Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady and congratulate her on her leadership on this issue. As chairwoman of our conference, as a strong advocate for families, for women, for children in our conference, I salute her in her efforts to improve the ability for individuals, women, who are subject to domestic abuse to get the relief that they need. And in that spirit today, Madam Speaker, I come to the floor in support of the substitute amendment that we are offering today.

Today, Madam Speaker, a mother and her daughter will go to a shelter seeking safe harbor because they are scared. Another young woman will walk into a hospital emergency room seeking treatment from sexual assault. In some cases, women will wait to report such violent crimes because they don't feel there is a support system in place to help them.

Our goal in strengthening the Violence Against Women Act is simple: we want to help all women who are faced with violent, abusive, and dangerous situations. We want to make sure that all women are safe and have access to the resources they need to protect themselves, their children, and their families. We want them to know that somebody is there and willing to help. And we want them to know that those who commit these horrendous crimes will be punished and not let go. Madam Speaker, that's why we feel so strongly about providing the proper support system and needed relief to thousands of victims and survivors so that they can get on with their lives.

For the past several months, we've worked hard in this House to build consensus and to put together the strongest bill possible to improve on that which came from the Senate. Today, I encourage my colleagues to support the House amendment to the Violence Against Women Act in order to end violence against all people, against all women, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. The last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, the House is not in session.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions on Monday and Tuesday, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, the House will consider a resolution to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. I expect the resolution to also include bipartisan bills to fund the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, thus providing more flexibility to our military and allowing the Pentagon to engage in new starts, something it would not be allowed to do under the CR.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight two additional items.

On Tuesday, the House passed legislation to establish a nationwide academic competition in the STEM fields. This competition will encourage entrepreneurship and provide a unique opportunity for America's high school and college students in each congressional district to showcase their creative capabilities.

I thank Chairman Candice Miller and Ranking Member Brady for their hard work in making this bipartisan program possible, and I look forward to the success of the competition for years to come and of the benefit it will provide our institution.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the Congressional Civil Rights Pilgrimage occurring this Friday through Sunday in Alabama, led by Congressman John Lewis--a true American hero and champion of civil rights and freedom. A bipartisan delegation of Members will participate in the 3-day journey through Alabama, concluding with the commemoration of the 1965 civil rights march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.

Alongside the Democratic whip, I am honored to participate in this pilgrimage and to reflect on the sacrifice that shaped the greater democracy we live in today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I would say, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the House has acted twice to offer alternatives to what we agree with is a very wrong way to go about cuts, which is the sequestration measure. But unfortunately, both times the Senate rejected or refused to take up the alternative. I'm aware that the other body is anticipating or at least attempting to vote on an alternative, both of which are predicted to fail in the Senate.

So I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that he's right in saying that our intent is to try to provide the flexibility for the Defense Department in terms of its appropriations, as well as the MilCon bill; and we do so because there is bipartisan agreement around those two bills.

I would say to the gentleman that if bipartisan agreement somehow is reached in other bills, I would say to the gentleman we certainly would like to be able to take a look at that. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is prudent for us to try to do the things that we can do right now so that we don't have to bear the burden of the wrongheaded way of controlling spending, which is that sequestration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

First of all, there would not be a bipartisan vote on the Democratic suggestion on how to deal with the sequester. As the gentleman rightfully suggests, that measure will include tax increases. You know, we've heard a lot of talk about balance, that we need to approach the situation in a balanced way. Well, the President has enacted $149.7 billion worth of tax increases for this fiscal year. Sequestration results in $85.3 billion worth of spending reductions.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the balance is clearly in favor of tax increases, taking people's money and then allowing Washington to decide how to spend it when most people realize the government is never the best one to spend and allocate someone else's dollars, which is why we insist on having a limited government, providing the necessary support and roles that it should, and not continuing to take other people's money and deciding how we spend it.

Now, I'd say to the gentleman, he knows as well as I do that the Senate refuses to take up whatever we send them. They have refused again and again. So we've got a real problem that somehow one House does its work. Twice this House went and passed bills with alternative measures to address sequestration, and a significant portion of both of those bills, one of which I sponsored, were provisions taken out of the President's own budget, not the tax increases, but actually spending reductions that the President says are okay, but yet still the Senate failed to take them up.

