Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, since August of this year, the people of Prince George's County, Maryland, have lost two of their finest. Tragically, in separate incidents, two Prince George's County police officers were killed in car crashes. Both men served with distinction and were dedicated to keeping our communities safe.

On August 20, while he and his partner were in a high-speed pursuit of a suspect in an attempted car theft, Officer Adrian Morris's police cruiser veered off of the Capital Beltway near Laurel, Maryland. Adrian was killed in the line of duty, and his partner, Mike Risher, severely injured. An immigrant originally from Kingston, Jamaica, Adrian wanted to be a police officer since a young age. While attending Eleanor Roosevelt High School in Greenbelt, he participated in the Prince George's County Police ``Explorers'' program, which helps young people learn about and prepare for careers in law enforcement. Adrian achieved his dream by joining the Prince George's County Police Department's Sixth District in 2010. When he was killed this past August, Adrian was only 23 years old. His mother, Sherrin Crosdale, and a younger brother survive him.

In a second, tragic setback to the men and women of the Prince George's County Police Department, on October 18 an accident took another officer's life. Off-duty Officer Kevin Donnell Bowden was headed home in his police cruiser after a shift when he was killed in a crash in Clinton, Maryland. Kevin had been with the force for six years, serving at the Oxon Hill station. His colleagues remembered him as a steady officer with a sense of humor who loved his job. Kevin grew up in the area and graduated from Surratsville High School. He loved football and was an avid fan of the Dallas Cowboys. Kevin, who was 28 years old, was also a devoted father of sons DeAndre and Joshua and daughter Mahogany.

The loss of these two outstanding officers was a terrible blow to the Prince George's County Police Department and to all who call the County home. Adrian Morris and Kevin Bowden represent the finest tradition of service to our communities, and they will be sorely missed. I join in mourning their passing and in comforting their families and communities during this difficult time, and I am confident that their memories will inspire young people to follow in their footsteps in service to county, state, and country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative--known colloquially as ``SMECO''--on 75 years of serving communities in Maryland's Fifth District. Since its humble beginnings bringing power to a handful of farmers, SMECO has become a major utility that fuels economic growth across Southern Maryland.

In 1937, SMECO was first incorporated in the wake of President Roosevelt's New Deal initiative to connect rural areas with electricity. With assistance from Roosevelt's Rural Electrification Administration, SMECO brought affordable light and power to families in Charles, St. Mary's, and Calvert Counties for the first time. Over the years, SMECO expanded its service and brought electrical power to communities the major urban and suburban utilities had left in the dark.

As one of the oldest and largest electricity cooperatives in the country, SMECO is owned by the families and businesses it serves, with all profits reinvested in infrastructure improvements or as rebates to shareholders. What began with 400 families just before the Second World War today provides power to over 147,000 homes and businesses across Southern Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the people of our District, I want to thank the men and women of SMECO for their hard work throughout the years. Whether it is a snow storm or a hurricane, they immediately go to work and, within days, restore power for most shareholders who have lost their connections as a result of downed wires. I commend them for their focus and diligence during these emergencies and for continuing to earn praise from shareholders for their preparedness and responsiveness along with respect from utility management professionals across the country.

I also join in celebrating this milestone of 75 years of creating opportunities for rural Marylanders. For three quarters of a century, the men and women of SMECO have played a vital role in the economy and community of Southern Maryland for which they are to be commended.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today from both sides of the aisle to stand with the people of Israel in support of their sovereign right to defend themselves against Hamas terror. Over the past year alone, Hamas has launched approximately 900 rockets and artillery shells from Gaza into Israeli civilian neighborhoods. My colleagues, think for just a minute: if rockets were coming from Mexico or from Canada, we would not stand for it for one minute.

This week, we saw Hamas fire rockets that struck as far north as Tel Aviv. And today, we have disturbing reports that at least one rocket hit near Jerusalem--the seat of Israel's government and a city holy to Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike. That Hamas would specifically target Israel's Parliament building, as reports indicate, shows the great disregard Hamas has for the very idea of democracy, which does not exist in Gaza.

By strengthening the United States relationship with Israel, this Congress will send a powerful message to Hamas and all in the region who would cause Israel harm. The right of self-defense cannot be allowed to go unexercised by a government dedicated to the protection of its people. We will stand with Israel. And we also, Mr. Speaker, lament the loss of life of Palestinians. Every life is important, so it is not that we stand insensitive to the lives of Palestinians, but they need to stop the violence and the attacks. Israel has the right to defend itself, and we will stand with them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Martin Breland on his recent selection to the Board of Directors at the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU).

Mr. Breland has been president and CEO of Tower Federal Credit Union in Laurel, Maryland, since 1994. Under his leadership, Tower has experienced significant and healthy asset growth. With over 16 branches spanning four counties, Tower is the largest federal credit union in the state of Maryland and provides a range of financial products to meet the needs of their 124,000 member-owners, a number of whom live in my district. Prior to becoming CEO in 1994, Mr. Breland served in other capacities at Tower including Vice President of Finance and Vice President of Member Services.

With over 30 years of experience in the financial industry and an M.B.A. from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Mr. Breland is a welcomed addition to the NAFCU board. In his new role he will have the opportunity to play an important role in public policy formation.

I wish Mr. Breland the best of luck in his new role on the NAFCU Board and look forward to working with him in this capacity. I ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating Mr. Breland on this achievement.

And so this 112th Congress convulses to an ugly end of its time before the national elections. All of us must be sad, and the American people are angry and sad that this Congress has been so inattentive to the needs of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today House Republicans are leaving town and will not return until after the November elections.

Two very respected political scientists--not Democrats or Republicans; one a representative of the more conservative think tank and another a more liberal think tank--have written a book about the dysfunction they have seen in this Congress. Mr. Mann and Mr. Orenstein--quoted by many reporters from many journals, from all different perspectives--they said this:

We have been studying Washington politics in Congress for more than 40 years, and never, never have we seen them as dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, said these two respected political scientists and observers of Washington, today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

They went on to say that the GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. That is the nub of the problem.

Our Republican colleagues are leaving without getting their work done. I said, ``their work done.'' Without getting our work done, the work of the American people.

Comprehensive jobs bills, middle class tax cuts have not been extended, farmers are left on their own to face the worst drought in decades--the worst drought in decades--and a farm bill reported out of the Republican committee lays unconsidered by this floor. Reported out of their committee, from their majority, and they haven't brought it to the floor, while farmers remain in trouble. We've not reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, and we have not passed the postal reform bill.

I am glad to take this Special Order, Mr. Speaker, to say to the American people that we're prepared to stay. We're prepared to stay and work on these bills. And I'm going to talk about some of these bills, but my colleagues are here as well.

I first want to yield to the former president of the Senate of Vermont for his observations as we leave this town, my friend, Mr. Welch from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, that is a sample of the dysfunction and inability and unwillingness to compromise on which Mr. Ornstein and Mr. Mann spoke.

I now yield to my friend from New York (Mr. Tonko).

