Floor Statements

My colleagues, in recent days, Americans of every faith and political persuasion have mobilized in objection to a rule put forward by the Obama administration that constitutes an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country.

This rule would require faith-based employers, including Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals, to provide services they believe are immoral. Those services include sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and contraception.

In imposing this requirement, the Federal Government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries, encroaching on religious freedom in a manner that affects millions of Americans and harms some of our Nation's most vital institutions.

If the President does not reverse the Department's attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution that we are sworn to uphold and defend, must.

The House will approach this matter fairly and deliberately through regular order and appropriate legislative channels. Because it has primary jurisdiction on the issues involved, the Energy and Commerce Committee is taking the lead on the legislative process that will be necessary to enact an effective and appropriate solution. Chairman Upton convened a hearing late last year and began laying the groundwork for legislative action when this flawed rule was first proposed, and I welcome his efforts to consider all possible options as his committee proceeds with its efforts.

This attack by the Federal Government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand.

Mr. Speaker, since 1983, the U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and interact on issues of mutual interest.

A staff delegation from the U.S. Congress will be selected to visit Germany for ten days from May 18-27 of this year. During this ten day exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag/Bundesrat Members, Bundestag and Bundesrat party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies.

A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for ten days April 14-22 of this year. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington. The U.S. delegation is expected to facilitate these meetings.

The Congress-Bundestag/Bundesrat Exchange is highly regarded in Germany and the United States, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. This exchange is funded by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag reciprocates by sending senior staff professionals to the United States.

Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern to the United States and Germany such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. This year's delegation should be familiar with transatlantic relations within the context of recent world events.

In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag/Bundesrat staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two staffers in their Member's district in April, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district.

Participants are selected by a committee composed of personnel from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State and past participants of the exchange.

Members of the House and Senate who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state their qualifications, the contributions they can make to a successful program and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated.

Applications may be sent to the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs, HC-4, the Capitol, by 5 p.m. on Friday, February 24, 2012.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding.

As I was attempting to eat my lunch, I heard my name invoked more than once about what I did and what I didn't do. I just want all of my colleagues to know that the President asked us to extend the payroll tax credit for a year, asked us to extend unemployment benefits, and asked us to extend the current payment schedule for doctors who treat Medicare patients.

My colleagues and I, on a bipartisan basis, last week passed such a bill, the same kind of bill that was requested by the minority leader, the minority whip, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This bill is going to cost about $200 billion. We found a reasonable offset to make sure that we were taking care of the Social Security trust fund and not depleting it unnecessarily. As I said, the bill passed the House with a bipartisan vote.

Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol decided to do what happens around here all too often: it's too hard to figure it out. We're getting close to Christmas. We're going to leave. We're going to punt. And we're going to send a 2-month bill over.

My colleague from New York was arguing for what's basically a $1,000 tax cut for the average American family. And I'm here to say to my colleague, that's exactly what we're fighting for. As I see the debate today, you are arguing for a $166 tax cut because it's only for 2 months. I am going to give the average American family a $1,000 tax cut; and that means doing this for 12 months, as the President requested.

Who doesn't believe that if we don't do this now that when we get to February 28, guess where we'll be--we'll be right here doing the same thing that we're doing right now.

I just think the American people expect us to do our work. We've got 10 days to do our work. We can resolve the differences between the House and Senate bill. Everybody wants this extended for a year, but it just happens to be inconvenient for some to try to resolve it at this point. Why? Because we're getting close to the holidays.

My colleagues and I are here and are prepared to do our work. We've just made a motion to go to conference with the Senate. As my colleagues know, this is the regular order of how Congress works. The House passes a bill. The Senate passes a different bill. We go to conference to resolve the differences. All we're asking is that our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol come back to town, sit down, and resolve our differences. Let's do this once; and let's do it the right way, for once.

So I would say to my colleagues, we can turn the rhetoric down. We don't have to get overly excited. There's no disagreement here. There's no disagreement at all about the fact that everyone wants to extend this for the next year. The only question is, When do people want to do it? Some want to kick the can down the road and wait until February. Then on February 28, we'll be sitting here looking at each other in the same way. Why don't we just do it now and give the American people a real Christmas present?

