Mr. Lewis responded, I'm afraid my conference might very well have a revolution on its hands and you might have a new ranking member, in which he indicated that time constraints were not possible. Therefore, I say to my friend from California that we are considering a rule which, as I said, will allow us to consider amendments on substance, but allow us to do so in a time frame that may well be shorter than has been the case in the past.

Let me say to you that when we last considered the Commerce-Justice- Science bill in 2006 when your side was in charge, you got a unanimous agreement from Mr. Obey on time constraints. Those time constraints provided for consideration of approximately 17 hours on the bill.

In 2007, we got--not time constraints, but about the same amount of time. Now, unfortunately, after we thought in 2007 we were going to have agreement to do about the same time that we gave to you when you were in the majority, notwithstanding that, we went 50 hours over. Now, 50 hours, in terms of legislative time, is at least 2 weeks of time, unless of course you have a day like yesterday. But in terms of a normal day, that's 2 weeks. We simply cannot complete and do our business in that context.

So I tell my friend that we are considering a structured rule because we believe that if we are going to get our work done, that's necessary. We believe it has been amply shown--amply shown--in 2007, and because we were unable to reach, over 2\1/2\ months, an agreement on time constraints, that the only way you are going to allow us to get our work done is if we limit the time frame in which we can act.

I'm sorry. Would you repeat the question.

I know what I talked about, but at the end you asked a question, and I'm not sure I got exactly what the question was.

Let me respond to the gentleman's observation with respect to starting the bill without agreements on time. We did that in 2007. We went 50 hours over what we agreed to in time constraints the year before when you were in the majority. My belief is, and I tell my friend this very sincerely, and I think my friend knows my reputation about working across the aisle and working in an honest, open fashion, is that the agreement was that we would do exactly, not to the minute, but within the framework of the agreement that we gave to you to consider the bills that you brought to the floor in 2006. We expected the same consideration. Notwithstanding that, notwithstanding that, we went 50 hours over what I thought the agreement was.

Now, 50 hours, as I told the gentleman, is 2 weeks. And 2 weeks is a long time in terms of the weeks we have available to do our bills. In fact, at this current time, we have approximately 7 weeks left to complete the appropriations process, House, Senate,

and sending it to the President, if we do it in a timely fashion. Now, usually we do not do that, and I think that's unfortunate. Both sides don't do that. But I'm very hopeful that we will do it.

Let me make one additional comment. You mentioned the AIG bonuses. Clearly, the AIG bonuses weren't in that bill to which you referred. That bill, of course, came from the administration of your party and the Secretary of the Treasury from your party. And as you know, when they originally submitted the bill, it was a 3-page bill for $700 billion.

Now, the gentleman is correct that we didn't have appropriate constraints in there to preclude AIG's doing that, but they certainly weren't in the bill. And to represent that as the case, I'm sure the gentleman did not mean to imply that they were in the bill. They clearly were not.

So I say to my friend we've had experience on this. It's not as if you would like to believe or represent that we have a clean slate, that we're coming at this just brand new, clean, and everybody wants to be fair and balanced. The fact of the matter is that did not occur in the last year. Unfortunately, we didn't do the appropriations process very well last year. Both parties point the finger at each other for the blame. Irrespective of whom was to blame last year, we didn't do it. I don't like that. I want to see the regular process pursued, and I intend to provide for timeframes in which to do that. And as I say, for 2\1/2\ months I pursued an effort to see if we could reach time agreements, as we gave to you in 2006. We have been unable to do that. I think that's unfortunate. But having failed to do that, I, frankly, want to tell the gentleman that I will not advise Mr. Obey nor the Rules Committee nor the Speaker to proceed for an hour or 2 hours or 5 hours or 10 hours before we get an agreement on time constraints, which was the practice, frankly, in 2007, and I don't intend to go down that road again.

Would my friend yield on that point?

For what purpose was the 48 hours asked for?

For what purpose was the 48 hours asked for?

Will the gentleman yield again?

Isn't that what preprinting of amendments attempts to do? I yield back.

I thank my friend for yielding because that's a good question. That's exactly what I offered your leadership.

No. I offered it to your leadership. I didn't mention a particular number, but I offered that to your leadership for over 2\1/ 2\ months. Your leadership concluded that they could not make or would not make such an agreement. I tell my friend that it's difficult to put a number on the amendments because, as the gentleman says and as I told you, we asked for six amendments. We offered six amendments in 2004 to that bill that was considered yesterday, six. Now you may say you would have winnowed 102 down to a lesser number. I don't know what the lesser number would have been, whether it would have been 70 or whether it would have been 50 or whether it would have been 40. But as you know, without a structured rule, with 5 minutes for each Member of the House to speak, you can do the math. Five times 400, obviously, is 2,000 minutes. Divide that by 60, you have a lot of days to consider that bill.

I think the gentleman is probably correct, it would not have been 102 amendments, but I don't know what number there would have been, and it's impossible to put a number on it unless we know how many amendments are requested. If as was the case in 2004 and we only asked for six, giving us 10 would not have seemed to make much sense. On the other hand, if we asked for 20, maybe a higher number certainly would be in order.

So I say to my friend, we will have to see how many amendments are sought, but we are not going to go down the road we went down in 2007. And I say to the gentleman, in my opinion, the problem with his party is they're hoisted on the petard of their performance in 2007 in trying to argue that somehow we don't have reason to be concerned by filibuster by debate. Yesterday was filibuster by vote, and we wasted a lot of time yesterday, unfortunately. Many hearings were cancelled on health, on safety, on statutory PAYGO and other matters that we couldn't have hearings on because we were voting four times on an issue with essentially the same result each time.

The energy independence and climate bill to which the gentleman refers, as you know, was

marked up in committee and passed out of committee prior to the May break. Since that time, there have been a lot of discussions, and the Speaker did, in fact, say that committees with concurrent jurisdiction ought to act by the 19th, today, to try to bring this matter to conclusion. As the gentleman knows, I did not announce that bill for next week. I don't want to say it's not possible, but I have, for the last 3 months, been telling people, particularly the press that asked me the schedule, that I thought the energy independence and climate bill would be on the floor either the last week in June or the first week we get back in July. So that was the timeframe from my expectations. At this point in time, I have no reason to believe that it's going to be on the floor next week, but I want to make it clear to the Members that work is being done as we speak on this bill. The Agriculture Committee and Ways and Means in particular are working on this bill. We believe this is a very critical and important bill. This is one of the President's priorities. So I say to the gentleman that I have not announced it on the schedule. My present expectation is that it will not be on for next week, but if agreement was reached today or tomorrow and it was possible to move forward, it is possible. And if we have the time to do that, it is possible that we would consider it next week.

