Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce may have until 11:59 p.m. on Friday, June 5, to file its report to accompany H.R. 2454.

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the appeal be laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we will not have a closing colloquy, obviously, because we are going on a break. We end what was, from the perspective of many, agree or disagree, a very productive period. As we face now this Memorial Day break, I want to thank all the Members.

I think we have done a lot of work over the last 5 months. I think it has been a very humane schedule. I hope all of you believe that, as well, that we have pretty much done it in a time frame. That is the good news.

The bad news is we are going to be moving into June and July. I want to put all of you on notice, as I have told many Members, that I expect June and July to be very busy months with much work and authorization bills coming out of committees, and I also expect for us to do the appropriation bills during the months of June and July.

The reason I rise is to say, as you know, that most Fridays in June and July, with the Fourth of July break, of course, being the exception, most Fridays will be days that my expectation is we will be doing work. This Friday was a day that we were going to work, but we won't be doing work. The supplemental is not able to be considered at this point in time.

The other thing that I wanted to rise and tell all Members is that we have gotten into a syndrome. Many of you on both sides of the aisle have talked to me about this. And I agree with you. I count myself in this, so I'm not pointing fingers at anybody exclusively. But frankly, all of us have gotten into a syndrome that when the bells ring, we watch how many have voted rather than how much time is left. That obviously is not thoughtful to those who do come here to vote within the time frame available. And very importantly, to the extent that the votes drag out, we have our committees in session with hearings that have taken a break. Chairman Frank and a number of other Members have talked to me about it. We leave secretaries of departments and other very busy and important witnesses, and all of our witnesses are treated without courtesy. That is not a good thing for any of us to do.

So I say when we come back--and we've tried this before and it's very difficult, but Members obviously don't get there on time, and some of you are going to be angry with me on both sides of the aisle, but I'm going to try to work with our presiding officers so that we keep to a much shorter period of time. We have been averaging 25, 26 minutes; and I would hope that all of us would cooperate with one another as a courtesy to each of us, our witnesses, and the work of this House.

I hope you have a wonderful Memorial Day break. Come back ready to report on time. Thank you very much.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Representative Maloney, who sponsored the House companion of this bill, and who has a tireless advocate of credit card reform.

If this recession has brought home to us one important truth, it is the danger of debt. Americans from homeowners to bankers took on risks and debts they could not afford, and the result was a crisis that touched every one of us. I don't think the lesson is one we will soon forget. But nearly as harmful are those who take advantage of our debt--and in that category, unfortunately, go many of America's credit card companies. No one doubts that credit cards have become an essential part of our consumer economy; no one doubts that millions of Americans use their credit cards responsibly every day, and pay their bills every month. But even for those responsible cardholders, credit card policies have often been incomprehensible and exploitative.

The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act takes important steps to bring those harmful policies under control, ensuring that responsible cardholders are treated fairly. Among its provisions, this bill prevents arbitrary and unfair rate increases, which, under current policies, can kick in even for cardholders who pay their balances in full. It bans exorbitant and unnecessary fees, including fees charged just for paying your bill. It prohibits card companies from charging interest on debt that is paid on time, a practice known as double-cycle billing. And it insists that card companies disclose their policies clearly and openly to cardholders, and notify them when those policies have changed.

This bill goes a long way toward removing a persistent source of unfairness in the lives of many Americans. Debt is a part of any economy--but it must be treated responsibly, and it must be guarded from exploitation. That is what this bill accomplishes, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I urge my colleagues to support this supplemental appropriations bill, and I appreciate the bipartisan support that this bill has received. It makes vital investments in the needs of our troops, responsible policy abroad and security at home.

I want to thank Chairman Obey and his staff for their hard work in putting this legislation together. The supplemental supports our troops, who are in harm's way, and honors their service when they return home. $1.2 billion for health and support programs for military families, $734 million to compensate servicemembers and veterans for every month their service was extended by stop-loss orders.

The supplemental also makes important commitments to our national security. It follows through on President Obama's commitment to remove all combat troops from Iraq by 2010, and it refocuses our attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan, which remain havens for terrorists seeking to destabilize the region and harm Americans.

American military involvement is an important part of our effort for a stable Afghanistan that no longer harbors terrorists. That effort also includes training Afghan security forces, police development work and a diplomatic surge.