I thank my colleague for yielding.

As they've pointed out, next week, December 26, marks the 70th anniversary of Winston Churchill's address to a joint meeting of the Congress.

Less than 3 weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill arrived in Washington to begin coordinating military strategy with the President and leaders of Congress. During his address, he warned the Congress of the difficult path that lay ahead. He spoke of the many disappointments and unpleasant surprises that were going to await us.

Regarding the Japanese aggressors, he asked, ``What kind of a people do they think we are? Is it possible that they do not realize that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they've been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?''

Churchill's joint address became known as the ``Masters of Our Fate'' speech. In it he said, ``Now we are the masters of our fate. As long as we have faith in our cause and an unconquerable willpower, salvation will not be denied us.''

In declaring war against the Axis powers, Churchill said, ``the United States--united as never before--have drawn the sword for freedom and cast away the scabbard.''

This resolution will honor the former British Prime Minister by placing a bust of him in the United States Capitol. The British, similarly, have a statue of Abraham Lincoln in the park across from their Parliament.

Winston Churchill was the best friend America ever had. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his legacy of persistence, determination, and resolve.

Madam Speaker, an attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve.

I don't think I fully understood the meaning of those words until last January's senseless assault on our fellow citizens and our most fundamental responsibilities. This House responded in prayer and solidarity, reminding the world that no act of violence could silence the sacred dialogue of democracy.

It is in that same spirit that later today we will gather here to honor Gabe Zimmerman, the first congressional staffer to give his life in the line of duty and, God willing, the last.

Like every Member of this body, he took an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution. He died while well and faithfully discharging his duties. I think it is fitting and appropriate to honor Gabe Zimmerman with a permanent memorial in the United States Capitol.

I extend the thanks of the whole House to Gabe's family for their participation in this project.

Let us honor Gabe's memory by following his example of service to this institution, which remains the direct voice of the American people and their will. So later today, I would ask the House to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the service of those who sit on the dais here in the well of the House typically attracts little public notice.

But, as Members, we feel their presence each time we enter this Chamber and observe the work of these dedicated men and women. Day in and day out they serve us tirelessly, without regard to party but with full devotion to public service. Without their assistance, the House of Representatives simply could not conduct its essential legislative business on behalf of the American people. We do not thank them often enough for their professionalism, their patience, their good cheer, and the many personal sacrifices they make in service to the House.

In that spirit then, I rise to thank and pay tribute to the House's Journal Clerk, Patricia Madson, who will retire this week. Trish has spent her entire professional life in service to the federal government, nearly all of it here on Capitol Hill. Her work here in the House alone spans four decades and includes service to seven Members as well as the Office of the Clerk.

For the past 21 years, Trish has worked for the Office of the Clerk on the House Floor. In her current role as Journal Clerk, she directs three Assistant Journal Clerks who maintain the official record of House proceedings. Whenever the House is in session, no matter the time, no matter the day, no matter the circumstances, Trish and her colleagues are at their stations at the rostrum.

In her tenure as a Journal Clerk, Trish has had a front-row seat to history, and her work in documenting that history from the House Floor has preserved for all time the essential record of this hallowed institution.

Trish began her congressional career in 1969 as a staff assistant for Representative Paul Findley of Illinois, and over the next dozen years she advanced to more senior-level administrative positions for other Members. She worked in senior assistant roles at the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Transportation before returning to the Hill in 1985 to consult on legislation for Representative Pat Roberts of Kansas. In 1987, she was appointed Assistant Tally Clerk to Minority Leader Robert Michel.

It is my privilege to commemorate Trish's long and distinguished service to the House. Trish, your dedication to your profession and your family are unmatched, and I wish you the very best in your retirement.

My colleagues, I would like to cut through all the fog here rather quickly.

Today's GDP figures remind us that our economy is still not creating enough jobs. Americans are worried about finding work. They are worried about our economy, and they are worried about the mountain of debt that is facing them and their children.