I think that, obviously, is going to be up to the Speaker and committee Chairs as they discuss this. But I think, again, we deal with time constraints, and we want to do things right. But we know that if you simply do not set targets to get things done, the legislative process, which I have been at for over 40 years, sometimes can delay, and you don't get things done. So you set target dates to get things done, and this is what she has done. I don't think it's so much a question of losing jurisdiction as it is a sense of trying to get something done by a date so that you can then move on to final passage on the floor of the House.

I appreciate the gentleman's question. I think many of us share the view that the present action was well advised as it relates to the safety and security of our troops. On June 11, as the gentleman may know, just a few days ago, the President wrote to the Chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and said as follows:

``I deeply appreciate all you have done to help in the efforts to secure funding for the troops. I assure you that I will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy available to me to ensure that DOD and detainee photographs are not released.''

In light of that--and of course, the court has put a stay on the release, as I'm sure the gentleman knows. So there is no present intention by the administration to release these photos. So while the Senate acted yesterday, obviously there's no need for us to act immediately on this. I am sure that the committee will consider it in due course.

I think we could do a lot of things next week.

Well, I didn't say that we would do that next week. You asked me, could we. We could.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'm not sure what quote and who was instructed not to speak to Republicans because I have had a number of discussions with my good friend Roy Blunt. So I didn't follow that direction, I haven't give that direction, and I want to make it clear that from the Speaker's perspective and mine, anybody on our side of the aisle who wants to sit down with anybody on your side of the aisle at any time to discuss health care issues, either in committee or in subcommittee, they are more than free to do so; and I would encourage them to do so. In fact, as I think the gentleman may know, all of the three committee Chairs of Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor and Ways and Means have been sitting down with their ranking members.

Now there was a change in ranking members, as you know, on the Education and Labor Committee. Frankly, I'm not sure that you've made the change on Education and Labor. Maybe you have.

In any event, so I'm not exactly sure about Mr. Miller. But I know that Mr. Rangel has had discussions with Mr. Camp; and I know that Mr. Waxman has sought and indicates to me--and I wasn't there--but he's had discussions with his ranking member as well, Mr. Barton.

So let me assure the gentleman that we welcome bipartisan participation. I told that to Mr. Blunt. Mr. Blunt and I, I think as you know, have a history of working together successfully on behalf of legislation in this body, and I have great respect for him. He heads up your health task force. We have had discussions; and I've asked him to provide me with any suggestions that his task force has that he believes would be useful for us to discuss further; and I'm very hopeful that he will do so. As you know, we put a discussion draft on the table today for discussion. Our side has put some principles out as well. I'm hopeful. I know the President's hopeful that we can discuss those. We did have an unfortunate experience, as the gentleman recalls, when the President said he wanted to sit down and talk about the stimulus, and he was coming down to meet with your caucus, and a half- hour before he got there, your leadership instructed all of your Members to vote ``no'' on the bill before talking to the President. I thought that was unfortunate. But notwithstanding that, it's our intention to continue to try to seek bipartisan input and agreement where that can be possible.

Will the gentleman yield?

Because I know the gentleman doesn't want to mischaracterize my remarks.

I have never said we have changed our opinion. That has been our opinion expressed by our President, expressed by me and expressed by others, that we desire to work in a bipartisan mode. But the gentleman surely understands that there were, I can tell you, people on your side of the aisle who indicated to me that they wanted to vote for a number of the pieces of legislation that dealt with the stimulus; but the party pressure was so great to vote ``no'' that they didn't feel comfortable doing it. I may in private give you those names so you can check on the veracity of my representation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker. You know Bob Michel was my Speaker. You've heard my story on going up to Ray LaHood and saying, Ray--this is 1995, John--and I said to Ray, who was presiding--you know, Ray presided a lot and was an excellent presiding officer. I went up to him and told him--we had about 197 votes at that point in time. I said, you know, I'll get you 197, you get 21 and we'll elect Bob Michel the Speaker. He smiled. It probably crossed his mind that that was a worthwhile endeavor but maybe he couldn't get there.

But in any event, it's always a pleasure to be with Bob Michel and all of you; my former colleague in the Maryland delegation, Connie Morella, who is one of your officers in this organization; John Rhodes, with whom I served. John, thank you very much for the great service you gave to this country and that your father gave to this country and that you continue to give to this country. We're blessed by that. And all of you with whom I have served over the years. As a matter of fact, most of the people as I look around here, it was a great pleasure to serve with you. Marty Russo, of course, I served with him as well and that was a little more of a trial.

Marty played golf yesterday. Dennis, he's really feeling badly. He shot six under par and he didn't win. He thinks it was fixed that the former Members were not allowed to win the tournament. He said, you know, what was the worth of playing in it.

I'm very pleased to be here with you. I try to join you every year. Your ranks seem a little smaller this year than they have in years past. Maybe some folks will be coming in.

I rose on the floor about 3 or 4 weeks ago just before the Memorial break and said, Look, when we come back, we're going to be more timely in the counting of the votes. We're going to try to keep the votes down to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 minutes as opposed to, they were getting to average 25 minutes, which was, you do that over 10, 15, 20 votes over the course of a day, it really extends the day. The chairmen were having people waiting in their committees. We're struggling to get there. If I close it out--Alexis Covey-Brandt--Alexis, wave--she is now our floor director. And then sitting next to Alexis is someone I think probably all of you know, she is the granddaughter of a great American, a great Representative in this House, the former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, Catlin O'Neill, who represents the Speaker on the floor and helps manage the floor. We're pleased to be here with you.

Dennis, you were very kind about reaching out in a bipartisan way. I lament the fact that when Bob Michel was here, we had reaching out more in a bipartisan fashion because both sides I think were inclined to do so. We had more golf tournaments, Bob, and we played more and spent more time with one another. I played golf yesterday with John Boehner. I drove the cart. He rode along. He scored well. I tried to stay in the hunt. John and I talked about trying to work things in a more bipartisan fashion, but very frankly as all of you have observed, the confrontation continues in a somewhat strident tone too often in this House. That was not so early on when I came here but frankly almost every decade it has escalated and that's unfortunate.

But, on the other hand, I think Dennis is right. This may be the most productive 5 months that I've spent in the House. I don't mean that we haven't had other productive times--we have--but the agenda that we confronted as we took over at a time of crisis, with a brand new President, an historic President. 2008, an historic year. I think all of us are pleased that we were alive to watch what America did in 2008. I thought John McCain's best speech of the campaign was the night he lost. It was not only a gracious speech but it was a speech that tried to bring the country together in support of our newly elected President, and I thought it showed John McCain at his very best. Obama gave a speech that showed him at his very best. And frankly I think George Bush the next day, on Wednesday, gave a brief speech which showed him at his very best. And the three of them together showed America at its very best.