Of the $5.1 billion that this supplemental dedicates to Afghanistan, $3.6 billion is intended for local security forces, a critical component of our objective; $980 million is for efforts to strengthen the economy and the rule of law; and $536 million is for civilian diplomacy. We've also come to understand, as President Obama has repeatedly stressed, that the stability of Afghanistan is intimately tied to the stability of Pakistan, which is under threat from insurgent Taliban.

I believe that this supplemental will help reduce that threat through comprehensive funding for counterinsurgency development and diplomacy programs in Pakistan.

But it is also essential that the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments hold up their end of the bargain. That is why this legislation requires the President to report to Congress by February of next year on the progress of

those governments in five key areas: The level of political consensus to the level of corruption, steps to eliminate it, success in counterinsurgency, cooperation of their intelligence service with our country, and the government's ability to control their own territory.

All of these are critical information points for us to have. This information will be essential to ensuring that our policy remains realistic and wise and we hope successful in this critical region of the world.

Finally, the supplemental makes a number of other important investments in our security. These include funding for pandemic flu preparedness and vaccine stockpiles, the importance of which have been dramatically demonstrated in the past weeks; funding to address violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, a priority I strongly support and observed the need for when I was in Mexico last month; and funding for important international food, refugee and disaster assistance.

I would comment briefly on the issue with reference to Guantanamo. First of all, this does not provide for the release of anybody from Guantanamo. Secondly, the President has widely said, We need a plan for Guantanamo, and is pursuing that. This language provides for that planning process to go forward. Thirdly, I would observe that almost none of those held at Guantanamo have used that courtroom, to which Mr. Tiahrt referred. That is to say, there hasn't been a finding in these cases. There ought to be findings. But in any event, I agree absolutely, and I think everybody on this floor agrees that anybody who is a terrorist ought not be released anywhere. We will have to decide how to resolve this issue. It's a thorny one.

I might observe that the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former national security adviser to the first President Bush, observed that he thought Guantanamo ought to be closed on national television over a year ago and he said, Today, if not yesterday.

Now having said that, this President is pursuing I think a very thoughtful effort to see how that goal can be accomplished. It's a difficult one, but we need to work with him in accomplishing that objective.

I thank the chairman for his work. I thank the Chair and ranking member, Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young, of the Defense Subcommittee for the work that they've done on this to ensure that our troops have what they need to prosecute the policies of this country and to keep our citizens and the Nation safe.

I thank the gentleman 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 House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

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

On Friday, as is our custom, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

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

In addition, we will consider H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 out of the Small Business Committee, and House amendments to S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.

I thank the gentleman for that question.

We are not sure exactly which days which bill will be considered, but I think they will probably be considered in the order that they are listed. But whether they will be Wednesday and Thursday or Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, I'm not exactly sure. The suspension bills will probably be considered most of Tuesday. I might also say, as the gentleman knows, there are a number of bills pending that may come from conference, and we will address those bills when and if they do come back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First let me say to all Members that I advise them to advise their schedulers not to schedule Fridays in June or July. We're off, obviously, for a week in July for the July 4 work period, but other than that, I would urge all Members to make sure their schedulers understand that we may well be here late into afternoons on each and every one of the Fridays. Now, why? First of all, we're going to consider the Defense Authorization bill and the State Department Authorization bills. But in addition to that, we will be considering the appropriation bills.

It is my hope and objective--and Mr. Whip, you and I have briefly talked and we are going to talk again about the scheduling of these bills--to pass all of the appropriations bills, as Senator Inouye has indicated he would like to do as well, pass all the appropriations bills, individually, through the Senate and through the House so that we might conference those bills and have them on the floor in the regular order. Those, obviously, 12 bills will take up much of those 2 months.

In addition to that, of course, the committees are considering major pieces of legislation dealing with energy independence and global warming, as well as health care. Now, we do not know whether or not they might be ready for the floor or when they might be ready for the floor, but Members ought to know that those are bills that are clearly on our radar screen to be put on the agenda when they are ready.

I think that, with respect to both those bills, obviously the Senate is discussing the Employee Free Choice Act and whether or not they are going to be moving ahead on that. We hope they will. We believe this is a very important and good piece of legislation, but we also know that there are discussions in the Senate with respect to the various provisions of that bill.