Today, we have a chance to end this debt limit crisis. With this bill, I think we are keeping our promise to the American people that we will cut spending by more than the amount of the increase in the debt limit. The Congressional Budget Office has certified this commonsense standard, and it has been backed by more than 150 distinguished economists from across the country.

We are also imposing caps to restrain future spending to stop the expansion of government while giving our economy a chance to grow and create jobs, and we are advancing the great cause of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

What this bill now says is that before the President can request an additional increase in the debt limit, two things have to happen: A joint committee of the Congress must produce spending cuts larger than the increase in the debt limit, and both Houses of the Congress must send to the States a balanced budget amendment.

Listen, the balanced budget amendment, it's time for this to happen. It enjoys support in both Houses of this Congress, and it enjoys bipartisan and widespread support across our country.

The bill also ends this crisis without raising taxes, which would cripple our economy, and there are no gimmicks. There are no smokescreens here that represent the old and comfortable way of doing things.

Now, the bill before us still isn't perfect. No Member would argue that it is. It's imperfect because it reflects an honest and sincere effort to end this crisis by sending a bill over to the Senate that at one time was agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the United States Senate.

And to my colleagues in the Senate, if they were here, I would say this, if this bill passes, this House has sent you not one, but two different bills to cut spending by trillions of dollars over the next decade while providing an immediate increase in the debt limit. And to the American people, I would say, we have tried our level best. We have done everything we can to find a commonsense solution that could pass both Houses of Congress and end this crisis.

We have tried to do the right thing by our country, but some people continue to say ``no.''

My colleagues, I have worked since the first week of this session when we were sworn in in January to avoid being where we are right this moment, but 2 days after we were sworn in, the Treasury Secretary sent us a letter asking us to increase the debt ceiling. I immediately responded by saying we would not increase the debt ceiling without serious cuts in spending and serious reforms to the way we spend the people's money.

We passed a budget. The other body spent over 800 days and still no budget, no plan. This will be the second bill we send over to the Senate, and yet not one piece of legislation out of the Senate has passed that deals with this crisis.

And my colleagues, I can tell you that I have worked with the President and the administration since the beginning of this year to avoid being in this spot. I have offered ideas. I have negotiated. Not one time, not one time did the administration ever put any plan on the table. All they would do was criticize what I put out there. I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the United States. I put revenues on the table in order to try to come to an agreement to avert us being where we are, but a lot of people in this town can never say ``yes.'' A lot of people can never say ``yes.''

This House has acted, and it is time for the administration and time for our colleagues across the aisle to put something on the table. Tell us where you are.

Yes, people can be critical of what we've done, but where are the other ideas? At this point in time, the House is going to act and we're going to act again, but it is time for our colleagues across the aisle to tell us what they're for, tell us how we can end this crisis.

Ronald Reagan has been quoted throughout this debate over the last few weeks, and Ronald Reagan would probably be flattered, I'm sure, if he were here. But Ronald Reagan, on his desk, had a little placard, and that placard was real simple. It said: ``It can be done.'' I have a replica of that placard on my desk, and let me tell you, Members of this House, it can be done, it must be done, and it will be done if we have the courage to do the right thing.

So for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our future, I'm going to ask each of you, as representatives of the people of the United States, to support this bill, to support this process and end this crisis now.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, there is a huge gulf between Washington, D.C., and the American people. They are dealing with tough times. They're struggling to pay their bills. They look to Washington, and they see politicians who can't stop spending money, their money.

Listen, we're broke, and we need to stop the out-of-control spending spree that's going on in Washington, D.C.

The House has acted. We passed a bill that raised the debt limit, cuts spending, puts real reforms in place, and requires that Congress send to the States a balanced budget amendment. It's called Cut, Cap, and Balance. We've done our job.

The Democrats who run Washington have done nothing. They can't stop spending the American people's money. They won't, and they have refused. The Senate majority leader says that they won't offer a plan to cut spending or a plan to raise the debt limit. Frankly, that's irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, where is their plan?