I tell people that one of the proudest days of my service in the House of Representatives and of my country was on the day that was one of my most disappointing. And that, of course, was January 20, 2001, when my side clearly thought it had won the election, had received a half a million more American votes than our opponent, George Bush, but notwithstanding that, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States had brought the election to a close. And so as we sat there on the podium, I was about 10 feet from Bill Clinton, about 15 feet from George Bush, and within minutes--and it happened in seconds as you know--within minutes, the most power in one person that exists on the face of the Earth was passed peacefully, notwithstanding the extraordinary concerns that the then-incumbent President of the United States, who had that power in his grasp--it was in his grasp-- notwithstanding that, he released it peacefully, without a shot being fired, without demonstrations in the streets on that day, and America showed the world once again that it was a nation of laws.

That was a proud day, I think, for all of us, a wrenching day for those of us who were on the losing side on that day but a proud day for our country. All of us in this Chamber have had the opportunity to serve in the people's House, the repository of that power to make the laws that govern, not of men but of laws.

And so I always take the opportunity to thank all of you. And we lament the fact that we've lost--I'm not sure how many people we've lost. John, I am sure there will be a recitation of that and a remembrance of those we've lost. But one person with whom I had the opportunity and I think most of you had the opportunity to serve, we lost. In doing so, we lost a great spirit, not just a great former Member of the Congress. I'm not going to read all of it but I remember him quoting Teddy Roosevelt on a relatively regular basis. I've got the whole quote, but I'm just going to read you a few lines of it:

``It is not the critic who counts;

not the man who points out

how the strong man stumbles,

or where the doer of deeds

could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man

who is actually in the arena.''

I choose like I choose ``all men are created equal'' to consider ``man'' in that sense generic--for human beings.

It goes on to say:

``The credit belongs to the man

who is actually in the arena.''

And then it concludes:

``Who at the best knows in the end

the triumph of high achievement,

and who at the worst, if he fails,

at least fails while daring greatly,

so that his place shall never be

with those cold and timid souls

who neither know victory nor defeat.''

All of us got in the arena. We put our egos on the line. Sometimes those egos can be severely bruised in this business internally and certainly externally. But we got in the arena because we knew that that is where you could make a difference, for the people that were your neighbors, for your family and for your country. And for that, I think Americans honor each and every one of you, and I thank you for having learned from you, been impressed by you, using in many cases you as an example of how we ought to work together.

It's easier when you get out of Congress, I think, to adopt that premise, because you then look not so much on the differences but on the similarities. Far too often as human beings we look at the differences, that which divides us, as opposed to that which brings us together, the values that we have in common.

John, before you came in, I mentioned the fact that you and I played golf together. We had a great time. We spent 4 or 5 hours riding around the course together, enjoying one another, learning from one another. John's really a student of golf. He was helping me be a little better than normally I am. But we need to learn from those experiences and learn from people like Bob Michel, who lived life in Congress teaching all of us that.

So I thank you for staying active, keeping the faith, providing ongoing examples that simply being elected is not the only way to serve. You continue to serve in so many positive roles. I know on behalf of the Speaker, I know John will speak for himself, we welcome you back to this Chamber which meant so much in your lives and to which you meant so much in your service.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.

You know, I read that and of course I hope all of you know the person I was referring to was Jack Kemp--who reflected, I think, John--I served with Jack on the Appropriations Committee for a significant period of time, and Jack always had that positive spirit, that hand reached out to include rather than to exclude. We miss Jack Kemp. He was a great servant in this House and a great servant of his party and a great servant of his country.

I rise in strong support of this legislation. Eighty percent or more of this bill is to support the young men and women, and some not so young, whom we have sent in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan to confront terrorism. We passed that bill. We passed it with 368 votes.

It then went to the Senate, and the Senate amended the bill and added additional funding for the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. That did not squeak by on some partisan vote. In fact, more than two-thirds of the Senators voting on that issue, including approximately 25 percent of the Republicans voting on that issue, voted to include the IMF. Why? Because, like Ronald Reagan, President George Bush in the 1990s, President George Bush in 2008, because they believed that the IMF itself was an important asset in the seeking of security by the United States of America.

Now, we didn't put it in that bill. But it's supported by two-thirds of the United States Senate, supported by the President of the United States, who, when he met with the G-20, pledged to play our part in trying to bring the security that this country has paid so dearly to achieve. Our share is approximately 20 percent. The other members of the G-20, 19 nations, will be putting up 80 percent. Why? Because they too believe this is enhancing the security of their countries and also what they think it does to lift up the poorest nations of the world. Not Iran, who hasn't gotten any money since 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President, the last time Iran got money from the IMF. Not Hezbollah, no discussions with them. The United States would clearly weigh in to stop such funding; properly so.

So we have a bill that seeks security and peace, and it's two-pronged now, not one. And I suggest to you that it is my belief that if it were a Republican President asking for this that this bill would pass with some 368 votes again. Why? Because Democrats would join in the Republican President's request, as we have in the past, and say this is for America's security, for international security, and we'll support it.

Now, this bill does some other things. We have a pandemic flu, swine flu, H1N1 flu, that is now at a level that the World Health Organization says is 41 years historically in the context. And the administration has said, because of that, we need additional funds for new vaccines.

We didn't have that in our bill. Clearly, there's not a Member in this House that doesn't want to take care of the health of our people. I might say, although he doesn't carry a lot of weight on your side of the aisle, that Jim Leach has strongly endorsed this effort; for the same reason, Ronald Reagan, who we honored just the other day. Just the other day we heard so many people say what a great leader Ronald Reagan was.

I'm going to quote Ronald Reagan for you, if I can find it real quickly. Ronald Reagan said this: The IMF is the linchpin of the international financial system. That's Ronald Reagan. He went on to say, I have an unbreakable commitment to increased funding for IMF. That's not a Democrat. That is a conservative leader that you revere, who led this country, and was strongly supported by this country.

And I want you to know that I supported Ronald Reagan on most of his security initiatives, as my good friend Jerry Lewis knows, because I believed that we needed to make America stronger and to tell our Soviet adversaries that we were prepared to invest in the security of our country.

I think, in doing so, they ultimately decided that they couldn't compete, and glasnost and perestroika came about.

The first President Bush said this: ``The IMF and the World Bank are at the crossroads of our cooperative efforts.''

Remember the responsibility of Speaker Gingrich when he said in 1998: ``We have an obligation to work with the International Monetary Fund.''