So there's a meeting tomorrow at the White House, Mr. Speaker, and I know the gentleman shares the desire to perhaps have that meeting prod the Senate into acting. That's what we need to happen. The House does its work. The House can produce a plan, and has, twice, to replace this sequester.

Now, I'd say to the gentleman, he's concerned about the economy, and so are we, very concerned about the economy. We're concerned about the rating agencies' outlook on our fiscal situation as well, as the gentleman suggests. But, I'd like to remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that the warnings from these rating agencies are not warnings that are wholly addressed by just coming to some deal. Those warnings from the rating agencies are directed at our doing something about the underlying fiscal problem this Federal Government has, which is the mountains of debt caused by the growth and the unfunded liabilities in our entitlement programs. And, as the gentleman knows, we failed to come to agreement in 2011 as to how to deal with those unfunded liabilities, which is why the sequestration is in place.

We've got to have that deal on the unfunded liabilities because that's what those warnings are about. That's what we should be concerned about, not raising more taxes. Those warnings are not about raising more taxes. It's about getting rid of the out-of-control liabilities that are racked up because of the spending, which is out of control.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman loves to go back and talk about that period from 2001 to 2008 and the fact that there were too many tax cuts in place and without the control in spending.

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that there were too many tax cuts in place. And I agree with the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, not on the fact that there were tax reductions and cuts in place, but the fact there wasn't a control on spending. And that is a problem here, Mr. Speaker.

But, ironically, the gentleman has consistently been in support of and just voted to extend 98 percent of those tax cuts. And so what we're saying right now is we've got to do something about the spending.

You just got $650 billion in tax increases, Mr. Speaker, over the course of the next 10 years through the fiscal cliff deal. And I, just prior, spoke about the imbalance this year, FY 2013, of the amount of new revenues versus the actual spending that is being projected to be reduced in this sequester.

I agree, let's get back to balance. Let's go ahead and increase the spending reductions. Washington does have that spending problem. The gentleman agrees.

So, again, I think it's unfair to say that there's just no agreement on the fact that we ought to go and reduce tax rates and taxes, because the gentleman supports doing that. So let's talk about balance.

And we've got the highest level of revenues. It's been reported that we have the highest level of revenues coming into the Federal Government this year, ever. And the gentleman does know, as well, the spending is out of proportion in terms of history, in terms of the percentage of GDP. So why can't we focus on that? We've got to get this economy growing.

And the gentleman is correct in saying the government needs to be adequately funded, but we've got to take a look at what we're funding. That's what we're talking about in replacing the sequester is prioritizing. What are the functions of government? And the sequester, it does cut spending, but we'd rather cut it in smarter ways.

Again, I hear the gentleman talked about he would like to be here on the floor passing bills. We would, too. Get the Senate to act. We have a bicameral process here, and the Senate has not acted.

The White House, the President hasn't even sent up his budget, Mr. Speaker. The President has that obligation at law and has not presented his budget to the House. The Senate refuses to do anything.

And what is the White House doing right now? The President has been going around the country campaigning for the past 2 months scaring people, creating havoc. That's supposed to be leadership? The President says to the Americans that their food is going to go uninspected and that our borders will be less patrolled and unsafe. His Cabinet Secretaries are holding press conferences and conducting TV interviews, making false claims about teacher layoffs.

I just feel that people ought to take a look and say, hey, these sequester spending levels--not the sequester, but the spending levels, and say, in 2009 was food not inspected? Because that's what the claim is, Mr. Speaker, that somehow if we were ever to reduce spending at all, we couldn't have food inspectors. Did we have any border patrol agents in 2009? Of course we did; of course we did. They will be funded at the same levels under the sequester. And that's our point: replacing the sequester with smart cuts.

But the other side, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and his Caucus, won't join us in doing that, because all we hear again and again is: Raise taxes. And I have said, as the gentleman knows, we can't, in this town, be raising taxes every 3 months. That's just not the way we can get this economy back on track.

Did the FAA shut down in 2009? That's the claim. That's the claim that the President is saying: Shut down the FAA, stop air travel as we know it, or give us higher taxes. That's the false choice that this President and his administration are out there hawking. We can't have that. That's not leadership. Let's come together.