President Obama talks about being the adult in the room. Where is his plan to cut spending and raise the debt limit?

Listen, we're in the fourth quarter here. We're fighting for jobs; we're fighting for the country's future, and we're fighting for the American people.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding.

Let me say that I am disappointed that we have reached this point here today. Mr. Speaker, it didn't have to come to this.

Nearly 100 days ago, the President initiated a strike against Libya without consultation from the Congress and without prior explanation to the American people. Then, as now, we all supported the removal of the regime of Libya, a regime that was slaughtering

and is slaughtering its own people. Yet rather than seek regime change from the start, the President chose to follow, not lead, and pursued a strictly humanitarian mission under the banner of the United Nations, with no plan for Colonel Qadhafi's removal.

So at the outset, we asked some very straightforward questions for the President: Why isn't removing Qadhafi a part of this mission? What if he doesn't leave? Who are the rebels that we are there helping to fight? How long is this going to last and at what cost? And what does success look like? These were questions that the administration would not, or could not, answer.

Under our Constitution, the Commander in Chief has the authority to take actions necessary to protect our national security. This is an authority which I and this House respect, but it does not free the President from accountability to the American people, to this Congress, or to the rule of law.

Now, whatever your opinion of the War Powers resolution may be, the fact is it is the law of the land and simply cannot be ignored. So 3 weeks ago, this House overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution asking the President to explain how this mission is consistent with our national security goals, to justify continuing this operation without authorization. He responded by telling us he didn't need Congress because there are no ``hostilities'' taking place in Libya. Well, we soon found out even his own lawyers don't buy that argument.

Now, if the Commander in Chief is going to take our forces into war, he must take ownership of it. And if the President believes that missile strikes and drone operations taking place in Libya are critical, it is his responsibility to explain to the American people and to seek authorization from this Congress. Because the President has failed to do that, because he has failed to fulfill his obligations, we are here today.

Now, make no mistake: I support the removal of the Libyan regime. I support the President's authority as Commander in Chief. But when the President chooses to challenge the powers of the Congress, I, as Speaker of this House, will defend the constitutional authority of the legislature.

This bill represents, I believe, a reasonable approach. By allowing our forces to continue playing a limited support role, it would not undermine our NATO partners. It would, however, prevent the President from carrying out any further hostilities without Congress' approval, and it would exercise Congress' constitutional power to provide some much-needed accountability.

I believe this is a responsible approach, and I believe this House should support it.

Let me say good morning to all of you and welcome back. I see a lot of familiar faces here.

Let me also congratulate John Warner on receiving the Distinguished Service Award. John and I obviously worked together over the years, about 16 of them or so, and he is truly deserving of this honor.

You have probably recognized over the course of this first 6 months in the new Congress that we are trying to run the House a little differently--a novel concept of allowing the House to work its will, more open debate, more amendments, and respecting the work of the committees. And I have to tell you, so far it has gone very well. I think Members on both sides of the aisle are appreciative of how the process is working. As someone who came up through the committee ranks, who was a committee chair, I feel pretty strongly that the House works best when the House is allowed to work its will. I know a lot of people don't really believe that, but I'm going to tell you, just continue to watch because I just think everybody ought to have a chance to participate. Every one of us represents 650,000-700,000 constituents, and I think every Member should have the ability to play a part in this process. So, so far so good. We have a ways to go, but I am proud of the start that we have made.

In addition to that, I think all of you know that our economy is not doing well. The American people are continuing to ask the question: Where are the jobs?

At least in my opinion, we don't have many options available to us. We all know that we have big mandatory spending programs that aren't sustainable in their current form. Something has to be done. We all know what the problems are. Why don't we just go fix them?

I have had this same conversation with the President over the course of the last 5 months, and I really do think that this is the moment, this is the time for us to deal with these problems like adults: look at the problem and go solve it. You know, the problem around here, as you are all aware, is that the next election always kind of gets in the way of having the courage to do the right thing. So I have encouraged the President: forget about the next election. We know what the problems are; let's just go address them.