This House, as the gentleman knows, passed that bill pretty handily through the House last year, in the last Congress. So we are hopeful that the Senate will take action and the bill will be in a form that will be effected.

With respect to the Panama Canal Treaty, that has not been submitted by the administration yet, and we will have to wait to see when they will submit that bill. I do know, as you know, that Mr. Kirk has indicated that the administration has discussed the possibility of submitting that trade agreement.

There has been discussion of such a commission. I have supported such a commission. The Speaker has discussed it as well, as the gentleman correctly points out. At this point in time, however, there has been no action taken on the creation of such commission.

So at this point in time, I certainly wouldn't anticipate when and if legislation might come to the floor. I would not be surprised if committees of Congress, however, did, in fact, take cognizance of both of the issues the gentleman raises, and there might possibly be legislation from committees. The commission is under active consideration.

I certainly think that an open process would be followed.

But let me say to the gentleman, as I have said in the press, and he may have read it, much has been said about who knew what, when and where. Very frankly, my view is what the substance of this issue is what was done, why was it done, and was it done consistent with the law.

There is much opinion that it was a violation of the law and a violation of international law. That is the issue that this country needs to look at. That is the issue that this country needs to examine so that going forward, this country makes a determination as to what is lawful conduct.

In fact, of course, the former President of the United States made it very clear and enunciated, this country does not torture. The problem with that representation, as the gentleman clearly knows, is that many legal experts have indicated that, in fact, torture occurred. So from that perspective, I would tell my friend that what ought to happen is we ought to look at the substance of whether, who knew what, when, why is a distraction. That is my view, I will tell my friend. It is a beating on the table.

What we really need to do is find the facts of what was done, what was the rationale for doing it, was it legal; if it was not legal, why did we pursue it; and was it consistent with our international obligations. And as so many generals have indicated, do we want to subject our own people to such conduct when and if they may be in custody by a foreign power or terrorist?

So I say to my friend that I understand the beating on the table, if you will. But from my own personal perspective, that's not the issue on either side of the aisle, who knew what or when they knew it. What is the issue is what was done. That is my presumption of what a commission would do. I presume as well that committees of this Congress may be interested in that.

I have no idea of that. I don't have a belief of that nature because I have no basis on which to base such a belief. I certainly hope that's not the case. I don't draw that conclusion.

What I say to the gentleman, once again, is that to a degree, that is a distraction. It is not irrelevant, but it is a distraction from the central point. I will tell my friend that I think there is far too much discussion about what was said as opposed to what was done.

The truth commission I think has a responsibility--or whatever we call a commission that would look at this issue--not so much for what was done but to ensure that what we do going forward is legal, consistent with our values, consistent with our morals, and consistent, as the gentleman points out, with protecting our Nation and our people.

In my view, we have a responsibility to do all of those. In my view, we can do all of those. They are not inconsistent with one another. And that is what I think we ought to be looking at as we look at what happened so that what happens in the future--because certainly this Nation is going to be under threat now and in the future. I think it's very important. I frankly think that upholding our values is consistent with also protecting our security.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet 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, May 19, 2009, for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Twenty thousand votes is a quantifiable criteria. What, for those of you who are new, is not as quantifiable is the real measure of the man.

Twenty thousand votes, a conscientious Member. But the real measure of

Bill Young, which Americans would have observed had they been with him during each of those votes, is the decency of Bill Young, is the collegiality of Bill Young, of his inclination to reach across the aisle, reach across ideology, reach across and say, How can we do this together?

Bill Young is an example for us all of how to treat one another and how to engage in this process, though we may have differences, in a way that built a better institution, not tore it down.

That is why those 20,000 votes are deserving of so much respect, because the character with which they were cast and the character that characterize and continues to characterize the gentleman from Florida's service.

Bill Young, we are in your debt. You have served your country well, and we look forward to years of service with you, my friend. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, it is well-known by now that our economic crisis began as a foreclosure crisis. It began with homeowners across America signing up for mortgages they could not afford. And even though few of us knew it at the time, much of our financial system was riding on their ability to pay those mortgages off. When it became clear that many of them could not, the economic chain reaction affected every community in America. For a family, a foreclosure is traumatic enough-- but we have also learned from this crisis that foreclosures can have wide public consequences, as well.

