Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I congratulate the Budget Committee for the hard work that you have done.

I wish we had more than 10 minutes on each side to discuss the House Democratic budget, but so it is.

Here we are, about to leave for the holy season of Easter and Passover. It reminds me of the Gospel of Matthew, in which Matthew says: ``For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.''

This budget is a statement as to where our treasure is and where our hearts are for the American people. A budget, as our distinguished ranking member said, must be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a nation should be reflected in our spending priorities, in our treasure.

But you be the judge, I want to say to the American people, but the Speaker will not allow me to address the American people, so their representatives here. Is it a statement of your national values, of our country, to give a $200,000 tax break to people making over $1 million a year at the expense of increasing taxes $2,000 for the middle class? Is that a statement of our values? I didn't think so.

Is it a statement of our values, in order to finance the special interest privilege that is in the Republican budget, is it a statement of your values to cut over 170,000 children from Head Start? Is that a statement of our values? Children learning, parents earning, opportunity, fairness.

Is it a statement of your values to support a budget that says, 3.5 million children in our country, disadvantaged children in economically disadvantaged areas, will have cuts in the budget of Title I? Is that a statement of our values in order to give tax breaks to Big Oil?

Is it a statement of our values to say to aspiring families, some the first in their families to be able to go to college, that we are going to cut over half a million, maybe over 600,000 kids from Head Start? Is that a statement of values to say to over half a million young people you will not have opportunity to have higher education? Instead, we are going to give that same amount of money to Big Oil for tax incentives for them to drill. Is that a statement of our values? I don't think so. I don't think so.

So where is their treasure and where is their heart?

The treasure in this Republican budget is just as what our ranking member said; it is with the special interests and the wealthiest people in our country. It is a trickle-down approach that has never worked. It has worked for the rich. It has worked for the special interests and their supporters, but it has not worked for the great middle class.

Do we need any more evidence of it not working, that these same warmed-over policies that existed in the Bush era that took us to the Great Recession, a great recession where we met right before the election in September of 2008, where the Chairman of the Fed said to us, if we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday? This was a Thursday night. That is where these policies took us at the end of the Bush years, and we are still digging out of that recession.

Instead of having a budget that lifts us up to create jobs, to create growth, to invest in science and education, to keep America number one, they call their budget a path to prosperity. It is a road to recession and always has been, and that is what it is now.

So at least we have a few minutes to discuss our value system, where our treasure is, with the richest and the special interests or with the great middle class and those who aspire to it, and, therefore, where our heart is in terms of budget priorities in this budget.

This is an important budget. Some people want to dismiss it as a joke because it is so outrageous. It is deadly serious. It isn't funny at all because of the impact that it has in the lives of America's families, our children, our seniors, voucherizing Medicare, removing the guarantee of Medicare for our seniors.

Is that a statement of our values, to say to our seniors: you are on your own, you are on your own?

I don't think so. So if our heart is with the middle class, we will put our treasure there and make investments in education and job creation, investments in science.

I will just close. Again, I started with the Bible. Scientific research gives us an almost biblical power to cure. Where there is scientific opportunity, we almost have a moral responsibility-- certainly a moral imperative to invest in it, to improve health, to improve the quality of health in our country, and to make sure that everybody has access to it.

But don't worry about the access to it because our investments in basic scientific research are seriously impaired by this budget. It does violence to any concept of science that promotes innovation and keeps making America number one, advancing innovation with investments in science and technology.

It undermines investments in how we protect our environment, so that our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water, about how we protect our America by investments in science and technology to do so, and the intelligence to avoid conflict and the investments in job creation that science will enable us to do.

So if you believe in knowledge, if you would believe in fact, if you believe in the middle class, you must reject the Republican budget. You must reject the Republican budget.

What the Republican leadership is asking Members to do is something that I don't know that they share that value. Certainly, Republicans across the country do not. Republicans across the country support education, investments in science, and the rest. Any poll will show you that.

Just one other thing: if you really want to reduce the deficit, one of the fastest ways you can do it is to have a budget that does as ours does, to include comprehensive immigration reform, which reduces the deficit by $900

billion with a b, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So by reason of treasure, by reason of heart, by reason of value, by reason of ethic, by reason of honoring our responsibilities to the American people, vote a good, strong ``no'' on the Ryan Republican budget. It is a path to ruin. It is not a path to prosperity.

Mr. Van Hollen's budget is a budget about growth, about investment, about keeping America number one, about strengthening the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy.

Vote ``no'' on the Ryan budget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank him for his leadership on issues that relate to the health and well-being of the American people. I also commend the leadership of the previous speaker, Mr Waxman, and our ranking member on the Ways and Means committee, Mr. Levin. They have been two champions on the subject of health care in America--and doing so in a fiscally sound way.

While I appreciate and share the concerns here--and I will speak to that--I do think that we have to think carefully about the decision that we make. I know that they have.

The leadership is bringing this bill to the floor on a short fuse, with an expiration date of March 31, without most people in this room having ever seen what is in the bill, which is a missed opportunity.

We should be considering right now a bill that would permanently speak to the SGR. For those in the public, I know it is inside baseball talk, SGR. That is the rate that docs are compensated for treating Medicare patients.

So don't think of SGR--think of the patients. That is what we are doing here. Think of the certainty that they need in terms of their health care, and that is our seniors. Think of the certainty that a permanent fix, paid for or not--but let's say paid for--would mean to remove the uncertainty from this debate.

The American Medical Association is opposed to this bill that is on the floor today because it is a patch.

How many times have you heard people talk about a Band-Aid? We are just putting a Band-Aid on it. We are not getting to the underlying challenge that we face. This is a Band-Aid, and that is why the docs oppose this patch.

I did hear the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) say, If you don't like these pay-fors, suggest your own. Well, we have suggested our own. It is called OCO. It is the Overseas Contingency Operations. The Republicans said that is a gimmick, but it wasn't a gimmick when you put it in the Ryan budget. It is in the Ryan budget. So it works for you where it works for you, but you don't want to put it to work for America's seniors.

So here is the thing. The Senate majority and the House majority came together to produce this patch--this Band-Aid. It is the wrong way to go. It does not address the underlying problem.

We could have done that. We have been trying to do it for 10 years, and it is always, always, always something that the Republican majority has backed away from and limited and done on a short fuse.

There are so many things that are wrong with this bill, but the simple fact is that the clock is ticking, and on March 31, it is bad news for seniors and for the doctors who treat them and the Medicare program.

Our seniors depend on Medicare. They depend on Medicare, and this is a weakening of it. It is just the same old-same old let's see what we can do to find some pay-fors that really undermine the health and well- being of the American people.

Those same pay-fors, done properly, could be part of a permanent fix, but instead, they are part of the Band-Aid. So this is all to say to my colleagues: you are going to have to make your decision as you weigh the equities.

Is it better to just succumb to what we have, no matter how mediocre and how missed an opportunity it is? Or is it better to say: Let's hold out until our Republican colleagues agree to the full SGR, essentially, a fix forever, paid for by OCO?

It is really important to note the following: the shorter the fix, the more expensive it is. We have been seeing that year in and year out. If we had dealt with this, say, 6, 7 years ago, it would have cost much less than it is to patch 1 year to the next, sometimes less than a year to the next.

This is not about reducing the deficit. It is not about the good health of the American people. It is just an ideological reality that we have to deal with from the Republican side of the aisle.