This is not a partisan issue, but I suggest to you it has been made a partisan reason to oppose this bill and to try to embarrass Democrats, very frankly, that we can't pass funding. We can and we will. I urge you to join us. I urge you to forget the partisan rhetoric. I urge you to think of Ronald Reagan, of George Bush, of the second George Bush, of Newt Gingrich, and of so many other Republican leaders who I won't take the time to quote, who have said that this is a critical component of our security apparatus.

We did not have it in our bill, but we all know how the legislative process works. The other body, particularly when it does so by a two- thirds vote, adds legislation. The President of the United States believes that's good legislation, and very frankly, I believe it's good legislation, and many in this House do as well. Would we have added it? We didn't, but it's here.

Do not use this addition by the United States Senate as a reason to say, ``I can't vote,'' for 80 percent of this bill supports those young men and women and, as I said, some not so young who are deployed abroad in the defense of freedom and in the furtherance of our security.

I will tell you, my friends, on numerous occasions, as most of you know who have served with me, I have put my card in the slot or have come to this well or have raised my voice on behalf of Republican Presidents who sought to further the security of this country. I am proud of those votes. I am proud of that voice. I ask you to join me today to support our troops, to support our national security, to support propping up countries that will be the repositories of economies that will further the ability of terrorists to recruit in countries that find themselves without jobs, without economic opportunity for their young people and that will have them turn and be recruited by those who would undermine their lives and would recruit them as terrorists.

So I urge each one of my colleagues: This is a vote for America, for its interests and for its troops. Do not delude yourselves that this is not a vote to support the troops. Eighty percent plus of this bill is about American servicemen and women in harm's way. Stand up for them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, I want the Members to understand the context in which we find ourselves. I have indicated--and I have had discussions with Mr. Boehner, with Mr. Cantor and with Mr. Lewis with reference to the appropriations bills--that none of us likes the omnibus appropriations bills.

In order to pass appropriations bills individually, you have to take appropriately significant time, but if you take so much time that you can't possibly get them done, then you are left at the end of the day with an omnibus appropriations bill which nobody likes.

In discussions with Mr. Boehner, with Mr. Cantor and with Mr. Lewis, Mr. Obey and I have tried to come to an agreement on time constraints. There was a discussion on the floor during the course of the rule between Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis with respect to time constraints, and at that point in time, that was not possible.

Subsequent to that, there were further discussions between Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis in which there seemed to be some progress, perhaps, that was possible. As a result, we proceeded with the preprinting requirement that, I know, some people felt was an unnecessary constraint, but it is, after all, the opportunity to give notice to Members of what amendments can be anticipated; but I know that I've discussed it on your side of the aisle, and you felt that was an imposition. We felt it was an open rule because the amendments were not specified.

Notwithstanding that disagreement, there were 127 total amendments. One amendment just now was offered by Mr. Schock, my good friend. He and I have a good relationship. We've traveled together, and I think he is a good Member. We accepted. Notwithstanding that, it took 20 minutes of debate and was going to be subject to a vote.

Now, if you multiply, say, 25 minutes--and we had a 15-minute vote. If

you multiply that by 127, you come to a pretty high number, making it impossible for us to complete, in my view, the appropriations process by the end of July. If we don't complete it by the end of July, frankly, we won't have the opportunity to conference with the Senate and, therefore, will not be able to complete the process in a timely fashion. I don't know whether that's the objective of some, but it is certainly not my objective.

As a result--I was not here--Mr. Obey felt it necessary for us to go to the Rules Committee for the purposes of constraining time. In a body of 435 people in which everybody has an opportunity to do 5 minutes and to then, perhaps, even get yielded some additional time from somebody else who takes 5 minutes, it would be impossible to complete 10 amendments, much less 127 amendments, in a time frame that we agreed to in a unanimous consent request in 2006 and in 2005.

In fact, on this bill, the average number of amendments that were offered when you were in the majority was 30, the average number. There was a high of 46. In 2004, 16 amendments were offered--10 Republicans and 6 Democrats. In other words, for your bill, you offered more amendments to your bill than we offered to your bill. We would like to proceed in a fashion that is reasonable and that provides for opportunities for amendments to be offered, but we also believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that the appropriations process is completed.

So, when Mr. Obey asked that the Committee rise, it was, at that point in time, the intention to go to the Rules Committee to provide for amendments in order, not all 127 amendments--I can't predict how many amendments. There are a lot of duplications in that--and to provide for, however, time constraints within which we can do our business. We do not think that's unreasonable, and we certainly don't think it's unfair.

I will tell you that, in 2007, we proceeded for 10 bills without time constraints. From our perspective, we thought we had an agreement that we would use the same time that we gave to you in 2006 when you were in the majority and were controlling. We gave this to Mr. Lewis. Notwithstanding that, we believe we went at least 53 hours overtime. That is 53 hours longer than the unanimous consent constraints that we gave to you when you were in the majority and we were in the minority. As you know, the last two bills were very contentious because we did, in fact, pursue them under a rule.

I want to say to the Members, particularly who are new, that, while appropriations bills have historically been open, they have historically not taken--as a matter of fact, some of the biggest bills have taken some of the shortest times--the Labor-Health bill and the Defense bill. I've served on the Appropriations Committee from 1983 until I became majority leader 2\1/2\ years ago, so I'm fairly familiar with the procedures under which we operate.

So I tell my friend, the Republican whip, that the reason for rising was to give us the opportunity to go to the Rules Committee and to provide for, as I said, time constraints in which we can effectively complete this bill.

I want to say to the Members that we did not expect to have votes. We had votes. Your side believed that we ought to have votes, so we had a vote to rise, but we have made efforts to try to reach agreement to provide a process in which we can complete the appropriations bills.

Very frankly, we think that, in years past, there have been a lot of amendments that have been offered, not for the purpose of the substance of the amendment but for the purpose of simply delaying the ability to get our work done. We've been in the minority ourselves. We understand the frustration that exists; but my responsibility as the majority leader and as the manager of this floor is to provide for the completion of our appropriations process one at a time so that we can consider them on their merits and then, hopefully, pass them individually and have them signed. It would be my hope to have them signed before the beginning of the fiscal year. That's our thought and plan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me reiterate what the gentleman knows to be the case. He and I have discussed this matter on at least three different occasions. They were, I think, friendly discussions. The gentleman indicated that he did not believe an agreement was possible on the time constraints. Mr. Boehner indicated that to me as well, so it's not as if we haven't had significant discussions about this. You also, in fairness, did indicate to me that the preprinting requirement would be something that your side would take umbrage at.

Mr. Obey, I think correctly, said both sides like notice of actions that are to be taken on the floor. In fact, when we take notice, when we do less than 24 hours, you rightfully believe that's inappropriate. I agree with you on that, and we try to do that. Sometimes we don't make it.