I thank the gentleman for his comments. He is absolutely right.

Mr. Speaker, just for the knowledge of all of our Members, the Senate did pass a middle class tax cut, making sure that 98 percent of our taxpayers would not get any increase in their taxes on the 1st of January. That bill is over here. It has not been brought to the floor, notwithstanding the fact, I believe, that every one of us believes that those taxpayers ought not get an increase. So there is overwhelming support for that bill, bipartisan support, but it won't be brought to the floor.

On the Violence Against Women Act, to ensure that women and families are not subjected to dangerous domestic violence, it passed 68-31 through the United States Senate; not passed here. Postal reform passed 62-37 in a bipartisan vote in the United States Senate; not paid attention to here. The farm bill, which passed with 64 votes--almost 2- 1 in the United States Senate on a bipartisan vote with 16 Republican Senators voting for it--has not been brought to this floor. Yet we walk away. We walk away from the American people.

I now yield to my friend from Illinois, the gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

I thank the distinguished Member from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her comments. Nobody fights harder for working people and seniors in this Congress than Jan Schakowsky, and no one is sadder that we have been so lacking in attention to the issues of concern to those folks.

I now want to recognize Allyson Schwartz from the State of Pennsylvania, who has also been a great leader and a member of the Ways and Means Committee and who is trying to work on behalf of jobs and growing our economy. I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentlelady for her comments. No one works harder on health care and is more focused on the delivery of affordable care to all of our people, but particularly concerned about health care for our seniors. How ironic it is that the pledge that the Republicans made was to repeal and replace. I'm going to talk a little bit about that. But there has been no replacement. On the one hand, they want to eliminate the guarantee that Medicare gives to people to have the security that health care will be available to them; and on the other hand they offer nothing to replace it, no alternative, except to increase substantially the cost of those seniors when they are in need of health care.

I thank the gentlelady for her work, and I thank her for her leadership on this very critical issue.

I'm now pleased to yield to the distinguished minority leader, the former Speaker of the House, who has been instrumental in ensuring affordable health care is available to all of our people, Nancy Pelosi of California.

Madam Leader, thank you for your comments and your leadership.

You are so correct in studying the statistics of the Dow, having doubled. It's actually up now probably about 105, 110 percent. The Standard & Poor's is up more than double, and the NASDAQ is up more than double over those years. In January of 2009, I'm sure most people tragically remember, we lost 818,000 private sector jobs that month. Last month we gained 92,000 jobs.

Is there anybody who could say a loss of 818,000 jobs isn't a lot worse than the gain of 92,000 jobs--92,000 jobs is not enough. We need to do more. The President offered a jobs bill. It has not been brought to this floor, notwithstanding the fact in the Pledge to America they said this is a transparent Congress that would be allowed to work its will. That bill has not been brought to the floor.

For the last 30 months we have gained, straight, more jobs, 4.6 million jobs to be exactly correct, while 4.4 million jobs were lost in 2008 alone. Are we better off gaining 4.6 million as opposed to losing 4.4 million jobs?

We have had 12 straight quarters of economic growth. The last four quarters of 2008 in the last administration was a net 13 percent decrease in GDP. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the leader is correct. We're better off today, but we could be much better off. We ought to be better off if we hadn't walked away from a jobs bill, hadn't walked away from investing in an infrastructure bill that gave certainty.

We didn't even bring that bill to the floor. We walked away from making sure that the health care bill works properly, walked away--and I'm going to recognize Mr. Costa--walked away from the farmers of America, walked away this day as we have walked away in the past.

Mr. Costa is from farm country. He understands the pain being experienced in farm country, and he knows how terrible it is to have simply walked away, walked away from the House-passed bill out of committee and walked away from a bipartisan Senate bill. My friend is such a strong voice on this floor, such an active member of the Agriculture Committee and such a proponent of farm country, not only California, which he represents but through this country.

I yield to my friend.

The gentleman may know this better than I because he works so closely with the ag community, but over 70 farm organizations and farmer-focused organizations came to town a week or two ago and all said pass the Senate bill, not because they believed it was perfect, but because they believed it was a bipartisan bill that would bring relief to farm country and give some certainty to the farming community. I think I'm correct on that.

I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership, not only for farm country but for all of the people in this country on behalf of getting people back to work, making jobs available, and making sure our farmers are secure, and particularly for making sure that we address the epidemic of violence perpetrated against family members. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

I yield to somebody who is as strong a voice as we have in this House on behalf of the working men and women in this country, the gentlewoman from California, Lynn Woolsey.

I thank the gentlelady for her comments, and I yield to my friend, Suzanne Bonamici, who was such an effective State legislator. She was overwhelmingly elected in a special election. And every day since that election, she has been working hard on behalf of hardworking men and women not only in Oregon, but throughout this country. And I know that she's disappointed that we're walking away from our responsibilities.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentlelady for her comments.

I want to now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), who's been such a leader on so many of these issues.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials on the topic of this Special Order.

I yield to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), an effective Member of this House.

I thank the gentleman for his very compelling comments.

I know that, Mr. Speaker, you've heard us speak and the Members have heard us speak, and one might say, well, these are Democrats speaking about the non-productivity and non-attention to the people's business of this Congress.

But some years ago, just a few years ago, 4 years ago, the Republican Party, our friends on that side of the aisle, nominated John McCain to be their President. What does John McCain say of this Congress? ``The worst since 1947 statistically, the worst ever as far as I'm concerned,'' Senator John McCain told reporters Wednesday when asked to assess this Congress. That was September 19, 2012, just a few days ago. Bipartisan observation.

This walkaway Congress is the least effective in which I've served, and I've been here for 31 years.

I want to yield to my friend who came to Congress the same year I did, who unfortunately is leaving, one of the great leaders of this Congress and responsible for putting the referee back on the field so that we will not have another financial meltdown that plunged this country almost into depression, the distinguished Member from Massachusetts, Barney Frank.

I thank the gentleman for his very cogent comments. I would remind him the Leader talked about that, and he's talked about it.

Mr. Speaker, I think you will recall--George Bush, Republican President of the United States; Hank Paulson, Republican Secretary of the Treasury; and Ben Bernanke, who I think is neither Republican nor Democrat but appointed by the Republican President.

President Bush came to us and said: The country's in trouble, at risk of going into depression. We need you to act.

Who acted? The Democrats, in a bipartisan response to President Bush. Who walked away? Two-thirds of the Republican Party, the President's party. Two-thirds of them walked away. As a result, we failed the first time. We came back and added another 30 Democrats, 172, and the Republicans couldn't even get to 100 to support their own President to keep this country out of depression.

Ladies and gentlemen, 2 years ago as the previous election approached, Republicans unveiled a long list of pledges. Their Pledge to America reads, and I quote:

A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make

America more competitive must be the first urgent domestic

priority of our government. So, first we offer a plan to get

people working again.

That's what they said. We are still waiting for that plan, and we have walked away.