So when the docs--the AMA--says, We are opposed to this, vote it down, that is important to us. I say to them, Talk to your Republican friends, they have the power to do a permanent fix paid for by OCO; they refuse to do it.

So we have something less good that we can do for the American people, and if this sounds a little confusing, it is because it is; and Members have to make the decision as to whether they will vote for this, just because we are forced into it, or whether they want to hold out for something much better.

This would be a more appropriate debate a month ago, where the clock does not run out over the weekend, but this is a tactic. It is a technique used by the majority to force the hand without the proper weighing of equities in all of it.

So, my colleagues, I just urge you to try to weigh those equities. I, myself, come down on the side of supporting the legislation because, frankly, I believe that any uncertainty in the minds of our seniors about their ability to see their doctors will certainly be--the Republicans will say this is because of the Affordable Care Act, and I just don't want to give them another opportunity to misrepresent what this is about.

If the Affordable Care Act never existed, we would still be here debating SGR. They are two separate subjects; but as we know, any excuse will do to undermine the great legislation that the Affordable Care Act was about, life, a healthier life, the liberty of people to pursue their happiness because they had the freedom to do so--better quality, lower cost, more accessibility.

So that is how I come to the conclusion of let's not give them another false claim. Let's just get this done, but let us not give up on the prospect, even before this expires, of having a long-term, permanent fix to SGR.

It makes all the sense in the world. It has no partisanship about it. It is sensible, and it will cost less to do more for our seniors. The challenge is there. The solution is clear. The Republicans have rejected it, so we are at their mercy.

My conclusion is to vote ``yes.'' Members will have to come to their own conclusions on it. I, frankly, wish that the Republicans, in their power, would have brought the bill to the floor under a rule, so we could have a proper debate on it, instead of requiring a 290-vote requirement to pass it.

With the shortness of receiving this information, only this morning, Members are finding out what it is. It is really hard to predict who will vote pro, who will vote con, who will vote ``aye,'' who will vote ``no.'' This is really a silly decision to bring this to the floor in this form when we know the path that is much better.

I am not going to give you another reason to go out there and make your claims about the Affordable Care Act, which have no basis in fact.

With that, I urge my colleagues to pray over it, as I will.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his relentless and persistent leadership in helping America's seniors, today manifested in his support for the SGR and his opposition to this ill-designed approach by the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, today, House Republicans are proving that their obsession with tearing down the Affordable Care Act is blurring their vision and that it has no boundaries.

For their 51st vote to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act, Republicans are turning their partisanship against the health and security of our Nation's seniors.

The House Republican leadership's political games are threatening to derail months of bipartisan, bicameral--House and Senate--progress on a permanent Medicare doc fix, threatening our seniors' ability to see their doctors and get the health care they need.

Earlier this week, the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Council on Aging, and other key seniors' advocacy groups wrote to congressional leadership to make it clear that the Republicans' actions would ``inject partisan politics into bipartisan legislation,'' and that this ``undermines the months of hard work done by committees, their staffs, and concerned stakeholders.''

The Republicans' approach has been rejected not only by the senior advocacy groups but by providers, doctors, insurers, and seniors. Yet they persist with their reckless partisan antics even as time quickly runs down to address the sustainable growth rate formula before the end of the month.

Twice this week, Republicans blocked the House from considering a fully paid-for measure that includes the reforms to the SGR supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate and on the committees.

Why have Republicans chosen to proceed in this manner after months of bipartisan progress? Why didn't Republican leadership work with Democrats to find acceptable offsets? We need to get this done--and Republicans know that their badly partisan effort is a nonstarter.

If passed, it would spike health insurance premiums by 10 to 20 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would cause 13 million fewer Americans to be insured, says the Congressional Budget Office.

What does this mean to families? If you have a child in your family between the ages of 18 and 26, they would no longer be able to be on their parents' policy. Under the Affordable Care Act, being a woman is no longer a preexisting medical condition. The Republican actions here today would reverse that and take us back to a time where women paid more for policies simply because they were women.

It would, again, reject, eliminate the very important provision of the Affordable Care Act about not being denied coverage because you have a preexisting medical condition. Tens of millions of families-- probably a hundred million people--are affected by not being denied coverage because of a preexisting medical condition. That is how many people it would affect.

It would eliminate the requirement of the Affordable Care Act that there be no cap, either annual or lifetime limit, on the health insurance that you would receive. For these and other reasons, this is a really bad idea.

We may only hope that, after this 51st vote, Republicans' fever will break, and they will return to work with Democrats to pass bipartisan, bicameral legislation as a permanent doc fix that seniors need before the end of the month.

We are going out today, again, with work undone; 10 days before we come back the 24th of March. The SGR expires at the end of March.

We shouldn't be wasting time on this foolishness and recklessness. We should be finding a solution. That is what the American people sent us here to do.

The Republican fixation with destroying the health security of millions of Americans through their efforts to destroy the Affordable Care Act imperil the permanent ``doc fix,'' and that must stop.

Congress is wasting time again, as I said, on these endless, wasteful votes. Time should be spent renewing emergency unemployment insurance, raising the minimum wage, rebuilding America by investing in education and building our infrastructure, creating jobs.

The American people deserve better than this. They deserve a Congress that works to strengthen the middle class, tackle the opportunity gap, create jobs, and build an economy that works for everyone.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I hope that when we return after the recess week, yet another recess week, Republicans will be ready to get serious and be ready to get back to work for a permanent doc fix so that our seniors will be served.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership on this important issue to him. To Mr. Levin and members of the Ways and Means Committee, thank you for making clear what the stakes are in this vote on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution declares:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned.

That has always been the standard upheld and advocated by House Democrats.

In each of my conversations with Speaker Boehner, I have conveyed the unwavering support of the House Democratic Caucus for a clean bill to lift the debt ceiling. That means no goodies for one side or the other. There is nothing you could add to it that would say, Okay, since it is something I like, then I don't mind if it isn't clean. I said to the Speaker, Even if you added something that I cared about a great deal, that our Caucus cared about a great deal, that does not make it right because the full faith and credit should be unquestioned, and it is not negotiable.

I thank the Speaker for giving us this opportunity. This is really important to bring legislation to the floor that is consistent with the intent of the Constitution and with the best interests of the American people. Well, I tell you this, we have heard from all kinds of leaders of finance, from the boardroom to the kitchen table. The boardroom tells us, the conference table then writes to us and says, We urge you to again take the necessary steps to preserve our Nation's financial standing in the world and help ensure that the American recovery continues in its current path toward restored prosperity by the uncertainty as to whether or not we will incur an historic default in raising the debt ceiling.

I wish to submit the full letter to the Record with the signatories who represent the captains of industry and finance in our country.

More important than that, as important as that is, our global standing in the world, more important to each and every person in our country is what Mr. Neal spelled out: what this means to you. If you are a consumer with a credit card, if we did not take this action today, interest rates could skyrocket, making it harder for families to get loans, and for small businesses to invest, spend and hire. Again, on your kitchen table as you pay the bills each month, you would have higher interest rates for your mortgage, your car payments, your student loans, and your credit card bills. Higher interest rates once again on small business loans that are used to pay employees or expand business. Significant blows would come to 401(k)s as a result of the stock market reaction to our not lifting the debt ceiling. Credit markets could freeze. The value of the dollar would be negatively impacted.