But the fact is that this is not as if we haven't had some discussions over at least the last 2 months about this issue. And from my perspective--I don't want to speak for Mr. Obey, who has spoken with Mr. Lewis as well--but over the last 2 months I have seen nothing that indicated to me that time constraints would be agreeable to your side of the aisle, not from you, not from Mr. Boehner, not from anybody else, not from Mr. Lewis, who on this floor just hours ago indicated that there would not be any time agreements possible.

So in that context, I am in a position where, if that's the case--and you may

well be correct that 127 wouldn't be offered, but very frankly, our experience in 2007--now, in 2008, the appropriation process was attenuated, as you know. It upset you and disappointed me that we didn't have bills. The reasons for that, obviously, dealt with mainly the Appropriations Committee fighting about energy, as you know. One can blame one another for that, but in any event, it didn't go forward. Nobody was pleased that we didn't consider the bills individually, and we ended up, as you well know, earlier this year doing an omnibus appropriation bill. We did omnibus appropriation bills frequently when you were in charge of the House, as well. Neither side liked that then or when we did it.

So I tell my friend, the intention is going to be to try to construct time frames--and we would be glad to have further discussions with you on those--which will allow for these 12 bills to be done in the time available to us between now and July 30. Because if we don't get them done, I guarantee you that when we get back in September, with 21 days left to go, we will not be able to conference these bills and get them done. That is a practical matter. For those of you who are new, I will tell you that. For those of who have been here, you understand that that's the case.

I thank my friend for yielding.

On Monday, Madam Speaker, 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 Former Members Association will have their annual meeting on the floor at 8:30 a.m. The House will then meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. And on Friday, as is unusual, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be noted by the end of the day.

In addition, we will consider a conference report on H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act on the 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act and the 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. And I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It certainly would be our intent to proceed with an open rule on the consideration of the Commerce, Justice and State bill--I guess it's Science now. The intent, of course, as the gentleman knows based upon our discussions, is that we will finish all 12 appropriation bills individually between now and the 30th of July. This will give the Senate and the House the opportunity to agree on a conference report on the 12 appropriation bills and hopefully enact those bills and send them to the President prior to the onset of the fiscal year October 1. If we do that, of course, it will be unusual, and it is an ambitious schedule. But because of that, it will be necessary for us to consider these bills in an effective, but also efficient, fashion and stay within time constraints that will allow us to accomplish those 12 bills within that time frame. I am hopeful that as Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis proceed and the subcommittee Chairs proceed, that we can agree on that occurring.

As the gentleman and I have discussed, we will see how the first bill goes, or the second or third, and hopefully they will go in that fashion. The only constraint that we want is to utilize the time so we can effect the objective of passing these bills by the August break so we will have time to finish them before the beginning of the fiscal year.

I would tell my friend that, in addition to that, there would be one, however, additional request that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has made--with which I strongly agree and that I think is fair to all the Members and to the committee Chairs and subcommittee Chairs--and that is that there will be a requirement for preprinting an amendment. There will be no selection in the CJS bill of amendments, but there will be a requirement that they be preprinted and included in the Record.

If, however, I want to assure the gentleman, there is some problem with the Record reflecting an amendment that has been prefiled but doesn't make it in the Record, we would proceed as if that had been included in the printed Record.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I have discussed this matter with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and it is his view--and I share that view, certainly--that in that instance granting a unanimous consent would be appropriate. Obviously, if the circumstances change and such an amendment were necessary, I think the gentleman will find that the chairman is inclined--and I believe the subcommittee chairman will be inclined--to give unanimous consent to achieve that objective.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We certainly hope so. The Speaker and I have both indicated, with respect to the energy bill, which seeks to not only address the conservation of our energy and making us energy independent, but also seeks to address the global warming challenge that confronts our globe, to pass that legislation in a timely fashion. It passed out of committee, as the gentleman knows, the week when we left for the Memorial Day break, so it has been pending now for at least 3 weeks.

It is our hope that we can move forward on this as early, perhaps, as the last week in June, which would be immediately before the July 4 break. Time and circumstances will dictate whether or not that is possible, but we certainly do hope to consider that in the near term.

In addition, as the gentleman undoubtedly knows, we also have under consideration the health care bill, which the President has made a very high priority and which we have made a very high priority. So that bill will also, we hope, be considered prior to the August break.

So those two bills are major pieces of legislation that we hope to consider, but I don't want to give an exact date on those because they are complicated pieces of legislation. We hope that we can reach agreement on--and we would like to reach agreement across the aisle as well--if not all facets, at least some facets of that bill. I'm sure your side has considerations that will help us perfect a bill. I think we will probably have some agreements, but, nevertheless, we hope to move forward together on both bills.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have discussed this matter with the chairmen of both committees. Certainly they will have the opportunity. Whether they will avail themselves of that opportunity I can't say at this point in time. What I mean by that is that there are clearly concerns that both committees have and have been expressed. But whether or not they're going to actually go to a markup of the bill or try to perfect it in other ways on the floor or in working with the Energy and Commerce Committee I don't think has been decided by either committee at this point in time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman recalls, we had a relatively robust discussion about this last week.

Let me, first of all, say that the principle purpose of this bill was, is, and will be on Tuesday the funding of our troops in the field, providing them with the resources necessary to complete successfully or pursue successfully the task that we've given them and to provide for their safety and well-being to the possible extent we can. So that was the intent, it is the intent, and will remain the intent.

Now, let me make a suggestion that providing for some of the poorest nations in the world to be more successful economically will not only be beneficial to our country and to the international economy generally, but also to the safety of our troops, very frankly. It is, obviously, in deep poverty and frustration from which many of the terrorists that we have seen have been recruited. To the extent we provide for the economies of these small, troubled countries, we may well be a safer world, not only economically better off, but from a security standpoint better off. So we perceive the IMF as an integral part of a process of seeking security.

I might say that the IMF, as I quoted last week, very strongly supported by Ronald Reagan, very strongly supported by both President Bushes, but particularly President Bush the First, where they said investing in the IMF was an investment in the well-being of the international community and our own country.

As you indicate, the $108 billion scores at $5 billion because it's a loan guarantee; it's not a giveaway. We believe that the IMF is a very important part of it, and in answer to your question, the IMF will, in fact, be a part--as I think the gentleman probably knows--of the conference report that will be filed perhaps later tonight.

With respect to your second question regarding--well, I guess your third question because your first was about the security of the troops--the third question of Guantanamo, let me, first of all, read a letter, a paragraph of a letter dated June 11 to Mr. Obey and Mr. Inouye, the Senate chairman of the Appropriations Committee, from President Obama.