I agree with the gentleman. Let's stop the false choice, stop the games, and let's get it done.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

I thank the gentlelady from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the House's efforts to promote entrepreneurship and innovation through a new nationwide Congressional Academic Competition focused on science, technology, engineering, and math. From Robert Noyce to Sergey Brin, America has long been at the forefront of the digital revolution. Yet the United States faces an increasing challenge in terms of competitiveness and the opportunities available to future generations.

This competition will provide a unique opportunity for America's high school and college students in each congressional district to showcase their capabilities and creativity and build a framework for American success. Each year, this competition will bring communities together with their Members of Congress to recognize the importance of innovation and motivate students to pursue their ideas, take risks and put forward innovative solutions.

By challenging students to explore the importance of computer science in their everyday lives, we hope that this competition will help empower them to use their creativity to code for a more prosperous and innovative community. This competition will initially focus on developing applications for mobile, tablet, and computer platforms, reviewed by community leaders and entrepreneurs in these fields. However, given that technology rapidly changes over time, the competition has been designed with the ability to evolve for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brady, and their staffs for their hard work in making this program possible. It will be exciting to see the kinds of advancements and breakthroughs students will come up with across the country.

I look forward to the success of the Congressional Academic Competition for years to come, and I encourage my colleagues to support this effort to inspire the next generation of American innovators.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to honor and celebrate our friend, Sam Johnson, the gentleman from Texas that we all know as a friend and colleague, but that I think America knows as a hero.

Sam, as the gentleman from Texas points out, was awarded two Silver Stars and two Purple Hearts, among his many other decorations, for fighting bravely for freedom, and for 7 years Sam Johnson was held as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese--the horror of which none of us will ever know

but lies deep within the soul of this great American patriot.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the 40th anniversary of his freedom is reason for celebration and is the reason we are gathered here in the Chamber tonight. Sam's heroism and bravery are acts for which all Americans owe him a debt of gratitude.

But I'd also like to talk about our friend, Sam. Mr. Speaker, it's no exaggeration when I say I believe that Sam Johnson is the moral compass of our conference. He considers every issue fairly, and he's never afraid to reach across the aisle and work with Members there or on our side of the aisle or with freshman Members, as he did with me when I first came to Congress in 2001.

As many of us know, Sam and Shirley Johnson recently lost their son, Bob. All of us would like to extend our deepest sympathy to the Johnsons for their loss. Over these past weeks, we all saw anew the grace and humility that Sam carries with him every day.

Mr. Speaker, that's Sam. America and his beloved Texas are better places because of his decades-long service. And my life, Mr. Speaker, has been immeasurably enriched by our friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 13, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chair, on Monday, the President missed the deadline for submitting his fiscal year 2014 budget. So, unfortunately, we haven't yet seen what the President will propose to address our exploding debt. But if the President's 2014 budget is similar to his plan from last year, it will never achieve balance, not next year, not in 10 years, and not even in 30 or 40 years. Apparently, the President does not believe we have a spending problem in America.

Unfortunately, the facts tell us that we do. Federal spending is 22 percent higher than it was in January of '09, and debt held by the public nearly doubled by the end of the President's first term after four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits.

The seriousness of this problem was underlined yesterday when the CBO told us that unless changes are made, Federal debt held by the public will reach 76 percent of our GDP by the end of this year, the highest level since 1950, when the bills were fresh from winning World War II.

The American people recognize that perpetual large Federal deficits threaten their economic security. That's why a recent Pew Research Center poll showed 72 percent of respondents said reducing the deficit should be a top priority for national leaders. That was second only to the 86 percent who cited strengthening the economy and improving the jobs outlook. Concern about the deficit has risen from ninth among 20 issues 4 years ago to third in last month's survey.

People are worried about what perpetual Federal overspending will mean to their future. Will taxes on low- and middle-income working families have to rise to pay the bills we're racking up? Will inflation kick in, eating away at the incomes of senior citizens living on fixed incomes who already struggle to pay for gas and groceries?

Will our economy stagnate as government demand for capital crowds out private-sector borrowers who want to expand their businesses? Will our kids be condemned to a lower standard of living once our overseas creditors become concerned we won't be able to pay them back? These are real concerns.