So there is a great deal at stake in this vote today. Again, at the time when we have to lift the debt ceiling, it is appropriate to have a discussion of spending priorities, of budgets that should be a statement of our values; but there should be no question that those debates would be something that would not just be a debate, but be a barrier to lifting the debt ceiling. That is why I am grateful to the Speaker and the Republican leadership for giving this House this opportunity to act in a way that is consistent with the Constitution.

When this measure passes today, Congress will state unequivocally that the full faith and credit of the United States of America is not in doubt. I thank my Democratic colleagues for never wavering from this position and standing firm on behalf of all Americans. I thank once again the Speaker for giving us this opportunity to associate ourselves and support the Constitution and the American people.

January 30, 2014.

Dear Members of Congress, The undersigned associations

representing a broad swath of the nation's business community

and sectors serving tens of millions customers, businesses

and investors, respectfully urge you to raise the federal

debt limit without delay.

While we firmly believe that the time is long overdue for

the Administration and the Congress to come together and

develop long-term solutions to our very real fiscal

challenges, defaulting on the nation's debt obligations

should not be an option for policymakers to consider. Should

the President and Congress fail to work together and raise

the debt limit in a timely fashion, the Treasury will be

unable to meet government obligations coming due which would

trigger a series of events that would inevitably lead to

American taxpayers paying more to finance our debt. Even a

short-term failure to fulfill our obligations would seriously

impair market operations and could have significant

consequences to our fragile economic recovery. When Congress

last debated this matter in the fall of 2013, markets clearly

signaled the potential negative affects through increased

interest rates and weakened investor demand for U.S. assets.

We urge you to again take the necessary steps to preserve

our nation's financial standing in the world and help ensure

that the American economy continues on its current path

toward restored prosperity by eliminating the uncertainty as

to whether or not we will incur an historic default and

raising the debt ceiling.

Thank you for considering our urgent request. We look

forward to working with you to advance this and other

critical legislation.

Signed,

American Bankers Association, American Insurance

Association, U S Chamber of Commerce, Consumer Bankers

Association, Financial Services Forum, Financial Services

Roundtable, Independent Community Bankers of America,

Investment Company Institute, Securities Industry and

Financial Markets Association.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I commend her for her longstanding and strong support and respect for women, for their judgment, for the size and timing of their families, for when women succeed, America succeeds. And Congresswoman Ranking Member Slaughter has been a great proponent of that.

Today, the President will stand at the rostrum of the House to report on the State of the Union. On a day when we should join him in laying out a vision of opportunity and optimism for our country, Republicans are voting to limit women's health care decisions.

They are hiding the provisions of this legislation by what they have described as longstanding tradition and accepted policy that there will be no Federal funding for abortions and, indeed, there isn't. It is spelled out every time we have a bill that addresses this in appropriation, which they have stated very clearly and they have said that, in a bipartisan way, we have supported.

So why are we wasting time coming to the floor today to take up something that, as they have conceded, is the accepted policy of the House and of the Congress of the United States?

Why?

We are doing it because they are using it as a front for legislation that is very harmful to reproductive health of women, very disrespectful of women's judgment and, again, a waste of time on the floor of the House, a waste of time when, instead of disrespecting women, we should be mindful and address the needs of 1.5 million and a growing number of Americans who have lost their unemployment insurance through no fault of their own, hardworking Americans who play by the rules and work hard.

The work-hard ethic is alive and well in America; but in this economic time, some people have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Over time, we have always respected the system that we had, paid these benefits--but not now.

So today, instead of going down this path to nowhere--they know this legislation is going nowhere, that is to say, the underlying damage that they are doing to women's health in their legislation, it is going nowhere.

Instead, we should defeat this rule, vote against the previous question, follow the lead of distinguished Ranking Member Slaughter on the committee, our distinguished Ranking Member Van Hollen of the Budget Committee, vote this rule down, enable us to bring up a bill that will use the savings from the subsidy cuts in the farm bill in order to pay for unemployment insurance benefits.

I, myself, do not think that they should be paid for because it is an emergency and, by and large, those emergencies have never had an offset.

But if the Republicans want an offset, here is an offset, one that is going to be voted into law tomorrow in the House of Representatives. We can use it today to extend these benefits.

Why don't we use the time that we have to meet the needs of the American people, to honor their priorities, to make their future better, instead of dragging us into the past?

So I ask, again, our colleagues to vote against the bill so that we can take up a bill in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.

Mr. Speaker, more than two centuries ago, with the dawn of a new nation, our Founding Fathers declared to the world that we, as a people, would forever be united in service to one country and to one another. These United States stand together under a single banner: E pluribus unum. ``Out of many, one.''

For 225 years, that bedrock principle of our young Republic has served as an extraordinary mission of our nation's oldest Jesuit and Catholic University. Founded by Bishop John Carroll of Maryland, America's first Catholic bishop, Georgetown University challenges students from every faith, race, and region of the world to use their unique and individual gifts in service of the common good. As its motto states, Utraque Unum. ``Both into one.''

That creed and common purpose is why Georgetown students, who fought on both sides of the Civil War, elected the Union blue and Confederate grey to fly together as their university colors.

It is why, in the capital of a once-divided nation, Father Patrick Healy, a man born to a slave, rose to lead Georgetown as the first African American president of a major American university.

It is why in 1880, long before many of its peer institutions, Georgetown welcomed women students to study at its medical school. Today, the world's best and brightest young women make up a majority of the university's student body.

Georgetown University's intellectual openness, pursuit of progress, and unwavering dedication to social justice has educated and shaped leaders for more than two centuries. Students have graduated to become leaders of countries, leaders in science, in business, in academia, in humanitarianism, and proudly to become a president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton.

For generations, U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense, Ambassadors, and Foreign Service Officers, and countless representatives of foreign countries, have honed their diplomatic craft under the guidance and tutelage of Georgetown faculty and experts.

While Georgetown is fostering lifelong learners from every state, this remarkable university's reach goes well beyond our nation's borders. The Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (SFS) is world-renowned for providing a theoretical and practical approach to international relations that teaches students from 129 countries to act with imagination, sound judgment, values, and in service to others.

And in the Capitol, from Congressman William Gaston in its first class in 1792 to the present, many Georgetown graduates have enriched Congress with their committed leadership. Congress has been blessed with the great Georgetown wisdom of the Dean of the House, John Dingell, Class of '49 and Law Class of '52.

For 225 years, Georgetown University has been a national treasure that stands as an international beacon of a simple truth, and deep American faith: that out of many backgrounds and beliefs, through times of discord and peace, our common humanity binds us together; and our common hopes and dreams unite us as one.

To President John DeGioia, to the students, faculty, and graduates of Georgetown University, congratulations on more than two centuries of leadership for America, for the greater glory of God, and well-being of humankind.

I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding, our ranking member on the Rules Committee, and thank her and our colleagues on that committee for trying so hard to have this rule contain an amendment that will allow us to vote on the extension of unemployment insurance for over 1.3 million Americans who will lose those benefits if we do not pass that extension. I would particularly salute Congressman Sandy Levin of Michigan, the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, for his relentless championing of this issue of fairness to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we come here to talk about a bill that is to end the sequester, and end the sequester it does. I commend the conferees. I am very proud of the work of Congressman Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member on the Budget Committee on the Democratic side; Nita Lowey, the ranking member on Appropriations; and our assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn, representing the leadership in those negotiations. I thank them for taking this to a place, fighting it to a draw, so that we come to the floor to fight some and end sequestration.

