Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has been a leader on this issue as has the chair of the committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Representative Berman has been a leader in Congress when it comes to reminding us of how important it is to prevent the rise in nuclear war and a nuclear-armed Iran. We are fortunate as a country to have a partnership between the chair and the ranking member focused like a laser on this issue. So I thank my friend, Mr. Berman, and my friend, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman has also been instrumental in securing funding for the deployment of the Iron Dome anti-missile system to counter the threat from Iranian-supplied short-range rockets in the hands of terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

I rise in strong support of the chair and ranking member's resolution, and I am proud to be a cosponsor with them of the resolution.

The most significant threat to peace, regional security, and American interests in the Middle East is Iran's nuclear program. This resolution makes clear that it is in America's security interest not to contain a nuclear Iran, but to prevent one. A nuclear Iran would destabilize an already volatile region where so many American troops are stationed-- and a region so vital to the world's energy supplies.

Iran continues to be a sponsor of groups committed to the destruction of our ally Israel and of groups that threaten Americans throughout the world. Iran is believed to be pursuing not only a nuclear capability but also delivery technologies that could threaten our allies in Europe and the Middle East as well as American assets in the region.

Thankfully, the Obama administration has taken a strong lead in confronting Iran. President Obama has built a wide coalition of support that has imposed the strongest sanctions Iran has ever faced. In particular, we are hitting the Iranian Government where it hurts most-- its oil exports and its banking sector. From the very start, his policy has been not containment but prevention.

This resolution reaffirms the administration's prevention policy, and I urge my colleagues to pass it as a strong sign that Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Again, in closing, I want to congratulate the chair, Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, and the ranking member, Howard Berman, on their strong and unwavering leadership on this critically important issue to the national security of the United States of America and to international and global security as well.

I want to thank my friend, Mr. Van Hollen, for the work he's done.

I want to rise in opposition to this focus on Federal employees. First of all, Federal employees have contributed $75 billion over the last 2 years towards helping us reduce the deficit--$75 billion. No other working American has been asked to do that.

You treat Federal employees in this House as second-class working people. That's wrong. This is a 5 percent tax increase on Federal employees. Nobody else, nobody else do we ask--the richest people in America we don't ask to solve this deficit problem. But Federal employees, yes, a $75 billion contribution. And you don't blink an eye because it's easy, because we demagogue about government and, by association, we demagogue about bureaucrats used as an epithet.

These are, as Mr. Van Hollen pointed out, people who protect our food, try to make sure that we can find cures for cancer, protect us from terrorism, guard our borders. That's who we're talking about. And we treat them as second-class citizens. That's wrong. It's wrong for our country, it's wrong for the American people, and it's wrong for us as an institution representing the government of this country.

Ladies and gentlemen, reject this. I'm going to talk about other aspects of this so-called reconciliation bill at a future date. But I ask you on this basis alone: federal employees--I will tell you as one who represents a large number of them--are ready to participate in helping to bring down this deficit and meet this crisis. But do not ask them to do it alone.

That's what Mr. Van Hollen says about oil companies, big corporations, loopholes, and the wealthiest in America. Don't simply ask more from those who have less and ask less from those who have more. That is not good policy. Let us not pursue it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the challenging times we live in force us to make difficult choices about our priorities. The reconciliation bill before us today is an example of choosing the wrong priorities.

While we must address our deficits and avert sequestration, the Republican reconciliation bill does it absolutely the wrong way. It places the entire burden of deficit reduction on the

most vulnerable while asking nothing of the best off. Indeed, it asks for more from those who have less, and less from those who have more. It harms seniors and children by eliminating Social Services Block Grants, which provide for programs for our communities like child protection services and Meals on Wheels.

They say they're getting rid of fraud, waste, and abuse--I've heard that for 31 years--while they added $6.4 trillion to the deficit. It slashes food stamp funding by $33.2 billion. They say that's waste, fraud, and abuse. CBO does not agree. It's real assistance to families in need. Furthermore, it cuts the pay of middle class workers who serve the public--the only workers it adversely affects.

These are the priorities we've seen throughout the Republican budget: Ending the Medicare guarantee, slashing jobs while cutting taxes for the wealthiest at the expense of seniors. The gentleman from Wisconsin says this bill doesn't do that. He's correct. His budget did that.

Middle class families and those who are the most vulnerable pay the price.

Democrats have our own proposal. Unfortunately, it wasn't made in order. As the gentleman from Maryland, my colleague said, you only had to waive one rule as opposed to the three you waived for your budget, but you wouldn't do it because you didn't want to have the American public see the real alternatives out here. I regret that. To that extent, you closed down this rule which you railed so much against.

Unlike today's Republican bill, our proposal reduces deficits in a balanced way and prevents sequestration through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenues.

And let me say something: Nobody is asked to make a sacrifice in the richest country on Earth; what we have to do is make appropriate contributions. Nobody is asked to make a sacrifice--and certainly not the most vulnerable in our country, as does this reconciliation bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill. We can and should do better.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, for the purpose of inquiring as to the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

On the Violence Against Women Act, a very important piece of legislation which we have reauthorized in the past in a bipartisan fashion, it is under a rule. Does the gentleman know whether it will be an open rule or whether there will be, perhaps, a modified open rule with amendments being printed? Will the gentleman tell us? I have a lot of folks on my side of the aisle who are very interested in dealing with certain portions of that bill, and they'd be interested to know whether or not they will be able to offer amendments.

I would tell the majority leader, for the purposes of his planning and anticipation, as he may well know, the bill that has been reported out of the Judiciary Committee is controversial. There was a bill that passed through the other Chamber, which passed overwhelmingly--more than 2 1--and it is not like this bill.

There are Members that would like to incorporate the Senate's provisions in the House bill, and I know we would appreciate it if we would be given that opportunity to offer that on the floor as an alternative. If the gentleman would take that into consideration, perhaps talk to Mr. Dreier about making such amendments in order, we would very much appreciate that. Of course we would also appreciate, perhaps, if you wanted to take up the Senate bill as a substitute. We think we would have overwhelming votes for that on this side of the aisle. In light of the fact that you and I have been working in such a bipartisan fashion lately, perhaps that would be a good way to continue that process.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his observations, and clearly he and I agree on the importance of this piece of legislation.

Certainly we're concerned about violence perpetrated against all women who happen to be in this country and subject to violent acts by others. So we want to make sure that we can, in fact, protect all women who are subject to abuse. Hopefully we can pursue that objective.

Mr. Leader, the appropriation bill we just passed was somewhat more controversial than I had hoped it would have been, in part because of the riders that were adopted to that bill, which were strongly opposed by many on this side of the aisle, and in part because we do not believe it complied with the agreement that we reached with reference to funding levels.

There are now 11 more appropriation bills to go. Can the gentleman tell me the next appropriation bill that he expects to have on the floor?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

As I said, one concern we had on our side of the aisle was the riders, many of which we thought were inappropriate. They were adopted, but we did not favor them. The second was, of course, the level of funding. The Appropriations Committee clearly articulated very early in this process they thought the monies available to them under the Ryan constrictions on 302(a) were too low to meet some of the commitments that they had.