Twenty-one months later, Republicans have not offered a comprehensive plan to create jobs and boost competitiveness. Nor have they allowed Democrats to bring major items of our Make It in America--expand manufacturing, create jobs, give good-paying jobs with good security to Americans that will then redound to the benefit of all agencies and job creators and small businesses that service those manufacturers.

When President Obama proposed his plan, the American Jobs Act--which economists say would have expanded by 1 million or 1.5 million jobs-- Republicans blocked it outright, not brought to the floor, not given a vote. Instead of making jobs their priority, it seems to have been last on their to-do list, at a time when it remains the first concern for millions and millions of Americans and for our side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, let me read another excerpt from the Republican pledge:

With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our

troops, we will roll back government spending, putting us on

a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt.

However, over the last 21 months Republicans have torpedoed every serious attempt to reach agreement on deficit reduction. Why? No revenues from the very wealthy in America. Not because we don't like the very wealthy, not because we want to penalize the very wealthy, but because we need to keep our country on a financially secure path, and those of us on this floor can contribute a little more to that effort.

Pushed to the extreme by their Tea Party wing, House Republicans early on embraced an ``our way or no way'' that made compromise impossible, refusing to accept any solution that included revenues or that ended unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthiest in our country. That's why the middle class tax cut passed overwhelmingly in the United States--well, passed by a majority--in the United States Senate languishes here unconsidered, which would keep 98 percent of America from any concern about having their taxes increased on January 1. Why? To protect the 2 percent. How sad.

In pursuit of their extreme budget agenda, they pushed our country to the brink of default, leading to--for the first time ever in the history of our Nation--the most creditworthy nation on Earth being downgraded by the Standard & Poor's rating agency. To avert that default, Republicans insisted on creating the sequester that so many of them now lament. It was their creation. In fact, in their cap, cut, and balance bill, what is the default position they take? Sequester.

Meanwhile, led by Chairman Paul Ryan, Republicans passed two budgets that would end Medicare as we know it, end the guarantee, end the security that it gives to people who are seniors and going to be seniors; guts social programs that keep millions out of poverty; and doesn't balance over the next 30 years.

Susan Collins, Republican Member of the United States Senate--I showed you John McCain, Mr. Speaker--she says:

It is very frustrating to have worked on legislation that

really matters to our country, like the cybersecurity bill

and legislation to save the postal service, and just have

them gather dust.

In other words, she worked in the Senate across the aisle with Democrats

and sent that bill here--both those bills--and we have not acted. We have walked away.

Mr. Speaker, we have made our point: Walking away has been the practice of this Congress. Not getting the work done has been the practice of this Congress. How lamentable it is for the American people. But as President Obama said: They have a choice. May they make it well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure America has been watching the ads. The ads say that black is white, and they say it over and over and over and over again. And they hope the American people believe that black is white.

But it's not enough for them to say it on ads, now they bring it to this floor in the last 7 hours of the session of Congress before the election. Are we dealing with jobs? No. Are we dealing with violence against women? No. Are we dealing with farmers who are in distress? No. Are we dealing with middle class tax cuts? No. Are we dealing with postal reform as the postal department goes broke? No. What are we doing? We are trying to reaffirm an ad that some people are spending tens of millions of dollars on to misrepresent the facts.

Mr. Speaker, black is not white. I can say it one time, a hundred times, a thousand times: black is black, and white is white. This action the administration has taken is to produce more jobs, more work to get more people back to work. How? To respond to Republican Governors and Democratic Governors who say, I have a better way of doing it. By the way, that's what you proposed when you were in charge and we had President Bush in office on at least the three occasions that the chairman has just mentioned.

White is not black, and black is not white.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today exemplifies the do-nothing Republican Congress. Once again, Republicans are choosing to focus on a political message over serious issues like jobs, middle class tax cuts, or the farm bill. Instead, we're here today discussing a Republican bill that misrepresents the facts in an attempt to simply score political points. How sad for the American people.

At issue is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program which was created in 1996 when Republicans and Democrats worked together to achieve welfare reform. So you understand on that side of the aisle, I was a Democrat who voted for welfare reform. I was a Democrat who said we ought to expect people to work if they can work. I'm also a Democrat that says we have to help people when through no fault of their own they can't work or have lost work.

The previous speaker talked about how we weren't concerned about jobs. In the Bush administration, 4.4 million jobs were lost in the last 12 months of the Bush administration. Over the last 30 months, we've created 4.6 million jobs. I ask you, who cares about jobs? Who creates jobs? There were, of course, 22 million jobs created in the Clinton administration. We heard a lot of talk about that at our convention. I didn't hear anything about the Bush administration at the Republican convention. George Bush was not there, he was not mentioned, and the record was

certainly hidden. We care about jobs. We care about people getting to work. We also care about helping people. We can do both.

Defeat this bill.

Black is not white, and white is not black.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in order to compete in today's global economy, we need to attract the best and brightest math and science students from around the world. I think we all agree on that.

American technology and Internet companies--which are far and away the best in the world--are in dire need of more highly educated engineers and scientists. We're just not producing enough here. In the long term, we need to educate more Americans in STEM fields, but we also must increase the number of STEM visas so that our businesses can hire the top international graduates of American universities.

This could be a broadly bipartisan bill. It could pass easily. But once

again, unfortunately, we have chosen a good bill and inserted a partisan poison pill, making it impossible to pass the Senate or attract broad bipartisan support. How sad it is that that's been the history of this Congress. That poison bill is, of course, the elimination of the Diversity Visa Program, which ensures that individuals from a broad array of countries have the opportunity to seek a better life here in America. The Statue of Liberty, with her torch raised, is being brought down just a little bit.

We don't know where our next great innovators will come from, and we ought to not close the doors on those who have been waiting patiently to have their number called in some far off corner of the world. That lottery is not only their salvation, but also our benefit. It's part of what makes America great.

I call on the Republican leadership to withdraw this bill and instead take up the bill introduced by my friend, the gentlewoman from California, Representative Lofgren, which accomplishes the objective I think we all want to accomplish. That version would create opportunities through a new STEM visa program without taking current opportunities away. I commend Ms. Lofgren for her work on this issue and for helping to sustain that yearning for America that still moves the hearts of millions around the world.

In light of what I have just said, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Texas if he will yield for the purpose of allowing me to make a unanimous consent to amend his bill by striking all after the enacting clause and replacing the text with that of the gentlewoman from California's alternative, H.R. 6412, the Attracting the Best and Brightest Act of 2012. I tell my friend that will accomplish the objectives that you've talked about and I've talked about in getting high-tech people, the availability, for our companies here in America. They need them, we want them, we ought to get them; and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way.

This is an opportunity for bipartisanship that unfortunately has not come as often as we would like. I would ask my friend to allow me to make that unanimous consent, that we agree to that. And I guarantee the gentleman we will get very substantial numbers of votes on this side of the aisle for that proposition, and I hope on your side as well.