Of those who applied for mortgages they could not possibly pay back, some were simply irresponsible. But many others were hardworking, responsible homeowners who fell victim to predatory lending. Unfortunately, incentives in our financial system made that predatory lending possible: unscrupulous mortgage brokers were not required to provide sufficient information to homeowners, and those who then sold the mortgages had little reason to see that they were sound.

This bill goes a long way toward correcting those flaws, protecting future homeowners, and cracking down on predatory lending. It helps consumers get full information--the information they need to decide wisely on what is one of the biggest financial commitments of their lives. It prevents lenders from steering borrowers into higher-cost loans and bans yield spread premiums and other compensatory incentives that lead brokers to push those loans on borrowers. It also establishes national standards for the protection of borrowers and ensures that those who entrap consumers in predatory loans are liable for adjusting the loan's terms and paying the borrower's costs, including attorneys' fees.

Finally, this bill requires those who securitize loans to third parties to put ``skin in the game'' and retain interest in at least 5% of the credit risk of each loan they sell or transfer. This provision will ensure that, at every link of the chain, there is an interest in seeing that the loan is repaid and that the homeowner does not go into foreclosure.

Mr. Chair, this is a strong, carefully deliberated response to the foreclosure crisis, one that rules out many of the unscrupulous practices that harmed so many responsible families--and helped put an entire economy at risk. I believe that if these provisions had been in place 10 years ago, the foreclosure crisis might have been averted. We cannot turn back time. But we can learn--and if we have learned anything, it is how much we need legislation like this. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 2 p.m. On Tuesday, 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. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills will be provided by the end of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High- Performing Public Schools Facilities Act; H.R. 2101, the Weapons Acquisition Systems Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act; and the fiscal 2009 war supplemental appropriations bill.

I think that the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facility Act will probably be on the floor on Wednesday. The weapons acquisition system and supplemental, I would expect the supplemental on Thursday or Friday, depending upon how our business proceeds.

Well, we have a number of pieces of legislation. We have done a lot over this work period. We did the National Water Research Development and Initiative Act, credit card legislation, hate crimes, budget conference report, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, which we passed, and the Fight Fraud Act, which we passed yesterday, and we did the predatory lending.

In addition to the items that I already mentioned for next week, we will be keeping, obviously, in touch with the Senate as to what they are passing. We get a number of these items at conference before we have a break on Memorial Day. We hope that will happen as well.

But we have a number of items that will be pending.

I hope to be able to move the D.C. vote bill, we are working on that, before the Memorial Day break, and we will see what the committees are able to report out in the coming week that we can put on the floor the last week.

I think all of us are concerned about the Second Amendment. I hope all of us are also concerned about 600,000 citizens in the United States of America who have a Representative in this House who can't vote. Unfortunately, too many people, in my view, voted against that bill.

So what we have now done is undermine the home rule rights of the District of Columbia, as well as preventing them from voting on this floor. I think that is very unfortunate.

As the gentleman is well aware, there are, obviously, significant differences on the amendment that was offered in the Senate. We are going to be considering how we can try to get this bill through. Because the reality is, neither position might enjoy a majority in the final analysis, either in the Senate or perhaps here.

So I am trying to figure out how we can give 600,000 of our citizens--an awful lot of us get up on this floor and we talked about how important it is, in the 1980s, behind the Iron Curtain, to get people free. We talk about, in Cuba, how it's important to get people free. We talk about how it's important, in some Middle East states, to give people a vote.

But here, in the Nation's capital, the center of freedom and democracy, we do not have a representative. Unlike any other capital of any other democratic nation in the world, their representative cannot vote in this parliament.

I think that's a tragedy. I think it's a diminishment of our democracy. And I will tell the gentleman that I would hope that this House would rise up as one voice saying this is not right, and we will pass the D.C. voting rights. We

can deal with other issues that are very important, but it certainly seems to me that we ought to deal with that issue directly.

Unfortunately, as you know, when Mr. Davis introduced that bill, a majority of your party, an overwhelming majority of your party, Mr. Davis being of your party, a leader in your party, did not support that bill.

There is no doubt that the amendment that was added in the Senate complicates its consideration here, which is why it hasn't come to the floor a long time ago. But we are trying to figure it out.

