Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1436 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Carolina has talked a little bit about the content of this bill, and I know it will be debated at great length after we have finished the debate on this rule. But I just want to mention a couple of points from my perspective, why I am here supporting this bill today, and why I somewhat disagree on her notion that we're just doing the same thing over and over again. I am not actually doing the same thing over and over again. I am a freshman Member of Congress. Unlike my colleague, I wasn't here last year. When the President from the former administration, President Bush, proposed the TARP to Congress, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle actually voted in favor of that bailout of Wall Street. Many believed it was critical to reviving our economy, just as I believed it was critical to support the Recovery Act to make sure that we did, yes, in fact, send a considerable amount of money back into our home districts, whether it was for infrastructure construction or to shore up the jobs of our teachers and firefighters, to make sure that we were continuing to build projects in our own districts, continuing to make sure that we supported our education system. I am pleased to see that the economy is making some improvement. Now, I would be the first to say it's not improving fast enough, the jobs aren't growing fast enough in my home district. We have lost too much in our manufacturing segment. We have given too many jobs away in offshoring, and we have done so many things over the last two decades, I believe, in this country that has hurt our fundamental economy. But I will say that what I think is different about what we are doing today and what made me very pleased when I first heard the President announce this is we are finally looking after some of our small businesses. For my year and a half in Congress, as I mentioned before, I have been meeting with small businesses, meeting with the bankers that loaned them money, holding a workshop, as I did around access to capital. I was floored with the number of people who came to that workshop, with people who drove from all over my State, even outside of my district, because they were so desperate to make sure they got more information about how to access that difficult capital, whether it was someone who was ready to start a small business, even in a tough economy; or it was someone who said to me, You know, I want to do a little expansion. I want to build my own infrastructure here while I have the opportunity, or I am just trying to survive long enough until the economy improves so my business can still be there when, I hope, things get better. Well, I desperately hope things get better. In my home State of Maine, frankly, we hope for a very sunny summer. We hope that the tourists will be busy in our State, that the lobster fishermen will harvest a lot of lobster, that all of you will come and stay in our hotels, eat our wonderful seafood, and spend a little bit of time, maybe even purchase some real estate and build a new home. For us, that is critical. For many of our small businesses, who I hear from regularly, they still can't find the capital that they need. We have a huge boat-building industry in our State, and we have met with the boat builders who say, The floor plan lending proposal and what we are able to access through the Small Business Administration isn't enough. Our banks aren't able to access enough capital. We sit down and meet with those very bankers that you mentioned. We meet with those bankers, many of whom are on solid footing, who give good loans to people with good credit, but they say to me, You know, we wish the SBA had a little bit more. When you talk about the sort of government programs that don't do us any good, I just want to remind us, we are talking about the Small Business Administration. My guess is that there are a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are very happy to go to the ribbon-cutting when a new business is opening, backed by a loan guarantee from the Small Business Administration. I am very confident that many of you meet with your bankers, and you hear your bankers say, I wish we could just access a little bit more of that support from the SBA. My guess is that many of you, while you are proclaiming that this is some kind of Democratic left-wing liberal agenda, are happy to go back to your districts and say, We want a little more SBA lending. We want to make it a little bit easier for businesses to thrive and flourish. And somehow you get down here and this turns into a left-wing Democratic agenda because you are not interested in voting for it today. I have to say, sometimes I am completely confounded about exactly which party I am in. I feel pretty much like I am in the party of common sense. Like we are listening to our constituents, our small businesses, who everybody proudly proclaims is the backbone of the American economy. In my State, it is the backbone of our economy. We listen to them, and they say, We are still having a little trouble accessing the capital. The President comes before us and he says, let us make sure that $30 billion goes to small business, not just Wall Street and big business, let's not just bail out the big banks, as was done under the Bush administration, let's direct this very money to our small businesses who have been asking for this for a year and a half. I, frankly, am confounded about why anyone would vote against this, why anyone would say ``no'' to small businesses, why anybody would believe that this economic recession is over, that it is okay to just walk away and use all kinds of excuses about why you don't feel like voting for something anymore, why you don't want to continue helping our struggling businesses, why you don't want to continue to build jobs in this country. That is what people are desperately asking us to do, and it is my belief if we stop too soon, if we don't help our small businesses, frankly if we don't help our States that are struggling, that have loan guarantee programs themselves who have done an excellent job supporting businesses and economic growth, if we are not there to say to those entrepreneurs who have a good idea today, or who are already in business and want to expand with a creative new idea, we shouldn't be surprised that so many other economies are starting to move ahead of us in this difficult time. Frankly, I cannot understand why anybody would not support this rule or the underlying bill. I hope that Members change their minds, think about the Small Business Administration and the small businesses we can help today, and the great good we can do to help support jobs in this country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1436 provides for consideration of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, under a structured rule, with 1 hour of general debate with 30 minutes controlled by the Committee on Financial Services and 30 minutes controlled by the Committee on Small Business. