Floor Statements

Madam Chair, it has been over 10 years since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is extremely important that we continue to focus on addressing traumatic brain injury, TBI, and psychological health, PH, issues. Congress must properly allocate funds to care for wounded warriors and to improve research in these critical areas.

As you know, TBI continues to be the signature wound of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with some 100,000 troops diagnosed since 2003 with mild TBI. This number will only increase as detection becomes more accurate. The Department of Defense has made significant strides in improving assessment and diagnosis, but more needs to be done to evaluate troops' ability to return to duty and to follow them after exposure to blasts. Intensive and innovative rehabilitative care is also needed for those sustaining severe TBIs and left with varying levels of disorders of consciousness.

This year's Defense Health Program receives an increase above last year's level. Specifically, the bill contains $33.6 billion--$858 million above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level--for the Defense Health Program to provide for the health of our troops and retirees. Increases above the request importantly include $125 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research, and $20 million for suicide prevention outreach programs.

Our men and women serving in uniform must be given every possible opportunity for the best medical care, rehabilitation and community reentry assistance that we as a nation can provide. It is important these funds be used wisely to ensure that our men and women in uniform are getting timely and proper care. Pre and post deployment testing, as well as long term care and family services are integral parts of preventing and treating TBI and PH. As a Congress, we must live up to our commitment to our troops when they leave the battlefield and in my capacity as co-Chair of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, I look forward to working with the DoD to make sure these funds are used effectively to address these invisible wounds.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for Chairman Hastings. He's a fair, civil individual. But this bill is off the charts. At least the last one that we voted on had some redeeming qualities--some redeeming qualities.

We know there's more oil been produced in the last 3\1/2\ years. The increase is greater than the previous 20 years. So you're trying to target the administration, and the administration can speak for itself and defend itself, but this is not right. This is not right. This is not right.

So let's talk about this. I am opposed to this legislation. This bill would completely rewrite the administration's plan for offshore leasing in a reckless and irresponsible manner. For example, this bill would force the Secretary of the Interior to conduct lease sale 220, located off the shore of Virginia, 70 miles from the beaches of my home State of New Jersey.

Now, look, a lot of the folks that are going to vote for this bill voted against even helping those people in New Jersey respond to the Sandy storm. You know it, and I know it. And here we are on the floor perpetrating untruths about why this is needed now. Look, it's not the amount of land that we've set aside on water or on land for oil exploration and production. We've got plenty of oil coming out of the ground. We don't have any refineries, and this is the same debate we had 25 years ago. How dare anybody stand in this astute body and then claim we don't care if gas prices go up. The fact of the matter is this is an oil Congress and this is an oil economy, and you don't want to bring in--I want to talk about the special interests of the people who are hurting out there.

I want to talk about the special interests--not oil companies--us. Let's talk about us and what we get out of this.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, the administration is committed to ensuring that American taxpayers receive a fair return from the sale of public resources, public land. As drafted, as this bill is before us right now, the revenue-sharing provisions of H.R. 2231 would ultimately reduce the net return to the taxpayers from development of Federal resources directed to be leased under this bill.

So, with summer upon us, tourism at the Jersey shore is one of our State's greatest economic drivers. These jobs that are committed, these jobs depend upon the responsible stewardship of our waters and coasts, and the legislation before us now puts those jobs at risk. For communities across the State still working to rebuild from Sandy, this is not a risk they are willing to take.

Instead of bending over backwards for Big Oil, we need to bend over and help as best we can the average citizen. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to this Farm Bill, H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, due to the unconscionable cuts to the SNAP program, formerly known as food stamps.

Across the country, over 47 million of our fellow Americans depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to put food on their tables each and every day. In my home state of New Jersey alone, SNAP serves over 800,000 individuals. These are our friends, family, and neighbors. An average monthly benefit of $133.36 per person for recipients in New Jersey amounts to $1.48 per meal. This does not go very far towards buying nutritious food in a state where the cost of living is high. That's why 90 percent of benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month.