First of all, I want to say to the gentleman, the reason it's not on the calendar for the next 2 weeks, it was never intended to be on the calendar over the next 2 weeks. The intention, as I have articulated all along, and the chairman's intention, was to have a target of marking up the bill in committee prior to the Memorial Day break. So there was never any intention that a bill would be on the floor prior to the Memorial Day break.

Secondly, I would tell the gentleman, I don't know that the chairman has made a decision on whether to mark it up in subcommittee or mark it up in full committee.

I do know that it's going to be marked up in committee and open to an amendment in committee, open to debate and open to a vote. Now, whether it's in subcommittee or full committee, that determination, as I understand it, has not been made. But it will be, certainly, marked up in committee and subject to full debate.

The markup was just concluded. I have not reviewed the Tiahrt amendment, nor have I had discussions with the chairman regarding the rule and what amendments would be asked for or what amendments would be made in order.

Very frankly, I will tell my friend, it's not the majority that needs your help in passing this bill; our troops need your help in passing this bill, our country needs your help. And I appreciate your comments that you support the President in his efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We are confronted with an extraordinarily difficult situation, destabilizing situation, dangerous situation, and this supplemental obviously is directed at making sure that our troops have the resources they need to pursue the objectives that we and the President have given to them. We look forward to having that bill passed with bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 12, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking member for his views.

There is a disagreement, Madam Speaker. We have had a substantive disagreement for a long time. In fact, when I was elected to the Congress in 1981, we had a very substantive disagreement on what the economic policies would produce in terms of the supply-side economic theory. My view, which differs from Mr. Ryan's, is that it produced large deficits, and it produced large deficits in every year that it was practiced in the 29 years that I have been here. Only in the 8 years where President Clinton had the veto pen and said no, we're not going to go down that road, did we produce surpluses. Now, they were produced in large part because of an economy that rose more rapidly than any of us expected because of the chip, the information technology explosion, all of which was to the best interest of our country. We had a $5.6 trillion surplus projected in 2001 by President Bush as a result. Unfortunately, we pursued a policy with which I disagreed and which I said would produce high deficits and would not help our economy. In fact, we produced high deficits, and our economy was in the worst shape that any President has inherited an economy since Franklin Roosevelt. President Obama was confronted with an economy that was in substantial decline.

Today the House has the rare opportunity to set America on a responsible course for the future. I congratulate Mr. Spratt, I congratulate Mr. Boyd and Ms. DeLauro, members of the conference, for the courage and leadership they have displayed. Mr. Spratt has been, as always, extraordinarily informed and extraordinarily involved with all of our Members in trying to get to this point. The course that we set ourselves on, in my view, is one of lasting prosperity, and I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity.

Along with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this budget is a key part of our response to this recession. We have the power to emerge from this recession a stronger Nation, one with a future of clean energy and energy independence and a workforce ready to compete with the best in the world and a reformed system of health care. This budget provides for those objectives. We also have a chance to vote for the principles of fiscal responsibility and put ourselves on a truly sustainable course.

There is a real difference in this House, in the Senate, and in this country about what fiscal responsibility means. I believe it means we pay for what we buy rather than simply cutting our revenues, increasing our purchases, and hoping somehow something magical will happen to balance the budget. It has never happened in the 20 years that I have served with Republican Presidents pursuing that philosophy.

On energy, the budget funds incentives for cutting-edge research and clean energy jobs, as well as an energy-efficient, money-saving, critically necessary smart grid.

On education this budget builds upon the recovery plan with additional support for early childhood education, elementary and secondary school students, and efforts to help more Americans obtain a college degree. It expands access to education in the make-or-break years of early childhood--I think critical if we are going to be competitive in world markets. It increases Pell grants to help more students afford higher education and promotes job training and significant education reform.

On health care this budget responds to the skyrocketing costs that are straining families and businesses across this Nation. Family premiums have more than doubled since the year 2000, and over the past 5 years, our total health care spending has increased at more than twice the rate of inflation, consuming more and more of our economy and our budget each year. This budget fights that trend by making a significant down-payment on the reform, taking steps to lower health care costs, improve quality, and expand access. That is what America voted in 2008. That is the responsibility that we are carrying out.