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 5297, as reported by the Committee on Financial Services, with the addition of Title 3, which would establish at the Small Business Administration a program to provide equity financing to support early-stage and high-growth small businesses. It also includes a manager's amendment which makes a number of important changes to the base text. The rule makes in order 17 amendments, which are printed in part C of the Rules Committee report accompanying the rule. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 5297, with or without instructions. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5486, the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition to paying for the cost of the Small Business Lending Fund Act, it will provide a number of important tax breaks to our Nation's struggling small businesses. The rule also provides one motion to recommit H.R. 5486, with or without instructions. The rule then provides that these two bills will be combined upon adoption before being sent to the Senate. Additionally, the rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which would allow for same-day consideration through Friday, June 18, of a rule providing for consideration of any Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the Americans Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. Finally, the rule also allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through June 18. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will take up two very important pieces of legislation that will directly help small businesses around the country. These bills will provide much needed support for the small businesses that make up our communities and are the backbone of our economy and our economic recovery. These bills will help small entrepreneurs grow and create jobs. As President Obama said last fall, supporting small businesses needs to be our highest priority because ``when small businesses are succeeding, America succeeds.'' In order for small businesses to succeed, we must give them the tools they need to grow. One of these tools is the ability to access capital. When I go back to Maine each week, I hear often the same story from business owners across the State. When the credit market dried up, they were hit hard. Now as the economy has started to make a recovery, they are still unable to access the credit they need to expand, rehire, and grow. About a year ago, I hosted an event focusing on helping connect small businesses with capital. The response was overwhelming. Hundreds of small business owners showed up, in fact, so many that we need an overflow room to accommodate the demand. There were businesses of all types and sizes, and many of these small business owners had driven hours to come to the workshop. They came to this meeting because they felt they had nowhere else to turn. As a small business owner myself, I know what a challenge it can be to make ends meet. When I started my last business before the credit crunch, I was fortunate that I had a small community bank to work with that gave me access to capital I needed to start my business. But for many who have tried to get the money necessary to start, operate, and expand a business over the past few years, it hasn't been so easy. Today, we have an opportunity to make credit available to millions of small businesses across the country. Today, we can assist the small lenders who know firsthand the difference those businesses make to a community. Today, we can make it easier for companies to get access to the financing that will help them grow, expand, and create jobs. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the investments made by this bill will stimulate $300 billion of lending to small businesses. Small business owners and bankers alike have told me they think this bill is a good idea. As the economy recovers, it will help increase lending by our local financial institutions in Maine. As the owner of Rumery's boatyard, a small boatyard in Saco, Maine, told me, it is imperative that we support our small businesses and ensure that they are ``ready to go once the economy fully recovers.'' The folks at Rumery's make a good point. Although we are now seeing signs of economic recovery, economists tell us that we could still face a double-dip recession if we aren't careful. Without access to capital, I'm afraid the recovery will be limited to Wall Street and not Main Street. By investing in small businesses, we can keep the momentum going and make sure the economic recovery turns into jobs for people in my State and across the country. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little bit more about what I've heard from the people who live in my State. One person in my district who helps small business owners told me recently that he is ``convinced that the inability of small businesses to access capital is the number one impediment to economic growth for our Nation.'' He also said that he works with ``successful entrepreneurs who survived the recession but are having a difficult time reestablishing their credit lines or accessing money for growth even when they have real, profitable opportunities. The banks are not necessarily lending unless you have hard collateral, and they are shutting down credit lines to customers who pay their bills on time.'' For example, over the past 17 years, one small manufacturing company in Cornish, Maine, has grown from a sole proprietorship to employing 17 people. They have borrowed money to invest heavily in the machinery and technology necessary to produce a high-quality product. But as the economy stalled out, they were facing a shortfall in receipts and needed to refinance, but have been struggling to find the capital they need. They are continuing to provide jobs and ship product all over the world and pay for their operating costs of doing their business. If they had access