He says, On May 13 I announced I would resist the release of additional detainee photos because I did not believe it would add any additional benefit to our understanding of what happened in the past and that the most direct consequences of releasing them would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger. Earlier today the Second Circuit granted the government's motion that will stay the earlier court order to release the detainees' photos, and we will now move forward with a petition to the Supreme Court to appeal the case.

He goes on to say, I deeply appreciate all you have done to help with the effort to secure funding for the troops, and I assure you that I will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy available to me to ensure that the DOD detainee photographs are not released. Should a legislative solution prove necessary, I am committed to working with the Congress to enact legislation that achieves the objectives we share.

With respect, lastly, Mr. Whip, to the detainees, as you know, one detainee was, in fact, transferred to the United States, to New York, for the purposes of trial. That is not unusual. As the gentleman knows, many terrorists have been tried in the New York District Court in which this trial will occur. In addition to that, four Uyghurs have been ordered released by the court because the court concluded there was no proof of terrorist activity by the Uyghurs. They've been released to Bermuda.

One Iraqi detainee, Mr. Sadkhan, was returned to Iraq. One Chadian detainee was returned to Chad. And Mr. Ghailani, to whom I have referred to earlier, has been transferred to New York City, where there is a standing indictment against him. He'll be tried for his role in the 1998 attacks in Tanzania and Kenya in which the father and brother of one of my constituents, Edith Bartley, were killed, Julian and Jay Bartley. So I, for one, am pleased that this gentleman, and I use that term loosely, unfortunately, but this individual will be tried and brought to justice.

All four Biscoe conspirators have been found guilty and are serving out sentence in the U.S. supermax prison. It has been agreed under the language, as I understand it, that has been adopted that detainees would be brought to the United States for no other purpose than prosecution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

The gentleman articulates a number of premises that I reject, I don't agree with. Nobody is putting anything on the back of the troops. The gentleman has been in this body for some period of time, and he knows that from time to time the other body adds amendments to bills and it is incumbent upon us to consider those amendments. As the gentleman knows, when we passed the bill through the House, it did not have the IMF funding in the bill. The Senate added it to the bill. It was a subject of the conference report. The President of the United States has asked for the IMF funding. We happen to agree with the President of the United States that the IMF funding is appropriate funding and does, in fact, as I will restate for the gentleman, we believe, add a security component to the troop funding that is the primary purpose of this bill.

Secondly, I reject your premise that somehow this money is going to go to people who are going to harm us. In fact, of course, as I told you last week, the last time Iran, which you mentioned, received money was when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States in 1984. There is no expectation, in my opinion, that Iran, while it may be eligible technically, is going to get any money, as it has not for the last quarter of a century.

I would reiterate what I said last week in quoting Ronald Reagan, no individual who wanted to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Very forthright in his confrontation of communism and despotism. He said, ``I have an unbreakable commitment to increase funding for the IMF.'' As I cited to you, he said that on September 7, 1983. He went on to say, ``The IMF is the linchpin of the international financial system.''

The gentleman and his side of the aisle continue, in my opinion, to misrepresent what is intended by that funding. The President of the United States, whether it was Ronald Reagan, George Bush the First, George Bush the Second, or any other President, that goes to an international meeting with 19 of the other large industrial nations in the world and they sit down together and attempt to try to bring the global economy back to vibrancy and agree that, in part, what is needed is some assistance to the poorest nations in this world who are themselves being dragged down and, in the process, adversely affecting the global markets generally agree to make a substantial commitment of loan guarantees available. As the gentleman knows, the United States has about a 20 percent vote on this, and this is about a 20 percent contribution that the President has agreed to. The other 19 nations agreed to come up with 80 percent of these dollars. All of them agreed that this is in the best interest of restoring our global economy and, I suggest to you as well, stabilizing the security situation that confronts the international community.

President Bush said--and this is the last quote I'll give. You may be tired of hearing these quotes, but your side of the aisle has been making a great hue and cry as if IMF is some specious, dangerous pursuit. This is not a bailout. This is an assistance to people to try to grow back and be positive, contributing members of the international global marketplace.

George Bush said this: ``The IMF and World Bank, given their central role in the world economy, are key to helping all of us through this situation by providing a combination of policy advice and financial assistance.'' George Bush said that on September 25, 1990, a time of economic stress internationally for the same reason that President Obama and the 19 other industrialized nations of the world agreed that this was an appropriate step to take.

I would hope the gentleman would urge his party to support this, consistent with the principles of Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Maybe one of the answers is we have less enthusiasm on this side of the aisle for interposing in cases that the court is considering. I was called back on a Sunday by your side of the aisle many years ago to do exactly that. It ended up having no effect.

There are a lot of people on my side of the aisle who believe that the objective that is being sought, which the President of the United States and, to this extent, General Odierno agrees with the Commander in Chief that these photos ought not to be released, as I pointed out to you in the paragraph that I read from the President's letter. In fact, the court has stayed the release of those pending a review by the Supreme Court of the United States. This matter is under consideration. There was general concern about obviating FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, generally as opposed to specifically. But the President has made it very clear, the Commander in Chief, and obviously General Odierno agrees with the Commander in Chief on this issue, that he is going to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that these photos are not released, to the extent that he and General Odierno both agree that the release of those pictures may, in fact, have an adverse effect on the safety of our troops. So what I simply respond to the gentleman is that the President of the United States and General Odierno are both in a agreement and the President of the United States is taking action to effect that agreement.

As the gentleman knows, there's no money in here for transferring. The $80 million that was requested was not included in the House; was not included in the Senate; it's still not included. The bill prohibits current detainees from being released in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii or D.C., as the gentleman knows. It prohibits current detainees from being transferred to the current United States, Alaska, Hawaii or D.C., except to be prosecuted and only after Congress receives a plan detailing: risks involved and a plan for mitigating such risk; cost of the transfer; legal rationale and court demands; and a copy of the notification provided to the Governor of the receiving State 14 days before a transfer with a certification by the Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk.

In addition, the bill provides current detainees cannot be transferred or released to another country unless the President submits to Congress 15 days prior to such transfer: the name of the individual and the country the individual will be transferred to; an assessment of risks posed and actions taken to mitigate such risks; and the terms of the transfer agreement with the other country, including any financial assistance.

Lastly, it requires the President to submit a report to Congress describing the disposition of each current detainee before the facility can be closed.

But let me say in the final analysis, many Republicans, including the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, adviser to a number of Republican Presidents, said on a news program almost a year ago now that he believed that Guantanamo ought to be closed; he believed it should have been closed yesterday when he was speaking. That was a year ago. The President of the United States has indicated he thinks Guantanamo ought to be closed. There is disagreement on that. I understand that. But if it's going to be closed, a plan has to be effected for the purpose of dealing with those who are at Guantanamo, and the President is working on such a plan. The Congress in both bodies made a determination until we have such plan, we're not going to take action to facilitate that. That's what I think the conference agreement sets forth, and I think it sets forth protections that can give the American people a confidence level.