First of all, pursuant to what he says the Speaker wants to do and he wants to do, and I think we ought to do--we didn't always get that done lamentably--does the gentleman believe that we're going to have the time to bring each one of the appropriation bills to the floor between now and the August break so that the Senate might consider them and we might consider them individually, as opposed to in some omnibus piece of legislation?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I want to make it clear that clearly I understand it is the democratic process that riders are offered and the House does its will. There it is. The gentleman is absolutely correct, that's the process.

But I want to emphasize that we still have great concerns about the agreement that we reached not being carried out pursuant to what we believed the agreement was in terms of funding levels and 302(a) allocations; that is, the general allocation to the Appropriation Committee. I know the gentleman knows that we have that concern. I know the gentleman has also made the observation that that was a cap and not an agreed number. I will tell my friend again--I think I said this a couple of weeks ago--that undermines our willingness to make agreements if what we make an agreement on is the most that you'll do, but then come in at levels substantially below that which we think we agreed to, and in fact is in the law.

I want to make it clear that was my major concern and continues to be my major concern. I understand, as all of us do on this floor, that the majority will rule on the amendments, and what amendments are adopted are adopted. There were a lot of them on the floor, as you know better than I, because there were a lot from your side, and that's appropriate.

Let me ask you about the transportation conference, Mr. Leader. We are very concerned about this. We think this is a jobs bill. We think it's an important bill. This bill, as you know, was adopted overwhelmingly by some 74 Senators. Half of the Republican Conference in the Senate is voting for the transportation bill. We're in conference now. We've been in conference for some time. Can the gentleman tell me what he thinks the status of the conference is and when we might adopt this bill? Obviously, we have it extended until the end of June, but we must act before then. Can the gentleman tell me the status of the conference?

I thank the gentleman.

I want to say as we close this colloquy--which some people will say was one of our more tame colloquies--perhaps that's appropriate. On a week that we did have an opportunity to come together, I want to thank the gentleman. I want to again say that Neil Bradley did an excellent job working with John Hughes and my staff and the Financial Services staff of Mr. Frank, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Miller's staff, and the Senate.

I think we've done what we ought to do more of. And we passed a bill which, as you know, my party supported unanimously because we believe it does, in fact, make us more competitive in the international marketplace and will help keep and grow jobs. So I want to thank the gentleman for his work on that and, again, thank Mr. Bradley and Mr. Hughes for their work on that. And hopefully the Senate will act on that with dispatch.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I want to apologize to

your chief of staff for not mentioning him.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today. We are here as the result of the work of some extraordinary staff people, and I want to start by mentioning them.

First of all, I want to congratulate and thank Mr. Miller and his staff. I want to thank the staff of the Banking Committee. Mr. John Hughes of my staff, formerly of the Banking Committee and the Financial Services Committee, has worked tirelessly with an extraordinary policy director, Neil Bradley, who works for Mr. Cantor. We worked on this matter in a bipartisan fashion. This bill comes to the floor as a bipartisan bill, and I am hopeful and believe it will pass with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, today, we are ending the uncertainty for American manufacturers waiting for Congress to act by coming together to reauthorize the U.S. Export-Import Bank. I want to thank the Republican leader, Mr. Cantor, and his staff--and as I mentioned Neil Bradley before--for working with Democrats to find common ground and to reach an agreement that is supported by both business and labor, Democrats and Republicans.

I also want to commend Ranking Member Barney Frank of the Financial Services Committee and those on his staff: Kelly Larkin, Dan McGlinchey, and Kirk Schwarzbach. Carolyn McCarthy, as the ranking member, has done such an extraordinary job on this effort, as well as Mr. Miller, who chairs the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee. Their hard work has been important in making sure this agreement will help American businesses save and create jobs. I also want to thank Representative Rick Larsen for his tireless advocacy for a long-term reauthorization of the bank.

In addition, I would be remiss if I did not mention my dear and good friend, who is the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee but who has been an extraordinary leader in making sure that America creates jobs and exports products around the world. He is Mr. Norman Dicks. Congressman Dicks, from Washington State, has been working with me every day that we've been at these negotiations. I want to thank him for his contributions to this outcome.

For 2 years, Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have been promoting a comprehensive jobs plan called Make It in America. Mr. Don Manzullo was on the floor, and he has been focused on that. They may not use my phrase of ``Make It in America,'' but so many Republicans have been focused on trying to build jobs here in America. We've been promoting a Make It in America agenda.

The Export-Import Bank financing is and has been a part of our published Make It in America agenda. By financing American companies' efforts to export their products overseas, the Export-Import Bank plays a direct role, as Chairlady McCarthy has pointed out, in helping our businesses expand and hire more employees for well-paying jobs, jobs that will not be shipped overseas.

The Export-Import Bank doesn't cost taxpayers a single penny. In fact, it has generated $1.9 billion--$2 billion rounded, as the chairlady said--in excess revenues for U.S. taxpayers over the past 5 years, and it provides a critical service that our companies need to access foreign markets on a level playing field. I am encouraged that we were able to reach this agreement to increase the Export-Import Bank's exposure limit to $120 billion through the end of this fiscal year and to raise it to $140 billion over the next 2 years.

In 2011, financing from the Export-Import Bank helped to create nearly 300,000 jobs at 3,600 private companies across America. This is a jobs bill, a jobs bill for Americans. Yes, I said 3,600 companies. An undermentioned fact is that over 85 percent of the bank's transactions are for small businesses. We talk a lot about the large businesses, Boeing in particular, which is one of our best exports and job creators--but 3,600 businesses, most of which are small businesses. The products American workers make are the best in the world.

American workers and American entrepreneurs can compete with anybody in the world if they have a level playing field. This helps get there. When

that happens, our workers succeed, and that means more of our people can make it in America. That's what Americans want to do: they want to make it; they want to succeed; they want to have their kids have opportunities; and they want to make it. One of the ways we're going to Make It in America is to make it in America, manufacture it in America, grow it in America, and sell it here and around the world, and create jobs here, good-paying jobs for our people. They'll feel better about that.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I hope this vote is unanimous. It's a vote for America, America's workers, and America's ability to compete globally.

Ex-Im Bank Support

Machinists, US Chamber of Commerce, National Association of

Manufacturers, Association of Equipment Manufacturers,

Business Roundtable, National Foreign Trade Council, Airlines

4 America, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Air

Line Pilots Association, National Small Business Association,

Small Business Exporters Association, Financial Services

Roundtable, Information Technology Industry Council, National

Council of State Legislatures, Boeing, Delta.

Labor, Business Urge Support of Export-Import Reauthorization Agreement

The agreement announced last week on a long-term

reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank ends uncertainty

for businesses and provides the Export-Import Bank resources

needed to keep American manufacturers competitive in a global

market. This agreement is an important part of Democrats'

Make It In America plan to create an encouraging environment

for businesses to innovate and make products here in the

U.S., and is supported by everyone from labor to business:

Thomas Buffenbarger, President of International Association

of Machinists and Aerospace Workers: ``The bipartisan bill

H.R. 2072 . . . represents a clear break from the Beltway

politics that have failed to address the real struggles of

ordinary Americans. During this time of intense global

competition and persistent high unemployment, U.S. exporters

need the critical resources of the Ex-Im Bank. I strongly

urge you to support American jobs and to vote for this

important legislation.''

Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce: ``This is great news for thousands of American

workers, businesses of all sizes, and taxpayers, who can

cheer the fact that this bill will reduce the deficit by

hundreds of millions of dollars. When other countries are

providing their own exporters with an estimated $1 trillion

in export finance--often on terms more generous than Ex-Im

can provide--failure to reauthorize Ex-Im would amount to

unilateral disarmament and cost tens of thousands of American

jobs. This bill will guarantee a level financial playing

field in export markets and ensure transparency in Ex-Im's

operations. For that reason, the Chamber urges Congress to

swiftly pass this bill to reauthorize Ex-Im.''

R. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President for Government

Affairs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: ``Failure to enact

this bill would put at risk the nearly 300,000 American jobs

at 3,600 companies that depend on Ex-Im to compete in global

markets. Ex-Im is especially important to small- and medium-

sized businesses, which account for more than 85 percent of

Ex-Im's transactions. . . . The Chamber strongly supports

H.R. 2072 and urges the House to consider this issue as

expeditiously as possible. The Chamber will include votes on,

or in relation to, this bill in our annual How They Voted

scorecard.''

Jay Timmons, President and CEO of National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM): ``The bill announced today to

reauthorize the Bank and increase its lending cap brings us a

step closer to protecting these jobs and will be a vital tool

for small manufacturers exporting to new markets. It is

essential to manufacturers' global competitiveness, and we

are pleased that Majority Leader Cantor and Minority Whip

Hoyer have come together on an authorization. . . . We urge

all members of the House to support this jobs legislation,

and we hope the Senate will also move forward quickly. The

Ex-Im Bank means jobs and increased exports, which will help

us grow our economy and remain competitive.''

Doug Oberhelman, Chairman and CEO of Caterpillar Inc., and

Chair of Business Roundtable's International Engagement

Committee: ``The Ex-Im Bank is critical to the ability of

U.S. companies--large and small--to compete on a level

playing field against overseas competitors who have access to

similar export credit programs. . . . Failure to reauthorize

the Ex-Im Bank on a long-term basis and at appropriate credit

levels would disadvantage U.S. businesses competing for sales

in foreign markets, potentially putting thousands of U.S.

jobs at risk.''

Tim Keating, Senior Vice President of Government Operations

of The Boeing Company: ``. . . H.R. 2072 is bipartisan

legislation authorizing EXIM to operate for the next three

years and raising the Bank's lending authority to $140

billion. The legislation also contains a number of

important initiatives and reforms that will strengthen

Congress's ability to oversee the Bank's operations and

improve the transparency of the Bank's transactions. . . .

Reauthorization of the EX-IM Bank is critical to the

ability of U.S. exporters to compete on a level playing

field in a commercial market where current and future

competitors continue to enjoy aggressive support from

their countries' export credit agencies. I urge your

strong support for H.R. 2072.''

Andrew Liveris, Chairman and CEO of The Dow Chemical

Company: ``I am writing to urge you to support the pending

legislation to reauthorize the Export-Import (ExIm) Bank. The

proposed draft three-year reauthorization with a graduated

cap to $140 billion provides certainty and support for

America's exporters. . . . I urge your favorable vote to

support and sustain American jobs, boost small businesses,

and expand export opportunities for U.S. companies.''

Capt. Lee Moak, President of the Air Line Pilots

Association, International: ``This is a positive move toward

leveling the playing field for U.S. airlines and their

workers in the global marketplace. The reauthorization bill

will aid in ending subsidies for widebody airplanes. This

action will help to level the playing field for U.S. airlines

that compete with foreign airlines, including many that are

state-sponsored, that buy U.S.- and European-manufactured

planes at below-market rates unavailable to U.S. and many

European airlines. This subsidized financing gives our

foreign competitors a significant cost advantage, allowing

them to drive U.S. airlines out of international routes and

costing airline workers' jobs.''

Nicholas Calio, President and CEO of A4A: ``We appreciate

the hard work of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

and Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, who

negotiated a bipartisan agreement that ensures increased

transparency in the Ex-Im bank's lending practices, calls for

greater economic impact analysis of loans and would implement

other important reforms, and we urge passage of the

agreement.''

Pete Bunce, President and CEO of General Aviation

Manufacturers Association: ``General aviation jobs will be

put in jeopardy if the Export-Import Bank is not

reauthorized. Furthermore, general aviation manufacturing is

one of the few remaining industries that contribute

positively to the U.S. balance of trade. Our member companies

have dramatically increased their use of Export-Import Bank

financing over the past several years. Continued lending

authority is essential to the success of general aviation

manufacturing to compete globally. . . . We appreciate the

bi-partisan effort in the House to move this legislation and

we urge every House member to support it. We also call on the

Senate to act quickly in order to avoid any lending

disruption.''

Letter from Local Chambers of Commerce: ``Without Ex-Im

reauthorization, our country's exporters won't be able to

compete effectively in the global marketplace. We urge you to

join us in supporting swift Ex-Im Bank reauthorization.''

John Hardy, Jr., President of Coalition for Employment

through Exports (CEE) and William Reinsch, President of

National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC): ``[We] write in

support of H.R. 2072, the Securing American Jobs Through

Exports Act of 2011, and strongly [urge] your affirmative

vote for reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. H.R

2072's three year extension provides assurance of Ex-Im

Bank's continued critical presence in the global export

market, its lending limit provides adequate flexibility for

the Bank to respond to market demands, and it contains

increased taxpayer protections to ensure the continued

viability of the Bank.''

Cass Johnson, President of National Council of Textile

Organizations (NCTO) and Kevin Burke, President & CEO,

American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA): ``[We] write

in strong support of H.R. 2072--Securing American Jobs

Through Exports Act of 2011. In addition to re-authorizing

the Export-Import Bank. . . . the legislation contains

provisions that will create important new avenues of

financing for the textile and apparel global supply chain.''

I thank my friend for yielding.

I've known Mr. Berman for almost half a century. He has been an extraordinary leader, as a young person, as chairman of this committee, as ranking member on this committee, and I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. He has been instrumental.

I want to thank my dear friend in whose district I used to live so many years ago, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, thank her for her leadership and her commitment. She has been a stalwart.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is great disagreement on a number of important issues, we are reminded today that Democrats and Republicans stand together when it comes to supporting our friend and ally Israel.

I am proud to be a lead cosponsor of the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, along with my friend, the Republican leader, Mr. Cantor, who just spoke.

This bill enshrines in law the deeper military and security cooperation that the Obama administration has forged with Israel and made a very high priority. President Obama's predecessor, President Bush, responsible for forging and continuing that relationship, as were his predecessors.

Today, with greater uncertainty in the Middle East and the continued pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran, close security cooperation between the United States and Israel has never been more important.

I have visited Israel 12 times, and I've seen firsthand how Israelis have achieved so much with so little. Investment in Israel's security and Israel's success yield real benefits to the United States through shared intelligence, technological exchange, and trade. Investments in Israel also strengthen our security because our countries share, not just values, but strategic interests, including preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Iran, as we all know, has been a destabilizing force in a volatile part of the world so closely linked with global energy supplies and where American troops are stationed. In response, this administration has coordinated with our European allies to impose the strongest sanctions Iran has ever faced.

