Floor Statements

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a wonderful day of celebration. Today we celebrate the 85th birthday of an extraordinary American, an American who has served over five-eighths of his life in this House, an American whose father served before him, an American who has been sent to the Congress after Congress after Congress after Congress, a Member who has made an extraordinary contribution to the legislative history of this Congress and to the welfare of this country. John Dingell today is 85 years of age.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to now yield to somebody who has not served with him for 85 years, but has served with him for a very significant time on the extraordinarily important Energy and Commerce Committee, my friend from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Those of you who are new to this body, what Mr. Barton has just said, if you want an example of a truly great legislator, a legislator who has year after year sat down with both sides of the aisle, with all the different interest groups that are represented in this Congress, and worked together to bring consensus to quality legislation, you could have no better example than John Dingell.

So I am pleased to rise, Mr. Dingell, and express great admiration, respect, and deep affection for you, which I know is shared by all of your colleagues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his scheduling information.

I want to pursue what I presume is the reason for not having the district work period that was originally scheduled. My presumption is that we are concerned about the impending arrival of the August 2 date on which America would be put in the position of defaulting on its obligations. I presume that's the reason, that we want to make sure that we are here to work on that issue. Am I correct on that?

I thank the gentleman for that observation.

I know the gentleman has said in the past that he believes it would be a very bad situation for our economy and for our country if we did not extend the debt limit.

Am I correct that the gentleman still shares that view?

I am pleased, as the gentleman knows, to hear that you want to stop the spiraling deficits that confront our country. I will repeat again because the gentleman keeps mentioning this, and I have enough experience to know what has happened:

In the 30 years that I've been here, of course we've had some few years of the Obama administration, but we had Mr. Reagan's administration, Mr. Bush I's administration, Mr. Bush II's administration, and we ran up--and I know the gentleman knows these figures--over $6 trillion of deficit during that period of time. However, in the 8 years that Mr. Clinton was President of the United States, we had a $62.9 billion surplus.

Now, the gentleman makes the point that spending is out of control. The fact is, as the gentleman clearly knows, when you were in charge of the House and the Presidency and the Senate, you increased spending by more than was increased during the Clinton administration by a percentage on an annual basis. So I'm glad to hear that your side now, without fail, talks about spending being out of control. Very frankly, I have the feeling, if your side were spending 5 cents, you would think that we would need to cut an additional 5 cents in revenues so that we could not pay the bills, because that's why we ran up $6 trillion in deficits: you did not pay for what you bought.

Now, I'm one of those who very strongly believes we ought to pay for what we buy, but I also believe that we ought not to put this country on the brink of financial chaos and bring us down in the eyes of the world because we don't extend our debt.

Very frankly, I think we ought to pay for what we buy. We call that ``taxes''--whether it's defending America, paying our FBI, paying people who are researching cancer, heart, lung, diabetes issues. Those are Federal expenditures for which the American people pay through taxes. If we are going to be responsible, we make a very simple judgment: if we want to buy it, we ought to pay for it.

That $6 trillion of deficit was incurred during those Presidencies, and the President is the only person in America who can stop spending-- the only one. You can't do it and I can't do

it. We need 217 other votes in our House. Over there, they need at least 60 votes to do anything. The President can do it himself. Ronald Reagan never had a veto overridden of a bill that said we spent too much money. George Bush I never had a veto overridden in which he vetoed a bill saying we spent too much money, and George Bush II never once had a veto overridden so that we spent money that he did not sanction.

So I say to my friend, we did meet at the White House, and the President of the United States, the leader of our party, and I and Mr. Reid and Mr. Durbin all said, yes, we need to get a handle on this spending; yes, we need to get a handle on the deficit; and, yes, we need to bring down the debt. We need to come to the table together with everything on the table, and we need to pay for what we think we ought to buy. Frankly, we ought to ensure that the United States of America, for the first time in history, doesn't fail to pay its bills.

I tell my friend that we've had a lot of commentary over the last few days, people on Wall Street, people in business--large, medium and small--and I will tell you that if the United States doesn't, by August 2, agree to pay that which it owes, that which it has incurred--not what we're going to incur, but those debts that we've incurred in the past--everybody in America is going to be hurt.

Every economist that I talk to says that interest rates are going to spike, the stock market is going to be at risk and, very frankly, millions of people who have pension funds and who have interest in their pensions are going to be adversely affected, the housing market, which is struggling, is going to be hurt, the economy that is struggling is going to be hurt. So I would hope that my friend and I will go to the White House on Sunday, we will sit with the President of the United States, and we will be for a large deal that is euphemistically referred to as a ``comprehensive solution'' so that we can in fact--not in the short term, not temporarily, but in the long term--bring fiscal discipline to the operations of our country. Our country needs that. I think the international community expects that of us. And if we don't do that, I tell my friend, I think we will not have fulfilled our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and serve the general welfare of our country and our people.

Now, some in your party of course have suggested there is no need to raise the debt. Does the gentleman agree with that proposition? I'm not going to go through the quotes, but as you know, one of your candidates for President has indicated there is no need to worry about raising the debt. She serves in this body, as a matter of fact.