But the opportunity was so much greater. Apparently, the Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity when it comes to creating jobs. Mr. Van Hollen had in his bill just a few points in terms of priorities. One was to create jobs and economic growth for our country in the short term and in the long term.

If we close a loophole, build the infrastructure of America; close a loophole, build a bridge; close a loophole, special interests, tax loopholes for special interests, invest in the human infrastructure of our country, early childhood education, long-term economic growth; close a loophole, pay for unemployment insurance. I don't think it has to be paid for because it is emergency spending; but, nonetheless, let's have an opportunity to vote to extend unemployment benefits.

When we do ignore those investments in the future, we are not reducing the deficit; we are increasing the deficit. Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than creating jobs and the revenue that produces. Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the education of the American people starting with early childhood education.

As far as unemployment benefits are concerned, the economic impact is clear: every dollar spent on unemployment benefits grows the economy by $1.52, according to Moody's Analytics--a dollar and a half for every dollar we spent, and that is a conservative estimate.

Failing to extend unemployment benefits will cost us 200,000 jobs over the next year. We can't do that. A recent report shows that extending UI instead would produce 300,000 jobs.

So again, this money, if spent immediately, injects demand into the economy, creates jobs, grows the economy, as well as honoring our social compact that we have with the American people.

People work hard, play by the rules, and lose their job through no fault of their own; insurance is what they have. We should honor that insurance.

So it is disappointing, yes, because this package is so limited. But as I said, it was a fight to a draw, and I recommend that our colleagues vote to support it so we can take it off the table and make way for the discussion we should be having about comprehensive immigration reform. The votes are here. Give us a vote, Mr. Speaker.

Passing a farm bill, that is very important to the economy of our country.

Raise the minimum wage. Nearly two-thirds of the people making the minimum wage are women. Paycheck equity, have fairness in the workplace for women.

The list goes on and on. ENDA, ending discrimination against the LGBT community, people in the workplace. There are so many items on the agenda that have the support of the American people in large numbers.

Yesterday was the anniversary of Newtown. Pass the Brady background bill. All of these things are on an agenda we have neglected. Up until now we just haven't had time for it. I guess they haven't been priorities for this Congress, but they are priorities for the American people and for the Democrats in Congress.

So again, one reason to vote for this package, even though you may think it is meager and you may not like all of its priorities, as the gentleman said, is to at least have an agreement on the budget that enables us to move forward for bigger fights that will improve policy and improve the lives of the American people and honor our responsibilities to them.

I urge our colleagues to vote for the budget, but to vote against this rule because this rule says ``no.'' It says ``no'' to the Congress; we are not even going to allow you to speak or vote on unemployment insurance benefits extension. It says ``no'' to the American people that if you work hard and play by the rules and lose your job through no fault of your own, the safety net is not there. And that safety net is not there just for individuals; it is there for the system. Our beautiful free market system grows in cycles, and sometimes unemployment is higher than others and there are some outside forces at work that people lose their jobs because of. And so it is a safety net for our economic system as well as individuals.

Why would they not allow us to bring this up and extend the extension? Is it the money? If it is the money, we will find it. Is it the price? Do you think the price is to high to give people dignity, to allow them to keep their homes and meet the needs of their children? Two million children would be affected by this. Tens of thousands of veterans will be affected by this. We care about veterans here. We care about children here, but apparently not enough to extend unemployment benefits.

So why, my Republican colleagues, would you not allow us to have a vote on this? I know the support is there on the Republican side. I know that the Democrats would vote 100 percent for this. Do you not believe that these people are worthy of receiving unemployment insurance? I say ``insurance,'' that is something paid into, a benefit check. If so, let the American people know that.

But this debate will not end today. While you may not give us a vote on the floor to extend these benefits so we see where everybody is on the subject and why, this fight will continue because this is about the morality of our country, the respect that we have for people, the value that we place on work, the pride we take in the great work ethic of the American people. But sometimes it just seems the harder they work, the forces are in a deck stacked against them, and this Congress is saying this deck is not going to include you as we deal out the cards.

So I can't explain it to anybody except to say it is a values decision; and, apparently, there is not enough shared value on the subject of the respect we should have for our workers to even honor the subject with a vote on the floor of the House. It is an outrageous rule to come to the floor. I thank you, Madam Chair, for fighting it, and I urge a very strong ``no'' vote on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the previous question, which would allow us to bring the issue to the floor.

What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of the vote? Are you afraid of working people who are out of a job? What are you afraid of? Let us have a vote on the floor.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and a ``yes'' on the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Fattah, for taking this Special Order as part of the Congressional Black Caucus period of mourning for President Mandela.

I was so proud that so many members from the CBC, Mr. McDermott, and others went to South Africa to be present at the celebration of the life and the memorial services for President Mandela. I wish that I could have gone. In fact, I thought I was. So did Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Clyburn. But the business of the budget kept us here. Our thoughts and prayers were with all of you as we were at the National Cathedral yesterday.

What I came to the floor to say is I wish to associate myself with all the beautiful sentiments expressed by my colleagues about an icon in the world--a person that is so unique in history, not just in our lifetime, but in the history of the world.

When I was asked today some thoughts about President Mandela, I said that what he did reminded me of King Solomon. When King Solomon was to inherit the throne from his father, King David, he prayed to God with a great spirit of humility. In humility, he said: God, please give me the wisdom to be the king of your people and to follow in the footsteps of King David. Please give me wisdom and understanding so that I can do the job.

And God came back to him another night and said: Solomon, because you did not ask for longevity, vengeance upon your enemies, or great wealth, I will give you more wisdom and more understanding than any other person has ever had, and people will come from all around and your wisdom will be renowned in the world for ages to come.

It reminds me so much of Nelson Mandela because in his greatness was that spirit of humility--that humility that was open to wisdom, to understanding, to being in somebody else's place--that led him not to wish for a long life, though God gave him that; not to give him great wealth, which he did not possess; and certainly not to give him vengeance upon his enemies, because that was the opposite of what he was. In the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation, as our colleagues have discussed, and the great wisdom God gave him, as well as the long life, he was able to use that wisdom springing from that humility to understand other people's situations and then do great things, things that would make him renowned for ages to come for his wisdom and for his spirit.

I had the privilege of seeing President Mandela when he came to address a joint session of Congress in 1994 as the President of South Africa. Afterward, Speaker Foley had a luncheon. He invited a large number of us to have lunch with President Mandela.

President Mandela spoke again at that luncheon, and what was sad about it was that he spoke about the price he paid to be the father of his country--at the expense of his being a father to his family. He talked about how it was to be separated from his family for over 26 years.

Imagine that, trying to meet the needs of his wife and children, and also has his need to be a father. He made quite a sacrifice. It was urgent that he do so.

But, again, in different periods of his life he demonstrated great courage, great determination, great strength, great persistence in prison, and great sadness about not seeing his family. And all of that strengthened him to say he really had to exploit the investments that had been made by the people of South Africa in the name Mandela. And he came out to be an example to the world of forgiveness, reconciliation, and of a strength unlike most of us have ever seen.

As a Californian, we take some ownership of the Mandela issue, whether it was stopping investments in South Africa and the rest. Ron Dellums was the champion of this. So we are proud of the role that we played in from the State of California.

It really is, again, in that same humility that is a virtue that we should all possess that I come to this floor to even talk about such a great person who went from a village, to a leader of a movement, to prison, to the presidency of South Africa; from a name that we heard in America, to a person who would address a joint session of Congress. But on top of all of that, to go from his village, to be a world icon.