These are the reasons we brought the PLAN Act to the floor today. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership. Life teaches that if you don't have a plan, you're planning to fail. And this President does not have any plans to balance the Federal budget ever.

The House has developed a plan to balance the budget, and we voted on it twice. This year, we intend to improve on that plan and balance the budget even sooner than the 10 years our prior proposals called for. But we can't do it alone. We need to have the cooperation of the President and the other body to make any meaningful progress.

Last month, we enacted the No Budget, No Pay law which requires both Houses of Congress to adopt a budget by April 15. Now we are hearing that the other body is planning on producing its first budget since '09, so we're making some progress.

The PLAN Act is the next step in this process. It will require the President to tell us when he thinks a balanced budget can be achieved and how he'd get us there. If his budget submission does not balance, he'll have to submit a supplemental budget by April 1 telling us the earliest date when balance can be achieved, and he will have to show us the policies he will use to make that calculation.

This way, we can begin to develop a common destination. Until we are all headed in the same direction, we'll never get there. The public is telling us we need to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. The PLAN Act will help us do that, and I urge adoption of the bill.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. The House will recess no later than 5:30 p.m. to allow for a security sweep of the House Chamber prior to the President's State of the Union address. The House will meet again at approximately 8:35 p.m. in a joint session with the Senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the President of the United States. Members are advised that no votes are expected on Tuesday evening in order to accommodate the State of the Union address.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. The last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules on Tuesday and Wednesday, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business on Friday.

Additionally, I expect the House to consider H.R. 273, legislation that prevents Members of Congress, the President's Cabinet, the Vice President, and other nonmilitary Federal employees from receiving an automatic pay raise under the President's recent executive order. This legislation introduced by freshman Representative Ron DeSantis of Florida would extend the current Federal pay freeze that has been in place since 2011.

Hardworking taxpayers and families live within a budget, and it's time that we in Washington do the same.

I'd respond to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that it is the pay increase that is within the President's executive order.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say it is a pay increase within the President's executive order.

I would just say, as to the statement that, perhaps, Federal employees are the only ones who have had to shoulder the burden, I don't necessarily agree with that, because there are millions of people in the private sector who not only have gone without a pay increase, but many of whom don't have jobs anymore. You also have the instance, Mr. Speaker, that many millions of Americans have just received a significant tax increase due to what happened here on the fiscal cliff bill.

There are a lot of implications and consequences for the downturn in the economy. I dare say that there are a lot of people who are struggling out there in the private sector, so I'd just state a little bit of difference from the gentleman in saying that no one else is sacrificing right now, because there are a lot of people who have no pay increase and a lot of people who have no jobs.

I thank the gentleman.

I would say to the gentleman again that there are millions of people who have been impacted by the payroll tax going back into effect, and that affects not just the people making $400,000 and over--and he knows that as well as I do--but there are also millions of Americans now who are impacted by the ObamaCare tax that has gone into effect. So there are a lot of things that are going on. People in the private sector, the gentleman agrees, are suffering as well.

I just want to say I understand the gentleman. I think, long term, he and I both are interested in trying to get us on a plan to balance this budget so we can see growth return to the economy again and so everyone can see a day of higher wages and a future of better compensation. That's the goal, I think, all of us are driving towards.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would just say simply, Mr. Speaker, once again what we hear from the gentleman and his caucus is let's raise taxes; that'll fix the problem. And we all know the problem is spending.

The gentleman correctly refers to two bills that we had on the floor last year, one earlier in the year and one in the fall, both of which were designed to address the real problems as he suggests we need to do about the spending and the growth in the entitlement areas, which he knows as well as I are the main drivers of the deficit. We passed that bill without any help from the gentleman's side of the aisle and without any reciprocation from the Senate--nothing. The Senate did not move, and the White House did not move.

So if the gentleman suggests there's no compromising going on, I'd ask him how is it that the White House or the Senate is compromising at all if all we hear again and again is just take more money from the American people; that'll fix the problem.