I thank the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, very interesting comments he makes. Of course, he leaves out some things. He talks about the jobs that were lost. Those jobs were lost of course as this administration took office. This administration has gained back 2 million of the 8 million jobs that were lost during the economic program that my friend from Virginia voted for, for the most part. Eight million jobs were lost. And the month that this administration took office in January, 780,000 jobs in one month were lost, the last month of the Bush administration. That's not very distant past.

But let me tell you, I heard the same rhetoric--you said you've changed, I heard the same rhetoric in 1993, same rhetoric when we adopted a program that we said would balance the budget, bring the economy back and create jobs. The same rhetoric, oh, no, you won't do it. The program that you're going to adopt--none of which you voted for, you weren't here, I understand that--but the same rhetoric applied. You thought we were going to tank the economy, kill jobs, explode the deficit and have high unemployment. In fact, as my friend well knows--he didn't read those statistics because he thinks they're ancient history because you opposed that policy. But that policy created 22 million jobs. That's a 30 million job difference between the Bush administration that was the follow-on administration and the Clinton administration. Thirty million job difference, I tell my friend, under the policies that you adopted and you supported in the 2000s.

So I would hope that my friend's comments are correct, that you have decided to change. In point of fact, we need change. And in point of fact, the American public--which is divided itself, but would like us to come together, and I'm hopeful that we'll do that. And my friend and I have had the opportunity to talk about this. We do have significant differences. But none of us can put something on the table and say if you don't agree, I'm going to tank the economy, I'm going to have America default for the first time in its 200-plus years of history if you don't agree and do it my way.

I have said, the leader has said on this side, everything is on the table.

We understand that you have to pay for what you buy, and we also understand we have to buy less, and we are prepared to do both.

In fact, we have agreed to do both in the Biden talks.

Now, my friend talks about economists. The most successful investor in America, I think most people will agree, is Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett said we raised the debt ceiling seven times during the Bush administration. And now in this Congress, under the Republicans, they're using it as a hostage, and you really don't have any business playing Russian roulette to get your way in some matter. We should, he said, be more grown up on that. To that extent, he echoed the comments of our Speaker, who is trying, in my opinion, to get to a place where we can come together, compromise--as is critical in a democracy--pay our bills, and reduce our obligations and reduce spending. Buffett went on to say we should, as I said, be more grown up on that.

If we don't meet the August 2 deadline, he observed, you're playing with fire when you don't need to play with fire. And we don't need to tell the rest of the world that any time people in Congress start throwing a tantrum, that we're not going to pay our bills. That is not responsible behavior. It's not adult behavior. It's not good for anybody in the United States of America, and it's not good for the international community.

In fact, Senator Alan Simpson was referring to Tom Coburn, who has said, look, you've got to have everything on the table, including, yes, revenues; yes, taxes.

Some bard has said that taxes are the price we pay for democracy. They should not be any higher than they need to be, but we ought to pay for what we buy. And if we don't, if people don't want to pay for it, we ought not to buy it.

Unfortunately, the reason we racked up $6 trillion of deficits during the Reagan and both Bush administrations is because we bought things and didn't pay for them. As you heard me say at the White House, we, both parties--you weren't here--voted for some things and didn't pay for them. We've got to stop that. That's why we put in place statutory

Reclaiming my time, if I can----

I will continue to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

The gentleman, I understand, does not like me to look back. But the problem with being around for some time, you hear people say that this isn't going to work or that's going to work, and you know what? Hopefully that ought to be instructive as to whether it did work or didn't work.

And the problem I have, which, apparently, I know you don't appreciate, is that I've heard the rhetoric before that you've just used today, and I heard it in 1993 when a program which had revenues in it, or, as you like to say, taxes--obviously those are revenues--and it was going to destroy the economy. Who said so? Phil Gramm, an economist on your side. He said we would devastate the economy. He was dead, flat wrong, 180 degrees wrong. We had the best economy in your lifetime.

Furthermore, let me instruct the gentleman, I don't know what you're reading from, but your figures are wrong. Over the last 20 months we have gained 2 million jobs.

Now, did we lose a lot of jobs in the first 6 months? We did. Now, there is no

doubt in my mind for 1 second that if it were a Republican President and it had been a Democratic administration, there is no administration in history that wouldn't have blamed those first 6 months on their predecessor because they couldn't turn the economy around. So, since the stimulus took effect, we have gained 2 million jobs. Have we gained enough? No. We lost 8 million jobs under the Bush administration. So we have only filled 25 percent of the hole. Again, I don't know what paper you are looking at, but you check the figures.

Now, unfortunately this month, he is absolutely correct. It was disappointing, and the month before was disappointing. In fact, of course, some people are doing pretty well in America. The stock market closed at about 12,700-plus on the Dow yesterday, some $2 trillion on hand.

One of the things I think that people are worried about is making sure that we act as adults, we act responsibly, we pay our bills, and we ensure that America does not default. All I am going to say, and then I will close, is that I hope the gentleman and I can join together on Sunday and on every day thereafter between now and when we can resolve this issue so that we can pay our bills, stabilize our economy, and give what the gentleman talked a lot about in our colloquies when our positions were reversed--I remember those days--talked a lot about, and that was confidence, that was stability.