Would the gentleman yield for that unanimous consent? The gentleman has been instructed not to yield to me for that unanimous consent, I understand? I regret that your side of the aisle wouldn't give me that opportunity for America--for America and our high-tech businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to what we're going to consider next week, and also I was going to ask him, but he has already indicated, that he does not expect the scheduled week of meeting in October to occur. I thank him for that information. That would indicate essentially then, therefore, that we have approximately a little over a day and a half or a day and three- quarters remaining before the election.

I want to ask the gentleman, first of all, there's been a lot of talk about the work that has not been done:

We have not done the jobs bill that I've been urging us to consider.

We have not addressed the middle class tax cut in a way that we'll deal with that and on which I think both sides agree. We have disagreement on tax cuts for those who are not in the middle class.

The farm bill, I want to discuss that in a second. The farm bill.

The Violence Against Women Act and the middle class tax cut have both passed the United States Senate.

Postal reform, there is also an agreement on that in the United States Senate.

Obviously sequestration.

And I want to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff, Mr. Leader.

But in the farm bill, as you know we have a discharge petition that is pending, which is somewhat unusual in that our party has initiated a discharge petition to ask you to bring to the floor a bill that your committee reported out of committee. That's somewhat unusual in these discharge petitions. A number of Republicans have signed on to that as you know.

As a matter of fact, we understand your suggestion to some that they do sign--not you, personally, excuse me. But that there's been some suggestion they sign on to that as an indication of their support for the farm bill.

The Senate passed a farm bill, 64-35, Mr. Leader. We are hoping that that bill can be brought to the floor next week. It's not on the calendar. But in light of the fact that 16 Republicans voted in favor of it in the Senate, it's clear that it does have broad bipartisan support.

The Ag Committee here in this House reported out a bill 35-11. That bill has, of course, not been brought to the floor.

We don't have much time left, as you've just announced. Even if we count Thursday as a full day and even if we count Friday as a full day of next week, we have essentially 2 days and then suspension votes on Wednesday night.

Many farmers are facing the worst droughts they've seen in many years. We passed a drought bill here that is not agreed to by the Senate. In fact, the farm community, as I think the gentleman probably knows, perhaps not unanimously, but in large number, opposes the drought bill that we passed, and the reason they oppose it is because-- and I think you were absolutely right, Mr. Majority Leader, when you talked over the past years about certainty. The farmers are opposed to the drought bill that we passed in the House because it doesn't give them any certainty. They think a 5-year bill is preferable. They've seen two-thirds of the Senate, almost, pass a bill, and they hope we would pass that.

I would ask the gentleman, therefore, if there is any, I was going to ask for assurance, but if there is any possibility that we're going to consider a farm bill, either the House bill as reported out overwhelmingly from the Republican-chaired committee or the Senate bill that was passed in a bipartisan fashion, is there any possibility that before we leave here, in consideration of the crisis that confronts many in the farm community, that we will consider that bill?

I yield to my friend.

I think the comments of the gentleman are interesting and I appreciate his comments.

We do have agreement in the Senate on a farm bill; they voted for it with 64 votes--almost two-thirds of the Senate. We may not have agreement, but we had a bill that came out of the Republican-led committee, your committee, with over a two-thirds vote, and neither one of those have been brought to the floor? So we're arguing on something that we had pretty significant disagreement on--yes, there were some Democrats that voted for the drought relief, particularly from farm country. I can understand their view. But the farm community is opposed to the drought relief bill--not unanimously, but in significant part.

So the gentleman points out that we ought to pass that on which we have agreement. Let me suggest to him that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small business people agree on not having a tax increase. The gentleman is worried about those people who are making about $20,000 a month. Some of them don't feel well off, I understand that; but I'm worried about the people who are making $2,000 a month, very frankly. I'm worried about the people who are getting by and who are having trouble. We need to give them assurance.

The gentleman just said that we ought to be able to act on that on which we agree. Maybe I'm incorrect, but I would tell the gentleman on this side of the aisle, we will produce the overwhelming majority of votes on our side of the aisle for a bill that ensures that there will be no tax increase on those who are making, either individually under $200,000 a year, or as a husband and wife $250,000 a year. I assure the gentleman that I will produce and we will produce on this side well over 180 votes for that proposition. So I tell my friend all he has to do is produce 40 votes, but I think he will produce many more than that. Because unless he says I'm wrong, I think when you say nobody ought to get a tax increase, we have agreement--and that's just what the gentleman is talking about, where we have an agreement--we have an agreement that nobody under $250,000, couple, $200,000, individual, should get a tax increase on January 1 of this year.

We could pass that bill, in my opinion, next week. We could pass it under the suspension calendar, in my opinion. We could send it to the Senate. They've already passed a bill. They've already passed a bill through the Senate which adopted that proposition. So we have the majority votes in the Senate, and I would hope we would have almost unanimity in the Senate on that proposition. But I think what I hear the gentleman saying is, unless we have agreement on 100 percent, the fact that we agree on 98 percent and 97 percent, we're not going to move the bill.

Now, I agree with the gentleman, if we have agreement, that's something central that we have agreement on, I would hope we could move it.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his response--I don't think it answered my question.

We understand that you want to see no tax increases, no additional contributions from people making $1 million net taxable income or more, or $10 million taxable income. We understand you don't want to do it. We don't agree on that. You're correct. But we do agree on the fact that 98 percent of Americans who make less than $200,000 individually, less than $250,000 as a couple, those 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses ought not to get a tax increase on January 1. Very frankly, you didn't respond to me; I presume you agree with that.

What you don't agree with is that, if we don't do it all on something we disagree with--that's what's causing gridlock in Congress. That's what's causing this Congress to be the least productive Congress in which I have served in 32 years. That's what's causing us to not listen to one another, talk by one another, and not agree. That's why the farm bill hasn't been passed; that's why the Violence Against Women bill has not been passed; that's why the postal reform has not been passed; that's why middle class tax cuts have not been passed; because if you don't get it all, you don't want to do any of it.

I say respectfully to the majority leader, we agree that 98 percent of

Americans ought not to get a tax increase. We do disagree on whether or not those who are better off can make a contribution to bringing this deficit down and dealing with our debt. What the gentleman responded was, unless we're for 100 percent, we're not going to be for any. That's what I hear you saying.

I yield to my friend.

I said we agreed on 98 percent. The gentleman has not said we don't agree on 98 percent.

He brought up a lot of stuff on the farm bill and other pieces of legislation. The farm bill, you're not bringing your own bill to the floor. Forget about what we think on this side. You reported out a farm bill. You reported out a farm bill some 4 or 5 months ago--I'm not sure exactly when, but it's been months ago--and you haven't brought it to the floor. It's not a question of whether we agree or not; your own bill you haven't brought to the floor.

Now, in terms of the Violence Against Women Act, you knew that the Senate wouldn't do that and the President said he was going to veto it. You didn't sit down with the President to do it because you wanted to exclude some people. You wanted to exclude some people who were subject to domestic violence in this country when all the experts say if you exclude people, we don't get reports, we can't get domestic abusers out of circulation, if you will. So I think the gentleman's characterization is not accurate, I would say with all due respect.