This bill will enable even closer military and security ties with Israel so we can further deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability and work together--work together--to recreate and to combat terrorism that threatens both of our countries.

I want to recognize, in particular, the hard work of my friend and colleague, as I said earlier, Howard Berman, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have been a real team, real partners in this effort, as I and Mr. Cantor have been. Mr. Berman has been instrumental in securing funding for the Iron Dome antimissile defense system that was jointly developed and will be deployed on Israel's borders to protect against short-range missiles Iran provides to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, thousands of those missiles.

As Israel continues its pursuit of secure peace, we in Congress will continue to stand together in support of Israel and in recognition of the values and ideas our countries share.

This resolution, in part, is so that there will be clarity, that there will be no confusion. There needs to be a clear understanding of all those who would threaten Israel, that the United States stands with her, because it is in our, the United States', security interest to do so, and because it is morally and ethically the right thing to do as well.

We all hope for two states, living side by side peacefully, with families secure, that they can raise their children in a future that will bring peace and prosperity and tranquillity in a troubled neighborhood of the world.

I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support this resolution.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, over two decades ago, the first President Bush signed into law the bipartisan and historic Americans with Disabilities Act. I was proud to sponsor that legislation and have worked over the last 20 years to make sure that it was effective and strengthened.

Contained in the bill before us in an unprecedented measure that would significantly erode the Justice Department's authority to protect access for those with disabilities to swimming pools.

Now, one might say, Access to swimming pools? But I want my colleagues to think about, if you have a mobility impairment, if you have some neurological impairment, that swimming is one of the most effective activities in which you can participate to get your motor skills back in an environment that will not allow you to sink. Therefore, you have an environment in which you can exercise your muscles. So many of you have seen that and know that to be the case.

This is an incredibly important accessible facility for those with disabilities. In any event, those with disabilities ought to have access, certainly, to public facilities; and we can make it so.

Now, I'm not going to offer an amendment to strike this language; but I hope, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, that this will be struck. I hope that we will listen to the literally tens of letters that you've gotten and that I've gotten.

For many Americans with disabilities, swimming pools are an important source of physical activity and emotional comfort. The provision in question would roll back the Justice Department's 2010 accessibility regulations, undermining standards for new pool construction and for the upgrading of existing facilities. This would constitute a serious setback to Americans with disabilities, including many of our veterans--and I want you to think about this--many of our veterans wounded while serving our Nation overseas. As all of you know, many of these injuries they've received are to their limbs. Again, their exercise programs are facilitated in swimming pools, supported by water. So this would constitute, as I said, a serious setback.

The 2010 accessibility regulations this provision would eliminate do not place an undue burden on pool operators who cannot afford to make their facilities accessible. Some of you will remember Steve Bartlett, who was a Member of this Congress, a mayor of Dallas, still in town--a wonderful friend of mine--and a conservative Republican from Texas. He and I spent literally hundreds of hours working on this legislation together. One of the things we did was to make sure that businesses would know that what they were asked to do was affordable and that they could do it with relative ease, realizing full well that one can't expect a small business, in particular, to incur a large expense notwithstanding the objective is a worthy one. So we had a practical approach to this, and we had language that said it had to be readily achievable and affordable for the enterprise. Certainly, we can continue to do that for these facilities which are so important to so many people with disabilities.

I want to say that Mr. Wolf is one of the most conscientious Members of this House and one of the most courageous Members of this House. He and I have had the opportunity to work together for over three decades on legislation.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, the House and Senate conferees will look carefully at the damage this provision will cause in the lives of so many Americans with disabilities and will strike it from the final version.

I commend my colleagues who have come here to draw attention to it, and I thank them for continuing to stand up for those with disabilities, including veterans and their right to equal access and opportunity.

When George Bush signed on July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act, he said it was the most significant civil rights act in over a quarter of a century, since the sixties. He said it ensured that all individuals would have access to the full enjoyment of facilities in this country of opportunity and of freedom.

This amendment may be well intended, but its effect would be very detrimental. Again, I urge the chairman and the ranking member--and I will certainly be working with my Senate colleagues as well--to make sure this language is not in the final bill because this would be detrimental. As I will remind you once again, so many veterans are coming back in need of this kind of access.

I yield back the balance of my time.

National Council

on Independent Living,

Washington, DC, May 8, 2012.

Trent Franks, Chairman,

Subcommitee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member,

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Franks and Ranking Member Nadler: These

comments are submitted by the National Council on Independent

Living (NCIL) for the record of the April 24, 2012 hearing on

``The Department of Justice's Guidance on Access to Pools and

Spas Under the ADA.''

NCIL is the longest-running national, cross-disability,

grassroots organization run by and for people with

disabilities. Founded in 1982, NCIL represents thousands of

organizations and individuals including: Centers for

Independent Living (CILs), Statewide Independent Living

Councils (SILCs), individuals with disabilities, and other

organizations that advocate for the human and civil rights of

people with disabilities throughout the United States. There

are currently over 700 physical locations across America

actively providing Independent Living services to people with

disabilities.

This hearing was held to address the proposed legislation

in the House that is set to address the concerns of the DOJ's

decision to extend the rule RIN 1190 NYD Delaying the

Compliance Date for Certain Requirements of the Regulations

Implementing Titles II and III of the Americans with

Disabilities Act. We have serious concerns with Congress

preventing an executive branch agency from enforcing its own

regulations such as what is written in H.R. 4256 and H.R.

4200. We must let you know that we find both these bills to

be intrusive.

We disagree with both bills. They try to accomplish giving

the hospitality and hotel industry an opportunity to provide

accessibility to the public in the least efficient manner or

even at all. H.R. 4256 attempts to address technical

requirements that have been negotiated over years in the

rulemaking process that has worked well for all other aspects

of accessibility. This bill is broader than H.R. 4200 because

it prohibits any court enforcement of the new regulations for

a year (while DOJ is changing the standards, as required by

this bill), including enforcement by private plaintiffs.

To include Title II in the language of the resolution, even

though it would appear by the rest of the language that the

resolution concerns Public Accommodations only, under 28 CFR

Part 36; creates confusion and uncertainty about exactly how

far this resolutions impact and jurisdiction could be

interpreted to go. The resolution calls for a one year

extension to the effective date, which we in the community

disagree with its necessity.

The ADA has been in effect for 21 years, and all the ADA

pool rules have undergone extensive review for more than 10

years, with multiple comment periods and many opportunities

for hotels to learn about their responsibilities. The new

requirements already had a generous phase-in period of 18

months. Congress should not restrict enforcement of these, or

any, ADA requirements.

In response to comments that referred to the hospitality

industry not having adequate time to implement this rule, the

burden of providing access to swimming pools and the cost for

implementing this rule, we strongly disagree with all of

these claims. Providing access to swimming pools is

achievable and not burdensome. The ADA's accessibility

requirements for barrier removal in existing facilities are

very reasonable--they only require what is ``easily

accomplishable'' and able to be carried out without much

difficulty or expense. The rules are carefully crafted to

take the needs of covered entities, such as small businesses

including hotels, into account. In other words, hotel owners

need not comply with the standards in the new regulations

unless doing so would be inexpensive and simple. No extension

or enforcement ban is needed.