The failure for us to act, as we acted seven times in the Bush administration to raise the debt limit, and I don't have the specific number, but more than that in the Reagan administration--and by the way, during the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, does the gentleman remember how many times we raised the debt limit? Zero. Zero. Why? Because for every one of those 4 years we had a surplus, not a deficit. A surplus. And Mr. Greenspan was worried at the end of the Clinton administration that we were going to pay off the debt too quickly. And President Bush projected a $5.6 trillion surplus.

So I tell my friend that the reason I look back is to not repeat the mistakes of the past. We didn't pay our bills. We paid our bills in the nineties. We started not paying our bills again. You jettisoned the statutory PAYGO. You jettisoned it again, essentially, not the statutory part, but the rule part.

Again, I don't enjoy going back and forth on this, but I am very concerned for my country. The Speaker said he wanted to solve this problem by June 30. It is now July 7. We haven't resolved it. And the country is waiting for us. So let us hope that all of us will not say, can't do this, can't do that, can't do the other.

Let us go down to the White House on Sunday with the President, with the Senate, with the leaders of this House, and say, yes, we can. We can be responsible. We can be adults. We are going to get this done for the people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, last month, the House voted against defunding the American military mission in Libya. That was the right decision, and it still is: along with our NATO allies, we intervened in Libya in response to Moammar Gadhafi's violent repression of his own people, and the explicit promise of worse to come. It's also important to remember that Gadhafi has more American blood on his hands than anyone other than Osama bin Laden. And we must remember that we intervened in response to calls from the Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union, and a unanimous NATO.

Our allies have taken the leading role in Libya, but it is crucial that America continue to support them. It's crucial because the campaign against Gadhafi has made significant progress, which would be dramatically set back by a sudden withdrawal of American support; because that sudden withdrawal of support could endanger civilian lives and stall democratic movements across the Middle East; and because it would represent a failure to keep faith with our NATO allies. As I said the last time this issue came to the floor: either we are in an alliance, or we are not. And if we are, that means supporting our allies in their time and place of need, so that they will continue to do the same for us--a principle that is especially important when civilian lives are at stake. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, last year, Congress voted to repeal the counterproductive and unjust policy of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

But despite overwhelming evidence that repeal will strengthen our military, despite strong support for repeal among our troops and the American people, despite support for repeal from military leaders like the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and despite a Federal court order that the Government stop enforcing DADT immediately, Republicans are still pushing to keep this shameful policy in place.

Under DADT, 13,500 gay men and women were discharged simply because of who they were. These were troops who had served our country honorably and bravely; 1,000 of them filled what the military calls ``critical occupations,'' such as engineering and interpretation of languages like Arabic and Farsi.

Our closest allies--countries like Britain, Canada, and Israel--know better than to throw that kind of service and expertise away.

Yet the amendment offered by Mr. Huelskamp would force our military to stop training its Chaplain Corps to prepare for the repeal of DADT. This amendment would substitute Congress's micromanagement for the judgment of our military leaders on training issues, and it is a transparent attempt to interfere with the repeal of DADT in any way possible.

The amendment offered by Ms. Foxx is in a similar vein. It would prohibit defense appropriations in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.

DOMA is discriminatory and should be ruled unconstitutional--but as long as it is law, it clearly applies to all Federal agencies, including the Defense Department.

That makes this amendment entirely unnecessary. Let's see it for what it is: Republicans' effort to change the subject from open service--an argument they've lost--to marriage equality--an argument they're still in the process of losing.

I urge my colleagues to oppose both amendments which put partisan belief in the exclusion of gays above the strength of our military.

I thank Mr. Berman for yielding. I thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for bringing this resolution to the floor. And I am pleased to join my colleague and friend, Mr. Cantor, in strong support of this resolution.

I believe there is only one lasting solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, a future of two states for two peoples living in security and peace with one another. Such a solution is in the best interests of regional peace and in the best interests of both parties. That is why I strongly believe that ensuring the long-term viability of the Jewish democratic State of Israel also requires supporting a homeland for the Palestinian people.

History teaches us that in conflicts such as this, one peace must be negotiated. It cannot and will not be imposed from outside or else it will rest on an unstable and temporary foundation. That is why I strongly oppose Palestinian efforts to impose a solution to the conflict at the United Nations, as well as Palestinian efforts to unilaterally declare statehood. I am concerned that a unilateral declaration will only encourage both sides to dig in and put a lasting negotiated peace further at risk.

As President Obama said, and as Mr. Berman has quoted--and I want to quote a little more of the President's remarks, but I will repeat some of what Mr. Berman said because I think it is relevant--I quote the President of the United States: ``For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end

in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.''