Let me say something additional to the gentleman. I'm older than the gentleman. When I was a child, approximately 4 or 5 years of age, I was living in Mexia, Texas. My father, born in Denmark, served in the U.S. Army. He was in his forties and wasn't sent overseas. He was the finance officer at a POW camp in Mexia, Texas. Mexia, Texas is a town of about 7,500 people--apparently then and now. I asked somebody about it just recently. There were 4,000 Nazi troops in a POW camp in Mexia, Texas. They were kept there. They were not necessarily terrorists. We need to take special precautions.

But in the pursuance of the policies enunciated by the President of the United States when he ran for office, when he was substantially elected by the American people, he told them exactly what he thought ought to be done. He is pursuing what he said to the American people he would do. He is doing it in my opinion in a thoughtful way that will protect the American public and will bring to justice those who have committed international crimes. I think that is something that we are trying to work through.

I want to reiterate. The gentleman has now mentioned so many times that we have allowed the funding of the troops to get caught up with other issues. Surely the gentleman, I know, does not mean, because he's been here long enough to know, that when the House and the Senate and the Presidency were in the hands of his party, the funding of the troops got tied up from time to time with other issues. That's the nature of the legislative process. But I'm hopeful that the gentleman, because he's so focused on getting this money to the troops quickly, will urge all of his colleagues on Tuesday to join with us in voting to fund the troops.

Will my friend yield on that question?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

He and I are probably two of the strongest supporters in this body. Those POWs were part of a regime that killed 6 million people. I remind him,

and the gentleman doesn't need reminding of that, but these were not simply soldiers of a regime that was pursuing a war that you and I might view in a different way.

I simply want to observe, as I pointed out in the five or six points I made, particularly that current detainees cannot be transferred or released to another country without notice to us, nor can they be released here in the United States without further action. So that the gentleman's premise is, I think, not correct, that this President has the authority to, or the intent to release people at this time in the United States before or after trial.

Having said that, I would say, the gentleman continues to talk about the add-ons, but I will tell the gentleman, as the gentleman knows, over 80 percent of this bill deals with the funding and security of our troops and the prosecution of the effort to defeat terrorism. Over 80 percent of this bill. It is in that context that I would hope the gentleman would see his way clear to urging his colleagues to join with us in passing this needed legislation.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday June 16, 2009, for morning- hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I pause today to honor the memory of Stephen Tyrone Johns of Temple Hills, Maryland, who died yesterday defending the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum against an anti-Semitic gunman.

Although the gunman appears to have been a hardened denier of the Holocaust, his crime only brings home the high value of that museum of remembrance, which preserves the historical memory of a people whose communities and institutions have so often been the target of terroristic violence.

That memory is preserved, in ways large and small, by the dedication of people like Officer Johns.

In the wake of yesterday's killing, Mark Blumenthal, an on-line editor, shared the story of his wife's visit to the Holocaust Museum:

``She arrived at the end of a busy workday, in a rush, just a few minutes before closing time. Unfortunately, given the late hour, they had run out of the candles usually provided in the Hall of Remembrance for visitors to light and leave in the niches of the outer walls.

Already feeling emotional . . . she broke down sobbing. A staffer nearby immediately came to her assistance, asking if she needed help. She explained, and the gentleman asked her to wait. He soon returned with a candle, explaining with a conspiratorial wink that he kept his own special supply for such emergencies.''

In gestures as simple and kind as that, and acts as courageous as officer Johns's, we can find ways to carry on the duty of memory.

Yesterday's crime may have been intended to scare us away from the Holocaust Museum; may it fail.

May visitors return in force to bear witness to yesterday's loss and to the historical facts whose denial remains, in the words of President Obama, ``baseless . . . ignorant, and . . . hateful.''

Madam Chair, I am proud to support this bill to strengthen America's families. Strong families are the cornerstone of our Nation's future. They enhance children's well-being, improve their self-esteem, and significantly increase the odds that they will succeed in school and grow up to be good parents themselves. And study after study shows that a strong predictor of child well-being is the degree to which a parent and child bond in the first months after birth. The more constant and nurturing that bond is in the early months of life, the better off that child will be in the years to come.

One of the most important things Congress did to help parents and children strengthen that bond was to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in 1993. It was the first bill signed by President Clinton. Under its protection, eligible workers receive 12 weeks of leave every year, so that they can care for a newborn or adopted baby, or help a loved one recover from illness, or get better themselves--without the worry that, when they return, their job will be gone.

The FMLA has been an outstanding success. But it has not been enough. Because

the FMLA does not entitle anyone to receive an income while on leave, far too many people with the right to leave are unable to take it. They rush back to the workplace after giving birth, or send their sick children to school, or leave their ailing parents at home to somehow make it through the day--because there is no other option. In fact, when it comes to the failure to guarantee paid maternity leave, America stands virtually alone in the world.

It's time to realize that a right to paid leave, especially for new parents, is more than a family matter--it is a public good that means healthier families, more productive children, and, in the end, a stronger economy for all of us.

Today, we have a valuable chance to establish that right for some of our most dedicated public servants: Federal employees. Currently, the Federal Government does not provide them with paid parental leave. This bill would change that--providing four weeks of paid leave to Federal employees for the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child.

As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government has the opportunity to set a valuable and lasting example for a responsible leave policy. lt is time for America to catch up with the rest of the world, and this bill is a vital step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and at 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

This transparency issue has apparently come up again.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and at noon for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, as is usual, 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 the suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider Representative Betty Sutton's bill, the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009; H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2010 and 2011; and H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009.

We will also expect to consider a conference report on H.R. 2346, the supplemental appropriation bill. I was hoping to consider that tomorrow, but discussions between the Senate and the House have not been concluded.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As you know, the Senate added the IMF funding to the bill. It is a loan guaranty. We expect the probability that there will be no out-of- pocket money for the United States, but there is a loan guaranty to the

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman's premise is incorrect. None of us on this side think we ought to delay this bill. None of us. We believe that the troops need the funds, our President has asked for the funds, we're for passing those funds. Very frankly, in the Senate, as you know, they added a lot of extraneous matters. Some Republicans added extraneous matters that, very frankly, we're not happy about on this side of the aisle. Large sums of money which have nothing to do with the troops. They were added because those Members of the Senate, who happen to be very high-ranking Republicans, believe those matters are very important.