Thank you, my colleague, for giving me the time.

Mr. Speaker, last week, our community lost a great civic leader, a true American success story and a pillar of the San Francisco Bay Area: Masud Mehran. He passed away on November 26th, at the age of 93, surrounded, as he always was throughout his long life, by his family, by those he loved, by those he cherished most.

Masud Mehran lived the American Dream. He was an immigrant who came with his wife, Maryam, to the United States from Iran in search of opportunity. He got an education from some of our finest universities and traveled across our country. He made his way to the Bay Area, to the region that would be his home for more than 60 years, and started a business. And over the ensuing decades, he built Sunset Development Company into one of the largest, most successful real estate developers in California.

For Masud, extraordinary success in business was not enough; his values, his heritage, and his conscience drove him to do more--for our community, for our young people, for our state and nation.

Beyond his extensive leadership roles among associations of home builders and developers in San Francisco and statewide, Masud's generosity could be seen in his support for the health of our youth at Children's Hospital; the development of our children in the Boy Scouts of America; the education of our students at Golden Gate University, Dominican College, UC Berkeley, and elsewhere.

His efforts were recognized with the Good Scout award for outstanding leadership in helping to build a better American community; the Democratic Heritage award from the Anti-Defamation League; and the Award of Excellence from the Urban Land Institute for Large-Scale Office Park Development.

All who knew him will long be inspired by his leadership, his values, his strength, and his willingness to give back to those around him. His legacy can be found in the impact of his philanthropy and the example he set for so many others in the Bay Area and nationwide. Yet no legacy--in business or in community activism--could ever compare to the extraordinary pride he always took in his family.

Devotion to his family was Masud's first priority. Dedication to his loved ones was his defining characteristic. Spending time with his wife, Farideh, his son, Alex, and his grandchildren was his greatest joy. He will certainly be missed by all who knew and loved him.

May it be a comfort to the entire Mehran family that so many share in their grief and mourn along their side at this sad time. May Masud Mehran's life and memory forever be a blessing to us all.

Mr. Speaker, today, the President put forth some conversation about the Affordable Care Act that focuses especially on women's health. I am absolutely delighted to come to the floor to address that issue in that--and I hope every woman in America understands this--because of the Affordable Care Act, being a woman is no longer a preexisting medical condition. As the mother of five children--four daughters and one son--I am very excited about this.

Over the break, I had the privilege of being at a meeting with some researchers on the subject of breast cancer in particular, and they spent a good deal of the time telling us what the possibilities were with research that should be funded--that is a budget issue, another subject, but one that is related here--and that we could remove this threat to women's health with proper research.

They took time to say that one thing that was helping women with breast cancer more than anything was the Affordable Care Act--that they would have access to care without being discriminated against because of a preexisting medical condition, that no longer would they have annual or lifetime limits on the health insurance that they would receive. The relief of the stress from all of that is a very healthy thing for people who have a diagnosis.

So whatever it is--whether it is mammograms as my colleague Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz so generously shared her story with us about her experience or, earlier, as Congresswoman DeLauro shared hers and as other Members shared the stories of their constituents--this is really very important. Moms are the hubs of families. Many of them fear this diagnosis. Many families in America have been affected by it.

With our investments in research and with the Affordable Care Act, women have reason to be very, very hopeful that this can be prevented with early detection--and not only with early detection but with regular detection. Then, on top of that, if they have that feared diagnosis, they will receive the care that they deserve.

There is one other point I want to make about it because we all worship at the altar of biomedical research and what it means for our country and the thought that we could be rid of breast cancer in a handful of years: we want to make sure every woman in America and every person in America benefits from that research. The vehicle for that is the Affordable Care Act. It stands right there with Social Security, with Medicare, with affordable--and that is the word, ``affordable''-- health care for all Americans as a pillar of health and economic security for the American people.

Today, we focus on moms--we focus on women--and we say, Thank God. No longer will being a woman be a preexisting medical condition.

Mr. Speaker, understanding the rules of the House, nonetheless I would like to say how honored we all are that our special guests, led by Eliseo Medina, are here as part of the Fast for Families. I want to join the distinguished former chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, and say that I, too, visited the Fast for Families. I fast for immigration and wear the button.

I am so proud that our House of Representatives showed its respect to the strength of the message of our guests here today because immigration is about America. It is who we are by and large, a Nation of immigrants. It is the constant reinvigoration of our country. Every person who comes here with his or her hopes, dreams, and aspirations for a better future; optimism for the

future, the courage to come, to work hard, to play by the rules--that invigorates America. The tradition of family and community and the rest, every immigrant who comes with those values and those goals makes America more American.

I also rise, Mr. Speaker, to talk about a place where immigration and health come together, and I thank President Obama for lifting the travel ban on those infected with HIV. It had been my original intent to seek recognition to talk about World AIDS Day, which we observed yesterday, but I wanted to pay my respect to those who are fasting for immigration.

Our work on HIV-AIDS has been a product of bipartisan cooperation in this Congress over a long period of time. In the White House, though, first with President Clinton, we increased the bilateral programs to fight AIDS and we helped create, authorize, and fund the Global Fund. Then under the leadership of President Bush, we established PEPFAR and provided the necessary funding to ramp up the emergency response to the crisis. President Obama has strengthened those efforts and boosted our investment by launching the National HIV-AIDS Strategy.

In addition to that, President Obama announced that PEPFAR would not only reach its goal of providing treatment for 6 million people by 2013 but will exceed that target by providing 6.7 million people with lifesaving treatment. This is attributed to the leadership of President George W. Bush and to President Obama.

True today, President Obama went further and signed the PEPFAR and Global Fund reauthorization bill into law, and I am proud that President Obama has announced a U.S. commitment of $1 for every $2 provided by other donors up to $5 billion through 2016. This marks a likely $1 billion increase over previous years. That means more lives saved and quality of life increased.

Our work is far from finished. HIV and AIDS is a really resourceful disease, that virus, ever mutating. Just when you think we have it in our sights, it changes, and so we have to be resourceful to our approach to the HIV-AIDS virus because we will not allow HIV and AIDS to claim so many lives when we have within our means the science, the prevention, the care, the search for a cure to make a difference. One of the most exciting parts of it is that we will now be able to have an AIDS-free generation of transmittal from mother-to-child, which is quite remarkable, among other remarkable aspects of it.

This is an important issue about our values as a country, our concern for people in our community and globally across the world, which takes us back to the beautiful reception that our fasters for immigration received when they were here earlier.

As a mom and as a grandmother, I would encourage them not to fast very much longer, but I want them to know that we all recognize their sacrifice, understand the need to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and hope that will happen soon.

I thank the gentleman for calling this Special Order. Congress has adjourned for the Thanksgiving holiday, but I thank you for staying so that we can acknowledge and observe the 50th anniversary of a great loss for our country.

My colleague, Mr. Larson, spoke so beautifully about what happened on November 22, 50 years ago, and how your mother reacted. You could have been speaking for every family in America.

Certainly, we took special ownership of President Kennedy, as the first Catholic President, but everyone who enjoys firsts understands that that pioneer action, that courage, that success that he had was not just about him being the first Catholic President, but embracing the people of our country more fully.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, tragedy struck the heart of a Nation in Dallas, Texas. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy was taken from us, suddenly and unexpectedly, and the entire Nation was shaken and mourned.

As you said, we don't want to dwell on that sad day. We want to spring from it and talk about what went before and what has come from the legacy of President John F. Kennedy.