Eighty-three percent of SNAP benefits go to households with children, seniors, or disabled Americans. These are not freeloaders or people trying to game the system; they are our most vulnerable citizens. When the going gets tough, we have a responsibility to ensure that a safety net is in place for them. When our people go hungry, we pay the consequences down the road. Poor nutrition and hunger leads to costly but entirely avoidable health problems. Furthermore, as a former teacher, I know that students who go hungry have trouble focusing in school. We need to ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to excel to keep us competitive in today's global economy.

This bill, however, would take us down the wrong path. It further tightens eligibility requirements for SNAP, cutting $20.5 billion by kicking about two million people off the program. This bill will also kick 210,000 kids off of school meals, and reduce benefits by an average of $90 for 850,000 additional households. If we want to reduce the costs of this program, don't cruelly throw people off the roles. Let's create some jobs and as our economic recovery gains steam, SNAP costs will decline as more and more Americans find steady work.

We are the greatest nation on earth. Our Farm Bills are designed to ensure that we can produce food to feed the world. Shouldn't we first ensure that we can provide for our own?

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1797, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

As Members of Congress, we should not reach into the private lives of our constituents with decisions that are this personal. We are not qualified to make complex medical decisions, and the government is certainly not in the position to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship. But that is exactly what this bill would do by increasing medical liability for doctors, and criminalizing procedures that are safe and legal.

A woman should be able to make decisions about her health in consultation with her family, her individual faith and health professionals. Restricting access to safe abortions is clearly not the answer. With the continued economic challenges facing this country, we should be focused on getting Americans back to work, not preventing women from making choices that are best for their families and their health.

Throughout my years in Congress, I have been against any government funding of abortion, and I believe that some guidelines are important and reasonable. However, this bill clearly goes over the line and serves not to protect the health of women and children, but rather as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state that today, June 18th, I regrettably missed several rollcall votes. Had I been present I would have voted: `nay''--rollcall Vote 248--On Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 266--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY 2018; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia; ``nay''--rollcall Vote 249--On Agreeing to the Resolution on H. Res. 266--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY 2018; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia; ``aye''-- rollcall Vote 250--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1151-- To direct the Secretary of Taiwan at the triennial International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly, and for other purposes; ``nay''-- rollcall Vote 251--On Final Passage of H.R. 1797--Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act; and ``aye''--rollcall Vote 252--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1896--International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act of 2013.

Madam Chair, it has been over 10 years since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and I fear we are still not properly addressing traumatic brain injury, also known as ``the signature injury of the war.'' I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their commitment to this issue in recent authorizations. I would also like to thank Mr. Thompson for his cosponsorship of my first amendment.

Over the last few years, Congress has continued to emphasize the importance of this issue and has made funds available for the identification and treatment of brain injuries in our soldiers. It is important these funds be used wisely to ensure that our men and women in uniform are getting timely and proper care. A January 2012 GAO report highlighted the need to coordinate TBI and psychological health activities within the Department.

In the National Defense Authorization for FY 2013, Congress mandated that the Secretary of Defense submit a plan to Congress that would improve coordination and integration of the programs that address traumatic brain injury and psychological health of members of the Armed Forces. Specifically, this report would require the identification of gaps in services and treatments, a plan for addressing any gaps or redundancies and identifying an official to lead the implementation of any changes. This report is due in July of this year, and my amendment underscores the importance of this mandated report, and strongly urges the Secretary to deliver it to Congress within the appropriate timeframe.

My second amendment addresses the continuing issue of identification of traumatic brain injuries. Although the Department of Defense has made a strong commitment to identifying, and treating those men and women who have suffered a traumatic brain injury while serving our Nation, there are still problems with screening our troops.

In June 2010, a memorandum issued by the Department of Defense made a 50- meter distance from an explosion the criterion to identify, refer, and treat members for potential traumatic brain injury in theater. However, the Department of Defense has yet to address those service members who may have been exposed to a blast prior to that time. Many of these soldiers remain on active duty and we must ensure they are tested and treated. My amendment mandates a report on how the Secretary of Defense will identify, refer, and treat possible traumatic brain injuries with respect to members of the Armed Forces who served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom prior to June 2010. This is a vitally important report for ensuring the health of our troops. I ask that my colleagues support these amendments for those service members who are struggling with invisible wounds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record that yesterday, June 13th, I was not recorded on one rollcall vote. I would like to state for the record that I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall Vote number 221: On Agreeing to the Resolution on H. Res. 260--Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Thank you, Congressman Smith, for your great service to your State and your country.