to capital, they could also continue to make innovative new designs. Demand for their product is increasing daily, and without financing, they are unable to grow their company and provide new jobs. Small businesses are desperate for credit to expand and to grow. And that's why this bill is so important. As the economy picks up, small businesses in Maine and elsewhere in this country need to have the capital to expand and grow their businesses. Without access to capital, these businesses will not be able to grow. I look forward to supporting this important legislation later today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), also a member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chair of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I do have to disagree with the previous speaker for a whole variety of reasons, and I won't take up a lot of time. But this is not about being overt about your sexuality. This is about people who have been denied the right to talk about exactly who they are. This is about 14,000 members of the military who have served this country, many with extremely vital skills, who have been asked to step down and leave; many people who choose not to go in the military for the fear of what could happen to them after they've served this country. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), one of my good colleagues and a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my closing, but I want to say this is a major piece of legislation, and its effects will be felt across the country. I am extremely proud of this body today, as I know we will be poised to finally repeal the issue we have had so much discussion about this morning, that is, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This has had a lengthy process. Fourteen thousand members of the military who have served this country honorably have been forced to leave strictly because of their own personal status. This is a long process. It will not be changed until the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have had time to certify it will not disrupt the military, as we have heard from some of our colleagues. This has happened in many other countries, whether it's Israel or Australia or even the United Kingdom. If they can do it, so can we as well. I am proud to know that my colleagues are debating this topic, as well as making sure today that we remember, on top of everything else, to respect our military, to thank them for their service and to make sure they are well compensated. I want to thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon and all my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for all their tireless work. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the underlying bill and to highlight a number of very important provisions related to DoD's energy usage. Last year, the Department of Defense consumed nearly 6.9 billion barrels of oil to power everything from bases to fighters. But every day, the services are proving that this dependence no longer needs to tether us to supply lines. In the last year, thanks in large part to efforts by the Armed Services Committee, the military has begun to take aggressive action. At Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in my District, the Air Force completed construction of the largest solar community in America. Last month the Navy flew a fighter jet for the first time on biofuel. The Army continues testing battlefield energy solutions at Fort Irwin. And today, we will have an opportunity to move forward with additional responsible energy language I have worked with the services to develop and with the Committee to move forward. The Defense bill requires DoD to develop a testing and certification plan for the operational use of aviation biofuels. I have also added language that integrates the hybrid drive platform that the Army developed for Future Combat Systems over the last decade into the vehicles of today. We included $130 million for Energy Conservation projects at bases across the country that save the military and the American taxpayer millions of dollars. In theater, we reduce basic energy consumption by cutting waste. During a DoD pilot program to spray foam insulate facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, fuel consumption was reduced by nearly 75% on average. These projects had a return on investment of less than six months. The Defense bill seeks to expand this program by seeking a comprehensive review of all facilities to identify low cost, energy-saving solutions. New Energy Performance Goals, new implementation plans and new studies of how to more effectively supply the force make the energy provisions in this bill stronger than in any previous year. The NDAA specifically addresses many of the battlefield energy challenges our servicemembers face in-theater every day. And the overwhelming bi-partisan support these provisions received at the Committee level validates the continued need for aggressive, smart and responsible solutions. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and join me in passing the Defense Authorization bill.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews.) (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro.)

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1404 provides for consideration of H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, under a structured rule. The rule makes in order 82 amendments and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee may offer amendments en bloc, debatable for 20 minutes, and may offer germane modifications of amendments. The rule allows the Chair to recognize for consideration amendments out of order printed in the Rules Committee report if 30-minutes' notice is given by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, provides that the Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee, and provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill. The rule provides that, in engrossment, the text of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Act, as passed by the House, will be added as new matter at the end of H.R. 5136. The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee, against rules reported from the Rules Committee through June 1, 2010. Finally, the rule provides that measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time through May 30, 2010, and that the Speaker or her designee will consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration under suspension of the rules. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 5136 favorably to the House, by a unanimous vote, after nearly 13 hours of debate. As a member of that committee, I am proud of our work, but I can say firsthand that crafting this bill was not easy. The needs of our country are endless and challenging; the threats to our security are numerous and always changing, and the resources we can devote to these problems are precious and limited. In the end, the bill that we will vote on later today will strengthen our national defense, will give our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs and will take care of them and their families. The bill also invests in military infrastructure and technology, which will create jobs here in the United States and will stimulate growth throughout the economy. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important in this bill than the provisions that address men and women in uniform. They deserve the best care and the best benefits, and this bill meets both of those requirements. The bill provides a 1.9 percent pay increase for active duty soldiers, increases the family separation allowance for servicemembers who are deployed away from their families, increases hostile fire and imminent danger pay for the first time since 2004, and expands college loan repayment benefits. Earlier this year, we passed historic health care reform legislation, which included a provision requiring private insurance policies to cover adult children until age 26 on their parents' policies. I am very pleased to see that this bill incorporates those changes for TRICARE and CHAMPVA beneficiaries and that it will give retirees and veterans the option to extend coverage to their adult children until age 26. I am also proud that this bill contains a provision I wrote, which will guarantee that retiring National Guard and Reserve personnel will get a full explanation of the benefits due to them. This provision will require the Department of Defense to brief retiring personnel on benefits like VA health care and TRICARE. Too often, members of the Guard and Reserve leave the service without a clear picture of the benefits that are owed them. Given all that we ask of them, that's not right. They have made great sacrifices, and I believe that Congress has a moral obligation to educate those heroes on the benefits they have earned. This is just one way we can begin to repay them for all they have done to protect this country. I am very encouraged and pleased by the fact that this rule allows for an amendment to be made in order by Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania, which, if passed, will finally put the military on the path to repealing the misguided and outdated Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I am looking forward to voting for the amendment and to seeing the end of this discriminatory policy once and for all. Though, while there is much in this bill that I support, there are also parts of it I strongly disagree with. I am extremely disappointed that this bill contains an authorization for an additional $33.1 billion for the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the surge in Afghanistan as well as $159.3 billion for fiscal year 2011 for overseas contingency operations, the majority of which will, no doubt, be spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are pursuing a misguided strategy at a tremendous cost to the American people. The loss of one American service man or woman is simply too high a cost for a mission that does not strengthen our national security. An astonishing half billion dollars is included in this bill for an alternate extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. In 1996, the Department of Defense conducted a competition to choose the engine for this plane, and Pratt & Whitney won it. The engine they make meets the program requirements, and it is perfectly adequate. Unfortunately, a major defense contractor, who by 2012 would have had 90 percent of the military engine industrial base, lost the competition, doesn't want to take ``no'' for an answer, and has been lobbying hard to keep a program for a second engine funded. The Bush administration opposed the funding for this extra engine, and the Obama administration opposes it. Secretary Gates has said that the funding for the extra engine will be detrimental to the overall Joint Strike Fighter program. If Congress decides to ignore those in the Defense Department and those in the administration on this, estimates show that we will be forced to purchase 50-80 fewer planes, which will definitely affect our national security. Let there be no mistake. Spending half a billion dollars to build an engine that isn't needed and that the Pentagon doesn't want is a colossal waste of money. This rule makes in order an amendment, which I have sponsored, to strip the authorization for this program, which I believe is the right thing to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I am glad to yield another minute to the gentlewoman.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits any further funding for the alternate F-35 engine. In 2001, Pratt & Whitney won the award for the primary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter through a competitive bidding process. This process was set up to save millions in taxpayer dollars. Since then, Congress has authorized an astonishing $1.3 billion of unrequested funds for the development of this extra unnecessary engine. The Bush administration opposed this program. The Obama administration opposes this program. And yet if this amendment fails today, we will continue to fund a defense program that is a complete waste of money. I could not put it any better than the Secretary of Defense put it himself: Given the many pressing needs facing our military and the fiscal challenges facing our country, we cannot afford a ``business as usual'' approach to the defense budget. Tough choices must be made by both the Department and Congress to ensure that current and future military capabilities can be sustained over time. This means programs and initiatives of marginal or no benefit, like the F136 engine, are unaffordable luxuries. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and finally end this wasteful, unnecessary program. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and thank him for his leadership on this incredibly important issue.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.