We also believe that it is not acceptable for the

Department of Justice to backtrack on ADA requirements

because an industry exerts pressure. To do so is an

invitation to other industries to say, ``Roll back our

requirements, too.'' Today it's the hotel industry. What

weakening changes will come tomorrow? What other human and

civil rights laws will be adjusted? In reference to the

expense this would cause for the hospitality industry, there

are Tax Incentives which have always been available and

under-utilized by businesses. IRS Tax code 44 and 190 provide

generous credits (dollar for dollar) and deductions

(reduction in gross reported to IRS) that let the hotel owner

get the money back (1/2 in credit the rest in deductions) so

cost should not be an issue.

The Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers

(DBTACs) has done a targeted education project for the

``hospitality'' industry for several years now and have

repeatedly reached out to the organizations representing

hotels. They can be reached at 800 949 4232 anywhere in the

country.

The House bill H.R. 4256 represents an extraordinarily

prejudicial precedent. This bill would deny any federal

official, which can include judges, U.S. attorneys, and other

enforcing authorities, any power to administer or enforce the

new DOJ ADA regulations regarding pools. It removes the

waiting period and adds a clause that dismisses any suits

filed after March 15, 2012. It also tries to clarify their

portable vs. fixed lifts concern, something that should be

done by DOJ.

The amendment would affect Title II State and Local

Governments, which have been covered for access into the

water since 1990. This is seen as a targeted process to

undermine the strong federal enforcement role urgently needed

and sometimes reached under the ADA. Passage of this bill

could initiate a trend to render civil rights laws completely

powerless and ineffective, even though they remain public

law. This amendment would firmly take this part of the ADA

backward. It is our belief that congress should craft strong

civil rights protections to end discrimination, not remove

the government's enforcing authority.

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Department of

Justice requested comments on extending the compliance date

``in the interest of promoting clear and consistent

application of the ADA's requirements to existing

facilities.'' The NCIL community has serious concerns with

the number of years it has taken to explain ``readily

achievable barrier removal''. Extensive technical assistance

has been provided to explain to many public accommodation

pool owners that the requirements are based on what they can

afford to do today on their existing structures, with an

obligation to provide better access when it can be afforded.

Nothing has changed with that concept since the ADA was

passed in 1990. It should not take another 6 months to

``understand''.

To include Title II entities in this extension is a huge

step backward! Program access has been a requirement all

along, and most state and local government-run pools and

swimming facilities should already have addressed access into

to the water for their programs. An extension is

inappropriate as they have already been responsible for equal

access to the water for years.

The part that is confusing is not for new construction and

altered facilities having pools and spas, but at existing

pools there is some confusion that has been partly created by

the DOJ, as the Department responded in a letter February

21st to the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA)

when they asked for clarification on the provision of pool

lifts. In that letter, the Department addresses several

concerns raised in the ``eleventh hour'' of the rulemaking

process by AHLA representatives--including some regarding

``fixed'' pool lifts versus ``portable'' pool lifts. The

Department has created part of the problem in its convoluted

definition of why a pool lift must be ``fixed'' which is not

addressed in the rule, the scoping, or in the technical

requirements of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

In addressing concerns by AHLA regarding existing hotels,

the DOJ stated that where it is not readily achievable for a

hotel owner to install a fixed pool lift, that a portable

pool lift may be used if it can be attached to the pool deck

while in use. That seems like a good idea to reduce liability

for the hotel owner, and makes the unit more stable for the

user, who also must be able to use the unit independently.

However, it is a matter of technical assistance advice that,

with additional helpful information could be given without an

extension in the effective date for compliance. Many of these

discussions should have already taken place multiple times,

given the length of time this rulemaking has taken, and to

reiterate the principles of readily achievable barrier

removal once again to the organizations pleading ignorance

should not take an additional 6 months.

The NCIL membership is very disappointed that an exception

was made in the rulemaking process by the current

Administration, and strongly objects to the proposed rule

extending the compliance date for public accommodations and

effectively abolishing the program access requirements

including pool lifts at swimming pools, parks, and resorts

run with State funds through yet another swimming season--to

September 2012. We insist the rulemaking proceed and become

effective immediately following the 60 day extension.

Submitted by: L. Dara Baldwin, MPA--Policy Analyst, The

National Council on Independent Living.

Submitted For: Mark Derry--Chair of the ADA/Civil Rights

Committee for The National Council on Independent Living.

I thank the Representative of Washington, D.C., for yielding to me, the distinguished gentlelady, Ms. Norton, and I want to thank my friend, Congresswoman Herrera Beutler from Washington State who chairs the subcommittee, and thank her very much for facilitating this coming to the floor and thank her very much for her kind remarks as well.

Mr. Speaker--and I am pleased to call you ``Mr. Speaker''--I rise in strong support of this resolution which I am proud to sponsor, and I have sponsored for many, many years. This resolution allows the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to hold its 71st Annual Greater Washington Soap Box Derby on the Capitol Grounds on June 16.

This is, and I think everybody who has been involved with the Soap Box Derby knows, a wonderful tradition that brings young people from around the area to the Capitol for a fun and educational event. It has taken place since 1938, when Norman Rocca won the inaugural race, besting 223 other contestants as his soap box racer crossed the finish line.

That race has continued for over 70 years, and it has inspired thousands of the region's young people to learn the physics behind gravity racing and the engineering used to design soap box racers.

As a Nation that wants to make things--and as the Speaker knows, I have a Make It in America agenda that I keep trying to sell that is bipartisan, and I think all of us agree that we want to make more things in America--if we are going to make more things in America and be able to export them, we will have to have people who make things. What a wonderful opportunity this is for young people to participate in making something that will then have them be successful, or, in this sense, in the race, make it, win the race.

So I think this is a wonderful enterprise. It brings young people together with their parents and teachers, and it teaches sportsmanship and hard work and pride of accomplishment. America's soap box derbies have been called the ``greatest amateur racing event in the world,'' and we continue celebrating that tradition June 16 here in Washington.

The spirit of competition that fuels these racers is the same spirit that has long energized our Nation's entrepreneurs and innovators. The young people who participate in these derbies are often sponsored by groups from their communities who recognize in them great promise for the future.

I continue to be incredibly proud of those from Maryland's Fifth District who participate, but, indeed, from the District of Columbia, Virginia, the surrounding areas. We have celebrated a number of soap box derby champions from the Fifth District, including the

winners from 2007, 2008, and 2009. We have broken our string, but maybe we will get it back. But everybody is a winner. The winners in 2007 and 2008, Kacie Rader and Courtney Rayle, respectively, went on to win the national championship.

I want to thank those Members who have cosponsored this resolution, my good friends from our area, not only Ms. Norton, who has been one of our leaders, but also Representatives Gerry Connolly, Donna Edwards, Jim Moran, Chris Van Hollen, and Frank Wolf. And again, I thank my good and dear friend from Washington State for her leadership on this; and my colleague and fellow Washington area representative, we are a team on this, and I want to thank Ms. Norton for her extraordinary leadership for not only the District of Columbia but of our region, and on so many important issues to this country.