So it is going to be something, I think, a little different than anybody has ever seen when this agreement comes together. It is hard to tell you at this point what it is going to look like; but I am going to tell you this, this is the moment. This is the opportunity to address these big, looming problems; and I don't want to allow this opportunity to pass by.

So let me say, welcome back. I would hope that you would also work on getting more of our former colleagues back here. This is a big day for all of you, and I am proud of you, proud of the service you gave this institution, and I am proud of the opportunity I had to work with many of you over the years. Welcome.

There is always tomorrow.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding.

In March, when the President committed our troops to NATO's mission in Libya, I said that he had a responsibility to the American people to define the mission, to explain what America's role was in achieving that mission and lay out how it was to be accomplished. He has not effectively done so. The American people and the Members of this House have questions and concerns that have gone unanswered.

The President of the United States is our Commander in Chief, and I have always believed combat decisions should be left to the Commander in Chief and to the generals on the ground. But the House also has an obligation to heed the concerns of our constituents and to carry out our constitutional responsibilities.

The resolution I have put forward expresses the will of the people in a responsible way that reflects our commitments to our troops and to our allies.

Let me lay out exactly what this resolution does.

First, it establishes that the President has not asked for and that the Congress has not granted authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of our troops in Libya.

Second, it reasserts Congress' constitutional role to fund our troops.

Third, it requires the President to provide, within 14 days, information on that mission that should have been provided from the start.

And, lastly, it reaffirms the vote that we took last week that says that there should be no troops on the ground in Libya.

I hope the President will recognize his obligations outlined in this resolution and provide this information to Congress and, in doing so, better communicate to the American people what our mission in Libya is and how it will be achieved.

The resolution offered by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) conveys the concerns of the American people, but it also mandates a precipitous withdrawal from our role in supporting our NATO allies in Libya. In my opinion, that would undermine our troops and our allies, which could have serious consequences for our broader national security.

In my view, the gentleman's resolution goes too far. We may have differences regarding how we got here, but we cannot turn our backs on our troops and our NATO partners who have stuck by us over the last 10 years.

In 1991 in my first vote as a Member of this body, I voted to authorize the use of force in the first Gulf War. It was a consequential time, but I think we did the right thing. And today is no different. On behalf of the American people and our country, we have an obligation to support our troops in harm's way and to support our allies.

This resolution puts the President on notice. He has a chance to get this right; and if he doesn't, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and we will make it right.

I urge a ``yes'' on the Boehner resolution and a ``no'' on the Kucinich resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and thank Peter G. LeFevre, Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, who will retire on June 1, 2011, after 30 years of distinguished service to the House and 34 years with the Federal government.

Throughout his years with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, Peter has worked tirelessly to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the United States Code. Peter has technical familiarity with practically every law enacted by Congress over the past quarter century. His expertise, hard work, integrity, and commitment to quality have benefitted the House and earned him the deep regard of his colleagues.

As Law Revision Counsel, Peter has significantly improved the procedures for preparing and publishing the Code. He has been instrumental in upgrading the technology used to produce and access the Code. During his tenure, the Office website has been revitalized and the Code has become much more current in its annual supplement updates. The recent introduction of USCprelim, an advance posting of selected Code titles, has further improved public access to codified Federal legislation. Peter has also been responsible for overseeing the enactment of several non-positive law titles into positive law, a significant accomplishment enhancing the quality and organization of the Code.

On behalf of the House, I would like to commend Peter for his years of dedication and his many contributions to the Federal government, and in particular to the House of Representatives. Peter's diligent service day after day will be an example to those who serve after him. Peter has been a valuable asset to this institution and to his country. We will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my friend and my constituent Dorothy Roth, who sadly passed away on Monday. Dorothy's life was a testament to the innate goodness of human nature; a demonstration of the overwhelming positive effect one person can have on the community; and a reflection of the can-do spirit of America. She will be deeply missed by countless people.