The budget also allows us to use reconciliation to provide for an up- or-down vote on reforming health care, not as an option or first resort but as a fallback if partisanship blocks progress.

Essentially we're saying the majority will make policy. It didn't take 60 percent to elect the President. It didn't take 60 percent to elect any of us to this body. The premise of our Founding Fathers was if a majority of Americans believe we ought to move in a direction, that's the direction we ought to move. That has proved a very successful policy for over two centuries. It is a policy that we are providing for here. It is a policy that was provided for by the Republicans when they were in charge time after time after time.

As the bipartisan Concord Coalition points out: ``The budget reconciliation process was used in 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2005 to reduce taxes,'' as opposed to deficit reduction, which, of course, reconciliation is designed to address.

Moreover, a case can be made that health care reform that includes spending restraints and squeezes inefficiencies out of the system is integral to reining in the rapid growth of health care costs, which is a major, a major driver of deficits.

I want to stress that last point. It is essential that health care reform includes difficult choices to cut costs, which will eventually result in lower deficits. Why? Because of the $2.4 trillion that we spend on health care, half of that comes from the government, either Federal or State.

All of these investments are vital to our future economic health and competitiveness. As President Obama recently pointed out: ``A cash- strapped family may cut back on all kinds of luxuries but will insist on spending money to get their children through college.''

Our country is in the same position. These tough times are no excuse to cut back on investments that will pay off many times over down the road.

Finally, this budget puts America back on the path of fiscal responsibility. It's no secret that past budgets have made easy choices and kicked the difficult ones down the road.

Let me say, as I have said so many times before, it takes no courage whatsoever to cut taxes. None. Zero. What takes courage, political courage, if we want to buy things, is to pay for them. That's what takes courage. You can make one of two decisions: Don't buy and keep revenue stable, or buy and pay for so that your children aren't paying for it. Those are the decisions that I am prepared to make and, very frankly, have made over the last 40 years that I have been in office.

This House needs to make those choices. That's why Allen Boyd, John Spratt and others have pursued so vigorously statutory PAYGO requirements. That's why I am in such support of them.

In 1990, statutory PAYGO led to that surplus that I referred to. Jettisoning that in the early part of this decade led to the deficits that we have experienced.

And why did you jettison PAYGO? Because you were unprepared to pay for the revenue losses that you voted for.

But by passing this budget we will be leaving a different legacy, one that makes clear that our government must pay for what it buys. This budget cuts the deficit from 10.5 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3 percent of GDP in 2013--in other words, by nearly two-thirds. Those savings come from spending restraint and oversight that save taxpayer money. We must do that. We cannot pursue the policies that we have been pursuing. They are not sustainable.

Most importantly, the House is strongly committed to statutory PAYGO. President Obama asked Congress, and again I quote, to develop a PAYGO law that would help return the Nation to a path of fiscal responsibility, and that is what we intend to do.

That is what this budget does. The House will not consider any bills on middle-income tax cuts, the estate tax, AMT relief, or the sustainable growth rate in the Medicare program unless they include statutory PAYGO, they are fully offset, or statutory PAYGO has already been enacted. Everybody wants to deal with those four issues. Let us see if everybody is prepared in this generation to pay for them and not pass those costs on to the next generation.

I urge my colleagues to approve this conference report, pass this budget and show our constituents that the priorities they voted for in 2008 are ours as well.

I again congratulate the chairman, the members of the conference committee and the members of the Budget Committee for their leadership and for their courage.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I am pleased to follow the distinguished gentleman who just spoke because what he said was he agrees with the objectives of this legislation. One could argue, I suppose, about the means, but really it is the objective that is the most important, and the objective is to in this country make a statement that violence against individuals because of the group of which they are a member or their nationality or their race or their religion or their sexual orientation, whatever the distinction might be, we in America have said that we believe all people ought to be treated equal.

This legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is a powerful statement, I suggest to you, of some of our most important American values, Mr. Kirk spoke of those just a little earlier; tolerance, respect for differences, and accountability for those who are driven to violence by hate.

I disagree with my friend from Illinois when he said perhaps we didn't need this earlier in our history. Yes, we have become more diverse, but in our early history, those whose skin was black were subjected to violence not because of their character, not because of anything they had done, but because of the fact that their skin was black, and because violence was visited against them, all who were similarly situated were put in fear. That is why this crime is different from simply violence animated, as the distinguished ranking member indicated, so many of our crimes are. He is right. But this is a particular character of crime that not only puts the victim at risk, but puts all members of the group to which that victim belongs at risk and at fear.