Mr. Speaker, this month marks the twentieth anniversary of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was launched with full force by militants under the direction of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. It was as a result of this conflict that the phrase ``ethnic cleansing'' entered our vocabulary. Pictures from mass graves in Europe were no longer confined to history books but to the front pages of our daily newspapers.

As a Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission during most of that time, I participated in the efforts to document the atrocities taking place in Bosnia as well as in the efforts to develop effective policy responses. The Commission, as many of you know well, is mandated to monitor and encourage compliance with the Helsinki Final Act, and the aggression against Bosnia unquestionably constituted a significant violation of Helsinki principles. And it occurred, not during the Cold War, but when Europe was in the process of re-uniting and becoming more democratic.

Unfortunately, despite the many Members of Congress from both chambers and both parties who worked tirelessly for decisive action, for too long the international community was slow to respond. While outside intervention was ruled out, an arms embargo denied a UN member its right to self-defense. Ongoing diplomatic negotiations muted official outrage over the killing of innocent civilians. The senseless shelling of cities and sniper attacks on pedestrians were blamed not on the individuals committing those acts but on history itself and presumed ancient hatreds. Ultimately, it took the genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995 to compel action on the part of the international community and to create a consensus in this country on the need for U.S. leadership.

The twentieth anniversary of the Bosnian conflict should not, however, be remembered only with remorse. It should also be a time for renewed commitment by all of us to learn from the past. In response to the Bosnian conflict, NATO made a decision to transition from a purely defensive alliance to one that operates ``out-of-area'' in a peacemaking and peacekeeping capacity for the sake of international security. In response to the conflict, the international community decided for the first time since World War II to bring to justice those who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. In response to what happened in Bosnia, we decided to start the technically difficult and emotionally agonizing task of locating missing persons, in order to bring closure to surviving friends and family and the traumatized communities and societies in which they live.

Joined by some of my colleagues still serving in this chamber, I stood over a mass grave in Bosnia as it was being excavated in 1998, and the experience is something I will never forget.

I want to conclude by offering the Bosnian conflict as a good example of the Congressional role in foreign policy making and why we cannot ignore foreign policy responsibilities. Congress played a key role in eventually getting the policy back on track, which ultimately led to the American leadership that brought the Bosnian conflict to an end with the Dayton Agreement. We, in this chamber, give our foreign policy its democratic context and ensure that human rights, free elections, the rule of law, and other issues are key elements in how we approach foreign policy. I ask all my colleagues, regardless of party affiliation, to keep this in mind as we respond to the global challenges of today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Following up on my friend from Texas, I served on the Labor and Health Committee for 23 years. Bill Natcher from Kentucky used to say this: If you take care of the health of your people and invest in the education of your young people, you will continue to be the strongest and best Nation on the face of the Earth.

I agreed with the gentleman from Kentucky then, and I agree with him now.

Everybody says on this floor, although everybody didn't vote that way--Mr. Boehner voted against this reduction in interest rates; Mr. Cantor voted against this reduction in interest rates; and Mr. Kline voted in 2007 against this reduction in interest rates. What we are saying is we need to invest.

We talk about subsidies. This isn't a subsidy. This is an investment in a better, stronger, more growing America. That's what this is. But what do we say? Natcher said, remember, if we take care of the health of our people. This undermines the health of our people. It takes away preventive assistance so that women, families, and children can get preventive care, which so many Republicans have said is a more efficient and effective cost-saving way to address the health of our country.

Bill Natcher was right. Bill Natcher was a conservative Democrat from Kentucky who said, if you take care of the health of your people and educate your young people, you will be the strongest Nation on Earth.

This bill goes in the wrong direction trying to do the right thing. Let us reject this bill, and if, in fact, you are for investing in our young people and bringing these interest rates down--which is so absolutely essential--then bring back a bill you know will pass, because you know this bill will not pass.

The President has issued a statement of administration policy that says they will veto this bill because they do not want to undermine the health of women, family, and children while, at the same time, they want to invest in the college education for our country's young people and our future.

Reject this bill. Bring back a new bill, the Courtney bill, which does, in fact, invest in our children and take care of the health of our people.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, 64 years ago, the State of Israel was born out of the hope of a generation and on the heels of history's darkest human tragedy. Notwithstanding the many grave challenges that it has faced since that day and still in our time, Israel has achieved a thriving economy, a strong national defense, and an important role as a member of the family of nations.

Israel's existence itself is a powerful symbol of the Jewish people's resolve never again to permit its sons and daughters to face the threat of persecution or genocide. On my many visits to Israel, I have witnessed the triumph of a dream--a beautiful dream that sustained the Jewish people for 2,000 years and that has been fulfilled through the blossoming of a desert, the emergence of Israel's high-tech economy, and the freedoms of speech, press, and religion for its citizens of every faith.

Israel continues to impress the world with her achievements in business, technology, sports, the arts, and the defense of human rights. They are even more remarkable when considering the very real dangers Israel faces in the form of terrorism, regional instability, and the threat from Iran.

For Americans, Israel's peace and security has always been an important national interest of the United States of America. As President Obama has made very clear, our countries will continue to work closely together to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Not only do the United States and Israel share common interests; we also share common values. Democracy, equal opportunity, human rights, and a yearning for peace are the ideals we hold in our hearts, and together we have worked for 64 years to defend them and promote them.

On the anniversary of Israel's independence, Americans continue to stand side by side with Israel as it pursues peace and security for its people and, yes, for its region.

I pray for the peace of Israel and its people and for all the people of that troubled region. And I know the strong bonds between our nations will endure for generations to come. Those futures were what we worked so hard to make possible for thousands and thousands.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the work of a remarkable woman from Maryland, Roberta Roper, and to express to her the appreciation felt by so many across our state and throughout the country.

In 1982, Roberta and her family faced their darkest days when they learned that their daughter, Stephanie--a talented artist and college student--had been kidnapped, raped, and murdered. While struggling with her own personal pain and grief, Roberta learned that there were no supportive services for her and her family as they struggled with the loss of their daughter. Even more devastating was that the criminal justice system lacked the rights and support they needed as family members of a murder victim.

That same year, to honor the memory of their daughter and to address the inadequacies between the rights of a defendant and those of a victim of crime, Roberta and her husband, Vince, founded the Stephanie Roper Foundation. The Foundation's mission has been to provide supportive services to crime victims across Maryland for thirty years. They also established the Stephanie Roper Committee, the Foundation's legislative arm, which has resulted in over sixty laws enacted to create new or improved crime-victim rights and services.

With Roberta's active encouragement, the Maryland General Assembly created the State Board of Victim Services in 1988. This Board offers recommendations to the legislature and to the Governor on matters concerning state and local efforts to assist victims of crime. In 1994, Roberta was appointed as Chair of the Board, a position she held until her retirement last October.

In 2002, the Foundation merged with the Maryland Crime Victim Resource Center, a one-stop, statewide non-profit that provides victim services, crisis assistance, legal help, victim notification, financial help, social services, and links to national victim resources.

Roberta's activism since her daughter's tragic death in 1982 led her to so many important accomplishments benefitting my home state. These include the creation of the Maryland Victims of Crime Fund, legislation ensuring victims and their families a place in the courtroom and a voice during the sentencing process, the creation of new support and services for victims and their loved ones, as well as the ratification of an amendment to the Maryland Constitution guaranteeing crime victims the right to be informed, present, and heard throughout the investigatory and judicial process.