Which is not true? I said a number of things.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. We have a difference of opinion on whether or not they want to exclude people, because the Senate bill was inclusive, and every woman Member, Republican, of the United States Senate voted for it. Every one. That was the difference between the two bills, those who were included, and a more specific group that are now included, which we think they ought to be. But we also think there aren't people who were included who need to be, and that was the difference between the two bills.

So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think my characterization was absolutely accurate. But it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we still haven't answered the question. We tend to want to talk about other things.

Ninety-eight percent of Americans should not get a tax increase on January 1 who are making less than $200,000 individually, or $250,000 as a family. I think we agree on that, Mr. Speaker. Now, I haven't heard that we don't agree on that. But we agree on that, which means that there are 2 percent on which we do not agree, and that bill has not been brought to the floor, that passed the United States Senate, dealing with that 98 percent or 97 percent of small businesses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me if we have agreement on 98 percent, and the President of the United States will sign that bill, the majority leader knows that, I know it and the American people know it. He will sign that bill.

That bill has not moved, not because of the 98 percent, but because of the 2 percent. That's my contention, Mr. Speaker. I believe that is accurate because the Senate has passed a bill that deals with the 98 percent.

We ought to pass that bill. We ought to pass it before we leave here next week, which will be the last few days of this session before the election. And the American people at least ought to have that on the floor.

And, yes, if you want to assert that we want to raise additional revenues to meet our debt so that our children are not put deeply into debt; and, yes, those of us who are doing better can pay a little more to make sure that our children aren't in debt when they get to be adults; yes, we can have that debate.

Bring the bill to the floor, and let us pass the Senate bill. And I would hope our Republican colleagues would join us and say, at least we're going to take care of the 98 percent, and then we'll argue about the 2 percent. We'll argue about whether or not that's good policy or bad policy, whether it hurts the economy or grows the economy.

Very frankly, I tell my friend, the majority leader, I was here in 1993, and the gentleman was not, I believe. But I was here in 1993 when we raised revenues on the upper 1\1/2\ percent, 1\3/4\ percent of the American taxpayers. Your side said, as that study which we think is a flawed study said, that it would hurt the economy, it would increase the deficit, and it would increase unemployment. And as the gentleman well knows, it did exactly the opposite, in conjunction with an extraordinary growth in the private sector, which your party said would be hurt by the action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed.

You're taking the same contention now, and that study took the same proposition. It was wrong then; it is wrong now.

I would hope, very sincerely, that we could agree on that on which we agree, because we agree on 98 percent, and let that move and not hold it hostage to the 2 percent on which we do not agree.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, just so we're accurate, but not 53 percent of small businesses, and the gentleman knows that. It's a misleading figure, because 53 percent of the income comes from a very small percentage of so-called small businesses that are not, in our opinion, small businesses at all.

The gentleman can correct me if he believes that 53 percent of small businesses, because it is our contention that 97 percent of small businesses, really small businesses, people who are working hard making it from day to day and trying to grow businesses and create jobs, 97 percent of small businesses will not be affected by our proposal.

If the gentleman thinks I'm incorrect, I'll be glad to hear that.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is an absurd assertion that people I don't like. I would hope the gentleman would retract that. It has nothing to do with people we like or don't like.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest challenges to growing our economy is our debt and deficit and the uncertainty of the tax policy. That is one. Every economist will tell you that; and certainly every businessperson will tell you that, large, medium or small.

And none of us on this side of the aisle have used pejorative--I have not used pejorative terms with respect to large, medium or small businesses. That's not an issue at all.

It is an issue as to whether or not we're going to continue to explode this deficit and debt, Mr. Speaker, or whether we're going to ask some of us to contribute, some of us, i.e., perhaps Members of this floor, to pay a little more so our children don't confront large deficits and debt.

We heard a lot about personal responsibility in the Republican convention; we ought to take personal responsibility.

And the gentleman continues to talk about job creation. We want job creation. We have a Make It in America agenda that, unfortunately, hasn't moved. We have a jobs bill that was offered by this President that economists say would have created a million more jobs. It lays, still, on a desk somewhere, untended to, unconsidered and unpassed by this House--notwithstanding the fact that the leader and I have discussed that, moving that bill to the floor on numerous occasions.

I lament the fact when we talk about this again, he has not said once that we don't agree on the 98 percent, that we don't agree on the 97 percent. I think the reason he hasn't said we don't agree on it is because we do agree on it. He said he doesn't want anybody to get a tax increase.

And by the way, that tax increase, as the gentleman well knows, will result as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills passed by the Republicans in this House and in the Senate and signed by George Bush. That's why those taxes are going up on January 1, because you sunsetted that tax increase. You didn't make it permanent.

Why did you do that?

For scoring purposes, because you knew that it would score great deficits.

I want to tell the gentleman, additionally, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment was 7 percent. The reason Bill Clinton won the election was because the economy was going downhill. That's the same reason Barack Obama won the election.

And he talks about jobs. A policy that was unanimously opposed, Mr. Speaker, by the Republican side of the aisle in the House and in the Senate created 22 million private sector jobs. We know something about creating private sector jobs.

Notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle, not yours personally, Mr. Leader, was that if we adopted that program, you took the same argument you're taking right now, right now, that raising additional revenues to bring our deficit and debt down would undermine the creation of jobs.

In 1993, you were demonstrably wrong. I don't mean you personally. Mr. Speaker, I'm simply referring to the Republican Party's position on that. They were demonstrably wrong--22 million new jobs. In '01 and '03, you argued that if we bring taxes down on the people you're talking about and everybody else that we would explode the creation of jobs.

You lost jobs in the private sector over those 8 years, Mr. Leader-- I'm sure you know that--about 600,000 net. You lost 4 million jobs in 2008, in the last year of the Bush administration. You lost 818,000 jobs in the last month; 818,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the Bush administration and under these policies, which we apparently have to pass again, or we won't take care of the 98 percent of Americans who are hoping that they will be assured that they will not get a tax increase as of January 1 and the 97 percent of small businesses that will be assured that they will not get a tax increase, which will stabilize our consumers, stabilize our small businesses, and help our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we, perhaps, have exhausted this conversation--I understand that--but it is lamentable that this is another instance when we continue to talk about bills for message purposes that we know the President won't sign--that he said he won't sign--and that we know the Senate won't pass; and we allow those 98 percent of Americans to twist in the wind because we will not deal with the other 2 percent. We are prepared to debate that, of course, and discuss it and vote on it; but I am very sorry that we, apparently, will not see in the next 2\1/2\ days remaining before the election that we address the middle class tax cuts.

I yield to the gentleman if he wants to say anything further. I have one more subject I want to cover.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman. I presume he refers to the Ryan budget as the plan to do that. Of course, the Ryan budget does not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. The gentleman knows that. The Ryan budget, of course, undermines the security of Medicare for people.