Today, 50 years later, we rise on the floor of the House to pay tribute to

him as a leader on the anniversary of a tragedy, with a focus on many victories.

Here, in this Chamber, President Kennedy served. Can you imagine? I take great pride in the fact--all of us who serve here do--that President Kennedy began his Federal service in office in the House of Representatives. His grandfather, Honey Fitz, also served in the House. His grandnephews served in the House. So it has been a Kennedy family tradition to serve in the House of Representatives. He did so as a proud member of the Massachusetts delegation.

I rise to honor the life, legacy, inspiration, and achievements. I rise to salute an extraordinary leader for our country and the world.

I feel emotional about it, listening to Mr. Larson describe the events of the day and the weekend that followed. The beautiful family dignity that Mrs. Kennedy and the children demonstrated have made a mark on our hearts. We are so pleased that, as the President said last night, as we are here, Caroline is drawing crowds in Tokyo.

As a student, I had the privilege of being there when President Kennedy was inaugurated. I had the privilege of meeting him as a student in high school in Baltimore, Maryland, when my father was mayor. I spent an evening with him because my mother couldn't attend a dinner. She said she couldn't attend, but it enabled me to attend in her place as the First Lady of Baltimore. So I had the privilege to be sitting with President Kennedy and to be dazzled by his presentation to the United Nations Association of Maryland Dinner honoring Jacob Blaustein, a leader in our community. My father was mayor, and I was very lucky.

So on other occasions during the course of his campaign, I had the privilege of being in service to that campaign in terms of, one time, we had a show called ``Senator Kennedy Answers Your Questions.'' I was in college at the time, and I was one of the people answering the phone and hearing the questions. All of the questions were about seniors and health at the time. This was before Medicare, and it was an important issue for the President.

In any event, on that happy day on January 20, 1961, I had the privilege of being there in the freezing cold to hear the President's inaugural address. His stirring address still echoes in the hearts of those who were there and in all others who heard his call to serve. He appealed to the energy, the faith and the devotion that will light our country and all who serve it, and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

What inspiring words. Perhaps the most significant of all, he ushered in a new era with a simple, yet powerful, call to start anew, declaring, ``Let us begin.''

So we began to answer the call to carry forward the torch to ask what we could do for our country. We began to get America moving again, and we began an era that would recast America's future, that would set us on course to address so many of the challenges facing us 50 years ago and still confronting our Nation today.

As I reference his ``ask not what you can do for your country,'' everybody knows that that was an important part of the President's call to action in that day:

Citizens of America, ask not what your country can do for

you, but what you can do for your country.

It is memorized by students all over the world--when he delivered it, it was so stirring--but what I remember is the very next sentence.

In the very next sentence, he says:

To the citizens of the world, ask not what America will do

for you, but what together we can do for mankind.

It was just so beautiful. No wonder one of his first actions would be to establish the Peace Corps, a renewed beginning in witnessing the creation of the Peace Corps--a group of Americans serving as ambassadors of goodwill worldwide. It was then started under the leadership of Sergeant Shriver's brother-in-law. To this day, each Peace Corps volunteer is a tribute to President Kennedy.

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of being in Massachusetts under the auspices of the Kennedy Library, where we had observed the 50th anniversary of the President's signing of the Equal Pay Act into law-- legislation he called a first step to ending the unconscionable practice of unequal pay, this agenda the President had imagined of equal pay for equal work for women in the workplace. He also established a commission on the status of women, headed by Eleanor Roosevelt. Its recommendations were: raise the minimum wage; equal pay for equal work; child care as an initiative, both public and with tax credits.

So forward thinking. So much of it is still left to be done 50 years later, but it is part of the vision. Again, with great women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Esther Peterson and others, they were with him as he signed the bill. Today, as I mentioned, that battle continues. If President Kennedy were here, he would certainly beckon us to do more to take the next step, which we have done.

When women succeed, America succeeds--with legislation to have respect for women's work in the workplace and to raise the minimum wage, as 62 percent of the people who get minimum wage are women. There is equal pay for equal work. There is paid sick leave and child care, which is an important part of President Obama's agenda.

As for the fight for equality even in the workplace, President Kennedy became the first President to call civil rights, above all, a moral issue, Mr. Speaker, he said, to remind us it was long time past to keep the promise of freedom. So he put forward a civil rights bill to right the wrongs of history. In his name and in the wake of his death in the years that followed, under the leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, the Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Yet, still today, the march to civil rights is not finished completely; and in the time of the present, it remains our moral obligation to preserve, expand, and strengthen voting rights. That is our challenge now in the House--equality. So let us begin.

There are so many other things that we witnessed. It is hard for people to imagine now how impossible it sounded when the President said: a new beginning and bold action and exploration and of the commitment and the promise to be the first to honor. He said, if we are to honor the vows of our Founders, we must be first, and therefore we intend to be first. It was a commitment and a promise to invest in science and innovation. When he said, in 10 years, we would send a man to the Moon and be back safely, it seemed impossible; but it happened even in a shorter period of time. He laid out his vision to do what was hard and unthinkable; but by the close of the 1960s, as we know, two American men walked on the Moon and returned safely home. So many other people were part of that success.

Our beginning ignited the fires of all kinds of innovation that our country has benefited from. Even though he wasn't there to see all of the legislation through, he had his vision; and he was an inspiration for others to get the job done.

So many times we all quote President Kennedy because he was so quotable and because he was so wise, and what he said resonates and is timeless. So, when I had the privilege of speaking at the groundbreaking of the Institute of Peace, I quoted what President Kennedy said at the American University in 1963.

He said:

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a

war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This

generation of Americans has already more than enough of war

and hate and oppression.

He went on to say:

We shall be prepared if others wish it; we shall be alert

to try to stop it; but we shall also do our part to build a

world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are

just.

So remarkable.

Again, it would take hours for us to truly mention all of the accomplishments--the Moon shot and all the things about the Test Ban Treaty. The list goes on and on.

The fact is that a person came into the life of America from a family--and it is hard to imagine any other family in America that has had or who has made as great a contribution to the well-being of our country as the Kennedy Family, starting even with Rose Kennedy's father, Honey Fitz, but then

coming through to even now the service in the Congress of Joe Kennedy, a grandnephew of the President. We also had the privilege here of serving with Patrick Kennedy.

So I will end where I began, in taking pride in the fact of President Kennedy's association with this House of Representatives, of this people's House, and to say that I am so happy that I had the opportunity to see him so many times. I will just close with one thought.

We were at the convention in Los Angeles. I was with my parents. We went to a restaurant after the President's speech at the stadium. It was the first time a President had accepted the nomination at a stadium. There were tens of thousands of people there. The speech was fabulous and great, and we went to this restaurant called Romanoff's because I said to my father and mother that I wanted to go to a Los Angeles-type restaurant. It turned out to be a Los Angeles-type in that it was very expensive. It was more expensive for shrimp cocktail than it would have been in Baltimore, Maryland, where we were from.

So my father said, How did you find this place? This is the most expensive restaurant I have ever been in.

I said, That is probably true, but it is an experience.

It costs so much more for a shrimp cocktail here than in Baltimore, Maryland; and he goes on and on.

In another few minutes, the doors of the restaurant open, and in comes President Kennedy from the speech. He came right over to the table.

To my father, Thomas D'Alessandro, he asked, Tommy, how did you like my speech?