This bill allows us to expand the existing Federal hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, and, as was pointed out, was signed by one of our previous Republican presidents. Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crime is limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, and only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting.

My friends, if America stands for anything, it stands for equality under the law; of inclusion; of not making arbitrary and capricious distinctions based on factors other than American citizenship, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What hate crimes do is to put that at risk. What hate crimes do is adopt the premise that somehow there are some citizens less than the rest of us because of the group to which they belong.

That is what this bill is all about, the basic fundamental tenet of America that all men and women are created equal. God does not see the distinctions sometimes that we see, arbitrary, capricious, and, yes, tragically sometimes hateful, that then lead to violence and injury and death.

This legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, religion or national origin, as I said. It also expands current law to prohibit the same conduct when motivated on the basis of a victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

``All men and women.'' No parentheses, ``except . . . '', no comma, ``not these . . . '', no further comma, ``but we don't mean these Americans . . . ''. ``All,'' our Constitution and Declaration of Independence say. The principle is the same. Hate crimes sow fear and division in our communities, no matter what group is targeted.

Expanding the protections of the law responds to the reality in America today. For instance, hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation are almost

as equally common as hate crimes motivated by religion. The gentleman from Illinois suggests there are less crimes, and we are pleased about that, but one is too many.

This bill would also allow the Federal Government to provide assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Why? Because it is not simply a local threat. It is a threat to all Americans everywhere in every State if the group to which they belong, the distinction that is made because they are in that group is applied because of that membership. It clarifies the conditions under which such crimes would be federally investigated and prosecuted.

I have spoken to why this legislation is necessary, because hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and identify or disability not only injure individual victims, as I have said, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our Nation's social fabric.

That is why this legislation, in my view, is so fundamental to what America is and means to our own citizens and to people around the world. This legislation does not affect, does not affect, does not affect free speech. It is actions, not speech, that is the object of this legislation.

It only seeks to punish violent acts. Enacting these important additions to current law will send a very powerful message. Crimes committed against any American, simply because of who he or she is, are a threat to all Americans and will be dealt with as such.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because it embodies the essential American values of tolerance, equality and justice.

I congratulate the chairman for his leadership. I thank the ranking member, notwithstanding his disagreement on this issue, for facilitating this bill coming to the floor.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his kind comments. The gentleman from New York is very generous.

I want to thank my friend from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) with whom I served on the House Administration Committee for many years; and also, of course, my dear friend, one of the Republican leaders in this House, Mr. Blunt, who has cosponsored this legislation with me. It so happens my name is first, but Mr. Blunt and I have worked on this effort together, because we both believe it's a very important one for our country and for all of those who are advantaged by this program.

I am proud, therefore, to speak in favor of this bill supporting Best Buddies, an organization, as Mr. Ehlers has pointed out, dedicated to the social integration of children and adults with intellectual disabilities.

It was founded some 20 years ago by Anthony Kennedy Shriver. Best Buddies is the first social and recreational program of its kind in the United States. It has already reached hundreds of thousands of Americans, both with and without disabilities, a total that is set to reach a half a million by 2010.

Best Buddies, Mr. Speaker, fosters and supports friendships and mentorships between participants from kindergartners to adult professionals, sponsoring more than 1,000 volunteer-led chapters at schools and workplaces.

Not only do volunteers learn leadership training, they learn firsthand about the important contributions made by their fellow citizens with intellectual disabilities. Participants with disabilities learn that they are valuable members of our communities, capable of forming a wide range of real and lasting friendships.

This legislation authorizes a total of $10 million for grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to be distributed

to Best Buddies by the Department of Education in fiscal year 2010, along with such sums as may be necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years.

These funds will enable this important organization to reach hundreds of thousands more potential volunteers and participants, promoting the crucial values of shared participation and community and social equality.

All of us will be advantaged by this program, not those immediate participants alone, but all of those whose communities will be better places for the participation of those directly involved in Best Buddies.

I want to thank Congressman Blunt for cosponsoring this bill. He and I worked together for many years on this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support it.