The majority leader mentions Federal employees. The fact of the matter is--and this is my position, Mr. Speaker, and is the subject I wanted to talk about--we need to get America on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. That is the single most important objective that this Congress ought to be addressing. Very frankly, it was addressed in a plan called the Simpson-Bowles plan. Perfectly? No. Would we all agree on every aspect? No, but it was a plan that said we have to have a balanced approach to doing this. We had to deal with entitlements; we had to deal with revenues, and we are now collecting 14.8 percent of revenues. That's lower than at any point in time in the last 70 years.

We have underpriced our product; and if we were a business, we would have been bankrupt a long time ago. We have deep pockets, and we can keep borrowing so that we can keep spending without putting in a PAYGO discipline that we had in the nineties that helped balance the budget 4 years in a row--the only administration in the lifetime of anybody hearing, seeing, or knowing that we are here, but that has been done. It was done because we paid for what we bought.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an opportunity--not in the next 2 days of this session before the election--but we are going to have a lame duck. We are going to have to come back here, and we are going to have to do some serious things. We need to as Americans--not as Democrats, not as Republicans--have a conviction that we need to come back here and not walk away from our responsibilities.

Very frankly, with the Bowles-Simpson, every Republican member of that group from the House walked away from it--voted ``no'' and said, No, we will not agree. So it didn't get the 14 votes that it needed to be brought to this floor. I think that's a sad fact. That should have had a robust debate and perhaps a modification, but it was a plan that said to all Americans that we're all going to have to be in this together--a balanced plan, Mr. Speaker, to get a handle on the debt and deficit that confronts this country that is hurting our economy, hurting our people, hurting our credibility.

The S&P downgraded us not because we didn't have the resources to solve our problems. Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States of America for the first time in the lifetime of anybody I know--and perhaps in history--because they didn't know whether we had the political will and courage to address this debt and deficit that confronts and puts our country in danger.

Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked what was the biggest security problem confronting America, didn't respond, Iraq, Iran. He didn't respond, terrorists. He didn't respond, other enemies around the world. He said the biggest security concern that he had--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--was the fiscal challenge that was not being addressed in America. Mr. Speaker, we need to address it.

My friend the majority leader, he and I have worked together on a number of things. We've worked on a number of things this session that we've passed in a bipartisan fashion. I would hope that he and I would both commit ourselves to, during the lame duck session, doing our responsibility to America and to our constituents in reaching a Bowles- Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin, Gang of Six. Almost every economist who has spoken to this issue has said you need a balanced plan. If we simply have sold our souls to Grover Norquist on asking people to help bring this debt and deficit down, we will not succeed; but if we summon the courage and the will to solve this problem, we can do it.

I am hopeful that my friend the majority leader and I will work together over the next number of weeks, between now and November 6, to establish the preface for acting in the lame duck session in a responsible, cooperative, consensus-seeking fashion to get this country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. If we do that, we could redeem this Congress' performance, and I hope we will do that.

I don't know whether the majority leader wants to make a comment on that.

I look forward to working with him as well, Mr. Speaker, because there is a no more important issue that confronts us as a Congress or us as a people, and no act that we could do would give more confidence, not only to our own people, but to people around the world, that America has got its financial house in order. We need to do that. We can argue the specifics one way or the other, but, Mr. Speaker, we do have a difference.

We had that difference in 1993, and we argued about it. We won that argument on the vote, and we won it, in my opinion, on performance. We argued again on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we

lost on that argument, which is why we were in the deepest recession at the end of the last administration that this country has been in my lifetime, and I'm not one of the younger Members of this body.

I am, with the majority leader, hopeful that we can work together and come to agreement on that on which we agree and move forward. The American people, I think, hope that as well, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I tell my friend from California whose dollar was at issue here, the gentleman from California, I will tell you with all due respect and affection, your party, over the last 10 years, took that dollar and they bought those mints; and they went to the six subsequent stores and they gave them a credit card for the next mints they bought. It's time to pay the bill.

I have a very short time, but I wanted to make that point that you kept buying mints; you just didn't keep paying.

Madam Speaker, this bill is another instance of this Republican caucus walking away from its responsibility. The budget sequester was never intended to be a solution in and of itself. It was meant to be the blunt instrument to force compromise. Unfortunately, ``compromise'' is a dirty word around here in some quarters.

To lay out conditions, as this bill does, requiring one side to concede before negotiations even begin--and while solving only part of the problem--disregards sequestration's fundamental purpose: to be equally unacceptable to both sides that it forces compromise.

This bill, which I strongly oppose, essentially says, let's pretend. Let's pretend we don't have a deficit challenge. It says, let's pretend that we can solve our problems by cutting domestic spending alone.

No rational human being believes that's the case. No cuts to Republicans' favored programs, no elimination of tax loopholes for oil companies or anybody else, no increases in revenue by asking the wealthiest to contribute a little more to setting our country on a sound path.

We're collecting the lowest amount of revenues we've collected in 70 years in this country, and we haven't cut spending, and we increased spending in the last administration very substantially. By the way, a greater percentage than this administration has increased the deficits: 86 percent versus 41 percent. Check the figures.

What we need, Madam Speaker, is pragmatism, principle, and serious governing. We need to be honest with the American people. Both bipartisan commissions that explored that issue concluded that the best solution is a balanced approach that addresses revenues, entitlements, and targeted cuts to domestic and defense spending. To achieve such a balanced solution, we need something that is sorely lacking in this House: courage, and a willingness to compromise, to come together, to reason together, and to make tough decisions together.

Sequester is the direct result of Republican policies and is a part of the Republican strategy to cut spending.

You keep saying, well, it's the Democrats. This is not a Democratic policy. It's an irrational policy, but it's in your bills and in your rules.

Now, instead of working with Democrats to turn off the sequester, Republicans are trying to paint the sequester as a Democratic initiative. That is false, untrue.

The Republican cut, cap and balance bill enforces its cuts and its caps. How? Through sequestration. That's what you voted for.

After the agreement was reached on the Budget Control Act that put the sequester in place, Speaker Boehner said, ``I got 98 percent of what I wanted.'' Now our Republican colleagues are attempting to undo the sequester in a way that let's them off the hook politically but puts America at risk financially.

Democrats have an alternative--Mr. Van Hollen just spoke of it--that would repeal the sequester for a year by asking that the wealthiest in our country, why, because they can help a little more, not because they're bad. God bless them. And by the way, we're most of those as well, folks.

I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle, who I know are as deeply concerned about our deficits and debt as I am, will join Democrats in defeating this bill and sending a message that only by working together can we find the solutions we need. America expects that of us.

Madam Speaker, first I want to, of course, associate myself with the remarks from Mr. Dreier and Mr. Price, who have done such terrific work on the spread of democracy, but also to lament the tragic loss of life and the courage displayed by our men and women in our Foreign Service who are deployed abroad to represent the United States, its democracy, and its principles.

Madam Speaker, I regretfully rise, however, to talk about another unhappy subject. Our fiscal house is burning, and in Washington we continue to play and fiddle. We have another 8, perhaps 13, days left, or less than that. I don't know whether we're going to be here in October, but I do know that we're going to be here for a very short time--this week, frankly, doing message bills.