Throughout her 81 years, Dorothy lived life to the fullest, with endless enthusiasm, an unmistakable grace, and an unwavering commitment to others. Her leadership challenged others to achieve more. Whether it was her work on behalf of the West Chester Liberty Chamber Alliance, Friends of the West Chester Library, Partners in Prime, The Community Foundation, the West Chester Historical Society, or the local Republican Party, Dorothy always gave more than she ever asked or received.

It is little wonder that in 1999 the West Chester Liberty Chamber Alliance designated its annual award as the Dorothy and Art Roth Citizen of the Year Award, in honor of Dorothy and her late husband Art. And it is also little wonder that in 2005 Dorothy received the Chamber's Lifetime Member Award.

As deserving as the awards and accolades were, the true hallmarks of Dorothy's life were the small things she did day in and day out for people across our community, and for the organizations that work each day to make West Chester a wonderful place to live, work and raise a family. Dorothy's infectious smile in a time of need; her wit and energy to boost one's day; her never-give-up attitude; and her ability to see the best in people changed our community for the better . . . one person, one group, one smile, one laugh, one encouraging comment at a time.

Dorothy Roth's life was a testament to the American ethos, to the spirit of community and of devotion to others. I consider it an honor to have represented Dorothy in Congress. She was a friend and a citizen in the truest sense of the word. Her passing is a loss for our community, but her life is an example for us all to follow so that we can continue the work she so deeply loved. May God watch over my dear friend Dorothy Roth.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important members of the House community is not a Member of the House. Upon its inception, the House elected a chaplain to deliver the opening prayer, continuing a tradition started by the First Continental Congress.

As the House has grown, so has the role of the chaplain, who Members, officers, and staff look to for advice and counsel.

The chaplain also sees to the well-being of this institution, which serves people of all faiths, and a Nation that has always put its trust in God.

Our national motto is an echo of the 16th Psalm, which in part says: ``Preserve me, O God, for in thee do I put my trust.''

In many ways, the chaplain is the anchor of the House.

So it was with regret that we bid farewell to Father Coughlin, who retired after 11 years of distinguished service. But always looking out for us, Father Dan left behind one last blessing. He recommended someone who he felt would be a worthy successor. And to no surprise, Father Dan was right.

Father Pat Conroy comes to us from the Northwest. He was born and raised

in Washington State and has spent much of his priesthood in Oregon. Next month, he will mark his 28th year as a Jesuit priest.

Father Pat also served here in our capital city. He was chaplain at Georgetown University for a total of 10 years.

He has a deep appreciation for public service. Before being called into the priesthood, Father Pat had thought he had a calling into politics, specifically the United States Senate.

Father, something tells me that you'll fit in just fine right here.

I think it's important to give the House a sense of Father Pat's character.

This is from a letter he wrote expressing his willingness to serve as chaplain:

``As a Jesuit, I believe it a part of my calling to find God in all things and to discover the spirit of God present in the people I encounter and whom I serve. I wish to say that I am ready and willing should those to be served deem me worthy of this ministry. Though true of any ministry, the position would call me to a radical reliance upon the grace of God, which would also be God's gift.''

I think it's clear this loyal servant of the faithful is uniquely suited to serve as chaplain of the people's House.

Leader Pelosi and I have gotten a chance to know Father Pat, and we are honored that he has accepted our invitation to serve as chaplain. We're blessed, I think, to have his guidance and his wisdom as we discharge our duties and fulfill our obligations to current and future generations of Americans.

Please join me in welcoming and congratulating the 60th chaplain of the House of Representatives, Father Pat Conroy.

(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Let me thank my colleague for yielding and express my support for H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This commonsense bipartisan legislation codifies the Hyde amendment and similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion across all Federal programs.

Last year we listened to the American people through our America Speaking Out project, and they spoke out on this issue loudly and clearly. We included it in our Pledge to America, and today we are taking another step toward meeting that commitment and keeping our word.

A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the American people and ought to be the law of the land. But the law, particularly as it is currently enforced, does not reflect the will of the American people. This has created additional uncertainty, given that Americans are concerned not just about how much we are spending but how we are spending it. Enacting this legislation would provide the American people with the assurance that their hard-earned tax dollars will not be used to fund abortions. And I want to commend the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.