I believe the President is absolutely correct. By passing this resolution, the House will make it clear that it agrees that a real peace can only come through negotiations between the two sides. That peace will only last if both sides buy into it. We all know that those negotiations have been and are now relatively nonexistent, and they will be difficult even having been entered into. They will be painful. They will require courage and sacrifice on both sides. But the hard way is also the right way. And if there is to be any hope of peace, as surely all of us pray there is, both sides must return to the table without preconditions.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. And I will continue to urge America's allies to stand against quick, unilateral, and ultimately unstable solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I thank the gentleman and the chair for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this legislation. I am a strong supporter, as many of you know, of what we call our Make It In America agenda. Make It In America simply means we are going to provide jobs, we are going to provide opportunities, and we are going to build the manufacturing sector of our economy. In order to do that we also need to enhance the inventive, innovative, and development phases of our economy. This bill, I think, will facilitate this.

I congratulate the gentlelady from California for this amendment as well, which I think improves this bill. I rise in strong support and urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. I congratulate all of those who have worked on this legislation. It is obviously not perfect, but then again, no piece of legislation that we adopt is perfect. It is, however, a significant step forward to make sure that America remains the inventive, innovative development capital of the world. In order to do that we need to manufacture goods here in America--manufacture the goods that we invent, innovate, and develop here, because if we continue to take them to scale overseas, then the inventors, innovators, and developers will themselves move overseas.

So I thank Mr. Smith, Mr. Watt, Ms. Lofgren, and the others who have worked so hard on this legislation, who have dedicated themselves to trying to make sure that we have a context and environment in America which will facilitate the innovative sector of our economy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The previous speaker deludes himself, and he is my friend, if he thinks the message we send today goes only to the President. The message will go to all the world, the message will go to Muammar Qadhafi, the message will go to our NATO allies, the message will go to every nation of the world that America does not keep faith with its allies.

``America must lead. We must not equivocate. Such a course would encourage the enemies of peace, the bullies of the world. People around the world look to our country's strength in their struggle for democracy and basic human rights.''

As it happens, I said that in 1999 when Clinton sent troops to stop the genocide in Bosnia, and he did so and the authorization lost on this floor, shamefully, 213-213, one of the darkest days I have served in this institution. Let us not repeat that mistake. Let us not repeat that message to our NATO allies, to our European allies, to all the world, that America cannot be counted on. At the same time, Congress was voting to undermine their mission as they flew to Kosova.

In recent months, people across the Middle East have bravely stood to demand that their government respect their fundamental rights. I have stood with the gentleman from Indiana on behalf of human rights around the world. The Libyan people, who have been subject to the dictatorship of Muammar Qadhafi, who has more Americans' blood on his hands than any other person other than Osama bin Laden in the last three decades, were among those who insisted that enough was enough. Qadhafi responded by unleashing widespread violence and threatening countless lives, publicly promising to go ``door to door'' and kill those who stood against him.

In response to this threat of Qadhafi's against those civilian people, the European Union, the Arab League, the United Nations Security Council, and a unanimous NATO called for action to protect Libyan civilians.

The United States is participating in this action both in order to prevent brutal attacks against civilians and in order to stand by our allies.

President Obama has made clear from the beginning that our allies needed to take the leading role in Libya. We can't do it all, but that does not mean we can't support those who choose and take the responsibility of leading. NATO has done that, and to this point the campaign against Qadhafi has proven successful. His exports of oil have ceased, he is running short on funds, cabinet and military officials continue to defect from his regime.

China has just hosted the Libyan opposition in China, and the opposition controls eastern Libya and is making progress in the west. I believe that the wrong decision today will significantly compromise that progress.

Qadhafi wrote us a letter in the last debate just some weeks ago and thanked the House of Representatives for its debate. Is that the message we want to send to Qadhafi? I think not. It would put civilian lives at risk to withdraw. It would potentially stall the growing movements for democratization, not just in Libya but across the Middle East and, indeed, across the world. And it would severely undermine our NATO alliance, as we all know. If we want our allies to stand by us in our time of need in Afghanistan, we have to stand by them in places like Libya. We are either in an alliance or we're not.

I do believe that President Obama could and should have done a better job of consulting with Congress at the outset of hostilities, and I do believe we are involved in hostilities. But I believe that we must, as a faithful ally and defender of freedom, defeat the Rooney resolution and support the Hastings resolution. America ought to do no less.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this legislation.

I am a strong supporter, as many of you know, of what we call our Make It In America agenda. ``Make It In America'' simply means that we're going to provide jobs, we're going to provide opportunities, and we're going to build the manufacturing sector of our economy. In order to do that, we also need to enhance the inventive, innovative, and development phases of our economy. This bill, I think, will facilitate this.

I congratulate the gentlewoman from California for this amendment as well, which I think improves this bill, and I rise in strong support and urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. I congratulate all of those who have worked on this legislation.

It is, obviously, not perfect. But then again, no piece of legislation that we adopt is perfect. It is, however, a significant step forward to make sure that America remains the inventive, innovative, development capital of the world. In order to do that, we need to manufacture goods here in America; manufacture the goods that we invent, innovate, and develop. Because if we continue to take them to scale overseas, then the inventors, innovators, and developers will themselves move overseas.