Madam Speaker, we've lost a great man. When Senator Lautenberg passed away Monday morning, last Monday, I lost a good friend. The Silk City has produced many great individuals and characters alike, but few, if any, have a life story like that of Frank Lautenberg.

Like me, Frank grew up on the streets of Paterson--literally. Both of us came from families of immigrants who came to Paterson, like pilgrims, like Plymouth Rock. It was Paterson/Plymouth Rock. That's what it was, when you come down to it.

We had the same dreams. Many thousands in our city had the same dream. Through hard work and determination, we learned that you could provide your children with a better life and a successful future. Despite all their dreams for their young son, I don't think that Sam and Molly Lautenberg, Frank's dutiful parents, deceased, ever could have imagined all that Frank would eventually achieve. Only in America.

But then again, Frank never forgot the sacrifices family made for him. He learned what real hard work was from his father, who labored into the silk mills of Paterson to provide for his family. He learned how to persevere from his mother, who raised him in the face of poverty. They lived in four or five different places in Paterson as they moved around.

His dad passed away when his dad was 43 years of age. In the face of poverty, at the age of 19, Frank Lautenberg had to summon all those lessons and more when his father passed away leaving him to support the entire family. He never forgot those hard lessons. They served him well throughout all the journeys of his life.

He spoke about those journeys every time he came before a classroom in Paterson, New Jersey. He visited, revisited, and revisited and brought computers. He brought computers. And, of course, ADP was one of the great corporations in America, formed in a garage in the back of a house in Paterson, New Jersey.

And I say, Madam Speaker, how many people must be kicking themselves for not having invested way back when they thought it was a wild idea, taking care of people's payroll.

It's not easy to grow up on the streets of Paterson, New Jersey. Take it from me personally, Congressman Smith. You have to fight for every inch in order to get ahead.

Frank truly embodied what it means to be a fighter. That's what made him such a successful representative from New Jersey. You've heard the Congressman, Congressman Smith, specify all of the issues that he was involved in; and when he was involved, he was totally immersed in the subject therein to help Americans.

It didn't matter what nationality, what ethnicity, what color. It didn't matter what religion. It mattered that you were a human being in the greatest country in the world. He talked about it often.

When he came back from the service, he talked about it. He served his country in the Second World War.

Regardless of how you feel on issues, you don't take on the gun lobby to ban firearms for domestic violence offenders, you don't take on Big Tobacco to ban smoking on airplanes without getting a few scars in the process.

The thing Frank's opponents didn't realize was that he got his scars long ago, growing up on the streets of Paterson, New Jersey. His roots are exactly what made Frank so successful, first in the Army, then in the private sector, and, finally, in the hallowed Halls of the U.S. Senate.

But despite all that he achieved, he never forgot where he came from. That's the secret. When you forget where you come from, when you forget your roots, when you forget the street you lived on, the guys and the gals that you talked to, your mom and dad, how they sweated it out every day, I mean, when you worked in those silk mills it was no day at the beach, not by any stretch of the imagination.

We, many times, forget our roots, Congressman Smith, and you know that. We forget where we came from. We think we're better. If you're a Congressman, oh, God. He never forgot where he came from. Despite all that, what he achieved, he knew his roots.

One of the proudest moments of my career was standing shoulder-to- shoulder with him when we were able to successfully pass legislation to finally establish the Great Falls National Historic Park in Paterson, New Jersey. It's our Yellowstone. It's our Grand Canyon. It doesn't take up nearly the amount of space, but it meant so much to not only Patersonians, but people in that area, Paterson, the third largest city, first industrial city.

Alexander Hamilton knew what he was doing. Frank Lautenberg knew what he was doing.