Of course, my father told him, and then he asked me how I liked his speech. Imagine that. Then he went on with his entourage to have his celebratory dinner.

After that, price was no object as to the cost of the restaurant. The prices kept coming down in my father's view.

Again, I was lucky many different times to have the opportunity to have some conversation with the President. So, when that horrible thing happened that day for our country, everybody took it very personally.

Perhaps part of his legacy is the sacrifice that he made for our country--the inspiration that was intensified by that sacrifice. May we always, always remember it; and may we always remember what he said, that the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

May God bless the memory of President John F. Kennedy and his family. May we draw strength from his legacy and his vision. May God always bless the country he loved and led--the United States of America--and all who serve it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson again for calling this Special Order. I am honored to be here with him and with our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer.

Thank you, Mr. Keating. I thank you for yielding. I thank you and Mr. Capuano and the members of the Massachusetts delegation for bringing us together to honor a wonderful friend to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, in late 1979, the legendary Congressman Joseph Moakley, a colleague to many of us who had the privilege to call him ``colleague,'' ran into the son of a friend and former colleague, Leo Sullivan, in Boston. He knew that the young Boston State College student had served as a page on Beacon Hill and had an interest in public service. He suggested that it was time for this young man to travel to our Nation's Capital to serve in Congress, led by another Massachusetts legend, Speaker Tip O'Neill. That young man was and is Barry Sullivan.

When he arrived in Washington the following March, he thought he would spend just a few years here before returning to his beloved South Boston. Thirty-three years later, he will finally leave his post in the Democratic Cloakroom, an institution in its own right, a source of information for Members. He leaves as a committed public servant to the Congress and to our country.

As one of Barry's former colleagues once said, ``Down here, Members are looking for somebody who knows what's going on.'' And Barry always knew. He was the trusted source, has been the trusted source, of what was happening on the floor, what bill was up for a vote, what issues Members were tackling on any given day. Barry always knew what was going on, in addition to the floor agenda, what was important for Members to know.

Public service is in his blood, as the son of one of the central players of the mid-20th century in Massachusetts State government. So prominent was Barry's father, Leo, in local politics, that he escorted then-President-elect John Kennedy from Logan Airport to the Boston Garden on election night, 1960, a great honor for a great Massachusetts leader and family.

Barry would come here and be escorting Presidents, Prime Ministers and Kings over and over again, and he did so with grace and commanding respect.

Boston is in his blood. As a proud native of South Boston, a devoted Red Sox fan--did I say that they won the World Series? But of course everybody knows that.

Okay. You can cheer for Barry as well as for the Red Sox, okay? I was at the game. All right.

A devoted Red Sox fan, I repeat, a father and husband who takes his family back to his hometown and to Cape Cod every year without fail. And now, with his career in the Capitol coming to a close, we all know that Barry looks forward to spending as much time as he can on the Cape with his beloved wife, Barbara, and their three sons.

Barry Sullivan has been an integral part of our team and our system. He has been a clearinghouse of information from his first day in the Cloakroom to his last, as the man in charge. His service has proven invaluable. His contributions have been incredible, just remarkable. He gives you the answer before you ask the question. He anticipates our every need.

To Barbara and the whole Sullivan family, thank you for sharing your husband and father with the United States Congress for so long.

To Barry, you have earned the respect of Members of Congress and the gratitude of countless Members of Congress who have served in this Chamber. Thank you for taking a chance, for coming to Washington to serve Tip, at the invitation of Joe Moakley--what legends--and for serving us all with grace, good humor, and dedication throughout your tenure in the House of Representatives; though you are leaving us on a day-to-day basis, I hope you will be no stranger to us and that you will return on many occasions.

Thank you, Barry Sullivan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his kind words.

It is just that I have been here such a long time, when I first came to Congress, the mere mention of the word ``AIDS'' on the floor was something I thought was the most natural thing to do but was something that some of my colleagues squirmed at. We have, indeed, come a long way from that time.

So today is a proud day as Democrats and Republicans come together to extend and reauthorize our efforts to fight the global HIV/AIDS and infectious diseases in the poorest countries around the world.

I thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for working together to bring this important legislation to the floor today, and I thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for her unwavering leadership on these issues since day one that you came to the Congress. So many of our colleagues deserve recognition, and the gentlewoman has acknowledged some of them.

I will just add that this marks the 10th anniversary of the historic Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde U.S. Global Leadership Against AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act. This legislation has been the foundation of the U.S. initiative to provide sustained constructive leadership in the global fight against AIDS.

The original PEPFAR authorizing legislation, followed by the excellent work of the Appropriations Committee over the last decade, has provided lifesaving antiretroviral treatment, care, and prevention for millions of people, especially focused on the most vulnerable infants and children.

I have traveled on this AIDS issue for a very long time in our country and abroad, and I have seen firsthand the difference that PEPFAR has made. I have been to clinics, as have my colleagues Mr. McDermott, Congresswoman Lee, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, Congresswoman Christensen, as well as others who are here, and now newer Members, Messrs. Himes and Cicilline.

What was wonderful about it was we went to places where people were so poor and so desperate, but they were not so desperate that they were without hope. And PEPFAR gave them hope because, as they said, Originally we wouldn't even want anybody to know that we had AIDS. Why would we even be tested for AIDS? People found out that we had AIDS, but why would we even come to a clinic? What hope did we have?

Well, PEPFAR gave them hope. It gave them a path.

So today we know--and Congresswoman Lee mentioned some of the figures. Some bear repeating and some others I will mention:

Treatment for over 5 million people; antiretroviral drugs for 750,000 pregnant women living with HIV to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV averted 230,000 infant HIV infections in 2012 alone; HIV testing and counseling for almost 47 million people; and this

year, the 1 millionth baby will be born HIV-free because of PEPFAR support. That means a child that might have been born HIV-infected.

Congresswoman Lee mentioned that Dr. Goosby lives in her district. His parents and where he was raised is in my district. So we all take great pride in his work.

Over the years, we have made tremendous progress. First, with President Clinton, we increased the bilateral programs to fight HIV/ AIDS, and we helped create, authorize, and fund the Global Fund. Then, under the leadership of President Bush--and this has to be a source of great pride for President Bush and an important part of his legacy--we established PEPFAR and provided the necessary funding to ramp up the emergency response to the crisis.

And I might add my thanks to Bono for the role that he played in, again, ramping up the resources and making sure the public understood, as did those of us in elected office and especially in the executive branch, where maybe this was a newer issue to them, that we needed to have the resources to make this happen. So thank you to Bono. Not only did he help us with the loan forgiveness to some of these same countries, but now to the alleviation of poverty, the eradication of disease. That is part of his agenda. And he worked with us to enhance our efforts.

President Obama has provided leadership as well and has strengthened those efforts and has boosted our investments to put us on the brink of an AIDS-free generation. President Obama also is to be commended for lifting the travel ban on those with HIV, enabling the International AIDS Conference to return to the United States in 2012.

I remember, as a brand-new Member attending the conference in 1987 when this ban was in existence, it was an embarrassment that scientists could not come here or people coming here with HIV/AIDS from whom we could learn and there could be scientific collaboration. Well, that was not allowed because of the travel ban. So thank you, President Obama, for lifting it so that we could have a truly scientific, truly comprehensive conference in 2012 in the United States, very proudly.

Today the Congress will pass legislation to extend our global AIDS investment. Even in these difficult fiscal times, we know that cutting back is a false economy that costs us more in the future. HIV/AIDS is still adapting, and so must we. It is a very resourceful virus. It just keeps finding ways, mutating and finding ways, and we have to be more resourceful in our fight against it.