No, Mr. Speaker, that's just kicking the can, and that's why we don't want to take up the other gentleman from Maryland's bill that the Democratic whip suggests, because it's just raising more taxes, not to mention the fact that it was not germane today. And the gentleman, as a protector of this institution knows, you can't bring up an alternative or an amendment that's not germane. You can, but it's not protecting this institution.

So I say to the gentleman, please, let's sit down together and address the real problem, not raise more taxes and kick the can. That's the uncompromising position that seems to dominate the majority party in this town, which is that controlled by the Senate and the White House, Mr. Speaker. The Democrats are constantly saying, Let's just raise more taxes. Take more money from the American people so we can fix the problem and keep spending their money. That's not the direction that we want to go in.

And I'll say to the gentleman, we want to do real fixes. We have consistently, as the gentleman knows, we have put out there and said here's our prescription to balance the budget; right? And we've said, Please, Senate, move. Let's hear your plan. Mr. President, please, you've missed the deadline again. Let's see your plan. Let's show it to the American people and have the discussion about the proper way to manage down this debt and deficit.

But nothing; nothing yet.

I will say to the gentleman what he calls a message bill is now law. And so with that bill, we'll see what the Senate says about managing down this debt and deficit. And hopefully, if the PLAN Act were to ever be taken up by the Senate, we'd have the President say, Here's how I'm going to balance the budget, here's how long it'll take, and here's how I'm going to do it.

That's the rational way to approach when you have two sides taking different approaches to the same problem.

Mr. Speaker, we just had a one-way effort here asking the gentleman, Please join us. Please join us in fixing the long-term problems; otherwise, we're going to keep mounting the debt that is facing us, our children and theirs, and we're going to be looking at the end of the situation that's just not what the American people want.

So I know the gentleman said, you know, let's just keep spending now, keep taxing. That doesn't help. That doesn't help long term. And we're trying to do long-term planning to get this country back on track.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman's objections to our plan and our prior budget. We're going to come forward with another budget that will balance in 10 years.

Where is the gentleman's plan? Where is the President's plan? Where is the other body's plan to balance this budget? That's all we're saying. If we can just get down to an equal level of discussion and say let's do the adult thing and try and resolve the mounting unfunded liabilities of this Federal Government, we can actually make some progress and get on about the business of helping people in this country, making their life better and making their future better, and that's the goal, instead of trying to go in and just intermittently kick the can because there's never any attempt to resolve long-term problems. That's where we're coming from.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, we just raised taxes. We just put more revenue in the mix, $650 billion over 10 years, and got no cuts. No cuts.

And the gentleman talked about the 2001, 2003 tax cuts without paying for them. You know, we just extended most of those tax measures and relief to people under $400,000 with no cuts. Nothing. So, again, I don't think it's right to be saying that we need more revenues now. We already did revenues, right? We already have $650 billion.

Why does the gentleman continue to think, Mr. Speaker, that that's what we have to keep doing? It's not the answer.

Let's get to the problem that is causing the mounting deficits. It's a lack of growth, and it's the spending that's out of control.

What about the revenues we already have now done? These are $650 billion, Mr. Speaker, already raised, no cuts.

The gentleman knows that my office and his have been in discussions about this bill. I have had daily meetings to try and get to a point where we can bring this forward. You know, I, as the gentleman does, care very deeply about women and the abuse situation, that we need to get them the relief that this bill offers. That's what we want to do. That's our priority.

We must move and act on this bill, and I've, as well, been in touch with the Vice President and his office about trying to assist in bringing the parties together because, as the gentleman knows, there's been the introduction of some issues that are not directly related to the situation of domestic abuse on tribal lands because that's what we're trying to get at. We want to protect the women who are subject to abuse on tribal lands.

And unfortunately, there are issues that don't directly bear on that that have come up that have complicated it, as the gentleman knows. But in working with his office, as well as the Vice President's, I hope to be able to deal with this, bring it up in an expeditious manner.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Friday, February 8, 2013; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

I thank the gentleman.

I come to the floor today to join my colleagues in support of the March for Life.

It seems that too often in Washington these days the focus is on what people are against rather than what they are for. But this Friday, thousands of Americans will gather because of their support of what our Founders described as one of the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator: life. Some of those gathered will be Republicans, others Democrats. Others will belong to no political party at all. They will belong to every faith and race and will belong to every socioeconomic demographic.