We'd been pushing many, many years for Federal recognition. In fact, I still have a picture hanging in my office of Senator Lautenberg and me touring the Great Falls when I was the mayor of that city. In the true Paterson spirit, despite opposition from the Park Service--we weren't getting off to a good start--and opponents in Congress who never wanted to see an urban national park, we never stopped fighting.

And just a few years ago, we finally reached our dream to get the Great Falls the Federal designation it deserves. Members of both sides of the aisle came together. And on that day, when Secretary Salazar was there, Democrats and Republicans joined together where industry started in this great Nation.

The park is now in the first stages of its development, and I believe one day it will be a crown jewel in the National Park System, thanks in no small part to our great Senator. It's a fitting legacy for him to leave to the city he loved so much.

These last few months, with his health getting weaker, necessitating long absences from the Senate, Frank never lost his passion for the issues he had spent his entire life defending. Despite his health, he came to Washington to cast a critical vote on a bill to expand background checks. No one was going to stop Frank Lautenberg from fighting to make this world a better place. Even the limitations of his own body couldn't hold him back.

I join my friends and neighbors in Paterson, where he used to cut his hair, Pasadena Pete's, where he used to stop at the markets, and he'd stop in to a coffee shop downtown. We mourn this tremendous loss of one of our favorite sons, one of our patriots.

He was a person first. He was a legislator second. He was the same man on the street that he was on the Senate floor. You always got the genuine article.

Frank Lautenberg was not a spectator to life. Frank Lautenberg was a leader, a loving husband, a loving father, a trusted friend, and a true Patersonian.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to urge my colleagues to support this amendment to provide $5 million in additional funding for Firefighter Assistance Grants. This funding would be equally divided between the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) programs, which provide equipment and staffing assistance for local fire departments.

In my work to develop the AFG and SAFER programs, I envisioned them as ways to fill needs that local budgets sometimes can't. As we all know, in today's tough budget environment, many states and towns are strapped for cash and have asked their first responders to make sacrifices. These are the times when AFG and SAFER are most important.

These programs put more firefighters on our streets and provide better equipment to keep them safe. For example, in New Jersey's Ninth Congressional District, the towns of Garfield and North Arlington have recently received hundreds of thousands of dollars in AFG assistance for the purchase of electronic accountability systems and Self Contained Breathing Apparatuses. These firefighters are risking their lives to protect our lives and property, and we owe it to them to ensure that they are protected with the best possible equipment.

Earlier this year, my hometown of Paterson received a SAFER grant of almost $7 million to prevent the layoff of 40 firefighters and allow the city to hire 9 new firefighters to replace retirees. This funding goes directly to job creation in our local communities while helping our departments to maintain adequate staffing levels for public safety.

I am relieved that President Obama signed into law reauthorizations for AFG and SAFER this January after the program authorizations had been allowed to lapse. Now we must continue to provide adequate funding. Working together in a bipartisan manner, we have been able to restore over $800 million in proposed cuts to AFG and SAFER over the past 3 years. I am proud that the Fire Caucus gathered the signatures of over 140 on a bipartisan letter to the Appropriations Committee opposing any cuts to these critical programs in FY 2014.

I would like to thank Mr. Runyan for his work on this amendment and this issue, as well as Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price for their work on this bill and for allowing this amendment. Our firefighters are on the front lines of our homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support their local firefighters by supporting this amendment.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to express my support for the Urban Area Security Initiative Nonprofit Security Grant Program. The Nonprofit Security Grant Program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, provides critical support to nonprofit organizations at high risk of terrorist attack.

This is not a theoretical threat. This is a real threat.

For example, a string of anti-Semitic hate crimes took place just 2 years ago targeting synagogues in Bergen County, New Jersey, which I represent. These heinous acts culminated in arson when a fire bomb was thrown through the window of an Orthodox Jewish temple, the residence of a rabbi, his wife, his five children, and his father. Thankfully, the rabbi and his family escaped serious injury in this attack, and local authorities have arrested the suspects and are in the process of bringing them to justice.

Other events across the country have shown the continuing need for these grants as well. Last year, a gunman killed six and wounded four in a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.