So I thank Mr. Smith, I thank Mr. Watt, and I thank others who have worked so hard on this legislation, Ms. Lofgren as well, who have dedicated themselves to try to make sure that we have a context and environment in America which will facilitate the inventive, innovative sector of our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise to call the attention of my colleagues to a milestone that one of our Members has now reached, a very significant milestone. One of my best friends in the House, who I served with on the Appropriations Committee for many years, and who greeted me when I first came to the Congress, my friend, Congressman Norm Dicks, has just recently cast his 20,000th vote in the House of Representatives. And I personally think almost every one of them was correct.

Madam Speaker, it is a testament to his distinguished record of service in this Chamber, which began on January 3, 1977, at the start of the 85th Congress. Since that date, our colleague, Norm Dicks has continued to represent the people of the Sixth Congressional District of Washington, the cities of Bremerton and Tacoma, as well as the Olympic Peninsula, as he has worked his way up to the top of the leadership of the House Appropriations Committee. As some of you know, I refer to him as the Chairman in waiting.

The expertise he has developed on defense and natural resource issues throughout those years on the committee is well known.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated, Norm Dicks now serves as our ranking Democratic Member on the Appropriations Committee, and serves with the distinguished chairman, Hal Rogers from Kentucky.

I believe I can speak for all of us, all of our Members today, in congratulating Norm on reaching this important milestone. And I think I can also say for both sides of the aisle, Norm Dicks is one of those Members who reaches across the aisle and tries to make policy in a positive way.

Norm Dicks, I think, is an example for all of us. He's become one of the few Members of the House who has had the determination and endurance to remain engaged in the people's business for so long here in the House of Representatives.

Norm, we congratulate you, not only on your 20,000th vote, but on the quality of service you have given to this

House, to this country, and to your district and Washington State. Congratulations.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to rise in opposition to this bill.

The gentleman from Mississippi knows as well as any of us that the right to vote is sacred. Access to the polling places ought to be sacred. Every American ought to be facilitated in voting, and every American vote needs to count. That's what the Help America Vote Act was all about.

Bob Ney of Ohio, who was chairman of the House Administration Committee subsequent to the 2000 election, and I worked on this legislation. And as has been pointed out, it passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way.

The right to vote is at the foundation of our democracy, so it is extremely disappointing that this bill would undermine our Nation's ability to protect that right. From 1789 to 2000, the Federal Government had elections which it did not pay for nor did it administer. Now, under this bill, we're still not paying for elections and we're still not administering them, not this bill that's on the floor. But under our scheme of things, the elections are still run by States and counties and localities.

What this agency was designed to do was to bring the best information possible so that elections could be run in the best way possible. There are over, I think, 120 million voters in America. So this is 20 cents for each one of those voters, to make sure that they have access and that their vote is counted and counted properly. Eliminating funding for the Election Assistance Commission would harm the integrity of our elections in 2012 and for years to come. Voters deserve assurance that their vote will count.

In 2000, our democracy was blemished by our flawed election systems. This was a response, passed in a bipartisan fashion. Regardless of how we felt about the outcome of that election, Republicans and Democrats agreed that the Federal Government had a duty to improve election systems so that every qualified citizen's vote counts.

Now, the FEC has a responsibility, and that is to monitor contributions and expenditures of political candidates, not to run elections. They had somewhat that responsibility before we created the Election Assistance Commission in HAVA, and they did not carry it out. Why? Because they neither had the resources nor the time to do so.

We need to provide States the financial and informational resources to upgrade their voting registration systems, train their poll workers, and improve access for disabled voters. The result was the bipartisan Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, which I was proud to help write.

It passed the House by 357 votes to 48 and passed the Senate with only two votes against.

Before HAVA, the Federal Government guaranteed voting rights, but it did little to ensure, on the nuts-and-bolts level, that our objectives were carried out. As part of its efforts toward that end, HAVA created a bipartisan Election Assistance Commission, whose job is to administer grants to States and provide States with ongoing guidance.

My good friend from California (Mr. Lungren), with whom I have served for a number of years, is wrong. There was no intention to make this a temporary agency just for the distribution of grants. It was an ongoing advisory agency to make sure that best practices were pursued, not because they can impose but because they can advise, an extraordinarily worthwhile event.

The EAC has created a comprehensive program to test State voting systems for accuracy. Don't we all want that? And use of this program has been shown to save our States millions of dollars, as the ranking member just said.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the additional minute.

The EAC is not perfect. There is no agency, including the one we're going to fund this week that spends almost $700 billion--that's not perfect. Should we fix it where it's broken? Yes. Should we do that to every agency? Yes. Is it our responsibility to do so? Yes. But to eliminate the very agency constructed to ensure that we do not repeat the travesty of 2000 is to retreat from ensuring fair, open, accessible elections where every vote will count.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this piece of legislation. If, in fact, the EAC needs fixing, let's fix it. That's the responsibility of the House Administration Committee on which I served for, I think, 17 years. You ought to do that if you think this is not working correctly, because what it does is absolutely essential for democracy and for America.

Defeat this legislation.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week.

I thank the gentleman for that information on the schedule for the coming week.