Those gathered this Friday and those of us here on the floor of the House this afternoon are joined because we believe that life must be protected--and must be protected especially for those who have no ability to protect it themselves.

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973 medical science has made tremendous gains. Today, expecting parents can watch 3-D images of their young child playing in the womb. Today, doctors can perform life-saving surgeries on children while they are still in utero. Today, thanks to medical science, we know that within 6 weeks after conception these little lives have a heartbeat and brain waves.

Here in the people's House we are taking steps to defend life, as are numerous State legislatures throughout the country. But the real heroes are those men and women who volunteer at pregnancy centers helping women, and those gathered for the March for Life who are committed to this mission. They gather this year not only in the name of protecting life but also to celebrate the life of the founder of the March, Nellie Gray. We'll all miss her red coat up there on that stage, leading the March up the hill, but I know Nellie would be as pleased as I am to see the progress being made for this most important cause--and she would encourage us never to rest until the job is done.

``The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one-third may be chosen every second year.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for the measures before us to replace the sequester and reduce the deficit and to extend permanent tax relief for the middle class and hundreds of thousands of small business people.

For the past weeks and months, as people have been looking for jobs and budgeting for their expenses, we've been working to keep taxes from going up and offering commonsense spending reforms. The Spending Reduction Act at issue today reduces our deficit and protects our national security by replacing indiscriminate cuts that are neither strategic nor balanced.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our current spending path is unsustainable and poses a real threat to the economy, to job creation, and to our ability to remain competitive in the global economy. We must address the underlying issue that faces this country, which is the mounting deficit and load of debt that we are going to leave to this generation and the next. But the President has been unwilling to consider serious spending cuts or offer a serious and balanced plan to avoid the fiscal cliff.

The risks of unchecked spending are grave. The consequences of our debt crisis will be felt by every student looking for a job that matches their skills after graduation, by every retiree counting on Social Security and Medicare, and by every small business owner looking to expand and hire.

We have passed bills and put forward reforms that would save programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from certain and predictable failure, yet we cannot find cooperation,

Mr. Speaker, from the White House or the other side of the aisle to help solve these problems.

It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this place just 11 days from the new year. For months, we have been ready and willing to work with the President to prevent the fiscal cliff from impacting small businesses and hardworking families.

The math shows that the President's push to hike taxes won't reduce the deficit, and, left unchecked, his government spending will bankrupt our future. Our plan will protect 740,000 additional small businesses that would otherwise be hit by the tax hike the President is proposing.

We don't believe taxes should go up on anybody, but if we can prevent taxes from going up on as many people as possible, on 99.81 percent of American families and small businesses, we must and need to do so.

Americans are looking for jobs, small businesses are deciding whether they should hire or invest in growing, and many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. We are all committed to creating an economy where everyone has an opportunity to succeed.

House Republicans are offering a plan today similar to one that received 53 Democratic votes in the U.S. Senate only 2 years ago, and the Spending Reduction Act is a serious start toward reducing our deficit and protecting our national security.

Absent a balanced offer from the President, this is our Nation's best option, and Senate Democrats should take up both of these measures immediately.

The President has a choice, Mr. Speaker. He can support these measures or be responsible for reckless spending and the largest tax hike in American history.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember and honor the life of Bishop Walter F. Sullivan, whose recent death saddens the many people whose lives he touched throughout his time as bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond.

Bishop Sullivan served in churches throughout Virginia since he was ordained in 1953. As the longest-serving bishop in the Richmond diocese's 192-year history, he made a lasting impact in and outside of the Catholic Church. Bishop Sullivan was an advocate for the underprivileged and welcomed people of all faiths with open arms. During his time as bishop, the diocese established various new parishes, advisory committees for the youth, women, and minorities, homes for the elderly, and retreat centers.

Bishop Sullivan also commissioned the first public Holocaust memorial in Virginia, ``Rachel Weeping for Her Children,'' which celebrated its 25th anniversary in April. Acts like this made Bishop Sullivan a hero and champion to many. He spent his life committed to helping others, and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, though we mourn the death of Bishop Walter Sullivan, we come together to pay tribute to and honor the life and work of such an important figure in our history.