A security guard was tragically killed several years ago at the Holocaust Museum here in Washington by a Holocaust denier and White supremacist. Crimes are not being investigated by White supremacists in this country, just as an aside thought.

These are just a handful of the examples showing the vulnerability of nonprofit organizations to attack.

The Nonprofit Security Grant Program was designed precisely to allow at-risk, nonprofit organizations such as houses of worship and community centers to protect themselves from these types of tragedies by acquiring and installing equipment to ensure against potential attacks. These capital improvements include upgrading security measures, such as installing alarms, barriers, cameras, or controlled entry systems.

In fiscal year 2011, the year during which these terrible events took place in Bergen County, the Nonprofit Security Grant Program was allocated $19 million. For the past 2 years this amount has been reduced by nearly half, to $10 million, despite the ongoing need for this assistance.

If we can't protect our houses of worship, what can we protect?

The program is funded out of the Department of Homeland Security's State and Local Programs account, and allows the Secretary discretion to allocate this funding as she sees fit, or he sees fit, who's ever there.

I call upon the Secretary to allocate at least $15 million to the Nonprofit

Security Grant Program as a step towards restoring adequate funding to this vital program. Although I hope that we can bring this funding back to the 2011 level and beyond, $15 million should be the baseline level of funding these vital programs.

I also believe that the Nonprofit Security Grant Program should receive its own dedicated funding, rather than competing with other important initiatives for a small share of the Department's State and Local Programs' dollars.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nonprofit Security Grant Program in order to ensure that these nonprofit organizations, which serve as the heart of our communities, receive the protection they need.

Madam Chair, let me just add one other thing, and that is, it reduces a tremendous amount of anxiety at these houses of worship--and I mentioned a few religions here just now, but I can cite others--reduces the anxiety of being safe even where you sleep or even where you worship.

Now, we had the right idea. This was a bipartisan idea in 2010, 2011, and before that. Why can't we do the right thing?

It's not that much money. It will help a lot of institutions to protect themselves, especially when you put in a camera or the other things that I mentioned. It makes people feel a lot more relaxed and it reduces anxiety.

I hope that we can do this. I know, Madam Chair, and I'm sorry if I'm appealing to you directly, which I am. Madam Chair, you understand this program very, very well. I would solicit your support for this. And I think it's very important because it's going to stop terrorism in this form.

I mean, this gentleman was sleeping with his family, the rabbi, and the bomb came in through the window. It was thrown up to the second floor and exploded. I mean, can you imagine the trauma for those children?

I apologize for directing my attention to you because you know about these things, and I'm asking you to be helpful to me.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as the House considers H.R. 1919, the Safeguarding America's Pharmaceuticals Act of 2013, I would like to voice my specific concerns with one provision within the legislation. While the underlying bill seeks to address the issue of preventing counterfeit drugs from reaching consumers, and improving national regulatory standards for pharmaceuticals, Section 8 of the proposed legislation instead mandates an electronic labeling requirement for pharmaceuticals. This serves to eliminate hard copy professional literature, and transition exclusively to electronic only literature. Based on legislation passed by Congress in 2012, GAO was tasked with studying the issue of e-labeling. This study is expected to be issued in July of this year. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the potential ramifications of exclusive electronic labeling, and be cautious about any premature legislative action on this issue until the GAO report is released. The findings of this Congressionally mandated study should be deliberated before making a change that has the potential to impact consumers and providers.

Frank Lautenberg was my friend for 45 years. We drank the same water in Paterson, New Jersey. He was a person of very small means when you looked at his mom and dad. They worked in the factories in Paterson, New Jersey, as so many other people did. His father died when he was 43 years of age. He got sick from the jobs that he had when there was no protection for workers, not like it is now.

Now, can you picture this in a garage in Paterson, New Jersey, off of Carroll Street, four guys together, putting a company together, that if you didn't invest in it you kicked yourself after that, ADP?