I want the gentleman to know that on our side we are very pleased to see the patent reform legislation brought to the floor. As you know, that's a part of our Make it in America agenda. I know it's a part of your agenda as well. I think this is something on which there obviously has been some controversy with respect to provisions of the bill, but it is absolutely essential that we give certainty to patents and to accelerate the approval of patents. The backlog that exists is not acceptable. I am pleased that this legislation has come to the floor. Very frankly, this is a needed and welcome piece of jobs legislation.

One of the concerns we have on this side of the aisle, as you know, is that we have not from our perspective had a jobs focus in the last 6 months. We welcome this part of our Make it in America agenda and part of your agenda as well. Again, I think we can cooperate in this effort, hopefully, and have a bipartisan effort on this patent reform bill.

I also would raise the issue, Mr. Majority Leader, I want to say that I know that you and Mr. Kyl and others have been participating in the talks with Vice President Biden. There have been constructive talks, I understand from your comments and the comments of Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Clyburn on our side. We are very hopeful that these talks will prove fruitful and that we can move ahead. We believe it's critical, as you know, and as you have articulated, that we address the default prevention responsibility that we share. Clearly, America wants to pay its bills, the American public expects us to pay our bill, and the international community expects us to pay our bills. You and I have both read quotes from Mr. Bernanke, business leaders like Jamie Diamond, economists and others who have indicated that failure to assure that America does not default on its bills will have very dire consequences both here and around the world.

So I am hopeful, Mr. Leader, that, although you did not announce it, we have very little time left, as you know, before the August 2nd date which Secretary Geithner has indicated is the date on which we will no longer have the cash flow ability to meet our obligations as they become due and to fund the programs that we have authorized and provided for the executive department to carry out.

I would very much be interested in your thoughts with reference to how we ensure that we take action in a timely fashion. I was very pleased to see Speaker Boehner's comment about a week and a half ago that he was focused on assuring that we did not default and provide for the payment of our debts prior to the end of this month. As you know, we have 4 days left, or 3\1/2\ days left, in this month, and that's next week, because the following week we're off. I would very much be interested in your observations on how you see us going forward on this critically important issue.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would respectfully note that so much of what he talked about was resolutions. I think resolutions clearly do state an opinion. Whether or not they have any ultimate effect is to be seen.

I think the American public, in looking at the agenda the gentleman has just gone through, probably says to

themselves, Well, we don't see the jobs in that agenda. We do see the agenda in that agenda. We do see the politics in that agenda. In any event, I am pleased, as I said at the outset, that we do have a jobs bill that I think will have an impact coming to the floor this coming week, the patent reform bill, which I think is essential.

As it relates to the precluding of America's defaulting on the obligations it has incurred, I appreciate what the gentleman has to say, but, of course, the rating agencies, three agencies now, which have said we stand at risk of losing our AAA rating, which America has always had, does not distinguish between how we get to where we have a vote of approval on allowing America to pay its bills.

I, too, like the gentleman from Virginia, want to reach an agreement on the reduction of the deficit and the substantial reduction of the debt. The gentleman indicates he wants to cut spending by trillions. However, as we all know--and I've repeated--the gentleman voted for a rules package the first day of this session which provides for $4.8 trillion in additional deficit without paying for it. That is the continuation of taxes while not cutting the spending by that amount.

You precluded our continuing to provide for statutory PAYGO applying to revenues as well as expenditures. Both obviously have an impact on the deficit that we incur. We incurred substantial expense during the Bush administration, as you know, some almost $3.5 trillion of deficit spending, or $2.5 trillion depending upon where you count some of the expenditures; but in any event, it's a minimum of $2.5 trillion which we didn't pay for, and we therefore increased the debt by 86 percent in those 8 years of the Bush administration.

Both of us agree that we have to abandon policies of buying things without paying for them and of spending beyond our means. I would hope that we could join together in accomplishing that objective. Literally, we have less than 21 days of legislative time remaining before August 2, whether or not we can reach agreement, and I hope we can reach agreement. Surely, I would hope the gentleman would agree that allowing America to default on its bills is not an acceptable alternative even if we can't get to agreement. We want to get to agreement. I want to work with the gentleman to get to agreement, but allowing America to default on its bills should not be an option.

I thank the gentleman.

Tough decisions, however, are not to pretend there's a free lunch. What we buy, we need to pay for, and if we don't want to pay for it, we shouldn't buy it. Now, frankly, that didn't happen under each one of the budgets that we adopted from 2001 to 2008, the 2009 budget. It didn't happen. We spent far beyond that which we paid for in those budgets, and that took a $5.6 trillion surplus projection to an almost 100 percent turnaround and an over $10 trillion projected deficit.

I'll just say to the gentleman, I agree with you. We need to make the tough decisions. We may need to make the tough decisions on cutting spending. We need to make the tough decisions on paying for what we buy. Hopefully, we will have the courage and the wisdom on both sides of the aisle to do just that.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him.