The middle class tax cut which passed the Senate lays fallow somewhere, not brought to this floor, to assure that our middle class citizens would understand that they weren't going to get a tax increase on January 1, give them confidence, give our economy confidence, to help grow our economy.

We have not assured our doctors that the payments for Medicare services to patients will in fact be available. We have not taken substantive action to set aside the sequester with a balanced plan.

There will be a bill on sequester. That will be largely opposed on our side of the aisle because it does not provide for balance. It simply says set aside the sequester, which is the direct result of Republican policies. In fact, the Republicans have offered two bills on the floor which say that sequester is the option of choice if you don't meet certain numbers. They did that in their Cut, Cap and Balance bill, which was enforced how? Through sequestration.

We understand that sequestration is an irrational act. Why is it an irrational act? Because it is as if you have a food budget and a movie budget at home and you have tight finances that week, that month, that year. You don't cut your food budget exactly the same as you cut your movie budget. You say, We're going to forego a movie and make sure we have healthy food on the table. That's what we ought to do.

We ought to have a strategic way and a balanced way to get this deficit that is out of control and needs to be handled under control, and the best way to turn off the sequester is a balanced plan. But what we will see offered on this floor is not a balanced plan, but a plan which says, Do it our way or no way.

Now, very frankly, that's been the history of this Congress. I've served in 16 Congresses. This is the least productive Congress in which I've served. Now, that view is shared by two scholars, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, who wrote in a book and wrote in an op-ed:

We've been studying Washington politics in Congress for

more than 40 years and never have we seen them--meaning the

Congress of the United States--as dysfunctional.

The American public share that view, of course, and our poll numbers reflect it; properly so.

Mr. Mann and Mr. Ornstein go on:

In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when

we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no

choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies

with the Republican Party.

They went on to say:

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American

politics. It is ideologically extreme, scornful of

compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of facts,

evidence, and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of

the political opposition and, therefore, unwilling to

compromise.

That's what our gridlock is caused by, an unwillingness to compromise.

The Senate has passed a farm bill. The Senate has passed a farm bill which would help farmers threatened by drought. As a matter of fact, their own committee has reported out a farm bill, but that farm bill has not been brought to the floor because, apparently, the majority of Republicans aren't for a farm bill. So even their own bill is not brought to the floor, much less a bipartisan-passed farm bill in the United States Senate which could be passed and would get a significant number of Democratic votes--not because we believe it's exactly what we want, but because we believe it is a compromise that will work for America and America's farmers.

Ladies and gentlemen, Madam Speaker, the American public ought to know that in the next few days we're not going to be doing much of anything; not on jobs for Americans, not on the fiscal cliff that confronts us, not on farm bills, not on the Violence Against Women Act, which also passed the United States Senate in a bipartisan, overwhelming fashion. No, we fiddle. We fiddle while the fiscal fires burn.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues--I don't think we're going to get anything done before November 6. I think it's going to be politics, politics as usual. The American public and America will suffer for that. But I think that's what's going to happen.

But I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and Madam Speaker, I would urge the American people to demand of us that we not perceive the lame duck session as simply a time to further fiddle. It ought to be a time, my colleagues, when we act, we come together, we adopt a balanced, fair plan to get the fiscal house of America in order, to put ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path that is credible, that people believe in, so that the rating agencies, which are now talking about perhaps downgrading the United States of America, the most creditworthy Nation on Earth--why? Not because we don't have the resources to solve our fiscal problems but because they do not perceive that we have the political will and willingness to do so or the courage.

My colleagues, Americans expect more of us. We ought to expect more of ourselves. We have an obligation, a responsibility. We swore an oath to protect and defend not only the Constitution but the welfare of this country.

Putting our country on a fiscally sustainable path is absolutely essential. I don't think we're going to do it before November 6, but I would hope every one of us, every one of us who comes back here the second week in November, or the end of the second week of November, will pledge ourselves to work together, as Americans, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, not as conservatives, not as liberals or moderates, but as Americans, understanding that the only way every commission that's reported has said we're going to get our house in order is to come together and do so in a balanced way.

And yes, ladies and gentlemen, that means making sure that we deal with revenues. We pay for what we buy. That's what revenues are about. We pay for what we buy. And then we deal with the spiraling cost of health care. Everybody's talked about that. We have to do it. President Clinton talked about that. Paul Ryan talks about that. We have to do it.

But we can keep the guarantee of Medicare, we can keep the guarantee of Social Security in the process, while getting our fiscal house in order on the entitlement side.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we owe it to the American people. The American people expect us to act responsibly. We are fiddling while the fiscal house of America burns.

Let us summon the courage, the judgment, and the personal responsibility each one of us has, that when we return here after the election and, hopefully, the politics are behind us, those 30-second, 60-second ads which misinterpret, misinform, and dissemble are behind us, and we say to all of our citizens who we represent, we are prepared to exercise the courage and judgment to put our country on a fiscally sustainable path that is credible. Not only will rating agencies believe in it, our citizens will believe in it, our businesses will believe in it, and the international community will as well.

I want to thank my friend, Congressman Lipinski, for taking on this Special Order.

For someone who had been regaled, as I understand it, earlier, by his colleagues who know him best, before I came to the floor, this is a body in which you get to know people. You get to know their characters, their personalities, their civility, their effectiveness, their work ethic, their patriotism, their willingness to work with others. On all of those counts, all of his colleagues found Jerry Costello to be one of the best among them.

Jerry Costello came to this Congress in the election of 1988. He has been my colleague for all of the years that he has served in this House. I was privileged to come just a few years before Jerry Costello. He was elected by the people of Illinois after an extraordinary career early in life, as a young man. He was not only attending to the court system of Illinois but also as the county executive, as the leader of one of the largest counties in Illinois. He was chosen because of his judgment, chosen because of his good sense, his common sense, chosen because of his effectiveness as a representative of the people. There has not been a day that has gone by that I have served with Jerry Costello that I did not have all of those affirmations affirmed here in this House. So I rise with my friend, Mr. Lipinski, to honor Jerry Costello.

Now, we're going to have the opportunity to serve with Jerry Costello for another 3 months at least. Jerry Costello is very much alive. This is not a eulogy. Jerry Costello is someone who is still a young man for whom I see a very bright future. In whatever endeavor he chooses to pursue, he will be successful; and with whomever he works, they will be advantaged. In whatever he does, I know that we're all going to stay in close touch with Jerry Costello.

The preceding speaker and Mr. Lipinski--and whose dad before him--now serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is a critical committee of the Congress of the United States, one of the most important in terms of growing jobs and expanding our economy because it invests in the infrastructure, which is the underpinning of a growing economy. My friend Mr. Lipinski has fought so hard for legislation to expand manufacturing--a Make It In America agenda item-- and has focused on making sure that we have had an infrastructure that has supported manufacturing, the distribution of goods and the transportation of goods to our shores to be sent abroad for purchase by our trading partners.