He had a business acumen, a business sense, that went beyond votes on the floor of the Senate. He was a good guy, and I know that the talking heads would say he was a liberal's liberal. Frank Lautenberg was a very basic, conservative guy when it came to our values in this country. He was not a spectator by any stretch. He was in there. He was in the battle. He came back to School No. 6 on Mercer Street in Paterson to take care of those kids, to give them computers and to say make sure you take care of those computers because this is going to get you, perhaps, on a path to something better in life for you and your family. He didn't forget it. A lot of people say he didn't forget his roots. That's a wave. That's a passing by. He was not that kind of a person.

So, to Bonnie and to his beautiful family, our best, best, deepest feelings of condolences and sorrow.

We don't know what we've lost--we never do--but we pray that everyone begins to understand, at least now, that each of us is significant, that each of us is important and, as Frank would say, that no one is better than anyone else.

God bless Frank Lautenberg.

Mr. Speaker, today, May 17th, I missed several rollcall votes. Had I been present I would have voted:

``nay''--rollcall vote 155--On Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 216--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

``nay''--rollcall vote 156--On Agreeing to the Resolution--H. Res. 216--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act

``nay''--rollcall vote 157--On Agreeing to the Amendment--Hurt of Virginia Amendment No. 2

``aye''--rollcall Vote 158--On Agreeing to the Amendment--Carolyn Maloney of New York Amendment No. 3

``aye''--rollcall vote 159--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions on H.R. 1062--To improve the consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders

``nay--rollcall vote 160--On Passage of H.R. 1062--To improve the consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition and in support--in support--of the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

Madam Speaker, you know we've gone through this many times. You've attempted in committee and subcommittee to try to undercut the patients' rights to health care, and it wasn't successful.

By the way, the IRS is not the individual agency that is the operative of health care. Where in God's name did you get that from? There hasn't been much truth spoken today on the floor over there.

Whether in town halls or small group meetings, I ask this question when we talk about health care. I ask individuals to raise their hands if they're against, number one--you ought to raise your hands, too-- closing the Medicare doughnut hole for seniors; are you for that or are you against it? Allowing children to stay on a family's health plan until they're 26 years of age; are you for that or are you against it? Ensuring Americans are not denied insurance for preexisting conditions; are you for that or are you against that? Or helping American families avoid medical bankruptcy.

Every meeting not one hand goes up. How many over there? Raise your hand. Free country. I'll wait 2 seconds. Maybe you didn't hear me.

In New Jersey, a report by the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group explained that by repealing health reform, employers would see health costs grow by more than $3,000 a year and, most shocking, New Jersey would have 10,000 fewer jobs.

Let's get it straight. In conclusion, let me ask my colleagues, in voting, those who will vote for repeal, is the opposition willing to increase the deficit? Because you already used the money from the Health Care Act to pay your budget, or else it doesn't even balance in 50 years. Are they willing to give the power back to the insurance companies? You've got to ask that question.

We've come down to the skinny right now. This is down to the bare bones. Are you willing to allow premiums to escalate? Better ask yourself those questions.

I rise, Madam Speaker, in strong opposition to the Pay China First Act. This is a Pyrrhic proposal if I ever saw one.

By the way, the firefighters are in town today and tomorrow, and I'm going to go to every firefighter I see in Washington, D.C., and tell them how foolish--you know, the sponsors of this legislation believe that the Federal Government has no responsibility to firefighters or police officers anyway. It's strictly a local thing. So they're not trying to balance a budget.

If this bill becomes law, the government will still be borrowing money and our deficit will increase. It's what this bill allows us to borrow money for that is so shameful.

Is the government allowed to pay our Active Duty military? No.

Can we add to our deficit to fund veterans' benefits? No.

What about Medicare? Sorry, we're not going to pay those bills.

However, the government is allowed to borrow to pay back foreign bondholders. The majority apparently believes it's okay to borrow money and add to our deficit to pay China, but not to honor the obligations we have to our troops, our veterans, our seniors, et cetera. Shameful. There is simply no other word.

The United States of America pays its bills, period, end of sentence, case closed. We've done it for 200 years, whether it's obligations that we have to our troops or seniors, we have to those who have bought our bonds.

We all saw what happened in the summer of 2011. We don't need a repeat.