What they need is confidence in the management at the Federal level of the finances of our Nation. They had that confidence in the nineties when we had balanced budgets. They did not have that confidence in the last decade, and our economy shows the result. I certainly share the gentleman's view that, if we can give them that confidence, our economy will grow, and jobs will be created. I'm for working together to accomplish that objective.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank Mr. Bartlett from Maryland for making the case. I tell my friends that when they say women and children first, it means to save them, not to throw them overboard. Women and children first means that they are the most vulnerable and need to be lifted up, need to be protected, need to be given the hand up, not the handout.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, I rise in opposition to this bill. I thank my friend from Maryland, for whom I have great respect. I think in fact he did put this in context. We will not balance the budget on the backs of children. We will not balance this budget on the backs of women who need nutrition and health care. That's not how we're going to balance the budget. And the gentleman from Maryland made that point I think very effectively.

If we cut out all defense and discretionary spending, we wouldn't balance our budget. That's the magnitude of the problem that faces us. But a great country, America, should not ask our children who need nutritional programs, who need health programs, to pay the price--to pay the price of our responsibility because we have failed to pay for what we buy.

But let us not repair to our little children and their mothers to pay the bill that we refuse to pay while at the same time we pass a rule the first day in this House that provides for $5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest in America, including me. I don't want a tax cut if it means that a child goes hungry in America, the richest Nation on the face of the Earth. That is not my priority. That is not my morality. That is not my faith. Lift up the little children.

Surely, America is not a country that wants to see its children go hungry or its pregnant women go without services they need for healthy babies. Surely, America is a generous enough country to feed those who need food. My faith tells me to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe those who have no clothes.

I rise in opposition to this bill and I rise in strong opposition to attempts to dramatically cut the food programs that serve some of our most vulnerable constituents. Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and Alan Simpson, a Republican and former member of the United States Senate, just issued a report. In that report it lays forth a number of premises on which that report is based.

And one of its first premises is: do not hurt the vulnerable in America. Because, as my friend from Maryland points out, that won't get you to where we need to get. And we need to get there. I'm going to work with my friend from Maryland, a Republican, and all Republicans who know that we need to get to balanced budgets to reduce debt, and my friends on my side of the aisle.

This appropriations bill would sharply reduce funding for the vital nutrition programs for women, infants, and children. Surely, Americans did not send us a message to go to Washington and undermine women, infants, and children. At a time when we are still recovering from the worst economic crisis in a generation, where unemployment is unacceptably high, where people have lost their homes, where too many people are in great distress, surely this is not a time to say, We turn our back on you.

This bill is pushing to cut $37 million in support for hungry, low- income seniors, not just women, infants, and children. This bill cuts seniors as well. Surely, our people did not send us to this Congress to cut seniors. Also, $11 million in support for our community food banks. By the way, if you visited your food bank, you know that there is more demand on our food banks than there has ever been.

Ladies and gentlemen, reject this bill. Stand up for the values of America and of our people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Reactive Materials Team from the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland's Fifth District. Nine scientists composing the Reactive Materials Team were recently awarded the 2010 Dr. Delores M. Etter Top Scientists and Engineers of the Year Award.

This highly competitive and prestigious national award is given annually to Navy civilian and military personnel who exemplify exceptional scientific and engineering achievement. The Department of Navy established this award to honor scientists and engineers attaining superior technical accomplishments and to promote continued scientific and engineering excellence in research. It is named after an outstanding public servant, Dr. Delores M. Etter, former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition.

Today, I am proud to recognize and congratulate the team--Richard J. Jouet, Joel R. Carney, James M. Lightstone, Richard J. Lee, John H. Wilkinson, Joseph P. Hooper, Sam C. Thuot, Jonathan G. Rogerson, and Edward A. Lustig, Jr.--for their exceptional achievement in developing reactive materials to be used in the explosive cases of our next generation weapon systems. These fine scientists and engineers have are committed public servants--dedicating themselves to research vital to our national security. As Americans, we thank them for their efforts and applaud them on their accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to recognize the 3,000 active duty and civilian personnel at Indian Head who work and collaborate every day to develop and deploy technologies to improve the safety and effectiveness of the men and women serving in harm's way. Since 1890, this facility has proven to be an Energetics center of excellence for the Department of Defense (Navy) and I thank those men and women in uniform, along with their families and the civilian employees, for their outstanding service to the Indian Head Division and to the United States of America.

Again, I urge my colleagues to join with me in congratulating the members of the Reactive Materials Team at Indian Head on being recognized as the Navy's top scientists and engineers and in honoring all the men and women at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland for their continued excellence and commitment to our nation's success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate a remarkable team of young women from Maryland's fifth congressional district. The Huntingtown Hurricanes won the 3A Maryland state track and field finals on May 28, becoming the first high school team in Calvert County history to bring home a state championship title. This momentous victory was made all the more significant given the caliber of their competition.

Following an arduous, three day meet at Morgan State University's Hughes Stadium, the Hurricanes edged out John F. Kennedy High School and Catonsville High School, who tied with 47 points, by just one-and- a-half points.

This victory demonstrates that with hard work, determination, and discipline, we can reach our goals. For the past three years, the Huntingtown Hurricanes have placed second in the 3A South Region--a significant achievement--but this year, the team broke through and won the 3A South Region meet on May 21.

Fourteen student-athletes qualified for the state meet, and they remained focused and determined to achieve their dream of victory at the statewide competition.