Jerry Costello was part of the leadership of two of the major transportation bills that have passed this House

in recent years, ensuring not only that Illinois received particular attention but that America received particular attention, every part of this America. The best traditions of a Congressman are, yes, in representing his district effectively, but also in understanding that his responsibility is to all of America. Jerry Costello has fulfilled that expectation with flying colors and great effectiveness. We are going to miss Jerry Costello.

But I want to tell Jerry Costello--and I hope he's listening--that we have a few days left to go, and I'm going to look forward to working with him. I am hopeful that, in the lame duck session, we'll address one of the most vexing problems confronting this country, and that is getting ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path. I expect Jerry Costello to be in the leadership of that effort as he has been in the leadership of so many efforts.

Again, Congressman Lipinski, I want to thank you for your leadership, for your service, for your commitment to the same kinds of things that Jerry Costello has been committed to in building up this country and in making sure that average working men and women have had jobs and that we have expanded our economy by investing in our economy. So it is appropriate that you lead this Special Order on behalf of a kindred soul, Jerry Costello. You and he represent a real leadership on behalf of growth, jobs, and economic success in America.

We thank Jerry Costello for his service, but we look forward to working with him in whatever capacity he chooses to follow in the years ahead.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to congratulate Dan Lipinski for authoring this legislation. It is one of the key pieces of our Make It in America agenda, which my distinguished friend from North Carolina has discussed. I also want to thank my dear and good friend, Mary Bono Mack, for her leadership on this effort.

As the gentleman said, and I can adopt the remarks of the previous speaker, Mr. Kinzinger, we do need a manufacturing policy. We do need a manufacturing renaissance. And we do need a psychology that America is going to be number one and stay number one and create the kind of good- paying jobs for our people that manufacturing provides.

Andrew Liveris, who's the chief CEO of Dow Chemical, wrote a book. The name of that book is ``Make It in America.'' Manufacture it in America. Grow it in America. Sell it here and sell it around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Lipinski's bill, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. This passed out of committee unanimously 4 months ago. This bill is a key part of House Democrats' Make It in America plan to strengthen American manufacturing. But it's not a Democratic plan. It's not a Republican plan. It's an American plan. All of us can resoundingly support this and take ownership of a renaissance in manufacturing.

For the past 2 years, our manufacturing sector was a bright spot in our economic recovery, seeing the first increase in manufacturing jobs since the nineties. But for the last 3 months that sector has begun to contract a little bit, a symptom of Congress' failure, in my opinion, to take serious action on legislation like Make It in America. And, yes, taxes and regulations. The gentleman was correct. That's why we need the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. This bill will bring the public and private sectors together with labor and other stakeholders to craft plans to develop comprehensive national manufacturing strategies in 2014 and 2018.

Ladies and gentlemen, none of you doubt that our competitors across this globe are doing this. We are late to this ball game. But the good news is we are the most able, productive economy in the world, and we can compete with anybody. All we need is a good plan. Other nations around the globe have strategies to increase the manufacturing to keep America competitive. It is imperative that we have a plan as well. Not to pick winners and losers, but to create the environment of which the gentleman spoke just before me about an environment that allows manufacturing to grow.

I want to thank, again, the ranking member for his very compelling statement that he made. The Obama administration focused on revitalizing the manufacturing sector, and Representative Lipinski's bill ensures that the U.S. Government will continue to pursue policies that bolster manufacturing and add jobs. I want to commend Representative Lipinski for his leadership on this issue, as well as Ranking Member Waxman, Ranking Member Butterfield, whom I've already referenced, and other Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

But I also want to commend those Republican leaders on the Commerce Committee, and Mr. Manzullo, who is sitting here, my dear friend, who heads up the Small Business Committee, is focused on growing jobs in America. I also want to thank Chairman Upton and I have already thanked Chairman Bono Mack, but she is my good friend so I'll thank her again, for their work to make sure this bill came to the floor with bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee reported this bill in June with a bipartisan vote. I am sure it will receive a bipartisan vote tonight.

I will tell you there is no place in America you can go--not the most conservative district, not the most liberal district, not the most Republican district or the most Democratic district. And you could talk about make it in America, and you'll get heads nodding in agreement.

This is not an issue of philosophy. It's a pragmatic issue of growing our economy, creating the kinds of jobs that our people need, jobs that pay well, give them good benefits, and a bright future for them, their families, and their children.

So I commend both the Republican and Democratic side for bringing this piece of legislation to the floor and urge its unanimous adoption by this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the one-year anniversary of the International Food Safety Training Laboratory (IFSTL) at the University of Maryland. This ground-breaking public-private-academic partnership puts to work government, university and private industry resources to expand the capacity of food safety scientists globally.

The global food trade has soared over the past two decades. Increasing public demand for international foods has resulted in global food exports exceeding $1 trillion per year. With changing regulations and technologies coupled with shrinking budgets from tough economic conditions, assuring food safety has become a growing challenge.

We know how important it is for our food supply to be 100% safe. Americans need confidence that the food they provide their families is free of contamination. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a big job to do, and the recent Food Safety Modernization Act will help them protect our food supply. But even with the added protections afforded by this law, the FDA still can't respond to the hundreds of requests from foreign governments to train their officials on U.S. regulatory standards and requirements. And the best way to ensure food safety is make sure the food is safe before it reaches our borders.

The IFSTL greatly assists the FDA by training food safety scientists from around the world on the best food safety practices. They learn how to better detect food borne contamination and what they have to do to meet U.S. regulatory standards. This training will enable governments and food manufacturers to more easily detect contaminated food at farms, ports and manufacturing plants and it will increase compliance with food regulations. Over time, this will make food safer when it reaches our tables.

The IFSTL also creates permanent channels of communication between food regulators and producers from around the world, allowing them to work together to identify and resolve food safety challenges. This supports trade between countries and enables food safety standards to rise across the board.

I am proud to join IFSTL in celebrating their first of many anniversaries. I thank them for their work and commend their partners that have helped: the University of Maryland, the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the FDA, and Waters Corporation. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the adjournment resolution has arrived from the Senate, and I just want to advise not only my Members but all Members that there will be a vote following the next vote, which was scheduled to be the last vote, but because the adjournment resolution is now here, I want to advise my Members and obviously other Members as well. I've talked to Mr. Cantor, the leader, who has been helpful on this effort as well, that there will be another vote following this vote.

Mr. Speaker, we are now at some point in time going to conclude 4 weeks in session with little to show for it.

Over the past month, the Republican do-nothing Congress has continued its relentless pursuit of message over substance. Not only have they failed to address job creation or deficit reduction in any serious way, they have also refused to work with us to pass bills that the Senate approved with bipartisan support: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act--critically important to women and to families; postal reform--absolutely essential; a farm bill.

Their approach has been confrontation, unfortunately, not compromise. As a result, House Republicans have been unable to govern.

This week, in the most brazen abandonment of responsibility we've seen yet, Republicans chose to adjourn for the summer, which we prevented, without a middle class tax cut extension signed into law.

We ought not to adjourn, ladies and gentlemen of this House, until we pass a middle class tax cut.