Furthermore, let me say to the gentleman we just honored a President that you believe was a great President of the United States. We honored him yesterday with a statue. I know you'll be interested in some quotes from that President:

``I have an unbreakable commitment to increased funding for IMF.'' Ronald Reagan, September 7, 1983.

He went on to say in that same speech, ``The IMF is the linchpin of the international financial system.''

He went on to say on July 14, ``The IMF has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign economic policy under Republican and Democratic administrations for nearly 40 years.'' That was, of course, in 1983.

I suggest to the gentleman it has continued for the 26 years after that.

And it remains, he said, a cornerstone of the foreign economic policy of this administration.

Another President on September 25, 1990, said this: George Bush, President of the United States, ``The IMF and World Bank, given their central role in the world economy, are key to helping all of us through this situation by providing a combination of policy advice and financial assistance.'' September 25, 1990,

He went on to say, ``As we seek to extend and expand growth in the world

economy, the debt problems faced by developing countries are central to the agenda of the IMF. The international community's strengthened approach to these problems has truly provided new hope for debtor nations.''

I would suggest to you, also, that 11 of the Members--which is to say approximately a little over 25 percent of the votes, Republican votes in the United States Senate--supported this legislation in this bill. So it came to us in a bipartisan fashion from the United States Senate.

Our President has indicated that the United States of America will in fact participate with the other 19 leading industrial nations of this world in trying to lift out of the mire of economic distress some countries whose distress will impact our recovery as well.

That is why I say to my friend no one, no one, no one wants to delay this bill. I would hope that we have the 368 votes that voted for this bill the first time it passed intact when it comes and be consistent with the principles enunciated by Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the 1990s.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The last time Iran got money from the United States of America was 1984. You recall who was President of the United States in 1984, I'm sure. That was the last time Iran got money from the United States-- excuse me, from the IMF.

With respect to your second observation, the gentleman knows how the IMF works. The gentleman knows the United States is involved, as are the other countries, in overseeing the distribution of IMF funds. There is no intention--and there will be no action, certainly, that the United States would support--to give any assistance.

I don't know whether they've talked to the IMF or not. The gentleman may have more information than I do.

Of course. We're all concerned about the fact that any money would go to those regimes. The fact of the matter is the IMF could have given to very bad regimes during the Reagan administration or the Bush administration. The reason the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration--and I might say, although I don't have a quote from the second Bush administration, the second Bush administration, as well, was a supporter of the IMF as the gentleman, perhaps, knows.

The fact of the matter is the United States will play a very significant role in the decisionmaking of the IMF because we're a very significant contributor. It is a red herring, from my perspective, to raise the fact that money could go somewhere. Of course money could go somewhere.

If the gentleman is going to reclaim his time--the gentleman asked me a question.

Any money that we appropriate could go any place. It could go to a bad place. We don't want it to go to a bad place. And I don't think any of the 19 other nations want it to go to Hezbollah or other organizations that might be negative in the use of those funds as far as we're concerned.

What we do want, however--and that's what Ronald Reagan was talking about, that's what George Bush was talking about, and that's what President Obama is talking about--we do want to see the international economy rebound as well because it impacts on us as we impact very severely on it. That is why the G-20 made this determination.

I yield back.

Absolutely not. Nobody has questioned the Speaker's integrity.

Absolutely not. There is no belief, I think, of anybody in this House, I hope--and I certainly do not believe that in any way the Speaker has ever, nor would she ever compromise in any way the security of our country, the security of our troops, and the security of our people, period.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I must say, I really have difficulty following the gentleman's reasoning, with all due respect. The fact of the matter is that we have oversight. I see Mr. Hoekstra on the floor. I don't know that Mr. Reyes is on the floor. But we have a mechanism for oversight of the CIA and of our intelligence units. My presumption is that intelligence oversight is, in fact, working. I certainly hope it's working. My expectation and belief is that it is working. The fact of the matter is that a number of people on both sides of the aisle have raised questions from time to time with respect to the information they have received. Vice President Cheney on television just the other day made some allegations with respect to information that he had received. The fact of the matter is that it seems to me that the gentleman somehow interprets the fact that somebody in an intelligence agency may have given wrong information--may have--that somehow the receiver of the information is the guilty party. I cannot follow that reasoning, I tell my friend from Virginia.

The gentleman's reasoning continues to somewhat confound me. The fact of the matter is, I am hopeful that the intelligence agencies are, in fact, giving accurate assessments of what they believe to be the situation as it relates to America's national security interests to the Speaker and to any others that they might brief, including myself from time to time. I expect that to be the case. I think the Speaker expects it to be the case. I'm sure that every other person being briefed expects it to be the case. I certainly hope that it is the case. But whether it is the case or not, the gentleman's logic, therefore, that the Speaker shouldn't listen I don't follow.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman continues to state his position. I continue to tell him that his reasoning confounds me; and, therefore, I find it not worthwhile to repeat it for a fourth time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I will repeat, we have a mechanism to do exactly what the gentleman suggests, finding out whether the truth has been told with respect to the briefings. Obviously there are differences of opinion. The gentleman knows that Senator Graham, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that he was not briefed on the issues in question. He is a former governor of Florida, a respected Member of the United States Senate, mentioned for the presidency of the United States, a gentleman for whom I have great respect, as I have great respect for the Speaker. There is a mechanism that is in place, that is available; and I would certainly hope, very frankly, that the committee is, in fact, pursuing the facts as they perceive them to be necessary to be disclosed.

So there is a mechanism in place. I hope that mechanism is being pursued. But it does not relate to the Speaker. The gentleman wants to focus on the Speaker, in my opinion, for partisan reasons.

I continue to be confounded. I presume and hope, and the Speaker hopes, I'm sure, and everybody who receives information from the intelligence community believes and hopes that it is accurate and is as good an assessment and as honest an assessment as can be given. Everyone hopes that. Mr. Hoekstra, who is on the floor, hopes that. Mr. Reyes, who is the chairman of the committee, hopes that. I hope it when I am briefed. I am sure you do as well when you are briefed. But if it's not, I don't hold myself culpable, you culpable, Mr. Hoekstra culpable or Mr. Reyes culpable.

So I continue to be confused that your focus is on the Speaker, not on the quality of the information.

Every time you don't like my answer, frankly, Mr. Cantor, you reclaim your time. I regret that.

No. The statements came from the CIA, apparently.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me pose to the gentleman a question:

The CIA briefs you. You believe the information that you have received is inaccurate. But on your premise if you say I believe it is inaccurate, the solution you suggest is that you no longer get briefed. That is what confounds me. That is what I think is perverse reasoning and with which I do not agree. That is my answer. I think this discussion is not bearing fruit.

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, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 2009, for morning-hour debate.