In addition to her tireless efforts to improve victims' treatment, Roberta serves as Co-Chair of the National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network--a network of states working with Congress to enact a Constitutional amendment establishing meaningful and enforceable rights for every crime victim in this country.

Today, I join in honoring Roberta Roper for turning a deeply saddening and difficult tragedy into a thirty-year movement to provide crime victims and their families a greater voice.

Stephanie Roper once said: ``One person can make a difference, and every person should try.'' Roberta Roper has built a lasting legacy in her daughter's name by doing just that--and we are all better off for it.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this House, it is hard to call us to responsibility, but that's what our public wants. Our public wants it on the right, they want it on the left, and they want it on the middle. This is fiscally a totally irresponsible piece of legislation, and you know it. And I know you know it, and America ought to know you know it.

Ladies and gentlemen, what this bill does is blow a $46 billion hole in the deficit this year alone. But ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, the people of America need to know that we use 10-year figures for the most part, so this means $460 billion.

Now, I know all of you on your side of the aisle--because I've been here for a substantial period of time--are next year going to say we're going to raise taxes on small businesses and put that 20 percent back. Bet me. You're going to say if we did that, it would be the largest tax increase in the history of small business. So you're going to do it year after year.

One of the previous speakers said that we're taking money from small businesses. Well, let me tell you who you're taking money from today: my children, your children; my grandchildren, your grandchildren; and, yes, my two great-grandchildren. That's who's going to pay this $46 billion hole that you're creating today.

And what does Bruce Bartlett, economic adviser to Ronald Reagan--not a Democrat, a Republican--an economic adviser, somebody who advised Ronald Reagan how to get this economy moving--unlike George Bush, I might add--and what did he say? What did he say about this bill that you have brought to the floor--which, by the way, The Wall Street Journal today called ``a tax gimmick.'' The Wall Street Journal called this bill that you are offering today a tax gimmick. And so what did Bruce Bartlett say? ``It will do nothing whatsoever to increase employment.''

Point number one, this is not a jobs bill. It will not grow the economy, and it will not do what all of us think needs to be done.

And they went on to say that ``it is nothing more than an election- year giveaway to a favored Republican constituency,'' a political gimmick, a tax gimmick that will cost us $46 billion this year alone and $460 billion--let me say, round that to half a trillion as inflation pushes it up, a half-a-trillion-dollar hole adding to the budget deficit that confronts this country that all Americans know we must address.

My colleagues, it takes no courage to vote for this bill. What takes courage is to pay for things. What takes courage is to say we have an obligation. What took courage was to make sure that we paid our debts. We didn't do it. So what happened? We almost took this country to the brink of default.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, summon the responsibility, judgment, and intellectual honesty that our public expects. Vote against this bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, the gentleman

from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

The gentleman, in his comments, indicates that we might go to conference on the surface transportation bill. As the gentleman knows, the Senate surface transportation bill passed overwhelmingly and with a very substantial bipartisan vote and a vote led by Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. There were 22 Republican Senators. About half of the Republican Senators voted for it, and so it passed overwhelmingly.

I am wondering, given the timeframe in which we are dealing, whether or not the gentleman feels comfortable with some assurance that we are going to move to go to conference so that we can get a conference under way. I know the majority indicated it wanted a bill so that it could, in fact, go to conference. I have had discussions with, I think, you but I know Mr. Boehner, the Speaker, and Mr. McCarthy, that that was the intent to go to conference.

What would preclude us, I suppose would be the better way to phrase the question, from having a motion to go to conference next week? As the gentleman knows, we are going to be out the week following so that we will not be back until May, into May; and to the extent that we delay going to conference, we are going to delay the resolution of what I think is a very, very important bill. I know the gentleman does as well. We believe this is a real job creator.

As you know, Mr. LaHood is the Secretary of Transportation, your former colleague on your side of the aisle. He has made it very clear that this is a very substantial jobs bill. To the extent that we could move quickly, I think it would be in the best interests of our country, of infrastructure investment, and the creation of jobs.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

And in light of the fact that he looks forward to my help, I want to tell him that if he brings a motion to go to conference next week, I will bring the overwhelming majority of my caucus to a vote with that motion to go to conference so that we can get that done. I will be glad to help in that respect.

Will that help him?

I didn't know whether those votes would help you get the job done that I think needs to be done. I don't say that facetiously. I think we want to go to conference. I have been told you want to go to conference, and I would hope we could move forward on that. As a matter of fact, the chairman of your committee, Representative Mica, said yesterday we should go to conference immediately, and we would be very interested in helping you towards that process.

Mr. Leader, the Appropriations Committee has started to mark up its bills and has dealt with the reconciliation instructions. My understanding is the reconciliation instructions, the result of those instructions will be coming to the floor probably the first month, the month of May.

Is that accurate?

With respect to the appropriations bills, much was made of the fact that you wanted to bring appropriations bills to the floor one at a time and under open rules. I think that's a good practice. Frankly, I would have liked to have done that when we were in charge, and we didn't get that done. I said then that I didn't think it was good for the institution for the consideration of appropriation bills, and you, I think, rightfully criticized us for that--not you, personally, but the Republican side of the aisle.

Is it your intention to bring the appropriations bills to the floor singly, individually, with an open rule as Speaker Boehner indicated would be the case, and, if so, when will that occur?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I make the additional observation that we passed a budget. Many of us voted against that budget, as you know, that passed. We voted for our alternative. But the American people, I think, have an interest and, frankly, a right to know what the ramifications of that budget that was passed are; and obviously they will find that out as the appropriation bills move forward, are considered on this floor, open to debate and open to amendment. That will educate the American people on what the consequences are of passing budget A over budget B, your budget, our budget, or an alternative budget.

It's really in the appropriations bill. The budget doesn't really do anything, as we all know, other than set a 302(a) allocation. That is the amount of discretionary dollars that can be applied in the appropriations process. What that means is that the only thing it does is set that limit and does not apportion resources to particular objectives in the appropriations bill or, for that matter, in the Ways and Means Committee bill in terms of actions that might occur with reference to taxes and revenues.

So I say to my friend that the importance of bringing the appropriation bills to the floor is to give that transparency to the American public so they can make a judgment on which priorities they support. We think it's going to be very difficult, frankly, to bring appropriation bills to the floor under the constraints that have been imposed. And we regret, as the gentleman knows, very much that we did not follow the agreement that was reached when we precluded the country's going into default. We agreed on a figure of $1.048 trillion to be the figure that the Appropriations Committee would mark to.

I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to see, but 12 out of the 14 Senators on the Appropriations Committee voted to honor the agreement that was reached today, including Senator McConnell. Regrettably, we did not do that in the House. We reduced that figure very substantially, and we also shifted some of the resources from one object--nondefense to defense--which cuts even further the nondefense portion of the budget by about $8 billion.

So I ask the gentleman, in that context, is the committee going to mark to the House-passed budget, which we have deemed adopted? Notwithstanding the fact it has not been adopted, is the House going to mark to those figures, and will it mark to those figures knowing full well what dollars are left for bills that are to follow? In other words, are you going to front-load and make those appropriation bills sweeter? That will then not leave resources for bills that will come after.