I want to applaud Head Coach Valerie Harrington and her coaching staff--Mike Henshaw, Jim Hall, Raffaele Simpson and Deb Fillippi--for their dedication and commitment to training these superb student- athletes. And I send my hardiest congratulations to the members of the championship team--Cassidy Aley, Linsey Aley, Maia Burke, Diarra Butler, Shania Collins, Erin Dix, Taylor Fallin, Ellie Frazier, Zanae Freeland, Mercedes Jackson, Payton Muse, Leea Parker, Shelby Taylor, and Hanna Weis--on their victory. I'm very proud of these young women, and I congratulate all those involved in bringing home the championship title.

Let me close by echoing Coach Harrington's sentiments after the meet. She proudly stated that this was a banner year and one that will go down in the history of Huntingtown's girls' track and field program. I know that many other women's teams will win the title in the future, but this year's Hurricanes can always hold their heads high and recall that they were the first team to win for Calvert County.

I ask that my colleagues join me in applauding this significant accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a very proud alumnus of the University of Maryland. For more than a century and a half, the University of Maryland has represented the best of American ideals of public education. Now I am very proud to say that the University of Maryland tradition is in the capable hands of our new President, Dr. Wallace Loh, who was inaugurated this spring.

Wallace Loh came to the United States at the age of 15, alone, without family, with $300 in his pocket, his parents life savings. Wallace Loh was born in Shanghai, China. His father, a diplomat, fled the Communist regime to Lima, Peru when Wallace was a very young man. He grew up in Lima until the age of 15, but it was here in this country that he pursued the education that would ultimately make him one of our most respected academic leaders.

President Loh comes to College Park from the University of Iowa, where he served as Provost and Executive Vice President. He brings to the University of Maryland more than three decades of hard work and accomplishment in higher education. His successful career as a scholar and administrator has taken him to Seattle University, the University of Washington, the University of Colorado-Boulder, Beijing University in China, and more. He also served as a top policy adviser to Governor Gary Locke, who will be our ambassador in China. Gary Locke, of course, was the Governor of Washington State. In that capacity, he led the State's effort to expand access to higher education for low- and middle-income students.

As a leading scholar in the legal field, Dr. Loh has also been elected President of the Association of American Law Schools. Wallace Loh holds a law degree from Yale University, a Ph.D from the University of Michigan, a master's from Cornell University, and a bachelor's from Grinnell College in Iowa.

I believe that the University of Maryland could not have chosen a more qualified leader to take our university into this century. Throughout his diverse career, President Loh has built a strong track record of creating academic excellence at every stop. What an extraordinary background Wallace Loh has for this increasingly integrated world, particularly as it relates to our relations with China, one of the

world's largest nations both in terms of people and its economy.

In his inaugural address, President Loh reflected on Barack Obama's statement that America has reached a ``sputnik moment,'' a moment when our place as a world economic and innovative leader is increasingly challenged. Institutions like the University of Maryland are critical to our continued leadership in the world. As President Loh said, and I quote, ``The American research university--a crowning achievement of American civilization--must respond to this sputnik moment. We are a premier research university''--speaking of the University of Maryland. He went on to say that ``we must also become a premier innovation and entrepreneurial university.''

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the University of Maryland is well-equipped to fill that role and do its part for our State and our Nation. And I have no doubt that Wallace Loh was exactly the right person to choose to lead the university at this time.

I want to wish Dr. Loh and the university the very best as it works with so many other extraordinary universities and colleges and educational institutions in the United States of America to make sure that we ``make it in America.'' That is to say that we out-educate, we out-build, we out-innovate our competitors so that we can provide the kind of quality of life, the jobs that our people need, a growing economy for the future, for our children.

Mr. Chair, I understand the importance of cutting low- priority spending to get our budget under control. But there is nothing low-priority about the firefighters who protect our communities, our families, and our homes. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill shows badly misplaced priorities by cutting funding for the firefighters who keep us safe. Those cuts--$320 million below the president's request-- are shortsighted and reckless. They will take firefighters off the streets and put our communities at higher risk. So I support the amendment offered by Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Pascrell, which will restore funding for the successful FIRE and SAFER grant programs to the level requested by the president.

FIRE and SAFER help fire departments across America recruit, train, and retain skilled firefighters. They help fire departments equip themselves with the up-to-date tools they need to protect property and save lives. What do we cut when we cut FIRE and SAFER? We cut protective equipment that helps brave men and women enter burning buildings. We cut power generators that keep fire stations running and providing vital services during emergencies. We cut staffing, so that fire stations are more likely to be sitting empty or underprepared when disasters strike. Independent observers have found that FIRE and SAFER work: an independent study from the U.S. Fire Administration found that grants like these are making our fire departments more prepared and better equipped to protect our communities.

I want to make clear that I am not pleased with the offsets being used to restore this funding. However, I recognize that my colleagues were left with very few opportunities given the significant cuts made to the overall bill. I am hopeful that this will be addressed in conference with the Senate.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, fund FIRE and SAFER at the level requested by the president, and protect these vital investments in public safety.