I thank the authors of the legislation, to the chair and ranking minority member, for bringing the bill to the floor and adapting our policies to meet the continued challenges posed by AIDS, TB, malaria, and deadly diseases around the world. I am so pleased that we will probably have a unanimous vote on this important bill, and that is, indeed, an honor to be a part of.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership and that of the full Rules Committee on having to field some really strange notions masquerading as proposals to improve the lives of the American people. We see a lot of that these days.

This one on the floor today really takes the cake because it is essentially to pull the plug on the Affordable Care Act. While it says that they want to delay the cancelations that the insurance companies have written to policyholders, the bill does not mandate.

This is a conversation that is not an action, but it does violence to the bill in other ways. The idea that it was helping consumers was sort of the Trojan horse whose underbelly is poisonous in terms of the health and well-being of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to speak on the rule because I think it is really important for Members to vote against the rule as a point of fairness. If we reject this rule and allow the Rules Committee to come back to the floor with an opportunity for there to be a Democratic alternative, that would be fair. What we would do in the vote on the previous question, which I urge people to vote ``no'' on, would be able to vote ``yes,'' or consider voting ``yes,'' on a bill that does exactly what consumers need in terms of this cancelation area.

First of all, it would say that there would be a real delay--a real delay--for 1 year for the implementation in terms of the individual policyholders. That is just this piece of the bill that is the question--individual policyholders.

Ninety-five percent of the American people, as has been said, who have policies that they like can keep them. It is this 5 percent--and that is a lot of people, I don't want to minimize that--but, nonetheless, it is a discrete market.

Let's address that discrete market and in our previous question we bring up a bill that addresses that discrete market not only by enabling them to hold their policies for a year, but by requiring that the insurance companies must tell people not that you are canceled and we want to sign you up again at a higher cost; instead, insurance companies would be obliged to tell people what their options are, what their options are under the Affordable Care Act in terms of having no lifetime limits on their policies, no annual limits

on their policies, no preexisting condition, increasing the cost of their policy, or preventing them from holding their policy should they become sick, A;

B, it would also make sure that the insurance companies tell people what their options are in the exchanges, that they may qualify for a subsidy. In that marketplace the insurance companies are competing-- this is a free market, this exchange--they are competing for their policy; and, therefore, that has already lowered cost to consumers.

So they may have a better policy with better benefits at a lower cost and, if they qualify, get a subsidy to do it.

In addition to that, it is really important in every respect in everything we do, not only just for this individual marketplace, for people to understand the benefits of the Affordable Care Act that are available to them. I mentioned no preexisting condition, no annual limits, no lifetime limits, but also that already for over the past year young people can be on their parents' insurance. Over 3 million people have benefited in that regard. Tens of millions of seniors have benefited from the free prevention check-up--mammograms, whatever kinds of things--prevention and wellness exams free, no co-pay, no deductible.

Already seniors are experiencing lower costs for their prescription drugs because of the Affordable Care Act. Already small children cannot be discriminated against, nor their families, in seeking insurance because they have a preexisting condition.

Imagine a child born with a defect for life. They have a preexisting condition which will cost them dearly in terms of premiums, if they can even get insurance, and then it would be with limits. Not so. That has all changed.

That is why on this Upton bill which, as I said, not only does bad things to the Affordable Care Act in terms of disrupting the risk pools, it tries to masquerade as something that does something positive, which it does not. That is why the Upton bill is opposed by a broad coalition of groups: the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Cancer Society Action Network, National Partnership for Women and Families, Paralyzed Veterans of America. Anyone with a preexisting medical condition--100 million people, families with people with preexisting medical conditions, all of them benefit. The stories are so glorious and so beautiful about what a difference the Affordable Care Act has made to families, especially those with small children or those with preexisting conditions, and to seniors. And, again, being a woman is no longer a preexisting medical condition.

So this is politics; it is not about policy. It isn't any attempt to improve the Affordable Care Act. One way to improve it, though, is what we have in our previous question: give the State insurance commissioners the authority, all of them--some of them have it--but ensure that all of them have the authority to investigate and act upon rate increases, as well as the nature of these letters that were sent out without the integrity that they should have had.

Again, we require that also in these letters the insurance companies make sure that people know what their opportunities are.

So what we are proposing today really does make a difference. In fact, we wanted to get this requirement of the insurance commissioners in the underlying bill, and then we said, okay, we will do that as an improvement. Today is the day that we can do that by voting ``no'' on the rule, enabling us to bring a bill to the floor that would do that.

I urge our colleagues to support the Affordable Care Act, support what it does for American families, stand with those who fought for Social Security, for Medicare, and affordable care for all Americans because these are three pillars of equal weight in terms of the economic and health security of the American people. They honor the vows of our Founders for life, a healthier life; liberty, the liberty to pursue your happiness so that you are not job locked, constrained by a policy, but free to follow your passion to be self-employed, to start a business, to change jobs, to be entrepreneurial--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for his great leadership in helping to pass the Affordable Care Act, honoring the vows of our Founders for liberty, the freedom to pursue their happiness. It is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. A healthier life and freedom to pursue that happiness.

It is a funny thing when people talk about Washington, D.C., and how people don't get along well, we disagree. We have major disagreements on policy, and one of them is whether health care is a right for all in our country or a privilege for the few, but it doesn't take away from the fact that we are people and we serve in this institution, and we have some areas of agreement one day and the kaleidoscope changes the next day to the point where people are always surprised when I say to them, ``I pray for the Congress every day, and on Sunday especially. I pray for our Republican colleagues, as well as our Democratic colleagues, as well as the President of the United States, Barack Obama or George W. Bush, or whoever he may be, because the success of the President and the success of all of us is a success for the American people, if we can work together to find common ground for the public good.''

When I pray for all of us, I have wishes for us. I wish that my Republican colleagues could see how successful the Affordable Care Act is in California. I wish you could hear the stories of family after family after family being liberated, freed from the constraint of being job-locked because the family has a preexisting condition so that now they can follow their passion and not be chained by a policy, follow their passion to be self-employed, to start a business, or to change jobs.

I wish you could hear all of these stories. I wish you would not close your mind to them because this initiative has been transformative. I would have hoped that whatever had been proposed would be to strengthen or improve it, and we all have the humility to know that any bill, whatever our pride of involvement in it is, can be improved.

That is why it is particularly disappointing to come to the floor today to see a bill that says to the Affordable Care Act and all of these people with all of their stories, we are going to unravel this, we are going to unravel all of the good things, whether it is preexisting conditions, ending that discrimination, whether it is lifetime limits, whether it is annual limits, whether it is being a women no longer being a preexisting condition, whether it is for seniors or for kids 18-26 years old or for little children, even now, before the bill is fully enacted. So I hope and I pray, and I wish that our colleagues

could see the evidence and that the decisions would be evidence-based rather than politically motivated.

I think it is really important what this Congress does today. Each Member has to make his or her own decisions, but the fact is that in this body, our words weigh a ton and our votes are even weightier than that. I hope the message that comes out of this Congress is that there is a discussion going on, but there is a values decision that has been made in favor of the American people. If we have to thread a needle to get a result, let's do that, but let's not unravel the whole sweater because that would not be a comfort to the American people.

Let's act to strengthen, not weaken. Let's vote ``no'' on the Upton bill.