I know the gentleman doesn't like to relitigate history, but when he says spending got out of control over the last two decades, I may agree with him on the last decade we went deeply into debt, but certainly the decade preceding that my friend surely remembers that we ran 4 years of surplus and a net surplus over 8 years during the Clinton administration. A $62.9 billion net surplus after 8 years. And we had 4 years of surplus. Two of those were actual surpluses--and we counted Social Security's revenues, which obviously were borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund. So we swapped Social Security money for IOUs. But 2 of those years of actual balance.

So I would agree with him on the last decade, but I would not agree with him on the decade before that because, frankly, working from both sides of the aisle and an exploding economy, we created those deficits essentially together.

I want to say to my friend that in that context, yes, the American people want to see us use their money wisely. We all agree on that. They need to know how we intend to use their money. And if they don't have appropriation bills on the floor--because the gentleman talks about the fact that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in a thousand days. It has had no effect, none, zero on what we are doing. Why? Because all the budget does, as the gentleman well knows, is not allocate money. It sets a ceiling--as the gentleman likes, apparently, ceilings and not agreements--a ceiling on what discretionary spending will be. Other than that, it doesn't do anything. Therefore, it sets forth a plan.

But the key is going to be how you carry out that plan and let the American people know how you're going to carry it out. We do that in appropriation bills and the Ways and Means tax bills.

Does the gentleman have an idea of when a Ways and Means tax bill carrying out the budget might come to the floor?

We passed--if I can go to another subject briefly--we passed a bill today which the gentleman was a principle advocate of which cost $46 billion in terms of revenues in effect forgone, if you will, that otherwise were being expected, if that bill passes. Does the gentleman believe that if that bill passes and is signed by the President, that in light of the fact it's a 1-year bill, does the gentleman believe that it will be only 1 year or does the gentleman intend, if his party happens to be in charge in the next Congress, to see that lapse and that tax increased again on small businesses? What is the gentleman's thought on that? I ask him that question, if I might, in light of The Wall Street Journal's observation today that certainly this did not give small businesses much certainty.

I thank the gentleman, and he is correct, we do have a very substantial difference of opinion. The indication is this is a start. Frankly, we were told it was a start in 2001. We

were told it was a start in 2003 when we cut taxes very substantially. Unfortunately, we didn't cut revenues very substantially. And when you don't cut revenues after you cut taxes, what happens is you have deficit. And that's why we went from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus after the Clinton administration, projected by the Bush administration, to an $11 trillion deficit at the end of the Bush administration-- because we cut revenues and we increased spending.

We were not in charge for 75 percent of that time. In fact, we weren't in charge of ultimately passing legislation any of that time because the President, of course, had an 8-year term. So I say to my friend, we dug another $46 billion hole.

My belief is that your side of the aisle will not want to reinstate that tax next year no matter what the economy is doing, no matter how good the economy is. That's my suspicion. But it's based upon 30 years of experience, I tell my friend. And if that's the case, then we're not talking about $46 billion, we're talking about a half trillion dollars, which is $46 billion times 10 with escalation for inflation, so about a half-a-trillion-dollar additional hole in the deficit unless the gentleman is prepared to say, look, if the economy recovers, we're going to reinstate that revenue.

The difference between us is you want to talk about tax increases, and I want to talk about paying our bills. And I believe that if we don't want to buy, then we don't have to tax. But if we buy, we have a moral responsibility to have the courage to ask people to pay for it.

Very frankly, I think you've taken the discipline out of the system. I think supply-side economics takes the discipline out of the system. What supply-side economics does is, we can cut revenues but don't have to cut spending because magically we're going to get more revenues.

Very frankly, Mr. Greenspan thought for a while that that worked. He said 3 years ago, no, he was wrong. I think he was right the second time. He was demonstrably, graphically not right the first time when he rationalized the 2001 and 2003. We cut revenues, they did not raise sufficient additional dollars and growth in the economy.

As a matter of fact, whether there was a direct result, we had the worst economy I've experienced in my adult lifetime at the end of the Bush term and at the beginning of the Obama term as responsibility for the economy went over to President Obama.

Now, there's a lot of debate during this bill about how we've lost jobs. That's true. Those jobs were lost in the early part of the Obama administration. As the gentleman knows, over the last 24 months, we've had 4 million new jobs created, 10 quarters of economic growth in our country, and the Dow has doubled. The Dow has doubled since March of 2009. It's hard for me to see how that was a failure. It certainly hasn't been the success we'd like, but not a failure.

I tell my friend that, yes, we have a difference, and the public needs to come to grips with that difference and that debate, and that is whether or not we're going to pay for things we buy. And if we don't want to buy them, we won't have to pay for them, and we can cut taxes.

Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a man who put his life in harm's way for our country as a member of the iconic 101st Airborne Division's Easy Company during World War II. MSG Clarence Odell Lyall, a longtime resident of Leonardtown, Maryland, passed away on March 19.

The 101st Airborne Division was created in 1942 to put American boots on the ground in some of the most treacherous enemy-held territory--in possibly the most dangerous way possible. Paratrooper tactics were still very new, and the risks of jumping out of an aircraft, let alone into a warzone, were enough to give even some of our bravest soldiers pause. But for the men who were formed into the Division's E Company, known as ``Easy Company,'' landing safely on the ground was only the first obstacle.

On June 6, 1944, Clarence--``Clancy,'' to those of us who were fortunate to know him--jumped with Easy Company a few miles from Utah Beach in the opening hours of Operation Overlord, and he landed in a tree. He was so laden with heavy equipment that another soldier had to cut him down to safety. After the Normandy beachhead was secured, Clancy fought in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany in Operations Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge. The exploits of Easy Company were highlighted in the book Band of Brothers and the television miniseries of the same name.

Clancy's service to our country continued long after the Second World War came to a close. After the war, Clancy was honorably discharged. But he re-enlisted and went on to a military career that took him from occupation duty in West Germany to service in the Korean War and even a stint as an observer at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam in 1954, escaping the besieged town just two weeks before the fall of its French garrison. Over the course of his career, Clancy made an astounding four combat jumps, earned twenty-five decorations and citations, and retired as a Master Sergeant.

Since leaving the Army, Clancy continued to serve his country and community as a VFW Commander, President of the Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge, and President of the American Legion Vice Commander Lions Club. He served on the Southern Maryland Veterans Advisory Board and was a member of the Order of the Purple Heart in support of our wounded veterans.

I was proud to represent Clancy in Congress for so many years, and I continue to be in awe of what he and others in Easy Company and across the Armed Forces achieved during World War II. Their sacrifices, their courage, their bonds of brotherhood through unspeakable difficulty have ensured the lasting triumph of democracy.

Clancy Lyall was my dear friend, and I join in thanking Clancy for his service to this nation and to our community in Southern Maryland, and I offer my condolences to his wife, Liz, their five children, eight grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.

Reserving the right to object, and I have no intention of objecting, Mr. Speaker, but simply to say that we continue to believe on this side of the aisle that we could resolve this issue, as we have had this debate, over a longer term and give confidence to the markets, give confidence to the States and localities by simply bringing the Senate bill to the floor and passing that bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.